Slashdot Mirror
Pittsburgh Cancer Center Warns of Cell Phone Risks
RevWaldo contributes a link to an AP story carried by Google, according to which "The head of a prominent cancer research institute issued an unprecedented warning to his faculty and staff Wednesday: Limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of cancer. The warning from Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, is contrary to numerous studies that don't find a link between cancer and cell phone use, and a public lack of worry by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." RevWaldo continues: "One possible solution offered? 'Use a wireless headset.' No risk of EM exposure from one of them, no sirree!"
Sure, cell phone use might give you cancer, but on the bright side there are hundreds of other compounds just in the air in Pittsburgh that will give you cancer much quicker, so there's really no need for concern.
Trying to come up with a justification for seeking some grant money?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Use a wireless headset and keep the phone in your front pocket. The poor mans vasectomy.
That's idiotic so use a wired headset. Duh!
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
I carry around my landline and have a huge roll of wire. It's worked for me so #$FDaf#$# NO CARRIER
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a cell phone transmitter (having to reach from the phone to the tower) is on the order of one watt, while your Bluetooth headset (having to reach only a few feet) is on the order of one milliwatt.
Which would you rather have up to your head?
... I'd go so far to say that they're causing brain damage, too. That's assuming the smacktards yapping away and swerving from lane to lane had anything to damage in the first place.
Seriously: Can't they attenuate this with shielding of some sort? Even just coating the interiors with metallic paint should help ... not sure how that would affect their reception, though.
Don't know about you guys, but I'm willing to put up with extendable antennae again if it means less risk of a tumor in my head.
"Oh my God! The dead have risen! And they're voting Republican!" - Bart Simpson
Don't just shut up and drive. Just shut up. And while you're at it - get off my lawn.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Does he have ANY justification, other than "there *might* be a risk"?
So, if I tell him the sun MIGHT not come up tomorrow, will he not bother going to work? After all, I can't prove that the sun isn't coming up tomorrow - there's always some chance it won't.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
The speaker in my desk phone is an EM-emitting device. Maybe I should be worried about that! I think I may need some grant money to study the health side-effects of me having to answer the phone.
Bearded Dragon
The fact is, most Bluetooth headsets are Class 2 devices, which have a maximum power of 2.5 mW. This is orders of magnitude less than the emissions from a cell phone, which can peak at 500 mW.
If the emissions from a cell phone are simply "questionable" in terms of cancer, there's no way a signal with 100x less power is. But on the flip side, the power difference between the two is so large that you COULD see them claiming cell emissions are "bad" while not seeing any problem with the much lower power emitted by Bluetooth Class 2 devices.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
also known as an airtube, voice tube, etc. Basically a tube to transmit sound instead of wires.
For example: http://products.mercola.com/blue-tube-headset/
And what a doozy... nothing says... WAIT, STOP, CANCER RISK!
----------------
A 2008 University of Utah analysis looked at nine studies -- including some Herberman cites -- with thousands of brain tumor patients and concludes "we found no overall increased risk of brain tumors among cellular phone users. The potential elevated risk of brain tumors after long-term cellular phone use awaits confirmation by future studies."
Studies last year in France and Norway concluded the same thing.
"If there is a risk from these products -- and at this point we do not know that there is -- it is probably very small," the Food and Drug Administration says on an agency Web site.
Still, Herberman cites a "growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible adverse health effects including cancer."
"Although the evidence is still controversial, I am convinced that there are sufficient data to warrant issuing an advisory to share some precautionary advice on cell phone use," he wrote in his memo.
A driving force behind the memo was Devra Lee Davis, the director of the university's center for environmental oncology.
"The question is do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain," she said in an interview from her cell phone while using the hands-free speaker phone as recommended. "I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."
----------------
Here's the quote I love:
"I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."
Whooo, brill!
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
If somebody so high up in the Cancer Center quotes non-existing non-peer-reviewed (and generally biased) unpublished research in justifying "cellphones will give you cancer" announcements, what can you expect from the rest of the Center?
Better go elsewhere. Like Houston...
Hyperom.com
On one hand, you've got the moonbats who see conspiracies everywhere and are all about what THEY don't what you to know THEY'RE doing, though they aren't quite sure who THEY are, but THEY are most certainly out to get us.
On the other hand, well, just look at all the shit we've been lied to about. Is it plausible that the cell phone industry went to market with products whose impacts weren't fully researched with consequences they themselves never dreamed of? Gee, let's see if we can think of another industry with a similar nasty surprise...oh, right, Big Tobacco. I seem to recall them insisting for years that there was no link between ciggies and cancer. I don't seem to recall too many consequences for these people lying to us, for obfuscating the debate with deliberately fabricated bullshit masquerading as science, and thus condemning more people to death.
The part that really pisses me off here is if there really is a cancer risk, you know damn well the cell companies will do their damnedest to cover it up and pretend there's nothing wrong, even while people continue to die. In fact, it would be utterly surprising if they did anything but this.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The fact that he's an expert on this subject does not mean he is always right about this subject.
