Slashdot Mirror
UK Report Suggests Dangers In Cell Phone Use
The next shot has been fired in the battle over whether cell phone use is harmful: yorktimsson writes "The Times Online is reporting (along with most UK press) that 'Professor Sir William Stewart, chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), said that evidence of potentially harmful effects had become more persuasive over the past five years.'" In particular, the NRPB's report lists four studies suggesting negative consequences of cell phone use, from tumors to reduced cognitive function.
Sir William actually stated that while there was no proof, usage should be limited as a precautionary measure. It's the same message as ever, and still total BS.
An interesting story to find on slashdot just after I hear NPR's bit on the crackberry.
More
People will keep phoning, then, they'll sue the phone manufacturers in order to force them to build more secure devices.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
It will also probably affect Adults.
I forsee a large market for genital protectors made from lead to protect male sperm counts at some point in the future.
Have to say it is a little worrying, although after I finally gave up trying to resolve a problem with unsolicited recieving of premium rate text messages, it's less of a problem since I won't have a phone soon.
The article doesn't mention if this is for GSM or CDMA phones? As i have heard, GSM is a little less harmful. Can someone with a bit more knowledge provide some insight?
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
CHILDREN under the age of eight should not use mobile phones, parents were advised last night after an authoritative report linked heavy use to ear and brain tumours and concluded that the risks had been underestimated by most scientists.
This study is applicable to children. The results may or may not be applicable to adults.
Timothy, please stop being so sensational.
If it's true and mobile phones really do fry your eggs, (and that's in doubt) I wonder if it would really change anyone's behavior.
Mobile phones have become a lifestyle thing, and plenty of people I know are addicted to the ability to be reached and reach anybody else at any time. I have actually seen people get quite nervous at the prospect that their US mobile phone wasn't going to work overseas on vacation. Trying to talk them out of taking the phone to the airport for the last 20 minutes of possible usability is like talking to a hoarder during riots.
Anyway, if there's anybody out there that actually has the information on HOW mobile phones are supposedly harming people, I'd be interested in hearing it. (i.e. what about the electromagnetic radiation is harmful? Does it detach too many bogons from people's neurons?)
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
"For a number of years I have been familiar with the observation that the health of people is a decreasing function of the density of cell phones they use. More recently I discovered why the use of the cell phone has such disastrous effects, and I became convinced that the cell phone statement should be abolished from all "higher level" cultures (i.e. everywhere). At that time I did not attach too much importance to this discovery; I now submit my considerations for publication because in very recent discussions in which the subject turned up, I have been urged to do so."
Is that the same as "reduced ability to stay in the same f#$@'ing lane?" or reduced ability to realize a blinker might have helped" The study probably won't tell us much. The control group probably didn't include a bunch of obnoxiously loud cell-talkers, who's cognitive abilities were in question to begin with
....a bit harsh but people driving whilst using a cell are a menace. They made it illegal in the UK to do this a while back. still occasionally see people doing it though. is any law planned for canada or us where i regularly see people doing such idiotic things as using cell and reversing round a corner at the same time?!
since it's a job requirement for me to carry a cell phone.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
There was a time when I could understand a phrase like that. 'Scuse me, my cell phone is ringing...
There may be some small possible increase in potential risk. Maybe. In kids. Maybe.
The question I have of course, is that why, out of all the studies done, is there only evidence of harm in four of them. There have been hundreds of studies, but only four get mentioned.
The answer of course is that all the other studies fail to give the desired results.
Show me something SUBSTANTIVE (this study is not)before you make chicken little claims. It's the responsible thing to do.
There is no real proof of anything.
;)
One ten-year study in Sweden suggests that heavy mobile users are more prone to non-malignant tumours in the ear and brain while a Dutch study had suggested changes in cognitive function. A German study has hinted at an increase in cancer around base stations, while a project supported by the EU had shown evidence of cell damage from fields typical of those of mobile phones.
Absolutely nothing concrete, just enough to get these researchers more funding. I read about this yesterday and really all they were saying is that since children are more subsceptible to these kinds of risks that they shouldn't give cell phones to children under eight. Well...I wouldn't give them one for other reasons, not for some off chance they might have a higher risk of cancer.
I was going to submit this story but then I read a few copies of it, realized it was meaningless and didn't. I guess the editors thought better
If you consider the types of people who use cell phones excessively for recreational use (ie. simply calling someone to chat while they're bored riding the bus/in class/at work on break) they probably aren't the healthiest people in other aspects of their lives. Maybe I'm generalizing here, but I think there's some truth to how to live your life in one domain affects the other domains in your life. But seriously, what kind of parent would buy a cell phone that their kids can use at will? I think every kid should have a cell phone, because it's an amazing safety device, but it should NOT be used for casual conversation. I guess what I'm trying to say is there might be a lifestyle issue involved with the cellphone talkers that cause cognitive issues and/or tumors (such as lack of exercise, poor eating habits, emotional issues, etc.)
I realize that children are more sensitive to certain environmental issues than adults; however, I simply cannot believe that occasional cell phone usage is really that damaging.
Look at computer usage. Are these people actually trying to say that occasional cell phone use puts out more radiation than that new 3.2 GHz Pentium with the 21" monitor and wireless network that daddy bought? What about a house like mine with eight computers and five monitors of 17" or more? We're in an enclosed area (the house) with all of these gadgets putting out electromagnetic radiation like crazy, but yet I need to be concerned about my 4-year-old talking to grandma on my cell phone for five minutes when we're out in the back yard? Uh, huh.
I guess that I should not be concerned about those power lines that are going over the house either since the new threat is the milliwatt radiation from the cell phone. Never mind those cell phone or microwave towers that I can see over on the mountainside, either.
Cell phone radiation. The new, over-hyped issue du jour. Can I offer anyone that miraculous oat bran to fight off that cancer while they use their cell phone?
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
They've been around for years, but to my awareness, I've only heard people argue that cell phones will fry your brain.
I have a difficult time seeing how someone can really do a scientific study when societies as a whole adopt wireless electronics across the board, not just cell phones.
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
In France they have made a law about 2 years ago to prohibit putting GSM antennas in direct line of sight of the school windows. Apparently it's more dangerous do have an antenna in front of your window then on your roof above your head. Since my grandfather died of "juvenile leukemia" at the age of 75, in 6 months and he had one of these antennas in front of his living room window about 20m away on the roof of the next building I'd tend to be VERY careful about the antennas. Maybe someone has a link that would give the emission power of an antenna compared to a phone and the effects of the distance between the phone and you Vs the antenna and you.
