Slashdot Mirror


Cellphone Radiation May Protect Brain From Alzheimers

We've discussed cellphones and cancer many times. Here's a new angle: reader olddotter sends in a Reuters article suggesting that cellphone radiation may protect the brain from Alzheimer's disease. "At the end of that time, they found cellphone exposure erased a build-up of beta amyloid, a protein that serves as a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease. The Alzheimer's mice showed improvement and had reversal of their brain pathology..."

254 comments

  1. Mice by maxume · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe the mice that were talking on cell phones had a richer mental life, staving off the disease for reasons other than the radiation.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    1. Re:Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on slashdot would this be interesting!

    2. Re:Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thank you! Thank you!

      Finally, somebody has been able to point out that "correlation does not imply causation" without using that goddamn phrase.

    3. Re:Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alas, only if you had been able to point out that, somebody has been able to point out that "correlation does not imply causation", without using that goddamn phrase, we would have much more happier!

    4. Re:Mice by docneuro · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe the mice that were talking on cell phones had a richer mental life, staving off the disease for reasons other than the radiation.

      Nah. There was less amyloid because the mice unfortunately crashed their cars while talking on the cell phone and just died young.

      Nothing to see here... move along.

    5. Re:Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, I think you wanted to say "Correlation does not equal causation"

      Correlation often *implies* causation, especially in well designed and executed scientific studies that eliminate most other possible causes. Of course, implying it does not prove it - that is much harder.

    6. Re:Mice by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Although in this case, they actually proved causation.

      --
      ...
    7. Re:Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging from the people I see driving while blabbing on phones and the mindless conversations I'm forced to listen to in public places I'd say most people aren't having a richer mental life with cellphones.

    8. Re:Mice by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...Except this experiment used mice and does more or less prove causation.....

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    9. Re:Mice by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe the mice that were talking on cell phones had a richer mental life, staving off the disease for reasons other than the radiation.

      I don't know how much richer is thinking "Why does this box make noises like another mouse?"
      And they'd have a less rich mental life if they're using GPS to find their cheese in the maze.

    10. Re:Mice by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Were the mice allowed to use the cell phones to make booty calls?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    11. Re:Mice by KevinKnSC · · Score: 1

      The phrase uses "imply" in the sense in which it is used in logical proofs; "If A then B" is logically equivalent to "A implies B."

    12. Re:Mice by supernova_hq · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's right. Between teh radiation, driving distractions and lowered mental state, they just aren't living long enough to DEVELOP alzheimers!

    13. Re:Mice by cntThnkofAname · · Score: 1

      haha, I went rushing to this post hoping no one had said that phrase yet! In all seriousness though, how does this study take into account the totally different lifestyles of newer generations. Maybe it's like OP said and we have richer mental life, or maybe it's people are starting to take the vitamins... It could be a number of things that are actually causing this trend. I saw in my statistics last semester a real test trying to say that the number of TV's in a country has an affect on the average life expectancy. I could plainly see that as the TV's per house hold increased so did the life expectancy. Then my instruction explain "the phrase" and showed life expectancy also increasing with the amount of doctors per person. Correlation does not mean SQUAT!

    14. Re:Mice by maxume · · Score: 1

      The study is about mice, not humans.

      Of course, there is probably at least some notion of investigating whether there is a similar result in humans.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    15. Re:Mice by icebike · · Score: 2

      That remains to be seen.

      When repeated in other labs by different researchers we can begin to talk of "proof".

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    16. Re:Mice by Chatsubo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they've just proven that a very early stage of cancer (like damaged DNA) prevents alzheimers...

      --
      > no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
    17. Re:Mice by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nah. There was less amyloid because the mice unfortunately crashed their cars while talking on the cell phone and just died young.

      It's hard to use a tiny cellphone while riding a tiny motorcycle...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Mice by mcohrs · · Score: 1

      I showed the article to mywife - she was wondering who the mice called - Mickey, Minnie??

  2. GOATSE MAY PROTECT THE ARSE FROM HEMORROIDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    We've discussed lemonparty.org and meatspin many times. Here's a new angle: reader first post troll sends in a Tubgirl article suggesting that Goatse may protect the arse from hemorroids.

  3. Choice to Make by arthurpaliden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So I can not use a cell phone and may get alzheimers or I can use a cell phone and not get alzheimers but could get brain cancer ...... time to flip a coin.

    1. Re:Choice to Make by lorenlal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe we've got it all wrong... Can alzheimers be the cure for cancer?

    2. Re:Choice to Make by arthurpaliden · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't remember......

    3. Re:Choice to Make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PICKLES!

    4. Re:Choice to Make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can alzheimers be the cure for cancer?

      That's not far off being true.

      http://www.healthcentral.com/alzheimers/news-456179-98.html

    5. Re:Choice to Make by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Well, not a cure, per se, but Alzheimer's is (overlimplified), your brain falling apart like an asprin would in water. That would tell me that the brain tissue just doesnt have a base to grow cancer vary well. On the other hand, if you have a brain tumor, that suggests that its structurally solid and would hinder alzheimer's from startiig/doing well at all

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    6. Re:Choice to Make by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...there's no correlation of cell phones to brain cancer. What coin flipping is necessary? Cell phones are not actually known to cause any health problems by any valid study, and this research strongly suggests that they might help with Alzheimer's. Seems like a pretty good bet to me.

    7. Re:Choice to Make by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Funny

      On a long enough timeline, the rate of survival always drops to zero. Stop worrying so much.

    8. Re:Choice to Make by conureman · · Score: 1

      RTFA Use the cell phone after onset of Alzheimer's.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    9. Re:Choice to Make by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Except that I've heard of numerous studies showing no link between cell phones and cancer, and no studies showing they do. From TFA:

      Groups such as the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, and the National Institutes of Health, have all concluded that scientific evidence to date does not support any adverse health effects associated with the use of cellphones.

    10. Re:Choice to Make by MaWeiTao · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No correlation to cancer? That's not what studies are showing. I've also read that cell phones sitting in pockets have been connected to reduced sperm count.

      Certainly, given the widespread use of mobile phones and their clear value to us, it would be quite earth-shattering to discover a clear and specific link between phones and cancer. However, at this point I've say the threat is likely quite minimal with moderate use. But mobile phones haven't been around nearly long enough for us to be able to gauge their effects on us. Wait until this generation starts aging; then we'll have a better indication of whether or not cell phones are a danger or not.

      You seem fairly eager to believe one study over another simply because that one shows a positive side-effect. There's no reason why one study should be inherently more valid than the other, especially since many of these other studies have been conducted directly on humans.

    11. Re:Choice to Make by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Cancer prevents alzheimer's.

    12. Re:Choice to Make by dr2chase · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you can remember how to use it.

      I'm thinking, cell phones good, Tesla coils better?

    13. Re:Choice to Make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Am I the only one who isn't too concerned about sperm count?... I celebrate the arrival of my girlfriends monthly cycle, because protection isn't a guarantee... I've considered surgical protection, which would at least be reversible. While I can't really see myself wanting kids in the future, it's possibly I could change my mind and be disappointed.

      Also, as with tobacco, if it doesn't cause cancer in more than 50% of users, I'm less inclined to believe any study showing a correlation.

    14. Re:Choice to Make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "I've read.."

      How can you read that story on the Israeli study and come to any conclusion? I wouldn't call it a proper study that supposedly shows the link between cellphones and tumors. It states that the "nearly 500" test subjects were already diagnosed with tumors. Their control group was 1500 healthy subjects. It also states that the Israeli people are generally heavy cellphone users.

      So you ask heavy cellphone users already diagnosed with tumors if they use cellphones..what does that prove? Didn't the same 500 people also use the toilet? How do we know the toilet didn't give them tumors??

      And what about the 1500 healthy heavy cellphone users? Did they become diagnosed with a tumor, or stay healthy, giving the fact the article doesn't talk about the control group, I guess we're left to assume the control group remained healthy? It doesn't make sense how this shows a strong link..I wouldn't even call it a correlation.

      From my experience, any small study like that only shows there needs to be a larger study done...

      Also, ironically, on that same page was a link to a study involving 420,095 heavy cellphone users, for a much longer period of time, coming to the opposite conclusion.

      People are fairly eager to believe one study over another simply because it shows the side-affect that they are biased to..it's called statistics :)

    15. Re:Choice to Make by Bai+jie · · Score: 1

      But what if I forget?

    16. Re:Choice to Make by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can someone email me a copy of the actual paper? I can't find it on the researcher's site.

      The study's subjects were asked to detail their cell phone use patterns in terms of how frequently they used one, and the average length of calls. They were compared to a sample of about 1,300 healthy control subjects.

      The study also found an increased risk of cancer for heavy users who lived in rural areas. Due to fewer antennas, cell phones in rural areas need to emit more radiation to communicate effectively.

      Sadetzki predicts that, over time, the greatest effects will be found in heavy users and children.

      While anecdotal evidence has been substantial, the consistency of the results of this study support an association between cell phone use and these tumors. The risks have been hard to prove, mainly due to the long latency period involved in cancer development, explains Sadetzki.

      Controlled according to what criteria? Did he account for possible exposure to agricultural carcinogens among rural users? Inferior access to health care there? Also, self-reported studies are inherently inaccurate: it'd be far better to go by reliable numbers involving actual cell phone usage records.

      The researcher also mentioned that Israelis are particular heavy users of cell phones, implying that might be one reason he was able to produce results where others have failed. What about other reasons Israelis might be different, such as exposure to constant warfare, or dust from the Negev?

      We shouldn't jump the gun on this study:

      • Many researchers have tried to find correlations between cell phone use and cancer. He's the only one who's had any success. Even the best-designed studies have a chance of producing Type I and Type II errors (false positives and false negatives). With enough studies, you'll eventually find a spurious result. See publication bias.
      • Studies that purport to show results when many other have failed are suspect for other reasons too.
      • Going by the article, the study does not seem very well-controlled

      In short, given that cell phones are utterly important to our lives today, I'm going to have to see a lot more independent evidence before I even begin to suspect that they're actually dangerous.

    17. Re:Choice to Make by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This opposition to cell phones is part of a much larger Luddite movement today. From cell phones, to nuclear power, to vaccination, to practically any other field of science, we're seeing large numbers of people, honestly or not, yearn to return to a supposedly simpler, less mechanized time. The desire has been around as long as technology has, but the recent greatly-accelerated pace of progress has exacerbated the problem.

