Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phones Don't Increase Chances of Brain Cancer
mclearn sends in news of "a very large, 30-year study of just about everyone in Scandinavia" that shows no link between mobile phone use and brain tumors. "Even though mobile telephone use soared in the 1990s and afterward, brain tumors did not become any more common during this time, the researchers reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Some activist groups and a few researchers have raised concerns about a link between mobile phones and several kinds of cancer, including brain tumors, although years of research have failed to establish a connection. ... 'From 1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma (a type of brain tumor) increased by 0.5 per cent per year among men and by 0.2 per cent per year among women,' they wrote. Overall, there was no significant pattern."
Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates? Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Talking on cellphones in restaurants was proven to increase your douchebagginess by %100
So what if it did? Would anyone really stop using cell phones? I suspect it's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime, you'll have an automobile accident. It might even be fatal. Are you going to stop driving?
Everything is a risk. It all comes down to judging how much of a risk something is versus what you gain from taking that risk. Even if using cell phones increases your risk of brain cancer, it must be by some amount that is so minuscule that it's practically non-existent, witnessed by the fact that 95% of our population isn't walking around with brain cancer.
I like those odds.
Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003. It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it. To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables. Otherwise, it's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other.
Glioma != "brain tumors". There are many other forms of brain tumors which this study does not cover. The story should be "No link between glioma and cell phone usage found."
... Is it the yellow or white part of the egg?
What next? No Santa Clause?
Even the most well-thought-out and well-funded of conspiracies couldn't erase this nightmare.
...What is their excuse?
Yeah, but what about second-hand cell phone usage? If the person in the room with you or in the car with you is using a cell phone, does it increase your chance of brain tumors?
OK, OK, I'm not totally serious with this (it's more a riff on the whole second-hand smoke issue), but still...
Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
It's people buying into the sensationalism that the media perpetuates around anything vaguely related to human healthcare. Dumbing everything down to the level of the stupidest person consuming the news results in demeaning everyone else.
There is so much potential for online news. They could be using, omg, hyperlinks to connect the topic to the relevant terms and field of science. I wish I would hear about p-values and numbers in scientific notation! I think the vast majority of people would have actually no problem understanding news that is expressed not in Libraries of Congress, but in proper SI units. I want reporters to link to the original scientific paper they are writing a piece about or what's better: ask for and pressure scientists into being able to distribute the paper itself.
I want to read news with an Atom feed aggregator, where I find the paper the article refers to as a directly downloadable content.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
So I can take this tin foil hat off of my head now? It makes it hard to hear the people on the other end.
The widespread availability of tomography for one thing, which could have been expected to account for a higher detection rate of tumors, even in the absence of Chernobyl fallout and powerful EM emitters glued to everyone's ear.
This story needs the "duh" tag. Radio frequency has been around much longer than cell phones. If RF caused cancer, we would have known it long before the advent of cell phones.
The rate of brain tumors didn't increase from year to year, but the people who got the tumors were cell phone users. Especially now, that everyone uses a cell phone. My step-father was an early adopter and had his first cell phone in the 1980s. It was freaking huge. He continued to use cell phones until he died of brain cancer.
Yes there is research by scientists and it seems conclusive.
I want to know who funded the research for 30 years.
Was it research for 30 years or research covering 30 years of cell users?
Was it a telco funding this? If not who? What is their agenda?
Gosh, with rampant disinformation from the industry/government spun media, who's to say a scientist making a living wouldn't take some payola?
There is no security in place to keep this from happening. The public eats up research, reviewed or not.
Why should we put our faith in science anymore?
Maybe I'm out of line, maybe not.
Like the global warming issue, the temptation to follow the money and agenda negates any believability of anyones results.
How many other hot issues have so many conflicting findings month to month?
How much research is diluted by agenda?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I'm sick and tired of "Experts" telling me how to do things. When you spend your whole life studying one thing, you end up knowing nothing. Common sense is all you need.
Now I'm off to read the horoscope to see if I should buy a lottery ticket.
This study shows Scandinavians don't get any increased tumors. Don't try to pass that off as evidence that Mericans won't. Haven't you heard all the complaints -- do you think people are crazy?
