Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phone Use Study Sees Increased Cancer Risk
Dotnaught writes "Frequent cell phone users face a 50% greater risk of developing tumors in the salivary glands than those who don't use cell phones, according to a recently published study. The study, led by Tel Aviv University epidemiologist Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, appeared last December in the American Journal of Epidemiology 'Sadetzki's findings are sure to add to confusion surrounding the already contentious debate about the health effects of cell phone radiation. Many other studies in recent years have found no increased risk of cancer due to mobile phone use, but a few have stopped short of ruling the possibility out and a few have said increased risk of cancer is small but real.'. Even with the increased risk, however, you're still about three times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year."
"Three times more likely to die in a car crash"? That's not reassuring. Given how many people die in crashes each year, that would make cell-phone-induced tongue cancer one of the more significant causes of death.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Actually, I read a study a while back (several years ago) that showed talking to a non-present individual to be far more distracting than talking to someone who was physically there. Not sure the rhyme or reason, or if they compared hands-free options or if it was "phone to the ear" sytle, but there was definitely a difference.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
More dangerous. The friend can see what's going on around you, and can shut up when needed.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Based on that data, a 50% increase would raise one's theoretical high-end risk of developing a tumor in the head from 0.003% per year to 0.0045% per year.
This translates into an effectively zero risk. The risk is so low that an individual couldn't really justify spending any time or money trying to lower it further.
We've got to learn that even though our advancing technology allows us to measure smaller and smaller risk, that doesn't mean that "something has to be done!" for every risk we can measure.
However, the fact that cell phones do not produce ionizing radiation is in no sense a resounding argument for their safety. We do know that typical phone signals can result in cellular heating, and there may subtle results of this and other weak interactions that we do not yet understand, especially if those interactions are somehow a function of the signal's frequency.
We do not know enough about cellular biology to make the assumption that non-ionizing radiation is inherently safe across all frequencies and power levels, especially if the source of that radiation is a cell phone -- which puts out a fair deal more radio power than the CD players and displays you compare it to, and which is typically operated right next to one's head.
Therefore, we are not justified in categorically tossing out any new research that indicates a potential link between cell phone use and health problems. The question of cell phones and cancer does not yet have enough evidence pointing in either direction to give us a solid conclusion. So just let the scientists be scientists, since raw empirical evidence is the only way we'll ever answer this question in our lifetimes.
And probably even more important: A passenger is in your car and knows what is happening, while somebody on the phone is not and has no clue. A passenger is much more likely to not distract you when the situation requires your attention, while somebody on the phone will just keep on talking, no matter what kind of situation you are currently in.
It is more than visual clues. There is a huge sound quality loss over the phone, and your brain has to work a lot harder to process the information.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.