      Unfortunately, we'll be stuck with these people until they die. It's "common sense" for them to opposite scary new devices with atoms and wavelengths and things, and "common sense" is something acquired early in childhood and immutable thereafter. The new generation of people growing up with these things will be much less susceptible to anti-technological fear mongering.

    18. Re:Choice to Make by hardburn · · Score: 1

      Cell phones are not actually known to cause any health problems by any valid study . . .

      Not quite right, but this fact shouldn't be abused by those claiming a health risk. If something is sufficiently studied, then there will always be outlier studies that got everything right but show the opposite results all the others. There are, in fact, a few well-run studies that show a correlation between health risks and cell phones, but these can be simply discounted against the overwhelming number of studies against.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    19. Re:Choice to Make by Whiternoise · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why would they cause cancer (any more than wifi/general EM radiation)? It's not ionising radiation as far as i know and short bursts of exposure to any sort of radiation is fine - people live in Chernobyl without any side effects and the background radiation level there is substantially above the norm.

      Certainly this is an interesting study, but they chose a relatively small sample size and a pretty obscure cancer. Interestingly it IS NOT brain cancer, they state a 50% increased chance of salivary gland cancer (50%). Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but this is a case of overblown statistics and media hype. Parotid cancer is relatively rare, in 2002/2003 in England there were around 650 cases. A 50% increase is.. oh, right.. only 900 odd cases. What am I getting at? Double a small number and you get a small number. Ok, so you increase your risk of cancer which is bad, but it's a pretty rare form of cancer and your chance doesn't really go up that much. Say i had a 5% chance of mouth cancer and using my phone bumps it up to 7.5%, should I be worried? Well perhaps i'd cut back a bit, but i wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

      Now compare this to Lung cancer due to smoking. 90% of all lung cancer cases are attributable to smoke inhalation and a 23-fold increase. That is a fundamentally different statistic, 23-fold is 2300% and is definitely something to worry about. It's not a totally accurate conversion, but suffice to say 23 times more likely is much worse than an increase of 3 odd percent.

      If TFA you linked had said that there is 10 times the risk i'd be listening, but as it stands it's just over enthusiastic reporting.

    20. Re:Choice to Make by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      I'm part of the entitlement generation thank you very much. I want a way to get alzheimers AND brain cancer from one source for half the standard price. In fact, I move that we find a process to do this, document it under an open license, and torrent it. Cancer and Alzheimers want to be free! It's time we stop letting the corporate overlords and power hungry government officials create a false scarcity on alzheimer and cancer products!

    21. Re:Choice to Make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      They've since stopped referring to it as Brainal Warming, instead calling it Lobal Change.

    22. Re:Choice to Make by phreakincool · · Score: 1

      I have some good and bad news for you.

    23. Re:Choice to Make by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      There are times when I do believe that there are people out there worried that any technology is going to turn around and bite them, are concerned that texting causes cancer of the thumbs, or that too much typing causes you to ingest fatal doses of plastics through your finger tips.

      Are we paranoid yet?

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    24. Re:Choice to Make by mangu · · Score: 1

      On a long enough timeline, the rate of survival always drops to zero

      Not necessarily. I believe some people now living may reach a time when medicine conquers aging. I also believe I'm in this group, since several of my ancestors lived more than 100 years.

    25. Re:Choice to Make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do it like half and half. You just forget that you have brain cancer.... at least sometimes :)

    26. Re:Choice to Make by memnock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i wonder about a bigger question: does having a cell phone next to your head for a couple of hours per day affect your health? between studies saying that it does/not cause cancer and now this about effect on Alzheimer's, is it safe to say that having a phone to your head for X hours/day has some kind of effect? or have people accepted the fact that cells will somehow affect the brain or head, just not sure what the effect is?

    27. Re:Choice to Make by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Ahh! I myself am at an age (27) where I hope for the same thing. Singularity and all that jazz.

    28. Re:Choice to Make by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not to mention a Danish study covering over 400k people over periods of up to 12 years that showed no correlation at solid confidence intervals.

      http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/98/23/1707

    29. Re:Choice to Make by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's no reason why one study should be inherently more valid than the other, especially since many of these other studies have been conducted directly on humans.

      Except this study is directly studying the problem by blasting rats with cell phone radiation and studying the effects. The study you cited was nothing more than a survey conducted on Israelis with tumors in their salivary gland. There is a HUGE difference.

      The best you'll ever be able to claim with a survey is correlation, you cannot prove causation that way. However, you CAN prove causation with controlled experiments on rats, a-la TFA.

      Again, one study is a group actually experimenting on rats, the other is a group surveying cancer patients. Which is more valuable and more scientific should be abundantly clear.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    30. Re:Choice to Make by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      They've since stopped referring to it as Crainal Warming, instead calling it Lobal Change.

      "Branial" is not a word. Sorry to ruin your joke, it was otherwise very chuckle-worthy.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    31. Re:Choice to Make by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      is it safe to say that having a phone to your head for X hours/day has some kind of effect?

      The inconsistant and often contradicting studies mean it is very much not safe to say that. Every study (or most anyway_ would have to show an affect and simply disagree on details in order for that to be the case.

      For all we know (and what I actually suspect) is that cell phone usage has little to no actual affect on us physically.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    32. Re:Choice to Make by swinefc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Until now, I believed as you do... "Cell phones are not actually known to cause any health problems". Low level RF is already in our natural habitat.

      Unfortunately, this article is worrisome, because the study showed a positive effect. The problem is that it had any affect at all. If cell phone radiation can affect Alzheimer's, then cell phone radiation has an affect, positive or negative is just a modifier.

    33. Re:Choice to Make by Grygus · · Score: 0

      The new generation of people growing up with these things will be much less susceptible to anti-technological fear mongering.

      Nonsense. It's human nature, and that doesn't change. The new generation won't fear cell phones or nuclear power, but they'll have their picket signs out to warn about the evils of something newer. People worried about cell phones and the like, and who want to return to a simpler life, don't typically reject toasters and refrigerators. It's all based in fear of the unknown, not a fear of technology per se.

    34. Re:Choice to Make by ozbird · · Score: 2

      Cancer is the cure for Alzheimers - the tumour kills you before you can develop it.

      In other news, mice exposed to mobile phone radiation were found to have a lower IQs and squeak unnecessarily loudly about inane topics.

    35. Re:Choice to Make by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      In short, given that cell phones are utterly important to our lives today, I'm going to have to see a lot more independent evidence before I even begin to suspect that they're actually dangerous

      FWIW, your assertion (you need to see more evidence to suspect danger) doesn't logically follow from your given (the utility of cell phones).

      I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that what you're really saying is that because cell phones are so important to our lives, you're willing to dismiss allegations of danger unless there's better evidence for them.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    36. Re:Choice to Make by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of my favorites was when I was talking to a woman at a party once, and she insisted that we should not be using technology for farming. I had to ask..."So, we shouldn't use plows? Or even a sturdy stick to dig up the ground?" Apparently she had this idea that there were huge hydroponic farms growing our food, and that that was bad. She also clearly didn't know whet the word "technology" means.

    37. Re:Choice to Make by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Yes, or more precisely, the cost of giving up cell phones is so high that the evidence against them needs to be very certain, and I'm not going to panic until I see more rigorous analysis.

    38. Re:Choice to Make by bdenton42 · · Score: 1

      Why would they cause cancer (any more than wifi/general EM radiation)? It's not ionising radiation as far as i know and short bursts of exposure to any sort of radiation is fine - people live in Chernobyl without any side effects and the background radiation level there is substantially above the norm.

      There is a bit of a difference in field intensity between "wifi/general EM radiation" and pressing a RF emitter up against your skull for hours on end.

      Now compare this to Lung cancer due to smoking. 90% of all lung cancer cases are attributable to smoke inhalation and a 23-fold increase. That is a fundamentally different statistic, 23-fold is 2300% and is definitely something to worry about. It's not a totally accurate conversion, but suffice to say 23 times more likely is much worse than an increase of 3 odd percent.

      People have been smoking for thousands of years and it was only in the early to mid 1900's that they started to make the connection between smoking and lung cancer. How many years do you have to smoke before you hit that 23 fold increase?

      Cell phones have been in wide use for less than 15 years. That is not enough time to know what the long term effects might be. In another 20 or 30 years you could end up seeing that 23 fold increase in cancers in those that have been using cell phones all that time.

      People are always looking for the immediate yes or no answer, but I don't think we have it yet. In the meantime using them in moderation until we know more wouldn't hurt (although now it appears you may increase your chances of getting Alzheimer's as a result).

    39. Re:Choice to Make by mirix · · Score: 1

      Why would they cause cancer (any more than wifi/general EM radiation)? It's not ionising radiation as far as i know and short bursts of exposure to any sort of radiation is fine

      Short bursts of strong ionizing radiation is definitely not fine. If it's strong enough, you'll get rad poisoning and possibly die.eg

      I think the main problem with RF is heating, and burns if the power is high enough. I think it's supposed to be more damaging to organs that can't dump heat, like eyes... or something like that?

      RF power falls off logarithmically with distance, so two watts at your ear is many times stronger than your wireless router sitting a metre away from you. [I think the router is only ~500mW in the first place, also].

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    40. Re:Choice to Make by diablovision · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why would they cause cancer (any more than wifi/general EM radiation)? It's not ionising radiation as far as i know and short bursts of exposure to any sort of radiation is fine - people live in Chernobyl without any side effects and the background radiation level there is substantially above the norm.

      Do you understand the difference between EM radiation and particle radiation? Unfortunately the difference between the "radiation" fallout from nuclear weapons and disasters and the "radiation" from cell phones is lost on the media. Particle radiation is high-energy particles of matter, e.g. alpha particles, that smash into atoms and molecules and cause damage at the molecular level to your DNA.

      EM radiation is pure emitted energy. Light is EM radiation. Heat is EM radiation. Microwaves and radio signals are EM radiation. The wavelength of cell phone radiation is so long (between 10 and 30 cm) that it is literally impossible for it to interact with single molecules and cause damage to your DNA. However, at that wavelength it can still transfer heat, like a microwave oven.

