Slashdot Mirror
World Health Organization Says Mobile Phones May Cause Cancer
Schiphol writes "A new study by the World Health Organization (WHO) concludes that mobile phone radiation presents a carcinogenic hazard. Are cell phones going to be the new tobacco, then?"
This seems to be a new interpretation of a long-tern WHO study of possible cellphone health risks that had "inconclusive results" last May.
I heard this on NPR and they did a better job of putting this new classification into context (and probably detoothing the newsworthiness). It's classified by the IARC as Group 2B, not even Group 2A. The serious list is Group 1 which indicates they are carcinogenic to humans. Group 2B simply means "possibly carcinogenic to humans."
I would like to point out that also in Group 2B are Magnetic fields (extremely low frequency), pickled vegetables, coffee, nickel and the occupation of carpentry and joinery. And you know what else? Citrus Red No. 2 which is used to color the oranges you buy in supermarkets.
So they've put it next to coffee, coinage and food coloring. Why doesn't everyone flip out when things like those are added to Group 2B?
My work here is dung.
Where's Dr.Bob? I want to learn about how cell phones cause cancer and Teh Terriblez SUBLUXATIONS!
quack quack quack....
Real story: the WHO lacked the guts to put this cellphone nonsense to bed once and for all. Studies that ask people with brain cancers "How much did you use your phone?" are pretty much all they had, and they seem to be the definition of "Confirmation Bias."
In other news, the media fails science forever, but we knew that already.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
This announcement will certainly bring out the paranoid reply of the masses... It doesn't really change what any of us "know" about possible cancer causing effects (or lack thereof). But let's be clear... This means that there is a "possibility" that it could contribute to cancer. The WHO has a whole range of classifications within this category that it still really means nothing.
As an example, other things on this list:
coffee
alcoholic drinks
working the night shift
Not just this article but so many others......talk about behind the curve.
Even though this is a non-issue (not conclusive by the study's authors), the folks over at CNN talked about the cellphone risk as if it was Certain to cause harm. They left me with the impression that cellphones are irradiating my hip, and they are a definite carcinogen. The one guy even compared cellphone to cigarettes ("People say they can't live without cigarettes either, but they should give up both those and cellphones if they are dangerous."). They even had people texting to say, 'No I won't use my cellphone anymore. I'm getting a landline.' or 'I'm using speakerphone from now on. I don't want to hold it against my head.'
Piss-poor reporting (aka fear-mongering). I wonder how MSNBC and FOX News are covering it.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Evidence on the non-thermal influence of non-jonising radiation on living organisms predates cell phones by decades. It is no news.
Just a single example: Blood-brain barrier permeability and nerve cell damage in rat brain 14 and 28 days after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones.
Of course, Slashdot's "radiation trolls" claim otherwise and still are modded +5 informative, so perhaps it is news here.
Why the fuck do oranges have to be coloured? Are oranges not sufficiently orange?
Because oranges aren't always orange and they have imperfections. Shipping and storing only exacerbates this. But suppliers noticed that people bought more oranges when they looked "pure" orange. And the FDA allowed it (for whatever reason). Go to an organic food store sometime and look at the produce. You'll think it looks like shit. But it's really just not coated in dye.
Oh, but if the big bad evil government stopped oranges getting coated with food dye then everyone would complain that the nanny state is killing capitalism. So vote with your dollar and be lost in the sea of people who put perception above knowledge.
My work here is dung.
I am quite sure that (given the right conditions) even breathing causes cancer...
FYI: Also on the list:
Coffee
Pickles
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
If the radiation from phones (or wireless for that matter) are carcinogenic somehow, should we not see a dramatic increase in cancer incidences in people who suffer from broken DNA-repair mechanisms? Is this being observed?
Turn off the TV transmitters, AM/FM transmitters, HAM radios, satellites, and the sun, they all produce radiation that causes cancer! I am going to go get my lead helmet.
Could mobile phones cause cancer?
This is an important question. Scientists are confident that tobacco, alcohol or asbestos can cause cancer because they can explain how these things affect the way our cells work. These explanations are called “biological mechanisms” – they play a vital role in establishing that something causes cancer.
