Slashdot Mirror
Biggest Study On Cellphone Health Effects Launched in Europe
An anonymous reader writes "The biggest study to date into the effects of cellphone usage on long-term health was launched today, aiming to track at least a quarter of a million of people in five European countries for up to 30 years. The Cohort Study on Mobile Communications (COSMOS) differs from previous attempts to examine links between mobile phone use and diseases such as cancer and neurological disorders in that it will follow users' behaviour in real time. Most other large-scale studies have centred around asking people already suffering from cancer or other diseases about their previous cellphone use. Researchers said long-term monitoring will provide more time for diseases to develop, since many cancers take 10 or 15 years for symptoms to appear."
I wonder what mental and dental health effects they find now that most people's mouths never stop moving anymore.
Foil hats on, chaps!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There is some more info here: http://www.mthr.org.uk/research_projects/COSMOS.htm
Apparently the project is in the UK, Scandinavia and The Netherlands, let's see if I can participate...
No details on how the study is performed but I guess they will just try to gather data for statistical analysis. I hope they will make a difference between calling for hours daily (holding at your ear) and using mobile Internet over 3G for hours daily (on your lap / in hand)... Most studies until now just looked at the length of use and calculate the energy absorbed by the body (i.e. a sack of water), and I guess there aren't really a lot of interesting things to learn from that...
Does the "Biggest Study" mean that we have to take its results for granted ? I think that's why they are using those keywords like "Biggest" for..
So...um, if they find brain cancer in the sector of the population who can't ever seem to put their phones down, will that be diagnosed as a cause or an effect?
No sig today...
And as for why this study has taken so long to do - you don't launch a study costing many millions of pounds and spanning decades as a first step in research (particularly in a field with relatively sketchy underlying hypotheses). You start with smaller, retrospective, studies which allow for large effects to be readily detected, at a fraction of the cost. The problem with mobile phones is that there is no evidence for the type of large-scale, acute effect which can be readily quantified by such small projects, so a larger project (like this one) is required to look for smaller-scale effects (which may still be significant on the level of the population).
And the problem with a big project is actually managing to get enough stats for sufficient predictive power - in the early days of mobile phone usage there simply weren't enough people regularly using mobile phones to make meaningful predictions about the effects on the level of a population. Indeed, it notes that even five years ago a study of this kind had to be halted because of a lack of participation.
Berating scientists for wanting to perform good-quality studies is not very productive. The demand for scientists to produce dramatic information very quickly tends to lead to lead to misleading results being presented, and statements of that kind (see: foods which cure/cause cancer every other week) is one of the reasons many people are losing faith in science.
If they only take into account the cell phone usage, the results might not be very reliable. By some accounts Vitamin D boosts the immune system and might be able to prevent some forms of cancer. Vitamin D is produced naturally by the human body when exposed to the sun. So people that spend more time outside might have a lower incidence of cancer.
By other accounts green tea might help prevent cancer too, so people drinking lots of it might have a lower incidence too. These are just two examples and I'm sure there are others. Maybe my examples are not the best, but the point is that it's very hard to establish a link between cellphones and cancer, unless you have a controlled experiment.
This test is bound to spend lots of money and provide nothing of real value.
I commute by train to work, and must listen, involuntarily, to the conversations that cell phone addicts have, and who seem to think that what they have to say is important and should be shared with the rest of the world.
I don't know if there is a causal relationship between the use of cell phones in public and their owners' behavior . . . I think maybe that some of them have had shit for brains since birth.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Gimme a call when there is a report ready. Oh, while you're busy anyway: could you include a study on chemtrails, too ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Yeah, but where are they going to find a control group of people who don't use a cellphone?
</kidding>
I don't know if there is a causal relationship between the use of cell phones in public and their owners' behavior . . .
There is. In the reverse order: behavior ==> use of fucking cell phones in public. And "shit for brains" ==> behavior, too.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
What's next? A 45 year study into the health effects of forks?
