Slashdot Mirror


Cell Phone Radiation Excites the Brain

frostilicus2 writes "The Register is reporting that Italian researchers have shown that radiation from mobile phones can excite the brain's cortex. A region that is "responsible for many higher faculties". They even claim that such an effect could be beneficial to some conditions."

115 comments

  1. Great! by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 4, Funny

    This should be a boon for the phone sex industry.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    1. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean a boner?

  2. Heh by Rendo · · Score: 1, Funny

    People that overuse their cell phone are usually braindead to begin with, so at least SOMETHING is happening in their brains.

    1. Re:Heh by eric76 · · Score: 1

      I know an 18 year old high school dropout who is currently sitting in a county jail in Texas waiting to be transported to prison. The toughest part of being in jail for him is not having a cell phone to keep in touch with all his "friends".

      He recevied probation for drug and theft charges and never made the slightest effort to do anything required for the probation. Although he claims to have had permission from the probation officer to move out of the county, when the sheriff asked me where he was and I answered Amarillo, from his reaction it was quite clear that that was a complete surprise.

      If the use of cell phone was good for the brain, the twerp could have had a PhD in Mathematics by now.

  3. Ummm by suso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They even claim that such an effect could be beneficial to some conditions.

    Counterpoint, so does that mean that in other conditions it is harmful. Like causing you to drive like a moron.

    1. Re:Ummm by thebdj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Counterpoint, so does that mean that in other conditions it is harmful. Like causing you to drive like a moron.

      You know, studies have actually been mixed in regards to this. Mythbusters even attempted to replicate a study that was performed; however, I was a bit skeptical of their approach since it relied on asking questions during the cell phone section that would require some degree of actual thinking and/or decision making. Most conversations I have had on a cell phone, even those not done while driving, have hardly required much thought. The calls I typically make are fairly normal conversation with either my mother or one of my friends.

      I believe that my driving is no worse with the cell phone since I drive one handed anyway, and I believe that for most phone conversations the drivers are no worse then those who are smoking, playing with the radio, or eating while they drive. In fact, I would not be surprised to find people are as poor at driving with a hands-free set for their phone as they are holding the phone. In reality, I think the worse distractions do not come from the phone, but from people who may be in the car. I cannot count the number of times I see the person driving take their eyes of the road in front of them to look at the wife, girlfriend, son/daughter, or other individual riding in the car with them. Maybe it is just me, but this is far more dangerous then having a conversation and keeping your eyes on the road.

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    2. Re:Ummm by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, it could be that in other conditions it has no effect whatsoever. I know you're probably just trying to make a joke, but the exception is not always the exact polar opposite to the norm.

      Regarding driving like a moron: If you're using a cell phone while driving, you're probably already a moron. The cell phone is coincidental, not causal. :)
      =Smidge=

    3. Re:Ummm by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Like causing you to drive like a moron."

      Because nobody drove like a moron before the invention of the cell phone?

    4. Re:Ummm by Procrastin8er · · Score: 0

      I think the evidence to confirm this is overwhelming.

      --
      Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
    5. Re:Ummm by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most conversations I have had on a cell phone, even those not done while driving, have hardly required much thought.

      Maybe not. But there is that rare occasion where you suddenly need 100% brain power to make a quick decision. If you are engrossed in a phone conversation, it ain't there. Sorry. I should not be subject to your lack of attention on the road.

      And how do you drive with a cell in your hand? Turn signals are NOT optional despite popular opinion. When you are actually driving, do you take you "free hand" off the wheel to use it? Or do you just changes lanes, and leave it to everyone else to just deal with it?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    6. Re:Ummm by dushkin · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's that got to do with radiation? It's to do with gender! ;)

      --
      o hai
    7. Re:Ummm by mrogers · · Score: 4, Insightful
      My guess is that it's the brain, not the hands, that makes you more likely to have an accident while talking on the phone. When I'm on the phone, especially during a long call, I tend to notice a change in my spatial awareness: I become less aware of the space around me, and more aware of the space around the person I'm talking to, particularly if they're in a place with a lot of background noise or a place I can easily visualise.

      Good spatial awareness is essential for safe driving, and as you pointed out a lot of people drive with one hand anyway, so I wouldn't be surprised if the accident rate was equally high for people using hands-free phones. You could test this theory in a driving simulator by asking one group of subjects to perform a spatial awareness task (eg matching rotated shapes) and a second group to perform a verbal task (eg listening comprehension).

    8. Re:Ummm by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      And how do you drive with a cell in your hand? Turn signals are NOT optional despite popular opinion. When you are actually driving, do you take you "free hand" off the wheel to use it?

      Where did you find a car that requires you to remove your hand from the wheel to use the turn signal?

      Now if you were talking about driving a manual transmission where the shifter is not on the steering column, then maybe you'd have a point. But then you don't see people talking about banning manual transmissions as being a distraction.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    9. Re:Ummm by B_un1t · · Score: 1

      I would Mod Parent again. Well said my friend. I have come to the same conclusion. All the new cell phone laws that condone hands free sets as safe while using the handset as unsafe are rediculus(sp?). I have found myself making bad decisions while on a cell phone and many more occaisions where other drivers have made very dangerous moves while on phones.

    10. Re:Ummm by wbean · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I live in the city and spend a lot of time walking around. I have reached the point where if I see a driver on a cell phone I assume that they will not see me and I stay well out of their way. They are in a little world of their own with very little awareness of what's around them.

      The NY Times had an interesting article on this recently (Times Select subscription required). Researchers put video cameras in cars and collected information about what was going on in the car in the seconds before an accident. The result was that "driver inattention was the overwhelming cause of the crashes in the study."

      My own opinion is that conversations inside the car are less distracting than cell phone conversations because the second party to the converstation is aware of the situation outside the car and knows when to shut up or to wait for an answer. The person on the other end of the cell phone conversation doesn't have this extra input and so the conversation doesn't have the natural breaks for heavy traffic that an in-car converstation would have.

    11. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there are the ones who use blinkers as a warning device instead of an indicator as to what they'd like to do.

    12. Re:Ummm by Don853 · · Score: 1

      My own opinion is that conversations inside the car are less distracting than cell phone conversations because the second party to the converstation is aware of the situation outside the car and knows when to shut up or to wait for an answer. The person on the other end of the cell phone conversation doesn't have this extra input and so the conversation doesn't have the natural breaks for heavy traffic that an in-car converstation would have.

      Mod parent up. I think this is a very good point. Passengers seem to have the same "Oh, shit" reaction to chaos on the roadway that the driver does.

    13. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your anecdotal evidence is contradicted by studies that have shown automobile drivers talking on cellphones are as accident prone and unsafe as drunk drivers. Some countries ban cell phones and driving at the same time and make it an arrestable offense.