So far no one has been able to provide a good biological mechanism for the link between mobile phones and cancer. The “how” question is an open one. The phones give off microwave radiation, but this has millions of times less energy than, say, an X-ray and is not powerful enough to damage our DNA. They mildly heat the body, but again, not enough to pose a health risk. Other suggestions have been put forward, but none are backed by consistent evidence.
read more: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/05/31/who-verdict-on-mobile-phones-and-cancer/
Now's the time to buy a Jawbone? I mean...ahem...now's the time to resell Jawbones? Hmmm... profit! Yummy yum yum yum
Lead is a possible carcinogen...
Yeah, funny how all those useless studies over the last hundred years have nothing to do with the fact that I am able to read your drivel from the other side of the planet within seconds of you hitting the "submit" button - something that was unthinkable at the start of last century.
While the popular press likes to present science as a limited series of earth-shattering breakthroughs, in reality science is built upon thousands and thousands of tiny incremental steps, not all of them in the same direction.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The only real thing we've learned from academic studies in the last hundred years or so is how malleable numbers and language are.
Right...studies about evolution, the transistor, lasers, quantum mechanics, general and special relativity are all just ways to manipulate the numbers. Right....
With a little research in to understanding how these devices worked from an electronics perspective I discovered that a mobile phone frequency transmits between 900Mhz and 2400Mhz. A rough calculation revealed the wavelength of 2400Mhz is roughly 13cms with the wavelength getting longer as it gets lower. That means your head is within the wavelength of the transmission. When the device is in contact with your head absorption quadruples due to inductance AND the device varies it's power output according to signal strength, so if your brain is absorbing the wavelength then the device increases it's power output. Even simply breaking contact with your head reduces absorption by three quarters, put the device in speaker mode and turn the volume down.
I think to anyone who understands the nature of the devices this is a no brainer, one of my relations recently died of brain cancer so I witnessed first hand that it is a very bad way to die. A bluetooth headset is about $200, why would you bother taking the risk?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
If you are going to use that criteria.
Polycarbonate, the plastic used in most cellphones, out-gas various chemicals some of which are known carcinogens. These include benzene, toluene, and chlorobenzene. Since you usually hold the phone up to your face I would bet that you breath enough of this in to cause the amount of cancer found in any study. Real research is done with a negative control for a reason. Since, there is so much radio waves all around us, there is no where that you can exist without the presence of them. Not only that, there is no way for any EM of the wavelength (> than 1 M) or frequency to cause damage to any tissue. The microwave frequency can but it's wavelength is 10 cm and only interacts with molecules on the vibrational frequency that gets absorbed and converted into heat.
wifi internet causes cancer?
radio and television causes cancer?
electricity causes cancer?
sunlight causes cancer?
they wont be happy until everyone is back to living in caves
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Claiming that cell phones can cause cancer is like saying that the wake from a surfboard could capsize a passing supertanker.
(And the orders of magnitude in this analogy are not exaggerated. The long-wavelength photons emitted by cell phones would need to be millions of times more energetic to break a peptide bond.)
...that netted billions of dollars for pharmaceutical cartels that sold H1N1 vaccine?
They've lost their credibility. All because of few dollars and corruption.
According to the report there was a 40% increased chance of glioma among the heaviest cell phone users. According to wikipedia, glioma affects approximately 2-3 in 100,000 people. That's a 0.0025% chance. A 40% increase means cell phone users now have a 0.0035% chance, or 3-4 out of 100,000. You're still 3 times as likely to get hit by lightning and 250 times as likely to die in a fiery car crash.
First Post's cause cancer.
That Daleks and Sonic Screwdrivers may cause cancer
...somebody said something might possibly do something.
Way to come out with a definitive conclusion there, WHO.
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
The actual article description of "could possibly cause cancer", is very different from "concludes that mobile phone radiation presents a carcinogenic hazard".
As others have mentioned, we do and eat many things that have a higher chance of causing cancer than cell phones such as engine exhaust! Should we go on and ban cars now?
Quit talking to yourself :) Baboons? You give them to much credit. I thought it was funny.
This aint Daytona and you aint Dale Earnhardt. So stop trying to draft on Interstate 40.
