Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mobile Phone May Rot Your Bones

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the but-what-about-my-junk dept.

Medicine 220

Stoobalou writes "Researchers at the National University of Cuyo, in Mendoza, Argentina, looked at that strange breed — men who wear mobile phones on their hip. They discovered evidence to suggest that the proximity of the mobile phone caused a reduction in bone mineral content (BMC) and bone mineral density (BMD) in the men who wore the phones over a 12-month period, compared to a control group that didn't."

cancel ×

220 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35638914)

How many just did that?

Re:Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35638980)

I just pulled my dick of my pants pocket, does that count?

Re:Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639032)

Out of your pocket? So you mean your rubber dick, right?

Re:Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639334)

Only if I get to taste it, you sexy mouthbreather, you.

Pier Reviews? (1, Flamebait)

soloport (312487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639518)

"Researchers at the the National University of Cuyo, in Mendoza, Argentina"

Pier reviews or it didn't happen.

Re:Pier Reviews? (1)

HelioWalton (1821492) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639990)

why would we care about the local docks? Or did you mean Peer?

Re:Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639062)

this isn't about having it in your pants pocket. this is about having it attached to your hip, like, physically tied down to your hip and transferring vibrations to your hip. in your pocket, it transfers energy to your thigh muscles first and so less energy gets to your femur.

There's no evidence to suggest you shouldn't carry it in your pocket. This is, in fact, evidence that you should carry it there.

Re:Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (4, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639136)

Carry my phone in my pocket all the time. Have done for the last 10 years or so.

In the risks I run each day, the usage of a mobile phone comes very near the bottom of the list, near "lifting a piece of paper up while seated at my desk" and "blowing my nose".

It's actually NOT worth my time worrying about, because the worrying would do much more damage to my body than the phone ever would in normal usage.

Personally, until it approaches the risk of myself drinking about a litre of Coke a day (which I've done for years), I'm very unlikely to start worrying. And yes, Coke is incredibly "dangerous" - sugar, acid, calcium-leeching chemicals (in the Diet versions, I believe) and all sorts of problems. But when a sip of Coke is that dangerous, a mobile phone hardly figures in my reckoning.

Re:Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (5, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639336)

You scoff, but nose blowing fatalities are the great, unspoken tragedy of our times.

Re:Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (2)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639398)

+1 mod of too true and nods of very sad.

Re:Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639496)

It's actually NOT worth my time worrying about, because the worrying would do much more damage to my body than the phone ever would in normal usage.

Ignorance is less stressful, indeed. There are many other more important issues to deal with, but why not keep the darn phone a tad farther from your bones anyway ? Just to be sure. Would you say it's that stressful to do that ?

Every time some data suggesting that wireless technology might be harmful to human health appears I see a bunch of geeks jumping in and screaming about how stupid that is. It looks almost irrational, almost like they wish it not to be harmful, even though they reckon it might be.

Re:Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639720)

How much further away would you have to keep it, though, before the inconvenience of not being able to easily access it negated the minor risk of carrying it that way? I'm sure keeping my phone in my bag would negate some minor risks, but it would be a general annoyance every time I wanted to use it, even worse if it was ringing and I had to bug everyone around me until I could get to it and much worse if I wander off somewhere and forget I'm not carrying it. I don't carry mine on my hip anyway, just playing devil's advocate and pointing out that sometimes a minor risk is acceptable if it's a convenience.

Re:Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (2)

wastedlife (1319259) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639904)

Where would you propose to keep the phone instead? Shirt pocket? If its a choice between an extremely small variation in bone density of my hips or the thing sitting right next to my heart, I think I would pick the hip every time, even if there is no evidence that I've seen that it will affect your heart.

Also, perhaps the reason geeks jump in defensively is because most of these articles sensationalize the issue. As another poster pointed out, on average the BMD of the phone wearing side was 0.3% lower than the non-phone wearing side and the BMC 1.3% lower. This is a minute difference, especially considering that normally you would expect to find a difference between the two sides. "May Rot Your Bones" is vastly overstating the implications of this study.

