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."

61 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Good! by yada21 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good, their constant chattering gets on my nerves!

    --
    I will have a sig when the market demands it.
    1. Re:Good! by moogied · · Score: 2, Insightful
      New to thinking are we eh? You're less likely to die from cell phone caused cancer then you are to die from a car crash.

      I know, I know. Actually thinking a post through before posting.. what nonsense.

      --
      So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
    2. Re:Good! by cp.tar · · Score: 2

      In the entire summary, "tumors in the salivary glands" (not cancer; tumors. not all tumors are cancerous) were mentioned once at the very beginning. Cancer was mentioned twice afterwards, including in the sentence about car crashes.

      I think we can agree the summary was poorly written, and in a way that would lead one to believe that statistics show that cancer (not cancer of the salivary glands or even tumors in the salivary glands) is more prevalent than auto deaths.

      No, we cannot.

      I am not a native English speaker, yet I found the summary text completely unambiguous.

      Besides, you probably meant it the other way round: that the summary supposedly led people to believe that auto deaths are more prevalent than cancer.

      HTH. HAND.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  2. I wonder... by spun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even with the increased risk, however, you're still about three times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year. So, how much does talking on your cell while driving increase those odds?
    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:I wonder... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How does talking on a mobile compare to having a friend in the car next to you, while talking?

      --
    2. Re:I wonder... by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    3. Re:I wonder... by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How does talking on a mobile compare to having a friend in the car next to you, while talking?


      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.
    4. Re:I wonder... by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Talking to a person that is not present requires more concentration as you lose out on all the visual clues that are absorbed during a discussion.

      On top of that, many people CANNOT talk without using their hands. This is a direct conflict with driving, which requires use of at least one hand (for normal people). Yes, I have seen people driving down the road, with a headset on, AND talking with both hands... at this rate I believe that it is an activity which should get its own subcategory rank in the Darwin Awards runner's up list.

    5. Re:I wonder... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I only used the "Friend in the car" as an example of distracted driving.

      It matters not if you are eating, talking on the mobile, using the computer, reading a magazine/newspaper, or what have you.

      All show signs that complete concentration are not being used for driving. When we're using directly controlled missiles with 3 sicks of dynamite of energy in them, we need our best concentration.

      I also remember what the original "Cell phones cause Cancer" was about: somebody called the Larry King show about them being diagnosed with a brain tumor after using the mobile many hours per day. One anecdote lead to mass hysteria about RF and cancer.

      --
    6. Re:I wonder... by techpawn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People who are in the car with you are more likely to respond to road conditions like rain or dark than someone not there. I.e. changing topics, getting quite. At least, if we're thinking of the same study...

      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    7. Re:I wonder... by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Informative

      There have been numerous studies that shows it is far more distracting to talk to someone on the phone than if they are in the seat next to you. The person next to you knows when to shut up, and there is in general better feedback. When you talk on the phone, even on a handsfree, you dedicate a lot more attention to it than you do to speaking to someone who is physically there. I'm not sure what that is, but it is what it is.

      It is FAR more dangerous to talk on the phone while driving than to talk to another person in the car.

    8. Re:I wonder... by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Funny

      How does talking on a mobile compare to having a friend in the car next to you, while talking? - well, you only get cancer from the mobile. Friend close enough to be in one car with you may end up in bed with your wife. It's not a difficult choice.

    9. Re:I wonder... by Firehed · · Score: 3, Informative

      The cell phone is much worse. The passenger can see danger and not only shut the fuck up at an appropriate time, but point it out to you. Not so much for someone on the other side of some spectrum.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    10. Re:I wonder... by sharkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or female?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    11. Re:I wonder... by Stefanwulf · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're like most people your visual field extends about 90-100 degrees out from your nose on either side, allowing you to watch the road but keep the passenger in your peripheral vision. You don't have to be paying active attention to them to be receiving and processing some visual information, such as arm motion and shifts in posture.