He could have been first if he'd been using America's Largest 4G Network!
My stance is it's always better to be safe than sorry, so even thought there's no conclusive evidence that cell phones are harmful, it's not that difficult to reduce their usage or use them hands-free.
Besides, I like this citation very much:
"The CTIA keeps saying what they've said since 1993, which is that studies conclusively show that there's nothing to worry about. Well, let me tell you something: They do not conclusively show that. The few independent studies that are out there indicate that there's a problem. Most of the other studies have been sponsored by industry."
Meanwhile there are ever bigger problems than this one, like e.g. food quality degradation and abundance of food additives which alter our bodies in unpredictable ways.
Why is it that slashdot is all about crowd sourcing things and peer-to-peer distributing the load until it comes to government? Then, suddenly, there's all kind of trust and faith in consolidation of power, authority, (re)distribution of resources, etc..
Why are you trying to pigeonhole a complex and (in most respects diverse) group of people that often exhibits conflicting but strong opinions? I think crowd sourcing is stupid or nothing more than marketing except for very special cases and I strive for a balance of government regulation so that we get the best we can from capitalism while avoiding some of its horrors that used to happen in our country and still happen worldwide.
The fact that there are stores that openly and proudly sells uncolored produce tells me that many consumers know the difference and make a strong choice based upon those differences.
Tell me, right now, how close you live to an organic produce store or farmer's market that sells oranges without dye? And how far do you live from (many) regular orange dying super markets? The "choice" has many dimensions and factors and the way you simplify it down is laughable. Do you step outside and see two identical orange stands in front of your house, one dyed and one uncolored? The fact of the matter is that you are subject to the options of the population around you.
As a person who believes that going against capitalism often has unintended negative consequences
Well, I'm glad that you cling to a generic belief when it comes to policy. For me, it's not so simple and I have to make an effort to become informed and make a rational and logical decision that I hope strikes the right balance between capitalism and government regulation so that the people benefit the most. What "unintended negative consequence" did stopping child labor have? What "unintended negative consequence" did banning CFCs have? Oh, of course, the profit margin of some companies.
, all I really ask to be mandated by government in this kind of case is truth in labeling.
And where does it stop? Hmmmm? Should they have to label how these oranges were delivered so I can calculate my carbon offset? Should they be required to list which country and company provided the harvest of the oranges and what kind of labor was employed? Labels can be just as extreme as regulation, you know. And labeling food can be just as detrimental to the population as a whole. You can effectively inundate a consumer with information on a product to the point that they just don't care anymore. That's just as big a danger as absolutely no label. Do you think the average high school graduate can look at two dietary labels on two competing products and tell you the precise differences those labels mean for their particular diet?
What ever happened to critical thinking?
My work here is dung.
Maybe try posting something with visible relevance to the topic? "Hey here's a link to baboons" isn't commentary, it's just random. And people will always downvote "hey why did you downvote me", because it's annoying and petulant. The best thing you can do is learn from your mistakes and do better next time. Swearing goaty revenge like a cut-rate supervillain is not going to win you any respect.
What the WHO says "There is no evidence that mobile phones cause cancer, but there is also no conclusive evidence that they do not." What CNN reports "There is mounting evidence that cellphones may cause cancer, says the WHO. Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation, previously thought to not cause cellular damage. Cellphone radiation is similar to microwaves, so it will heat your brain to the boiling point. Some say there is no way that cooking your brain cannot cause some form of harm." Holy hell. I bet $1000 the "some" who say that are the fucking writer, who is scared shitless because they are illiterate and can't tell the difference between "has shown there is a link" and "hasn't shown there isn't a link".
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Aliens have been beaming radiation into my head since 1952 and it hasn't hurt me a bit.
This is a bit rantish, but I still wish I had mod points. The people who think unbridled capitalism will solve all problems strike me as perhaps the most naive large segment of the population.
It also says it may NOT be carcinogenic.
All the studies are inconclusive one way or another, but the bulk of studies seem to be against the idea that they are carcinogenic. Limited (I believe ONE) studies did show an increase in a lethal form of brain cancer, but no other studies supported this.