      The notion that cell phone radiation causes cancer directly, as in through genetic damage, is ludicrous. It would only be able to cause cancer by causing localized heating of parts of your brain which may set into effect a cascade of effects that may manifest as cancer. However, I think this is unlikely.

      As for sperm counts, I think carrying a cell phone in your pocket is about bad for your sperm count as would be carrying around one of those chemical warm packets or wearing tighter underwear--the extra heat is the only culprit.

      --
      120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
    41. Re:Choice to Make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is entirely wrong. Alzheimers isn't the dissolving of brain tissue but growth of plaques, or at least correlated to it. Your analogy is not an oversimplification, but just a completely wrong description of what is happening. In fact, who is to say that the abnormal conditions presented by so much growth doesn't increase the likelihood of cancer and people just die too soon for it to be statistically signifigant. Please do not ever attempt to describe this disease again as you are not only misleading, but apparently compelling enough for an insightful mod.

    42. Re:Choice to Make by DrEasy · · Score: 1

      OK, so cancer is the cure to Alzheimer's then!

      --
      "In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
    43. Re:Choice to Make by Whiternoise · · Score: 1

      I am well aware of the difference, thankyou.

      My point was that ionising radiation can and does cause cancer, simply by particle interaction. In effect you've clarified this further - you can't directly cause cancer from EM radiation, it is simply energy. You might very well get tissue damage from exposing yourself to high energy non-ionising rads - as you say, from the energy being dumped as heat - but that's all you'll get (in the same way you don't get cancer if you burn yourself). No doubt if you have your mobile glued to your head it's not going to end well for you, but I suspect the social ramifications would be worse than a bit of head heating

      Oh and apologies, i think i got it the wrong way round about bursts. There was a study done after the Chernobyl incident with the resettlement and it was concluded that short bursts of high energy radiation were far worse than prolonged exposure to small amounts of radiation.

    44. Re:Choice to Make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how far away from my 800 Watt microwave oven should i be standing? And how is it safe for me to eat the food that I put in it for 5 minutes?

    45. Re:Choice to Make by icebike · · Score: 1

      So I can not use a cell phone and may get alzheimers or I can use a cell phone and not get alzheimers but could get brain cancer ...... time to flip a coin.

      Or perhaps just Read all the way to the bottom of TFA....

      Nah, that's crazy talk!!

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    46. Re:Choice to Make by Eleanor+235 · · Score: 1

      ahh but what if they are right. at least I (hopefully) wont be around when the world comes to an end and the luddites are saying "I told you so"

      --
      I believe there is someone out there watching us. Unfortunately, it's the Government.
    47. Re:Choice to Make by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1

      And that would be a good thing? Best case scenario, we end up working forever, hogging the planet to ourselves. Worst case, we end up with massive overpopulation in the space of a few decades. Yes, the accompanying technological advances would stave off a Malthusian catastrophe for a while, but when people have children without dying, there is an upper limit to the life sustaining potential of our solar system. Unless we turn our current understanding of physics on its head and find a way to travel at or above light speed, we'd exhaust the resources of the solar system in a matter of a few centuries.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    48. Re:Choice to Make by memnock · · Score: 1

      most studies seem to focus on cancer. this one looked at proteins or something (forgot the details and i just see this comment in my response window). while there appears to be no definitive result from the cancer studies, this one looks at health from a different perspective and does appear to have a defnitive result (until the next study). it seems to me something is happening. the inconsistency could be that it's a difficult effect to detect.
      i'm not screaming to stop using cells. in the big picture, a little cell phone defect is inconsequential. but if it's there, it's there. that's all i'm saying.

    49. Re:Choice to Make by lastomega7 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps laws would be enacted to encourage anyone successfully made immortal to become the first interstellar/farther-than-we've-been space travelers?

    50. Re:Choice to Make by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      The cost of giving up cell phones is actually quite low. Take a look at 10 years ago, when basically nobody had one. Were we in a massive recession? (Dot com I guess, but that's mega-lol.) Did the news pontificate about Airplane Bomber X or Y?

      I think cellphones are cool. But is there anything about them that is more than just convenience?

      They sure as hell don't sound good. And they're expensive as fuck.

    51. Re:Choice to Make by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      >The notion that cell phone radiation causes cancer directly, as in through genetic damage, is ludicrous.

      I admire the consistency of your arguments, but I would like to see actual data of cell users vs. non users. Your argument seems to be, "Since cell radiation (radio, microwave) is below visible spectrum, it should't be harmful." Well, what makes X-rays harmful? Do we even know?

      Microwaves can kill, and microwaves were the idea behind the Japanese death ray of WWII. I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand. What if it came out, that holding a cellphone was the equivalent of sticking your head in a microwave oven?

    52. Re:Choice to Make by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      Insightful.

    53. Re:Choice to Make by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      First of all, if you live too long, you just need to have fewer kids.

      Second, extra-long lives (on the order of 200-300 years) will be necessary for space travel. See the other poster.

      I know there are a number of religious dogmatists who see extended aging as a threat to God and our "responsibility" to die off. But if you're serious about this, you need to start executing companies, governments, and societies that survive for more than 90 years.

      Survival is a human right. In a universe barely above absolute zero, we are owed this much.

    54. Re:Choice to Make by bcwright · · Score: 1

      No correlation to cancer? That's not what studies [sciencedaily.com] are showing. I've also read that cell phones sitting in pockets have been connected to reduced sperm count.

      The problem (as you note later when you say that "There's no reason why one study should be inherently more valid than the other" - actually this is false; many studies have methodological errors that invalidate them - but your basic idea is correct: that the results of any single study are inherently unreliable) is that a single study (or even several studies) is not enough to be any more than suggestive.

      As you quickly learn in Statistics 101, "The improbable thing will happen with exactly that probability". Let's assume that there really is no correlation between cancer and cell phones - then we should expect that at least 1 in 20 studies will show that there is an increased risk of cancer associated with cell phone use (This is assuming that there are no methodological errors that might increase that number). If this is not immediately obvious to you, then you need to review Statistics 101: The "1 in 20" criterion is that there is a 19 out of 20 chance (95% probability) that the conclusions of the study are correct. Sometimes the dice just don't fall your way, and your study reaches the wrong conclusion.

      Sorry to be so pedantic, but it seems there is a great deal of misunderstanding of the nature of statistical studies, even amongst people who ought to know better (I have plenty of horror stories from researchers in major Universities, but that's another topic altogether). A single study proves little, other than perhaps to suggest the need for further verification. That's why there is such a great deal of emphasis placed on reproducibility - not simply to reduce methodological errors, but also to reduce sampling error.

    55. Re:Choice to Make by razvan784 · · Score: 1

      Actually, EM radiation is also composed of photons, which are particles. Nuclear radiation is mostly made up of alpha particles (helium nuclei), beta particles (plain electrons) and gamma radiation (electromagnetic photons, which just happen to have a very high energy and frequency so they look more like tiny bullets than like EM waves). X rays are also electromagnetic ionizing radiation, as are UV rays (which are close to visible mind you, and also cancer-causing).

    56. Re:Choice to Make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photons have no mass, and are thus not matter, therefore not particles. Photons sometimes behave like particles but sometimes like waves. It is sometimes helpful to think of them as little bundles of waves. But particles they certainly aren't.

    57. Re:Choice to Make by diablovision · · Score: 1

      X-rays are higher frequency than visible light and yes, are ionizing. X-rays can and do damage DNA directly, which can lead to cancer.

      Microwaves transfer heat to water molecules (and some other molecules, depending on the frequency) very well. Thus they make for great ovens. This "Japanese Death Ray" you speak of would basically cook you to death.

      A typical microwave oven is on the order of 500-1500 watts. The typical transmit power of your average cell phone is about 0.5 to 1 watt, less with better cell coverage. That's a factor of 1000 difference. And if that's radiated in all directions from the transmitter, probably less than 1/3 of that energy is radiated toward a user's head. I can't speculate on the absorption rate of that energy within a human head, but I doubt there is a single study which could actually measure the heating effect of a typical cell phone's signal on living tissue.

      --
      120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
    58. Re:Choice to Make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A photon is an indivisible packet of energy, and so is most definitely considered by physicists (such as myself) to be a particle.

      Also, wave-particle duality is quite an old-fashioned idea that doesn't fit well with more modern views of physics such as QED

    59. Re:Choice to Make by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Uuum, you’re not only using doublethink, but you’re also making stataments without anything to back it up. Even if one agrees with you, that is not acceptable.

      The thing is: If it can protect from Alzheimers, this proves that it does something to the brain. Because Alzheimers protection is a subset of “doing something”.
      Or it does not protect, and there is nothing happening in the brain.
      You can’t have both, as long as you stay attached to reality.

      So if it does something after all, then it actually crazy unlikely, that it would just happen that it only protects from Alzheimers, and has no other effects whatsoever. That would be a silly unscientific assumption.

      So since we haven’t studied it yet, we do not know all actual effect. Which is why a long-term study (whole mouse life) on living mice, with different types of radiation, them all being (nearly) clones, and with control groups, does make sense. Then we would have to check for all differences. Which is where it becomes hard. Because as soon as the mouse is dead, a big share of important factors vanish. (Electrochemical state decay.)
      And most importantly, as anyone who even remotely understands the scientific method, knows, you can not prove that there is no effect, Because you can not read in the whole state of the matter like in a “teleporter buffer”, and therefore can not ever measure everything. (And even that would change things.) So you can only disprove a certain set. Which can be big, but never will be complete.
      You could check for cancer, of course. And other diseases.

      Now if you happen to have such a, properly done, study, disproving something, I’d like to see it.
      Until then, I do not make any stupid assumptions on either side. Because, frankly, if you put yourself on one “side” without having a fuckin’ clue, it does not matter what side you are on, because you are exactly like the other side that you hate so much. Only primitive people even think about it in terms of “sides”.

      And what’s all the heat and fuss about? Smells just like religious fundamentalism.
      Just sit, wait, drink tee, and we will see. Live your life. There’s no point in freaking out about shit that you can’t do anything about and don’t know anything about. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    60. Re:Choice to Make by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Physics FAIL!
      Have you EVER heard of the wave-particle duality. Or that mass equals energy?
      Particle, energy... it’s the same thing!
      That’s why it’s also called the photon particle!

      Were you raised at the tree nursery or what? Every child knows that!