Re:Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35640088)

No, it's not more stressful. But it's fucking annoying.

Re:Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (1)

whitehaint (1883260) | more than 3 years ago | (#35640146)

Of course the other aspect, diet is not mentioned, and it can have influence on your bone density.....nah let's jump on the cell phone is danger bandwagon!

Re:Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (1)

mrhide (137659) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639146)

+ 1 !

Re:Just took phone out of my pants pocket. (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639520)

I've got my Droid on my hip, and while I haven't moved it, the holster suddenly feels rather heavy.

Wow ... (3, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35638970)

I'm skeptical, but interested in this ... that would actually be fairly alarming. Though, you'd think cell-phone users would be breaking hips all over the place if that were the case. Certainly some people have their cell-phone in close proximity for an awful lot of hours in a day.

Though, it does make one think a tin-foil codpiece might be in order in case your junk is getting equally affected by the proximity. :-P

Re:Wow ... (3, Insightful)

thehostiles (1659283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639054)

if this were true, people who work with high levels of electromagnetic fields daily (like MRI technicians) would be pretty much made of jelly.

I'm highly skeptical of this, but I'd like to see the actual study article.

Re:Wow ... (5, Funny)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639228)

Why not click on the link in the article then?

Re:Wow ... (2)

havokca (1864454) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639432)

This is slashdot. You take your filthy logic elsewhere!

Re:Wow ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639462)

Why not click on the link in the article then?

You must be new here - on slashdot, links to the article go unused as no one reads TFA.

Re:Wow ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639848)

Blasphemy! Delete your slashdot account now!

Re:Wow ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639908)

It's funny because he implies that anyone RTFA.

Re:Wow ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639370)

Speaking anecdotally of coarse, it seems like everyone I know who used to work around LORAN( 1 MW Transmitter). stations before they were closed down used to have a disproportionately large number of female offsprings. It probably means nothing though. I would trust the word of scientist who are paid and go to school to learn how to do these studies over the knee jerk findings of someone who knew a lot of LORANimals and didn't go to school to learn how to do studies.

Interesting point of history: when the scientists first studied steroids, they proved that they had no affect on muscle development. Apparently the lab technician who didn't have a degree, yet was in charge of administering the placebo to the study group, sold the steroids to some meat head clients of his, and switched the samples with placebos. The scientific data came back that Steroids weren't any more anabolic than placebos. It wasn't until latter they finally did a proper study. Well the point is that you can't argue with data, and you can't argue with science.

Re:Wow ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639636)

If this were a smooth anecdote, I might buy it. But a coarse anecdote, that's just a bunch of bullshit.

Re:Wow ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639498)

I wear tin foil boxers.

Re:Wow ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639778)

Interesting way to make your testicles literally commit suicide by overheating.

Re:Wow ... (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639564)

It's linked through in the OP. See here [lww.com] .

There are some pretty surprising statements in there like this in the discussion:
"First, although the choice of iliac bone is understandable because it is the bone closest to the phone when the latter is carried in a belt pouch, it is probable that regions of interest had to be determined manually or through a custom software (details were not provided in the report). In the current study, regions of interest were used that were automatically set by a reliable commercial software provided with the bone densitometer."

I don't know enough about how any of that stuff works to criticize it, but there's no further explanation provided of the algorithm used or whether you'd expect it to be suitable for making the inferences being made. Selecting regions of interest almost immediately makes me curious about the bias that introduces.

The samples are also a bit odd - there's almost no overlap in age or weight between the two groups (it would seem - I may be reading this wrong but the means given are way the christ different between the user and non-user groups, and no real argument is presented as to why we'd expect linear relationships of the various parameters clear up through the differing ages).

Re:Wow ... (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639658)

Also, I am super curious why there is no special mention of whoever he pulled (apparently 1/3rd of the study participants) from the Nuclear Medicine School.

In a study focussed on radiation adsorption, I would think the people who spend a considerable amount of time near a mix of X-Rays and MRI machines might be worth considering as a substantially unique group.