So that's why my kids don't listen to me...
I now have cysts under my skin just above my belt line right where I carried my cell phone for years. They started getting painful and since I stopped carrying my phone on my belt the pain has stopped. Coincidence? I think not. I treat my phone like a loaded gun now.
With all the device convergence, not only is there the danger of radiation, there is the danger of being killed by a Koopa turtle, the danger of hearing naughty rap lyrics, and the danger of receiving really ugly photos.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
So FOUR out of HUNDREDS of studies have found "some correlation". To my mind, that proves that there is NO correlation. ------------- For those of you that don't get it, let's do a thought experiment. Let's say 100 researchers do independent studies of tumor incidence versus shoe color. Let's assume they don't have any bias either way, either intentional or not. A certain percentage are going to find some correlation, just due to the laws of statistics. Just a guess, but I suspect at least 4% will find some correlation. Repeat the same study this time comparing against underwear color, and probably another 4% correlation. As you can see, 4% doesnt mean ANYTHING. Except maybe the opposite of what you were investigating.
When the study in question pertains only to children, please state so.
In particular, the NRPB's report lists four studies suggesting negative consequences of cell phone use, from tumors to reduced cognitive function.
But tumors make you smarter, and are a great source of protein....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Symptoms include:
- Permanently crooked neck
- Both ears flattened to skull
- The inability to keep from shouting "Can you hear me?" in public.
- Frequent facial contusions and other signs of fisticuffs
- Increased risk of winding up with your Camry under a bus
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Use a corded headset and put the phone nearby on the table/desk/whatever. Problem solved. The little radiation device this article is making cell phones out to be is away from your head/body and you can still use it.
If it turns out the cell phones are harmful to grey matter, teeth or whatever. I wonder if there will be some serious blowback in the courts. The situation I envisage would be employers being held liable for having their employees use cell phones. I have had to use one with work, although I don't have one myself. That would open a Pandora's Box since there are literally hundreds of millions of people who are at risk if they turn out to be unsafe. The fall out would be unbelievable.
As for the premise of safety: it is well and truly up in the air. We just plain do not know if cell phone are harmful or not. The problem is extraordinarily difficult to solve due to the complexities of the models. The general sense I get in the field is that it is not good and if you can avoid a cell phone do so. Its like sticking you head in a microwave on low power for a few minutes 20 times a day.
Have a look here http://sarvalues.com/eu-lowest-sar.html http://sarvalues.com/usa-lowest-sar.html
It's bad for you. Yes it's bad, no wait, it might be bad, no it's ok, really it is, we think, or not. Nope it really is bad. Or maybe not or it's good or it's ok in moderation. We think that it's, no it's bad. Really bad, really really bad. Oh edit that, it's probably ok, we think, yeah definitely.
Non-ionising electromagnetic radiation (that's light , infra red and radio waves) is dangerous when it is neither too strongly nor too weakly absorbed by our bodies. Radio waves basically go straight through us. Light basically gets absorbed in the top fraction of mm of skin (but strong IR or light will damage you: its called 'a burn' i.e. cells are killed by heating). Microwaves used by mobile phones(about 1 GHz are potentially dangerous because they are totally absorbed by our bodies within a few cm of the surface. Thus exposing yourself to this radiation you are heating the inside of your brain. There are two key safety questions 1. How much is this heating effect (the SAR figure) and 2. Are there any other non-thermal effects of the radiation.
The answer to 1. is provided by the SAR figure of the phone. Typically a phone will have 1 W/kg. i.e. on average it dumps one watt of power into 1 kg of nearby brain matter. This is not alot (think of holding a small torch by your ear and think about the heating effect of that) but one the other hand brains are uniquely sensitive organs. Temperature rises are probably hundredths of a degree celsius, but its hard to measure.
The answer to 2. is that no non-thermal effects have survived double blind testing.
The SAR dose from Masts is many orders of magnitude lower than that from handsets.
All the best
Michael
This is a good and, I think, fair article on radiation from cell phones:
You can find this article at:
http://www.alternativemedicine.com/ and search
for cell phone. The name of the article is "You
Make The Call."
-=-=-=
Studies show that people who don't think cell phones have adverse health effects need to have their heads examined.
-=-=-=-
Cell phones are not just here to stay. They have evolved into ever more versatile and powerful devices and have become indispensable to our way of life. Why, then, can't we make these technological marvels safe?
Of course, according to the cell phone industry, cell phones are perfectly harmless: "After a substantial amount of research, scientists and governments around the world continue to reaffirm that there is no public health threat from the use of wireless phones," says Tom Wheeler, president and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).
According to numerous prominent researchers, that statement is nonsense. Henry Lai, Ph.D., is a research professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington. Over the last several years he has conducted cell phone studies funded originally by the U.S. Navy and Air Force and later by the National Institutes of Health. "I have a list of about 600 research papers from the past ten years alone, 70 percent of which show definite effects from exposure to this kind of radiation," says Lai, "but the industry continues to say that there is nothing to worry about."
What about cell phones and cancer, the most publicized concern? "Studies have been conducted to determine whether there is an association between cellular telephone use and an increased risk of certain types of cancer," according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). "Although the majority of these studies have not supported any such association, scientists caution that more research needs to be done before conclusions can be drawn about the risk of cancer from cellular telephones."
"More research" is the mantra of all three groups - industry, government and scientists - each with their differing motives. And, in fact, more research is needed - but not to prove that cell phones do pose a health threat: That has been proven beyond any doubt. Swedish researcher Clas Tegenfeld, who is writing a book on biological effects of electromagnetic fields, says "Already there are at least 15,000 scientific reports on the subject. I am afraid the truth is that we don't want to know."
There have, in fact, been several studies that show no correlation between cell phone use and cancer. These studies were conducted by respected institutions and researchers and the results published in peer-reviewed journals. However, these were all simple statistical studies that compared the incidence of brain cancer among cell phone users to that of the general population. Typical of these studies is an oft-cited one from Sweden that was published in the July 1999 issue of the International Journal of Oncology. According to the NCI, "This study compared cellular telephone use in a group of 209 individuals who had brain tumors (the case group) with a group of 425 people without brain cancer (the control group). The study reported a statistically nonsignificant increased risk for brain tumors on the side of the head on which the cellular telephone was used. However, researchers found no overall increase in the risk for brain tumors with cellular telephone use."