Who the f*k used cells 30 years ago?! Also, there is no constant mass to measure as the amount of cell owners 10 years ago is far from the one now, so this is pure faked corporatism support,
Seems to me it's important to find out how many people got glioma before cell phones were popular, if your goal is to establish whether or not that number has increased with cell phone usage. *shrug*
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Guess I'd better edit the Wikipedia article.
FTA:
Best Slashdot Co
1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma increased by 0.5 per cent per year among men and by 0.2 per cent per year among women," they wrote.
Incidence of meningioma tumours rose by 0.8 per cent a year among men, and rose by 3.8 per cent a year among women
0.5% of what? 0.2% of what?
Give us base rates or it's meaningless!
I think the vast majority of people would have actually no problem understanding news that is expressed not in Libraries of Congress, but in proper SI units.
I'm blowing an earlier moderation to a post so I can comment on this. I think that perhaps you overestimate your fellow members of society. The tolerance of most people for anything even remotely resembling detail is pretty low. You can test this by trying to have a discussion with family/friends/people on the bus about why firewalls are important or why running everything as root/admin may not make for the most secure model. Eyes will glaze over. Quickly.
They could be using, omg, hyperlinks to connect the topic to the relevant terms and field of science.
Here's the thing: There is no they. "They" is really us. "We" could be doing any of this. But the fact is, our mainstream culture ISN'T that way because for the most part, WE aren't that way. In the meantime, there is a wealth of information out there for us outliers to FIND that information. Forums like slashdot where you CAN find the relevant terms, links to the paper, etc.
There is sensationalism because sensationalism sells. Sensationalism sells because that is what people WANT. They vote what they want with their wallets and their eyeballs. The "vast majority of people" want exactly what they are getting and the market delivers it to them.
I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
Cell Phones Don't Increase Chances of Brain Cancer on Friday December 04, @09:23AM
That isn't a very good title. The article doesn't state that scell phones don't increase chances of brain cancer. It just says there is no scientific link. These are two very different things.
A scientific journal artical would be very unlikely to state that cell phones don't increase the chances of brain cancer. It would be more likely to say something like.. It was determined with reasonable probability that there is no link between cell phone usage and glioma and meningioma.
Credible scientific articles don't often , if ever, come right out and say they have proven anything. When other sources get ahold of it, they make the jump from "we have determined with reasonable probability" to Science has prooven!
Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
Who the f*k used cells 30 years ago?! Also, there is no constant mass to measure as the amount of cell owners 10 years ago is far from the one now, so this is pure faked corporatism support,
OK, try to wrap your little brain around this: there is no statistically significant increase in brain cancer from 1974 (when there were no cell phones) to 2003 (when there were a shitload). If brain cancer didn't change, but cell phone usage went from 0 to "a whole bunch", the conclusion is that cell phones don't cause brain cancer.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
in a 29 year period rates have gone up:
14.5% for males.
5.8% for females.
And this isn't significant how? I'd say a steady yearly increase like that has to have SOME factor somewhere worth discovering - even if it may not be cell phones specifically.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As a loyal slashdotter, I refuse to even hover over the link of TFA, but my absolutely non-educated guess is that although cell phones may not have been around for 30 years (if it weighs over 10 kgs, it's NOT a cell phone in my book), they studied the past 30 years to get a baseline. First 10 years or so as a baseline of how the population was doing in a pre-cellphone era, then 20 years of actual usage.
PS: for those still stuck in non-metric systems, 10 kgs is like a kadzillion ounces.
increase. Fine.
My question: Was there a non-significant increase in tumors? In other words, what's on the other side of significance?
Yours In Moscow,
K. Trout
Very simple explanation of why doctors have were completely unsurprised that radio waves don't cause cancer:
Radiation causes cancer when it messes up your DNA. In order to do that, it has to be able to knock single electrons off of the DNA; if DNA gets hit by radiation that doesn't knock an electron off, it'll just move a little, that's it. Radio waves are between a foot long and a kilometer long, there's no way they can hit a single electron. So they can't damage DNA, so they can't cause cancer.
testicular cancer or mutated sperm honestly. That device spends a lot of time in close proximity to my unborn children.
I'm not totally serious with this (it's more a riff on the whole second-hand smoke issue), but still...
I know you're joking but...