    12. Re:I wonder... by grumbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:I wonder... by oyenstikker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    14. Re:I wonder... by Sen.NullProcPntr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It matters not if you are eating, talking on the mobile, using the computer, reading a magazine/newspaper, or what have you. True, but your food, person on the other end of the line, computer, or magazine/newspaper are much less likely to tell you to keep your eyes on the road when conditions suddenly change. Your friend sitting next to you has a vested interest in collision avoidance.
      Oh, and you missed screaming child in the back seat as a distraction/stress enhancer;-)

      I will usually ignore the buzzing of my phone while driving - if it's important they can leave a message.

      I agree that the cancer threat is overblown.
    15. Re:I wonder... by Timmmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's deeper than that. When I talk on the phone I'm definitely less aware of what I'm seeing. It's as if your brain transports you to an imaginary vision-less world that you and your friend occupy. Probably similar to when you become 'immersed' in TV and don't notice anything outside the screen.

    16. Re:I wonder... by Kavli · · Score: 2, Funny

      If it was a slashdotter driving, that would be a very hypotetical question.

    17. Re:I wonder... by Wolvey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Some passengers, yes. My girlfriend, not so much.

    18. Re:I wonder... by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

      Is this the study you're thinking of?

      Effects of remote and in-person verbal interactions on verbalization rates and attention to dynamic spatial scenes

      Leo GugertyCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a, Mick Rakauskasb and Johnell Brooksa
      a Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA
      b HumanFIRST Program, University of Minnesota, USA
      Received 23 July 2003; Revised 1 December 2003; accepted 11 December 2003. Available online 24 April 2004.

      Abstract

      This study focused on how teams allocated attention between a driving-related spatial task and a verbal task, and how different kinds of verbal interactions affected performance of the driving-related task. In Experiment 1, 29 two-person teams performed an interactive verbal task while one team member also performed a simulated driving task. Of the team members performing only the verbal task, half could see their partner's spatial situation, as a car passenger can (in-person condition), and half were remotely located, similar to someone speaking to a driver using a cell-phone. Teams interacted verbally at an overall slower rate during remote than in-person interactions, suggesting that remote verbal interactions are more difficult than in-person interactions. Verbal interactions degraded situation awareness for driving-related information while performing the spatial task; and this degradation was not greater during remote than in-person interactions. Experiment 2 used a faster-paced verbal task and found greater degradation of situation awareness due to the verbal task. These findings are potentially relevant to the issue of how passenger and cell-phone conversations affect driving performance.
    19. Re:I wonder... by dwater · · Score: 4, Funny

      hrm. Comment involving wife...

      I felt sure it was going to funny, but I don't see it :(

      Feel cheated.

      --
      Max.
    20. Re:I wonder... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Hold on a sec, something fell out of the truck ahead of me and I need to swerve out of the--" *This call has been disconnected*

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
  3. Cage match by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Funny

    One sees these duelling studies, some for, some against cellular phone usage,
    and one can't help but recall the Steven Wright joke about getting a humidifier
    and a de-humidifier for Christmas. So he put them in one room and let them
    fight it out.
    Maybe there could be some kind of academic cage match between the two camps,
    wherein they have to explain their research publicly, and get to critique the
    methodology of the opposing camp.
    The match ends when intellectual honesty compels one camp to admit that their
    work is an absolut waste of human time, at which point enter John Cleese to issue
    a Wensleydale.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  4. Talk less by The+Iconoclast · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe its because they are talking all the time, drying out their mount and their salivary glands are stress to compensate.

    --
    Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
  5. "Cancer Machine ON" by Zymergy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love my cell phone, but every time it powers on I has the startup phrase: "Cancer Machine ON".
    So what? Chocolate makes you fat, Tobacco gives you cancer, Death and Taxes are inevitable. Until humans live forever and are tax-exempt, at least they DO have a choice on the others.

  6. Re:Hmm... by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Funny

    One radio next to your head, and one next to your balls? Are you sure that's a good idea?

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  7. Skeptic by DJ+Jones · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cell phones cause cancer?

    Sounds like another one of those liberal lies... Like global warming.

    So what if my cell phone melted to my neck goiter while I was using it outdoors in the middle of January? It's totally coincidental.

