Slashdot Mirror


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."

47 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. A note for our readers - - by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Informative

    That is the country of Italy (southern Europe, part of the EU), not Italy, Texas. We return you now to the regularly scheduled posts.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:A note for our readers - - by cynop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How egotistic would USA readers be, for this clarification to be necessary?

    2. Re:A note for our readers - - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are missing the context. Texas has many times come up with similarly hair brained declarations.

    3. Re:A note for our readers - - by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

      Do...do you really have to ask?

    4. Re:A note for our readers - - by NouberNou · · Score: 3, Funny

      No need to explain, only something this stupid could come from the country of Italy... They even beat Texas on the wacky scale. Watch out cell phone manufacturers, if you travel to Italy they might charge you for manslaughter, just like they charge people for not predicting earthquakes.

    5. Re:A note for our readers - - by paiute · · Score: 2

      Maybe they will arrest the phone and charge it with murder.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    6. Re:A note for our readers - - by snspdaarf · · Score: 3, Funny

      I knew they were smartphones, but I didn't know they were not Three Laws Safe!

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    7. Re:A note for our readers - - by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The decision was made on the balance of probabilities. The claimant was able to show that there was at least a 50.00000001% chance that using a mobile phone for 6-7 hours a day for 12 years could damage human tissue.

      The court is not saying that mobile phones cause cancer. Studies have shown that while the various types of radiated energy from a phone are not zero (obviously, how else would it communicate) they are not high enough to harm a human being under normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances and the evidence needed to be re-evaluated to reach a decision. Even that decision is not absolute, merely a judgement that given the evidence (including the fact that the damage was right next to where he held the phone) it is more likely than not that there is a causal link.

      For fucks sake Slashdot, stop modding up these retards who don't RTFA and jump on the anti-luddite bandwagon.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Scientific proof by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, Italy hardly stands alone. Here in the United States, idiot judges and legislators have been doing whack-ass stuff like declaring women pregnant two weeks before conception (by law). Other legislators have passed resolutions effectively banning global warming research, or attempting to legislate how said research is conducted so as to prevent certain conclusions from being reached. All around us, worldwide, science is under attack from the idiocracy.

    Science is dangerous because is allows people like you and me to understand the world. Knowledge is power, and science as an institution makes no bones about who gets it. That's why the Dark Ages happened, and why we're just one major disaster or war away from it happening again. Every time science shows us a way to improve the lives of everyone, it gets locked down, barricaded behind licensing and laws, shuffled into a box marked "top secret", and buried. Pharmaceuticals spend billions developing new versions of dick hardening pills, while research into HIV, cancer, and other serious quality of life diseases languish. It seems that lifelong illnesses are only ever treated anymore, never cured. Curing a patient means denying yourself all that profit from name-brand life-saving drugs. I could come up with a hundred more examples from every industry in every country worldwide -- but you get the point.

    Soon, we're going to have to start hiding printing presses and books in our basement, writing down how to rebuild our technology after our governments fail and the world plunges into darkness... all because we tolerate allowing people to become too rich and powerful, and invariably they turn into sociopaths and destroy us. :(

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Scientific proof by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How much money have cellphone operators spent on studies showing that mobile phones are completely harmless? And how much was spent by independent organizations? Which figure do you think is higher?

      Irrelevant horseshit.

      There is not only no evidence supporting a link between cellphones and cancer, there is no plausible theoretical basis for it besides "OMGZORZ RADIATORS R TEH BAD!!!!!1" The frequencies involved are too low to be ionizing. Dielectric heating could be a problem, but not at the power levels involved. That leaves what? The tumor gremlins who live in every Samsung handset?

    2. Re:Scientific proof by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Knowledge is power, and science as an institution makes no bones about who gets it. That's why the Dark Ages happened, and why we're just one major disaster or war away from it happening again.

      Sorry, but no. The Dark Ages happened as a result of the fall of Rome and the invasions of barbarians, and the Muslim conquests.