Most cell phones are less than 1/2 watt. Pretty impressive, if you consider the coverage cell networks have. The standard powerlevels for Bluetooth are:
100 milliwatt
2.5 milliwatt
1 milliwatt
The tips include warnings not to use your phone on a bus, so as not to passively expose others. I'll take that as text book FUD. In the video footage that accompanies the news piece here, when asked why there's a lack of evidence to support such advice the answer is that "you [don't] want to have enough sick or dead people, before you take action, to prevent harm...". Apparently, there's not enough data about cell phones leading to death simply because we don't want people to die. The current evidence infers that we should have minimal concerns for this issue. Does that make this public health warning unethical, or just proactively cautious? A brief review of the clinical research is here. I personally think this is worth losing his position over. In my view panic-inducing pseudo-concern ends up with a backlash against science. We should trust our MDs to advise us for our health, and this is not currently a health issue. If the research changes that in a decade, we can talk about it then.
Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
Most phones support external antenna hookups. Just start taking the rubber piece off by the antenna stub that is round, about the size of the O on the keyboard.
There are plenty of snake oil salesmen ready to steal your money with "shielding."
http://www.cellphonedefense.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=5073
Same category as this crap:
http://www.apexcellular.com/antennas.htm
On one hand you have bunch of scientists, who are split amongst themselves on the potential long-term risks of extended cellphone use. On the other side there are hordes of angry nerds who have turned this into a silly meme by mocking every news item on this topic. This is one of those issues where I'd like to reserve judgement and not go with the angry nerd consensus (the other one is libertarianism and Ron Paul fever).
It's worth mentioning that the scientific community does not have solid, long-term studies to prove or invalidate these findings. Better safe than sorry.
Does it cause cancer too?
Most of them (and perhaps their neighbors) have been in high RF fields for as many years as they have been licensed. I remember my station was on the second floor, so an AC safety ground was easy, but an RF ground was only possible at the lowest of frequencies. In fact if the ground wire is 1/4 wavelength long, it looks like an open circuit. So I used to have many problems where I would touch my equipment and get a very minor RF burn "ouch."
Moreover, in these cases, the exponential nature of EM fields with distance does not apply as energy appears at the station as well as at an antenna that might be far away.
I do have to note, that most of these problems have occurred in the 1.8Mhz to 50Mhz specturm, perhaps in the worst case only a 17th of the frequency that cell phones operate on. But hams have also routinely used UHF handheld transcievers for many many years, which is much more comparable to the cellular situation.
I don't know of any study relating ham radio to cancer, but then probably no one has ever studied it. But the national ham organization, the ARRL, http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/rfexpose.html, has been increasingly warning about potential hazards to hams, which I think is a good thing as it least in encourages proper technical practices.
Correct, and the 2.5 mW devices(class 2) have a range of about 10 meters. I believe this includes the common bluetooth headset.
OK, this is about the thousandth bogus report on this. Based on the dramatic increase in cellular use, and long term it has been used over, there is NO STATISTICAL CORRELEATION to cell phone use and cancer. Not by individual use studies, not by geographiucal correleation of users to cancer outbreaks, nothing.
Brain tumors numbers are up mostly because WE'RE ACTUALLY MORE CAPABLE OF FINDING THEM vs 30 years ago...
No mathematical model has yet been proposed to show any correlation between radio waves from publically accessible technology (obviously excluding X-rays here...) of ANY KIND, including exposure to microwave ovens, high power transmitters, TV, and more. The only thing we're somewhat sure of is that close proximity to extremely high voltage lines "could" be hazardous, but even there they're not 100% sure...
In fact, though cancer detection rates seem to be up, again, mostly due to our ability to better detect it, and due to an increased population of elderly and longer life spans, on the whole, it's believed we've actually reduced the likelyhood of cancer across the board aven with our increase in exposure to these waves.
Cancer is a DNA level response. They have not shown that DNA even respons to these frequncies of emission that I have heard. Does this guy know otherwise, and can he prove it? (cuz others have disproved it)
Granted, I'd be happier if the cell phone use culture was adjusted dramatically, especially use while driving and while in quiet environments, but crap science like this just pisses me off. I'm also sick and tired of the pharmacitical and medical industry in general, proposing medicines that cost more, and have worse side effects than current medice we have today, spending billionjs in marketing to people who have no medical knowledge or rational decision making ability, and billions "buying" doctors to prescribe the crap.
If the cure for a headache makes my nose bleed, my vision blurry, prevents me from driving a car, causes stomach ulcers, and could cause my kidneys to fail or heart to stop, i'll deal with the headache!
Also, even if it has a 1:10,000 chance of causing me cancer, I've got a 1:100 chance of being killed in my car, should I stop driving now too?
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Actually, I'm not guessing. Put your headsets next to a coil hooked up to an O-scope or even a reasonably sensative VTVM. The magnets will create one measurable electromagnetic effect (use a compass to see that one), running audio (1V peak-to-peak at a couple hundred mA) at less than one inch range ought to be comparable to standing under a set of high-tension lines, I think?
Maybe NAS is real!
If you use a Bluetooth headset, just remember not to put the cell phone in your pocket!
In this case, the probability of getting cancer is small, the causes of most cancers are unknown, and the mechanisms by which EM energy might cause cancer are unlikely. And the solutions do not seem well considered, particularly the one involving replacing one EM device with three (the wireless link to the headset means the cellphone is transmitting both to the cell phone system and to the headset, on different frequencies; the headset's speaker might also be an EM device while the speaker on the cellphone might not be, so it could be a 1-to-4 EM change).