      Make the frequency and energy high enough, and it wrecks whatever it comes in contact with. That’s the difference between bad and good. (And in-between there is a huge gradient of “only corrupting things a little bit, which will show in some decades”)

      You sound like you missed the last 100 years of science or so...
      Light excites an electron (of an atom) to a higher state, for it to work!
      Yeah right. So according to you, everything that uses that effect is literally impossible. Including solar cells!!

      You should be ashamed for your extremist hatred of unscientific idiots blinding you so much, that you have become exactly like them. Ignoring everything that does not fit your detached sense of reality. The only difference between you an them? You act as if your arguments had a relation to science.
      You’re an insult to science.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    61. Re:Choice to Make by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      We’re not talking about the if. We’re talking about the when.
      And I, for one, would like the when of me being unable to do certain things (including getting hot young women), to be as late as possible.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    62. Re:Choice to Make by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      It has an affect on the brain. But Alzheimer's is a significantly different disease than cancer. Cancer is the telomeres of the cells going wonky and the cells multiplying without check. Alzheimer's is a completely different disease, it's a degradation of various neurons and communication structures. It like saying "Nuclear radiation can kill you, therefore microwaves can kill you!". I never said there was NO effect from cell phones. I simply stated there is no link to cancer or other health PROBLEMS. That still stands, no doublethink required.

    63. Re:Choice to Make by volpe · · Score: 1

      Particle radiation is high-energy particles of matter, e.g. alpha particles, that smash into atoms and molecules and cause damage at the molecular level to your DNA.

      High-energy photons can smash into atoms and molecules and cause damage as well. How do you think too much sunlight can cause skin cancer?

      Heat is EM radiation.

      Not, it's not. Heat is internal kinetic energy of the particles comprising a system. Heat can be radiated away via thermal radiation, which is EM radiation dependent on the temperature of the body. At temperatures near room temperature, the radiated energy is mostly in the infrared region. At the temperature of a filament of an incandescent bulb, there's a lot of visible light radiated.

      EM radiation is pure emitted energy. Light is EM radiation. Heat is EM radiation. Microwaves and radio signals are EM radiation. The wavelength of cell phone radiation is so long (between 10 and 30 cm) that it is literally impossible for it to interact with single molecules and cause damage to your DNA. However, at that wavelength it can still transfer heat, like a microwave oven

      It transfers heat by causing individual molecules to move around when those individual molecules absorb them, no?

      The notion that cell phone radiation causes cancer directly, as in through genetic damage, is ludicrous. It would only be able to cause cancer by causing localized heating of parts of your brain which may set into effect a cascade of effects that may manifest as cancer. However, I think this is unlikely.

      Ok, so the photon energies are not high enough to knock electrons out of their orbits, but what if there's some other mechanism involved? They can clearly induce electrical currents (since that's how the antenna (much shorter than 10-30 cm. btw) receives them), and signal transmission along neurons is an electro-chemical process.

    64. Re:Choice to Make by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      Well, I did work with a guy who couldn't use his Sprint phone because it was "cooking my head." Since I had to check his voice mail, I was able to confirm that it was extremely hot.

      I suspect you could measure the heating effect.

      How much of this was IR from the screen or microwave from the signal? Hard to tell, since the outcome is the same (heat).

      Anyway, 1 minute times 1000w is enough to destroy butter, or turn raw steak into well-done. What does 1w times 1000 minutes per month do? My head is raw. A good cell call can last over an hour. That's 16 seconds of microwave oven, enough to blast (refrigerated) butter into oblivion. There are many lipids in the body, most notably around cells. How do they respond to being liquefied?

      BTW microwave ovens work very well on duty-cycle ("defrost" or "medium" setting). They cook more evenly, since the heat has time to spread. If you ever had a hot bowl of soup with a cold interior, I recommend it.

    65. Re:Choice to Make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And anytime there is big money or control at stake, suddenly opposing opinions are biased, be it technologically, racially, or ideologically. The aregument with cell phones has been there was no long term data available. Now, as some long term studies are starting to pop up suggesting that there maybe impacts from using all this technology we are told that the side effects are actually good for us. Anybody remember how the great scientific minds initally tested the effects of nuclear weapons?
      How about something a little more recent. Anyone read the SD story about the new theory about gravity? Freaking Luddites...

  4. Of course it must be true by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Funny

    The mice have been running the experiment to check the safety of cellphones for mice use by making the human beings to use them for a long time. It is quite well known and well documented actually.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Of course it must be true by Carbaholic · · Score: 1

      Makes sense since humans are only the third most intelligent life form on the planet earth.

    2. Re:Of course it must be true by hellraizer · · Score: 1

      yeah .... right next to roaches .....

    3. Re:Of course it must be true by SpaceCadets · · Score: 1

      Dolphins, actually. So long, and thanks for all the fish! :)

  5. Hello, Mickey? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The results were a major surprise and open the possibility of developing a noninvasive, drug-free treatment for Alzheimer's, said lead author Gary Arendash of the University of South Florida.

    He said he had expected cell phone exposure to increase the effects of dementia.

    This is how science is SUPPOSED to work! But don't get your hopes up...

    Many treatments that have shown promise in mice have had little effect on humans.

    I wonder if this affects the non-Alzheimer's "senior moments" as my mother calls them? I wish they'd had cell phones when I was young! Now where'd I put that damned phone???

    1. Re:Hello, Mickey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of sad that we are not mice, isn't it?
      I propose that scientists start working on making people more like mice.
      Imagine all the treatments we would have instantly available.
      The possibilities are endless.

    2. Re:Hello, Mickey? by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I propose that scientists start working on making people more like mice.

      Why not, politicians have already turned us into sheep. Most of us, anyway.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    3. Re:Hello, Mickey? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I recall seeing a reference to something similar in humans a few weeks ago in an article discussing the proposed Maine law requiring warnings of possible brain cancer on cellphones. That article talked about the fact that there were mutliple long term studies looking into correlation between brain cancer and cell phone usage and they all found no increased brain cancer in cell phone users. One of the studies showed a minor, but statistically significant drop in dementia among cell phone users. The scientists running the study dismissed it because they didn't have any explanation and they had not controlled for other factors that are known to correlate to dementia.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Hello, Mickey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The politicians are sheep too, they did not make everyone else sheep.

    5. Re:Hello, Mickey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wee Ned Mor Powarfull Cel Fones

  6. Fixing Forgetfull Grandma... by jameskojiro · · Score: 4, Funny

    Duct Tape, check
    Cell phones, check

    So we should go buy a bunch of those pre-paid cell phones and duct tape them to grandma's head and hope to heck her memory gets better.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    1. Re:Fixing Forgetfull Grandma... by drater · · Score: 2, Funny

      My grandmother really has Alzheimer's, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Fixing Forgetfull Grandma... by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can send you some duct tape if you'd like...

    3. Re:Fixing Forgetfull Grandma... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duct Tape, check
      Cell phones, check

      So we should go buy a bunch of those pre-paid cell phones and duct tape them to grandma's head and hope to heck her memory gets better.

      If you over do it and grandma tries to eat your brain, just remember I told you so.

    4. Re:Fixing Forgetfull Grandma... by shabtai87 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure he'd much rather you send a cell phone.

      --
      @humanity: *facepalm*
    5. Re:Fixing Forgetfull Grandma... by drater · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, I do all the hard work and you get the credit.

    6. Re:Fixing Forgetfull Grandma... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can duct tape your grandma if you'd like... She won't be forgetting the experience afterwards :)

    7. Re:Fixing Forgetfull Grandma... by nystire · · Score: 1

      But only if he posts the pics/video afterwards?

  7. Now try keeping the mice warm by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Maybe it was just the heat. Now try keeping the mice in warmer cages. If their autonomic systems tend to cool the brain, try drugs that tend to increase the temperature of the mouse. Maybe it's just the warm brain that does this. Tell gramps to wear a hat when he goes out. Tinfoil optional.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      tinfoil optional, but heat reflecting foil infused with mylar film is mandatory!

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    2. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Any luck finding even an abstract? I looked ont he publisher's website but could only find a press release. I'm first wondering whether they even had a second circle of cages with an antenna in the center, but never turned on (and perhaps in a large Faraday cage). In the press release, they speculate about stimulation and blood flow from the EM, but this seems to warrant an experiment to determine its validity. As you say, it could simply be due to increased brain temperature. I mean, elevated temperature, differing things happening, duh!

    3. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by reverseengineer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here is the abstract, but there isn't much mentioned in the abstract beyond what's covered in the press releases.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    4. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Will scientists ever break out of the paywall system? Do they want to?

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    5. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will scientists ever break out of the paywall system? Do they want to?

      Sure, please give us more money so we can pay the full costs of publication in peer review journals rather than having the users pay some of the costs.

    6. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's a terrible abstract. I was expecting them to summarize their experimental setup and the data they gathered. Instead it sounds like a crappy news article. :(

    7. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      whoosh

    8. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://metapress.com/content/d6r1371722422hg2/fulltext.pdf

    9. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by istartedi · · Score: 1

      An appeal to elitism. Refreshing!

      Most people take a different tack and fail.

      Alas, I haven't the faintest desire to be an elitist. Now pardon, I have a tee-time at Pebble Beach.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    11. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by introspekt.i · · Score: 1

      Scientists usually don't see money for publishing per se. I don't think it makes any difference to them. If you keep up to date with your conferences, have access to a library, or know the people in your field writing the papers you never need to go through the paywall, anyway. Otherwise you need to give the gatekeeper his due >_>.

    12. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of me actually expects this to work the other way around. A while back I did large molecule discovery research for pharmaceutical applications (mostly antibodies; primarily using phage display tech). We found that at least in many of our production systems, proteins produced at 25C were more soluble than those produced at 37C (normal human body temperature). We assumed that it was primarily due to the differences in glycosylation.
       
      While Alzheimers is characterized by protein aggregates (which as you implied, typically result from cooler conditions), I would posit that cooling may be equally effective. It really depends on the cause of the plaques; whether they result from an overabundance of hydrophibic amino acid residues, misfolding of the peptide chain, or the glycosylation of the protein.

    13. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The authors realise this, and provide graphs of brain temperature in the article. They also mention:

      "Whether the robust anti-aggregating ability of
      EMF exposure is dependent or independent of the increased brain temperatures induced by long-term EMF exposure requires additional studies."

