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!"
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?
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
Also FTFA: "He even warns against using cell phones in public places like a bus because it exposes others to the phone's electromagnetic fields."
And here I thought the medical community would go after fatties next ... nope.
You're killing me with your Secondhand Cellular EMF! No calls allowed in a restaurant, or any other public place, and you must stand at least fifteen feet of any building entrance while getting your cellular fix ... outside!
Your right to speak ends where polluting my electromagnetic sphere begins!
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.
Only if you ground it.
Actually, my brother had to get a microwave meter, and needed to test it out. As part of his tests, he looked at the microwave output during various conditions of usage (that is, good reception --> bad reception). What he said is that the cell phone does ramp up to dangerous levels when it has bad reception.
Now consider that the skin of (say) a public city bus reflects the microwaves within the chamber, and you have a recipe for being toast.
I don't have more detail than that, but in line with that... yes, I'd say that it is wise to avoid using cell phones.
Even though the articles have been kept out of refereed medical journals, it's no secret.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Well I actually did RTFA, and it's just some nutjob who wants to get his name in the papers.
Some gems:
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.
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.
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.
Joshua E. Muscat of Penn State University, who has studied cancer and cell phones in other research projects partly funded by the cell phone industry, said there are at least a dozen studies that have found no cancer-cell phone link. He said a Swedish study cited by Herberman as support for his warning was biased and flawed.
"We certainly don't know of any mechanism by which radiofrequency exposure would cause a cancerous effect in cells. We just don't know this might possibly occur," Muscat said.
Joe Farren, a spokesman for the CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group for the wireless industry, said the group believes there is a risk of misinforming the public if science isn't used as the ultimate guide on the issue.
"When you look at the overwhelming majority of studies that have been peer reviewed and published in scientific journals around the world, you'll find no relationship between wireless usage and adverse health affects," Farren said.
"Really at the heart of my concern is that we shouldn't wait for a definitive study to come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry later," Herberman said.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
I'm here now. Pittsburgh is the greenest cleanest city I've ever been in outside of Portland, OR.
And while Portland is cleaner, Pittsburgh looks greener.
It's our dirty Ohio neighbors who send us the polluted air. That's why the air quality is still an 'F' in farm country, over an hour north of here.
You're right about the denial. But it's because you can't see the pollution. 30 years ago this city was disgusting, black smog everywhere. Today it looks gorgeous.
For most people seeing is believing.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
Follow the money, especially with university studies- they're almost always funded by industry these days. Sadly.
The only ones normally wanting to fund such university studies are cellular providers and equipment manufacturers. They're only going to fund studies that are very likely to show "no conclusive result" because that gives them plenty of deniability. The more studies they can fund to get no results, the more deniability.
Same strategy used by every other corporation.
It would be good to get some actual cancer foundations involved (who don't have cellular execs on their boards) and fund some unbiased studies to put this to rest.
My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
Not to mention that there's already been a few generations of folks who work in much higher RF fields at these same frequencies (including cell site technicians) who aren't dropping like flies.
RF at 800 MHz through 3 GHz isn't exactly new technology. Seen any old AT&T Long Lines guys growing any extra body parts as they head into retirement?
People are idiots. They'll look you straight in the eye and tell you their cell phone is killing them, while talking for hours on a 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, or 5.8 GHz cordless phone and make the claim to Slashdot via a 150 mW 2.4 GHz WiFi transmitter sitting on their lap.
+++OK ATH
*Woosh*
The bans on smoking in public places are specifically because of the health issues. None of the other annoying and/or disgusting activities you've mentioned have anywhere near the health risks associated with them.
Yes, some of them pose health risks when combined with other activities (Cell phones while driving, drinking while driving, or on the job) and are illegal or banned accordingly. Even the merely disgusting or annoying ones are either frowned upon or actively discouraged is specific situations.
For most of the smokers I know, the bans on smoking are no more inconvenient than having to go to the loo to take a dump.