While the ionizing radiation doesn't appear to be able to make changes to cell structure (as far as we can tell), magnetic fields have been shown to alter DNA, etc. in numerous studies and magnetic fields are routinely used in research to temporarily alter the brains function during testing (it's a pretty common technique).
It's enough of a potential factor that they needed to run tests to make sure the magnetic field from cell phones did not interfere with the operation of shunts placed in people.
From an abstract:
The rapid increase in the number of cell phone users has led to the suggestion that electromagnetic waves might affect medical devices. Cerebrospinal fluid shunt valves contain a magnetic device to allow the intracranial pressure setting to be adjusted transcutaneously. Among the valves tested, the settings of the Strata valve, the Hakim valve, and the Sophy valve were affected by magnetic flux densities of 6.0, 17.5, and, 40.0 mT, respectively. Cell phones produce a magnetic flux density of 3.0 to 40.0 mT. Although cell phones could theoretically influence shunt valves, this seems unlikely because the flux density decreases with the square of the distance.
There is enough conflicting research on cell phone relationship to cancer/tumors that it's probably unwise to ignore the issue. Not saying it's one way or another, but it's too early to discount it.
Wireless headset companies are tirelessly trying to use the harmful radiation excuse to get people to use their products. Anybody remember the popcorn video on the internet a few weeks a go? That was created by a headset manufacturer to sell more headsets. It makes me wonder if this story is related.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Bluetooth RF emissions are way way way lower than cell phones. Give it some thought. Bluetooth has an operating range of about 30-50 feet or so. Cell phones can reach cell towers that are miles away.
I've read somewhere that wired headset may act as antenna ending in your ear (anyone with better knowledge of physics please chime in). So it may not actually be a solution.
Photons of EM waves at 900MHz have tiny energy compared to bonding energy of molecules and compared to ionization energy of atoms. Radio waves simply can't cause chemical changes in the human body.
Amount of heat absorbed (cell phones emit ~1-2W, only small fraction is absorbed) is also insignificant compared to the amounts human body produces. I think statistical fluke in their data is most likely reason for their conclusion.
"One possible solution offered? 'Use a wireless headset.'"
That's idiotic so use a wired headset. Duh!
RTFA. The rest of the sentence making that suggestion points out that a bluetooth headset emits only about 1/100th of the power of the cellphone. (Hardly surprising, since it only needs to radio-link for a couple feet rather than a couple miles.)
The next sentence suggests a wired handsfree device - which MAY reduce exposure. (It may not reduce it as much as switching to a wireless handsfree, because some of the phone's RF may couple to the wire and be carried up to the wired headset. Lots of devilish details trying to figure out HOW much...)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Is there a significant difference between TV/Radio signals and Cell Phone signals?
Do people who spend significant amounts of time underneath towers where TV is broadcast experience any higher risk of cancer?
females carry cell phones in their handbags while males have no choice but putting it in their pockets
Just make sure you're wearing a magnet bracelet, carrying a four leaf clover printed on a card, and drink 8 cups of water a day.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
I think it's because he's a Scott.
Who are the insurance agencies behind this center?
Because I'll bet that there is a massive push from insurance agencies to slowly but surely get the idea that cell phone usage -may- cause some cancers to become somewhat accepted. Once it is - well, dear insurance client, please read your contract; clearly, your having a tumor in the brain was possibly caused by your cell phone use. Here's $250 for your trouble, and good luck with your funeral arrangements.
putting my phone to my head and, supposedly, getting cancer in my head, I should keep my phone in my pocket and put a bluetooth headphone in my ear. So now I have cancer in my leg and a smaller cancer in my head. Sounds like a great idea.
Oh, wait...
100% of cancer cases have been exposed to the earth's magnetic field.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
If you smoke cigarettes while talking on a mobile phone then your risk of dying from mobile phone-induced cancer decrease significantly.
Yet Another Quack thinks he knows better than the rest of the scientists, then cherry-picks data for "proof".
And, the sad part is, people will believe him because they have been raised on fiction where a lone scientist knows something the rest of the "establishment" refuses to believe and ends up saving the world.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Wow. Just Wow. Look at his bio--he's an administrator who supervises medical research. With (apparently) a background as an actual researcher.
And this is his professional recommendation?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
"Trying to come up with a justification for seeking some grant money?"
Exactly. Possibly. MOD PARENT UP.
Fraud Alert? There are many physicists who would love to have a quick Nobel Prize for finding some sense in this. There is no evidence that there is some unknown way electromagnetic energy interacts with matter. Talk to Max Planck.
We have covered this many times before on Slashdot. Here is only one example: There is no need for speculation. See the comment below, also.
Sometimes I just like to hang out by my microwave, talking on my cell phone, while enjoying a nice glass of diet coke. I'll prove these scientists wrong, and if I don't, well I won't be around to hear them gloat about it.
You can make all the studies you want, but people are not going to stop using cellphones. It's way, way too late for that now, and the infrastructure has had too many years to develop. Besides which, if you want to go there, then EMF from power transmission lines (and any number of other sources) could cause cancer, too; so what are we to do, abandon all technology and live like Quakers? Sure, that'll work.