    14. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      there's nothing quite so beautiful as the destruction of words, winston

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    15. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists want to, but the people who make money publishing scientific journals don't. Note the success of arXiv.org

  8. Well then! by azav · · Score: 1

    Strapping the phones to my head as we speak, with each one set to forward to the next. I look forward to your calls.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  9. scary by StripedCow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This proves that cellphone radiation actually interacts with matter in the brain... which is something to be afraid of, in my opinion.

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:scary by sunking2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bingo. So much for the argument that the energy is non-ionizing thus cell phones are safe. Assuming this study is factual.

    2. Re:scary by noidentity · · Score: 1

      This proves that cellphone radiation actually interacts with matter in the brain... which is something to be afraid of, in my opinion.

      Nono, this is GOOD effects, not bad ones. Cellphone radiation has no bad effects, none whatsoever, but it has lots of beneficial effects. While we're on the subject, I highly recommend the Revigator for greater health.

    3. Re:scary by dr2chase · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but. Cellphone radiation (.85-1.9Ghz) does not penetrate that far into your body, just as microwave radiation (2.45Ghz) does not penetrate that far into a potato.

      Studies show that mouse heads are much smaller than human heads, therefore they are getting a much larger dose to their brain, for a given external exposure.

    4. Re:scary by mcmonkey · · Score: 5, Funny
      Studies show that mouse heads are much smaller than human heads

      [Citation needed]

    5. Re:scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We've have known for years that non-ionizing radiation can affect biochemical processes (e.g., enzyme kinetics), and can have physiological effects (e.g., suppression of melatonin production, possibly via the same mechanism).

      I think sometimes people with physics or engineering backgrounds make the assumption that we understand all the rules and therefore can say with authority "X can't happen". That's rarely true. Being unable to explain a phenomenon may be cause for dismissing it as spurious in some fields, where the rules are understood well enough to distinguish between the improbable and impossible, but in biology that's a dangerous assumption to make. I tend to operate with the reverse of Sherlock Holmes' rule, i.e., if you eliminate the suitably improbable, whatever is left, no matter how impossible, is probably true.

    6. Re:scary by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      I have some questions. First, the nasty one: Who funded this study? Telecoms companies?

      Next, assuming that radiation helps, why does it help? Could it be vibration? Would getting a massaging bed work as well? Thinking its more like the way blue and UV light helps against acne.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    7. Re:scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This proves that cellphone radiation actually interacts with matter in the brain... which is something to be afraid of, in my opinion.

      Why?

      The automatic assumption of many is that any environmental change is necessarily negative. But there's no logical reason to expect that. Change is just change, and it can go in either direction.

    8. Re:scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just as microwave radiation (2.45Ghz) does not penetrate that far into a potato.

      Bullshit. That's why that frequency was selected. It heats water molecules very well, even at the center of an object like a potato. The water does block some of the radiation but as soon as those molecules started vibrating then the radiation easily penetrates deeper.

      Consider that you can put a phone in a Faraday cage with only one side open, put your head between the phone and the cell tower and it will still work. In other words the radio waves are penetrating your head relatively easily.

    9. Re:scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Head size and brain size are two different things. For scientific proof just look at the behaviour of our large headed politicians.

    10. Re:scary by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Does alzheimers affect one specific, more central part of the brain? Do most brain cancers spring up more from some regions of the brain than others?

      Meningiomas are brain cancers from the meninges, the covering of the brain, so I'd assume that if cell phone radiation could penetrate through the skull and -if- it did lead to increased risk of cancer, meningiomas are one it could cause. On the other hand, my understanding of adult neuron production is that they come from deeper in the brain, by the ventricles. I'd guess that a medulloblastoma would be more likely to come from such a site, as this is where the neuronal precursor/ neuronal stem cells are, so if cell phone radiation didn't penetrate that far, you wouldn't see an increased risk for that type. I don't know much about where glial cells of various flavors replicate, I'd hazard a guess that they replicate in most regions of the brain.

      This image I found of an alzheimer brain scan compared to a normal brain scan makes it look like the area primarily affected isn't right by your ears.

      Anyway, given that they probably strapped active cell phones to these mices heads for days at a time, I wouldn't expect much difference on the alzheimers from using a cell phone to talk occasionally. Same thing with cancer. Maybe if you live with a cell phone right next to your ear, you wouldn't be decreasing your chances of alzheimers, and you'd only slightly if at all be increasing your risk of certain types of brain cancer.

    11. Re:scary by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      "It heats water molecules very well, even at the center of an object like a potato."

      Here's a fun experiment. Go get a microwave bean burrito, gas station varieties are the best. Come on, I'll wait. Got it? Put it in the microwave and cook it for however long it says to on the package. Pull it out. Touch the center, odds are it's literally ice cold. Best results if you go 10-15s under the time recommended, then you can get some nice ice crystals in the middle of your warm gas station bean burrito.

      Microwaves heat from the outside-in. The center of that potato isn't getting heated (very much) until the outside is ridiculously hot.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    12. Re:scary by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      This proves that cellphone radiation actually interacts with matter in the brain

      So does learning. The question is whether the interaction is helpful, harmful, or neutral.

    13. Re:scary by steelfood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, when I went to Disney, those mouse heads were huge!

      How's that for anecdotal evidence?

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    14. Re:scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, microwaves do not cook from the outside in. They heat the water, wherever that is so it depends on where the water is in the item. Ever cooked a blueberry muffin in the microwave and had the berries get totally burned (even in the center of the muffin) while the muffin is barely warm? This is due to the higher water content in the berries.

      Your brain has a lot more water than the skin and bone surrounding it, therefore it will absorb more of the RF energy.

    15. Re:scary by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      I think I disagree mildly. The outside of the potato attenuates the radiation; and it is not as strong (or as hot) in the middle as it is on the surface. I have certainly had the experience of microwaved potatoes (especially larger ones) being cooked on the outside layers, but not the center. So, mouse-head small, human-head big, you're going to get some attenuation of the signal.

      As far as the Faraday cage experiment goes, (a) I'll bet you have not actually tried this, and (b) the cell phone can work with the signal that gets in through a small crack between cage and head. I know about (b) because I've played tinfoil-RFID-shield games (using my phone and prox sensor for work as proxies for an RFID tag) and if the bag is open much, the phone gets a signal. (By-the-way, one of those aluminized Fritos bags work great, if you fold the end over a couple of times and clip it shut).

    16. Re:scary by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      From Wikipedia:

      A common misconception is that microwave ovens cook food from the "inside out". In reality, microwaves are absorbed in the outer layers of food in a manner somewhat similar to heat from other methods. The misconception arises because microwaves penetrate dry non-conductive substances at the surfaces of many common foods, and thus often induce initial heat more deeply than other methods. Depending on water content, the depth of initial heat deposition may be several centimetres or more with microwave ovens, in contrast to broiling (infrared) or convection heating, which deposit heat thinly at the food surface. Penetration depth of microwaves is dependent on food composition and the frequency, with lower microwave frequencies (longer wavelengths) penetrating better.

      Also, very interesting article in that I've read many times before that microwaves operate at a resonant frequency of water molecules. Turns out that's bullshit. They heat by dielectric heating, and anything with a high dipole moment (such as water) will be heated - but other molecule types will experience some heating as well, depending on how polar they are. See the Wikipedia article for more info.

    17. Re:scary by Scubaraf · · Score: 1

      Exactly! I'm not sure how you go from RF to decreased beta-amyloid deposition, but a plausible mechanism for dysregulating gene expression has been proposed. Namely, RF can disrupt the hydrogen bonds that anneal complimentary strands of DNA together. This can have many effects including unsilencing genes, interference with DNA replication (and thereby increasing the mutation rate), and interference with mRNA synthesis - all without ionizing a damn thing.

    18. Re:scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A common misconception is that microwave ovens cook food from the "inside out". In reality, microwaves are absorbed in the outer layers of food in a manner somewhat similar to heat from other methods. The misconception arises because microwaves penetrate dry non-conductive substances at the surfaces of many common foods, and thus often induce initial heat more deeply than other methods. Depending on water content, the depth of initial heat deposition may be several centimetres or more with microwave ovens, in contrast to broiling (infrared) or convection heating, which deposit heat thinly at the food surface. Penetration depth of microwaves is dependent on food composition and the frequency, with lower microwave frequencies (longer wavelengths) penetrating better.

      Ah! So a microwave doesn't heat from the inside, it heats from the outside, except when it doesn't! Thanks, Wikipedia, that was certainly a well-written article!

    19. Re:scary by OfficeSupplySamurai · · Score: 1

      That argument says that the energy is non-ionizing and therefore it cannot change DNA and therefore it cannot cause cancer. How does this indicate any change to DNA? It does not refute the argument you mention.

    20. Re:scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, yeah, thanks for reposting what I was saying.

      Also, very interesting article in that I've read many times before that microwaves operate at a resonant frequency of water molecules. Turns out that's bullshit. They heat by dielectric heating, and anything with a high dipole moment (such as water) will be heated - but other molecule types will experience some heating as well, depending on how polar they are. See the Wikipedia article for more info.

      Again, you're just saying what I was saying. The dipoles are tuned to a certain frequency and can be made more active by using the appropriate frequency of radio waves. In a microwave the frequencies are resonant at a frequency that tries to get the most action from water molecules (thereby causing more efficient heating of those molecules).

      Not bullshit.

    21. Re:scary by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      That is the first good point I see on this whole shitstorm of extremist locked-down points of views on either side, I see here. Sad, sad... so many people here who think they are right and scientific, while just having knee-jerk reactions without any thought or open mind.
      Again: On either “side”. That’s the saddest thing. That they think the point is to take “sides”...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    22. Re:scary by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      So to put all the bullshit aside, and look at the basic facts:
      Cellphone radiation heats the outer centimeter of the head/brain a tiny teeny bit, because of it being so weak. Which of course, as with any excitation, can in rare events cause a molecular bond to break, or something like that. But normally, this is no different than natural radiation. Right?
      Our body is obviously built to stand natural radiation. So...

      Another question would be: If it’s not stronger than natural radiation, then how do you get the signal back? There has to be a relevant signal-to-noise ratio, no?