Does this prove that cell phone use does not lead to increased risk of brain cancer? No. As the NCI itself points out, "Cancers that take a long time to develop would not have been detected by these studies." What has been shown in numerous studies, however, is that the radiation coming from cell phones does have measurable effects on brain cells that can lead to cancer, as well as neurological diseases.
Lai's experiments are instructive in this regard. One of his main findings was that radiation from cell phones at levels b
Ron Paul
Oh joy, another propaganda campaign. File this one next to global warming, frankenfood, DDT, "the coming death of the Web" and gun control in the circular bin.
You can always tell a BS campaign by the way they say "there's no proof, but just in case..." to justify their vaporous musings.
Couldn't these people find something useful to do?
...is the bit on reduced cognitive function -- just look at all the idiotic drivers with cell phones in their ears.
The truth is meaningless. Even if you shove the truth in someone's face where they shouldn't be able to ignore it, they will ignore it anyway if they want to believe something different. People will believe what they want to believe even when they know it to be untrue. Now, for some reason, people in this country want to believe that things they enjoy are bad for them. People enjoy sending text messages and talking on the phone; therefore they naturally expect there to be some sort of harmful consequence to the use of a telephone.
Some people probably are susceptible to non-ionising radiation, and a lot of people are less {or not at all} susceptible. And given time, natural selection probably will take care of that; the susceptible ones won't be so likely to pass on their susceptible gene {due to being dead, or infertile due to non-ionising radiation} as the immune ones are to pass on theirs.
The real guestion is: where do you draw the line between allergy and poisoning?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
cause ear and brain tumors are just an inconvinence
It is possible to prove cell phones dangerous. You do experiments to look for effects on biological systems.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove them safe. One cannot prove a negative.
However if Dr. Wantsagrant couldn't find more than four studies that even suggested a correlation, I'm thinking there's damn little chance that the feeble little radio wave coming out of that cell phone is going to cook a neuron, or even raise its temperature slightly.
So if this turns out to be true I'll run off and join the Reformed Church of Elvis. Hey, anything's possible. Or not!
If used during a movie, it also increases the chances of me kicking you ass!
You've been warned.
You can't take the sky from me...
There's lots of facts collected on global warming, be it either naturally occuring by the earth, or due to human activity. Frankenfood - I'm concerned about that - why should we be genetically modified food and putting it into our food supply? It is very difficult to predict the fallout from putting GE food directly in the rest of our food supply. DDT has been shown to be a carcinogen. The "death of the Web" I never heard of or believed, and in regards to gun control - I'm still of mixed opinion on that one. Mostly against at this moment.
... *shrug*
But the question I have is: Who would benefit from this propaganda campaign?
Researchers have yet to show that non-ionizing radiation with longer wavelengths than UV can cause cancer. The only people who would really benefit from this campaign are people who don't like cell phones. Unless someone decided to make a "low radiation" device which used less energy
Here's the Occupational Safety & Health Administration list of research papers on the biological effects of non-ionizing on cells and humans.
Could it be that the radiation from cell phones does not cause cognitive problems. Rather could it be that people who's minds are on a conversation with their friend rather than driving, walking, taking care of the kids, watching the dials on the nuclear plant, etc. just don't have enough mental acuity for the other (important) stuff. Cell phone radiation doesn't make you stupid. The use of cell phones in inappropriate situations makes you do stupid things.
the radiation effect is always negative?
Because that sure seems to be the case with all the wonderful doomsday pseudoscientists. First power lines, then cell fones. Riiiiiiiiight.
Three words for those folks:
Non
Ionising
Radiation
Look it up sometime.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
It gives all of us who have to put up with lousy, uncaring drivers, who are chatting away on their cell phones, a little pleasure in knowing that eventually there may be fewer selfish, uncaring drivers on cell phones.
Seriously, what is up with the cell phone craze anyway? It's almost like people are scared to be alone with their thoughts anymore.
You all know the types... As soon as they're outside a building, their cell phone's in their hand. You see them talking in cars as they swerve in and out of lanes. You see them talking in the movie theaters, in line at the store...
It's almost like people have to validate their existence now through talking on the phone. It s sad really... And very annoying to many of us who have to put up with the selfish behavior of the average cell phone addict.
And as far as the kids go... Drudge has a link to an article on this subject, and the article is accompanied by a child talking on a cell phone with a Winnie the Pooh cover.
If studies such as these are accurate, cell phone manufacturers should have the same kind of accountability as cigarette manufacturers did, with regards to targeting kids.
In fact, I'm almost surprised we haven't seen Joe Camel brought back to hawk brightly colored, kid-oriented phones.
A way to express the issue is this. Well-understood calculations of the physics of low-power radio waves show that the power that reaches the brain is less than the power in the same frequency range that is there due to the energy of room-temperature heat.
Anyone who can show that biological processes interact with such low-power electromagnetic waves will have found a new kind of interaction between matter and energy, and can confidently expect to win a Nobel Prize.
Since there are a lot of people who would like to win a Nobel Prize, and since such people have not shown such interaction, we can assume that the issue is not taken seriously by real scientists.
The same issue has been raised several times in regards to possible dangers sitting in front of a CRT computer monitor, and in regards to living underneath power lines.
Statistics shows that statistically improbable things happen frequently, because there are millions of possible statistically improbable possibilities. People who don't know that get worried about "cancer clusters".
Whenever I send a text message, I hold the phone as far away from me as possible, turn my head away from it, and mutter "cancer, cancer, cancer... etc." until it's done.
Obviously I don't do that when I'm talking on the phone, otherwise the conversation would be pointless.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
There is one of the 12 yr olds now! wow...youth....I miss it but I really don't miss the attitude of the other 12 yr olds.
Slashdotters: Global warming is REAL folks!
Slashdottters: Nah cell phones can't be harmless...
You know it's true...
I can assure you that far more children are killed by cars than cellphones...yet I don't see anyone suggesting that children don't ride in cars.
Supersize me!
If cellphone use really makes people stupider, this could explain a lot . . . .
Not being a slashdot physician and all, I have to ask... Why aren't the sides of peoples faces melting off? Really now, it sounds lucacris, but we have cellphone emitting obviously harmful radiation, but it's not causing skin cancer or any other malady... It's causing brain cancer. We're talking about a beam with enough power to punch through the skull and hame brain tissue, but nothing else. Shouldn't my highly sensitive optic nerves be turning to jelly too? Let's talk degredation of motor functions... No?