      Mohammed & Charlemagne Revisited: The Epilogue
      The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism
      The Church Educates Europe

      Pharmaceuticals spend billions developing new versions of dick hardening pills, while research into HIV, cancer, and other serious quality of life diseases languish.

      Languish at their current high levels of research funding? HIV and cancer research seem to do especially well.

      Curing a patient means denying yourself all that profit from name-brand life-saving drugs. I could come up with a hundred more examples from every industry in every country worldwide -- but you get the point.

      I think the point is that you have an exaggerated sense of what is possible - the "Man on the moon syndrome", maybe? Modern medicine offers wonders, but it isn't even close to being able to cure everything. If anything the trend is the reverse - there are more and more antibiotic resistant diseases. Finding new ones that work is expensive, time consuming, and filled with all manner of difficulties posed by law and regulation. Changing social mores drop various former barriers to the spread of disease. The future of medicine, especially where infectious disease is considered, looks a bit grim at the moment.

      Will humans lose the battle with microbes?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:Scientific proof by cynop · · Score: 5, Informative

      The frequencies involved are too low to be ionizing. Dielectric heating could be a problem, but not at the power levels involved. That leaves what? The tumor gremlins who live in every Samsung handset?

      You are correct about ionizing, but since cancer mechanism are not only based on molecular bonds breaking down, this is not definitive. That's one of the reasons the WHO has classified cell phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic" http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

    4. Re:Scientific proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More doctors smoke Camels.

      In another 20 years or so, scientists will have done a lot more research on the human brain which could have a major effect on our perception of how the brain is affected by radio waves. But you seem to have omniscience. Everything is already known to you. During the Manhatten Project, Edward Teller raised the speculative possibility that an atomic bomb might "ignite" the atmosphere because of a hypothetical fusion reaction of nitrogen nuclei. It's a shame you hadn't been there, because you could have laughed in his face and shouted: "That can't happen. It's so OBVIOUS! Why are you so dumb?".

      Socrates said "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.". Come back and post again once you figure out what he was talking about.

    5. Re:Scientific proof by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      TFA is a bit lacking in the arguments in favor of correlation

      That's because there's no such thing.

      I'd explain why but I'm busy disproving a cosine.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Scientific proof by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

      Why don't we encourage people to take thalidomide and smoke cigarettes - after all, there are hundreds of studies stating that they are completely safe.

      And hundreds more showing that they are harmful. Thanks for the strawman - it kept me warm as I burned it.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    7. Re:Scientific proof by paiute · · Score: 2

      Pharmaceuticals spend billions developing new versions of dick hardening pills, while research into HIV, cancer, and other serious quality of life diseases languish.

      Bullshit.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    8. Re:Scientific proof by C0R1D4N · · Score: 2

      In fact viagra was discovered as a side effect to another more useful drug being researched and was just taken advantage of.

    9. Re:Scientific proof by delt0r · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Along with everything else that is not carcinogenic.. Seriously, they are not paid to be correct. Most things are either carcinogenic or possibly carcinogenic in these quite useless lists. Its hard to prove something didn't have a role to play. Even that diet soda you just had....

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    10. Re:Scientific proof by delt0r · · Score: 4, Informative

      More towers means each run at much lower powers. This is to avoid interference. I was working for a Teleco back before the femto/micro cell sites where around. Back then a cell site was a full room full of equipment. Already the density of sites was high enough to set power levels at below 8watts which the hardware could not directly do. We have to add attenuators on the TX side. Consider also the area this is transmitted over.

      Because of the 1/r^2 power scaling with distance, its easy to show all the RF power you are exposed to is from your own phone by a massive margin.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    11. Re:Scientific proof by coastwalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no scientific proof that dihydrogen oxide is safe either but people continue to use the stuff.