Statistical ickyness (5, Interesting)

realxmp (518717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639992)

Also, I am super curious why there is no special mention of whoever he pulled (apparently 1/3rd of the study participants) from the Nuclear Medicine School.

In a study focussed on radiation adsorption, I would think the people who spend a considerable amount of time near a mix of X-Rays and MRI machines might be worth considering as a substantially unique group.

I've read through the thing (institutional login is a lovely thing) and have to agree. Sure they report some statistically significant values but the paper's short on information about the case and control group and probably underpowered to boot. There's also no mention of controlling for smoking or other environmental factors. Because the participants were recruited via word of mouth it could be that his case group has to wear their phones for a specific job and the controls do not. Either way it's irresponsible journalism to report on a study which is merely a pilot and lacks the statistical rigour to have anything worthwhile to report. I'm also skeptical about the use of the paired t-test, how were the participants matched?

Re:Wow ... (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 3 years ago | (#35640098)

In a study focussed on radiation adsorption, I would think the people who spend a considerable amount of time near a mix of X-Rays and MRI machines might be worth considering as a substantially unique group.

X-rays are a different sort of beast altogether. As for any stray EM exposure from MRIs, why would this affect the right hip more than the left?

Re:Wow ... (1)

doti (966971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639862)

so, that's how he came to be..

http://i.imgur.com/3oboX.jpg [imgur.com]

Re:Wow ... (3, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639332)

It's a tiny change so you wouldn't expect broken hips "all over the place".

The BMD of the phone wearing side was 0.3% lower than the non-phone wearing side. And the BMC 1.3% lower. On average anyway - and there was a difference between sides in the control group to, they aren't going to be exactly equal usually.

Why oh why couldn't it melt fat instead? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35640016)

Why oh why couldn't it melt fat instead?

Re:Wow ... (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35640058)

they saw a reduction - they didn't say how much of a reduction..

Smartphone jockstrap? (3, Funny)

Psiren (6145) | more than 3 years ago | (#35638984)

Okay, but am I still okay to wear my smartphone jockstrap? Not as convenient as a belt clip I'll agree...

Re:Smartphone jockstrap? (3, Funny)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639262)

Ah, but so much more likely to get your attention when set on vibrate.

The phone must be emitting N-RAYS (2)

jmitchel!jmitchel.co (254506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35638994)

Wikipedia: N-rays (or N rays) are a hypothesized form of radiation, described by French physicist Prosper-René Blondlot, and initially confirmed by others, but subsequently found to be illusory.

Re:The phone must be emitting N-RAYS (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639248)

Those French are a blond lot...

Re:The phone must be emitting N-RAYS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35640122)

Those French are a blond lot...

Very constructive argument that shows clearly you are looking for an explanation !

Re:The phone must be emitting N-RAYS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639338)

More likely the phones are emitting F-Rays [wikipedia.org]

Re:The phone must be emitting N-RAYS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639348)

That's similar to what smokers said about cigarettes back in the 60's and 70's. Lung cancer? Nonsense! Cigarettes would probably cure lung cancer!

In this context... (5, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639028)

... significant means "statistically significant" i.e. there was a correlation. "Significant" doesn't mean large, great, or disasterous. Too often mainstream press will pressure the reader into assuming it means something more than this.

Re:In this context... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639256)

To be fair, the original article doesn't qualify it either. Neither does the official study summary. The study itself is purposefully wording things so the media will run with it, by being as vague as possible.

Re:In this context... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639962)

the original article doesn't qualify [the statistical significance] either. Neither does the official study summary. The study itself is purposefully wording things so the media will run with it, by being as vague as possible.

Not sure what you mean by "qualify", but the study itself [lww.com] does quantify the statistical significance. It appears to be the standard level in medicine, p less than 0.05 (that is, less than a 5% probablility that results are by chance).

Re:In this context... (4, Insightful)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639308)

And lets not forget, lies, dam lies, and then statistics. I don't know about this study (I have too much on), but a lot of medical research has very poor statistics if not just plain outright wrong.