  8. if you can pry it from my cold dead fingers... by sam_paris · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It doesn't matter whether the results of this study are valid or not. I can't stop using my mobile phone, as I work for a web startup I need to be constantly available if there is a site problem and having my mobile close by, always (even in my bed), is something that is 100% essential.

    In addition, I would basically be saying goodbye to my social life (what little I have of one after work) if I stopped using a mobile phone.

    Therefore, I hope this study is wrong. If it isn't I hope that mobile manufacturers can somehow make next gen phones slightly safer, if possible.

    1. Re:if you can pry it from my cold dead fingers... by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So use a bluetooth headset, leaving the more powerful cellphone transceiver further from your head. It's not the end of the world.

    2. Re:if you can pry it from my cold dead fingers... by petes_PoV · · Score: 2, Informative
      yah, sure it does - all it needs is some personal choice.

      I went through a similar phase many years ago. It's quite flattering to feel that you're always needed - for a time. After that it becomes a chore, then something you hate.

      Most people grow out of it when they realise that the people who put them "on permanent call" are really just being lazy/exploitative.

      Others find it's reassuring to know that someone wants/needs them. If so, then fine - they're getting something out of it too (apart from stress related illnesses).

      However organisations that rely on the monumental efforts of a few key individuals rarely last long - they're just a house of cards, and as soon as one of the key people leaves the whole mess tends to fall apart. Enjoy it while it lasts.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    3. Re:if you can pry it from my cold dead fingers... by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I work for a web startup I need to be constantly available

      You poor, poor man. I don't care how much money you have or make, you are still poverty stricken.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:if you can pry it from my cold dead fingers... by edittard · · Score: 2, Funny

      I work for a web startup
      Talking of phones, 1997 called...
      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    5. Re:if you can pry it from my cold dead fingers... by caluml · · Score: 2, Funny

      So did Smallpox.

      No, I don't know what my point was. :)

  9. What confusion around studies? by trelayne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's quite simple actually. Most of the positive studies are either funded by wireless companies or are watered down for fear of litigation.

  10. Not reassuring by Carnildo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.
    1. Re:Not reassuring by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

      To put some numbers on this, around 40,000 people die in car crashes per year. By their logic, around 13,333 people die from cell phone induced cancer per year. But oral cancer only kills around 8000 people per year. Clearly these figures have been pulled from someone's ass.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  11. Margin of error by wild_berry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm skeptical about these statistics: 500 tumour patients and 1300 control subjects can't really support a probability of 0.003% and 0.0045% for each outcome, can they? I reckon that these numbers are less likely than the false-positive error for their data set.

    1. Re:Margin of error by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm skeptical about these statistics: 500 tumour patients and 1300 control subjects can't really support a probability of 0.003% and 0.0045% for each outcome, can they? I reckon that these numbers are less likely than the false-positive error for their data set.

      These figures comes from two different studies. The \emph{relative risk} increase of 1.5 comes from one case-control study. This is then applied to a survey of the total number of cases in the population, leading to an estimate of the \emph{absolute risk} increase of 0.0015%. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The result isn't worth getting too excited about, but it's interesting none the less.

      The bigger problem I would have, (although I don't think it's a fatal problem for the study) is that overall they found no effect of being a regular phone user. They had to do a subgroup analysis of very heavy users in rural areas to find a significant increase. I'd also be worried this being a freak result given the number of negative findings.

    2. Re:Margin of error by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 3, Funny

      oops I've been writing in \LaTeX{} all day. That's what you get for not using preview.

  12. 3x more likely by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Funny
    "...Even with the increased risk, however, you're still about three times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year."

    Particularly if you are talking on your cell phone at the time.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  13. Three times by popmaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm three times more likely to die in a car accident than of cell phone radiation? Good gracious, I'm never driving again!

  14. Radio waves or just talking a lot? by Grond · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems to me that both findings of the study (more tumors and even more tumors in people in rural areas) could be due to simply talking a lot. More talking means more salivation to keep the mouth from drying out, and it is possible that heavy use of the salivary glands could lead to cancer. In rural areas, one would expect the effect to be magnified because people there are more isolated, and so even less likely to talk a lot except when using a cell phone. It's possible that the study accounted for differences in time spent talking, but neither article makes that clear.

