Study Finds No Link Between Mobile Phones and Cancer (Again)

I expect... by eexaa · 2011-10-21 04:41 · Score: 3, Funny

...someone here telling that mobile phones may not cause damage to us, but they certainly make bees behave weird and die.

Re:I expect... by Mister+Fright · 2011-10-21 04:45 · Score: 2

Huh. I thought bees communicated by dancing or something.
Re:I expect... by Nabeel_co · 2011-10-21 04:45 · Score: 2

Well shit, If it kills bees, It's gotta kill us!
Re:I expect... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 04:54 · Score: 0

Little known fact: Cellphones? Made out of bee parasites!
Re:I expect... by vawwyakr · 2011-10-21 05:02 · Score: 1

Where did I miss this happening? Wait can I just hold my phone up to a bee and kill it now? Does this work on other insects? Is there an app for that?
Re:I expect... by Dewin · 2011-10-21 05:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Increased EM radiation from rising cellphone use is one speculated cause of Colony Collapse Disorder

--
Of course nobody reads the FAQ! If people read the FAQ, the Questions wouldn't be so Frequently Asked.
Re:I expect... by Oswald+McWeany · 2011-10-21 05:15 · Score: 3, Funny

That is sooooo 1990 of you. Join the 21st century- even bees have iPhones now.
The GPS function on it has revolutionized nectar collection.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re:I expect... by Smallpond · 2011-10-21 05:35 · Score: 1

Yes. Its usually better to use the back of the phone. I usually miss if I use the end, and I've never hit a bee with the antenna.
Re:I expect... by Tyrannosaur · 2011-10-21 06:18 · Score: 1

just dont use a phone with a *glass* back...
Re:I expect... by jklovanc · 2011-10-21 06:27 · Score: 2

Guess you should read the information you link. here is a quote from that article.
In April 2011, a study conducted by a former investigator of the EPFL École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne appeared, which stated that active mobile phones placed directly inside a beehive can induce the worker piping signal (in natural conditions, worker piping either announces the swarming process of the bee colony or is a signal of a disturbed bee colony); the author mentioned that "phones are not present in the close vicinity of honeybees in real life" and did not demonstrate what negative effect, if any, worker piping might have within a colony, nor was any link to CCD demonstrated.[110]
All other references to electromagnetic radiation dealt with other types.
Re:I expect... by Dewin · 2011-10-21 06:41 · Score: 1

Admittedly, I only skimmed it and did read that the results seemed to conclude that cell phones were not a cause. However, I was trying to explain someone else's post -- probably a futile cause. The word "speculated" in my post for a reason.
Perhaps I should have emphasized that other people have speculated and there's no real studies that prove or disprove it (I won't count a single study as disproving, for all I know the methodology was flawed.)

--
Of course nobody reads the FAQ! If people read the FAQ, the Questions wouldn't be so Frequently Asked.
Re:I expect... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 07:16 · Score: 1

"Join the 21st century- even bees have iPhones now."
That's the latest buzz around these parts.
Re:I expect... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 07:52 · Score: 0

I confirm Dewin's explanation that cellphones causing / contributing to CCD was in the news. Baseless? I assume so - cellphones aren't new, but the onset of CCD sure was.
So, has nobody heard of the succeeding work that shows ground-up bees contain RNA fragments suggesting viral infection? E.g. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2009/2009-08-25-093.asp
Re:I expect... by Darinbob · 2011-10-21 08:00 · Score: 1

Placing phone inside a hive is too many variables. They should try the experiment with just an antenna in the hive. The phone itself will have electronic hum, plastic outgassing, and that Nokia ring tone itself will cause many insects to flee.
Re:I expect... by Dwonis · 2011-10-21 10:01 · Score: 1

Increased prevalence of zombies is also one speculated cause of colony collapse disorder.
Re:I expect... by jklovanc · 2011-10-24 18:16 · Score: 1

All of these issues may cause a false positive but not a false negative. In this case there was no correlation between cell phones and CCD.

What about the other studies? by Mike · 2011-10-21 04:44 · Score: 0, Troll

What about the other studies which have "again" shown there's some link between cell phone use and cancer.

Truth is, it hasn't been proven conclusively either way yet. And it may never be.

Re:What about the other studies? by Nabeel_co · 2011-10-21 04:47 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, If you look at those studies closely, most of them say that there is no link, just a slight correlation.
Those studies are usually mis quoted, or taken out of context. Assuming they are not bias.
Re:What about the other studies? by errandum · 2011-10-21 04:49 · Score: 2

If their sample says there is, they write that there is, if then another study finds no cancer when exposing things to cell phones, they write that there isn't.
What I think is that there is such a low incidence, even if it exists, that it'll be almost impossible to prove conclusively.
Re:What about the other studies? by tlhIngan · 2011-10-21 04:49 · Score: 1

The problem is, the only way to do a study like this to be conclusive is well, you have to study over a long period of time. We're talking decades or more (I think this study only covered a decade).
They're all inconclusive because the link takes extremely long to develop. Cellphones in common use is a relatively recent thing (think 15 years or thereabouts where everyone has a cellphone), despite being easiliy available since the 80s.
Of course, though, we act like we can't live with them now. The 80s and early 90s must've been just terrible years for people who were growing up back then (mid-30s or so).
Re:What about the other studies? by Spad · 2011-10-21 04:52 · Score: 4, Informative

Those that aren't in the "We took 30 cancer patients and asked them if they used cell phones" category have generally not been statistically significant.
There's a good article about it here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100090300/do-mobile-phones-really-cause-cancer-probably-not-again/ from a little earlier this year.
Generally, phones causing cancer is much more "interesting" than phones not causing cancer, so the studies that show even the slightest hint that they might garner far more attention from the media than they probably should, whereas those that don't have to be much more significant (like this one) before they get decent coverage.
Re:What about the other studies? by ilguido · 2011-10-21 04:56 · Score: 0

However this study is certainly flawed: it doesn't take into account daily usage. It's just based on the years of subscription.
Re:What about the other studies? by Dyinobal · 2011-10-21 05:00 · Score: 1

Don't worry my generation is doing a long term study now. If there is well only my generation and the next are likely to die from it so no big deal.
Re:What about the other studies? by Transcendz · 2011-10-21 05:04 · Score: 1

What about the recent WHO alarm, then ? It's strange that when some studies find a correlation between phone use and cancer, almost immediately there's another one that shows the opposite.

--
--/ TZ /--
Re:What about the other studies? by Sique · 2011-10-21 05:26 · Score: 2

Years of subscription is a good proxy for the total exposation (and that's what matters here!).
Of course there are people who were heavy users from the beginning, while others got their phone just recently and aren't using it much.
And there are people who refrained from getting a cell phone as long as possible, and are now heavy users because circumstances were so pressing that they finally went for a cell phone.
But in the end, it will get out on average, and in each of the groups, there are heavy users and users who seldom use a cell phone.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:What about the other studies? by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-21 05:29 · Score: 1

We should tell the "cell phones = cancer" nuts that computers definitely do cause cancer. Then at least we can get them off the Internet. From there, we tell them that bearings cause cancer, then their travel is restricted to within foot/horse range of their homes.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:What about the other studies? by DeadCatX2 · 2011-10-21 05:52 · Score: 1

The WHO said that cell phones have a cancer risk similar to drinking coffee. Hardly an alarm.

--
:(){ :|:& };:
Re:What about the other studies? by dyingtolive · 2011-10-21 06:05 · Score: 1

This just in: Coffee has been found to cause cancer!