      (I’d love to have actual numbers on that. E.g. a formula describing the depth of penetration into the head related to the stength and frequency of the wave and the type of tissue. Anyone?)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    23. Re:scary by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia Skin Effect is your friend. That's for AC currents, you'll have something slightly more complex going on with radio waves, but it gives you the general idea. Go read it, it is cooler than I knew (did not know how terrible an AC conductor iron wire really was). Interestingly, this suggests that we should weave a little (magnetic) iron into our tinfoil hats.

    24. Re:scary by volpe · · Score: 1

      Studies show that mouse heads are much smaller than human heads,

      Are you sure about that?

  10. Bad News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, this is really bad news. If "long-term exposure to electromagnetic waves such as those used in cell phones" can change brain proteins we need to reduce cell phone usage. It's not as if the electromagnetic waves can identify and effect only pathogenic molecules.

    1. Re:Bad News by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you modulate the frequency of the photons and reverse the polarity of the Neutron flow you can design the wave to only affect the plaques that build up in the brains Alzheimer patients. Either that or turn your forgetful grandfather into a mutant that looks like a Dalek when he goes in for his Alzheimer treatment.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    2. Re:Bad News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but if you modulate the frequency of the photons and reverse the polarity of the Neutron flow

      Just remember: Do NOT cross the streams!

    3. Re:Bad News by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      I know you are joking but there's actually something called photobiomodulation that has been shown to prevent blinding by methanol poisoning and speed up healing (I believe at the same vibration rate as a cat purring).

  11. Easily explained by sjonke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most people who die at 50 didn't have alzheimers.

    --
    --- What?
    1. Re:Easily explained by gknoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's an interesting point. As we conquer the lower hanging medical fruit, and prevent the things that used to kill people younger (disease, malnutrition, gum disease, accidents etc), a higher proportion of the people that DO die will be dying because of old age, or of diseases which only tend to affect older people.

    2. Re:Easily explained by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I think we're already seeing that. The average life expectancy is much longer than it used to be. Go way back and I'd assume infectious diseases, wars, and animal attacks would be the primary causes of death. Today it's heart disease, automobile accidents, and cancer.

      I'm guessing if we cure cancer and heart disease, we'll be seeing a lot more neurological diseases though. I'd expect there's some natural upper limit to how old your brain can be before it's toast, and I'd expect that we aren't really living long enough to see it yet.

    3. Re:Easily explained by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing if we cure cancer and heart disease, we'll be seeing a lot more neurological diseases though

      FWIW, you're already seeing this. We've gotten good at treating heart disease. Still the #1 or 2 killer but we're pushing deaths into the 70's-90's instead of the 50-60 age level. Cancer, not so much, but still some progress in certain cancers.

      Go to a nursing home, any nursing home. There are two broad reasons why people are there - neurologic insult of various flavors (stroke, the various dementias, the various neuropathies) and orthopedic infirmaries. The two actually are interwined closely - if you have a bad back and broken hip AND you're confused and have poor feeling in your feet, you are going to find that independent living is much harder.

      So we're really 'here' with the neurologic diseases. The good news is that stroke frequency is declining as we get better at treating heart disease, the bad news is we're not very good at treating anything else.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Easily explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the people that doesn't die?

    5. Re:Easily explained by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Well, what I mean is, whenever we see something about "20% of people over X age have Y disease" or "... die of Z", it's tempting to get alarmed. It seems like Y or Z are getting worse or more prevalent, when to a certain extent it's that people aren't dying before Y or Z kills them. E.g., if I were a soldier in WWI, the risk of death to lung cancer was much less than the other risks of death.

  12. Great news for drivers by bobschneider8 · · Score: 1

    So now we're going to have the old ladies in their 1989 Cadilacs also talking on their cell phones while driving?

    1. Re:Great news for drivers by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Driving 30 in a 55mph zone, with their left turn signal on for the entire trip, yes. In fact, I believe I was behind this woman on my trip into work this morning!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Great news for drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I *was* that woman, and I was trying to prevent early onset Alzeheimer's, you insensitive clod!

  13. If you give a mouse a cell phone, by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    He's going to ask for a Bluetooth headset.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:If you give a mouse a cell phone, by Praeluceo · · Score: 1

      If you give him a Bluetooth headset he's going to ask for a latte.

    2. Re:If you give a mouse a cell phone, by natehoy · · Score: 1

      When he drinks the latte, the caffeine will make his heartbeat clearly audible. The thumping sound will remind him that he needs to burn a new rap CD for the car.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    3. Re:If you give a mouse a cell phone, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if it's a Bluetooth wireless mouse?

    4. Re:If you give a mouse a cell phone, by Rogue974 · · Score: 1

      If you give a mouse a new rap CD for the car, he will ask for a new radio to play that rap CD on.

    5. Re:If you give a mouse a cell phone, by highplansdrifter · · Score: 1

      If you give the mouse a new radio to play the CD he will ask you for a cell phone so he can adjust the radio and talk while driving.

    6. Re:If you give a mouse a cell phone, by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Chances are, if it's a bluetooth wireless mouse, he's going to want a cell phone to go with it.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  14. Medical science is bunk by oldhack · · Score: 1

    Well, not entirely, but substantially, unfortunately.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Medical science is bunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to elaborate, Mr. Cruise?

    2. Re:Medical science is bunk by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      In what way?

    3. Re:Medical science is bunk by oldhack · · Score: 1

      It's like thousand primitive blind men making barely educated guesses, and the money involved gags any notion of humility in their proclamations.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  15. So ... it DOES affects the brain by Via_Patrino · · Score: 0, Redundant

    If this study is confirmed it should also prove that cellphones DOES affect the brain. You may not get Alzheimer but, it can, temporally or definitive, affects how your brain works. Like making bad decisions while using your cell phone or get some kind of dementia.

  16. First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least it would have been if my Alzheimer's didn't make me forget to post earlier.

  17. tough call by Xanj · · Score: 1

    brain cancer or Alzheimers how would u like to die?

  18. This sounds like a Simpson's parody by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Mr. Smithers trying to convince the townsfolk that his nuclear powered cell phones aren't dangerous. I bet they taste like chocolate, too!

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  19. My girlfriend by rehtonAesoohC · · Score: 1

    I think my girlfriend has saved up enough cell phone usage to prevent alzheimers in both of us!

  20. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If confirmed, it proves it affects *mice's brains*

    1. Re:Correction by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      The OP is a MOUSE you insensitive clod!

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  21. Quick! by peacefinder · · Score: 3, Funny

    Everyone mail their old cell phones to Sir Terry Pratchett, stat!

    --
    With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    1. Re:Quick! by natehoy · · Score: 1

      With that much radiation, maybe he'll develop magical powers and finally get in to Unseen University.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  22. A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiation by carlhaagen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In many related discussions here on /., oh so many readers have, in various ways, blatantly slandered the idea that EM radiation in the microwave spectrum also has a directly, altering effect on tissue and matter in general - to whatever the extent may be. So, what's your stance now? I have the idea that this lot refused to believe this when it was in the context of f.e. "cellphones being bad for you", but just might be open the idea now that some "good" effect is proven from the EMR. If that's the case, why are these people changing their minds all of the sudden? Why accept this, but not the original arguments regarding microwave radiation?

  23. In other news that white people like... by d34dluk3 · · Score: 1

    Drinking lattes reduces your risk of Parkinson's disease

    1. Re:In other news that white people like... by natehoy · · Score: 1

      But once you have it, Parkinson's increases the chances of your being burned by the latte.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  24. Won't matter. by Mekkah · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter, if you talk on a cell phone you will die in a car crash AND murder someone. I saw it on tv, clearly I won't have time to get Alzheimer's.

    --
    ~Mekkah
    1. Re:Won't matter. by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Exactly, which is how the cell phone protects you from Alzheimer's. You die in a horrific car crash at 18.

      SCIENCE!!!!

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  25. Not reassuring... by metrometro · · Score: 0, Redundant

    If we accept for a moment that cellphone radiation (very low-dose but longterm exposure microwaves) is zapping proteins related to Alzheimers, I'm not going to jump up and down and get happy. Rather the opposite: we've confirmed that, in this case, supposedly benign EM radiation (non-ionizing, etc) can have important, medically significant effects on how our brains function. And we're currently zapping a hell of lot of people with this stuff. And we have really no idea what those effects are.

    Unless my math is wrong, plugging in a headset on a 1m cord reduces your exposure by a whole lot compared to keeping the antenna shoved up against your head. Seems like a good idea until we get this sorted out.

  26. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why accept this, but not the original arguments regarding microwave radiation?

    Because this is based on a scientific, reproducible study that shows an actual effect, whereas, the claims that there were negative effects were contradicted by all of the scientific, reproducible experiments that were run to test them.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  27. I use my phone quite a bit. by UncHellMatt · · Score: 1

    And I may have alzheimers, but at least I don't have alzheimers.

  28. So, if you're over 60... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    ...spend a few minutes each day with your head in the microwave.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  29. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by boojum.cat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The argument, as I understand it, is that cancer is caused by mutated DNA, and DNA cannot be mutated by radiation that's too weak to break chemical bonds. Since cell phone radiation doesn't break bonds, it doesn't cause cancer. If Alzheimer's is caused by something other than mutated DNA, the argument doesn't apply.

    --
    Lost: one sig, witty, 120 chars, sentimental value. Reward offered.
  30. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by Mia'cova · · Score: 1

    As someone who doubts cellphones cause statistically significant brain damage, I also doubt it causes statistically significant improvements. Naturally, the science will speak for itself either way.

    Certainly similar radiation at much higher doses will have an effect. Also, keep in mind mice have much smaller heads. A cellphone would have a much stronger effect on a mouse as the radiation will far more easily penetrate the skull and brain. In humans, much of the strength is lost before the signal makes it to the brain.

  31. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. The inconsistency is annoying and points towards an anti-science pro-gadget attitude that makes me want to read elsewhere.

  32. Easy call by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Alzheimers! I'd love to be able to hide my own Easter eggs, and every time you make love to your wife, it feels like a whole new experience! Plus, you can laugh at the same old jokes several times (like the ones my father tells over and over and over again!) Yep, Alzheimers is definitely the way to go! Uh... what was the question again?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Easy call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right! As my dad used to say, the great thing about Alzheimer's is that you're always meeting new people!

  33. Oh, crap! by marqs · · Score: 1

    I can't remember the PIN code for my phone.