  15. Effectively Zero Risk by Shannon+Love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  16. How do you hold it? by ddrichardson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article:

    Frequent cell phone users face a 50% greater risk of developing tumors of the parotid gland than those who don't use cell phones, according to a recently published study.

    The parotid gland is the largest human salivary gland; it's located near the jaw and ear, where cell phones are typically held.

    Does this simply mean we should use handsfree headsets or hold the phone away from our heads?

    I happen to hold mine in front and use the loudspeaker but that's purely because I'm deaf in one ear and don't like not being able to hear anything else that's going on.

    --
    A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
  17. What *type* of cell phone? by JSBiff · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Ok,

          I don't have access to the main journal article, so it's possible the answer is in there, but there are potentially a lot of variables in 'cell phone' use. The article kind of hints at that in the following:

    Sadetzki says that the Israelis were early cell phone adopters and heavy users of the technology, a tendency that suggests higher radio frequency exposure than other populations. Her study found an increased risk of cancer for frequent cell phone users in rural areas, which may be attributable to the increased radiation output required when phones try to communicate in areas with fewer antennas.[emph. added] She believes that frequent mobile phone users and children face the largest increased risk of health effects.


    I would be curious if anyone has done a larger break-down of the 'risk' seen in this study, to find out if users were using older analogue phones, or newer digital, spread-spectrum phones (which, I believe, typically run at much lower power levels). What frequencies do the phones run at? (It might be, I dunno, that different mobile phone networks around the world use different frequencies, and there might be a correlation to specific frequencies used and an increase in cancer). I would also be curious to see if anyone is able to repeat this finding in other populations outside of Israel? Maybe the increased risk is really something in the air or water? Hard to say sometimes. . .

    Honestly though, if it were me, and I were living in Israel, I think there are risks I'd be more worried about than my cell phone. . . like Hezbollah missiles, Palestinian suicide bombers, another war erupting with the neighboring countries, etc. . .
  18. Re:Hmm...Actually by Killer+Instinct · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I got a new cellphone last year, its a nextel motorola i836 and was slimmer then my previous model (i760? big blue one), so i usually carried in in my right front pant pocket. I did this daily (well M-F) all day long, and often in the evenings. About 4 weeks ago, my right thigh directly under where I kept my phone, started getting nerve twitches, and it felt like the phone was ringing (on vibrate), about 10-15 x daily. Most of the time, Id pull it out and there was no call. I moved it back to my belt, on the clip, about a week ago, and within a few days the strange nerve twitchings went away.

    I do notice the phone has a lot of leaky radiation, when i set on my desk, my desk landline starts cacklin, often right before I receive a call, or tm.

    --
    #include bier;
  19. Re:Hmm... by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, a quick google search turned up that a cell phone has about a 1 watt transmitter. A Bluetooth class 1 transmitter has a power output of about 100mw, but this is unlikely to be in a cell phone. Class 2 and 3 only transmit with 2.5mW and 1mW respectively. So, at worst, the bluetooth headsets are 10x less energetic than the cell phone's transmission and more likely down around 500-1000x less energetic. I'd fear bluetooth far less (about a 500x less ;-) ) than I would fear a cell phone, which isn't much to begin with.

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
  20. Bullshit by Thaelon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Cell phones do not produce ionizing radiation, nor do they contain any matter that does.

    Therefore, the sun is approximately infinitely more likely to cause cancer than a cell phone.

    Non-ionizing radiation (which is all that cell phones produce) has little to no impact on the human body. See for example, light bulbs, radios, radio stations, TV stations, microwaves, ovens, the earth's magnetic field, refrigerator magnets, CB radios, MRI machines, CAT scanners, PET scanners, CD players, MP3 players, computers, monitors, TVs, cell phones, watches, motors.

    The worst a cell phone can do to your body via radiation, is make you a few nano-joules more energetic. Unless of course you installed a nuclear power source in your phone for some reason. Your freaking smoke detectors are more likely to cause cancer than your cell phone.