      What we actually have going on here is that you are being terminally stupid, a crime given the couple of million years of evolution that went into the underused mechanism that is your brain. You see you have fallen for the current propoaganda war of the extremely wealthy who are manipulating you and the rest of the zombies.

      Everything we do now and everything we have ever done has been risky, from falling off a horse and breaking your leg to holding your arm up to your head for 5 hours a day for 12 years and developing a fault in your nervous system, everything carries a risk. The thing is that a lot of the risks we face in the present are infintesimaly smaller than the ones we used to face and determining the causality is a lot harder than root causing my broken leg to falling ten feet onto a rock from my horse. So its harder to associate cause with effect today and guess what, people with an agenda have noticed this and are using it to manipulate the way you think, using it to make you do what they want you to do. If I had a ton of money and liked the way things worked I would be very keen to stop any scientifically driven popularist nonsense like reducing my income by spending my investment profits on stupid shit like the environment, health care for the slave class or god forbid mitigating climate change. So lets spend a couple of hundred mil a year with some like minded friends on a concerted campaign to discredit scientific opinion in the minds of the plebs so that we can put our views in their heads instead. It worked like a treat for tobacco for decades so it should be a pushover.

      And it is a pushover, you all bleat the same storyline that the propaganda machine has fed you, there are two sides to the story, science is pretty sure about something but there are a few paid shills who scream at the top of their expense account funded voices that all the rest of them, the rest of the scientific establishment are conspiritorial liers with a funded agenda to fool the public - follow the money they shout, follow the money! With good reason of course because they have to disguise their own immorality somehow.

      So now we have a story with two sides, ninety eight percent of the academic world using the scientific methodology of testing a hypothesis with available evidence belive on the balance of probabilities that a hypothesis is correct, and a few mavericks and funded shills say something else. All of a sudden the 2% view becomes weighted at 50% in the media and a few schills and a couple of nutters can persuade the whole world that black might be white that water may flow uphill and that you might prefer permanant slavery to being a free citizen.

      Well good luck to you and the rest of the zombies, I hope you enjoy your continued slavery and the rotting environment you have chosen to live in. Its not too late to wake up of course, I'm rather hoping that it happens before something serious like arbitary loss making wars to ensure the profitability of oil companies happens though. Ooops it already did, wonder what awefullness is comming next.

      Oh and as for the mobile phone thing, if it bothers you then I suggest you dont use one for five hours a day for twelve years, for one thing your body is likely to end up lopsided.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    12. Re:Scientific proof by green1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually it was supposed to be a cure for Hypertension (high blood pressure) and Angina Pectoris (cardiac chest pain) And in fact it is still used to treat Pulmonary Hypertension (high blood pressure in the blood vessel from the heart to the lungs) Considering that heart disease is the number one cause of death in North America, I would consider this to be quite "useful" research. And despite it's recreational uses, the drug is used to treat serious medical conditions even now, so it's hardly an example of something developed frivolously.

    13. Re:Scientific proof by mattr · · Score: 2

      I've long been curious about people who have such strident views on this subject.
      I mean, are you really a qualified medical doctor? No, I doubt it.

      Since everything in biology and chemistry is based on statistical probabilities, I wonder why you cannot imagine cellphone radiation (the heating and directional microwave radiation on wavelengths the same size as some biological structures) as once in a while enhancing the probability of cancer that is already perhaps elevated by other circumstances.

      IANA Doctor but it seems that cancer is a preprogrammed failure mode that can be triggered by lots of irritants and probability greatly enhanced by certain factors. No way to say about what the situation is in this isolated case though.

      If you consider heating the side of your head for hours a day an irritant there doesn't seem much of a problem with it contributing to disease, even if the frequencies are not in the x-ray region. This is why I put my phone on speakerphone when it is also acting like a wireless router. Since I remember reading somewhere that putting your head next to powerful base stations is a good way to get cooked.

      FWIW I have long been wondering what happens as we keep going up into the gigahertz frequencies and zeroing in on the "wavelength equals size of some important biological structure that doesn't like heating". Conceivably he could have been already susceptible and long hours of heating pushed him into the statistical losers cluster.

