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.
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.
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.
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
My sister was just fine for years. Then I bought a pet rock. After I got the pet rock, my sister was bitten by a moose. How can the government allow these things to be sold?!!
Not a typewriter
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.
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
The peer review process already takes care of that. If the data is correct, and the analysis is correct, then the conclusions are likely correct. If you still think the funding matters, then repeat the experiment. If you get the same results, then repeat it again. Repeat as much as you want. If you're still getting the same results, then accept the conclusions as stated.
Complaining about who funded the research is a waste of effort. Somebody with a stake in the results funded the research; otherwise, why did they spend the money? Governments might invest in research without a specific reason, but there's only so much government funding to go around, and for high political studies, people will still claim there was a special interest somewhere in the background. It's all nonsense--either find a flaw in the study itself or accept the results.
Not a typewriter
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?
If you want to know who funded it, read the published paper. Generally studies are required to say which grants the money used from the study came from.
And there is security vs payola in the way of "if you get caught, that's your career" and is generally not worth it. Also the idea is that your results are repeatable, and your reputation is severely damaged if you are publishing bad science.
I also don't know where you are seeing the conflicting views in this. Some concerns have been expressed in the past, but no one has ever shown any effect that cell phone use has on cancer at all. You might want to loosen your tin foil hat.
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
so isn't _something_ causing them ?
Absolute statements are never true
A meningioma is a tumor of the brain covering, so it isn't in the brain tissue itself (although can press on it giving you significant problems).
In medicine we don't have a formal definition of "brain tumor." Instead we divide them into CNS (Central nervous system) tumors and PNS (peripheral nervous system) tumors. It sounds like they looked at the most common CNS tumors in adults. Gliomas is a large category that includes astrocytomas, oligodendroglimoas, and ependymomas. Meningiomas are tumors of the covering around the brain.
It doesn't mention neuroal tumors, which are tumors from actual neurons. Some people (like the parent) seem to think those are real "brain tumors" while all the other glial tumors in your brain are something else. I DEFY you try and convince a patient with a glioblastoma multiforme (a really nasty form of astrocytoma) that the mass in his head is likely to kill him within the next 12 months, but it isn't a "brain tumor."
Dean's Rule #45. The truth hurts for a moment. A lie hurts for a long time.
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.
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.
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.
and you'd win. the last article about wifi allergy that was posted on /. (the rockstar that faked it for publicity) referred to research that has been done that showed in double blind tests, they proved that no, people that claim wifi allergy cant tell any better than if they where bald ass guessing.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Agreed. This seems similar to the /. story posted near the beginning of the summer about a test where they would wheel in a big contraption with dishes and blinking lights that was totally inert, and people who claimed they got headaches from wifi would instantly get one.
They would also have a huge wifi antenna in the ceiling sending out signals. No one was ever effected by the real antenna, only the visual stimulus they thought was sending out signals. It is all psychosomatic.
You're probably right. But if this is a delusion, it's a delusion with no apparent cause. I'm *not* an enemy of technology. I work in high-tech fields, I own lots of high-tech toys, I'm no luddite. And it's a delusion that causes me physical pain. So it's worth it, to me, to try and avoid whatever appears to be causing the problem.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Non-authoritative and all that but still useful:
1. Radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum with wavelengths longer than infrared light. That is over 300 micrometers.
2. Microwaves are electromagnetic waves with wavelengths ranging from as long as one meter to as short as one millimeter.
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
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.
That's rather hard to believe. Three different studies found people unable to make the distinction (see below).
I do believe Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity exists, though, in the sense that the complaints are real.
[1] Regel, Sabine; Sonja Negovetic, Martin Roosli, Veronica Berdinas, Jurgen Schuderer, Anke Huss, Urs Lott, Niels Kuster, and Peter Achermann (August 2006). UMTS base station-like exposure, well-being, and cognitive performance. Environ Health Perspect 114 (8): 1270–5. PMID 16882538. PMC 1552030.
[2] Rubin, James; G Hahn, BS Everitt, AJ Clear, Simon Wessely (2006). Within-participants, double-blind, randomised provocation study. British Medical Journal 332: 886–889. doi:10.1136/bmj.38765.519850.55
[3] Wilen, J; A Johansson, N Kalezic, E Lyskov, M Sandstrom (April 2006). "Psychophysiological tests and provocation of subjects with mobile phone related symptoms". Bioelectromagnetics 27 (3): 204–14. doi:10.1002/bem.20195. PMID 16304699
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
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.
I'll bet that you are actually being bothered by something else - perhaps near-inaudible high frequency buzzing from some electronic component - and have mentally associated it with Wifi. But because of the mental association, you will feel discomfort whenever you expect to, which is whenever you are near an active Wifi device.
Diagnosing the actual cause of the discomfort could be useful because if you can demonstrated to yourself that it is not Wifi, you might convince your brain to stop feeling uncomfortable :)
Part of the treatment for hypochondria is to remind patients that they aren't ill. Perhaps if you make an effort remind yourself that it's just hypochondria, you can help yourself. This seems more sensible than telling everyone around you to turn off their laptops and wifi-enabled cellphones, yanking the batteries out of cordless phones, and shutting down wireless routers. All these things broadcast 2.4GHz.
https://health.google.com/health/ref/Hypochondria
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
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
The rate of brain tumors didn't increase from year to year, but the people who got the tumors were cell phone users.