      My two cents:

      I bet if you take a survey of drivers who talk on their phones a large majority of them would say they are not causing problems. Just like you said about yourself. And most of them would be wrong.

      Also, I've had plenty of friends and coworkers call me from their cars while driving. These conversations all too often start with 20 seconds of meaningful content then degenerate into a half-assed gab fest where they are happy to yak away, somewhere in between bored, lonely and distracted.

    14. Re:Ummm by c_forq · · Score: 1

      Sorry. I should not be subject to your lack of attention on the road.

      So should people not be allowed to listen to and sing along with music, because I've seen some people that are deffinitely not paying attention to the road while "rocking out" to their music. Or not allowed to eat in their car? I've had seen several businessmen veer out of their lane after spilling some sort of sauce on their shirt. How about we eliminate carpool lanes and not allow passengers, since you are more likely to have more engrossing conversations with them since you also have body language to process and pay attention to. And I don't know about your car but I can hit the turn signal with my left hand without it leaving the wheel.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    15. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone ever done tests on driving while talking to a passenger, rather than a cell phone? I don't know why the phone would be more distracting than a live person.

    16. Re:Ummm by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Like so many other things, the answer is probably "it depends" - for 90% of people, maybe it will never be a problem. For the other 10%, it's not a problem 90% of the time.

      But when those two 10%'s intersect, you have a problem.

    17. Re:Ummm by Captain+Zep · · Score: 1
      "Or not allowed to eat in their car? I've had seen several businessmen veer out of their lane after spilling some sort of sauce on their shirt."

      Damn right - no way you should be eating if you are driving.

      "How about we eliminate carpool lanes and not allow passengers, since you are more likely to have more engrossing conversations with them since you also have body language to process and pay attention to."

      How about we be realistic and accept the fact that if you are driving you aren't going to be looking at the body language of your passenger, and unless they are particularly stupid they know that. Since they are in the car with you, they've also got a vested interest in you not crashing, and as they can also see the road situation and know that you are driving, they also can tell when is a good time to shut up. Unlike the person wittering on on the end of the mobile, who is oblivious to your situation, is much more distracting, and quite frankly doesn't care whether you crash.

      Z.

    18. Re:Ummm by Dmala · · Score: 1

      Now if you were talking about driving a manual transmission where the shifter is not on the steering column, then maybe you'd have a point.

      Even if the shifter were on the steering column (pretty uncommon in cars made after oh, about 1965) how would you drive one-handed? "Sorry for skating across three lanes of traffic, officer. I was trying to put it in third."

    19. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once had the experience of driving behind someone on the highway who decided to start using their cell phone. I'd been following this person for some time, noticing nothing odd about her driving. As soon as she put the phone to her ear, her driving patterns changed drastically. She began constantly drifting left and right in the lane. Her speed and following distance was all over the place. I'm sure nobody was grilling her with questions.

      I'm inclined to think that perhaps some people are less able to concentrate on their driving while talking on the phone. Some people listen to music all day while they program; I find this to be disruptive; I can listen to the music and code slowly and poorly, or I can tune out the music and get some work done. This is not the case with the coworker sitting next to me.

    20. Re:Ummm by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      How about we be realistic and accept the fact that if you are driving you aren't going to be looking at the body language of your passenger

      If we are realistic, we can't accept that, because we know it's not true. We've been watching people talking to their passengers, even in the back seat, and turning around to listen to them. We've seen women turn around to smack their kid while driving in rush hour traffic. We've seen a wide range of human stupidity, and lack your faith in humanity, because we are not morons.

      Lots of people WILL do that. Some people can handle talking on the cellphone while driving - if something happens they will drop the phone and if it ends up flying out the window or getting lost with the cheetos under the seat, so be it. Some people can't. If you would advocate banning one thing, then you should advocate banning all these things, and only allowing passengers on public transportation. All other travel should be done using single-person vehicles.

      I don't happen to believe that, but here's another thought; I have [had - crashed it, while I was doing nothing but driving, BTW] an S-class mercedes. It comes with no cupholders, ostensibly because they want you to think about driving, and not drinking something. However, in the really real world, people who are parched are distracted, and not having a cupholder means I have to do extra work to support my beverage. Meanwhile, they gave me an ashtray and cigarette lighter, because smoking is apparently a god-given right. How is smoking not distracting?

      Basically, people will do distracting things while driving, and yes, talking to a passenger is one of those things.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Ummm by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Your anecdotal evidence is contradicted by studies that have shown automobile drivers talking on cellphones are as accident prone and unsafe as drunk drivers. Some countries ban cell phones and driving at the same time and make it an arrestable offense.

      Studies have also shown that sleep deprivation is as bad as or worse than being legally drunk: "The most severe effects of sleep inertia generally dissipated within the first 10 minutes, although its effects are often detectable for up to two hours, according to the study authors."

      Do we next arrest people for not having enough sleep?

      I think it's reasonable to ticket people for talking on the cellular phone. In my experience, a large percentage of the people who are driving like idiots are on cellphones. However, there's a problem with that logic - in my experience, the vast majority of people who do something really amazingly stupid in the car are females. KEEP IN MIND that this is entirely based on MY personal experience, which does not guarantee a good distribution, I'm not claiming that women are worse drivers... But, based on the same logic, do we take away their keys?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Ummm by mkw87 · · Score: 1
      I drive my 5-speed manual truck one-handed all the time (yes on the phone, though not that often, as I usually prefer music over a conversation), while still managing to use the turn signals....its not that hard.

      As for being able to react, I drive one-handed normally anyways, and how long does it take to throw the cell phone on the seat and react?

      I definately find that I have less of a reaction time if my fiance is with me and we are talking about something or I am gazing/staring at her than if I am talking on my cell phone.

      PS: I live in NW PA, next to NYC and half of California, we have some of the biggest idiots and oldest people (similar to florida in parts up here) driving cars.

      --
      Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
    23. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I definately find that I have less of a reaction time if my fiance is with me and we are talking about something or I am gazing/staring at her than if I am talking on my cell phone.

      Please turn in your driver's license. You are unsafe.

    24. Re:Ummm by masterzora · · Score: 1

      I live in NW PA, next to NYC and half of California, Since when is PA next to half of California?

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    25. Re:Ummm by mkw87 · · Score: 1

      Thats what I get for not using the preview button. What I was trying to say was besides NYC and California, we have some of the worst drivers (it seems). Sorry.

      --
      Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
    26. Re:Ummm by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Maybe not. But there is that rare occasion where you suddenly need 100% brain power to make a quick decision.

      That isn't determined by what you are doing, but rather your ability of your mind. People like to think we are equal, but a common neuroscientist will point out that this is pre-determined by education, genetics, and diet. Oh and don't forget health and sleep.