Who's John Galt?
In 30 years, brain cancer may very well be a curable disease.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Problem:
I commute by train to work, and must listen, involuntarily, to the conversations that cell phone addicts have, and who seem to think that what they have to say is important and should be shared with the rest of the world.
Solution: Don't commute by train.
General solution: Reduce interaction with strangers if you dislike such interaction.
Rule: Reduce disliked situations.
Law: Be happy.
If the results turn out that there is a correlation, people will definitely stop using cell phones, And all wireless networks will be shut down.And people will move to caves because their neighbors are still using wireless. And then the cave peoples will rise and kill the few remaining idiots that continue to use these Dangerous Waves Which The Eye Cant See. And finally all will be well, because the air is clean from annnnnny kind of waves and everyone lives (statistically) 0.001 seconds longer! (not accounting for evolutionary opportunity cost)
Scientists have really dropped the ball on this one.
I think I have the phone number for the president of Science somewhere around here, let me find it for you so you can really give those Scientists a piece of your mind!
Right. But now, there is the opposite problem. There might not be enough people NOT using cell phones, in order to constitute a control group.
Without a control group, this won't be a controlled experiment. How are they going to isolate the cell phone factor in apparition of cancers, neurological and cerebro-vascular diseases, etc..? The lack of adequate controls can invalidate your study results.
I appreciate your effort in sharing the joy, but can I just get you to quickly suck my dick while you're at it?
thanks. :)
I noticed the very same thing on ham radio operators using VHF handy-talkies. Claims that RF is dangerous to brain cells shouldn't be underestimated...
I use my cell phone for about 2 hours a month. My wife uses her cell phone for about that much a day.
I'm pretty sure they can find enough people with different usage levels such that unless there's a very low threshold for risk increase and there's no increase in risk with more use they'll be able to see an affect (if there is one at all).
HOLY FUCK HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO SAY THIS! CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!
Since you guys just don't seem to understand, let me say it again, CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!
I know it still hasn't sunk in, so let me inform you that CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!
Right now you're thinking that correlation implies causation, but it does not. CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!
One final time, let me remind you that CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!
Oh, and since you might have forgotten by now, keep in mind that CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!
+1, we're going to keep studying this until it agrees with our preconceived ideas.
-Styopa
Yeah, cause I'll be way happier getting hit by one of these same morons making calls while they're driving?
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Do the 2 hours include the fact that cellphones are always on, even if you aren't currently using it? A cellphone just lying around still communicates with base stations. The 2 hours per month may very well become 20 or 200 if you carry it around all the time, even if you don't actively use it.
Yeah, cause I'll be way happier getting hit by one of these same morons making calls while they're driving?
Well, quite some times, replacing train commute for car gets you in humongous jams so they won't hit you very fast.
It's a win/win/bore you out of your skull until you'd rather repeatedly stab your brain with a pencil, situation.
This is why I prefer my subway commute to any of my driving commutes; spending a half hour driving is a half hour wasted, but I can read on the subway. I liked my walking commute best of all, but I can't always live within two miles of work. I don't have a problem with cell phones (Note to NYC: Never let anyone wire your subways for cell phones), only morons who need to play their music so loud that even using headphones, it is clearly audible to people at the other end of the car.
Of course, in both cases the problem can be partially solved with earplugs. And for Amtrak, as well as a few other train lines, there is usually a quiet car where cell phone use is prohibited. Man I love those cars.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Super sized monthly charges will consume the consumers.
I don't have any opinion on the relationship between cell phone use and health. None. However, the more information the better, particularly in a field as fuzzy and complicated as health. Given how new cell phones are, I would be very much surprised if there was already enough research to consider the matter settled.
Surely, if there is a correlation between cell phone use and this or that health problem, the effect is rather small. Otherwise, as others have noted, we would have already noticed the effect without the assistance of detailed research and statistical analysis. If a problem is found, hopefully sufficiently detailed research will help cell phone manufacturers make cell phones that minimize or even eliminate the effect.
