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."
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.
You can't control "all other variables." Otherwise you could prove a negative. It's impossible to prove that cell phones don't cause cancer, but you can say that a large number of people have been using them for the last thirty years with no apparent increase in cancer cases, so it's extremely unlikely that cell phones are responsible for cancer. Especially when their use has skyrocketed and cancer cases have not.
So what this is saying is essentially there is no evidence for cell phones causing cancer. If you want to argue that they do, you'd have to come up with a pretty strong argument.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
Or it could be that the strength of the signal has changed. Or that the actual composition of the signal has changed. There are so many variables that I do not see any valid connection being made.
Seriously? If you have several variables (as you claim) and observe no meaningful changes in the brain cancer rate it leaves you with the following outcomes:
1. Some radio waves DO cause cancer, but some radio waves also decrease it at the exact same rate, and those counteracting radio waves interacted just enough to cause the results of the study to indicate that the original waves which may or may not have been causing cancer to be cancelled out at just the right times.
2. Radio Waves do cause cancer, but something new introduced at exactly the same time is counteracting that. This new 'thing' must have occured and been adopted at the same rate as cell phones.
3. Radio Waves do not cause brain cancer.
I'll save you the trouble of trying to rationalize 1 and 2. Just pick 3.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Radio waves are part of the EM spectrum just like light, X-Rays, and Gamma rays the only difference is the color/frequency of the EM.
That being said the frequencies used in cell phones are not ionizing. At a high enough energy level they will cause harm but that level is really high. Will it cause cancer? Not that I know of.
It doesn't matter people will still fear cell phones and other things because there is money to be made scaring people.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
because there is money to be made scaring people.
There is political power to be gained by scaring people all around. But to make money (directly) you have to offer a dubious protection device after scaring them.
The world is going to be destroyed in a super earthquake in Nov 2012. Here buy my EarthQuake Repellent Spray by Acme Chemicals.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
This is a study from Scandinavia, not from the technologically backwards US.
I would bet money that you could not tell, in a double-blind test, whether or not there is a 2.4GHz transmitter near you. I think you are self-deluded.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
What's funny is that half of the time, they seem to do this:
"Next up, are your children eating POISON with their food? Find out, after this commercial break."
{commercials}
"And now, our feature story: Are your children eating POISON with their food? Reporter Jim Smith investigates."
{Jim Smith interviews food processing plant owner}
"So no, your children are not eating poison with their food. Next up, is your cell phone giving you cancer?"
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