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.
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
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?!
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
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.
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.
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
Where in the HELL do you hold your phone when you talk man?!?
I do take your point though, and I have (seriously) stopped carrying my phone in my fron trouser pocket. Of course I have it out of my pocket while making calls. The downside is that the vibrate function is less fun.
Better to get one of the new hands-free cell phones (the ones with the built-in speaker-phone).
Also, try to get a flip-phone instead of a straight-body phone. Your antenna is further from the head with a flip.
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".
The reason people pick on mobile phones is because they (sometimes) use a relatively large amount of electromagnetic power to communicate with the base station (perhaps several hundred metres away). This is in contrast to cordless phones which have a range of a few metres, so use far less power (also, you probably don't carry your cordless around all day).
You have to remember that mobile phones change the power they use to transmit depending on signal strength. Ironically, if you live near a base station, your phone will be less harmful to you (although of course, one could argue the base station will be beaming it's rays into you far more strongly). Also, newer phones are far, far better than old ones. The extended battery life of new phones is not all down to the batteries, it's also down to the reduced use of the transmitter (old analogue phones are really nasty, and sent some of the BT engineers bonkers within a couple of years - aledgedly).
Something else to know: the frequencies used by mobile phones are only slightly different from microwave ovens. Given oven manufacturers have been researching using a whole raft of frequencies besides the one generally used, it would suggest that more or less any frequency would cook food (albeit with different penetration and other characteristics). So it would be reasonable to assume that the mobile phone frequency would also cook food (or your brain, skin, sperm, whatever).
Conversely, one also has to remember that you're unlikely to be able to cook your Pot Noodle with a phone, because the power it uses is broadcast in all directions, rather than concentrated at the food (and is far lower power than a microwave oven). However, prolonged phone use, within millimetres of your brain could be construed as the same thing.
Last bit of wisdom from me: A phone on standby uses fractions of the power used for talking. Text messaging uses a bit more power than standby, but of course only for a short period of time. A phone with no signal will keep trying to get a base station, so will be transmitting periodically (sort bursts, regularly). In other words, being asked to carry a phone (by werk, for example) is not likely to be too bad for you. Of course, once they actually call you, you're in trouble. Get a pager - being receive only they're far safer.
Remember kids: Using your phone makes your ear get hot. Think about why that might be...?
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.
"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.
>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.