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Re:What about the other studies? by BBTaeKwonDo · 2011-10-21 06:10 · Score: 1

XKCD covered the WHO alarm quite nicely..

Why is it that researchers always say that more research is needed? Is that like a barber always thinking you could use a haircut?
Re:What about the other studies? by Hognoxious · 2011-10-21 06:25 · Score: 1

Truth is, it hasn't been proven conclusively either way yet. And it may never be.
Just like the existence of unicorns.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:What about the other studies? by nedlohs · 2011-10-21 07:02 · Score: 1

Because in a paper you want to head of criticisms. In a perfect world by stating how you controlled for whatever the criticism is, in the real word often enough by sticking it in the "future work" bucket.
And journalists don't grasp that and hence when they read "further studies with large study populations, where the potential for misclassification of exposure and selection bias is minimised, are warranted" they read it as the scientists saying "more research is needed". When really they are saying "yes we didn't do that, but we know that and we didn't just not notice the obvious so please accept the paper anyway".
Of course no researched is going to turn down a grant :)
Re:What about the other studies? by rgbatduke · 2011-10-21 07:38 · Score: 1

Wait, are you trying to inject a note of sanity into an idiotic conversation using the medium of humor?

Forget it!

What's really fun is in trying to figure out how cell phones might cause cancer. Any sane analysis of the actual physics involved results in the wild, off the cuff guess that "they can't". Non-ionizing radiation with no more than a watt directed into the solid angle occupied by the head, no more than 4 watts if you ate a phone. You are at more risk putting on a hat than you are using a cell phone -- it prevents the loss of much more than 4 lousy watts (your brain burns almost a third of the total calories consumed by your body).

Let's see, a cell phone doesn't cause a measurable increase in temperature in tissue -- what little heating it might cause is instantly thermalized by the surrounding tissue and carried away and dispersed elsewhere in the body, just as is the energy trapped by wearing clothes, or a hat. The frequencies of radiation used aren't resonant with any particular structures (and are almost entirely attenuated within a CM or so of the skin anyway). At least two huge studies -- with commensurately good statistics -- find no correlation between cell phone usage and cancer. Various smaller studies sometimes do, but always at the limit of their statistical resolution, another way of saying "it's probably just statistical noise but we want to publish anyway".

The truly amazing thing is that nobody has the intestinal fortitude to just say it: Cell Phones Do Not Cause Cancer, So Get Over It.

It's not like there aren't plenty of things that do cause cancer out there to obsess over, after all. You know, cigarettes, coffee, booze, sex with many partners, certain common viruses, radiation, and a dazzling array of chemical additives that are routinely added to our food or pollutants to be found in our water. The really funny thing is that the person who rides a jet from where they do the research to the meeting where they present it in that one trip to 30,000 feet exposes themselves to real ionizing radiation that almost certainly increases their risk of cancer hundreds of times more than a lifetime of cell phone use (and is still such a small increase that it only shows up as a measurable increase in e.g. pilots and flight attendants who have flown almost daily for five years or more).

Somebody that actually wants to learn the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation could always go someplace like this:

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/MedicalTreatments/radiation-exposure-and-cancer

Ionizing radiation is high-frequency radiation that has enough energy to remove an electron from (ionize) an atom or molecule. Ionizing radiation has enough energy to damage the DNA in cells, which in turn may lead to cancer. Gamma rays, x-rays, some high-energy UV rays, and some sub-atomic particles such as alpha particles and protons are forms of ionizing radiation.

Non-ionizing radiation is low-frequency radiation that does not have enough energy to remove electrons or directly damage DNA. Low-energy UV rays, visible light, infrared rays, microwaves, and radio waves are all forms of non-ionizing radiation. Aside from UV rays, these types of radiation are not known to increase cancer risk.

It is important to understand the difference between these types of radiation. For example, the non-ionizing radiation given off by a cell phone or a television screen is not the same as the ionizing radiation you might get from x-rays taken in the hospital.

(emphasis my own). That really says it all, doesn't it?

Cell phones cause cancer (if at all) by magic!

rgb

--
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Re:What about the other studies? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 07:44 · Score: 0

And nothing of value was lost.
Re:What about the other studies? by Hognoxious · 2011-10-21 07:48 · Score: 1

Coffee - it's almost as dangerous as using a cellphone, claims study.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:What about the other studies? by dyingtolive · 2011-10-21 08:23 · Score: 1

Jesus. Hell of a post to follow from my not-as-witty-as-I'd-like-to-pretend-I-am comment. Good read though.

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Re:What about the other studies? by Pieroxy · 2011-10-21 08:27 · Score: 1

Actually, If you look at those studies closely, most of them say that there is no link, just a slight correlation.
Those studies are usually mis quoted, or taken out of context. Assuming they are not bias.
I have no doubt that cell phone usage has little correlation (at best) with cancer.
But think about someone living under the roof in an apartment below a cell tower. This is something I'd like to see a study about. Because the cell tower emits orders of magnitudes higher than a cellphone, and it emits 24/7. IMO, the real issue with cellphones is this, not the cellphones themselves.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:What about the other studies? by ilguido · 2011-10-21 09:45 · Score: 1

Years of subscription is a good proxy for the total exposation (and that's what matters here!).
Absolutely not: total exposition means little to nothing. A US nuclear worker can take 50 mSv/year for 20 years and live happy for 50 years afterwards, you can take half that dose in a day and be radiation sick.

Of course there are people who were heavy users from the beginning, while others got their phone just recently and aren't using it much. And there are people who refrained from getting a cell phone as long as possible, and are now heavy users because circumstances were so pressing that they finally went for a cell phone.
But in the end, it will get out on average, and in each of the groups, there are heavy users and users who seldom use a cell phone.
This could be true if cell phones and behaviours didn't change in the last twenty years. Unfortunately they changed, so it is an utterly false assumption. Prior to 1995: no SMS (first delivered in 1993, very limited adoption until the second half of the '90s), no internet surfing, no apps, heavy and cumbersome (you couldn't put your phone in you pocket prior to 1990), very limited battery life (you could use it for a few hours a day, only when needed), limited band (no dual band, no tri band, no quad band, just one), lower frequencies (max 950MHz, not 1.9 GHz and beyond), very costly (so no teenagers, you may think that altering the physiology of a teenager is more dangerous than altering that of a middle aged business man). Prior to 1995 phones had limited use and were used accordingly, today people keep their phones at hand and turned on 24 hours a day, 20 years ago you couldn't do it even if you wanted to (and there weren't much reasons to want it too).
Re:What about the other studies? by am+2k · 2011-10-21 10:35 · Score: 2

But think about someone living under the roof in an apartment below a cell tower. This is something I'd like to see a study about.
Are you aware that cell towers don't emit directly towards the ground? You're probably much better off than any house in the vicinity. And for those, the inverse-square law kicks in.
Re:What about the other studies? by plover · 2011-10-21 17:07 · Score: 1

+5 insightful, if I had it to give.
And I know that it works, at least on a local level. For example, several years ago I learned that spammers were harvesting email addresses from forwarded chain letters, and sending viruses to them on letters forged from each others' names. I started telling that to friends and relatives and that I didn't want them to forward them to me "for security reasons". I didn't actually think it would stop them from sending them around, I mostly just wanted them to not have my name on their stupid lists. Turns out they really did stop sending me those things, and they actually cut back on the crap they forward to each other! I occasionally have to debunk a relative's question about "OMG, an analrapist hid in a shopping cart under the coat rack at the store and killed 37 women in Dallas on May 3rd of last year, was that true?" but I've now gone many happy years without being the direct recipient of any of the damn things.
Of course, I'm sure little Timmy died lonely and miserably because I didn't pray for his angels, or send him enough postcards to get his name in the Guinness Book of Records, or collect enough moldy pop can tabs to buy him seventeen seconds of dialysis, but I'm totally OK with that.
Now, I probably couldn't lie enough to get them to give up the internet entirely, but maybe if we told them that Wi-Fi caused sterility or computer mice caused Carpal-Tunnel-Induced-Melanomas, they'd at least cut back.