Breathing may cause cancer, so be sure to avoid doing this potentially dangerous act.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
HA. This'll never happen for cellphones. If smoking is still legal in public, it'll NEVER fly for cell phone use, since there *IS* absolute proof showing the cause of second hand smoke...
...then you'd better stay out of the sun.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Facts that show X causes Y are not contrary to studies that don't show the causation. If the studies showed that X does not cause Y, that would be contrary. That's not how actual science works. Actual science takes a statement, like "X causes Y", then finds evidence that disproves it. If it doesn't find evidence that disproves it, scientists negate the sentence, "X does not cause Y", then find evidence to disprove that. If they don't, then all they've got are studies that don't find a link. They aren't studies that find that there is no link.
Now, Herberman's warning is contrary to a public lack of worry by the FDA. But that FDA is so hopelessly corrupt that its public lack of worry is actually evidence implying that we should be worried.
--
make install -not war
Couldn't we just put the shield between the antenna and the cell-phone user? Heck, we could make it parabolic so it could enhance your reception when pointed in the right direction!
Cell phones operate at 800-900 MHz and 1.8-1.9 GHz.
Bluetooth operates at 2.4 GHz
Microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz because that frequency resonates with water molecules.
While Bluetooth puts out fewer watts, I suspect that a much greater portion of those watts are absorbed by the body than for regular cell phone signals.
How many cellphone tower worker do we have out there ? .. What kind of health problems you guys have?
Are you or your fellow cellphone tower workers dying of cancer?
If not you know the transmitter there at yiur work is hundreds of watts or more . Hundreds of times more powerful than a cellphone
and obviously on the same frequency as the much lower power cellphones
If you guys are not dying of cancer,then the low power cellphone doesn't likely cause cancer
so tell us
There must be millions of cellphone techs out there are you dying of cancers ?
your exposed to those signals 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week at much higher power density The answer to that tells us much more
and you guys probably have a cellphone to your ear much of the day as well
are you guys dying or not ?
I
If no I Think we can safely say that cellphones don't harm us
The cancer rate of a cellphone tower
worker should exceed a cellphone user in any case
WTF? Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation. Last I checked the thousands of joules of that already passing us through us before cell phones were invented didn't cause any problems - well unless you count ultraviolet rays from the sun or tanning beds or radiant heat energy.
Did humanity suddenly evolve to become vulnerable to this type of radiation when I was asleep last night?
Question everything
I would like to know what models people are proposing and testing. What established knowledge supports the idea of cell phone radiation causing cancer? How might this frequency of non-ionizing radiation affect living tissue, particularly neuronal tissue? No where in the warning did I see anything that addresses these questions, surprising since it was meant for staff and faculty. If our mutual goal is truth, then it does no good to simply say "it's bad. Don't do it."
"If there is a risk from these products -- and at this point we do not know that there is -- it is probably very small," the Food and Drug Administration says on an agency Web site.
That statement isn't supported by the data either. One really obvious problems with all these studies is that cell phone technologies keep changing, including frequencies, usage patterns, cofactors, and encodings. For example, AMPS at 800 MHz might be harmless, while HSDPA at 2100 MHz might be quite harmful after a decade of usage, yet none of these studies would show that. There are many other statistical effects in such retroactive studies that could hide even a substantial risk.
So, we simply don't know.
I knew it.
Average power is lower, but peak is 2W, lowest power is 20mW. The handset varies its output power depending on how it's being received by the base station. In a bad location, the base station would command the handset to increase power.
http://www.techmind.org/gsm/
The 1/(r^2) rule is the most important rule for electromagnetic radiation. If you hold your phone 2 inches from your head, you will get 1/4 the radiation you would get compared to holding it 1 inch from your head. This is why a headset drastically reduces radiation into your brain -- by moving the radiation source dozens of inches away from your head (although if you put the phone your pocket, you've just moved the radiation source a lot closer to your nuts). This also explains why your cellphone is absolutely harmless to the people around you, and why your monitor and speakers are not a threat, despite the fact that they emit a lot more radiation.
"The question is do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain," she said in an interview from her cell phone while using the hands-free speaker phone as recommended. "I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."
What this really proves is that we need to make sure that crazy people like this woman are not involved in making public policy decisions. You should at least have some indication that something is unsafe, or may be unsafe before you start issuing alarmist advice like this. If we waited until we knew for sure that every god damned little thing was safe before we started using it, we'd still be living in caves!
Plusses;
- a good way to keep from exposing yourself to RF
Minuses:
- prevents the phone from communicating with the base station.
What's your brother's qualification to determine what "dangerous" levels of RF from a phone are? In particular, what makes him MORE qualified than the FCC, FDA and other government agencies that set maximum transmit power levels for mobile phones?
900 MHz is a frequency at which body tissue absorbs RF energy. And you're holding the antenna up to your head.
Keeping RF away from your body has always been good practice. Current ARRL and FCC guidelines for RF exposure suggest that 5W near the body is about as much as you should permit. I'd want to be 10 to 100 times lower than that for regular exposure, and I'd also be concerned if the frequency was one that's absorbed well.
I use hands free whenever possible and keep my calls short.