      A person talking on a cell phone who is well rested and well fed is less dangerous than a guy who has no sleep for over 24 hours and is compensating with caffeine for example and hasn't had a bite to eat all day.

      The truth of this matter is that banning cell phones while driving is kind of an unequal kind of issue. Some people are qualified and can multi-task and use them, while others are not so up to the task. However, we don't really have a good test to determine this... (Perhaps a hand eye cordination test) so people complain and have to ban the whole product.

      However, the real truth of the matter is that American multi-task way too much than their European counterparts. For example, in Germany they don't have cup holders. It is the common belief that when you drive, you just drive and nothing else.

      Of course distances are shorter there as well... Here we have radios, mp3 players, food, other people, cell phones and everything else. Some people need 100% of brain power to focus while some people are still better than that with just a fraction of focus.

      Some people are more natural multi-taskers than others and depending on what kind of condition you are in.

      I for one cannot multi-task on an empty stomach.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    27. Re:Ummm by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      I drive a stick shift, so I handle the wheel with one hand while the other works the gearshift. I manage by using my pinky finger to flick the signal-thingie when I change lanes.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    28. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, basically, you are just as stupid on Slashdot as when you are driving?

    29. Re:Ummm by masterzora · · Score: 1

      I know. I was going for the cheap laugh :)

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    30. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mississippi, right?

    31. Re:Ummm by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      However, the real truth of the matter is that American multi-task way too much than their European counterparts. For example, in Germany they don't have cup holders. It is the common belief that when you drive, you just drive and nothing else.

      America is different from Germany. How often do Germans go on 8-hour drives? It's pretty common here. I can spend 8 hours just driving to the next state, or to the nearest major city. When you're on a drive that long, and that uneventful with few other cars even in sight and hours between viable stops, it's better to have a drink at hand to keep yourself hydrated, and frequently even some food fed to you by your passenger. It's also convenient to have a cell phone to keep in touch while in the middle of nowhere.

      This doesn't mean it's a good idea to be eating and yakking on your phone while driving in rush-hour traffic to work every morning, however. We just happen to use the same vehicles for both tasks. I'm just guessing, but Germans probably more frequently use trains when traveling long distances.

    32. Re:Ummm by Phleg · · Score: 1

      Maybe not. But there is that rare occasion where you suddenly need 100% brain power to make a quick decision. If you are engrossed in a phone conversation, it ain't there. Sorry. I should not be subject to your lack of attention on the road.
      You're subject to it whether you wish to be or not. Not having a cell phone to my ear does not preclude me from talking to passengers in the car, being distracted by concerns over job security, having my attention on some other car, or just plain zoning out.

      And how do you drive with a cell in your hand? Turn signals are NOT optional despite popular opinion.
      With my left hand on the wheel, I can flick on the turn signal using the tips of my fingers, without removing my hand from the wheel. I do this virtually 100% of the time--even with both hands on the wheel.
      --
      No comment.
    33. Re:Ummm by esper · · Score: 1

      And how do you drive with a cell in your hand? Turn signals are NOT optional despite popular opinion. When you are actually driving, do you take you "free hand" off the wheel to use it?

      Slide hand to left side of wheel. Extend finger(s). Use extended finger(s) to push turn signal lever up or down. Easy.

      (Note that I very, very rarely talk on my cellphone whether driving or not. I just drive one-handed the vast majority of the time.)

    34. Re:Ummm by esper · · Score: 1

      Do we next arrest people for not having enough sleep?

      Excellent point. It's one of the major reasons why I think we should just scrap all of the laws banning "driving while X" and start enforcing the laws against reckless driving. A revolutionary idea, I know - removing people from the road because they're driving poorly instead of because of what's in their hand or how much sleep/food/booze they've had - but it seems to me like it just might work...

    35. Re:Ummm by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      [...] I think we should just scrap all of the laws banning "driving while X" and start enforcing the laws against reckless driving.

      Amen to that. Actually there's a whole lot of car crap that's like that, for example emissions regulations. Why is the equipment on my vehicle at all significant? Just check my tailpipe. Worry about the results, not the method.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Ummm by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      I believe that my driving is no worse with the cell phone since I drive one handed anyway,

      So? A lot of people believe that drive just as well stoned or drunk as they do sober - but the emprical evidence for all three is starkly clear; anything that distracts your attention from the road or impairs your reaction speed leads to an increase in accidents.
    37. Re:Ummm by jafac · · Score: 1

      My thinking is that it's the abstract thought that happens when you're in a phone conversation, sometimes you visualize the person's face, or something they're describing, or you're trying to remember something - and maybe this interferes with the driver's attention or ability to watch what's going on on the road.

      A good control would be to test cognative abilitity while driving with a handsfree (wired) - this would eliminate the variable of how many hands are on the steering wheel, and electromagnetic radiaion on the brain.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    38. Re:Ummm by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1, Funny

      Even if the shifter were on the steering column (pretty uncommon in cars made after oh, about 1965) how would you drive one-handed? "Sorry for skating across three lanes of traffic, officer. I was trying to put it in third."
      That's why god gave you KNEES

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    39. Re:Ummm by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Even if the shifter were on the steering column (pretty uncommon in cars made after oh, about 1965)

      My 2007-model car has paddle shifters on the steering wheel. There is also a PRNDS shifter between the front seats, but I don't need to use it while in motion. It is an automatic transmission where in D the car does the shifting and in S you do it yourself, with no clutch. (You can still override the gear temporarily in D with the shifters.)

      how would you drive one-handed? "Sorry for skating across three lanes of traffic, officer. I was trying to put it in third."

      The point was not that they should be on the steering column but that the turn signal is and can be reached with your fingertips while still having control of the steering wheel. And even if you were steering with your other hand, you could drive with that hand on the wheel and another in a boxing glove and still signal turns and lane changes. Just because only one hand is on the wheel doesn't mean the other is tied behind your back.

      That the shifter is not on the steering column would then make it a less-safe distraction, even for a two-handed driver, compared to an automatic transmission. And it makes you have to do extra footwork with the clutch which is also a distraction, especially at critical times dealing with cross-traffic. Also a manual transmission tends to allow less usage of one's knee to keep the wheel steady.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    40. Re:Ummm by elvum · · Score: 2, Informative

      FWIW, it is illegal to use a phone while driving in the UK, unless you use a hands-free system. It's also illegal to do anything else that interferes with your control of the vehicle, including eating. Listening to music is considered to increase alertness more than it distracts. Scrabbling in the passenger footwell for tapes would probably be a no-no though...

    41. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And are you so stupid that you forgot how to say "hold on" while communicating on a telephone? Or how about, in case of emergency, just putting the phone down...? What a concept.

