Slashdot Mirror
Studies Find Harm From Cellular and Wi-Fi Signals
Over the years we've discussed the possible health risks of cellphone and other microwave radiation: studies from Israel and Sweden indicating a link between cellphone use and cancer, one from England exonerating cell towers as a cause of "microwave radiation sensitivity," and a recent 30-year Swedish study that found no link to cancer. The question won't go away though. Reader Artifice_Eternity writes "I've always tended to dismiss claims of toxicity from cell phone and Wi-Fi signals as reflecting ignorance about microwave radiation. However, this GQ article cites American and European studies going back decades that have found some level of biological harm caused by these signals. Why haven't they gained more attention? Quoting: 'Industry-funded studies seem to reflect the result of corporate strong-arming. Lai reviewed 350 studies and found that about half showed bioeffects from EM radiation emitted by cell phones. But when he took into consideration the funding sources for those 350 studies, the results changed dramatically. Only 25 percent of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects, compared with 75 percent of those studies that were independently funded.'"
...Beacuse nobody calls me :(
I know I always go to Gentleman's Quarterly for my journal articles regarding the dangers of electromagnetic radiation exposure.
A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
...because I have a hands-free phone setup in my car. I just mow over other people when they cross the street and some bitch is breaking up with me over the phone.
And if you consider that many of these so-called 'independent' studies are in fact paid for by fringe anti-science groups, then perhaps their results are aren't as unbiased as they would have you believe.
That seems strange - I'm having trouble imaging what an anti-science directed study would consist of. And how unbiased would they have you believe their study is, if it's anti-science by definition? It seems like they would want to show off their own maximizing of bias if it's really anti-science.
Hey mate, spare a sig?
And if you consider that many of these so-called 'independent' studies are in fact paid for by fringe anti-science groups, then perhaps their results are aren't as unbiased as they would have you believe.
That seems strange - I'm having trouble imaging what an anti-science directed study would consist of. And how unbiased would they have you believe their study is, if it's anti-science by definition? It seems like they would want to show off their own maximizing of bias if it's really anti-science.
Check with the people behind these sites for some excellent examples:
http://www.creationstudies.org/
http://www.creationbiology.org/
http://www.icr.org/
http://theflatearthsociety.org/
Here I sit, all broken hearted.
Came to poop, but only farted.
I'm fairly sure we'll get this study used a lot in the near future.
Like my neighbor, who recently nearly beat my door down to inform me that if I don't turn off my WiFi AP she'll call the police because she gets headaches from my radiation. Then the cellphone in her pocket rang...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Thanks for the heads up bro, and to think I was just about to get up off the couch!
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Experimental Procedure: We put the laboratory mice in a microwave oven and cooked on "High" for five minutes, exposing them to radiation of similar frequency to that emitted by common cellular phones.
;p. Even if actual cellphones, etc. produce effects in rats, that still doesn't mean that the same effects would be observed in humans: rats are a lot smaller. You might as well throw humans in microwaves and call it a valid model.
Results: The mice appear to be done approximately "medium."
Conclusion: Microwave radiation is quickly fatal at doses two orders of magnitude beyond cellphone level (meta-conclusion: effects were found).
This is the problem with statistical analyses such as sociologists like to perform: aggregating papers, attributing some binary conclusion to every paper, and then producing nearly meaningless percentages. This one was compiled by a biologist, but that's the next thing to sociology anyway
One of the scary references in the article is to a early 2000s study purporting that cellphone EM caused Alzheimer's in mice. But wait...Cellphones reduce mouse Alzheimer's (2009). (meta-conclusion: effects were found). Now, you might say that researcher is working for The Man, but he claims he was expecting the opposite result when he began. Someone else could write a meta-study "Microwave study results rarely replicated: are biologists bad at designing and properly controlling physics experiments?"
If you want something to panic about, be more concerned about the huge unshielded fusion reactor that's bathing you in ionizing radiation with a power of hundreds of watts per square.
Hundreds of watts per square...? Square what?
Or do you actually mean, per square, as in, per slashdotter?
"Photons are light" - yeah right. In that case how can you make torpedoes out of them?