So they are probably not carcinogenic, but the bureaucrats are too testicularly-impaired to actually come out and say that, so they leave it at a "may be harmful" rating the same as a bunch of other meaninglessly-"dangerous" things like copper or being a carpenter.
-Styopa
No.
Tell me, right now, how close you live to an organic produce store or farmer's market that sells oranges without dye
3 within 1 mi
And how far do you live from (many) regular orange dying super markets?
4 within 1 mi
And labeling food can be just as detrimental to the population as a whole. That's just as big a danger as absolutely no label.
totally unqualified statement
Do you think the average high school graduate can look at two dietary labels on two competing products and tell you the precise differences those labels mean for their particular diet?
Let's set aside this terrible fucking argument and eliminate your assumption that properly trained experts understand the dietary differences at an individual level. You're going to have to pass around some of that enhanced eldavojohn critical thinking to make it clear how not understanding the effects of substances/ingredients/preservatives/additives/dyes leads one to the conclusion that we should withhold information about which are present in our food.
Labels can be just as extreme as regulation, you know.
No. Letting someone know what the fuck you're feeding them feels more like honest, common sense. Maybe you can explain how doubling the size of stickers on oranges to accommodate their altered nature would be "punitive" and hinder producer's ability to "compete" in the "free market." Or you can explain how this additional labeling is as burdensome as regulating the the contents of the orange.
Of course we could just retreat to your world where stupid high school graduates don't deserve to know which carcinogens were sprayed on their food because they wouldn't understand anyway.
although much less so than the unbridled governmentalists.
There should be a dramatic and distinctive increase in the number of brain cancers of this specific type across the world and across a diverse range of people as cell phones have spread everywhere. After all these years of exponentially increasing cellphone use and all the studies the best they can say is "maybe" or "can't be sure"? If it mattered it should be a freakingly obvious epidemic by this point. Therefore, if there is an effect it must be vanishingly small to be so thoroughly lost in the statistical noise of other causes that it doesn't stand out and doesn't bump up the total numbers of these cancers.
This is a classic case of being unable to prove a negative: that cellphones don't cause cancer. But the WHO can't stick their neck out and say what every rational person should know by now: "If there is an effect, it must be almost statistically insignificant"? The WHO is being awfully foolish. Look at the way their rather non-committal and inconclusive statement is being pitched in the press headlines: "Cell phones may cause cancer". Sure, along with coffee and a bunch of other things in the same category where the possibility of cancer triggers can't be thoroughly eliminated. A predictable, alarmist response from the media.
Calling me a kid is indicative of your pityfull ignorance.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Sorry, but this is a really dumb remark. Did you ever hear of an "Easy Bake" oven? In fact, visible light can harm you in exactly the same way as microwaves. It is purely a matter of energy and heat dissipation. If I put you in a box with a few thousand watts of visible light, you will be just as cooked as if you were in a microwave oven at the same wattage. There is only one known mechanism whereby electromagnetic radiation of frequency too low to break molecular bonds can cause biological damage, and that is to pump in energy faster than the body can dissipate it as heat. If you do that, you will warm up and eventually cook. Of course, this is entirely irrelevant to the alleged danger of low intensity microwave energy, where the energy flux is far, far below the body's heat dissipation capacity.
Ultraviolet radiation, of course, does have enough photon energy to break molecular bonds, but the energy of microwave photons is orders of magnitude lower. In fact, the energy of a microwave photon is on the same order as the energy of the random Brownian molecular impacts that every molecule of every cell experiences constantly. As a result, it would be a remarkable biological achievement if an organism were to evolve the ability to even detect low intensity microwaves. It would have to have some way of preserving that tiny amount of energy--too small to break any bonds, at most able to jiggle or twist them a bit--and isolate it from the huge background of similar energy Brownian noise, and do so long enough for some protein or other biological molecule to react and trigger the use of biological energy to make some sort of persistent change in the cell.
Meanwhile, of course, despite a huge increase in the use of cell phones, there has been no increase in the overall incidence or death rate of brain cancer.
Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. In this case we have a remarkable claim, no plausible mechanism, and evidence that can most charitably be termed ambiguous.