    42. Re:Ummm by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Counterpoint, so does that mean that in other conditions it is harmful. Like causing you to drive like a moron.

      Certainly does. A number of tymes I've had to avoid accidents when someone was talking on their cellphone while driving. If these people must talk on thier cellphone while driving the least they can do is get a handsfree setup so one arm isn't glued to their head!

      Falcon
    43. Re:Ummm by reanjr · · Score: 1

      If something happens that requires full attention, I ignore the phone conversation. Many times on my cell phone in the car I say things like, "...Sorry, I wasn't paying attention, there was some idiot swerving into my lane." It involves the same amount mental shuffling as does speaking with someone in the car. It is less difficult than smoking or changing the CDs and no one wants to outlaw those in one's vehicle.

      Also, I can hit my turn signal using the hand with which I am driving without releasing the wheel. Any car that you can't do this with is poorly designed.

    44. Re:Ummm by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Even if the shifter were on the steering column (pretty uncommon in cars made after oh, about 1965) [...]

      I had a 1971 Dodge somethingorother which had a manual shifter on the steering column ("three on the tree", with the neat mnemonic that backing up was "back and up").

      I don't know how long after 1971 they stopped making that model; on a galactic scale, you're accurate. ;-)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    45. Re:Ummm by firefly_blue · · Score: 1

      One problem is that the person on the other end of the conversation can't see what is happening. If you are talking to your girlfriend/boyfriend in the car and something happens that requires your full attention, then they can stop immediately. The person on the other end of the phone can't anticipate that situation.

    46. Re:Ummm by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      People know when to shut up when they're in the car with you.

    47. Re:Ummm by shellbeach · · Score: 1
      I believe that my driving is no worse with the cell phone since I drive one handed anyway, and I believe that for most phone conversations the drivers are no worse then those who are smoking, playing with the radio, or eating while they drive

      I always thought that the problem stemmed from having a specific source of sound that you're concentrating on, located only at one ear. It's very different from using a handsfree speakerphone, or from talking to other people in the car, where both ears pick up the noise.

      What I've noticed with a lot of drivers using their phones is that they consistently veer to one side of the road - generally the left side (presumably because they're holding the phone against their left ear). It's amazing to watch - they nearly run themselves off the road, and don't seem to realise that anything's wrong until they've hit, or almost hit, the curb. It's probably even more dangerous in America or continental Europe, where veering to the left will bring you into the path of oncoming traffic ...
    48. Re:Ummm by thebdj · · Score: 1

      The beauty of my car...See driving left handed I can reach those pesky turn signals with my fingers. I see far more people who are not distracted and not using the things then me. BTW, I am 8+ years into my driving (5+ with cell phone) with no accidents *knock on wood*. Years of practice...long long years of practice.

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    49. Re:Ummm by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      You know, studies have actually been mixed in regards to this.

      Every study I've ever seen claims cell phone driving to be worse than alcohol in as regards the effects on driving. Several people have claimed these studies are mixed; still, when I've asked for references, I've received none. I don't actually believe that there are studies which say otherwise. I believe that this is a case of people reporting misinformation they'd heard, something which is deeply offensive to those interested in factual argument.

      Would you be so kind as to prove me wrong?

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    50. Re:Ummm by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      We've been watching people talking to their passengers, even in the back seat, and turning around to listen to them.

      Yeah, that's illegal too. Believe it or not, the law actually requires the driver to watch the road. Therefore, your example carries no contrarian weight; all you've done is to shore up that cellular during driving is a bad idea.

      Some people can handle talking on the cellphone while driving

      Studies show they can't. I had friends in college who would insist they could handle driving drunk, too. Several of them are now dead, and several more have been in serious accidents as a result. Just because you have managed to skate by and get lucky doesn't mean you can handle it.

      That said, if that was the only problem, I'd say "hey, go nuts; if you're dumb enough to distract yourself in a ton of metal moving at 60 mph, I'd like you out of the gene pool." But, that's not the only problem. You're not just putting yourself at risk with your openly naïve insistance based on zero actual knowledge that what everyone around you has seen to cause fatalities is actually okay.

      You're putting us at risk of death too, by your insistence on believing something that studies and experience show is just false. That is not acceptable.

      I find it nothing short of amazing that you're willing to pretend to yourself that some people can handle it, after saying If we are realistic, we can't accept that, because we know it's not true. If you want other people to be reasonable and to take a handle on common knowledge, you'll need to do it too. Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite.

      If you would advocate banning one thing, then you should advocate banning all these things, and only allowing passengers on public transportation. All other travel should be done using single-person vehicles.

      By that same line of argument, coffee, beer and soda (and sugar water) should be outlawed because they have a psychoactive effect, and Absinthe is illegal. If you attempt to outlaw any of those three drinks, Slashdot will murder you.

      What you're engaging in is a combination of unrepresentative sample and false dichotomy. You have posited the situation where if something is banned, everything else which could have any similar description should also be banned. This is absurd: things aren't black and white. That's why we can ban pornography from broadcast television but still let them show soap operas and NYPD blue. This is why we can ban "fuck" from the broadcast airwaves, but let people get away with "damn" and "darn." This is why people can smoke cigarettes but not heroin. This is why people can have pistols but not rocket launchers. This is why we require helmets on motorcycles, but not plate mail.

      Furthermore, though, the idea that talking

      It comes with no cupholders, ostensibly because they want you to think about driving, and not drinking something.

      Ostensibly means "in a fashion intended for display," not "this is what I'm guessing." You're also wrong: Germans just think eating and drinking in the car is gross. Discounting cars meant for export, no German cars have cupholders. I know this because I have actual German friends who've expressed surprise on finding out what those holes were for when they visited me.

      You really shouldn't guess things and then use them to shore up your argument; when you turn out to be wrong it shoots your stance to hell. For example:

      Meanwhile, they gave me an ashtray and cigarette lighter, because smoking is apparently a god-given right. How is smoking not distracting?

      Since the absence of cupholders has nothing to do with distraction, this is an absurd question.

      Basically, people will do distracting things while driving

      And, luckily, if that's talking on a cellular phone, in better states like California, you will go right the fuck to jail, where you deserve to be. Welcome to the real world: you don't get to do whatever you want just because you think you're smarter than the law. (By the by, you aren't.)

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    51. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why hasn't anyone yet addressed the question I find most baffling?

      What the hell is so important that you have to make a phone call while driving? I can understand using it to try and find a close parking space to a friend, or maybe trying to find someone whom you're giving a ride to, but people on the road are having 20+ minute conversations.

      Seriously people, hang up the damn phone.