--
John

What about the towers? by securitytech · 2011-10-21 04:49 · Score: 1

I have seen enough studies that conclude even high cell phone usage is not going to give you cancer. But I work directly under a 200ft cell tower. I would really like to hear about a few studies in reference to living/working long hours around cell towers.

Re:What about the towers? by ustolemyname · 2011-10-21 04:53 · Score: 3, Informative

Radio output from the tower at 200 feet is nothing compared to a cell phone two inches from your brain. Inverse square law, QED.
Re:What about the towers? by Lisandro · 2011-10-21 05:05 · Score: 1

+1 Physics!
Re:What about the towers? by securitytech · 2011-10-21 05:20 · Score: 1

Thanks for the response. I have searched a bit but there are some variables I have not seen quantified in comparison studies. For example, some towers have more or less antenna and/or more power as well as the fact your phone is 2 inches from your head when on a call. The tower is on 100% of the time. Is the differences in exposure over time due to distance so great that these don't factor in at any significant amount?
Re:What about the towers? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 05:22 · Score: 0

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/cellair-a.gif
Cell tower antennas are designed to get as much signal going horizontally as possible, with an implicit reduction in power vertically. That big empty whitespace above the tower in that graphic means you are safer 200 feet below a tower than the people in the buildings around you.
But those people still get more from their personal phones than they do from the tower.
Re:What about the towers? by tibit · 2011-10-21 06:16 · Score: 1

That picture specifically does not show how the pattern looks like between top of the mast and ground at a particular site. It does not necessarily need to resemble the long-distance picture because local effects such as diffraction and reflection on nearby structures will greatly affect what's going on.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.

pointless by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 04:53 · Score: 0

how long did everyone say cigarettes dont cause cancer? How many studies back then did they have that found no proof?
Once enough people die then people will care until then ....

Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 04:55 · Score: 0

Dont worry, you will be ok, its obvious you allready wear a tinfoil hat to protect you.
Re:pointless by gstrickler · 2011-10-21 05:08 · Score: 1

Very few, and those studies were seriously flawed. They had plenty that showed there was a link, they just never published those studies.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:pointless by aintnostranger · 2011-10-21 05:10 · Score: 2

any study with 350 000 people would have found strong correlation between smoking and cancer no matter which decade it was made.
Re:pointless by Smallpond · 2011-10-21 05:41 · Score: 1

Sir Walter Raleigh died of a throat ailment.

It's the other way around by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 04:53 · Score: 0

Cancer causes cell phones...

No amount of proof is enough. by Kenja · 2011-10-21 04:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

People who believe that cell phones cause cancer and vaccines cause autism will never be convenced by any amount of evidence.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

Re:No amount of proof is enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 05:29 · Score: 0

And people (well, mostly companys) who make billions with cellphones and vaccines will make sure that those people will be ridiculed into their grave.
Re:No amount of proof is enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 05:54 · Score: 0

I make zero off cellphone or vaccine money and I also plan on ridiculing those people into their grave. Guess there is a little flaw in your logic.
Re:No amount of proof is enough. by ericloewe · 2011-10-21 06:16 · Score: 1

Like it should be. We don't need morons shouting that random stuff is bad for us. You know what vaccines really do? Save lives. "But I know a guy whose friend's kid was affected by a flu shot!" Do you now? What data supports your thesis? And as for cell phones, do you know what else is EM radiation? Light. Wanna go hide in a black room forever? Be my guest. Don't wanna take any shots? Then be my guest, but don't you dare leave your lightless hole.
Re:No amount of proof is enough. by Hentes · 2011-10-21 08:05 · Score: 1

They might say that but I'm yet to see one that doesn't use a cellphone.
Re:No amount of proof is enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 08:34 · Score: 0

People who believe that cell phones cause cancer and vaccines cause autism will never be convenced by any amount of evidence.
It's not a belief, stupid, but a fact that being too close a electromagnetic field cause cancer. The rest is just
pure disinformation.
Re:No amount of proof is enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 11:53 · Score: 0

Citation needed.

Yes, but... by ackthpt · 2011-10-21 04:55 · Score: 1

The use mobile phones while driving does multiply the accident rate, which can still kill people.

They also multiply rudeness in restaurants.

And no matter what any advertising tells you, you never look cool while holding or using one.

Lastly, the mobile you consider state-of-the-art will be mocked as utterly campy and brick-like by whatever they have in 10 years.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Yes, but... by tibit · 2011-10-21 06:26 · Score: 1

Lastly, the mobile you consider state-of-the-art will be mocked as utterly campy and brick-like by whatever they have in 10 years.
You're wrong here. Our hands don't get all that much smaller over time. The dimensions of a cell phone's user interface surface have to remain where they are. As to the rest: there isn't all that much to be done to an iPhone-sized cellphone. It's ridiculously tiny if you look inside. Even if the motherboard was infinitely small and took no volume at all, you still need the battery, antennas, UI surface. So all you could get is perhaps a slightly thinner iPhone and that's it. I'd say the original iPhone is still a very futuristic device, if you think as to what was available mere 10 years ago. The newer models are pretty much thinner and that's about it as far as form factor goes.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 07:36 · Score: 0

You're assuming the user interface will continue to use the hands...
I think therefore I call.
Re:Yes, but... by green1 · 2011-10-21 07:38 · Score: 1

The use mobile phones while driving does multiply the accident rate, which can still kill people.
So why is it then that no jurisdiction in the world who have introduced a ban on using a cell phone while driving have seen a reduction in accidents?
Every study I've ever seen linking accidents to cell phone use fail to correct for percentage of drivers using a cell phone in the first place. If 10% of your drivers are using a cell phone, and 10% of accidents occur while a cell phone is in use, that does NOT mean that 10% of your accidents were caused by a cell phone, in fact it means that in all likelihood the cell phones had zero effect.
Now I think it's naive to believe that no accidents have been caused by a person due to their cell phone use, I also believe that it isn't nearly as significant a number as the alarmists want to believe.
Re:Yes, but... by green1 · 2011-10-21 07:41 · Score: 1

Actually the introduction of smart phones has caused a slight increase in phone size. (you need a larger phone to type on than you do to simply dial, and a larger screen to play games/watch movies than to dial a number)
Unfortunately humanity as a whole is incredibly poor at predicting the future accurately enough to know where it will go from here, I expect thinner, though likely not much smaller in the short term, but without knowing what new user interface we will come up with farther in the future, I can't say what size or shape will be required to interact with it.
Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 07:46 · Score: 0

The disposable mobile phones with the weight, volume, and pliability of a piece of paper, will make our current phones seem campy and brick-like.
They had these in the movie Ultraviolet.
Or the cool phones might all have 3D resizable holographic UI, and be worn on the wrist. Or they are part of your sun glasses and just impose the UI image on the lenses. Or maybe they are surgically implanted and impose the UI directly on to your occipital lobes, and read input directly from your brain, with no need for physical gestures at all.
You simply lack imagination.
Re:Yes, but... by tibit · 2011-10-21 14:57 · Score: 1