Peter, KA1AXY
Like you, I am somewhat skeptical about the report's conclusions. But there are two points of note. First, the report does not refer to cancer, except indirectly (it cites cancer-causing asbestos as an example of effects that can happen long after exposure, so that one cannot conclude that something is harmless simply because it has been harmless for 10 years). Rather, it says that "we don't know for sure that it's not harmful," which admittedly is stretching it somewhat. Second, and more importantly, it does reference oneshred of evidence, which is that the blood-brain barrier permeability changes on exposure to cell phone radiation. I don't know how much it changes, or what the consequences are. But, based on this evidence, I'm willing to have an open mind.
By the way, where the article does talk about cell phones causing cancer, I'm not impressed: it says that "some studies show association between which side the brain cancer is on and which side the cell phone is used on," but all it quotes are position papers and public statements, not original research.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Another example of a professional getting so engrossed into their art that they can no longer see clearly?
Bluetooth operates at 4-2 times the frequency of a cell phone. You cannot compare just power emitions alone since higher frequencies are absorbed by tissue (think microwave). That is why DECT phones (5.8GHz) are more harmfull than 900MHz or even 2.4GHz cordless phones.
=M
Who knows, he may be right, but I'm guessing cell phone related car accidents are a far greater risk than brain cancer. Of course, if you use your cell phone to text, you're at great risk of complete loss of language skills even WITHOUT the tumor, so don't go thinking your safe just 'cuz they don't cause cancer.
There's no conclusive studies, no new evidence, nothing to lead any credibility to this guy's memo at all. By his own admission, he's trying to scare people rather than wait for the evidence to come in.
:wq
Yes, cellphone-cancer link could prove to be junk science when we have conclusive proof in 20+ years, but people are signing up as skeptics without even considering the possibilities. I'd rather trust bunch of doctors than AT&T and mobile phone industry.
I resent the implication that any idea challenging the industry on this matter is some kind of a conspiracy babble. It's one way to shut down any rational discourse on the matter by charging the other side as bunch crazy bearded guys in cabins.
I did a study on cellphone's causing brain damage, and I concluded that 100% of the cellphone users I saw had brain damage.
Unfortunately, I didn't observe them BEFORE they began using cellphones.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
If cellphones causes cancer to users, then cell phone tower technicians who work at the cell site itself is exposed to power level of hundreds off Watts on the same frequency band as cell phone users . ans these worker are exposed all day. ,the technician can be exposed to over 1000 watts of effective RF power or more in some cases ,
They must have cancers exceeding those of the users of the low power less than 1 -2 watt cellphones , If we include the antenna gain
So why are cell tower workers not getting cancer?,If this study is valid These cell tower workers must be getting cancers at a much higher rate than users due to the proximity and high power level
The fact is, most Bluetooth headsets are Class 2 devices, which have a maximum power of 2.5 mW. This is orders of magnitude less than the emissions from a cell phone, which can peak at 500 mW.
If the emissions from a cell phone are simply "questionable" in terms of cancer, there's no way a signal with 100x less power is. But on the flip side, the power difference between the two is so large that you COULD see them claiming cell emissions are "bad" while not seeing any problem with the much lower power emitted by Bluetooth Class 2 devices.
All true of course. (I was just being snarky about the headset EM exposure.)
But it's like fat-free snack chips. Just because they may be better for you than the regular doesn't mean you should eat the whole bag.
If you use a cell phone for fifteen minutes a day, switching to a Bluetooth headset fifteen minutes a day instead may (in theory) be better for you.
But if you become the type that keeps the headset clamped to the side of your head sunrise to sunset; and because of the convenience (so comfortable!) you up your usage to an hour a day, well...well you're still probably OK. But karma will take you out if the EM don't.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
No wonder cancer hasn't been cured. I've been under the assumption all this time that SMART people were put in charge of cancer research. If this guy is the best we can come up with, we are frickin' doomed.
I have a solution that may address the cell phone and cancer risk and it is simple too!
Wrap the cell phone antenna in several layers of aluminum foil. No more of those e-m emissions, thus no more cancer risk!
As you mentioned, the energy levels are just way too low to have much of an effect on tissue. This is presumably why study after study shows that there's no link between cell phone use and cancer...
Although we are constantly exploring the subject, currently there is no direct evidence that links cell phone usage to brain cancer.
The only people who benefit from this baloney are:
1) Personal Injury attorneys (aka "Ambulance Chasers")
2) Workman's Compensation lawyers
3) People who want a better reason for getting money from a company rather than working for it.
4) Trial lawyers
5) Those idiots who think they are allergic to WiFi and other signals
6) Hypochondriacs
7) Politicians
8) PACs
9) Lawyers in general.
If I were a cell phone manufacturer, I would put an "EMF Hazard" warning on the phone just in case money hungry slimebags try to nail me with a 'Defective Product' lawsuit. Hey, if secondhand smoke is harmful, why not secondhand radiation?
Ten bucks says Dr. Herberman uses a cell phone, despite his own warning.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
"Herberman is basing his alarm on early unpublished data. He says it takes too long to get answers from science and he believes people should take action now - especially when it comes to children."