    52. Re:Ummm by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      And, luckily, if that's talking on a cellular phone, in better states like California, you will go right the fuck to jail, where you deserve to be.

      You're an idiot if you think that. I see people talking on cellphones as they drive past cops all the time, both on and off the freeway. I live in California. It's also illegal to drive in the passing lane, which creates dangerous driving conditions, but they don't hand out tickets for that either. Maybe in SOME parts of California they actually write tickets for that, but not anywhere I've ever been.

      Welcome to the real world: you don't get to do whatever you want just because you think you're smarter than the law. (By the by, you aren't.)

      Which meaning of "law" are you using here? Because I think I just might be.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    53. Re:Ummm by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      And, luckily, if that's talking on a cellular phone, in better states like California, you will go right the fuck to jail, where you deserve to be.

      You're an idiot if you think that.


      The law allows for it, and San Diego County has been doing it for a year and a half. If I'm an idiot, I'm an idiot backed up by fact. Think I'm wrong? Try driving up Aero Drive and yakking on a cellular. You won't make it halfway to the mall.

      Maybe in SOME parts of California they actually write tickets for that, but not anywhere I've ever been.

      So I'm an idiot for thinking something even if I'm right in some parts of the state? You, sir, need to learn to converse without insults. You're neither correct enough nor funny enough to pull it off.

      Welcome to the real world: you don't get to do whatever you want just because you think you're smarter than the law. (By the by, you aren't.)

      Which meaning of "law" are you using here? Because I think I just might be.


      There's only one germane meaning of law in this context. Don't play douchebag fake semantics games.

      Yes, that's what drunk drivers, pirates, NAMBLA members, burglars and politicians all say. You're just an antisocial psychopath like the rest. (Go look the clinical definition up. You're acting with complete disregard to the safety and practices of people around you based on arbitrary personal decision. That's the definition of psychopath.)

      Oh, and by the way, the law is based on the will of several hundred million people, literally thousands of university and industrial studies, tens of thousands of hours of political debate and god only knows how many findings of fact in court.

      Believe it or not, even though you're psychotic, you're just not smarter than all of that. That you refuse to follow the law isn't insight. It's conceit. You'll be a better man if you ever learn the difference.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    54. Re:Ummm by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      s/psychotic/psychopathic/g . Though, going by your responses to date, I'm sure you'll pretend that a simple near-word slip up which was immediately corrected is in fact indicative that I don't know what I'm talking about, or some other transparent and shallow self serving nonsense.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    55. Re:Ummm by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      The law allows for it, and San Diego County has been doing it for a year and a half. If I'm an idiot, I'm an idiot backed up by fact. Think I'm wrong? Try driving up Aero Drive and yakking on a cellular. You won't make it halfway to the mall.

      You didn't say San Diego. You said California. If you don't want to be argued with, be precise.

      You're just an antisocial psychopath like the rest. (Go look the clinical definition up. You're acting with complete disregard to the safety and practices of people around you based on arbitrary personal decision. That's the definition of psychopath.)

      Actually, I use my headset when I drive, and I give attention to the road first (as in, I am prone to long pauses and such while on the phone in such a situation.) So you're just making assumptions. As I formerly believed, you are an idiot.

      Oh, and by the way, the law is based on the will of several hundred million people, literally thousands of university and industrial studies, tens of thousands of hours of political debate and god only knows how many findings of fact in court.

      And the total weight of human greed and obstinacy.

      A committee is the only organism that grows more stupid as it grows more legs.

      Believe it or not, even though you're psychotic, you're just not smarter than all of that. That you refuse to follow the law isn't insight. It's conceit. You'll be a better man if you ever learn the difference.

      If I actually believed that lawmakers had my best interests at heart, then I'd be a fucking ignorant sheeple like you are. Personally, I never make that assumption, because I am not a dumbfuck.

      I'm sure I'll get modded down for how much I'm cussing you out in this comment, but your words have made it clear that you are a willing cog in the machine, and thus part of the problem.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    56. Re:Ummm by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      If I actually believed that lawmakers had my best interests at heart, then I'd be a fucking ignorant sheeple like you are.

      This attitude is one of the hallmarks of psychopathy, as is lashing out when criticised. You've displayed your hand, and are now marginalized. Thanks for doing my footwork for me.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    57. Re:Ummm by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      If I actually believed that lawmakers had my best interests at heart, then I'd be a fucking ignorant sheeple like you are.
      This attitude is one of the hallmarks of psychopathy, as is lashing out when criticised. You've displayed your hand, and are now marginalized. Thanks for doing my footwork for me.

      It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. Again, if you don't believe they are, then you are paying insufficient attention. Meanwhile, you are clearly helping them maintain their control by playing along with their game.

      I cuss idiots out because it's fun. You're an idiot. I'm having fun.

      Hiding behind bullshit internet psychoanalysis (did you eat the DSM-IV for breakfast this morning, or something?) doesn't change the fact that you're a sheep. You can tell me that lashing out is a sign of psychopathy, but believing what someone tells you just because they're "the authorities" is definitely a sign of stupidity.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Presumably: Driving a car... by tehgimpness · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...is not one of those 'high level faculties'.

    --


    ZOMGWTFPWNtKKTHNXBIBI!!!ONE!111!!!
  5. Might explain something by Billosaur · · Score: 1

    Young male volunteers at Fatebenefratelli hospital in Milan used a GSM900 device for 45 minutes. Reporting in the journal Annals of Neurology, Dr Paolo Rossini and colleagues then measured activity in the motor cortex, located near the ear. Powerful magnets aimed at the motor cortex have been shown to induce muscles to twitch.

    It might explain while people can't seem to walk and talk on their mobile phone at the same time.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:Might explain something by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      It might explain while people can't seem to walk and talk on their mobile phone at the same time. /blockquote>

      Oh, they can talk ... they just can't listen. That's why they're always going "Can you hear me now? What? Can you hear me now? What? Can you ..."

    2. Re:Might explain something by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      It might explain while people can't seem to walk and talk on their mobile phone at the same time.

      Dear God, what if they were also trying to chew gum? Just think of the carnage!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    3. Re:Might explain something by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      Powerful magnets aimed at the motor cortex have been shown to induce muscles to twitch.

      Really? Moving magnetic fields can induce electrical potential in the brain? I wonder which psychologist figured that out...

  6. Really? by pcguru19 · · Score: 1

    It obviously doesn't excite the part of the brain that controls someone's ability to drive worth a damn.

    --
    STFU & GBTW
  7. Where's the control group? by quokkapox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Talking on the cell phone will activate your cortex. Ok. So where's the control group that talked on a wired phone instead and showed a lower level of cortical activity?