It's not about imagination, it's about what's practical. There's plenty of movie ideas that are pipe dreams simply because they just plain won't work because of human factors involved. My pet peeve: using your gaze as a pointing device -- utterly stupid, yet sounds cool and futuristic. Why stupid? Because you use gaze for visual exploration, and this comes naturally. Switching from exploration (visual input) to pointing is, at best, locking you out from visual exploration. This utterly breaks down if there's anything even remotely dynamic about the scene you're looking at, as you get involuntary saccades. Of course the device knows what's changing and can classify saccades as involuntary due to changes in the display, but that doesn't make it much better. If you're watching a video of any sort, your pointing ability is gone. You'd need to do something silly like perhaps a double-blink to freeze the screen and switch to pointing mode. Been there, played with it, and it's just so staggeringly cumbersome even if you try hard to get used to it for a couple weeks. Never mind that our fovea is simply too big -- saccades are not very accurate. Even a very dirty mechanical mouse beats eye gaze "accuracy" by an order of magnitude. And it's all assuming you have a theoretically ideal eye movement tracker (with no error) -- I'm talking about physiological pointing error. You'd need UI elements that are silly big -- it'd look like tpuch UI designed for people who wear gloves. On an Antarctic expedition to boot.
As for "3D resizable holographic UI": it's projected "mid-air". If it's "mid-air", you need power for the light source. It'll make the consumption of the worst cellphone out there look silly in comparison. Holography doesn't make your eye magically more sensitive. It has to work in sunlight, yaknow. So that's silly too because basic physics don't bow to engineering, and you're proposing an engineering "workaround" around Nature.
The only low-energy non-conventional display technology, other than using electrodes, requires projecting images directly to your retina. This kind of technology is quite feasible -- we have both sensitive enough remote eye tracking, and projection systems (electro-optics), so that's something that at this point in time only needs money and engineering.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:Yes, but... by mjwx · 2011-10-21 18:04 · Score: 1

And no matter what any advertising tells you, you never look cool while holding or using one.
Two words:

Hands free.

I cook all the time on the phone, phone is in the pocket, headphones in the ears.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

But... by jellomizer · 2011-10-21 04:55 · Score: 1

People really want to have a link between something popular and widely used and a deadly condition.
If we have it and we like it. It has to be bad and evil and must be banned so no one can enjoy this again. It is kinda funny that it is usually the less informed segment of the liberal groups (AKA Dirty Hippies) who really push this stuff. And not the religious right who many religions focus of steering away from early possessions.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Re:But... by green1 · 2011-10-21 07:43 · Score: 1

Religions are the origin of "have it and we like it. It has to be bad and evil and must be banned"! They trade on guilt, if you aren't feeling guilty, they haven't done their work right...

Roll back 60 years ago... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 04:56 · Score: 0

Turn back the clock 60 years ago:

"Another study finds no link between tabbaco and cancer (again)"

Re:Roll back 60 years ago... by Moheeheeko · 2011-10-21 05:00 · Score: 1

Turn back the clock 60 years ago:
"Another study finds no link between tabbaco and cancer (again)"
"Another study finds no link between the ability to speak and real intellegence" FTFY.
Also, TOBACCO
Re:Roll back 60 years ago... by cvtan · 2011-10-21 05:01 · Score: 1

Yes but those people were all crooks and liars and have paid for their crimes by becoming rich.

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Re:Roll back 60 years ago... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 05:13 · Score: 0

Doctors surgery's today: You have a mouth, throat, repository tract cancer, did you ever smoke? Patient: Yes. Doctor: Smoking caused your cancer.
Re:Roll back 60 years ago... by LocalH · 2011-10-21 05:30 · Score: 1

Turn back the clock 60 years ago:
"Another study finds no link between tabbaco and cancer (again)"
"Another study finds no link between the ability to speak and real intellegence" FTFY.
Also, TOBACCO
Also, INTELLIGENCE
How's that foot taste?

--
FC Closer

Should be pretty obvious by now by some1001 · 2011-10-21 04:57 · Score: 5, Informative

E=hf.

Visible light does not cause cancer. UV, XRay, and Gamma (all higher frequency than visible) do cause cancer.

Even if we knew nothing about the fact that we are exposed to so much radio and microwave radiation on a daily basis, does it not make sense that electromagnetic radiation below visible light should also not cause cancer (that is, for it to not be an ionizing radiation)?

I mean, who cares if your brain dissipates some radio energy to heat in the brain? Has a small temperature in a localized part of the body caused cancer in the past? Unless the heat dissipated raises the temperature of the brain over 104, I do not see much concern.

Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by pinkj · 2011-10-21 05:04 · Score: 1

If I could mod you up, I would.
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by mjr167 · 2011-10-21 05:18 · Score: 1

But ... but ... its RADIATION! It's in the air! It's bombarding us! It must be EVIL cause it's RADIATION! We need to protect the children from the RADIATION! And... and... you made the radiation move in funny ways by modulating it! The funny moving radiation must cause cancer cause its funny and RADIATION!
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 05:19 · Score: 0

Obviously you have a brain and actually thought about this rather then go off on emotions alone. I thereby ignore your results and continue to protest that it does cause cancer! Now where's my settlement cheque from the cell companies? I need it to go buy some more smokes.
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 05:51 · Score: 0

You are right, the energy at cellphone frequencies isn't enough to cause cellular damage. This has been known for quite a few decades now. Why is this research still being funded.
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by dondelelcaro · 2011-10-21 06:13 · Score: 1

does it not make sense that electromagnetic radiation below visible light should also not cause cancer
Non-ionizing radiation shouldn't directly cause cancer by the inducement of DNA damage. However, non-ionizing radiation could conceivably cause inflammation due to localized increase in heat. Increased inflammation can increase the risk of cancer. [That's basically why asbestos causes cancer, even though asbestos itself is spectacularly inert.]
It's certainly unlikely that cell phones produce enough energy to cause enough inflammation to cause an appreciable increase in risk of cancer, but the possibility is large enough that it's reasonable to study.

--
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by LWATCDR · 2011-10-21 06:52 · Score: 1

Is there more cancer in warm areas then in cold ones? I would guess that then few milliwatts of RF would produce less heat than say living in the south or west?

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by dondelelcaro · 2011-10-21 07:11 · Score: 1

Is there more cancer in warm areas then in cold ones? I would guess that then few milliwatts of RF would produce less heat than say living in the south or west?
External temperatures don't influence internal temperatures much, so long as humans can maintain homeostasis. That said, I would expect (after controlling for skin pigmentation) to find more skin cancers in warmer areas... but that's not what you're asking about.
It's not the power itself that is the issue, but the intensity. A few mW over a few um^2 is more likely to be problematic than a few W over a few meters^2.

--
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by LWATCDR · 2011-10-21 07:48 · Score: 1

but homeostasis is not perfect. 98.6 is just an average body temp. I agree with intensity being the issue but the intensity of sun light per area will much higher than the intensity of RF per area. Put a one cm2 sample in sunlight in the summer and check the heat gain vs exposing the same size sample to a milliwatt em source of your choosing.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 07:58 · Score: 0

Oh god someone please mod parent up. 2 sensible people in a row!
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 08:37 · Score: 0

The argument has more to do with the localization of the heat. The body can deal with uniformly distributed heat more easily.
Maybe. That's why they did the studies. And they've all come up negative so far, so it appears there isn't actually such an effect.
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by dondelelcaro · 2011-10-21 10:12 · Score: 1

but homeostasis is not perfect.
No, but it's fairly good when we're talking about internal body temperatures... and when it does fail and your temperature goes much beyond 42C, you die.

