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.
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.
....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?!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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".
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.
>You can find this article at:
>http://www.alternativemedicine.com/ and search for cell phone.
Here's my "alternative" article:
Seven warning signs of bogus science and Distinguishing science and pseudoscience".
> 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."
> Of course, according to the cell phone industry, cell phones are perfectly harmless:
"2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work."
> "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."
"2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work."
> 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."
OK, the only factual information here is that most studies do not support the alleged link.
> "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."
"2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work."
and a little bit of
"Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist)."
> 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.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
> Says Lai, "Cumulative damages in DNA may in turn affect cell functions. DNA damage that accumulates in cells over a period of time may be the cause of slow onset diseases, such as cancer."
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
> However, the researcher explains, because nerve cells do not divide, they are less likely than other cells to become cancerous, which is typified by uncontrolled replication. Instead, if a brain cell accumulates too much DNA damage, it would more likely die. "Cumulative damage in DNA in cells also has been shown during aging," notes Lai. "Particularly, cumulative DNA damage in nerve cells of the brain has been associated with neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and Parkinson's diseases."
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature.
Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
(If he can't prove cancer, he'll make up a scenario and a completely new hypothesis for the causes of these other diseases that existed before cell phones!)
> [ ... ] This study is especially significant because Hardell is a key witness in an $800 million lawsuit brought by Peter Angelos against the mobile phone industry. (Angelos is the la
speaking to someone who is in the car when you are driving is different from trying to sound intelligeble on a cell. the person in the car with you can appreciate the complexity of the driving situation you may currently be involved in (for instance attemting to avoid another driver who is only paying half attention to the road and the traffic and hazards upon it because he/she is using a cell phone at the time) and allow for pauses etc in conversation. the same is not true of a cell call; there is a greater attempt to provide a fluid conversation by the both parties.
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.