If the person in the room with you or in the car with you is using a cell phone, does it increase your chance of brain tumors?
The law of invert square tells us that your increase in chance of having a brain tumour are infinitesimal compared to his/her (which are already too low to be considered anything but negligible according to the study).
Unless you stick your head right next to her/his, that is.
The same law dictates that you'll be much safer if you stick your (high power emitting might go up to ~2W) phone into your pocket and instead stick some low power transmitter next to your ear (like a Class2 or Class3 Bluetooth headset. 2.5 to 1 mW). Cause at that distance (pocket-to-brain) its much less likely to fry your brain.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It is possible, Deltour's team wrote, that it takes longer than 10 years for tumours caused by mobile phones to turn up, that the tumours are too rare in this group to show a useful trend, or that there are trends but in subgroups too small to be measured in the study.
It is just as possible that mobile phones do not cause brain tumours, they added.
If correlation != causation, then surely lack of correlation != lack of causation. Right?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Causing cancer takes time. Just look at smokers. If (I doubt it) but if there is a link to be found I wouldn't expect to see the cancer rate to even begin to rise until the 20teens or so. If anybody has a cell/bag/carphone induced cancer now it would probably be someone who started with the bulky things back in the 80s and what percentage of the population is that?
There is a huge problem with signal-to-noise ratio in all *** causes cancer research.
The problem is simply that a little more than 20% of the worlds population will DIE FROM CANCER. This is *huge*
Even exposure to a deadly dose of radiation does not appreciably increase ones chance of dieing from cancer compared with the 1/5th figure of people who will die of it anyway (Assuming they could magically be saved from dieing from radiation exposure:)
Pairing down specific cancers and specific areas of research helps somewhat but the underlying problem remains in that you need a massive (typically unrealistic) sample space to find a real signal amoungst the loud background noise to make any honest headway in the space.
This is why everything causes cancer in California and why we keep hearing conflicting reports most likely due to the starting bais of researchers who are either being dishonest/cherry picking or are not appreciative of the actual error margins in their reporting.
Now if we assume for a second there is actually a small (say .10%) increase of brain cancer rates for heavy cell phone use over ones lifetime it may well be worth doing something about it because globally the number of increased deaths is very real and significant -- even though for any given individual the increased risk is likely to be much less than not being vaccinated for H1N1 and then dieing as a result.
0.5%/year for 29 years is 1.005^29 = 1.1556 or 15.56% increase for men, 5.97% for women.
That leads to a few hypotheses from me:
1) Men think with their cock (the cellphone is usually kept in trouser pockets)
2) We've gotten slowly better at finding these cancers (but why is the increase that much higher in men?)
3) Some other carcinogen in our environment is becoming more common, and it affects men more than women.
And no, I haven't read the article.
There are useful things that can be a potential health hazard: Cars, mobile phones etc.
And then there are useless items that are known to be health hazards, like tobacco.
People worried about the former should take a break until we have banned the latter.
all those middle aged chunky guys walking around in corporate casual golf tee shirts and khakis (and its ALWAYS middle aged chunky guys in corporate casual golf tee shirts and khakis), with a blinking blue light permanently affixed to their ear, have to be nuking some sort of brain tissue
a desperate ploy to feel important and in touch, but just winding up looking like a wannabe lando calrissian assistant in cloud city
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Seriously! If they think numbers like these are a wash then please make me 14.5% LESS likely to get cancer in the next study, since apparently they think it's all just statistical noise anyway. Also, talking about recent upward trends in use over the whole population tells us nothing. Smoking for ten years won't give you cancer either -- you need to follow the same people for many decades.
Anyway what about the reports of higher incidence of testicular cancer among traffic cops who use RADAR? That's not X-rays, just plain old microwave RF. Sure radio waves have been around for a while, but keeping the antenna close to your body while transmitting continually is a relatively new phenomenon. Frankly I'd be surprised if they don't eventually figure out that cell phones and/or WiFi contribute to cancer, even if the effect is so low that most people wouldn't get cancer until long after they've been brought down by something else. Bathing your body in RF just doesn't feel smart. I'm still thinking that 80m full-wave loop antenna I hung *around* our house when I was a kid wasn't such a smart idea...
Except, apparently, cellphones.
