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."

18 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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!
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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 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