Put a one cm2 sample in sunlight in the summer and check the heat gain vs exposing the same size sample to a milliwatt em source of your choosing.
This would be a measurement of average heat gain, which isn't what I'm talking about. Obviously there's not enough energy in a typical cell phone transmitter to produce an appreciable average heat gain in a volume of water the size of a human. However, with an increase in localized intensity via focusing you may be able to increase the incidence and severity of inflammation.
I personally don't think that the radiated power of most common devices is going to be high enough to introduce a high enough relative risk to offset the advantages of cell phones (or probably even to have a study with enough statistical power to be detectable), but that doesn't mean that scientists shouldn't go out and do the tests to verify that this is in fact the case.

--
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 11:44 · Score: 0

Non-ionizing radiation can affect biological processes in ways other than just heating, e.g., radio frequency EMI affecting dim-light melatonin onset, and low-frequency EMI and magnetic fields altering enzyme kinetics. For that matter, visible light can clearly affect biological processes, if it didn't, our eyes wouldn't work!
In biology, you don't dismiss a possible link between cause and effect simply because you can't come up with a mechanism. You do so with *data*.
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by chooks · 2011-10-21 15:20 · Score: 1

However, non-ionizing radiation could conceivably cause inflammation due to localized increase in heat.
Except that increased heat by itself does not cause inflammation. Rather - it is the reverse. Namely, inflammation causes increase in heat (through a variety of different mechanisms including cytokines, changes in vascular permeability, etc...). True, if you get heat high enough then you can destroy cells which in turn will induce an inflammatory response to clean things up. But those temperatures required would be ones that would be able to essentially burn cells to death, which is not a micro-increase in heat. In any event, your body does have heat shock proteins (HSP) which helps protect against thermal changes (and do a variety of other things as well, including some aspects of cell signalling (such as testosterone localization to the nucleus, IIRC)).
Now, if your hypothesis is that micro variations in heat can cause fluctuations in cellular signalling that could make oncogenic changes, well that is testable and may or may not be true. Apply for a grant for that and see where it goes.

--
-- The Genesis project? What's that?
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by cyn1c77 · 2011-10-21 15:41 · Score: 1

E=hf.
Visible light does not cause cancer. UV, XRay, and Gamma (all higher frequency than visible) do cause cancer.
Even if we knew nothing about the fact that we are exposed to so much radio and microwave radiation on a daily basis, does it not make sense that electromagnetic radiation below visible light should also not cause cancer (that is, for it to not be an ionizing radiation)?
I mean, who cares if your brain dissipates some radio energy to heat in the brain? Has a small temperature in a localized part of the body caused cancer in the past? Unless the heat dissipated raises the temperature of the brain over 104, I do not see much concern.
Your stated logic really does not make since, given a portion of the UV spectrum is non-ionizing yet still has been shown to indirectly contribute to DNA defects, elevating cancer risk. Furthermore, you can't really just postulate that all lower frequency EM radiation is safe given that given that lower-wavelengths of EM do interact with your body. Microwaves and infrared are lower frequency than visible light, but still can instantaneously burn you and long term microwave exposure can cause cataracts.
The fact that cell phone radiation is both nonionizing and that power exposure levels are low implies that any harmful effects will likely be very subtle and take some time to tease out of data. First you need to understand if the wavelengths interact with the body AT ALL. If so, you need to understand what the effect of that long term interaction is, if it can directly cause cancer or indirectly increase cancer risk, and if any negative effects can be magnified by other environmental or genetic factors. It could take decades to resolve, especially when you consider that most people's "long-term" exposure is just starting given that widespread cell phone use has only been around since the mid 1990's (20+ years) and many people live for 80+ years.
So don't be so absolute. Remember that smoking definitely did not cause cancer for a long time too. Until it did.
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by LWATCDR · 2011-10-22 01:01 · Score: 1

That was kind of my point. the total power emitted by a cell is very small and it is not focused. Now as to should they test that is up for debate. If they know what the max output of cellphones are and know the absorption rates of tissues and the required heat to cause an issue then it becomes a math problem. I would bet that they have already done this. These tests are necessary because people refuse to believe the math.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Should be pretty obvious by now by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-22 23:21 · Score: 0

does it not make sense that electromagnetic radiation below visible light should also not cause cancer
Non-ionizing radiation shouldn't directly cause cancer by the inducement of DNA damage. However, non-ionizing radiation could conceivably cause inflammation due to localized increase in heat. Increased inflammation can increase the risk of cancer. [That's basically why asbestos causes cancer, even though asbestos itself is spectacularly inert.]
It's certainly unlikely that cell phones produce enough energy to cause enough inflammation to cause an appreciable increase in risk of cancer, but the possibility is large enough that it's reasonable to study.
It's not just reasonable, it's common sense. Just think, do you *feel* any heat from the phone, or anywhere on your person after using the phone? I think you can definitively state there is *not* enough energy issuing forth to cause inflammation and cancer. Also, asbestos is inert, but they've still been able to find strong correlations everywhere they've looked between incidence of mesothelioma and exposure to asbestos. Your point is well taken in any case, the lesson from asbestos being we ought to keep looking.

Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 04:58 · Score: 5, Funny

http://xkcd.com/925/

Never "completely sure" by jpwilliams · 2011-10-21 05:00 · Score: 1

Let's not forget that there are two types of conjectures: those that have been proven false, and those that have not yet been proven false, according to Karl Popper. So the conjecture "Cell phone's don't cause cancer" can be disproven by just one case where cancer is caused by a cell phone. Add that to the EXTREME difficulty in attributing the cause of cancer, and we'll never be completely sure.

Re:Never "completely sure" by c6gunner · 2011-10-30 12:46 · Score: 1

Let's not forget that there are two types of conjectures: those that have been proven false, and those that have not yet been proven false, according to Karl Popper. So the conjecture "Cell phone's don't cause cancer" can be disproven by just one case where cancer is caused by a cell phone. Add that to the EXTREME difficulty in attributing the cause of cancer, and we'll never be completely sure.
Let's not forget that there are two types of conjectures: those that have been proven false, and those that have not yet been proven false, according to Karl Popper. So the conjecture "Hillblillies aren't anally raped by Aliens from outer-space" can be disproven by just one case where a hillbilly is anally-raped by an alien from outer space. Add that to the EXTREME difficulty in attributing the cause of anal-rape, and we'll never be completely sure.

Living causes cancer by gstrickler · 2011-10-21 05:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

So stop worrying about all the things that contribute so little to the risk that a 350,000 person study can't identify a link. Enjoy your life, and avoid the things with a strong correlation to cancer, like tobacco, excessive UV exposure, high levels of radioactivity, etc.