      Anyway just my two cents but the world would be more pleasant to live in, and I think more rational, if we had less strident robots who think they are laying down the law. Of which I accept I have probably been guilty myself.

    14. Re:Scientific proof by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      TFA is a bit lacking in the arguments in favor of correlation

      That's because there's no such thing.

      I'd explain why but I'm busy disproving a cosine.

      At least not off on a tangent.

  3. From TFA: by cynop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "The evidence was based on studies conducted between 2005-2009 by a group led by Lennart Hardell, a cancer specialist at the University Hospital in Orebro in Sweden. The court said the research was independent and “unlike some others, was not co-financed by the same companies that produce mobile telephones.”

    I suppose this marks a turning point in public opinion. Not as a time that correlation between cell phones and cancer was proven, but for the time people started distrusting researches concluding that "no link has been found". I can only think this is a good thing. We've been down this road before with cigarettes.

    1. Re:From TFA: by zblack_eagle · · Score: 2

      The court said the research was independent and “unlike some others, was not co-financed by the same companies that produce mobile telephones.”

      Some implies a minority. Single study < a minority < the majority. Which implies that the majority of the research "not co-financed by the same companies that produce mobile telephones" says no

  4. Re:Aha by houghi · · Score: 2

    You sure you are not talking about Little Italy in New York, USofA?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  5. Controls? by srussia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FTFS: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.

    Heck, I'd probably get a tumor too if I held a rock against ear 5-6 hours a day for 12 years.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Controls? by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 2

      Is this a uranium rock?

  6. Some people would say ... by prasadsurve · · Score: 2

    >>> 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 ...
    Maybe he was holding it wrong
    Apple already foresaw this and avoided it altogether in their phones.
    Too bad other companies cant use this solution since Apple obviously hold the patent.

  7. um hands free? by arbiter1 · · Score: 2

    Um if you spend that much time with a cell phone glued to your head, why not get a hands free option. then he wouldn't have that much time with the phone to his head.

    1. Re:um hands free? by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought all Italians used headsets. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to wave their arms about while talking.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  8. tumour due to mobile phone usage by lkcl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    i've met someone who also had a tumour develop behind his ear - the same one where he was using a phone. over 15 years ago he was a sales executive, on the road a lot, and he had one of those "brick" mobile phones. they had to be powerful because the number of cell towers was less than it is now. again, he was holding the device up to his ear for over 6 hours a day.

    the problem was that it took 13 years for the tumour to develop to the point where it became painful enough for him to notice something was wrong. by the time he noticed it, the tumour was one centimetre diameter. he's retired, now, having had surgery.

    1. Re:tumour due to mobile phone usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Interesting. I once knew someone who developed a brain tumor in his head -- the same head he had been drinking water with for the previous ten years. His tumor didn't develop immediately either, and by the time it was discovered, it had become inoperable. He's not around to tell the story, now, having died. Heck, I've even heard that every single person who has ever died because of a tumor has had a history of water use. Pretty damn scary if you ask me!

    2. Re:tumour due to mobile phone usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I once knew someone who developed a brain tumor in his head

      Ach, now, if he had a brain tumor anywhere but his head, this would have been an interesting story...

  9. It's so strange by dtmos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The funny part is, those corporate researchers that I've met -- and it would be dozens over the years -- all use cell phones, and buy them for their spouses and children. What cold-hearted bastards! Or ignorant fools! Or both!

    And the corporate cell phone designers that I've met -- and it would be hundreds over the years -- all use cell phones and, despite their decades of work on improving the size, weight, battery life, and range of their devices, never once realized that it would be to their competitive advantage to minimize any radiation absorbed by the body, since that represents wasted energy that could have been used to reach the cell tower instead. Idiots!