I find it extremely odd that a scientist (head of a cancer institute) would take such a position for two reasons. First, basing a decision on unpublished data that hasn't been vetted by fellow scientists in a peer review process has been problematic in the past. We've had too many problems with alarms/hopes raised from bogus findings that were broadcast without proper peer review. Peer review is an important part of science and it is usually pseudo-scientists (like young earth creationists) who are eager to bypass it. As a scientist, I thought he would be aware of these past problems and only put stock in findings that have been fully vetted by the scientific community.
The second problem is the implied criticism that science takes too long to give us answers. Honestly, if what was really important was a fast answer, there are any number of methods that would do the trick; Magic-8 ball, flip a coin, entrails of a goat, etc. No one here would argue that those admittedly faster methods are better ones. Good science does take some time (although even the time frame can vary depending on the subject and the issue being researched), but I personally think the right answer is better than a fast guess in many cases. Sounds a bit like he is advocating 'Shoot first and aim later' in this regard.
When I saw this article on Wired yesterday, what was the banner ad? Yep, for a mobile phone.
I intend to live forever, or die trying. - Groucho Marx
There seems to be some evidence that among people who are heavy cell phone users and who develop brain cancer (no link between the two has been demonstrated, but it's statistically certain that such people will exist), the tumor is appearing on the side of the head where the user habitually holds the phone more often than can be accounted for by chance. At this point, all that can be said is that the situation needs study.
In the mean time, it seems sensible to exercise a bit of caution with respect to having a cell phone glued to one's ear for two or three hours per day. If a link is eventually found between cell phone use and some kind of cancer, I wonder how many of the Slashdotters scoffing at the idea will have the guts to post a mea culpa. I'm reminded of all the sneering contempt directed at the idea of tiny, camera-bearing aircraft similar to the one apparently bopping around at a demo in some Dutch gymnasium.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
No, they don't. That's a common misconception. Water molecules behave like tiny magnets. The EM field of the microwave oven makes them flip back and forth, which produces heat.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
What qualifies you to tell other people what to do? They might share similar attributes, but they might ONLY share one similarity - non-smoking.
As an ex-smoker, I think second hand smoke is disgusting, not only because I've successfully quit, but because I've seen the effects of smoke.
I'm not talking about cancer. I'm talking about the colour of the walls in a smoker's home - they turn grey, and stink. I don't want that stuff on me, or on my clothes, and certainly not in my lungs.
When your neighbors start to smoke, bust out the Fart Spray. Never admit to doing it, but make really loud comments like "Wow, that smell is almost as bad as the cigarette smoke".
If they ever catch you doing it, simply say "Well, I'll stop making your house smell terrible when you stop making mine smell terrible".
I really should move my HAM radio away from my head when trying to talk to people. My HAM radio outputs 5 watts. That is a bit more than a standard cell phone.
cat
At least I can see a justifiable use for a car.
There are no positive effects from inhaling tar fumes from cigarettes that aren't rendered pointless by the negative effects of nicotine/tar/smoke in the lungs.
The fact is, most Bluetooth headsets are Class 2 devices, which have a maximum power of 2.5 mW. This is orders of magnitude less than the emissions from a cell phone, which can peak at 500 mW.
Not only that, cancer risk may increase as a power law of exposure, rather than linearly. (Depending on the mechanism of damage, of course.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I printed out this dubious article on clove flavored paper and then shredded it, I mixed it with my pipe tobacco and am smoking it now .
Hey now the article itself can cause cancer.
Given that relation of distance to emission, and the distance between head & phone versus head & tower, I don't see how your "100x" is useful here.
.
In the days before smoking was banned in hospitals I made the transition from the vistor in the waiting room to the patient in the ER - acute asthmatic attack.
Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General [July 2006]
I'm not sure cellphones have been around long enough to detect it.
Plugs in like a normal headset but the magnet is 3' from your head.
Question tho....
I haven't read the article yet but if your odds are 3/1,000,000 without a cell phone and 5/1,000,000 with a cell phone- do you REALLY care about the 40% increase in cancer rates even if it is a real, statistically significant increase?
Percentages are often used to make things really scary that are not.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
So, if the issue is ionizing radiation cell phones should be completely safe.
But if there's an effect we know it's not ionizing radiation. If it's 'merely' heating radiation, who says that heating the brain isn't a bad thing? Most chemical processes run a bit faster when heated a bit.
For all we know there are some VOC's coming off the plastics and through the ear canal, dissolving across the cochlea or something crazy like that.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It may seem counterintuitive, but your exposure goes up as the bars go down. The bars indicate receive signal strength and as that goes down the transmit power must go up.
J
On the manner of cell-phone etiquette, is it proper to carry on a conversation on a cell phone while in a restaurant where the background noise is such that it is almost disturbing your call?
Why shouldn't it be? Just because MY friend is remote, and YOUR friend is local, is no reason that we would not EACH be able to speak with them.
Yet, groups of people (where I'm external to the group) talking loudly often complain that I'm being "rude" for talking (quietly) on the phone.
What gives?
In Liberty, Rene
In Soviet Russia You Burn Ham!
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Take it at face value, this is the info gained over a cold drink in the kitchen at lunchtime...
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
I seldom use my cellphone but always carry it with me. It communicates with my provider to update the date/time periodically (something I can disable) and when text messages/voice messages have been received.