  34. Several ways radiation is helpfull by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    There are quite a few studies showing low level radiation may be helpfull. Most of the scientists involved think the effects are related to cellular suicide. That is, each cell has a suicide mechanism that lets it kill itself if it 'thinks' (I use that word to represent some form biological test that evolution created that effectively make a decision) it is about to become a tumer.

    So in effect, our cells have evolved to suicide if they dectect mutations. Tumers and many other problems are caused when the mutations are just below the suicide threshold. The radiation adds just a bit more mutations, of the easily detectable kind, pushing borderline cells into suicide, while leaving healthy cells with a relatively minor, low level damage not suffecient to cause problems.

    This theory might support the idea that Alzheimers is some kind of low-level mutation.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  35. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by Toonol · · Score: 1

    Many of us are as skeptical of these results as we are of the other results. Let more research be done, and see if we get consistently repeatable results.

  36. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Because there is a big difference between the hypothesis that cellular phones can cause cancerous tumors to form in human brains and the finding that it can break up a plaque at a much larger scale...

  37. This makes sense to me! by REALMAN · · Score: 1

    Cell phones are good for your brain.
    Mercury is good for you.
    Melamine is yummy.
    Up is down.
    Left is right.
    The sky is green.
    The grass is blue.

    I'm glad there are folks studying all these issues who can tell me what is good for me.

    --
    - A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
  38. diabolical ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It not only gives you cancer, it also makes sure you can enjoy the complete experience !

  39. OT -- congratulations by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Insightful

    For all intents and purposes you have today's most annoying sig. Although I agree that "whom" shoud be deprecated.

    1. Re:OT -- congratulations by Jimmy_Slimmy · · Score: 1

      Piece, brother. Intensive purposes is just one kind of the rainbow of purposes. Like wow, man.

      --
      Happy Gnu Year, CGN!

  40. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by Xeno+man · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's easy. After years of studies and studies on mice and on people, there has been no consensus. Some studies say they do, others say they don't. Some say they have no frigging clue. Given that the theory of "cell phones cause cancer" is popular only through fear of the invisible and unknown forces by the ignorant masses, a slightly more intelligent group of people who visit /. choose to dismiss said theories because they choose to not be afraid of every rumor they hear of. I bet most people here didn't believe the video of the cell phones popping a single kernel of pop corn. Well maybe some did but I know I didn't. Now about this new study, the general response has been either to make jokes or basically said, "That is interesting, I look forward to hearing more about it later." I haven't seen any posts of people shouting out "Cell phones are good for you!" In the future there will be more studies, maybe some on people, where we will get a clearer picture. If the results are just a muddy as cancer studies then we will dismiss the healing power of cell phones just as easily.

  41. Oh Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    In your face Amish!!

  42. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why accept this, but not the original arguments regarding microwave radiation?

    Because there isn't any evidence that cellphone use is harmful. Conjecture is useless until tested.

  43. in HUMANS? by Jimmy_Slimmy · · Score: 1

    "Arendash said his team was modifying the experiment to see if they could produce faster results and begin testing humans."

    Ah, this is one time I would like to see some studies of correlation in humans before we let this guy work on causation.

  44. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by Cutter892 · · Score: 0

    As a lot of people have stated the science still needs to be done and come to a conclusion. Though cellphones are the least of are worries from EMR. We have are friendly neighborhood star that bombards us with all kinds of energies that get through are magnitosphere, if you live in any populated area you have all the local radio stations blasting out radio waves in insane levels of power, cell towers, the earth it self due to are core and the production of the magnitosphere. Powerlines, and generally anything that caries a current. Of course you could just walk around in a faraday suit.

  45. If only... by zorro-z · · Score: 1

    Sounds good to me. Now, where did I leave that cell phone...

    --
    -Z
  46. this doesn't mean much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All it means is that they've found a way to wipe out a contributing factor to Alzheimer's. It doesn't mean every nut with a cell phone needs to use up their minutes to stave off their dementia. What it does mean is it will lead to other studies which will find a way to package this effect into a medicine, which can then be fed to the mice in order to verify its effects. If that works, it may lead to clinical trials on actual Alzheimer's patients.

  47. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by yoma666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have you read up on the actual research that has been done? Check this for starters. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da2_1186974243 Bottom line is that cells/tissues are indeed influenced by EM radiation at cellphone or wifi frequencies. And seemingly the biggest problem compared to other EM-radiation is that your body simply cannot recognise the "new kinds" of radiation it's exposed to. This can turn out bad, but might also turn out good. The only thing that will prove wether we're fucking up or not is simply time. Besides that there are of course a gazillion other factors that are known to be bad for your cells/tissues that are spread out throughout your home/environment.

  48. Smart scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Quite to the contrary, those mice were protected if the cell phone exposure was stared in early adulthood. Or if the cellphone exposure was started after they were already memory- impaired, it reversed that impairment," Arendash said in a telephone interview'.

    See, he's already using the study results to his advantage..

  49. Unlimited minutes... by eharvill · · Score: 1

    with a couple "Venti's" daily and Alzheimer's is eradicated! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624032849271284.html

    --
    At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
  50. Ironic by LordKronos · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, cell phones protect from alzheimers? The condition that (among other effects) causes people to forget things ? I find that quite ironic, considering that it seems 99% of people forget how to drive when they're on one.

    P.S. At least I think that's irony. Every time I think I've got it down, someone shows me a new rule for what is or isn't irony. My apologies to the grammar Nazis in advance if I have it wrong.

    1. Re:Ironic by Cassander · · Score: 2, Insightful

      P.S. At least I think that's irony. Every time I think I've got it down, someone shows me a new rule for what is or isn't irony. My apologies to the grammar Nazis in advance if I have it wrong.

      As a recovering former grammar nazi, I would just like to say:

      FUCK THE DICTIONARY!

      Thanks to popular (mis)use, ironic now has multiple definitions, irregardless of what the dictionary might say.

      Yeah grammar nazis, I just said "irregardless". Based on common usage, it is simply a synonym for "regardless". It's here to stay, you might as well get used to it. And I put periods outside of quotation marks and parentheses when it makes logical sense to do so (blame math/programming for that one if you must have a scapegoat). And cellphone is one word. And I can start a sentence with "and" if I want to. :P

      Really, as long as communication occurs, what's the big deal? Why religiously stick to arbitrary rules of grammar/spelling/usage? Webster is not the final authority on what is or isn't valid english communication. (Actual real-world usage is.) Our language is constantly evolving, why can't you evolve along with it?

      --
      Knowledge != Intelligence
    2. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P.S. At least I think that's irony. Every time I think I've got it down, someone shows me a new rule for what is or isn't irony. My apologies to the grammar Nazis in advance if I have it wrong.

      Just ask Alanis Morisette.

    3. Re:Ironic by YourExperiment · · Score: 2, Interesting

      By yr 0wn l0g1c, praps 1 shud p0st l13k th15 - lulz!!

      Then again, perhaps I should stick to using proper spelling and grammar. That way it will be easy for you to work out what I mean.

      Those of us who sometimes feel compelled to point out errors are only doing so because we love our language. I have no objection whatsoever to the constant evolution of language, but aberrations such as "irregardless" make me wince. When a word is used to mean the exact opposite of what it says, this can only cause confusion. I have to live with people using it, but I certainly don't have to like it.

    4. Re:Ironic by volpe · · Score: 1

      P.S. At least I think that's irony. Every time I think I've got it down, someone shows me a new rule for what is or isn't irony. My apologies to the grammar Nazis in advance if I have it wrong.

      What does or does not constitute irony is a semantic issue, not a grammar issue.

    5. Re:Ironic by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      I never said irony was or wasn't a grammar issue. "Grammar Nazi" is similar to a job title. My job title is "Programmer/Analyst" not "Systems Administrator", but that doesn't mean I don't go into the server room to reboot a system when it's down and nobody else is on site to resolve it.

      So, with that said, I'm now going to classify you as a grammar Nazi, too.

    6. Re:Ironic by Cassander · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is there is no such thing as "proper spelling and grammar". By who's authority is it "proper"? The dictionary can't even produce self-consistency, let alone some sort of overall fundamental logical sense.

      Fundamentally, I see nothing wrong with your string of l33t-speak (or text-speak as the kids are calling it now) as long as its meaning is unambiguous.

      If "irregardless" makes you wince, how do you feel about flammable/inflammable? Also, will "irregardless" suddenly be acceptable ~5-10 years from now when it makes its way into an "official" printed dictionary like Webster's? Irregardless doesn't cause confusion, because the only people that don't understand its definition (synonym for "regardless", despite apparent root structure) are grammar nazis who refuse to learn.

      Evolution is, by definition, made of aberrations.

      As I said in my original post, I am a recovering former grammar nazi. I understand, to some extent, where you are coming from. They key realization for me was that an "error" isn't really an "error" unless it actually prevents communication from occurring.

      I love my language too. "If you love something, set it free." If you dig in your heels and stick to "proper" spelling and grammar, you will rapidly find yourself unable to communicate with the rest of us.

      --
      Knowledge != Intelligence
    7. Re:Ironic by YourExperiment · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fundamentally, I see nothing wrong with your string of l33t-speak (or text-speak as the kids are calling it now) as long as its meaning is unambiguous.

      I see nothing fundamentally wrong with it either, providing it's used in a context where it's understood and therefore accepted. Someone texting their friends using it is fair enough (using "proper" language might even be frowned upon by one's peers). Using it on your resumé just means you're unlikely to get a job.

      You could spell every other word in your post wrong, and I would probably still understand it, but it might take me rather longer and my opinion of you would be consequentially lower. If it was too annoying, I might not even bother to read it.

      If "irregardless" makes you wince, how do you feel about flammable/inflammable?

      It's a shame if someone feels the need to use the obsolete "inflammable" of course, but at least the etymology of it is somewhat understandable. "Irregardless" is different, since its origins lie only in ignorance.

      Evolution is, by definition, made of aberrations.

      After such mutations, the useful ones survive and the remainder die out.

      If you dig in your heels and stick to "proper" spelling and grammar, you will rapidly find yourself unable to communicate with the rest of us.

      If I insist on using the correct word, you will somehow become incapable of understanding me? Everyone knows the meaning of "regardless", while some people may be confused by "irregardless". I prefer to use the word which is shorter, more widely understood, more elegant and (least importantly) technically correct.