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    1. Re:Where's the control group? by HPNpilot · · Score: 1

      *All* the phones should be "wired" with some of them using the wires and others using radio transmission, and this should not be known to the test subjects nor the people setting up the tests (double blind).

      Peter

    2. Re:Where's the control group? by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the article:

      Fifteen male volunteers attended two experimental sessions, one week apart, in a cross-over, double-blind paradigm. In one session the signal was turned ON (EMF-on, real exposure), in the other it was turned OFF (EMF-off, sham exposure), for 45 minutes.
      --
      R.Mo
    3. Re:Where's the control group? by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whoops, I lied. That's not from the article Slashdot linked to, it's from the actual study, the link to which I found on a similar BetaNews story. Do yourself a favor--skip the writeup in The Register and read the abstract yourself: Wiley InterScience Journal - Abstract.

      --
      R.Mo
  8. Sounds like a report designed to secure more $ by DavidBorgioli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is an interesting article but way too short to tell us anything. With just 15 subjects the sample group is likely way too small to draw any conclusions. It may be enough however to secure more research money.

  9. what about wifi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can it have similar effects?

  10. Excuse me by JamesP · · Score: 0

    Wile I get my cell phone fix ...

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  11. Pseudo-science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No no, cell-phone radiation doesn't cause brain cancer - see, it's actually good for you! It sounds like the same kind of PR tactics climate-change "skeptics" employ - just causing doubt and confusion around an issue - and putting it out in the popular press. I wonder who is publicizing these results?

    1. Re:Pseudo-science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Change the word "skepitcs" to "fanatics" and you would have a point. After all its the "we are doomed" crowd whos using the wacko pseudo-science.

  12. Then why...? by Cleon · · Score: 1

    Then why do I always feel slightly dumber after talking on one of the damn things?

    --
    Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
    1. Re:Then why...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it has something to do with *who* you were talking with?

    2. Re:Then why...? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Because your cortex activity reverts to normal values once you stop using the cellphone?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:Then why...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One Possibility is that rather than "slightly" dumber, you are SIGNIFICANTLY dumber! So much so that you are unable to appreciate the profound extent of your impairment. Kinda like those who say "Yakking on the phone doesn't affect MY driving"

    4. Re:Then why...? by smithmc · · Score: 1

        Then why do I always feel slightly dumber after talking on one of the damn things?

      Maybe you should get some smarter friends. (Or some dumber ones.)

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  13. doesn't seem scientifically valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Without having read the actual scientific journal article (but just the very unscientific coverage of it), I have serious reservations about the study: 1) Cell phone radiation is of sufficiently low energy that I am not sure it can even penetrate INTO the brain. I am not sure this has ever been conclusively shown. (I am a radiation oncologist by trade. We deal with much higher energy beams when treating patients. So I'm a little outside my training here. However, even some of the treatments we use only penetrate a centimeter or less, and these are much higher energy than radiation from cell phones, as far as I know.) 2) This study appears, at first blush, to make the error of assuming that association of two disparate events demonstrates cause and effect. If the brain is more active, their study design fails to prove that it is due to the radiation. Maybe the brain becomes more excitable because the study subject just got a phone call from a friend or loved one? Furthermore, does the motor cortex excitation show a "sidedness?" That is, if subject hold the phone against her right ear, versus their left, does it make a difference in the excitation of the right versus left motor cortex? It might be that the original article addresses some of these shortcomings.

    1. Re:doesn't seem scientifically valid by r00t · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Dude, you're trying to kill a cancer in a reasonable amount of time.

      The cell phone is chronic exposure. It damn well better not come even remotely close to the level needed for killing a large chunk of tissue deep inside the head.

    2. Re:doesn't seem scientifically valid by RocketRainbow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, microwaves can penetrate the brain with very little trouble at all. It's basically transparent to them, but every now and then a microwave will be absorbed by a molecule and heat it a little.

      And then your brain cools itself back down the same way it would if it were a hot day outside.

      Obviously it's theoretically possible that a lot of microwave photons could cause a lot of damage by heating the brain to the point where chemical change occurs. Your brain can cool itself quite comfortably if the hotspots don't heat up at a rate any more than 1K per hour - I've never actually heard of anyone checking that this is so, but I would expect that this was part of the initial safety testing when cell phones were first introduced.

      (Note that microwaves haven't enough energy to ionise the brain like your gamma or X rays do - they work by heating molecules rather than by ripping the electrons off an atom to change the chemical structure.)

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    3. Re:doesn't seem scientifically valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3-5W power omnidirectional antenna 5cm from your brain. You end up with about 1W going though your brain. Most of the heating occurs close to the skulls surface. So heating more than 1K/h, I'd say some parts yes. This may also explain the "extra activity" but just a guess since they had no control group! Where are the people talking on corded phone?

    4. Re:doesn't seem scientifically valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you asking us these questions? Why are you commenting about "errors" in the paper if you haven't even read it?

      Read the damn paper. Then you may be able to voice valid concerns. Oh, wait. I forgot. This is Slashdot, and some people just like seeing a comment they wrote with +5 next to it.

    5. Re:doesn't seem scientifically valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No, microwaves can penetrate the brain with very little trouble at all. It's basically transparent to them, but every now and then a microwave will be absorbed by a molecule and heat it a little."

      This is incorrect. Your brain has a significant ammount of water in it, and water heats up extremely well to 2.4GHz radiation. This is why your microwave runs at 2.4GHz, because it is optimized to excit water molecules.

    6. Re:doesn't seem scientifically valid by Buck'sBlog · · Score: 1

      After saying that there is not effect, now they are saying that cell phone radiation is "good" for us. It reminds me about early studies on patent medicines with curium and radium. Oh, Boy! I can't want to have the first glow in the dark brain!

    7. Re:doesn't seem scientifically valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Note that microwaves haven't enough energy to ionise the brain like your gamma or X rays do - they work by heating molecules rather than by ripping the electrons off an atom to change the chemical structure.)

      The point at which photons become energetic enough to start damaging organic molecules by cutting them to pieces (photoablation) is somewhere in the deep blue range. Photons above that energy level (i.e. at shorter wavelengths) are the dangerous ones, starting with UV and on to X-rays and gamma rays.

      Photons below that energy level (from blue to red, infra-red, microwave and radio) can do nothing more than heat them up. That's it.

      That's the inconvenient fact which blows all the brain cancer and EM alarmists out of the water. The photons of ordinary visible light have much more energy per photon than do infrared, and infra-red photons are more energetic than microwave photons. Every day we are awash in visible light, and anybody warming up near a campfire is just getting buried in infra-red photons... and yet nobody's screaming about campfires, why?

