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.
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.
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.
I think they did put in a bit more effort than that. low level EMF radiation is not a trivial issue. And if you read the reports instead of concentrating on being shrill they did identify particular groups at risk, such as infants whose parents use cellphone music to keep their toddlers quiet and basically park an active phone next to young developing skulls and brains for hours on end. It also depended a lot on shape, Many flip phones because of their geometry kept the radiating part sufficiently away to be much less a concern, but almsot all smartphones today are unibody designs which means the EMF emitting body and screen is in direct contact with your head.
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.
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.
As far as I understand the mechanisms though, the reason cancer develops over time is that a certain number of mutations have to occur (5-7) for the cells to show hyperplasia, mutator phenotype etc. and eventually metastasize. But in people who lack one or more DNA repair mechanisms, cancer will arise sooner, since the risk (and thus rate) of the mutation is greater (they are not supposed to ever get an X-ray, e.g., or develop breast cancer at a young age. People with xerodema pigmentosum is a example, and they get all sorts of skin cancers eve as children - but you might not want to google that). So I'm asking if there should not be vanguard of sorts, a group of people in which we could detect this. If they have an already identified condition, it might be possible to see that they are getting allot of cancers since cellphones became commonplace.
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!?