Look, I realize I could be totally off base here, but that's a pretty damn specific problem for beaming intense cell altering radiation into the head as cellphones supposively do.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
In Ontario, Canada it's illegal, although I don't know how enforced it is. I think even hands free cell phones shouldn't be used in the car because a person's mind is completely elsewhere.
I've even been guilty of this, I'd drive with a hands free cell phone conversation and I would almost make a fatal mistake on the road because the conversation in question was an argument or something requiring a few thoughtful answers.
As I recall, the cell phone companies were probably against this but they didn't want to look like asshats so they suggested you use a hands free ear phone if you want to talk in the car.
No. My finger, like everybody else! Apologies for obsolete references in that very old joke. I guess it's past retirement age now.
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
Any new and useful tech attracts luddites bearing scare stories. I don't use my mobile much, but that's because I'm an uncommunicative grouch. I certainly don't fear for my life when using it. Show me the casualty list! Or else, quit harping on what-ifs.
... pushes cell phone to far side of desk for the day....
Is that it routinely gives that "it's good, no, wait... it's bad!" impression to people. Take the studies on the benefits of drinking red wine before you go to bed, for example. Yes, it has benefits. Is alcohol still bad for you in other ways? Yes.
Caffeine seems to have a positive effect on athletic training according to some recent research. Does that mean that the other things it does (diuretic, addiction) have suddenly gone away? No. But the way these studies are reported leads people to believe that only the most recent finding is true, and everything else is false-- when the truth of the matter is that all of the facts are still there.
Everything has ups and downs. Your joke is apt-- the news is terribly guilty of making people believe that research is perpetually changing its mind, when in fact the studies are much more specific and non-contradictory than we are led to believe.
Enough about rugby (I dunno about the Camry bit), what about cell/mobile phones?
I guess I shouldn't have been subtle when I made a comment about the sociological dangers of cell-phone use.
Here, I'll spell it out then:
If you use your cell phone in public places as if you were in a private, secluded area, you will irrate those around you. Some of these people might be prone to expressing their anger in a physical manner.
Therefore, on top of the direct dangers that the apparatus' radiation pose on your central nervous system, an additional, indirect danger of neurological dammage also exists in the form of blows to the head that might result from a cell phone user's inapropriate social behaviour.
For example: By disregarding the rules of theatre etiquette and engaging in loud, distruptive behaviour at the cinema.
You can't take the sky from me...
Note: the following is a bit offtopic - but relevant to the parent...I see the parent here has been modded Offtop.
/. humor. But I got modded a TROLL! - which slayed my Karma rating - so I am a little annoyed - and frankly I think the moderators maybe need to work on their sense of humor.
So what is up with that? The post was about the danger of cell phones - and this post is at least moderately related to the danger of cell phones. -- Meanwhile about ten posts down is another thread titled: On the other hand (Score:2)
by Mr. Cancelled (572486)
Now that post rants on about how annoying the people who use cell phones are. What the heck does that have to do with Cell Phone Health Risks?! But that post got a 2! (nothing personal Mr.Cancelled)
I dont get why the parent wasn't modded Funny - and the other post modded Offtopic.
I posted a thread recently that was funny - and it was - it referenced Natalie Portman - standard
Well done Srameustache - I think your post was funny and relevant
"to reduced cognitive function"
No no no! The study has it all wrong! Reduced cognitive function observed in cell phone users isn't the the result of the harmful effects of cell phones. It's just a reflection of the general aptitude of people who have these bits of hard plastic glued to their ears all day.
Sounds like a good case of natural selection to me. Both the sperm count issues and the tumours are enough of a reproduction probability difference to make a difference, if given enough generations to work their magic.
:P
So the fucktards who just HAVE to talk on the cell phone all the time, even in a movie theatre or (loudly) on the bus, will eventually get themselves out of the gene pool.
And conversely the introverts will eventually inherit the Earth. Who would have thought that being a nerd would eventually be a survival trait?
Alternately, I've always fancied a plan that would help curb cell phone annoyance _and_ help stimulate the economy. Namely, if you talk loudly on the cell phone in public, or in a movie theatre at all, two helpful cops take it from you and shove it up your... erm... where the sun don't shine. Literally. By brute force if needed.
I figure that that ought to deter some of the fucktards. And for the others, the ones that physically can't shut the fuck up for more than 5 minutes, and just _have_ to talk into a phone... well, it would at least create a demand for smaller phones. Way to stimulate R&D, if you ask me.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
As a publishing academic scientist, I feel compelled to translate some of the phrases used in the report. When these phrases are used in a peer-reviewed publication, they have unique meanings:
Suggest, as in
"...study in Sweden suggests that..." and
"...Dutch study had suggested..."
suggest = "The statement is not supported by my data. This is my theory".
Hinted, as in
"A German study has hinted at an increase in cancer..."
hint = "If you interpret the data incorrectly/optimistically you might think it suggests this"
Shown evidence, as in
"...had shown evidence of cell damage..."
evidence of = "this is one of many legitimate explanations of my data"
So no one actually has any conclusive data. Most of these phrases are used by scientists for PR purposes - you use them to plant the seed of an idea that you think is true, but that you cannot directly support. It is an end run around reviewers, who will shred you for using phrases like "demonstrates clearly", or "strongly supports" if your data is not any good. While there are many flaws (incl. varying levels of corruption) in the peer-review system, it is still better than nothing.
Semi-technical rant follows:
As an aside, measurements of "cognitive function" are extraordinarily difficult to measure in poorly controlled outbred populations (people, separated by, say, cell-phone usage) since other factors (wealth/education/lack-of education etc) may co-segregate with the groups and skew results. There are also dozens of techniques that measure "cell damage" varying from useless and random to highly effective. None of them, however, are really measurements of tumor/cancer growth. The best measure of tumors or cancer is, in fact, measurements of tumors or cancer. Using "cell damage" as a predictive tool for cancer is fundamentally flawed. Your cells are damaged all the time, and many tissues (CNS included) can sustain and overcome significant "cell damage" and recover fully without any changes in tumor/cancer likelihood.
I'm not even going to get into the whole "can't prove a negative result" debate. Simply put, if 500 respected reviewers find no link between two phenomena, and one quack professor on the fringe of sanity finds a link, you tell me who gets published.