I was with a group that was suppose to support the medical R&D with statistics and the like for their publications. It was hard working getting them to do anything more than plug a few numbers into a website for a t-test. One guy came with a data set and asked us to show the difference in some measured parameter between the control and experimental group. We could show that there was no statistical difference. The guy said, and i really am quoting him here, "That's why people don't bring you their data!", and stormed out of the meeting room.

For some reason a lot of people, people in science even, in particular medical science, think that if two groups of data have a different mean, they are different.

Re:In this context... (2)

timholman (71886) | more than 3 years ago | (#35640298)

I was with a group that was suppose to support the medical R&D with statistics and the like for their publications. It was hard working getting them to do anything more than plug a few numbers into a website for a t-test. One guy came with a data set and asked us to show the difference in some measured parameter between the control and experimental group. We could show that there was no statistical difference. The guy said, and i really am quoting him here, "That's why people don't bring you their data!", and stormed out of the meeting room.

Unfortunately, you see a -lot- of that sort of fuzzy thinking in medical and biomedical research. I was asked to be part of a medical survey group after I went through a routine medical procedure last year. The written survey they sent me was almost laughable. I was asked more than a hundred specific questions about my dietary and exercise habits going back over the past three years. Assuming I could even answer those questions from memory, knowing what the "right" answers are supposed to be would have made it incredibly easy for me to tell the researchers what they wanted to hear.

Unfortunately, that is how much of medical research works. You rely on the patients providing you with data, rather than taking it yourself. You rely on the patients being accurate and truthful about their behavior and habits. And then, if the data you get back doesn't show any statistically significant trend from all that garbage input, you throw out data points until it does!

Frankly, I'm astonished that medical science has progressed as much as it has, given the horrible experimental methodology. What passes for "data" in medicine would barely qualify as noise in most engineering disciplines.

Shooting from the hip (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639044)

Pants pocket: normal Belt clip/holster: doucher

Re:Shooting from the hip (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639140)

Not true. I'm an EMT and I can't put my armored iPhone in a pocket without ruining the silicon cover. So I have a belt clip and place the phone next to my radio, pager and leatherman. So no douching here.

Nowai!! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639046)

As a Brazilian citizen, I can claim for sure that any Argentine finding is clearly bogus, just like their claim for being #1 in soccer.

Re:Nowai!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639286)

Your bad for believing it ;-)

Re:Nowai!! (3, Informative)

Chuckles08 (1277062) | more than 3 years ago | (#35640158)

As a Canadian citizen, I cry foul. A real Brazilian would have said "football", not "soccer". Now, if you don't mind, I have some skates to sharpen.

Brain Cancer AND Bone Rot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639194)

There still hasn't been anything to disprove the studies claiming an increase in brain cancer correlated with cell phone use. Both of these topics should be actively researched before deciding one way or the other. This could be like the cigarette problem where people don't find out about health issues until after the population is hooked.

Re:Brain Cancer AND Bone Rot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639234)

Yeah, they must also be hiding all those MRI technicians with brain cancer and melted bones.

Re:Brain Cancer AND Bone Rot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639670)

Yeah, they must also be hiding all those MRI technicians with brain cancer and melted bones.

Is MRI working on GSM/CDMA frequencies ? Maybe the frequency is important too, not only the intensity.

Re:Brain Cancer AND Bone Rot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639714)

Maybe not MRIs and cell phones... I mean: who can say for sure?

I worked with a lot or radar techs, mostly ex-air force, and so many of them developed cancers before they were 50 that it isn't funny. All locations: skin, brain, testicles, liver. I know this is just anecdotal but the correlation was remarkable. Of course, what else did they have in common? Lots of smoking. Working in an era when many carcinogenic solvents were in common use.

Then again, the comm techs seemed to be comparatively healthy.

Comm techs worked around HF, VHF systems and wired communication consoles. Radar techs worked around a lot of pulsed microwave radiation at a much higher peak power.

interesting...similiar to being in context... (1)

Mr.Fork (633378) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639236)

whether or not it's true or false, any emitting device needs to be closely monitored and studied. We often hear of these kinds of reports but before we start band-wagon'ing this issue either for or against - let the peer community scientists do their due diligence and hash this out with peer reviews. A good scientist is always critical of their own work. If it's true, then we need to decide how to resolve it - if not, we can file it under a 'misdiagnosis of results.'