Don't keep your phone next to your privates and remember to hang up & go out side to play in the sun. Oh wait, the sun causes cancer. Better go play in a cave. Oh wait, that may have radon in it...
Unbridled capitalism leads to companies doing anything they can get away with
Nanny state leads to government making more and more rules for companies to follow
Minimal government means forcing the companies to label properly
i.e. tell you the oranges are covered in dye, and that it is thought to be very low risk possible carcinogen, and leaving you to make up your on mind...
I don't mind if companies sell oranges covered in arsenic as long as they tell you first ...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Internet use carcinogenic (from similarly contrived data)
lol, hear that wooosh? His arguments just went completely over your head and you failed to defend anything of what you said. Just take the explanation like a human being, process the new information, and move on with a wiser and more mature attitude. It's ok to be wrong.... Thats the part that society needs to reinforce to everyone.
... but only if ingested in small amounts over a long period of time...
These types of "we can't find anything wrong but there has to be some problem" type stories annoy me - this is where all of the global warming non-sense comes from - the same types of sloppy journalism and sensationalistic rags...
drinking may make you a better dancer.
Does this mean mobile phones will be banned from public spaces?
In other news, scientists today found that research causes cancer in rats. That is all.
Are cell phones going to be the new tobacco, then?
No.
Duh.
If cell phones were anywhere near as bad as tobacco - or even anywhere near as bad as the doomsayers insist - then the extensive, large-scale, costly, long-term studies already conducted would have picked up a clear effect already.
Detecting the negative health effects of tobacco was some pretty low-hanging epidemiological fruit. Smokers die between ten and fifteen years younger than their non-smoking peers. Between one half and two thirds will die from a smoking-related illness. Their risk of lung cancer is elevated more than tenfold; about one in six smokers will be killed by it.
For cellular phones, the absolute worst-case scenario is a statistically-significant increase in the risk of certain rare cancers, affecting a minuscule portion of the population. The WHO's caution is based principally on a single study that found a 40% increase in glioma incidence among heavy cell phone users; the WHO report noted that while there is reason for suspicion, chance or coincidence couldn't be ruled out as a cause of the apparent effect.
The incidence of central nervous system tumors is something like 7 per 100,000 population per year; gliomas are about half of that total. If we assume that the full 40% increase in risk is real and accurate, then we're looking at something like 1 or 2 cases per 100,000 population per year. This isn't the next tobacco. This isn't tobacco's kid brother. This isn't even tobacco's fifth cousin's hamster. Heavy cell phone use is something like a thousand-fold less risky than lighting up.
You're more likely to be killed by a car (either as a pedestrian or as an occupant), or drowning, or accidental poisoning. You're appreciably more likely to be shot and killed (though slightly less likely to be stabbed to death). Statistically speaking, the average American is quite a bit more likely to deliberately kill himself rather than wait for his cell phone to do it for him.
The most likely way for cell phone use to kill or maim anyone isn't through radiation, but through distracted driving.
~Idarubicin
Now I'm happy I have only 1 friend and he never calls me.
May? May? I may be the Queen of England if the same evidentiary standards are applied.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
You are just fear mongering!
In a complicated world, it's nice that we can trust part of the media to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into those that cause or cure cancer:
http://thedailymailoncologicalontologyproject.wordpress.com/
Cell phones cannot cause cancer.
The reason is that the frequencies cell phones use are below the spectrum of ultraviolet light. It is near the spectrum of ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation occurs, which is required to be able to cause cancer. Ionizing means that the energy level of the individual photons of the transmission have enough energy to disturb the molecular structure of live cells. Microwave "radiation" (which has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear radiation) is far within the level of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum, so there is no possibility of it having the energy required to cause cancer.
Cell phones use frequencies around 800 MHz to around 2 GHz or so. 3 GHz has an energy level of about 12.4 ueV; ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation is possible is around 124ev -- that's a 10 million to one difference in energy level. Have a look at the energy level chart on the right hand side of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
or even better, see page 3 of FCC OET Bulletin 56, which is a Q&A on Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf
People are also afraid of the cell base stations, because they don't know how safe they actually are. The transmitters for these typically send 20 - 40 watts -- that's all. This is then sent through directional "sectored" antennas that typically have 120 degrees of horizontal beam width and only 6 to 15 degrees of vertical beam width; so the three-dimensional antenna pattern is like a 120 degree slice of a pancake, yielding gain of about 13 dBi. This focusing is where the "gain" of antennas comes from -- by focusing where the energy is transmitted.