Everyone just wants their technology. No one cares that it may kill you or your children. Please stop posting this stuff. No body wants to hear this.
Every time the health effects of cell phones gets mentioned, the comments get modded down big time. Plus, no one can make a rational defense of them, based upon scientific evidence.
Fortunately, many of these people use WiFi laptops and place them on thier laps. So their is some justice after all, even if you can't argue with them.
So please, keep this news off of Slashdot. No one wants to hear it.
What bugs me is not that this story doesn't "prove" anything but that people seem to expect cell phone usage to be completly harmless.
Remember people, everything will kill you in the righ amounts. One of the most potent poisons know is good old Oxygen. Oxygen is also a prime cancer causer as well as any number of thoer diseases.
No one is suggesting we stop breathing because the risks are minimal and the benifits are great.
As far as cell phones go, the risks ARE minimal and the benifits...well other than while driving...seem to be pretty good.
At the frequency and energy levels that the typical cell phone puts out, the worst that happens is a temporary local temperature elavation. This is the ONLY prove effect of cell phone usage.
Now anytime the body is moved out of homeostasis bad things can happen...but it IS rare and fairly minor.
Cell towers MAY (and I stress MAY) be a different matter and there is a lot more evidence for damage there.
But a call to stop cell usage just makes people not take you seriously. You need to be able to say exactly what is happening or no one will do anything except ignore you!
Sorry, but I had to rant a little.
So apparently I am now 4 times more likely to die a horrible death... 4 times what? What are the odds of getting the tumor without using a cell phone? Four in 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000?
Looking at the odds , i'm not really going to start worrying until the odds are closer to travel accidents (1 in 6,029), or maybe car accidents (1 in 19,075).
Even better, the odds of dying on a set of stairs is 1 in 195,003 per year... are we going to ban stairs?
You only need to be near someone driving while on a cell phone to witness the "reduced cognitive function" part.
What's the proposed mechanism for all this damage?
Ok, so there isn't one, must be a hell of a statistical anomaly showing up for people to be speculating this wildly.Oh no, my mistake.
Anyone want to buy some magic beans? They protect you from harmful radiation. I don't have any proof as such but it would appear that quite a few people who have beans don't have cancer
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
If you can describe clearly what those interactions are, you'll get a cool $1.3 million dollars, and think of all the women who would like to sleep with a Nobel Prize winner. (Actually, don't think of them, they're very tiresome.)
It is simply a matter of statistical definition. If you run a hundred tests on unrelated things, you will get on average five tests that support a correlation. What these researchers seem to be seeing is noise. Even when they do see something, it is pathetically small. You are about a billion times more likely to die on the way to the store where you bought your cell phone than you are to die from the non-ionizing radiation it emits. For you non-thinkers out there, the "radition" (ie, light) emitted by cell-phones is so low in energy that it is less than the thermal background energy. Its like throwing marbles in a bowling alley.
I skimmed the article and some comments here but didn't see what I was looking for. The article suggests that the danger exists only while the cell phone is being used as it indicates problems in the brain and ears, especially the side of the head the phone is held too. But are there also problems just having one in your pocket turned on but not in use? I have a cell phone but rarely use it and carry it with me everywhere. Also, I know some people use an ear phone or bluetooth headset. Does that negate the effect to the head and offload it to the part of the body the phone is next too? Or are bluetooth adapters potentially problem causing too?
By merely being the subject of this thread, they've provoked just 2 Score:5 responses out of 172. QED.
Recently it came out that kids below 8 or 9 should not use cell phones as it may cause brain damage due to the radiation and there is evidence to prove it.
Maybe it's because some of us like to have human contact? No, I'm not talking about the kid who would rather yack on the phone that meet up with their friends 2 blocks away.
I spend my weekends generally away from home. Being that I don't stay specifically in one place, the cell is my only reliable means of contact. Much easier to ring up my friends and see when they're getting off of work on Friday night, or have them call me when they're off.
Kids, on the other hand, are a different story. The tend to have a fixed home-base. If the need to call home from Billy's house then I'm sure Billy's mom has a phone.
The addicts and annoyance tend to paint a dim view of cellphone users, but do keep in mind that there are many people (travellers, businesspeople, etc) that have perfectly legitimate uses for them. Just turn them off in the damn car and theatre please, people!
I am a better driver talking on a cell phone than at least three quarters of the people on the road
And more than three quarters of all people on the road likely say the same thing. It's always the other guy, eh?
If I feel I'm overloaded cognitively, I just put it down...I don't see what's inherently more distracting about a cell phone than a converstation with a front-seat passenger.
Suuure. That's why when you're learning to drive they tell you that you can use two hands or one on the steering wheel, it doesn't matter, you still have the same amount of control. And if there's about to be an incident, why there's plenty of time to put down the phone and turn your attention to whatever's about to happen. And you can even do this with significant blood alcohol levels!
It is precisely people like you that are the problem - you think everyone else is a poor driver, but your own super leet skills will save you from any situation. The very fact that you believe this shows what a poor driver you really are. If you haven't had a collision yet, your attitude means it's only a matter of time. I just hope that you don't injure or kill others when it happens.
Lead is to block x-rays. You just need a copper mesh woven into your underwear. Or perhaps make them out of some conductive polymer. That will be illegal of course because it will block some of the RFID chips tracking those sperm you're worried about.
Just come to Los Angeles, CA and drive on the 405 for a week ;-)
With all the device convergence, not only is there the danger of radiation, there is the danger of being killed by a Koopa turtle, the danger of hearing naughty rap lyrics, and the danger of receiving really ugly photos.
So that's why Nintendo rejected my game idea: "Mario in Da Hood, Yo!" featuring goatse man as the end boss.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I sincerely hope that you are holding a British torch (flashlight) to your ear, rather than an American torch (burning stick) to your head!
People will keep phoning, then, they'll sue the phone manufacturers in order to force them to build more secure devices.
:o]
I have never owned a cell phone and I have only used one once in my life (I am 52). Maybe this is flame bait but for most people, cell phones are only ego trips. Guess what, you aren't that important and what you have to say isn't that important that it can't wait 'til you get to a land line phone. Yes, there are exceptions but they are extremely rare.
The biggest problem I have faced in rejecting this technology is peer pressure. I suspect that will show in some of the replies I get to this post. I will get even by outliving them
this is loaner...my sig is in the shop
This is the perfect time to simply hang up.
