Drowning in a Sea of Microwaves

luciensims writes "The Independent is running an article on another study of the long-term effects of mobile phones. Given how widespread mobile phone use has become, will we even have an adequate control group 50 years from now to gauge what the effects have been?"

Comments

WiFi?

[N8F8]

Do any of these studies include WiFi effects? I just went wireless in the house and the last thing I want to do is cause brain bleeding in my kids. Seriously.

Re:Of course not.

[Ark42]

I know a couple towns with no stoplight, no major cross road, over an hour from any large city, but they have their vary own nextel tower. Nextel and unlimited walkie-talkie is big with farmers, and it shouldn't be hard to imagine why.

Re:Sea of Microwaves

[BrokenHalo]

You might want to read this New Scientist article where (it is claimed that) "Mays Swicord spent 26 years searching for a health effect of radio-frequency radiation. He tried and tried to falsify the notion that this radiation - the kind emitted by mobile phones - has no effect. He failed."

Re:2.4GHz cordless phones and microwave ovens

[vlad_petric]

The difference is that the mobile phone signal is much, much stronger. Using a mobile phone near a radio will give you an idea (and you'll see why their usage is always prohibited on airliners, as oposed to other electronic devices, which are allowed after takeoff)

Re:Control group

[netsharc]

Unfortunately Eskimos/islander would probably be way too different to city humans, I wager they'd be healthier because they have a better environment and they don't sit in a car/on a chair in front of a computer all day, but instead move a lot, their diet would be different as well.

Wonder what this will do for workers Comp (US)

[SolemnDragon]

I'm thinking particularly of all those jobs that now issue a company phone as standard equipment, and what would happen if they could be conclusively shown to do harm. Sure, the legislation is attempting to pass asbestos reform, which is aimed not merely at asbestos tort cases, but also at class action suits... With asbestos, the lawsuits went after the companies who made it, and then when those went bankrupt, the companies which used it. It has gotten so out of hand that the suits are going after factories which had buildings in which it was used, but the workers suing didn't work in those, they oworked in plants that had none- and are suing over being scared, ten years into retirement, that they might have been exposed to it.

So what happens when the entire country has a good case that they've been unwillingly (in some cases) exposed to dangerous radiation, and 'deceived' into using a dangerous device? (There's wisdom in the adage that says that if you don't know how dangerous new technology is, a little prudence- how does it go? Oh, right- something about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure...)

Well, it's simple, unfortunately. Since those suits would bankrupt the nation (except for the lawyers), regardless of how justified some of the suits might be, most people are going to find that they

a.) have been banned from suing by 'reformative' legislation,

b.) have already been represented in an 'opt-out' class lawsuit that they may have known nothing about and may not be able to collect from, or can collect a five-dollar coupon from, or

c.) are told by the courts that they had the choice to not use the technology, and vote at a town meeting about whether to put the tower up.

On the other hand, they would still have to change the technology. And does anyone remember the big stir about police officers getting testicular cancer from holding the early radar guns on their lap while they waited at speed traps? while i wouldn't say that anyone 'deserves' to have it, i would say that there are times when illnesses can be a bit... ironic. Like if the tumours from cell phone use tend to take out the speech center...