Is this communication when "idle" dangerous? Or only when actually making a call? I don't know how much power it needs to grab a few bits of information as opposed to transmitting an actual voice call.
Has someone heard more about this? If it's bad when idle I'll just leave the damn thing turned off until I need to make a call.
I hope your joking, but your probably just an american. Is asbestos good for you to? what about second hand coal smoke? mercury vapors?
fucking moron.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
Cell phones aren't going to heat your brain, but it would be a bad thing if you could. Your brain starts slowly dieing at 103 because some of your body's enzymes quit working properly around that temperature. I wish I had a reference but it was something a biology prof had said. I've never met anyone that seemed smarter while enduring prolonged sunlight/sauna/hot tub/fever exposure.
WARNING: Please be aware that this device can cause cancer and show a huge a.. tumor on your head and may make your brain all f..ed up.
Close all the shades! Oh no! There's EM EVERYWHERE!
I eat cell phones and poop big lumps or cancer crap and smear it on my head ... Is that what you guys are talking about...No seriously is that what your talking about
I've read the article on Wikipedia for a microwave oven and others related to it and they're flat out wrong. Microwaves do not heat food by an oscillating electromagnetic field, which would also work but would require enormous power (think of how strong a MRI's magnetic field needs to be to get everything oriented in the same direction). They operate by emitting microwave radiation. Don't confuse an EM field with EM radiation like a few of the articles concerning microwaves have done. If it operated by a rotating magnetic field that grid that you peer through to see your food would do jack squat. If you don't believe me then go more basic than the microwave oven and read the article specifically about the magnetron and you realize that the others disagree with it.
Things in a microwave get hot simply because that's what happens when you dump a kilowatt of radio waves on some lasagna. Pick the right metal to deflect a specific microwave and build a box out of it and you have an oven.
The warning given is timely but not too explicit. In my own experience, an acoustic neuroma took me very close to deaths door after some years of working with RF systems. As we do not yet know exactly what level and exposure time is required to damage cell tissue, some real caution is indicated. IMHO, anybody who spends a significant portion of the day with a mobile phone jammed against their head is just asking for trouble. The trouble may be delayed some years, as in my case, but can still be life threatening. Stop it already!
"One possible solution offered? 'Use a wireless headset.' No risk of EM exposure from one of them, no sirree!"
make sure to leave your cell phone in you pocket!
personally I'd take brain cancer over ball-sack cancer any day... mostly because my balls still function and my brain never did
-- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
Good reading for the layperson: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf
Until someone proves that heat causes cancer (as in, a CAUSAL relationship, not a CORRELATIVE relationship), I'll keep yacking away on my cell phone....
btw: not gonna happen..
As I've said in another post, we're simply not yet in a position to know whether cell phones cause cancer, because the difference between the rate of cancer in a cell-phone-using population and a non-cell-phone-using population will be vary small (the inter-group variance) and the variance in each population (the intra-group variance) will be vary large (think of it as 2 normal curves with 99.5% overlap). We're not going to have a reliable answer for many years.
We're not going to have a precisely reliable answer for many years, and maybe never. That does not mean we do not have an answer now. We do--it is that there is no correlation between cell phone use and cancer greater than the limit of precision (aka margin of error) in the studies done so far. This is a fancy way of saying that IF cell phones increase your risk of cancer, they do so by such a small amount that it is hidden by the many other factors that affect your health.
While that's not the same as saying cell phones have absolutely no risk factor for cancer, it is a big hint that we can direct our health concerns toward other priorities.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Well this really pisses me off - a no-name doctor trying to up his status by issuing a press release contrary to accepted scientific opinion. Of course it pushes all the right buttons - "think of the children" and "cancer".
/.
What pisses me off even more is that mainstream media blindly accept the press-release and then publish it in BIG BOLD headlines. (I saw one headline - "play russian roulette with your brain") Which of course the public then accepts as fact, contrary to accepted scientific opinion.
What pisses me off even more so, is that this has even made it to
I read in another article that this guy justified going against science by saying something this was an "advisory" memo to take "precautions" - hardly a definitive scientifically measured study.
This is like getting into your car and being given precautionary advice from your hairdresser that today might be the day when everyone starts driving on the opposite side of the road.
I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
Most lay people--and many doctors, seemingly--seem to think health science is only conducted epidemiologically. They do not understand that well-understood mechanical theory can be sufficient to disprove a causative link between correlated data...especially if it is poorly correlated.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
...and they're worried about cancer from CELL PHONES?
Some of the things you list are in fact illegal, if rarely enforced (such as playing excessively loud music in your car). But that's largely irrelevant.
Most of the things you list, unlike smoking, do not cause physical discomfort (like coughing and irritated eyes). This puts it in a class beyond mere annoyance and into causing deleterious physical effects to people.
There are things that annoy and things that cause pain to people. Those things in the latter category are not your right. Your right to swing your fist (or puff your smoke) ends at my face.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spectre.svg Ionising radiation is on the left, radio is on the right...
Actually, there is NO absolute proof of the so called "second hand smoking" (passive smoking). Everything said about it is based on a single, very questionable report release way back (70s ? 80s ?).
Would you like to hear some more recent studies? No? Too bad.
A study examining the method by which SHS triggers allergy attacks.
Demonstration of how SHS promotes the growth of existing lung cancers.