$META_SIG_JOKE
Let's see the raw data, the statistical methodology used to come up with the conclusion and *ALL* the private email of every researcher and their friends and families.
Until I see all of that, I will consider this "research" null and void.
so isn't _something_ causing them ?
Absolute statements are never true
As a teenager in the 1990s during the whole "cell phone brain tumor" craze, my dad had the best theory about it:
In the USA, whether or not you receive medical is based on whether or not you can afford it. Cell phones were, at the time, mainly in the hands of the affluent. The same people who could afford to be told by their doctors that they have brain tumors. So if the brain tumor rate is identical, Wal-Mart employees without health insurance will never find out they had a brain tumor--until they die.
Cell phones were useful targets because they were newfangled, RF-emitting objects, held up against your head.
Now, I used to have a job that required me to have a heavy-duty Icom two-way radio. In the instructions:
"ALWAYS keep the antenna at least 2.5 cm (1 inch) away from the
body when transmitting and only use the Icom belt-clips, listed in p. 22,
when attaching the radio to your belt, etc., to ensure FCC RF exposure
compliance requirements are not exceeded. To provide the
recipients of your transmission the best sound quality, hold the antenna
at least 5 cm (2 inches) from mouth, and slightly off to one
side."
The Pope today announced that he was Catholic.
To all you virgins: Thanks for nothing.
At least in theory, non-ionizing radiation can cause genetic damage (possibly leading to cancer). This would be if the frequency of the radiation were resonant with the DNA molecules. Only certain frequencies can do that, so it should be avoidable, but the possibility should not be ignored.
At the frequency that cell phones operate on the effect of the RF energy is similar to a microwave oven in that it induces a heating effect. This is NOT the same effect as exposure to radioactivity from atomic sources such as radium and other isotopes. At higher frequencies such as X-Rays and Gamma rays the effect DOES become ionizing and could produce DNA damage, which can lead to cancers. If there was no increase in cancers from the use of microwave ovens, then I would not expect to see an increase in cancer rates from cell phones. Perhaps this came about because of the use of microwave ovens being referred to as 'nuking' the food, when in fact nothing of an atomic nature takes place. Then again, few people would ever put their head inside a microwave oven, yet they willingly hold a low power microwave transmitter next to their heads. (Note that the field strength difference between the two is considerable.)
This is an outdated study.
The 1974 to 2003 period was dominated by the old analog 800-850 Mhz AMP's tech.
Modern CDMA, GSM tech is of W2K vintage.
Same goes for higher frequencies being used, now 1.6 to 2.2Ghz..
Likewise for portable phones.. 1.7/46/49Mhz.. 900Mhz, newer 2.4Ghz, 5.4Ghz.
Each step up in frequency increases the dV across brain tissue by a cubed function.
I.E. More energy absorbed in a smaller volume(HALF WAVELENGTH).
Cell phones also adjust their output power based on received signal strength.
Longer wave AMP's frequencies had a lot more penetrating power/reduced absorption which reduces transmission power. The converse is true for higher frequencies and absorption.
Modern cell phones reduced form factor has also increased exposure.
Smaller/tiny radiating surface centered around ear, verses old bag phones with separate phone style handsets.
Likewise, per minute costs have dropped, thus increasing usage and individual exposure several fold.
Then there is nature of organically catalyzed reactions where tiny amounts of energy are used to shift reaction equilibrium's. Even small delta V potentials can affect outcomes..
Lot's of huge issues not addressed by this outdated/invalid study.
I wonder if there's any ongoing studies associating or not, as the case may be, having a cell phone in your pants pocket with testicular cancer. Or issues with sperm. Chances are there aren't any correlations, but I do sometimes feel a bit uneasy having an RF emitter a few inches from the boys pretty much every waking hour.
It's interesting, because I used to get headaches whenever I was near a Wifi hub. I set one up in my house for my friend's kids to use, but I kept it disconnected when I was the only one home. I was so sensitive that, if someone else were turning the Wifi on and off, I could be in a different room in the house and still tell when it was on.
But over time I think I've acclimatized to it. The headaches seem less frequent now (and I have trouble separating them from my eyestrain headaches that I get when I spend too much time at the computer). I can't detect it as much. I think my body has gotten used to whatever frequency and power was affecting me before.