      As for others using "irregardless", I am perfectly capable of guessing their true meaning by context, but my opinion of them will be lower.

  51. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And seemingly the biggest problem compared to other EM-radiation is that your body simply cannot recognise the "new kinds" of radiation it's exposed to.

    It is not a "new" form of EM, when your body and brain have been exposed to that frequency since you were born. And yes that includes everyone born before cell phones and wifi existed at all.

    If EM radiation from a cell phone would cause damage to humans, we would have seen it by now, as that exact same radiation is flooding your skin from the big EM radiating source up in the sky (No, not God with gas, I mean our sun)

    The fact all humans are not dead is proof in and of itself that EM radiation isn't instantly lethal.

    The fact there are some humans still alive after being bombarded by EM radiation in these frequencies (plus a HUGE range of other frequencies at the same time) yet still manage to live into their 80s and be healthy, is proof such doses do not cause any more medical problems than "I have some bad news.. You are only going to live for another 50 or 60 years!" (Which is fine with me personally)

  52. So, headseat laws kill grandma's brain cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tsk. Should have left well enough alone.

  53. MRI effect? by Frans+Faase · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When my wife got an MRI when as part of the process to determine if she had Alzheimer's Disease, which turned out to be the case, she experienced a clearing of her mind during the MRI which lasted for about a day. When I reported this to the neurologist, she frowned upon it. I wonder if anybody has reported this effect, or whether it is even a real effect.

    1. Re:MRI effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I believe its called the "Placebo Effect."

    2. Re:MRI effect? by Maow · · Score: 1

      Yes, I believe its called the "Placebo Effect."

      That would require the wife to *expect* an *improvement* from a diagnostic test.

      While that might be the case, it seems unlikely.

      I hope someone looks into this further (bring it up with neurologist again Frans, or with another one!)

    3. Re:MRI effect? by Frans+Faase · · Score: 1

      It is my experience that most medical specialist are more like engineers than scientists. I have noticed that they way they make a diagnoses has many similarities with how I as a software engineer diagnose bugs. It is a process of eliminating the most likely causes until you have found the cause. Medical specialist are usually only interested in fixing the problem and not in understanding the deeper cause or finding a better therapy for a disease. If they cooperate in medical trails it is almost always only as an executor of the trials.

      I found some articles related to Transcranial magnetic stimulation and Alzheimer

    4. Re:MRI effect? by pimproot · · Score: 1

      As mentioned by the previous post, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is an active area of research, although some of it flaky.

      More cogent to your case, however, MRI itself has been rigorously shown to have anti-depressant effects and also relieve bi-polar disorder. The MRI used was an EP-MRSI. It would be interesting to find out if this is the kind your wife experienced.

      http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/05/magnetically-lifted-spir.html

  54. Also OT by natehoy · · Score: 1

    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"

    One of the most subtle yet clever puns I have had the pleasure to encounter. I'm so used to people replacing "intents and" with "intensive" in that phrase that I almost missed it. Extra points for the appropriate use of an alternate definition.

    I tip my hat to you, sir. Well done.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  55. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And seemingly the biggest problem compared to other EM-radiation is that your body simply cannot recognise the "new kinds" of radiation it's exposed to.

    You mean the "new kinds" which have existed since the dawn of time? You realize we are pummeled with various wavelengths of EM radiation from all over the universe, not the least of which come from our own Sun, right? The Earth's magnetic field keeps out the nastiest high-frequency stuff for the most part, but the lower level stuff gets through. That's how radio telescopes work - they grab the sub-visible EM radiation from all over the galaxy that hits the planet and inundates us with EM radiation.

    Hey guess which end of the scale cell phone radiation is in? It's not the high frequencies, it's in the low frequencies.

    And of course EM radiation can affect our cells, but the lower the frequency the less energy it has, and the less damage it does. For example, even a few hours of exposure to UV radiation will start destroying our cells - a sunburn is the body's desperate attempt to save those cells and prevent further damage. However, drop just a little ways into the visible spectrum and suddenly EM radiation does virtually nothing to our bodies but stimulate vitamine D production in the skin.

    Drop it even further and the EM radiation has even less of an effect, eventually getting into the range of cell phone signals.

    Believing that cell phone radiation must be harming us even though there is no evidence is foolishness. The light emitted by a flashlight is thousands of times more potent than a cell phone signal, and emits a higher frequency of EM radiation which is closer to the dangerous radiations of UV, X-ray, and Gamma-Ray, and yet we aren't terrified of flashlights.

    The idea that cell phone signals could cause damage is nonsensical, so it had better have some good, strong evidence behind it before I start believing it. So far the only good evidence behind it has shown a small positive effect.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  56. Indirectly by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    It only works indirectly. The radiation gives you brain cancer and kills you before you could develop Alzheimers.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  57. I hope this is false by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is true then I suggest everyone really stop using their cell phones.

    The question of Brain Damage from cell phones has not been proven... as far as I know. (I'm not looking for flame on this).

    However, this appears to be a clear scientifically repeatable experiment. Which shows that cell phones do effect/change the chemistry in the brain in some way. Whether the total effect is beneficial or detrimental to the average user cannot be known, would require more study.

    So why would anyone ever consider this to be a good thing? ie: I'd never start medication designed for heart disease patients just as a preventative measure.

    Anyhow, I sure hope this study is shown to be false. Cause my boss says I need to have a cell phone to work.

  58. Brain tumors are good! by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    So brain tumors keep you safe from Alzheimer's disease??

  59. It may also cause you to grow a tail by Snaller · · Score: 1

    and horns.

    Beware radiation danger.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  60. Except the mice didn't get tumors or cancers by George_Ou · · Score: 1

    All the data to date with studies following hundreds of thousands of humans for nearly a decade has shown not evidence of cancer, and neither has prior studies on electromagnetic fields. These study did not show a bunch of mice dying of cancer before they developed Alzheimers, it showed that electromagnetic fields from cell phones staved off or even reversed the effects of Alzheimers in these mice.

    1. Re:Except the mice didn't get tumors or cancers by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      Actually, you don't know that. You read a Reuters summary of a medical study.

      Get your hands on the actual study before commenting. Oh, and good luck with that.

  61. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    That's ridiculous. Everybody knows microwaves have an effect on matter. We use them to cook food. What is a much bigger leap is claiming that microwaves at low levels have an unusually large effect on DNA - that is, they can cause cancer without cooking the tissue.

    IF this effect is real, it's very, very unlikely it has anything to do with changing DNA, for the worse or better.

    Perhaps you might believe that washing a cut with clean water can help it heal faster, but are also of the opinion that water doesn't cause cancer?

  62. They said they used EQUIVALENT doses by George_Ou · · Score: 1

    They said they used EQUIVALENT doses in the mice. I'm pretty sure they didn't use the same dose, just an equivalent dose that factors in the size of the mice.

    1. Re:They said they used EQUIVALENT doses by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      I suppose I should go read all the various FAs -- "equivalent" can mean many things. You could adjust for weight, or for watts/cc, or for metabolism, or for skull radius.

      I must admit, I am intrigued, if this effect is real, that would be both funny, cool, and useful. Would you get your best dose by sticking the antenna up your nose, or in your ears?

  63. No, the mice didn't get cancer by George_Ou · · Score: 1

    Read the article, and watch the video they showed. The researcher showed pictures of the brain tissue and positive effects of the cell phones. It's not a case of mice dying before they develop Alzheimers.

  64. Maybe it's affecting prion folding? by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    My first guess from this would be that EM radiation can affect the rate and or disposition of prion protein folding. More than likely only affecting weak prion self replication(which is slow) vs normal protein formation.

    This makes would make EM radiation quantitatively non mutagenic and about as likely to cause cancer as someone spontaneously combusting.

    This wouldn't affect non functional plaques caused by a mutant genes though.

    Our brains are no doubt adapted to prions and plagues and there probably exists a garbage collection mechanism that can deal with it up to a certain level without getting overwhelmed. But undoubtedly all brain functions are increased with lower populations of prions.

    A second theory would be that EM causes plaques to not stick together as much and hence make the garbage collection mechanism much more productive.

  65. extra fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You all do realize that AT&T will start charging an extra 'healthy minutes' fee if they hear about this?

  66. Transcranial magnetic stimulation by Frans+Faase · · Score: 1

    A search on Transcranial magnetic stimulation and Alzheimer returns many scientifical articles from which I understand that there is some (temporary?) effect. Because MRI makes use of magnetic fields, it is also a form of TMS.

  67. Which desease to choose? by Nephrite · · Score: 1

    Alzheimers or cancer? What is better? Any ideas?

  68. new title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this article should be titled: "Yeah I get cancer, but I won't forget things anymore!"

  69. Proof that the radiation *does* have an effect? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    I thought there was no effect on the human body...
    Wouldn’t this here be proof that it does have an effect after all?
    And wouldn’t that mean that the loonies who demanded no cell phone towers in their area, were right too?
    But would they still sue the companies for it, or would the companies demand money for protecting them from Alzheimers? ^^
    I guess it depends on the extremely unlikely effect, that Alzheimers protection is the only effect it has...

    Aaahh, it’s all so confusing...
    And I can’t even put on my tinfoil hat, because it’s an amplifying antenna... *waaahhh* *head explodes*.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  70. Just a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who puts a phone to their head anymore now anyway? Texting helps prevent arthritis.

  71. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by yoma666 · · Score: 1

    There is no natural occurence of any EM radiation that comes closes to information carrying EM waves as far as I know. If so give me examples that churn out the exact same patterns. Again if it causes good effects it means that there is at least SOME reaction of cells/tissue to the radiation. Check out the link I posted in my first reply, view the entire "seminar", it's not bollocks, it's the result of a 28 million dollar (which came from the industry) study. Also read up on the guy that's giving the seminar, it's not "Joe-I-saw-a-spaceship", but a renowed professor that headed a multiyear program into researching the subject. Of course there are a gazillion types of wavelengths that hit us every day and have done so since the beginning of times. It's not because there are worse things that we don't need to consider the harms in this. Spend a pot of 28 million dollars on researching the subject before saying what this guy says is bollocks. Anyway again: only time will tell and surely in due time the body will adapt and stop considering EM information carrying waves as "external threat" (like it does with a lot of the other waves you mention). It's not just about direct damage, it's about how cells react to the frequencies.