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!

Brain Cancer Worries? Look Up Your Phone's SAR

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the before-it's-too-late dept.

Cellphones 165

CWmike writes "With recent news of a possible link between cell phone radiation and risk of brain cancer, you may have a new-found interest in knowing how much radiation your mobile handset is giving off — or, more importantly, how much your body might be absorbing. The FCC's legal limit for mobile phones is 1.6 Watts of radiofrequency energy per kilogram, using a measure called Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). The Environmental Working Group, which tracks SAR data for more than 1,300 cell phone and smartphone models, notes that several factors besides your handset affect your actual level of exposure. Look up your phone's SAR; or see a full chart of phones." And relax — have a coffee.

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

only brain cancer? (3, Insightful)

boguslinks (1117203) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335706)

Have they bothered thinking about other cancers in all of this? I had testicular cancer last year, and my phone spends a lot more time in my jacket or pants pocket than it does up against my head.

Re:only brain cancer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36335746)

But it's not transmitting (much) when it's in your pocket right?

Re:only brain cancer? (1)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336166)

Ever use a Bluetooth earpiece? That's my primary use model: Bluetooth earpiece in my ear, and phone in pocket or elsewhere. I'm not radiating GSM into my brain, but I'm certainly radiating it into my leg if the phone's in my pocket. If I had one of those belt clips that allowed me to put my phone more "front and center", I could see it radiating into other, more sensitive areas.

Of course, to apply the SAR ratings they report for phone-to-ear to your 'nads, you'd pretty much have to hold the phone in your crotch. While I can see that happening, I doubt it's a primary use model. Pocket or desk or car cup holder or similar seems more likely when you have a Bluetooth earpiece.

Re:only brain cancer? (1)

Arbition (1728870) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335872)

Have they bothered thinking about other cancers in all of this? I had testicular cancer last year, and my phone spends a lot more time in my jacket or pants pocket than it does up against my head.

Also, presumably there is a lot of flesh between your pockets and your testicles.

Re:only brain cancer? (2, Informative)

Arbition (1728870) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335878)

Hmm, if you click preview and edit it before the preview actually comes up, you see the old version of the preview but what you edited is posted. that quote isn't what I wanted there.

Re:only brain cancer? (4, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335884)

It also isn't continuously transmitting at full power while hugging your balls. There's a reason that phones start affecting everything around them when you actually get a call or an SMS. The power output shoots through the roof when it is actually in use.

I'm sorry about your cancer, but I highly doubt the phone had anything to do with it.

Re:only brain cancer? (1)

lintux (125434) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336128)

I'm not sure if that assumption is still true in the age of always-online smartphones.

I suppose syncing e-mail all day is not as intensive as a phonecall in progress, but if you look at duration again..

Re:only brain cancer? (5, Interesting)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336182)

Well, try an experiment: Set your phone next to some powered-on computer speakers. At least w/ GSM phones you'll find you hear the "boppita-boppita-bop" of a sync every dozen minutes or so (widely variable), but most of the time its silent. If you get an SMS or a phonecall, though, your speakers will scream like a banshee.

Always-on and always-associated phones don't actually consume much bandwidth, and therefore don't represent much transmit power. At least, when you're well within range.

Granted, my experience has been in a major city with mostly good reception. If you're further from a tower, it could be much worse than that.

Re:only brain cancer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336300)

Considering my phone clocks down to ~250mhz any time the screen is off (setcpu) but when the screen is on clocks up to ~1ghz. This makes a lot of sense.

Re:only brain cancer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36335954)

Have they bothered thinking about other cancers in all of this?

People are coming off more outraged at the fact cell phones give us brain cancer (maybe. For some phones. For those who have moderate to extensive phone use.) then the fact that the TSA's full body scanners have quite a bit more radiation [slashdot.org] then previously believed.

I dunno about you, but nowadays most of my phone use isn't even as an actual phone so I'm pretty sure going on plane trips will give most people cancer (from the backscatters ignoring the inherent risks from flying) faster and more consistently than cell phones.

Re:only brain cancer? (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336426)

I submitted [slashdot.org] this story a few months ago, but it wasn't picked up, so I guess now will be good time to recount the main facts:

A single scan is equal to 3-9 minutes of natural background radiation exposure and would raise the amount of radiation a person is exposed to on a 6-hour intercontinental flight by about 1%. As for cancer risk, 1 million people flying 10 times a week will have 4 additional cases of cancer (using current models of radiation-cancer association). This is compared to the 600 cases of cancer they will get from the flight itself and to the 400,00 cases these people will have over their lifetime.

