Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3G Waves Causes Headaches, Sharpens Memory

Posted by timothy on from the like-alcohol-but-different dept.

jonknee writes "MobileTracker noted that an interesting study on 3G cellular networks has been released out of Amsterdam. The findings were that exposure to 3G waves can cause headaches and nausea (conventional cellular service doesn't have these effects). It also found that those same subjects had better memory and reaction times (conventional cellular networks have the same effect)!"

4 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. Brain Tumours by Brahmastra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here's the same story on yahoo.
    The article says that no scientific evidence exists for a link between 2G signals and brain tumours. But, what about 3G signals? If they can cause headache and nausea, I think you can reasonably expect it to have other effects such as malignant tumours. It's time to take a step back and study 3G more before massive deployment. There is no pressing need to surf porn or whatever faster on your cellphone.

    1. Re:Brain Tumours by lordpixel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > If they can cause headache and nausea,
      >I think you can reasonably expect it to have other
      >effects such as malignant tumours

      Wow. Turning myself upside down for 2 minutes can give me headaches and nausea. So can drinking beer!

      I must "reasonably expect" those to give me brain tumours too!

      Seriously though, there may or may not be a more serious problem than headaches, but there's precisely no evidence of that being presented, is there? (by the sounds of it, there's so few details no one can definatively say anything)

      --

      Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
      A little bigger on the inside than out

    2. Re:Brain Tumours by ukyoCE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I dont know if being upside down or drinking beer will cause tumors, but if you did either for as long every day as people are subjected to wireless signals you'd fuck yourself up pretty badly.

  2. Re:Great.. More junk science.. by pavon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is this junk science? A reputable institution performed a double-blind test of new equipment, and found it to have statistically meaningful effects. They acknowledged that the old cell towers were not harmfull to people, and even used them as a control (or baseline) to compare these new towers against. They acknowleged that they have no proof of perminant damage, and recomend that indepenant research be done to verify and extend their own. This sounds like a text-book example of good science to me.

    These tests were not about handsets, and they made no claims that handsets were dangerous. The only effect that this study might have is in determining the placement of towers, so people don't have to spend large amounts of time in their immediate proximity. For example, in rural area many cell towers have been placed in church steeples because they are high points, and it is less expensive and less ugly than building a tower. Now, it would be nice to know if these new base stations will have an unplesent effect on people before they are installed.

    It is really the media, not the institutions, that are to blame for the unjustified hysteria, which resulted in needing to do more work than necissary to quell peoples concerns. But I for one am glad that studies have been done to show that cell phones are safe, and am glad for new studies when new equipment comes out. Emperical data is always good, and assuming that there is no possibility that different RF techniques can have different effects than the ones we are familiar with is almost as bad unbased claims that new technology will cause cancer. (Althogh not as bad as saying that old, tested technology does)