How SHS impedes the ability of fibrolasts to respond to a wound.
The last one in particular contains a great number of references by which you can better educate yourself. Penn & Teller can go to hell for all I care; the data is out there for people who don't get all their scientific information from comedians.
Try spending 5 minutes on scholar.google.com before blathering about "no studies" and "no research."
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Or just use Speakerphone. Rather than annoying everyone around you with 1/2 of a conversation, why not annoy them with the whole thing?
Better yet, use Push-to-Talk. Why annoy everyone with both halves of a conversation when you can also add loud chirruping and have one half of the conversation in patented Squawky-Sound?
(I can't be the only one who wants a license to punch PTT users in the face, right?)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Except of course for the fact that the cellphone is in your pocket. Going by the theory that cellphones give you cancer, you'll get a nice tumor growing in your leg.
That, or the emissions from the cellphone will have to *gasp* travel another four feet and kill you regardless.
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
But all other annoyance visual/auditive don't have the same potential to make you physically sick (puking, loss of appetite, general disgust) as smoke can do.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
That means 2.5mW @ 2.4GHz isn't going to get far below the surface of the skin. Which probably makes it safer.
;) ). It would be difficult to conduct such a test. But perhaps they can do it with large numbers of mice - doing the usual mazes, problem solving stuff, learning, memory etc.
Skin is used to getting damaged all the time. The sun (at peak 1KW per square metre is 100mW per square centimetre, and 1mW per square millimetre), normal wear and tear will probably do a lot more than 2.5mW @ 2.4GHz (assuming the bluetooth antenna is not shoved up the wrong way - most of the 2.5mW should be going elsewhere and not inside your body for stuff to work).
Whereas 1W @ cellphone frequencies (1W is 400X more power) right next to your ear is more likely to go deeper, and do more.
I'm just stating the relative risks based on the facts I know.
I'm not saying that cellphones are dangerous or not - I don't have evidence, one way or the other. I believe there's actually evidence that cellphone radiation does have an effect on cells etc BUT so far I have no evidence on whether it poses a significant health risk or not.
I do know that cellphone radiation (at least from GSM phones) is strong enough to interfere with electronic devices, so it would be a surprise to me if it had _NO_ effect on the brain at all which is what many people seem to be confidently claiming.
It doesn't have to be an obvious health risk for me to consider it a problem, AFAIK nobody's checked to see if cellphone user's brains deteriorated _functionally_ (e.g. IQ, recall, learning) more than non-users than _expected_ (it seems like most people become more stupid and less coordinated once they have a cellphone next to their ear
It's not so simple to do such a study. You can't just put a phone near the rat's cage - since the intensity drops off rapidly. To do things properly you'd have to test different intensities, durations. And while you're at it you'd probably want to measure stress hormones as well. You'd need tons of rats and lots of time, staff and other resources.
Why not put something on the ear side of the phone that reduces the output towards your head? It may only halve the output, but the sort of people worried about cancer ears won't bother with the maths but just see "reduces radiation".
Most of the time you're acting like a prick when you're on the phone. Seriously. Does anyone remember the time when you'd be walking along, hear someone say "hello" and either assume they'd run into someone they knew or they were nuckin' futs and were talking to themself? Mark me "flamebait" all you'd like. Cancer is simply another reason (granted, one that tops the list) that I wish society would reconsider the current usage patterns of cellphones.
Bark less. Wag more.
Doesn't RF radiation roll off inversely proportional to the cube of the distance for ascertaining power (square of the distance for voltage)?
It would seem the actual distance between the antenna and the affected tissue would also play a HUGE role here.
Also distance to the nearest cell site is a factor since cell phone transmitters roll back power to minimum needed to get the lowest acceptable S/N ratio at the tower in use.
All that said there are a lot more of them now and younger people are using them and for lot more hours per day of exposure.
It's not so much about the power as it is about the frequency.
Bluetooth devices, yes, are lower in power but the dam things are centimeters from the gray matter.
The Higher frequency the more the device becomes a microwave oven or an x-ray machine.
High frequency, any frequency over 800Mhz, has a wave length small enough to disrupt cellular bonds of human tissues.
The cited research is highly flawed. When you have someone self-report, they tend to scew highly based off what they think you want to hear. This is caused some interesting cases in child-reported abuse. Psychologists have proven that the interviewer has more impact on the chance that abuse has been reported then the factuality of the abuse. Some of my research involves self-reporting surveys, which I have to warn repeatedly about that fact.
In God we trust, all others require data.
Wow, no one seemed to mention that the study was based on GSM technology. How many of you have a 900 MHz cell? NOT ME!
Once I heard that a Sri Lankan scientist prof.Mahinda Pathegama [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahinda_Pathegama ] mathematically proved that cellphones give Cancer. And the next best thing is that he showed why different researches give different results for this cellphone - cancer thing.
Compile failed.
Parse error on line 23: ")" expected.
1. How much exposure to radiation turns you into a dunder-head
2. How much exposure to radiation turns you into a "radiation scientist"
3. Which has the greater cost to society?
It's a joke, laugh ... go on, laugh ... oh for goodness' sake
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
Why the hell should the U.S. Food and Drug Administration be interested in mobiles in the first place?