    But the managerial genius of the corporations! They can stay in the business for twenty years or more, and each hire hundreds of EM researchers and tens of thousands of engineers, without one of them cracking and letting the Great Corporate Secret -- those Top Secret studies that show how dangerous cell phones are -- out to the public. The maintained secrecy would impress the NSA and NRO, while the control of their people would impress Kim Jong-un. Masterful!

    1. Re:It's so strange by j-beda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The funny part is, those corporate researchers that I've met -- and it would be dozens over the years -- all use cell phones, and buy them for their spouses and children. What cold-hearted bastards! Or ignorant fools! Or both!

      Or the researchers understand that even if their studies are correct, virtually all of them indicate the increased risk is SMALL, and usually consistent with zero increased risk. If the increased risk from the cell phone is comparable (or smaller) to other increased risks we expose ourselves to (crossing in the middle of the street, not washing our hands before eating, or just driving across town in a car) than it is probably not worth changing our behaviour in that instance.

  10. Not surprising by O'Nazareth · · Score: 2

    In France in the 90s I remember that a judge decided to grant compensation to people who got multiple sclerosis who claimed that it was linked to hepatitis B vaccine. Of course the scientific community completely debunked that link. The only reason some people who got it after vaccination was that tons of people got that vaccination at the same time, so coincidences were very very likely to happen.

    Anyway, it is good thing for "equality of chances". If you sucked at school, you can become a judge.

  11. Physicist here. by drolli · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are essentially 2 main groups of effects related to electromagnetic radiation in the frequency range in questions:

    a) direct: Influencing cell chemistry, ion channels, reactions, and disturbing neuronal functions by electromagnetic fields/absorbiont of energy quanta. They are unproven at best, and some of them are unklikely since the quanta are too low energy for most transitions of molecules in the body, yet the fluctuation is to fast to influence the pseudo-static potentials in the cells. This needs to be checked very carefully, since complex systems may have rectifying effects on fast timescales, but the last time i looked for studies there was no indication of a problematic effect.

    b) indirect: the energy is absorbed by and translated to vibrational excitations (heat), heating the tissue like a chicken in the microwave oven. This effect is well known, and, even if seemingly weak, problematic on a long timescale. Studies have shown that a non-negligible temperatue increase may/will occur, which in turn may have all kinds of bad effects. The order of magnitude for this is easy to caclulate on a paper napkin. And since it is well known it was already mentioned *in the manual of my mobile phone 7 years ago* that one should not use it contineously without a headset and keep a minumum distance (i am unsure about the manual from my phone in 2003, but i believe in may have been included). It was well known to anybody paying attention to what he uses that such an extreme use will cause harm.

    So yes, all this boils down to: ignore well known facts (or even the manual) about the things you use, and get medical problems. Yes, for sure you can wait until warnings have to be placed on coke bottles that drinking 3 liters per day, every day are bad. But its no excuse to not listening the 6 years befor to a proven fact with the excuse that the manufacturer does not state that using it far outside the normal use may affect you negatively - maybe he even did so on the bottom of page one of the quickstart, but you found reading unnecessary. Every thing manufactured has a an avergage use. Is you are so far outside of this that you are in a small percentile of users only, you are somewhat on your on own.

    1. Re:Physicist here. by Jmc23 · · Score: 2

      Actually, I think you're allowed to sue and win for all those situations in the US. Not saying I agree with that. However, you do realize that companies put that stuff in their manuals etc... simply to protect themselves right? It's a phone, it's meant to be used. It's like what every single keyboard manufacturer writes in their manuals and puts stickers on their keyboards for. They KNOW people aren't going to stop using their keyboards, they won't change their designs (because it sells), and that simple proviso covers their ass. In my mind, these companies should be held liable. Why, because they hold a large influence over the general population, and let's face reality, the majority of humanity cannot even comprehend these risks or know how to assess them. With great power comes great responsability... unfortunately, in the world we live in, laws actually protect companies from being responsable.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    2. Re:Physicist here. by drolli · · Score: 2

      Luckily this queston is easy to answer. The maximum SAR value ranges typically from 0.4-1W/kg, which, according to the standard in EU must ne measured in a model which reproduces the shape of a typical head and its electromagnetif proerties. The 10g with the highes exposure are determined and compared to the limit of 2W/kg. so that means that we expose a few square cm to less than 20mW.