    --

    Question everything

    1. Re:Bullshit by Niten · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Bullshit by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      Walk outside on a sunny day. You have just exposed your head to far more non-ionizing radiation than a cell phone.

      If exposure to non-ionizing radiation was dangerous, that gigantic fireball in the sky would have killed us all by now.

    3. Re:Bullshit by richard.cs · · Score: 2, Informative

      PET scans do involve ionizing radiation, not from the machine itself but from a radioisotope such as carbon-11 which is injected into the test subject. It emits positrons when it decays which are directly ionizing in the same way as beta radiation. The positrons then annihilate with electrons producing a pair of 511 keV gamma photons. The gamma radiation is also ionizing.

      With regard to the cell phones the suggested mechanism is localized heating of the tissues near to the antenna which is possible but wouldn't necessarily cause cancer.

    4. Re:Bullshit by Dmala · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If exposure to non-ionizing radiation was dangerous, that gigantic fireball in the sky would have killed us all by now.

      Tell that to everyone who's died of skin cancer.

    5. Re:Bullshit by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tell that to everyone who's died of skin cancer.

      Ultraviolet light causes skin cancer. Ultraviolet light is ionizing radiation. that big radiation-spewing ball also puts out lots of non-ionizing radiation. Far more non-ionizing radiation reaches the surface of the earth than ionizing radiation.

    6. Re:Bullshit by RichardEasterling · · Score: 4, Informative

      Be careful with your list Thaelon.

      IAALRRT(I Am A Licensed and Registered Radiologic Technologist) ie. x-ray tech.
      You are correct that the cell phone signal is indeed non-ionizing, but CAT scanners use the maximum amount of ionizing radiation that is legal to give a person. The legal limits are set so low that the net affect of having a CT is minimal especially when weighed against the possibility of having a serious medical condition go unnoticed.

      CT scans typically use radiation with a penetrating strength of @120kvp (KiloVolts Peak). This is strong enough that when a cell is damaged it is usually either fatal to the cell or results in the inability of the cell to reproduce (this makes the chances of getting cancer very slim). This is why pregnant women in their first trimester can not have a CT scan. Our bodies can easily recover form the loss of a few hundred cells, but the baby will almost certainly not be able to recover.

      This is all assuming that by CAT scanner you meant Computer Aided Tomography. If you meant something else then please disregard this post.

      Richard Easterling

  21. Re:Contridicting Studies by SevenHands · · Score: 2, Funny

    "2 (best) Place your cell phone on your belt, and use a headset. Remember, the energy waves' strength falls off rapidly with distance; having the cell phone even a short distance away from your head reduces exposure significantly."

    Doesn't anyone think of the children anymore???

  22. Re:Contradicting Studies -FTFY by edittard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are you advocating that people place cellphones farther away from their head only to put them closer to their crotch
    This site is news for nerds; realistically and practically, a cancer in which area would affect us most?
    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  23. Why that is by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I read a similar study if not the same one. If I recall, one of the main reasons for the increased distraction is there is a need to always fill all silences in phone conversations handsfree or not. Think about it, how often is there a large pause in a phone conversation? Never basically. Normal conversation with a present person is less taxing on us socially, and thus less distracting.

  24. Re:Hmm...Actually by zsouthboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Everyone gets those "Phantom Vibrations", but try again - they're just muscle memory. [citation: http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2005-05-03/orso-phantomvibes ]

    The interference with speakers is caused by...wait for it... radio waves.

    Those things that are engulfing all of us, all the time, in varying intensities. Naturally produced or not.

    Just because you do not understand the world around you, doesn't mean you must be fearful of it.

  25. I Can Hear It Now..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 2, Funny

    "LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.... WELCOME TO THE MAIN EVENT!

    In this corner, with combined revenue of over 220 billion.....CELL PHONE MANUFACTURERS! In the other corner, already salivating like half-starved rabid dogs, PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS!

    "LETS GET READY TO RRRUUUMMMBLLLE!

    (CLANG! CLANG! CLANG!)

    (sounds of lawyers shuffling papers and shouting as lawyers demand settlements)

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....