It's comments like this on a site supposedly frequented by those most educated in science and engineering that make me believe that the future of our society and civilization is doomed to the ignorance and intellectual laziness of the masses. All the movies about zombies that get made are really about our innate understanding that our end will be at the hands of a mass of unthinking humanity that only wishes to engorge itself on the fruits of the "BRAINS"!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
.. many people are losing faith in science.
IMHO Faith and Science are exact opposites.
An idle cellphone will transmit occasionally to tell the network it's still on, but not very often and not for very long. Something on the order of a few seconds per hour. The 2 hours per month might become 3 at a stretch, but certainly not 20 or 200.
Cannot break apart molecules. How exactly would an electromagnetic wave that can't ionize anything cause cancer? Usually to cause a cancer from radiation you need to cause some sort of ionization damage as far as I'm aware. Physics quite strongly says that these microwaves do not have the proper energy to do this, even if you have a lot of them. People can go on about 'heating effects' which is a common response I see to the non-ionizing radiation bit, but if that were the case, prolonged exposure to heat packs should also cause cancer. Luckily the body is quite good at dissipating heat. Based on physics there is no plausible mechanism for a cell phone to cause a cancer. The radiation just isn't energetic enough to break any bonds, and that is what counts.
Are you sure which way causality is running in this?
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Investigating an issue through scientific means is the opposite of having faith in what you're told.
Most of us didn't actually investigate any meaningful matter on our own, and as such, we simply have faith in what scientists tells us.
.. many people are losing faith in science.
IMHO Faith and Science are exact opposites.
Come on. It's an expression. I think you knew that. It's perfectly clear what the GPP meant.
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
Perhaps they're the normal ones and you're the odd one? Who's to say? Buy some good earphones or earplugs and the problem will go away.
Yes, considering power outputs the short period of time I carry it when it is on doesn't really add to the total. Most of the time it is switched off, I turn it on a take it with me when I really need to, which isn't that often since I'm a nerd who doesn't leave the computer room let alone the house very often...
The linksys access point in that computer room bathes me with far more radiation than my cell phone, I promise.
Humans instinctively talk louder when they can't see their conversational partner.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
IMHO Faith and Science are exact opposites.
There's a scientific meta-claim that submitting theories to trial by experiment (and discarding the theories which disagree with the world) is likely to produce good theories about how the world works.
How would you verify this? Experimentally? Why would you believe that experimenting is a good way to learn the truth?
Yes, in the end I'm asking "you believe that what you see (perceive) is a reasonably accurate reflecting of what the world really is like; why?" But my answer is still the same: there is an element of faith in science.
That said, I want that kept small, carefully watched and well understood.
IMHO Faith and Science are exact opposites.
Personally, I disagree. I find that Science (as it has been put) does require faith, but its dogma is limited to something like "I think therefore I am." Everything else is based on rigorous observation and scientific methodology.
Amish. Niggers who live in the jungle where they belong.
Unfortunately, although it's better than studies that try to quantify exposure by asking people to self-estimate their cell phone use (these studies are completely lacking in value, unfortunately), it's still a bad study protocol.
The kind of people who take steps to reduce their microwave radiation exposure from cell phones are, unfortunately, very likely to be the same kinds of people who take steps to reduce their exposure to other possible risks, some of which actually do cause cancer. Not all of these confounding factors can be adjusted out.
Keep in mind the placebo study which showed that not only does the use of a placebo benefit health, but the people who take the placebo regularly and according to instructions benefit more than people who take the placebo less meticulously.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Saw an article about some recent work with animal models that suggests cellphone usage MIGHT cause a significant (40%ish?) REDUCTION in probability of developing clinical alzheimers.
I wonder if, should that turn out to be true, this study would pick it up?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
haha