I mean, its not like its causing strange growths to appear on my thigh or to sterilize me.

Re:interesting...similiar to being in context... (1)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639302)

> I mean, its not like its causing strange growths to appear on my thigh

I've had that happen! Especially when the phone was on vibrate... :-/

Skeptical (1)

Myrrh (53301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639278)

Been wearing one on my hip every day for the past 4.5 years, and have noticed no problems. Anecdotal, I know. But I'm skeptical.

Re:Skeptical (1)

itsenrique (846636) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639358)

Now, I would be too, but you have to keep in mind: even if you had lower bone density and weight you probably would not know.

Re:Skeptical (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639456)

From what little I read of the article and the somewhat more I know about the impact of reduced bone density, it is probable that you would not note the difference until you are well into retirement age. Although this might be more significant for women if the same effect holds for women, since some women start experiencing problems with reduced bone density shortly after menopause.

Re:Skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35640092)

The interesting thing in the men vs. women aspect of this is that *most* women I know carry their phones in a purse or backpack, not a pocket. If this bears out, maybe it'll lead to the rise of the murse!

Personal experience (anecdotal), fear of cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639800)

Many years ago, I used to always wear my cellphone on my left hip. This was from 1997 to about 2002, and the phones were TDMA (predecessor to GSM). I started developing arthritis in my left hip at age 38. Since my hip was hurting a lot, and I no longer liked wearing the phone clipped to my belt, I got a newer, smaller phone (also TDMA) and begun to carry it in my left shirt pocket. After about a year of shirt pocket carrying, My arthritis in my left hip had seemed to heal substantially, but then I begun to notice that my sternum was starting to feel tender and swollen, so I went to my doctor fearing I may have some kind of cancer, as cancer often manifests itself in a swollen and tender sternum bone if it has begin to metastasize to the bone marrow. The Doc said I have no cancer, but definitely noticed that my sternum was swollen. He'd been reading all the medical journal stuff about cellphone radiation and related suspected health risks, and suggested I stop carrying my cellphone directly on my person all the time as an experiment, so I did, and all my symptoms went away. In 2004 I switched from the TDMA/GSM phone carrier and went to a CDMA carrier, and began carrying my phone in my shirt pocket again and have encountered no bizarre suspected cellphone-related health effects since. I think that the TDMA/GSM radiation must be far worse that CDMA, especially when TDMA/GSM will badly interfere with any nearby audio equipment and CDMA does not, which has to be some kind of indicator that TDMA/GSM is "nastier".

BTW: The arthritis in my left hip has never totally gone away 100% but now is so mild that it only bothers me whenever there's a rapid drop in atmospheric pressure, like when a strong winter storm cold front blows in during wintertime.

How this is any different than having it in our (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639282)

pockets then ? where will we need to shove our phones up in order to be safe of any downsides ?

Re:How this is any different than having it in our (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639590)

Are you suggesting our rectums are a natural radiation shield and vibration cushioner?

This requires experimentation.

Control Group (3, Insightful)

Heshler (1191623) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639306)

They need a control group that wears the phones but has transmitting functions turned off or the phone turned off all together. Perhaps the reported result is due to the mechanical abrasion of wearing the phone.

Re:Control Group (2)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639612)

Or the motion of always reaching for your phone the same way might cause some odd twist in the hip that could explain this. It isn't always "ZOMG RADIATION!!!"

Re:Control Group (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639702)

It could simply be that people who wear a phone tend to put more weight on the other side of their body. Given the age differences in the study, it seems perfectly likely.

Re:Control Group (1)

Carnivore (103106) | more than 3 years ago | (#35640126)

I was thinking that the phone-wearing men avoid impacting objects with the phone-side hip. Bones require mechanical stresses to maintain density, so if they avoided hitting their hips, that could be the cause. Your idea is a much better control and would help to clarify the nature of the effect.