... 'we must have gotten cut off'.
You can always call back and explain... or
don't
In the _old_ days, the trick used to be to
hang up while you yourself were talking.
Cyclotronic-resonance
The issue of EM radiation is not nearly so clear-cut at all the owned news sources would have us believe.
The example linked above is just one small piece of a fascinating puzzle. You might benefit from more research beyond the corridors of big money. There's a lot to find if you take the time, and particularly in this case it's well worth the effort.
-FL
It's not really about dying a horrible death. It's about having your mind turned to fuzz so that you can't think or cognate properly.
And there are no odds. If you use a cell phone, then your brain isn't working properly. You are living under a measurable handicap. Simple as that. The fact that you might have trouble noticing this is due to the fact that the very organ you use for taking stock of reality is the one being affected.
-FL
I keep my mobile in the front pocket of my jeans. :)
That way, I can be sure that my future kids will never laugh at me for using, what could be, a dangerous device.
Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
Lone Quack theory?
Hm. There is always a lunatic fringe, but is it always wise to look at only one part of a sample in order to judge the whole?
I believe this was in essence even part of your own argument. So why not apply it to more than just one area?
The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of good science being done. Some excellent literature, books, papers have been written by scientists who are well respected by their peers in the world of orthodox research. I've studied a portion of it, and the material I've come across reads in direct contrast to the broad public beliefs about what is and is not known. Somewhat alarmingly, this is the case even among people really ought to know better, but who instead take the industry's and big media's word for the matter.
The problem is that there is a lot of research done every year, and scientific ideas are much like rock music and movies. They can only reach a broad audience and wide public acceptance with enormous promotional funding. --The same rules which rule pop culture apply to the scientific world, and that's not a joke. It takes money and effort to sell ideas. To elicit awareness.
The problem is that the media is owned by the very companies which have heavy stakes in cell phone technology. This is not conspiracy theory. It's cold, hard truth. It's conflict of interest. I know a few journalists, and I have been told stories about how stories have been scrubbed because of fear of upsetting the publisher.
Even the American Air Force has had a hand in the manipulation of public perceptions in this matter. --When Air Force soldiers began to develop cancer from exposure at high-power radar and com-sat stations, (soldiers described how standing in front of a big radar dish was good in the winter because it heated them up nicely.), the military, fearing law suits, began funding research designed not to uncover the truth of the matter, but to deliberately 'show' that human tissue cannot be affected even by high power EM radiation. In typical fashion, the military got their way and was not forced to foot any medical bills for exposing their people to unsafe technology and medicines.
As with most innovations, there was a direct continuation of microwave technology moving from the military into the public sector; and right along with this came the pre-installed lies.
Further, the issue is confused. Cancer isn't the main problem. --Although, it is possible to speed up the growth of existing cancer cells with extremely low levels of electrical stimulation of the sort which can be created through resonance effects caused by Cell Phone technology, this is, I think, a side issue.
Animal cells are affected by EM radiation within certain parameters. --Again, it is true that Cell Phone microwave radiation is at too high a frequency to have many of those effects which are understood, but a Cell Phone signal IS however, modulated down to a frequency, about 10 Hz, (if I remember correctly), which while it is not annalog, does have the ability to mimic those low frequency effects.
And this is not quack science.
I'll roll out once more the example of Cyclotronic Resonance for a blunt explanation of how one of those effects works. --Basically one signal in combination with the Earth's magnetic field, can cause certain molecules and atoms which naturally exist in the blood, not just to energize, but to move on a vector which allows them to much more readily penetrate the Blood-Brain Barrier than they normally do, and thus have medicinal effects upon the brain. --This is just one of several mechanisms which are known to exist.
-FL
I have read quite extensively among the available literature regarding Cell Phone EM, and yes, there is some emotionally charged stuff out there which makes it easy to look away and not give the issue proper consideration.
But there is also a lot of good research which does not raise the common warning flags your article points out.
When it comes to the effects of EM radiation and electricity on cell tissue, the effects are by no means small or "at the very limit of detection." The research I've read does not start out with emotional appeals, but (among the ones I have read), rather stem from genuine curiosity.
While it has been demonstrated that cancer cells can be made to grow many times faster with certain types of electrical stimulation, the issue I am more interested in has to do with the various mechanisms through which physiology can be altered and affected in non-destructive ways.
The cry of the wool-dyed cynic is just as foolish and self-deluding as the cry of the lunatic. If you want to know what's really going on, you cannot walk into a library with expectations. I notice in your article that you used numerous instances of ridicule to press your point when logic was not on your side. How is this different from the very emotional appeals you point out yourself as being problematic? I don't mean to rub your nose in it, but the question I think is valid.
And finally, it is a mistake to believe that anybody owes one anything. One does not deserve truth. We are all responsible to ourselves in the search for knowledge. Nobody owes you proof, and if you move through the world accepting 'data' from only those who have the funds and media structure to deliver their messages to you in the style you have become accustomed to, then you will be filled only with what people with lots and lots of money want you to be filled with.
-FL
FWIW, here's some stuff from Series 2 episode 2.
"You really wouldn't expect cell phones to cause cancer. They don't emit ionising radiation that damages DNA."
Dr. Michael Thun, Epidemiologic Research, American Cancer Society
The waves that come out of [cell phones] are too fat, they're literally too big to hit an atom, break off an electron, [...] and rip apart DNA and cause cancer.
David Ropeik, Risk Analysis, Harvard Center
Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
There's really no need to sweat so much. If you want to turn your mind to fuzz, then you are free to do so.
The interesting thing I notice, however, in reading the posts below, is the apparent decreasing logical and communicative abilities of the people who are defending their own decay. To be expected, I suppose, but it is really beginning to stand out more and more these days.
There's one fellow below who wrote an annotated post explaining how to recognize quack-science. Very poorly written! --The hypocrisy and lack of rationality reads like something from one of those, "Bush, the Great Statesman," Neocon web sites. --Or the kinds of arguments you see on those late-night Christian evangelism television shows.
That's fine. Like I said, decay as much as you want. But "+5 Insightful"? THAT part makes me sigh. Some days I fear that this world is quite beyond help.
The end/beginning is coming, but the transition will only hurt in inverse proportion to the level of stupidity and denial people cling to. And right now, I'm cringing.
-FL
> Why, then, can't we make these technological marvels safe?