      It isn't about penetration. That's just an issue of location, which affects nothing. All we get out of any interactions with electromagnetic radiation on the long side of visible light, at any depth, is heat -- and we usually get a lot more of that out of the carbon-hydrogen-oxygen combustion which powers us than we do from any radiation. About the only hazard that could come of that is extremely localized heating -- and cell phones aren't masers AFAIK.

    8. Re:doesn't seem scientifically valid by NichG · · Score: 1

      Er, so if most of the heating is say within the first few cm then we have at the most concentrated case something on the order of a cm^3 of material getting 3600 J/hour. At minimum, the density will be that of water which is about 1g/cm^3. I'm not sure what the heat capacity of flesh is, but its mostly water and 1g of water takes about 4000J to increase its temperature 1K. So a reasonable upper bound on heating effects is still within the 1K/h limit.

    9. Re:doesn't seem scientifically valid by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Informative

      Without having read the actual scientific journal article (but just the very unscientific coverage of it), I have serious reservations about the study

      That tells us everything we need to know. You're worried about something you neither have read nor understood, but you feel empowered to tell other people how bad it is despite your ignorance.

      Don't you have the good sense to be ashamed of behaving this way?

      Cell phone radiation is of sufficiently low energy that I am not sure it can even penetrate INTO the brain. I am not sure this has ever been conclusively shown.

      Oh nonsense. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with particle physics knows perfectly well that if it can penetrate several dozen steel or wood walls, it can make it through half an inch of bone. If you don't believe me, find your nearest cell tower, stand between it and your phone, and see whether you get a signal. That said, that cellular radiation can penetrate into the brain has been extensively shown in other animals, so unless you want to pretend the human brain is somehow different, then the reason you aren't sure is because you've never checked. A display of ignorance is not an argument against.

      The issue isn't whether it can penetrate. The issue is whether it will collide on the way through.

      I am a radiation oncologist by trade.

      I'm not sure I believe that someone who doesn't think cell radiation can get into a brain could possibly be a trained particle physician.

      So I'm a little outside my training here.

      Real radiation oncologists are required to understand particle physics and its interaction with organic tissue. Those physical systems are as valid at cellphone energies as they are at x-ray and gamma energies. You shouldn't be outside your training if you are who you claim to be.

      However, even some of the treatments we use only penetrate a centimeter or less, and these are much higher energy than radiation from cell phones, as far as I know.

      A real radiation oncologist would know that the primary determinant in depth of penetration is the wavelength of the radiation, not the energy, which is why you can operate your ridiculously high energy devices and get only an inch penetration, and yet why a microwave running on AC power can wholly cook things. This whole thing rings false: if you are who you claim you are, then you are dangerously ignorant of your own job, a job on which other people's lives depend. If you are who you claim you are, I very much hope you will attend new training.

      This study appears, at first blush, to make the error of...

      How would you know? You haven't even read it! ... to make the error of assuming that association of two disparate events demonstrates cause and effect.

      If you'd read it, you'd know it didn't make that error (it's called the fallacy of conjunction, which an educated person should also know.)

      If the brain is more active, their study design fails to prove that it is due to the radiation.

      It has no such failure, and if you'd bother to read something before you criticised it, you'd know that. Of course, as a purported doctor, you should also be familiar with single-blind testing, which is in what they engaged, and whose specific nature is to eliminate the problem you're pretending you saw in a document you admit you didn't see.

      Maybe the brain becomes more excitable because the study subject just got a phone call from a friend or loved one?

      The subjects weren't receiving calls. Read the paper before criticising obvious falsehoods.

      It might be that the original article addresses some of these shortcomings.

      I should hope that in the future you have the decency to not karma whore like this. This sort of nonsense grandstanding and ego-driven lying (yes, I'm calling you a liar - you're criticising something you've never read with things that are patently false, and feigning comprehension of things you obviously don't comprehend) is the primary basis of disinformation.

      As a (supposed) doctor, you of all people should know how dangerous and unethical this is. You're lucky I don't know where you work.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  14. Aural Exciter by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What happens when we're all using multimode 3G/WiMAX phones? Swedes in Gotene got their brains fried by their recent WiMAX deployment. I'd call that "exciting the brain": exciting like a train wreck.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Aural Exciter by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Assuming the story is for real, it doesn't mean that WiMAX is responsible, but rather that people are blaming WiMAX for health problems that cropped up then. After all, people will become unhealthy even under normal circumstances. Here, we have no comparison of the symptoms to what would normally occur nor any indication of how much exposure to radio frequencies these people are getting. My take is that this sounds like a mix of natural illness and hysteria gussied up as the WiMAX threat. It's the typical, uncritical tripe you get from newspapers.

  15. This isn't news by EZLeeAmused · · Score: 3, Funny

    It has been known for many years that cell phone radiation stimulates the brains of product liability lawyers.

    --
    Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
  16. "Cortex" vs "Motor Cortex" by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1

    The article mentions intra-cortical communication and the article suggests their findings may apply to the entire cortex, but really, they've only tested the temporal lobe.

    My overall reaction is positive. I have ADD, so I'll be strapping my phone to my forehead and talking on my earpiece in the hope that the radiation will go straight to my prefrontal cortex. I'll look silly, but I'm used to that, and there's a slim chance that maybe I'll stop losing my keys.

    --
    *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
  17. A river in egypt by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I believe that my driving is no worse with the cell phone

    I don't care if you believe pixies will magically steer your car away from accidents. I'm telling you: People driving with cell phones drive worse than without the cell phone.

    This isn't an opinion, nor a belief, it's an observation.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:A river in egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, he may be right, he admits he normally drives with a single hand, so he's a shitty driver.

  18. Driving while distracted varies by individual by davidwr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The more distracted you are the worse off you'll be able to react in an emergency.

    Distractions come in many flavors besides cell phone use. Noisy kids in the back seat. Changing the radio dial. Unexpected construction signs. Flashing billboards. Other drivers honking. A news bulletin on the radio.

    It is each driver's responsibility to know how much each distraction will impair him and how much impairment he can handle given traffic and road conditions.

    On familiar road with little or no traffic and no uncontrolled intersections you can afford a lot more distraction than in the middle of a congested urban street where drivers may be making sudden stops and turns.

    A new cellphone user may funble with it, have a hard time finding the buttons, and be otherwise distracted. An experienced user may be able to dial and carry on a "non-thinking" conversation with little or no impairment. Some drivers may even be able to carry on "deep thought" conversations without putting themselves or others at risk.

    Know your limits. Respect them. For your sake and the sake of others.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  19. Is this something like.... by Twixter · · Score: 1
    And they make you thinner and better looking too....

    -Todd

    --

    -Todd

    Put down the sig, and step away from the computer.

  20. Generalizations by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1, Troll

    So you have observed all people, and know that each and every one drives worse on a cell phone?