We don't need more study of a link between cell phone usage and cancer, because repeated studies have shown that any risk is too low to measure even in large studies of long term users, therefore, too low to worry about.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false

Re:Living causes cancer by formfeed · 2011-10-21 06:15 · Score: 1

The supposed cancer risk with cell phones is that a microwave radiation source close to your skin will increase the temperature in some cells which increases the cancer risk. However, this temperature increase is very localized and only temporary. If there is a risk, it will be way below 10^ -5 and hard to quantify, since it is somehow a problem to find people that don't expose themselves to other cancer risks, like walking in the sun, eating a byte of junk food, or not getting enough sleep or being stressed...
Re:Living causes cancer by gstrickler · 2011-10-21 07:38 · Score: 1

The microwave frequency that heats water is 2.45GHz, and no cell phones operate at that frequency, so the effect will be minimal. Also, the transmit power of cell phones it 0.6W or less (usually much less except when you're at the fringe of reception). The power and frequencies are so small that they will probably never be able to establish a correlation, even if there is some small risk. The studies that have been done are sufficient to eliminate it as a real concern, even though we'll never be able to prove there is no connection and will probably never be able to prove there is a correlation.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:Living causes cancer by Geoffrey.landis · 2011-10-21 09:12 · Score: 1

The microwave frequency that heats water is 2.45GHz,
No, it's not. That frequency is used for microwave ovens because it is the Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) band, and hence you don't need a FCC license every time you turn your microwave on.
Water heating isn't terribly sensitive about what frequency. It's not a resonance-- it would heat equally well at 2.25 or 2.55 GHz. The oscillating electric field adds energy to the water molecule dipoles.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Re:Living causes cancer by gstrickler · 2011-10-21 09:51 · Score: 1

Thanks for that correction. I had missed that.
Still, the power levels are so low, maximum is 1% of a modern microwave oven, and radiated in all directions so that amount actually reaching human tissue doesn't produce enough heat to even feel it, certainly not enough that blood circulation can't remove any excess heat. Therefore, damage from heating is extremely unlikely. And since it's non-ionizing, there is no other known mechanism by which it can cause harm (cancer or other).

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false

Re:This isn't complicated by leighklotz · 2011-10-21 05:08 · Score: 1

I think you're joking. If not, I'm sorry for you.

But I started smoking. by chrisj_0 · 2011-10-21 05:10 · Score: 2

I gave up the cell phone last week coz I thought it would cause cancer. Now I smoke 2 packs a day and I'm going through cell phone withdraws FML

Early cell phone by Siggy200 · 2011-10-21 05:10 · Score: 1, Interesting

Worked at a radio repair shop 1980 to 1990. When the first cell phones came out they were the size of a briefcase and mounted in a trunk of a vehicle and the antenna mounted on the roof of the vehicle. The handset mounted on the center hump next to the driver was somewhat like a Princess phone. Mostly doctors and lawyers at that time were able to afford purchase of a cell phone and air time. One doctor came into the shop and he wanted to have the cell phone radio removed. The radio/cell phone was installed about a month earlier. We asked the doctor why he didn't want the cell phone. He took out a device that measured for microwave oven leaks and placed that device near the ceiling of his vehicle, the alarm sounded, then he said this thing is frying my brain, take it out. So we obliged him and removed the radio/cell phone.

Re:Early cell phone by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 05:28 · Score: 0

so, do you have a point to make or are you just sharing an anecdote?
Re:Early cell phone by Siggy200 · 2011-10-22 05:38 · Score: 0

just sharing an anecdote

Yet, people will consider to claim that it does by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 05:11 · Score: 1

People are stupid.... People will continue to be stupid... That is the way of life.

Cell phones don't cause cancer, multiple studies show it..... "But a friend of a friend of mine says it does" so obviously they know more...

Global climate change is real, multiple studies show it.... "But the big oil companies say it's all lies" so obviously they know more...

Vaccines don't cause autism, multiple studies show it... "But it's all a cover up by the big medical companies and even a Bauchman said it does so it must me true!"

More testing is needed! by Arancaytar · 2011-10-21 05:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe 25th time is the charm: "Significant link found between cellphones running Windows Phone, p < 0.05!"

A different study desparately needed: by White+Flame · 2011-10-21 05:23 · Score: 1

Do tinfoil hats cause cancer?

Re:A different study desparately needed: by formfeed · 2011-10-21 06:25 · Score: 1

Do tinfoil hats cause cancer?
Most certainly!
If your brain overheats, it increases the risk of cancer and all kinds of degenerative diseases. On top of that, studies show that a tinfoil hat might actually work as a parabolic dish and increase radiation.
At the very least, wear an ice-pack and don't look at your wifi router while wearing a tinfoil hat

The corrolation the study funder and results by Technician · 2011-10-21 05:24 · Score: 1

A study did find a correlation between the funder of the study and the result of the study

The studies combined show about a 50% inconclusive result of the study.

The data was separated between the Industry funded studies and non industry funded studies and a strong correlation was found.

Industry funded studies find cell phones safe in 3/4's of the studies and only 1/4 show them not safe.
Non industry funded studies show the phones unsafe in 3/4's of the studies and safe in only 1/4 of the studies.

http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation

--
The truth shall set you free!

Re:The corrolation the study funder and results by Technician · 2011-10-21 05:33 · Score: 1

Can't edit.. The research was by Henry Lai of Oregon State University. He compared the studies and looked for the correlation.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Cell-phone-cancer-risk-debated-1281040.php

Herberman, he said, was referring to the so-called Interphone study – a 13-country, $15 million European epidemiological study of tumor rates among cell phone users – which was completed in 2005 but remains unpublished because of disagreement among the scientists (some of them funded by industry) on how to interpret the results.
His result showed clearly this;

Lai noted with a chuckle that if you subtract from the literature all of the industry-funded scientific studies, most research shows evidence of health effects from cell phone use.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:The corrolation the study funder and results by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 07:16 · Score: 0

And his funding came from.... ?
Re:The corrolation the study funder and results by Technician · 2011-10-21 10:38 · Score: 1

I don't know why you were modded down. Valid question. If you read the article, after he published his results,the industry tried to remove his funding by demanding he be fired. I would guess that this puts him in the Non Industry. Thanks for asking, but I thought it was clear in the article. I do see I had an error. Wrong state. It was UW instead of Oregon.
His funding was from the University of Washington.

Few paid much attention, and mobile phone use exploded. But the UW scientists said they became targets of an industry strategy aimed at discrediting and suppressing studies raising health concerns about cell phone radiation.
"They even wrote letters to the UW trying to get me fired," said Lai, a gentle man who laughs easily despite being on the losing side in a war between business and science.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:The corrolation the study funder and results by c6gunner · 2011-10-30 12:55 · Score: 1

It's true that there's a well known publication bias in most industries which undertake scientific studies. This is a problem. On the other hand, the idea that non-industry studies show a consistent correlation between cell-phone usage and brain cancer ... that's complete bullshit. Like with most pseudo-scientific claims, the well designed studies tend to show no effect, while the poorly designed studies show a minor effect. There is no significant controversy on this topic in the scientific community - it's only an issue amongst cranks and conspiracy theorists.

Re:This isn't complicated by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 05:35 · Score: 0

Where's that "-i: WUT" moderation option?

Re:This isn't complicated by Flyerman · 2011-10-21 05:39 · Score: 1

This is stupid, "oncogene" is is a category of genes that have the potential to cause cancer. In effected cells, one of these genes would be mutated of heavily expressed.

There is no "Onca gene" and the rest is just ridiculous.

It sounds like by SlippyToad · 2011-10-21 05:41 · Score: 1

The Luddites have just about run out of steam on this front.

But hey, I'm sure there's yet another "cell phones cause cars to randomly detonate with nuclear force" study right around the corner.