For that to be true, not using a cell phone would have to protect against cancer.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'll bet that you are actually being bothered by something else - perhaps near-inaudible high frequency buzzing from some electronic component.
This could be true I just recently had to replace my cable modem. It was losing sync constantly and when I disconnected it to trade it back in to the cable company, this noise stopped. I plugged it back in and sure enough there was a high pitched whine I had not noticed until I had my head next to it and unplugged it. I can imagine that if I did not usually have a fan blowing in the room it would have given me a migraine from hell. (I like the white noise of a fan running so maybe it kept me from hearing the whine)
Not saying this guys WiFi is doing the same thing but it seems plausible at least.
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.
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?
There are real claims that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. Because these people sincerely believe this, do you also believe that this occurred?
Real complaints do not imply that *what* they are complaining about is real.
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.
Real complaints do not imply that *what* they are complaining about is real.
I totally agree with you -- we are in the same camp. Complains do not prove anything.
That said, I think there's progress to be made by following up complaints with compassion instead of denial.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
"Somebody with a stake in the results funded the research; otherwise, why did they spend the money?"
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, earlier. My concern is that sufficient money buys whatever results the benefactor wants. Putting a labcoat on a doctorate isn't an indication of honesty. Buy enough labcoats and you have the "facts" you needed to complete your agenda. That is my concern.
Accepting results or not is irrelevant when trust is the concern.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I had thought of reading the bit about who funded it,but, couldn't that also be obscured by a "paper" corporation with a telco or worse behind the mask?
I'm seriously wondering who watches the watchmen, so to speak.
It's not just this bit of research either. Many other times I raise my eyebrows at other "studies" and " research".
In a world where longevity of careers is growing shorter decade by decade, getting caught and losing a career can even be rewarded with a higher paying job as a consultant. Doesn't seem to be a barrier.
Someone needs to question things that are generally accepted. No tin foil hat is necessary for this scenario.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
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.
They should be met by compassionate denial - a non-condescending denial cushioned with the true caveat that what is known now is not the limit of what will be known in the future and we may, perhaps, be wrong.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, you were quite clear. I'm saying you're simply wrong. Scientists rabidly tear apart each other's work to find flaws. "Buying facts" is not something you can get away with in the peer review process.
Accept the results of the peer review process or don't. If you don't, have a specific reason. If you do, you can always change your mind later. That's how science works.
Not a typewriter
You're in the wrong place to be one of a small percentage of the population which happens to be sensitive to things other people are not... You'll just hear you're mistaken or you're a hypochondriac (notice that the latter is happening even though you are saying very clearly that you have nothing against the technology and you wish it didn't happen, and that only certain things cause the problem.)
I also am sensitive to cell phones and wi-fi routers and microwave ovens, though they have to be very close. A cell phone held a couple feet away has very little effect, though a wireless router two feet away does bother me and needs to be more like 6 feet away not to notice it.
I can't use a cell phone right next to my head for more than a couple of minutes or I will be naseous. If I talk for 15 minutes like that I'll feel sick for as long as a day or two. Feels very much like altitude sickness, or motion sickness. Maybe it is somehow affecting my inner ear. I don't know.
I don't claim to know exactly why it happens, but it does. I've tracked it carefully for many years, and like you I'm no Luddite. I write SW for a living, mostly for embedded systems, and am around all kinds of hardware. I do understand the square law very well, and it appears whatever is happening is related to the power, as the effect does fall off very quickly as I move the device away from my head. I have no problem with a Bluetooth headset, which has a fraction of the transit power. It doesn't seem to depend on the frequency, but on the transmit power (at least I experience the same effect with old 900 MHz phones and also 2.4 GHz WiFi and microwave ovens, so within the frequency range at least, I am sensitive)
Medical history is full of people being told they were imagining something. Until the particular ailment was identified, and the effect finally understood. Yes some people are just hypochondriacs, but that does not mean we all are, just because the cause is not well understood. To diagnose someone by a web-posting is not just bad science, it's just stupid.
You might read those studies with a more critical eye... For instance, from study #2: "That symptom severity did increase during exposure is interesting. These symptoms were not trivial. Indeed, for some they were so severe that exposures had to be stopped early or the participants withdrew from the study"
I've read a lot of medical studies for various things, and I find that the summary often causes my jaw to drop. But then we don't usually know who paid for the study. If you believe that career researchers are willing to bit the hand that feeds them, I have some ocean front properly in Kansas for you...
Sadly, the amount of government sponsored pure research is not what it once was, and corporations or at least their industry groups often pay for "research." The clues are usually there if the study is read carefully, but the summaries are often very misleading.
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
CAN SO! I receive 802.11G packets in my tooth-fillings!
Gives whole new meaning to the concept of war-driving.
Now, if they are WEP or WPA... well, all bets are off.
-
Extracting sunbeams from
Claims to facts on global warming for instance give me no confidence in what you are saying.
Years go by with both sides claiming they are correct.
I'll bet you can think of other such "special interest" travesties.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!