In the U.S., the standard for specifically what frequencies and power levels are considered safe is the IEEE C95.1 standard, which is unfortunately not freely available, however there's a an overview here: http://www.interferencetechnology.com/uploads/media/AG_07.pdf
This standard is incredibly long to read, but boils down to this: the only proven effect of microwave radiation in 60 years of research is the effect of microwave heating. No cancer. Further than that, the standard narrows down to the power levels that are safe for various frequency regions concerning microwave heating.
But if you really want something to "bite your teeth on", have a look at the international ICNIRP guidelines: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf
Now, if you go through the MATH of how close you have to be to the antennas of a cell tower for it to be "unsafe", the result is pretty interesting:
Spec limit for human-absorbed power per IEEE C95-1 at 900 MHz: 50 Watts/m^2
13 dBi gain = gain of 20
EIRP = 20 W transmitted power * gain of 20 = 400 W
400 W / 4*pi*R^2 = 50 W/m^2
R = 0.636 meters
0.636 meters = 2.09 feet
So at 900 MHz and with a typical transmit power of 20 Watts and a sectored antenna with 13 dBi gain, you need to be 2 feet in front of the antenna while it's transmitting for it to be considered unsafe. This means the only way it's unsafe for a human being is if they're not only on the tower, but right in front of the antenna while it's operating at full power.
The cell phones themselves have a limit on how much power they are allowed to transmit. There are different power limits in various countries; in the U.S. the limit is 1.6 W/kg SAR, in Canada I believe t
Plenty of vaccines and pro-active considerations, no outbreak = vaccines are useless and medicine just a money-grubbing scam
Plenty of vaccines and pro-active considerations, mild outbreak = vaccines clearly didn't do anything, medicine is just a money-grubbing scam
No vaccines, no pro-active considerations, major outbreak = stupid government, why didn't you take pro-active steps to prevent this!?
Wow, previous post moderated to the basement as flamebait. That's a rather chilling effect to place on a discussion.
Anyhow... you took a drive-by swipe at people who want the government to be less dominant in their lives. I took a contrarian position. Seems rather hypocritical for you to jump into an ad hominem (in your subject line, no less) and accuse me of pigeon-holing an issue. Yeah, I was generalizing... unfairly? That's debatable, but a pretty long discussion.
Then a bunch of the rest of your argument was a straw man. I chose my words about capitalism carefully and you chose to interpret them in some a different way. I didn't say that capitalism is always right or that you should never act against it. I just said that going against it often has unintended negative consequences. I don't see a need to defend a position I didn't take.
Then there's another straw man supposing that I'm looking for a greater degree of truth in labeling (carbon offsets? Really?) than I even want in regulation of the thing itself. Apparently, you missed the words in bold: all I really ask to be mandated by government in this kind of case is truth in labeling. We were talking about red dye on the peel of an orange, I think you should recall.
What ever happened to taking the arguments given rather than making up the ones you'd prefer to debate?
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Do you think the average high school graduate can look at two dietary labels on two competing products and tell you the precise differences those labels mean for their particular diet?
Why should I care about the average high school graduate? I can look at the dietary labels and tell you the important differences that pertain to my diet. As far as I'm concerned that's justification enough.
If you're not willing to do the work to understand the world around you, that's your own problem. The world should not be designed around the needs of the average. It should be designed so that people who can actually do things have the tools they need to do them.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Movies imitate life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCd4Ts2euew#t=9m12s/
Gentlemen, practice these words in front of the mirror...
Do you think the average high school graduate can look at two dietary labels on two competing products and tell you the precise differences those labels mean for their particular diet?
Why should I care about the average high school graduate? I can look at the dietary labels and tell you the important differences that pertain to my diet. As far as I'm concerned that's justification enough.
If you're not willing to do the work to understand the world around you, that's your own problem. The world should not be designed around the needs of the average. It should be designed so that people who can actually do things have the tools they need to do them.
