Slashdot Mirror
11-Year UK Study Reports No Health Danger From Mobile Phone Transmissions
Mark.JUK writes "The United Kingdom's 11-years long Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR) has today published a comprehensive report that summarizes 31 research projects, which investigated the potential for biological or adverse health effects of mobile phone and wireless signals on humans (e.g. as a cause for various cancers or other disorders). The good news is that the study, which has resulted in nearly 60 papers appearing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, found 'no evidence' of a danger from mobile transmissions in the typically low frequency radio spectrum bands (e.g. 900MHz and 1800MHz etc.)."
So, 900MHz is the new LF band. Now where did I put my 2m VHF handheld...?
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Scares usually persist long after any scientific backing is gone. Look at anti-vax, for example - the one study showing a link between vaccines and autism has not only been discredited but exposed as an outright fraud by a doctor who was paid to produce specific results. Yet the anti-vax movement continues to believe in the connection regardless. Or the abortion-breast-cancer link - originating in a study which misinterpreted results due to the lack of a true control group and now rejected by just about every reputable cancer-related organisation. Yet, once again, belief in the link remains widespread in the pro-life movement - largely because they wish it were true. This is the same thing again - it doesn't matter how many studies show no adverse effects, we're still going to see a lot of people claiming wireless networks gives them a migraine and worrying about phone-induced cancer.
I agree. If I say so, then it must be true!
B-B-B-But all the astrologers told me this radiomation is dangerous to mi Qi. That and I may face challenges today.
Who is this "study" to cast doubt on that.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
There is a simple long term study that proves that cell phones do not appreciably increase brain cancer risks. It is the basic cancer statistics. That graph covers the years 1992 to 2010. Over that period of time cancer rated have been pretty steady. Considering the explosion in subscriber after 1998 there should be an explosion in brain cancers. There is not. No correlation therefore no causation.
The anti-vax thing is entirely different, because by choosing not to become vaccinated, you are increasing existential risk for others. Being of that mindset is internally consistent only, and only if you really think, that harming others based on your personal beliefs, is justified.
However, even being internally consistent does not necessarily mean, that you are doing the smart thing or even that you are doing the right thing. Please think about this.
Cancer.gov as in U.S. government as in the most trusted source in studies.
Your best shot is a general disbelief of anything coming from a government agency? Get real. Look at any epidemiology report from anywhere on earth and you will fine no increase in brain cancers. If you don't believe that one then try this one as it is non-governmental.
If dog poo is present and no one got sick then dog poo is safe. If you do the same test on millions of people in ever increasing numbers over 15 years and there is no upward trend in illness then dog poo is safe. If dog poo was unsafe there should be at least a few people who got sick. There are two parts to a study; correlation and causation. Correlation asks the question is there a similar trend in two factors. For example, the increased presence of dog poo and the increased incidence of illness. The second step is to prove if that correlation might be caused by a third factor. Possibly the presence of dog urine also increases with the presence of dog poo and it is the urine that is causing the issue and not the poo. If the correlation step fails there is no possible causation. There had been a dramatic increase in the number of cell phones used yet no increase in the rate of brain cancers. There is no correlation therefore no possible causation.
Before you laugh you need to add the words "low intensity" (which this most definitely is) since high intensity non-ionizing radiation is a known hazard. Enough to make you warm by induction alone (which is a hell of a lot of RF) is a big problem and that's why the really dangerous stuff gets shielded before anyone is expected to work near it. Faulty shielding in some RF welders for plastic seams caused quite a few miscarriages in one factory a few decades ago.
Still don't believe me? Microwave ovens use non-ionizing radiation. Several orders of magnitude more than if you had your head stuffed in the transmitting dish from one of these towers, but it's the intensity and not the type of radiation that divides safe as background from cooked in two minutes.
How many studies were there that showed that smoking wasn't bad for your health?
It would be interesting to know who funded all the referenced studies, as well.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
As for the anti-vax thing, I don't feel the government should force us to be vaccinated. It should be a personal decision between patient, parent, and doctor.
Except in exceptional situations like a family history of adverse reactions, not getting vaccinations is about as much child abuse as only feeding a child candy for their entire life. Not only is that detrimental to the child, but it is also a huge risk for the rest of society.
If people get to willingly choose not to get vaccinated(assuming we have high quality vaccinations), other people should have the choice of not allowing willingly unvaccinated people near them in any way. Turn it into a crime of attempted murder with malicious intent.
For me, vaccinations rank right up there with courts and law enforcement, as a modern requirement for a health society. Again, assuming we have stringent requirements on the quality of vaccines.