I can't find the full article anymore (paywall), but the abstract is here [ama-assn.org] . It is interesting to note that the authors also wrote this:

In medicine, we try to balance risks and benefits of everything we do, and thus while the risks are indeed exceedingly small, the scanners should not be deployed unless they provide benefit—improved national security and safety—and consideration of these issues is outside the scope of our expertise.

The article also points out that since TSA officials do not allow outside scrutiny of the actual radiation levels of the machines, we cannot know if they perform as intended or if they expose us to more radiation. But still, I think they are probably a lot safer than you would have thought.

Try brain aneurysm risk! (2, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335976)

With so many bugs and battery life limited to less than a day on a lot of the latest phones, I think the brain cancer worry isn't the greatest. The risk of having an aneurysm while throwing your phone at the pavement far outweighs it!

Speaking of aneurysms, I didn't need another fucking thing to have to factor in when buying a phone. Now in addition to battery life, reliability, features and bugs, sluggish behaviour, DRM and lockdown, I have to look at the SAR? FFFFUUUUCCCCKKKK!!!

Re:Try brain aneurysm risk! (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336684)

I get decent battery life with my phone.... spends 8-9 hours a day steaming slacker radio over wifi, and when i leave I'm still at around 40%.

HTC Glacier/T-Mobile myTouch 4g.

No worry. Consider the physics. (5, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336666)

No need to worry about testicular cancer. Very little power is used when the phone is in standby. Note that the battery charge lasts a long time if you are not talking on the phone. The receiver is working, but the transmitter has a very low transmission rate.

Any transmitted energy from a cell phone in a pants pocket would need to travel through a leg to get to testicles.

Danger -- The Sun is a big electromagnetic radiation transmitter in the sky. Walking from the shade into the sun will heat your body much more than the energy of a cell phone transmitting during a call.

Standing in the sun absorbing high-energy ultraviolet radiation is truly damaging; severe exposure can cause sores and even eventually skin cancer. The photons of ultraviolet light are more than a million times more energetic than cell phone radiation, and the sun emits far, far more energy than a cell phone.

The entire earth receives [wikipedia.org] 1,218,000,000,000,000 Watts from the Sun. The earth receives more total solar energy from the Sun in one hour than is generated and used by humans in an entire year. The average energy received over the entire earth is about 250 Watts per square meter over a 24 hour day [wikipedia.org] , ignoring clouds.

The sun emits energy in the same wavelengths as cell phones.
The only difference between the sun's energy and cell phone emissions is that the cell phone energy is at one specific frequency, and the sun emits energy at all frequencies. GSM cell phones use frequency bands at 850, 900, 1800, and 1900 MegaHertz. GSM [wikipedia.org] is the most popular kind of cell phone transmitter design.

But no one has shown any frequency-specific interaction, and the physics is quite clear that there cannot be any. High energy electromagnetic waves definitely can have a strong effect on chemical bonds, but not low energy waves. The energy emitted by cell phones is perhaps 1/10,000 or 1/100,000 of the energy needed.

I haven't yet calculated how much energy is received from the Sun at those frequencies. However, there is no way for the energy from cell phones to be resonant in the body; the wavelength of cell phone radiation is too long. So the cell phone energy just heats the body, as does the Sun's energy. Without resonance, there is insignificant coupling to specific chemical processes.

Instant fame There are many, many very well-educated people in the world who would love to discover a new way that electromagnetic energy interacts with matter. Such a discovery would make any physicist or chemist instantly famous, and would earn him or her a Nobel Prize. The motivation to make such a discovery is enormous for people working in those fields.

The fact that no such discovery of a new kind of interaction has been made indicates at least that it is not easy. Another indication is that apparently no one has even proposed a mechanism for low-energy long-wavelength electromagnetic radiation to have an effect on chemistry.

It's not as though it hasn't occurred to anyone to do research.

People may say that there may be some subtle effect that we have not yet discovered. And there may be. However, those comments often give the impression that they think that the discovery of a new subtle interaction would have a subtle effect on our understanding of the world. That isn't true. In fact, the discovery of a new kind of interaction between electromagnetic radiation and matter would create a revolution in Physics, in areas we think we know well, in areas where our understanding has been stable for many decades. For example, Planck's constant is known with an uncertainty of only 89 parts per billion.

That makes a new discovery seem less likely.