You're right, I don't know why the tobacco companies print their surgeon general warnings in English. They should go with Basque or maybe Binary. Anybody who wants to understand them could just learn Basque or be a computer nerd like us.
I got "the slowest growing tumor" that my doctor ever saw in my neck on the left side, about the same time. It was benign, but was becoming malignant inside. The doctor said that it was good that they caught it in time, but I had it for about 12 years before surgery.
I asked my doctor if it was possible that the tumor was caused by cell phone use. He said that it wasn't possible... then this report came out.
With my tinfoil hat firmly screwed on... the damn cell phone may not have caused it, but I still think it was a factor. I don't own one anymore.
A/C for obvious reasons.
Although I agree with your assessment of the progressiveness of science, Tesla Predicted Mobile Messaging in 1909.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
It's very different from Global Warming. In the case of CO2-induced Global Warming, there is a well established physical mechanism and theory, a century old, that has been extensively validated by laboratory and observational studies. There are huge number of observational studies, by independent scientists from all over the world, using a variety of different methodologies, indicating that the predicted consequence is occurring.
In the case of microwave induced cancer, we have no evidence of any plausible mechanism, and observational evidence does not indicate that the predicted consequence is occurring, as there has been no increase in brain cancer incidence or deaths.
Yeah cellphone radiation is in the same category as coffee and pickles, but it's also the same category as lead and DDT. Seems like the category system might have some flaws, but that doesn't negate cellphone radiation as a potential threat. And of course it's not yet proven to the extent that cigarettes were finally proven, but cellphones have been in heavy use for ten years (and only in existence for maybe 30 years), while cigarettes had been used for thousands of years before they were proven to be cancer causing. Even cellphone manufacturers warn against placing your phone directly against your head (probably to hedge their bets against lawsuits, but even that acknowledges the possibility of danger). None of this means that cellphones DO cause cancer, but we should all be cautious and open-minded about the potential threats of a technology that emits radiation next to our heads and has been in use for far less time than the average human lifespan.
Why should I care about the average high school graduate? I can look at the dietary labels and tell you the important differences that pertain to my diet. As far as I'm concerned that's justification enough
But you would complain if the dietary labels would be instead written in some obscure domain-specific language (for example, off the top of my head, actual chemical composition of the incredients, or chemical reactions the ingredients may get involved in). The information would still be true, and complete (and maybe even more accurate than the current dietary labels), but in order to understand the actual effect on you you'd need specialized training or extended study time. Would you accept it's your fault for not having a MS in food chemistry?
The same applies everywhere. I don't want to have a PhD in economics to be able to understand my bank statement. I don't want a car only an expert mechanic can drive, or a washing machine only an expert electrician can plug in, and so on. I also don't have the arrogance to consider myself the standard everyone should use. I may be knowledgeable in computers, but I'm well aware there are many other things where my knowledge is equal or even less than the one of the "average high school graduate". And when I have to deal with those kinds of things I want the issues explained to me in clear, understandable language.
I wonder when they are they going to add Oxygen to their list...
Oh, for heaven's sakes folks, it was hyperbole.
The right to offend is central to the right to free speech.
I recommend watch "Sous le feu des Ondes 2009".
Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)
I've often wondered if maybe there's just a problem with certain models of phones using chemicals that are harmful to human health. Holding them next to your head would cause you to inhale any vapour they give off and lead to slightly elevated risk.
It could be the case that certain phones manufacturers are doing this inadvertently or it's something used in the manufacture of certain phones that has a small but significant risk. Anyone care to comment?
Nick
I live in Sweden, where mobile phones quickly caught on and pretty much everyone had one for years ago. We had the cancer discussion 15 years ago and SAR has been around for a long time (not sure but at least ten years). The headlines pop of now and then but people seem to mostly not care anymore. Why is this news at all on /.? I don't mean just that it gets published but from many of the comments I get the impression that a lot of people had never heard about this before? Or could it just be that the average slashdotter was in diapers 15 years ago? ;-)
Also, someone mentioned that you could just get a bluetooth headset for $200. Seriously? $200? They're more like $25 over here...