    What about those people who become less aggressive beause they're on the phone and they take extra precautions for just that reason?

    I believe your sample size is too small to be statistically useful.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:Generalizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Straw man. Don't be such a wanker.

  21. Are cells worse for drivers than other things? by kaladorn · · Score: 1

    Driving can be easily impaired by things like:
    1) Conversations with other car occupants (can be quite distractions)
    2) Radio fiddling (or even just listening and grooving along)
    3) Operating cabin climate controls, navigation systems, etc.
    4) External stimuli (car accidents to gawk at, pretty girls to lead the eye, etc)
    5) Alcohol
    6) Drugs, prescription or otherwise
    7) Fatigue (Drowsiness probably kills as many people as cell phones ever will)
    8) Drinks and/or food in the car especially if consumed on the move
    9) Lipstick application or other personal hygiene tasks performed on the move

    The list goes on. Is the cell phone worse? My own experience is because it can be a challenge to one-hand dial, that can be very distracting, as can be rooting around for the phone to answer a call and typing a text message is a real pain. Perhaps a car-set or bluetooth headset and voice dial would alleviate some of these issues, but not all. Cell phones can be quite a hazard.

    But so can fishing around for CDs, trying to adjust your MP3 player to the right folder, being distracted by an outside event, being tired (very common), being drunk or stoned (a bit less common), doing other dumb things (lipstick, newspapers, etc). Eating in the car or drinking coffee or the like can be fairly baneful to good driving as well.

    So why hack on cellphones? We've got catch-all regulation that covers various unspecified impairments to a driver's ability to operate and we've got particular legislation covering drugs, alcohol and in some cases fatigue. Unless we're going to start banning eating, listening to music, or any other possible distraction (or have cars run by computers that aren't prone to distraction), then we should just admit cell phones probably aren't much different than any other distraction, or at least this has hardly been proven as of this time.

    --
    -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
  22. Change blindness & dual-task interference. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    You know, studies have actually been mixed in regards to this.

    I would actually like to see studies that show no effect. I'm actually quite familiar with studies that show that cell phone driving does have an effect and would like to see a good counterpoint. I recommend reading a post I wrote up in another discussion about David Strayers's work on dual-task interference and change blindness. Humans don't multitask all that well despite their own perceptions of their abilities.

    In fact, I would not be surprised to find people are as poor at driving with a hands-free set for their phone as they are holding the phone.

    That's basically what the research shows. It's not having both hands on the wheel or not that results in slower braking times and less attention to surroundings -- it's focusing part of your mind on conversation.

    Paying too much attention to passengers (much like all the other things you listed) is one of those things that can and will get an accident blamed on you in a police report if you own up to them. Though, it turns out that in simulations, talking on a cell phone is more impairing than talking to a passenger according to the 10th paper on Strayer's page. Somehow, though, I doubt the passenger in the experiment was being stared at by the drivers instead of the road. People who do that give me the willies when driving.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  23. You forgot... by JoeLinux · · Score: 1

    That when that 1W of power (see above poster) goes through your brain, if, on a random chance, it should strike the DNA or growth inhibitor, it could spawn a cell that reproduces randomly and without restraint.

    Such a growth is called "Cancer".

    And now you have learned.

  24. Now where.... by rune2 · · Score: 1

    Now where did I put that tinfoil hat again?

  25. playing the radio while driving by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    So should people not be allowed to listen to and sing along with music

    I don't know if it's still like that but when I was in Germany it was illegal to play the radio while you were driving.

    Falcon
  26. travel by trains in Europe by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    We just happen to use the same vehicles for both tasks. I'm just guessing, but Germans probably more frequently use trains when traveling long distances.

    When I was there travel by train was the most frequent method of traveling longer distances not just in Germany by in most of Europe. Trains were better suited for passenger travel there than it the US. However a few years back I heard that was changing, that air travel was becoming more popular. After 911 while airlines were hurting in the US, a few business and economics magazines described how well air travel was in Europe, that many small airlines were being started and were doing well. And for local travel bikes were popular.

    Falcon
  27. Excellent point. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Do we next arrest people for not having enough sleep?

    It's one of the major reasons why I think we should just scrap all of the laws banning "driving while X" and start enforcing the laws against reckless driving. A revolutionary idea, I know - removing people from the road because they're driving poorly instead of because of what's in their hand or how much sleep/food/booze they've had - but it seems to me like it just might work...

    Agreed. Although I occassionally say something like "I wish there were a law..." upon second or third thought, I wish more that people would take more responsibility for thier actions or inactions and be held accountable. Unfortunately it seems too many people have forgotten along with freedom and liberty goes accountability and responsibility. Then again some just don't care.

    Falcon
  28. First against the wall when the revolution comes by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    What about those people who become less aggressive beause they're on the phone and they take extra precautions for just that reason?

    The road ragers who are too distracted by the phone to focus their anger on the drivers around them?

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  29. Some meaningless title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (so off-topic it's anonymous now)

    Nowhere did I mention anything about a distraction. Personally, I have two driving modes - passive, and aggressive. Don't let the connotation of aggressive fool you.

    When aggressive, I do ~10 mph over the speed limit, and I'll change lanes to pass people on the highway. I don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, but I slow down enough that I can stop if necessary (some minimal momentum allows me to skip first gear).

    When passive, I do about the speed limit, I stay in the right-hand lane because I can't keep looking back in my rear-view mirror to see if I'm being tailgated, and come to a complete stop at stop signs to prevent myself from rolling through.

    Passive driving is triggered by more than just using my cell phone. (which, btw, I can still use the turn signal with one hand) I could be having a conversation with a passenger, for instance.

    The problem isn't the cell phone. The problem isn't drivers who use cell phones. When will the world learn? The problem is the people who don't know how to focus the majority of their attention on their driving (and I'm confident no one focuses 100% on driving 100% of the time). Cell phones, make-up, newspapers, crackberries, etc. are just the messenger for people who don't focus mostly on driving. Don't shoot the messenger if you don't like the message.

  30. Straw man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The position taken was people with cell phones drive worse than those without them. He replied that some people adjust their driving style when talking on the cell phone, and that after the adjustment they may drive better (for some definition of better) than before the adjustment (e.g. without the cell phone).

    By the way, technically, you're trolling by responding with a comment whose intent is to inflame the parent. Allow me to demonstrate -

    He's not a straw man. Don't be such a wanker.

  31. Like everything, it depends on who you get. by jonskerr · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see a study done with a referent based on the IQ of the driver. I'd bet heavily on people with IQs over 125 being way better at driving while talking on their cell than people 110 or less.

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
  32. Not the phones. by woolio · · Score: 1

    The world is filled with morons and shouldn't be driving a car.

    But the general public blames the cell phones.