I am not, by any means, a luddite scaremonger. But from personal experience I am absolutely certain that broadcasts on these frequencies have some effect on the human body. I'm glad the studies are proving that the effect is not carcinogenic. I'll trust that science. But I'll still avoid holding a cellphone to my ear and sitting near Wifi hubs just because of the potential discomfort they can cause me.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
If it can't cause cancer doesn't that mean it also can't give me wicked super powers? You know, like how gamma radiation will either kill you or make you incredible strong.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
OK, try to wrap your little brain around this
I don't know about this. Brain wrapping sounds like something that could cause cancer. Better play it safe and don't wrap your brain around anything.
.. but in fact it did change. A 0.5% increase is not "didn't change". Furthermore, there are several studies which show greater numbers than that.
Errr No....
If we have the argument 'cell phone towers cause brain cancer over a period of prolonged exposure' the starting date of 1974 to 2003 seems like it would classify as a 'long time'. The problem is that the number of cellphone towers didn't increase significantly until about 10 years ago. So statistically speaking while yes brain tumor rates have not increased meaningfully between the two dates the conditions in which the study where conducted are not conducive to the environment we currently are in. Therefore FUD should still be prevalent.
That cell phone might not increase your cancer risk, but if you don't stop texting and put that damn thing down and try to drive like a normal person it for sure will get you shot.
No, the hard white part is good for you. I mean, people first throw eggshells away and then buy dolomite pills to get calcium. If they ate a fish with most of its bones or an egg with the shell each week, there wouldn't be any need for calcium supplements. Currently it's like pedaling a stepping exercise machine in an elevator.
The tobacco industry succeeded in hiding the fact that smoking caused cancer for 50 years. They did so by advertising and suppressing unfavorable research. Why? It was the money!
Could the cell phone industry do the same? Why would they?
If it take 20 years to cause cancer - it may not be yet apparent in the general population but it may be apparent if you compare long term high users against low users. Cell phone carriers have all the the information. So the data is available to them.
A good book to read is: The Secret History of the War on Cancer Devra Davis
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ymiunmtqmyz/Non-Ionizing%20Radiation.ppt Please view that PowerPoint presentation. I have done much research into this specific topic and came to realize that much of the research that has actually been PUBLISHED on the subject finding little to no ill health effects have been funded mainly by companies holding a stake in wireless technologies.
In WWII,
[apocryphal stories were told of]
many shipboard radar operators were permanently sterilized by RF leakage. Don't think of it as radio waves, think of it as radiation.
No!
Think of it as heat.
The tissue burn is almost the same.
No, it's not. Radiation damages you even though you don't feel it and it doesn't burn. Microwaves heat things up, but are not ionizing. In terms of damage, they are a heat source-- they can damage because they heat you up, but they most particularly do not damage the way radiation does.
(by the way, people in the US usually think of the word "radiation" as meaning "ionizing radiation", which microwaves aren't. I'm assuming you meant it this way.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
masks what would otherwise be a significant increase.
The cellphone users who died as a result of car accidents almost eliminated the entire population who would have been diagnosed as brain dead.
OH Wait! you said brain cancer - never mind.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
NMT dominated the 80's (in fact, it was the biggest cellular network in the world back then...) and the beginning of the 90's there. Introduced almost three decades ago. Rapidly lost relevance with the large scale introduction of GSM networks in the mid 90's (which begun in 91 in Scandinavia BTW)
And you dismiss the most important thing - that the study didn't look at the specific hypothetical mechanisms in detail, just at the prevalence of cancer in relation to cellphones adoption.
It found NOTHING. Which is especially significant given partially sensibly sounding "complications" in the latter part of your post.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Disclaimer: I'm an avid mobile phone user.
So it doesn't diverge from an extrapolation.
Have they taken into account there could be a *decrease* of tumour over the years due to better health care and lifestyles (at least in part of the world).
My view as, following the existing trend cannot imply "cell phones don't increase chances of brain cancer". Maybe it's just offset by decreases due to some other reasons.
I just hope the research did not turn out to be funded by Nokia or some other partisan party.
BTW, totally unbiased research have shown an inverse relation of the price of one's cell phone to the size of one's penis.