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on

Re:It sounds like by LWATCDR · 2011-10-21 06:56 · Score: 1

Buzzz sorry you are wrong. For an education please watch this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greasy_Pole it is available on netflix streaming.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Type of radiation is crucial by Quila · 2011-10-21 05:57 · Score: 1

is highly susceptable to mutation from outside radiation

Make that ionizing radiation. It can strip electrons, damage DNA. Cell phones produce non-ionizing radiation. They don't have enough energy to damage DNA.

Re:Type of radiation is crucial by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 06:45 · Score: 0

I don't know if cell phone radio transmissions cause cancer.
But the line 'it is not ionizing radiation so it cant damage DNA' is bogus.
Just because it is non ionizing radiation does not mean that it is totally incapable of having any kind of biological effect.
It is not PROVEN that it does or can cause these cancers or have effects, but is also not proven that it CANT.
If it has energy, that energy can have a effect. If it can penatrate the body to any degree it can have an effect.
Still need proof, but it is impossible that non ionizing radiation could have some effect.
Re:Type of radiation is crucial by Quila · 2011-10-21 07:27 · Score: 1

Non-ionizing radiation can heat molecules through excitation. It is conceivable that enough could heat tissue so much that DNA is damaged, but that is absolutely beyond the abilities of a cell phone. It's sticking your head in a microwave oven.
It CANNOT directly mutate DNA like ionizing radiation does, which means stripping off electrons. This mutagenic property of ionizing radiation is the normal association between radiation and cancer.
At the upper edge of non-ionizing radiation and going into ionizing radiation is ultraviolet light, which can cause skin cancer through free radicals. Below this is visible light, which can still excite electrons. Below this is microwaves, and at the very bottom end of microwave is where microwave ovens and the highest frequency cell phones operate (although at orders of magnitude lower power levels) as well as WiFi and many other applications.

It is not PROVEN that it does or can cause these cancers or have effects, but is also not proven that it CANT.
It is not PROVEN that my cat can beat me at chess, but it is also not proven that it CAN'T. However, I'm betting that it can't.

But, but, but... by RManning · 2011-10-21 05:58 · Score: 2

But I heard that almost everyone who is getting brain cancer now is a mobile phone user. How can that be?

Re:But, but, but... by Geoffrey.landis · 2011-10-21 09:16 · Score: 1

That effect was explained by Randall Munroe: http://xkcd.com/925/

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

It's Bayer's Clothianidin causing the bee deaths. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 06:26 · Score: 1, Informative

Bayer-AG made an insecticide called Clothianidin to replace Imidacloprid as the patent expires (or expired) on it.

In field tests in Germany, Clothianidin was found to be EXTEREMELY LETHAL to bees because they bring the tainted pollen back to the hive, and it is fatal in very low doses. Literally one bee carrying the insecticide back will kill hundreds of bees in the colony.

Needless to say it is banned in Germany and the rest of the EU.

But Bayer is selling it in America, and the appearance of clothianidin on the US market exactly coincides with the start of the colony deaths here. For whatever reason (disclaimer: I am a Democrat) Obama and the EPA are doing NOTHING about this.

What's worse is that a lot of Bayer-funded research groups are actively putting out FUD like blaming mold, weather, pollution, and cell phone radiation on the bee deaths as a misdirection. I'm not saying all the research is flawed, but a surprisingly large portion of it is funded by groups that are subsidiaries or Bayer or otherwise related to them.

Bayer own trial results are very clear about the bee deaths and the effect of clothianidin on bees. That point can't be disputed. But why they've been allowed to sell it in the US is the shocking part IMO.

It's like with genetically modified food, all of Europe bans it but nobody stops them in the US. Or feeding cows dead cows that causes mad cow disease, a practice which is also banned in Europe.

Other cancers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 06:41 · Score: 1

To me, one of the biggest pitfalls of the "cell phones cause cancer" idea is that brain cancer is the primary kind being suggested. Why? The skin, bone marrow, and gonads (for those who keep phones on their belt or in their pocket) are all significantly more sensitive to radiation-induced cancer than the brain. And when you talk on the phone, any signal has to go through skin and bone before it gets to the brain. If cell phones could indeed cause cancer, we should see much stronger positive correlations in skin cancer, leukemia, and testicular/ovarian cancer than we do in brain cancer. But nobody is suggesting this (that I have seen). The whole idea is silly, from the perspective of both physics and biology.

Amateur Radio Operators study? by JSBiff · 2011-10-21 07:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

I wonder, in the last 100 years, has anyone done any study on Amateur Radio Operators and their families?

Most hams have antennas, on their roofs, or in the back yard, radiating hundreds or in some cases, up to 1500 Watts of power.

Seems like doing a cancer risk study on them might provide some useful insight into the question of whether RF exposure can possibly increase risk of cancer?

Re:Amateur Radio Operators study? by Ozoner · 2011-10-21 11:05 · Score: 1

> has anyone done any study on Amateur Radio Operators and their families?
There have been many such studies done. No correlations have been found.
Likewise there have been many studies on people living near high power Broadcast and TV transmitters.
Originally these transmitters were build way out in the country but as suburbia spread, thousands of houses were built close to the transmitting masts.
This uncontrolled development was initially a big concern with the authorities, but needless to say, no correlations with health were ever found.
Re:Amateur Radio Operators study? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 13:42 · Score: 0

Yes. And it does. And you are supposed to measure it and take mitigation measures should there be a problem. However, unlike panicking underinformed people, ham radio operators know enough of the science to actually do the math, and they do do the math.
Ask the ARRL.
AC, KG6IIM
Re:Amateur Radio Operators study? by Totakeke · 2011-10-21 15:02 · Score: 1

Wrong. Such studies have been done. A significant increase in melanoma was found in those exposed compared to the control group. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1009703/ Read "Cross Currents" by Dr. Robert Becker (an established and credible physician with dozens of published scientific articles to his name). You'll be shocked.
Re:Amateur Radio Operators study? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-22 19:46 · Score: 0

tons.

um.. by Charliemopps · 2011-10-21 07:35 · Score: 1

Cellphone subscribers prior to 1995? Doesn't that throw their study off a tad?

yeah... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 07:46 · Score: 0

and how many times did "they" say the world was flat? Enough with the "again" comment. You are not clever, you fucking retard.

Correlation does NOT imply causation by Loundry · 2011-10-21 07:48 · Score: 1

These kinds of stories sicken me. "No link". "No correlation". So what if there was? Correlation does not imply causation.

Yet "linked" and "correlated" appear everywhere in medicine. Why is our culture like this? I think it must be a kind of secular religion -- kind of like the faith we have in peer review.

--
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.

Re:Correlation does NOT imply causation by c6gunner · 2011-10-30 13:02 · Score: 1

Yet "linked" and "correlated" appear everywhere in medicine. Why is our culture like this? I think it must be a kind of secular religion -- kind of like the faith we have in peer review.
Because correlation is the minimum standard required, as is peer review. Without a peer reviewed study showing significant correlation, you can't expect to be taken seriously by any rational person, let alone encourage others to look into whether there's a causative effect between the two observations. Your distaste for both says a lot about your ability to understand how we determine what is and isn't true.

Science is about known evidence. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 07:48 · Score: 0

Science has always been 2D observations trying to reinvent itself to manipulate a 4D world.

No ammount of Science will ever be complete. That's why everything is circumstancial Cause-And-Effect matterial,
where Science is the 3rd-party looking for a conclusive control mechanism.

You obviously don't see how Science has become it's own religion when it asserts itself as the mast of the universe by it's weilders. Notice how modern Science has produced a bunch of theoretical physicists that are always ready to criticize the social complexions of neighboring religions on the existance of God: you see, only book-writers would benefit from this sort of debate.

