Italian Supreme Court Accepts Mobile Phone-Tumor Link

An anonymous reader writes with a link to this Reuters story, from which he excerpts: "Italy's supreme court has upheld a ruling that said there was a link between a business executive's brain tumor and his heavy mobile phone usage, potentially opening the door to further legal claims. The court's decision flies in the face of much scientific opinion, which generally says there is not enough evidence to declare a link between mobile phone use and diseases such as cancer and some experts said the Italian ruling should not be used to draw wider conclusions about the subject. 'Great caution is needed before we jump to conclusions about mobile phones and brain tumors,' said Malcolm Sperrin, director of medical physics and clinical engineering at Britain's Royal Berkshire Hospital. The Italian case concerned company director Innocenzo Marcolini who developed a tumor in the left side of his head after using his mobile phone for 5-6 hours a day for 12 years. He normally held the phone in his left hand, while taking notes with his right hand. Marcolini developed a so-called neurinoma affecting a cranial nerve, which was apparently not cancerous but nevertheless required surgery that badly affected his quality of life."

Comments

And the other side of the story

[SmallFurryCreature]

For those of us who are old, or read a book once, it is also true that science has been abused and suffers from bullies where going against the norm is seriously discouraged. It ain't just the church that cries heretic.

Once upon a time, there was no proof smoking was dangerous with PLENTY of scientists willing to proof it wasn't dangerous either and the scientists that did show proof it was dangerous? Quacks, nay-sayers, etc etc.

Real science has no absolutes, things are thought to be X until further research either gives more evidence that X is the case or that it has to be rethought and Y is the case.

There have been to many cases where a wonder material/drug/tech was thought to be oh so safe by men in white coats and now we know that just hearing the name can kill you and your kitten! DDT, Asbestos, diesel (once it was thought diesels were better for the environment) fine dust, 1 glass of alcohol a day.

Is holding a microwave to your head dangerous? I am pretty sure if you taped a cellphone to a mouse and had it ring all day, you would have a very cross mouse. But is it dangerous to a human? We can eat some poisons very happily as long as the doses isn't lethal because we flush it out but things like lead aren't all that dangerous immediately but stay inside so what is the "truth"? Can I safely eat "drop dead where you stand" puffer fish every day if the dosage is tiny but if I eat it with a leaden spoon I will die of lead poisoning (the yakuza plugging me for non-payment of a rather hefty restaurant bill).

People who claim we receive radiation of some sort all the time aren't showing great scientific understanding. We breath oxygen all the time too but if I upped your dosage for just 1 minute by say 50 percent, you would still not like it very much.

And with all that background radiation, we still die. Do we die BEFORE regular background radiation has a chance to have a noticeable effect? Could it be that X works to slow to kill us before we croak but X+Y works faster?

I just remember and have read about to many cases were everyone thought something was safe and then it wasn't. Including such gems as seatbelts being unsafe because they kill you if you hit water. I can see how that might worry the Dutch but how does that affect people who live in desserts or even deserts? But the scientific results are published as facts.

Fact: The band of radiation used by cell phones in high constant dosage is dangerous to small animals.

The above statement has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by people trying to dry dogs in microwaves.

Of course, you cellphone isn't a microwave, isn't on all the time and has a fraction of the power. So, some scientist, usually being payed by an insititution who favors continued unrestricted use off cell phones, claim it is harmless (a dangerous word that doesn't mean that something is not having an effect, just that its effect shouldn't cause you to worry) while those working for people who want cellphones banned claim otherwise.

Gosh, some scientist claimed smoking was harmless (again that word, they didn't deny that if you injected the ingredients in large doses you wouldn't die, they just claimed a cigarette wouldn't kill you (while saying nothing about 3 packs a day). A single cigarette indeed won't likely kill you were you stand and who is to proof that the cancer you get 50 years later started from the single molecule of smoke from THAT cigarette?

And those who claimed smoking was lethal were attacked.

So... I don't know. Our society needs radio communication and our life span hasn't dropped since it was introduced. Or has it but advances in medicine have hidden it? Would we be living to a 100 on average if radio had never been discovered? Not likely.

But part of "believing" in science is to keep an open mind. I can't even keep track of how many truths have been discarded in my life time, just the ones on dinosaurs alone would fill a large pamphlet and nobody can keep track of how much alcohol is "ha