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis -- usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible -- and then looks only for items which appear to support it.
Which you are guilty of too. You should have pointed out the presupposition in his quoted introduction that cell phones are not safe.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
When a group is emotionally or financial invested in something, any competing idea will threaten them.
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature.
As do many scientific advances. The Earth isn't flat.
Gads, always with the Toxins, you people.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
Which you just did right there.
*wtf* does this have to do with radiation and cancer?
Why does it have to be about radiation?
> This is not a cell phones cause brain cancer scare story.
As Penn and Teller might say... BULLSHIT.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
It's been well established in studies undertaken by entities other than electric power companies that electromagnetic radiation DOES in fact influence human energy systems. Fortunately there are easy-to-do exercises which when done regularly will fix any negative effects.
see Donna Eden's Energy Medicine, which offers Donna's take on tuning up/repairing the body's energy systems.
"separating heaven and earth" is particularly useful after using a computer/etc..
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Well, I guess I'm screwed either way because there's a cell tower on top of my building, over my apartment. I'm mutating so fast, I'll probably be able to join the X-Men soon...
Get a grip boy, what isn't BS about it?
This is total complete bull, phase angle has nothing to do with penetration capability.
Well, unless you're in a Faraday cage... and it's made of semiconductors and becomes periodically nonconductive.
Then phase angle would have an effect.
Lawyers, of course! Also all the no-talent wankers who keep getting grants to churn out this bilge, and the journals which print it.
/ 12
How bad, how science-free is this stuff? National Academy of Sciences just gave their review report on gun control. Here's some comment on it. http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=1
Bottom line, even though the thing was paid for by a bunch of anti-gun foundations (Pew, Ford etc.) and even though all but one of the people on the review were publicly avowed anti-guners, and indeed even though they avoided any and all research that suggested guns might be of some benefit to the owner: their net result was no evidence that gun control works.
Thirty years of crappy research, millions and millions of public health research dollars pissed away, all completely wasted.
DDT? Same story as above, lots of total CRAP written with zero useful scientific content.
Global warming? See above.
OSHA? They nearly put through regulations to protect workers from back injuries that would have bankrupted every employer in the USA. The only thing that stopped them was the 2000 election. Science? BWAHAHA!!!! As if!
I could go on, but I'm sure you're getting the drift. Anybody with an axe to grind is seizing on these bogus issues. They should all take some lessons in basic statistics.
"There is a well established correlation between dietary fibre and bowel cancer."
That should have been "lack of dietary fibre".
Possibly I didn't express myself clearly enough before. Interaction between waves and matter is very, very well understood. The equation has Planck's constant as a coefficient. Planck's constant is a very small number.
I don't have time now to go into this, but I read the paper you cited. Everything I say on Slashdot is only my opinion. My opinion is that the man who wrote knows that he is lying, and is therefore a liar. If I were dean at that university, I would seriously investigate whether he should be fired, or merely re-trained.
Very easy to say someone is lying. Are the other five research labs that found DNA damage lying too? Are you saying that Dr Lai is lying because he couldn't possibly be correct? Well I think it is possible that he could be correct.
I suggest you look at one of Henry Lai's recent papers at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2004/6355/6355.p
It has his email address and phone number on it and I'm sure he would only be too happy to discuss his research with you.
By the way, I like your Futurepower website.
Thanks for the compliment about the web site.
Everything I've written here is just my present opinion, and not well-researched and edited enough to be more than a Slashdot comment.
I study these kinds of things a lot, and my opinion is that the kind of lying that Dr. Lai did in the paper you mentioned originally is typical for someone exhibiting one of the worst elements of the Chinese culture, and very unscientific.
Here is a more honest, but still dishonest, paper of the same genre as the two by Dr. Lai you have mentioned: A 3 milliTesla 60 Hz magnetic field is neither mutagenic nor co-mutagenic....
The first sentence is, "The mechanisms by which an electromagnetic field (EMF) influences biological material are poorly understood." That's somewhat honest. A truly honest sentence would read, "The mechanisms by which an electromagnetic field (EMF) influences chemical reactions are poorly understood", because there is nothing specific about the reaction of the processes of biological chemistry to electromagnetic fields. The same effects occur in non-biological reactions.
Apparently none of the papers like this one propose anything that they claim is specific to the chemistry of biological processes. The papers allow and encourage readers to believe that there is a special connection between biology and electromagnetic fields only to make the work seem more important.
The next sentence of the abstract is, "One potentially important model suggests that a magnetic field can stabilize free radicals in such a way as to permit their dispersement rather than their return to the ground state (Okazaki et al., 1988; Scaiano, 1995)." I don't have access to either of those papers, but my guess from a quick Google search is that Okazaki's paper might be entirely reasonable science. The problem is that there is no honest relationship between this paper and the one by Okazaki being cited. The paper to which I've linked is what is commonly known as "junk science".
That paper, which I picked at random from a quick Google search on the term "milliTesla", goes on to say, "We have tested this hypothesis by examining.... They are certainly not testing any such hypothesis, or they are testing it in a very, very weak way.
The reason these papers study a "60 Hz sinusoidal field" is because that's what you get when you plug the power that comes out of the wall into a coil of wire. The most noticeable effect is not that an alternating magnetic field is generated, but that the coil gets hot. Maybe the genetic breakage is caused the scaring the rat. Maybe he thinks he is being cooked.
Few of the people who work in scientific fields are actually scientists. More than 50%, and many true scientists say more than 90%, are just lab tinkerers.
This is the distinction: Good science is theory-guided. Junk science is not theory-guided, but just tries something in hopes that it will reveal something else. Any "theories" junk scientists have typically hang disconnected like a fly trapped in Jello. True science builds further knowledge on a strong foundation of what is already verified.
The problem with Henry Lai's paper "Magnetic-Field-Induced DNA Strand Breaks in Brain Cells of the Rat" is that, while it is interesting to know that magnetic fields have effects on chemical compounds, the paper takes advantage of an opportunity for social fraud. Many of the grant-givers don't have much scientific knowledge. The grant-givers give grants based on their perception of the importance of the work, and this paper takes advantage of their ignorance by allowing the grant-givers to believe something that is false.
