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.'"
Although it can be fair to argue about whether or not the industry studies are biased, I think it goes the other way too.
There are A LOT of people out there who are 'convinced' that cell phones and wi-fi cause cancer. And it doesn't matter how many studies you show them that it doesn't, they just won't believe you.
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.
Surely not. People skewing tests in accordance with funding would never happen.
It matters not one whit how many studies show result X. What matters is what is shown by peer-reviewed studies done under controlled circumstances and having a significant sample size.
For example 100 studies done shoddily using sample sizes of 3, 4, and 6 subjects do not outweigh one ten-year study across 1,000 subjects.
Now just on general principles, if one watt of radio energy was harmful, you'd think that people like RF welders, tower steeplejacks, plasma researchers, and radar disk repairers wolsd be covered in suppurating pustules. But they're not. Even people whose heads are hit by 100 watts of much stronger photons (sunbathers, cowboys), they do just fine.
So I suggest you use GQ to check up on the latest fashions, maybe not so much on the best science.
The GQ article with a cell phone next to a pack of cigarettes couldn't be more misleading. We hear about "such and such % increased risk of this", "such and such % increased risk of that". But these numbers are meaningless in assessing behavior changes unless you know the baseline risk.
So here's some numbers. The article starts off with cigarettes, so what's the risk of lung cancer between smokers and non-smokers?
Well, according to wikipedia, For Men it's 1.3% for non-smokers, and 17% for smokers. Wow!
Let's compare that to Brain cancer (all types). According to the National Cancer institute it's .6% for everyone. The Swedish study from 2006 found a 240% increase. So that's 1.44% risk.
So it seems quite obvious to me that even the most alarming study only showed a small increased health risk from cell phone use, and others have shown none. Compare that to smoking, which has been consistent in showing risk over the years, and an ENORMOUS risk. Oh, and for smoking that's JUST the lung cancer risk. We all should know about the other increased health risks associated with it.
AccountKiller
If any warming caused by holding a cell phone near your head caused sufficient warming to actually cause damage in the long term, then exercise of any sort would kill you dead a lot quicker than a cell phone could possibly be responsible for. A two or three degree Fahrenheit increase in body temperature is completely normal during exercise and even this is larger than a cell phone is capable of doing.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
"Studies" that are funded or sponsored or promoted by environmental organizations should be taken as expressions of religious dogma, essentially worthless to those who endeavor to understand the underlying issue. Environmental organizations, like religious organizations, perceive themselves as above criticism, and therefore not accountable for the veracity of their proclamations. Commercial organizations might be equally and oppositely dogmatic in their desire for lucre, but tend to have a higher regard for logic, even if they reject it when they can get away with it.
Obviously an imposter.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Doesn't work that way. If the photon doesn't have enough energy to put the molecule into a new state, it simply doesn't get absorbed. There's no difference between one not being absorbed and a billion. Saying that more photons = more energy is like saying that if you have a bunch of red lights and point them all at the same place, they turn blue.
He was doubting that a hardcore Slashdot reader has any female acquaintances, not that the AC was you.
Maybe it is because there's quite a few actual scientists in the relevant fields posting on Slashdot. Or maybe it's the fact that you expect people to make decisions solely on whom created the stufy rather than 1) evidence 2) rational explanation of the results. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and is the major causal agent behind the climate change we're seeing right now. Microwaves OTOH are not capable of breaking molecular bonds found in cells.
--A biochemist
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
It's hysteria meets technology. Blunt and simple. It's like Brain said when he tried his insurance fraud.
Brain: I'll claim the microwave made me into what I am today.
Pinky: Why that?
Brain: Because nobody knows how it works.
People don't know how something works, but if hysteria is mixed into it, especially if they're at least a touch hypochondriac, you really have a volatile mix that makes them go ballistic on anything that might have any ill effect on them. Add a bit of "I don't need it and it might have a nonzero chance of harming me, so you must not have it either" and we're set.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have a great PROTIP for everyone out there discussing this topic:
Hmm... Interesting how this is a really good analogy to the “terrorist ‘threat’”, compared to e.g. car accidents, and bad things the own government does...
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.