A Balanced Look At Cellphone Radiation

A month back we discussed an article in GQ on the alarmist side of the cellphone-radiation question. Now reader pgn674 passes along a PopSci feature article looking at the current state of cellphone radiation research. It profiles people who claim to be electro-hypersensitive, "who are reluctant to subject themselves to hours in an electronics-laden facility" for studies. The limited research on that condition is still showing that sufferers, in blind tests, are unable to detect radiation at levels better than chance. The article also touches on the relationship of non-ionizing radiation to cancer. The conclusion is that while it seems unlikely high-frequency fields in consumer devices directly cause cancer, they might promote it, and might also indirectly cause other health deficits beyond simply heating nearby tissue — though one skeptical researcher cautions, "The gap between a biological effect and an adverse health effect is a big one."

Comments

Luddites

[Taco Cowboy]

A lot of those so-called "radiation sensitive" people are nothing but Luddites in disguise.

In Malaysia, there have been cases of communities in uproar, having many people claiming that they suffer from "excruciating painful headaches" to "cancer" and all that, just because there is a cellphone station nearby.

Those "radiation sensitive" people demand that the authority remove those "radiation hotspots" immediately, and it turns out that, in some of those cases, the so-called "cellphone stations" haven't even begun operation and never emit any radiation !

Luddites !

Re:Luddites

[nickspoon]

Name-calling isn't going to help anyone. The fact of the matter is, to some people hyperelectrosensitivity or whatever the buzzword is nowadays is a very real phenomenon. It has been shown pretty conclusively that the electromagnetic radiation itself does not cause the issues (in one study researchers used an inert box with blinking lights on it to produce the same effect), but that does not mean that the condition is unimportant, or not to be taken seriously. That would be like telling a schizophrenic "none of that stuff is real, shut up".

Rather than laughing at these people, we should consider their problem a mental disorder and treat it accordingly. This does, of course, mean that you consider the condition the problem, not the EM sources.

Re:Luddites

[the_raptor]

You appear to have mistaken "logic" for naturalism. Logic is a method for arriving at a consistent response to a given set of data assuming certain axioms. That you believe that religious people even exists is a logical conclusion based on certain axioms. For example that the data from your senses is reliable and that what others tell you of their beliefs is true or can be inferred from their behaviour.

There are libraries of theological works that can not be attacked on the logic of their arguments but only on the strengths of the axioms they assume and the data they use.

I can see why you have failed in your attempts to convince religious people if you are that ignorant about the tool you are attempting to use.

Re:On the other hand...

[Gordonjcp]

As Lessig said in his latest website chat, 75% of studies not funded by the cellphone industry found evidence for a connection.

As a matter of interest, who *were* they funded by? People with an interest in proving a link between RF from mobile phones and cancer?