The falsehood is that magnetic fields affect genetic material in some special way that only can be studied in genetic mat
I have a degree in Physics. And i can tell you , the major concern we talk about at school was the length of the wave and the length of time the signal is present in the body. The trick is to not use a frequency that is shorter than your head. A 1GHz signal is about 15cm. That is about the width of a human head and thats about as high a frequency you want to go with cell phones ( i think most phones are 1.8 GHz, but i dunno) . Since humans are mostly water ( your brain especially ) and water is conductive, if a wave is able to make a complete cycle *inside your body* a slight charge can be created across your cells and alter cells/do damage , even at low voltage this can occur b/c in physics , time also matters, not just level of intensity. If you use a cell phone and have high frequency/low voltage pass thru your brain for 50 years, you could develop tumors equivilant to experiencing a powerful voltage blast for a few seconds. If the wave length is longer than your body ( like radio waves are typically 3 feet or even 3 meters ) then the wave cannot make a comlete cycle inside your body, thus greatly decreasing the chance of any radioactive force being placed on your body. What gives us pause now isnt the cell phones so much ( b/c you can use those ear pieces and put the cell phone on your hip so you just get colon or liver cancer instead of brain cancer ) but those new wireless netowkrs at 5GHz and 10Ghz. Youre talking about these high frequency waves running thru your body YOUR WHOLE LIFE! not just for a 10-20 minute phone conversation once or twice a day. And think about kids who are born into hi traffic wireless hot spots where there may be 20 5Ghz signals flying all over. The human body has been around for at least 100,000 years and never experienced this level or type of radioation. I guess well see what happens to us in this great experiment called life. I wont be surprised if people start getting tumors or having mutated babies due to cellphones / wireless radiation.
This is just scaremongering, pretty much everything can kill you if taken/exposed to in the extremes.
Daft report, it's only outcome is to confuse and worry parents/public. The only thing it does get right is that parents shouldn't give little kids phones early, but not because it might, one day, possibly hurt them.
----- I refuse to have an argument with an unarmed person
I'll address some major points from what you have said.
Firstly, you are saying that Dr Lai and others are committing fraud because they make us believe that electromagnetic radiation behaves in a special way towards biological organisms and we can't just examine chemical reactions.
I don't believe there is any fraud being committed. A paper by Gerard Hyland at http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/hyland_basestati
He says "the living organism [is] an electromagnetic instrument of great and exquisite sensitivity that is able to recognise and discern the presence of external electromagnetic radiation informationally, by decoding (demodulating) its various frequency characteristics" and "non-thermal influences of an informational kind are possible only when the organism is alive".
He also mentions interactions that don't require aliveness: "particularly if the frequency of the radiation matches or is close to that of an organised (collective) electrical vibration of a molecule".
It would be appear there is a genuine reason to believe that aliveness matters and this means there is no fraud, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. There is a genuine belief that research on living organisms is useful.
You say that exposing rats to 0.1 mT is not relevant because humans are unlikely to be exposed to such levels. Actually it is a useful experiment because it still allows us to learn something about radiation at non-thermal intensities. It may be easier to observer affects at these higher intensities than lower ones and provides a good starting point. There is always a question about whether thermal affects are coming into play, and we need to check that the researchers have designed their experiments properly. However, the studies do purport to be at non-thermal levels.
Now moving on to your points about Dr Lai's statement that "Non-ionizing electromagnetic fields do not contain enough energy to affect chemical bonds in molecules directly."
I'm confused about what you have written. You are correct to say that "In fact, ionizing electromagnetic fields are very, very strong. They cause electrons to be completely liberated from the atoms to which they were attached". This is true by definition. However, the statement is about non-ionizing electromagnetic fields which, by definition, are not strong enough to liberate electrons from atoms. Dr Lai is really just stating this definition.
Then you say "Actually, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields often promote chemical reactions" but you use an example of ultraviolet light which is not non-ionizing; it is ionizing. As you say, it is "especially energetic".
So I think there is some confusion here about ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation and no reason to call Dr Lai a liar unless I'm missing something.
The "junk science" label gets thrown around a lot but it is highly subjective.
Here's a quote from the new paper to which you linked: "Difficulties in replication can often be traced to some crucial difference in experimental protocol that effectively undermines the fidelity of the intended replication. Thus the reason why it has not been possible to replicate some experiments is precisely because they have not actually been replicated!"
Now there's an entire weasel paragraph!
Until someone can replicate the experiments, it is not considered experimental science. That's why we no longer take cold fusion seriously. No amount of weasel verbiage has the slightest possibility of changing the way people do real science.
The author of that paper is all over the map. He makes Dr. Henry Lai look like a tower of propriety.
He has apparently collected all the hypotheses he could find in one paper. Amazing: Groups of cells resonating with microwave frequencies! The human body demodulating radio signals and responding to the demodulated signal!
If someone could demonstrate truth in either of those, he or she would definitely be a candidate for a Nobel Prize.
I don't want to spend the time responding to everything in that paper. But the purpose is clear. He is attacking an area where he believes he will get the most attention. Cell phones causing damage is a hot topic among foggy-minded people now. A more intellectually honest person would consider other sources of electromagnetic radiation: 1) Airplanes with radar flying overhead, 2) 50,000 watt AM and FM radio and TV stations (4 different frequency bands), 3) Airport radar, 4) Cordless phones, 5) The neighbor next door and his 1,000 watt amateur radio transmitter, 6) Billions of high energy particles entering the atmosphere and ionizing air molecules, which then spray gamma rays everywhere. 7) CB radios.
Isn't it odd that biological processes respond specifically to GSM signals?
Maybe forty years ago, there was great concern for a while about living near a radio or TV station.
That's not a weasel paragraph. It is saying that certain experiments have not been yet replicated and so we can't prove or disprove the original experiments. It means we need to do more research.
Dr Hyland provides references to his claims about "groups of cells resonating with microwave frequencies" and the "human body demodulating radio signals and responding to the demodulated signal". I wouldn't want to dismiss these claims without checking the references.
Just because Dr Hyland's paper refers to GSM and TETRA radiation, it doesn't mean he is being dishonest. It happens to be a hot topic as you say and people want to know particularly about that issue. I'm sure Dr Hyland is well aware of other sources of radiation that are of concern. In his paper he talks about and references studies on TV and radio transmitters, cordless phones and radar. It is just possible that mobile phone radiation is a greater priority now.
There is still ongoing research and concern about all the types of radiation you have mentioned, and more, including radiation from power lines. No-one is saying that only GSM signals have a biological affect. It is just a one aspect that is being studied.