Re:Control Group (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35640210)

Perhaps the reported result is due to the mechanical abrasion of wearing the phone.

Good god, you "there's absolutely no harm from radiation" people are just as hilarious as the "we're all going to die of radiation" ones.

Hip or femur? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639310)

I did not read the article, but wouldn't moving the phone just change which bones are affected?

OMG! (1)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639314)

First time I read the title I thought it said "Mobile Phone May Rot Your Boner" I tend to carry my phone in the front pocket of my trousers, so it's no wonder that headline scared the crap outa me!

Alternate pockets, left on odd days, even on right (1)

aapold (753705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639318)

To double the amount of time you get before hip replacement..

Re:Alternate pockets, left on odd days, even on ri (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639512)

Screw that. One hip replacement is cheaper than two. I'll just stick to one pocket.

Re:Alternate pockets, left on odd days, even on ri (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35640084)

Judging by the cigarette company payouts, it might just be pay day for a lot of people come retirement age. I carry my phone in my pocket, but I might seriously consider buying a hip pouch and spending my pension pot after this :)

Bad idea - too many odd days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639728)

April, June, September, November - 30 days (4 months)
January, March, May, July, August, October, December - 31 days (7 months)

This means that excluding February there are 3 more odd days than even in a year. If we count February as 0.75 even days (on the basis that 3/4 of Februarys are even) then it's 2.25 days.

Use alternate days. The difference may seem small - but do you really want to take a chance with your health?

phone just the straw that breaks our freedom/bones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639320)

looking at all the other 'science' projects that leave our entire bodies infactdead (du, media, self-deception etc), the phone/bone rot, is probably what we need to focus on the image of? hopefully, we'll all learn to stay off of, & fear the phone, as our rulers need the bandwidth for expanding censorship/propaganda campaigns against us.

you may also like to read; ayn rand's buybull, the book of death, the georgia stone (for you chosen one highbrow walking dead murderous depopulation scheme zombies). thanks

shielding? (1)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639380)

Perhaps someone with more knowledge than myself can comment on this topic:

Would it be:

1. possible
and
2. make a positive difference

  to have some sort of shielding between phone and body? For example, shielding on the inside of pocket pants etc., that'd prevent the signals to go towards the body where we don't need them anyway?
What would you need and would it work?

Re:shielding? (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639484)

everyone used to laugh at me for wearing tinfoil underwear

Another explanation (5, Informative)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639394)

Just did a quick search and it does appear that if, e.g., this [livestrong.com] is accurate, stressing bone causes them to increase in density.

Wearing a cellphone is restrictive on your range of movement, and you're more cautious about activities which could apply force to that area because you don't want to damage your expensive phone. Hence, the bone is less stressed, leading to less bone density.

Even if that isn't right, it still seems to me like the correct control for the experiment, if they want to say it's the radiation that's causing the bone loss, would be to have the control group wearing deactivated phones, not having them wearing no phone at all.

Re:Another explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639550)

Even your suggested experiment may not work.This is why experiments are hard to correct for all possible outside influences. You'd have to give out working phones and non working phones to people and have them wear them all the time, but if they aren't actively using them, they may not care if it gets broken or not skewing the results.

Re:Another explanation (1)

rayd75 (258138) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639934)

Even if that isn't right, it still seems to me like the correct control for the experiment, if they want to say it's the radiation that's causing the bone loss, would be to have the control group wearing deactivated phones, not having them wearing no phone at all.

I read about this when I was growing up. My family had an outdated (even then) encyclopedia that I would regularly flip through in fascination. If I remember correctly, what you're describing is is called "science".

Supposing this is true... (1)

pep939 (1957678) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639436)

...how would you transport it?

I'm skeptical about this, but I have to agree that the thought has crossed my mind before. What if it really is harmful for my genitals (don't care about bones) to always have it there in close proximity? But apart from at the hip or in a pocket, I don't see any other practical way to carry it around. I know that if I put it in my laptop bag, I'll just forget it half the time, and I don't always have it with me...

Re:Supposing this is true... (1)

khr (708262) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639666)

...how would you transport it?