It gets the funding, and that's what religion is all about.

Re:Science is about known evidence. by aintnostranger · 2011-10-21 11:38 · Score: 1

It might be true that no ammount of science will ever be complete and that for some people it becomes a religion. But, the problem with all the cell phone, autism/vaccines, etc... scares is not about scientists pushing an agenda. It's about people claiming that science has *proved* cell phones causes cancer. I have no problem believing that it's possible for cell phones to cause cancer, but it's different to claim one has faith in something than to also assert one has scientfic evidence or even more, proof. I can believe there might be aliens, but how many UFO loving people have you seen that are frank enough to say "we believe it while we have no scientific evidence"? I have not seen anyone in the media say "I'm worried cell phones might cause cancer but there's no evidence to support that". So, in these cases the ones building a very false religion are not scientists, but a bunch of activists, bad journalists, and lawyers. Look at the BioInitiative guys for example, they even mix ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.

I am not convinced. by ctrl-alt-canc · 2011-10-21 08:13 · Score: 1

From TFA: In addition, early subscription holders were on average more exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields from their mobile phones as the early phones had a higher output power than newer generation phones.
If I am not wrong, the BTS controls the power used by each connected GSM handset, so that reciprocal interference and power consumption are minimized. This means that the amount of radiation dose received by each GSM user depends also from the BTS-to-user distance, and from the number of handsets simultaneously operating under the same BTS. It is a mistake to assume that the radiation dose received by each user is constant, and the study shouldn't be taken as conclusive.
It looks like that the same error has been made here as well: the dose received by each radio operator varied wildly.
This probably means that the studies set up a low boundary to the effect of RF on human health, bu these effects could be more severely related to the amount of RF power exposure. However better measurements are needed to confirm or deny this. In the meanwhile, it is probably safer to stay away from strong RF fields, after all...

Group 2B Carcinogen by jweller13 · 2011-10-21 08:29 · Score: 1

Mobile phones are Group 2B Carcinogen. "Possibly carcinogenic to humans. More study required." The same classification as Coffee, Pickled Vegetables, and Talcum Powder.

Smoking doesn't cause cancer by Snaller · 2011-10-21 08:30 · Score: 1

This information brought to you by the tobacco industry!

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating

Re:It's Bayer's Clothianidin causing the bee death by Medievalist · 2011-10-21 09:03 · Score: 1

It's like with genetically modified food, all of Europe bans it but nobody stops them in the US.

Oh, you're going to get some knee-jerks with that one.

Incidentally, the capitalist way of dealing with GMOs would be to let anybody sell any genetically modified food they want, as long as it had large informative labeling on it. Scientists would love this, too, since it would let us do serious studies of how various different genetically modified organisms interact with public health. Informative labeling is good for researchers as well as for free markets.

But, we don't do that; instead we reward the makers of GM crops for allowing their products to contaminate others' fields, and allow everyone to sell GM products without informing the consumer. Recently there have even been attempts to prevent organic milk producers from labeling their products as non-BGH!

Why? Because you'd have to charge less for GM food. People won't pay the same money for an apple that's unfamiliar to them, if they can feed their children a well known reliable apple instead. And you not only have to lie to people about what you're selling, you have to prevent others from labeling their stuff accurately, too, in order to completely subvert the marketplace. That's why pseudo-libertarian corporate shills want to ban labeling stuff as non-GMO - it's to eliminate informed choice, which is what makes free markets work.

So although GM food may cost less to produce, in a fair market you can't charge the same price for it. You have to swindle the customer into buying, which is easy enough if you are already rich enough to buy and sell congressmen like bars of soap. And thus did capitalism die.

Hmm, better get back on topic. OK, I see Randall will have to revise the electromagnetic spectrum to remove "cell phone cancer rays"

It's time to let this one go by EmagGeek · 2011-10-21 09:13 · Score: 1

"The results backs up previous work, but researchers say more work is needed to be completely sure."

After HUNDREDS of studies, and the vast majority of the credible ones, find there is no link, yet of course they want more money to do more studies, so of course more work is needed.

Let it go, already.

Study Finds No Link...Again by uvajed_ekil · 2011-10-21 10:15 · Score: 1

Because there isn't one! Maybe EM radiation is harmful, but science tells is that the power levels in question, and the non-directed nature of the emissions, is not great enough to cause any harm. Taking 50 cellphones, taping them to the same spot on your body, and operating them 24/7 would probably not be a good idea, but using one in a normal fashion should be of no concern. They STILL are not the cause of colony collapse disorder in bees, either.

--
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.

In Soviet Russia by Roachie · 2011-10-21 12:04 · Score: 1

Cellphone KILL cancer.

--
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.

Re:In Soviet Russia by Frosty+Piss · 2011-10-21 13:09 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, YOU are an idiot.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.

Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 16:17 · Score: 0

Ok, fair enough for cancer. But what about the study where rat brain/blood barrier was severely weakened even after only a couple of minutes of cell phone level microwaves? Anyone have the citation on this?

Re:It's Bayer's Clothianidin causing the bee death by c6gunner · 2011-10-30 12:37 · Score: 1

But, we don't do that; instead we reward the makers of GM crops for allowing their products to contaminate others' fields,

No, we don't. And if you try to support this statement by talking about that stupid farmer who intentionally kept GM seeds and then planted them in an effort to get a GM crop without having to pay for it, I'm going to beat you to death with your own keyboard. I've seen WAY too many twits trot out that old canard.

and allow everyone to sell GM products without informing the consumer.

OH NO!

Einstein, pretty much EVERY SINGLE FOOD WE CONSUME has been genetically modified by our species. You'd have to stick a label on everything. Tell me you're not one of those Ray Comfort adherents who think the Banana was designed by god.

Why? Because you'd have to charge less for GM food.

Sheer nonsense. Generally speaking, labels allow you to charge more. Observe:

"NEW! A specially designed combination of the ancient and venerable Pomelo and Mandarin varieties, our Natura-Organge(tm) oranges provides 5 times the Vitamin C content of competing brands, and over 50 times the anti-oxidants! Guaranteed to be more healthful than other types, our Oranges can be enjoyed on a daily basis, or used for a wide variety of home-remedies! Check out our websites for tips on using Natura-Orange oranges as a health supplement, hair-beautifier, and an additive for your favorite anti-wrinkle cream!"

The morons who buy food with "Organic" stickers on them would eat that shit up like there's no tomorrow. I could charge three times the price.

Re:It's Bayer's Clothianidin causing the bee death by Medievalist · 2011-10-31 02:18 · Score: 1

Ah, the knee jerk reaction, as expected.

Re:It's Bayer's Clothianidin causing the bee death by c6gunner · 2011-10-31 04:31 · Score: 1

Ah, I see. You're just a troll, looking for a rection. Well done, then. Carry on.

Re:It's Bayer's Clothianidin causing the bee death by Medievalist · 2011-10-31 05:35 · Score: 1

Actually, I looked in your comment history and read some of your other "rections".

What I saw disinclines me to converse with you.

Re:It's Bayer's Clothianidin causing the bee death by c6gunner · 2011-10-31 08:39 · Score: 1

Yes, the trolls often have that reaction. No worries - I would have given up on you after a bit of back and forth anyway. Cheers!

Slashdot Mirror

Study Finds No Link Between Mobile Phones and Cancer (Again)

150 comments