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.
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."
Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates?
No, radio waves are non-ionizing.
Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine?
You might get cooked as in a microwave, but no cancer.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
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.
I'll save you the trouble of trying to rationalize 1 and 2. Just pick 3.
I'm William of Ockham, and I approve of this message.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.
The hard white part that surrounds the soft inner parts is bad. It should be removed before eating.
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.
> > Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates?
> No, radio waves are non-ionizing.
> You might get cooked as in a microwave, but no cancer.
Cooking = damage. And the damage can increase the odds of cancer.
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7965380.stm
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=7182731&page=1
Quote: "Esophageal cancer numbers rose in regions where people preferred their tea very hot, and dropped where tea was served at a cooler temperature. "
"But unlike booze and cigarettes, Malekzadeh said evidence in his study showed it's not the chemicals in the tea that matters. "
Here buy my EarthQuake Repellent Spray by Acme Chemicals.
I've been using that stuff for years - works like a charm - has failed less than 0.05% of the days that I've used it!! Highly recommended! A+++++++ seller!
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
This is a study from Scandinavia, not from the technologically backwards US.
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
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