When I worked for the largest american wireless company, there was one customer who called in because "his cell phone caused buzzing in his head"
I advised him to see a doctor.
Not "shows no link". That implies evidence shows that there is no link. Such a statement does not follow from the design and methodology. The study "fails to find" or "does not show" a link, in the technical language of science "fails to reject the null hypothesis".
It's not just due to this important distinction that many will attempt to use to claim support for their pet theories that will keep the issue from dying. There is more than ample evidence that RF of similar frequencies from other sources may result in increased morbidity of several cancers. All make the same sort of disclaimer, in that the magnitude of exposure noted in their study may not be representative of the amount necessary to trigger problems, and that although the studies lasted years, the development of problems from exposure may take much longer.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
>> From 1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma .. increased by 0.5 per cent per year... Overall, there was no significant pattern."
Anyone other than me also see a blatant contradiction here?
Aha! A 30 year long study of mobile phones usages shows they don't create cancer.
Pretty interesting since mobile phones were not available in 1979. The study is Swedish, analogue mobile phone market starts in Sweden in 1981.
A lady I know in this village, her partner is someone that has been studying mobile phones and their effects for a long time.
They know people that use mobiles day in, day out, all day (literally). Typically these people are "Mr White Van Man", driving a van all
day taking directions as what to do etc.
These people they are studying have no short term memory capability, whatsoever. They are convinced it is the mobile phone usage, combined
with the extreme (all the time) usage pattern these people have.
Then there are my friends that design mobile phones - they tell me they go out of their way to choose frequencies that do not resonate
with human tissue. Which runs counter to some of my other friends that have the much reported "mobile phone hot ear". It would only get
hot if it were resonating with the signal and therefore attenuating the signal.
The interesting thing is that the mobile circuit designers are genuinely interested and do not write these events off as "can't happen", or "nothing
to worry about" or "scaremongering". Unlike the folks that represent the mobile phone industry (and the billions they stand to make).
Disclaimer. I have been involved in improving GSM (and other related technology) traffic planning coverage in the UK and also for traffic planning products marketed worldwide, in particular the American cellular market.
And no, I do not own a mobile phone. Make of that what you will.
My observation, when cell phones first came out, was that they obviously caused brain damage. Back then, you didn't even need to have them turned on! People who owned them acted weird. Today, it's an epidemic: just look at how people use cell phones in restaurants, cars, and other settings, and tell me that they are not exhibiting brain damage!
The general argument that assumes RF frequencies have no impact goes something like this:
1: RF radiation is equivalent to X amount of heat.
2: X amount of heat has no significant biological impact.
I've learned to be very careful assuming what biological systems will and won't interact with. I mentioned to my dad, a chemical engineer, that biological systems can fractionate isotopes. Blew his mind, because he was used to thinking of isotopes as all forming equivalent bonds and being indistinguishable that way (but they behave kinetically slightly differently, and biological systems have cascades of one kinetic reaction after another).
It's part 1 of the argument that I have trouble with. RF energy generates a rapidly shifting electric field, which torques polar molecules around. This motion gets thermalized extremely quickly, but that's not quite the same as being thermal energy. I sometimes wonder if we're mentally papering-over some similar sort of subtle difference in biological systems, because we're so used to it not mattering in bulk systems.
You are just another ignorant American, you think the world is as outdated as the US? America is and was a backwards place with regards to cellphones.
This study was conducted in Scandinavia, the cradle of cell phone technology! GSM was created by Norwegians, sold and developed by Swedes and Finns (Ericsson and Nokia)!
We used GSM technology from the beginning of the 90s! From 1990 and onwards we had GSM phones everywhere! You Americans only managed to upgrade in the last decade, but Europe and the World has been using GSM for decades now!
Perhaps you should upgrade your memory, it seems to be lacking.
Scandinavia - the region of the world responsible for Nokia and Ericsson and the bulk of the (design at least) of the worlds mobile telephones.
Their Attitude:- Nope, nothing to see here.
You expected a different result?
There are doctors in many other parts of the world that suggest differently. I have no facts to back me up other than the suggestions of some prominent medico's, but sheesh, smoking was not bad for you in the 50's. /randomambling
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Inciteful maybe, but not insightful.