      Rought estimation:

      assumign a typical heat dissipation by convection ~5W/Km^2 and an inner conduction on the order of ~.5W/Km, a thermal effective length of a few cm, then we arrive at something ~20W/m^2K (dominated by the inner conduction), and an affected area on the order of 10^-3m^2, which results in a thermal condution of 10mW/K conductions. So, yes, this means that instantaneusly (that is, if the tissue surounding the 10g of higeht exposure is cold) we could get something on the order of 1K local increase (which is significant, but you dont die from it). If we assume that we now heat 100g surrounding tissue (4.2J/K/g) by the 20mW input (lowe limit since that was only the max) then we finde a timescale of (significantly) less than 20000s for an increase of the surrounding tissue by 1K. So that means that yes, phoning for six hours has easily the potential (according to the values published by the manufaturers and basic physics) to heat your tissue locally by 1-2 degree, and probably more for an old phone and dropping the approxiamtions we did above.

      That does not cause a stroke immediatly, but i imagine that its probably not good, given that around 42 degrees the proteins in your body degenerate.

  12. In Other News by lobiusmoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Six billion cell phone subscriptions
    22,910 new brain tumor cases in USA in 2012 out of 300M people or 0.008% of the population.

    So practically everybody on the planet old enough to use one has a cellphone, but practically nobody on the planet gets a brain tumor.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:In Other News by steppedleader · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good point. Seems to me the biggest issue with the whole idea of cell phones causing brain tumors is simply the fact that while cell phone use has increased dramatically in the last 20 years, there hasn't been any corresponding increase in brain tumor occurrence. If those two things aren't even correlated, how can anyone conclude that cell phones actually cause brain tumors?

      Someone could claim there is a time lag for tumor development, but these sporadic cases of supposedly cell-phone-linked tumors have been popping up for years and years now, while the overall tumor rate has stayed mysteriously constant.

    2. Re:In Other News by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      To build on that, even if there were an increase in brain tumors over the last 20 years, how would we separate the effects of cell phone use from other changes in that time frame? Cell phone towers, wi-fi routers, over-oven microwaves (where people stand inches away from the door while their dinner defrosts) have all increased in the last 20 years. Even among heavy cell-phone users, there are other potential factors. As another slashdaughter once posted, cell phones are typically made of plastic and aluminum, both of which are bad for you. Holding those materials to your face for several hours a day couldn't be good for you either.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  13. The Real Danger by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real danger is that some jackass judge from the northeastern states or more likely in LalaLand California, who believes that it is appropriate and necessary to consider FOREIGN laws and precedence when deliberating American laws and precedence, will open the litigation floodgates here in the U.S.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  14. Re:Cue the storm of posts ..... by gomiam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, chimpanzees also get cancer, even if at a much lower rate. Perhaps it has to do with accumulated evolutionary mutations, an hypothesis that has been tested more than once and which finds out differences in the apoptosis mechanism between chimpanzees and humans. Why these differences show up and what are they useful for can be debated: it could be a way for not killing too many of our brains' neurons.

  15. Re:Cue the storm of posts ..... by gomiam · · Score: 2

    Ultraviolet radiation _is_ ionizing. But not all UV is made equal: UVC (the more energetic part of the UV spectrum) is ionizing on its own right, UVB and UVA are able to ionize some materials... which include DNA.

  16. Science and Italian judges? by jmichaelg · · Score: 4, Informative

    Considering it wasn't too long ago that Italy put geologists on trial for failing to predict an earthquake, it's a bit difficult to give this latest development anything more than "there they go again...."