Einstein's discovery of relativity revolutionized our understanding of physics at extremely high relative speeds. Relativity has no detectable effect at the low speeds in which we live.

Discovery of a new interaction between electromagnetic energy and chemical bonds would revolutionize our understanding of normal life.

Fraud Over the years I've read several articles by people who claim to have discovered biological damage caused by cellular phone radiation. For example, there was a previous Slashdot story in which such damage was claimed. All the articles I've seen are examples of fraud, not physics or chemistry. Generally what the "researchers" are doing is applying enough concentrated energy that they get local heating.

Generally the fraud in these reports is not in the reports themselves, which just detail the laboratory measurements. The fraud is in knowing that people will generalize information in the report to cell phone use, and not warning them of the incorrectness of such an conclusion. It's fraud, done for the temporary fame.

One response: "Seems to me that large molecules such as proteins have lower resonant frequencies and some particular proteins just might resonate at cell phone frequencies."

My reply: There is still the problem of coupling. How could you get energy to one particular molecule, when all of them are vibrating rapidly due to heat and all of them are constrained by proximity to each other?

Consider the physics

The energy is low.
Suppose you wanted to do something to affect the chemistry of your brain. How much microwave energy would you need? The amount of energy in each photon is related to
Planck's Constant [wikipedia.org] , which is a very small number: 6.62606891 x 10**-34 joule-seconds, with an uncertainty of 89 parts per billion. Thirty-four is a lot of zeroes. See the sub-section, Black-body radiation [wikipedia.org] .

The energy of each photon is equal to Planck's constant times the frequency of the radiation. The frequency of cell phone communications is centered around 850, 900, 1800, or 1900 MHz, or millions of cycles per second, in the case of GSM phones, which are the most common, especially outside the United States. 1,000 MegaHertz is 10**9 cycles per second, or Hertz.

The frequency of red laser light, or red LED lights, is about 4 x 10**14 Hertz. So, each unit of electromagnetic cellular phone radio energy is about 1/400,000th of the energy of one photon of red laser light.

The coupling is weak. Each unit of electromagnetic cellular phone radio energy is about 400,000 times longer than the energy of one photon of red laser light. That's important because it means the coupling is weak. The long wavelengths of cell phone emissions couple very weakly to the tiny electrons that affect chemistry.

A stronger response to some frequencies would indicate resonance of some kind, a frequency-dependent absorption, but that doesn't occur. Because there is broad absorption at cell phone frequencies, there appears to be no chance for resonance.

The problem with theorizing resonance is that the mild absorption of each molecule at those frequencies blocks the propagation of energy deep into the body.

The mild absorption tends to spread any single frequency by absorbing at one wavelenth and emitting at another wavelenth, in a well-known random way.

Heat is electromagnetic energy, too. The energy of cell phone radiation after it spreads as it travels toward your head, and though the outer layer of skin, is small compared to the energy of the heat in the room and your body.

The result is that there is no manner presently known to physics in which the energy of the phone radiation could interact sufficiently to make a difference in the chemistry of your body. Cell phone radiation cannot affect the chemistry of your body by heating the tissue. Microwave ovens achieve heating using at least 600 watts focused in one small space.

Room temperature heat radiates a wide bandwidth of microwave energy. Electromagnetic energy is always there unless the temperature is absolute zero. Absolute zero is -459.67 degrees Fahrenheit or -273.15 degrees Celsius.

There is no effect on chemistry from NMR or ESR. No one has ever shown any chemical or biological effect of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR). No one has ever shown any chemical or biological effect of Electron Spin Resonance (ESR). Those are qualities of the nucleus and of electrons, but they apparently have no effect on the interaction of electrons in chemical bonding. The bonding is what makes the nature of chemistry, and therefore biology.

CT scans or CAT scans are done with X-Rays. X-rays are photons of extremely high energy. That energy is powerful enough to affect the chemistry of the body.

Consider other sources of electromagnetic radiation.
1) Airplanes with radar flying overhead, 2) 50,000 watt AM [northpine.com] and FM radio and TV stations (4 different frequency bands), 3) Airport radar, 4) Cordless phones, 5) The neighbor next door and his 1,000 watt amateur radio transmitter, 6) Trillions of high energy particles from the Sun and outer space entering the atmosphere and ionizing air molecules, which then spray high-energy gamma rays everywhere, and 7) CB radios.

Maybe forty years ago, there was great concern for a while about living near a radio or TV station.

Isn't it odd that biological processes supposedly respond specifically only to cell phone signals?