... I know that if I put it in my laptop bag, I'll just forget it half the time, and I don't always have it with me...

Well, if you forget it half the time, maybe it's not really all that important...

carrying something alters your posture (2)

sweatyboatman (457800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639452)

when we wear something on our body it subtly shifts our weight distribution. and I'd imagine that having a phone on your hip also changes your posture to make accessing that phone easier and faster.

it doesn't seem like that's accounted for at all in the study.

the control group didn't use phones at all. so there's no control for whether it's the phone's radiation or the physical presence of the phone that causes the (very slight) degradation.

Senior citizens have less bone (2)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639466)

No youngster wears a phone pouch on their hip anymore. Did they take the average age and de-calcification for the elderly into account?

Re:Senior citizens have less bone (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639578)

/handsup

I'm a youngster, and I wear my Droid on a hip-mounted pouch. (Whenever I keep it in my pocket, the media player starts playing unbidden- that and I can get my phone out and ready in a quarter of the time.

Re:Senior citizens have less bone (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639746)

The article notes they did a regression test and found no correlation with age. It does not seem to note that the distribution of ages between the two groups is very different - and as any undergrad should be taught, if your calibration curve doesn't cover your experimental range you cannot presume it follows the same function.

This seems pretty alarming to me since it's well studied that loss of bone density accelerates with age - hence all the concern about osteoporosis in older women (but it also effects men).

BS (0)

defaria (741527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639474)

My god when will they ever stop this BS!

fake weather math religion media history lineage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639504)

is there anything else? $? 'science'? fear? gods? geography? energy problems? compassion? is that enough? all fake?

we should be very grateful to our rulers, providing us with so much of less than nothing, without which, we might be forced into reality?

cell phone, bad to the bone (1)

colordev (1764040) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639672)

...but good for calling an ambulance; if you happen to break your de-mineralized hip bone

Re:cell phone, bad to the bone (1)

oscarwumpus (1637213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639784)

Yes, the cell phone mostly killed the "I've Fallen And Can't Get Up!" MedAlert industry. You'd think there would have been corporate protections involved, such that cell phones could only be used in cases of fire or theft (or to call someone...but who does that anymore?) but having fallen, you must use your MedAlert or risk violating your EULA. Those darn wireless monopolies!

Linear correlation?! ZOMG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639682)

Have a look at figure 3 of the actual article [lww.com] :
http://journals.lww.com/jcraniofacialsurgery/_layouts/oaks.journals/ImageView.aspx?k=jcraniofacialsurgery:2011:03000:00075&i=FF3 [lww.com]

Really? A linear correlation?! I suppose MDs must have a really wild imagination to see an actual linear correlation in that dataset! For crying out loud...!

Re:Linear correlation?! ZOMG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35639822)

Thanks for nothing. You must have access to the site that us mere mortals don't have.

Correlation blah blah (1)

hideouspenguinboy (1342659) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639734)

IT workers wear phones. IT workers are traditionally heavily caffeinated, at least I am, so that's 100% of IT workers. Caffeine also has effects on bone loss. http://www.ajcn.org/content/74/5/694.short [ajcn.org] The problem is that if both of these things are true I should be so brittle that I can't walk without my bones crumbling under my own weight.

ironic compared Japan radiation detected in US (0)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639758)

A few atto-curies of radiation from Japan, literally counting atoms, have been detection by sophisticated fallout detection sensors in the US. People worry about this, while the radiation from phones touching their bodies is millions of times more intense, but also a pretty small number.

This study was brought to you... (1)

ks9208661 (1862000) | more than 3 years ago | (#35639814)

... by Louis Vuitton, the number one maker of man purses.

Doubtful with a capital D... (1)

rgbatduke (1231380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35640306)

In addition to inadequate controls galore for confounding causes, this once again fails to take into account two things -- confirmation bias (why would anybody even think of looking for something like this?) and physical mechanism. What part of skin depth and power do people not get? Exposing your skin to direct sunlight is far more dangerous than any cellphone hanging outside of your clothes at your hip.

rgb
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>