There are many people who know more about the Physics than I. Someone else may want give a more complete or better explanation. For example, someone may want to show how to calculate the amount of local heating caused by cell phone radiation. I did that once with a physicist friend, and the amount of heating was insignificant.

I will eventually edit what I have written here and put it on my web site at futurepower.net.

Have a Coffee? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36335718)

...But coffee is also in the 'may possibly cause cancer' that mobile phones have recently been added to

"IARC conducts numerous reviews and in the past has given the same score to, for example, pickled vegetables and coffee" [http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20067593-266.html]

Re:Have a Coffee? (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335864)

...But coffee is also in the 'may possibly cause cancer' that mobile phones have recently been added to

Yes but coffee has been around an awful lot longer in order to gauge long term effects.

Re:Have a Coffee? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336574)

Ironically, I was not long ago(past few years) reading an article about antioxidants. The article was talking about every sources, including blueberries, chocolate(high grade, not candy style), tomatoes, and coffee, to name a few.

They had a special section of coffee and it's health benefits and cancer *reducing* antioxidant properties and how moderate coffee drinkers lived longer on average/etc.

Personally, I will believe a non-corporate research article about antioxidants before I believe from fear mongering group about how some plant's beans are cancerous.

Causing cancer (2, Insightful)

TuringCheck (1989202) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335906)

Judging by the labels the entire state of California seems to cause cancer :-D

Re:Causing cancer (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336124)

>>Judging by the labels the entire state of California seems to cause cancer :-D

Prop 65? One of the biggest jokes of a law, ever. We now have, as you say, spammed signs everywhere saying that the area may (or may not) contain cancer causing agents (of whose natural and severity is completely unknown). There's no penalty to putting up a sign even if you don't know if there's a cancer causing substance in the area, so most businesses do it to CYA. I asked once when I was working in an office what the chemicals were, precisely, and they had no idea.

Utterly stupid fucking law.

Re:Causing cancer (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336204)

You've spammed the world.
Now I know why my headphones came with a warning label saying: "Chewing this cable could cause cancer in the state of California".

Re:Causing cancer (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336440)

Does it really?

That's as bad as my bench saying "Improper use could cause serious damage - please consult with a doctor before using."

Re:Causing cancer (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336214)

White mice cause cancer.

Re:Have a Coffee? (2, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335914)

Life causes cancer.

Re:Have a Coffee? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336158)

The Register has a good comment on this:
"Cellphones as carcinogenic as coffee"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/03/cellphone_cancer/

Re:Have a Coffee? (1)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336188)

Urgl... one of my favorite treats in China when I visited it recently was the pickled vegetables! Dammit! Not to mention the fact that I drink coffee like most people breathe air.... I'm screwed.

Re:Have a Coffee? (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336332)

You drink coffee through your nose into your lungs? No wonder you're screwed...

Oooh that smell... (1, Flamebait)

B33RM17 (1243330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335732)

Anyone else smell that?

*sniff sniff*


Kinda smells like someone spreading FUD...

,eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36335738)

FCC sets the 1.6W/kg limit ... FCC approves phone to be sold ... none of the phones on a list exceeds the limit ... Next story ...

Re:,eh? (2)

geogob (569250) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335952)

I'm really surprised about this story. That none of the sold phones go over the legally set limit is a no-brainer. This whole story looks like a piece of junk written by technologically-challenged persons for other technologically-challenged persons. Although the information is correct and TFA is very neutral and factual, the conclusions presented TFS is total bullshit. Then it presents a set of data that most people in this world don't understand. They can only see if their phone is over the legal limit or not. What more can a normal person, that is some that is not an antenna specialist and specialist on biological effects of EM radiations, deduce from such a set of data? Nada. And even the specialist will probably say he doesn't have enough information do deduce anything.

Important factors are left out of the story and its THOSE that should be discussed here. Leave the bland non-news for tabloids...
Things like how are those SAR measured. Who sets the SAR limit and how was this SAR limit decided. Who studied the relation between SAR level and biological impact of the EM radiation.
For all we know (from TFA), the FCC might have measured somehow the SAR, taken the highest level, added 10%, set it as a limit, cashed the check from cellphone makers. Although I don't think it went out like this, I still believe these questions need to be discussed and reviewed further.

Only people.. (1)

toxickitty (1758282) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335740)

Quick lets look up how much things are killing us rather than getting rid of them.....

Re:Only people.. (1)

darkshadow88 (776678) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335888)

You don't seriously think that a fraction of a watt of RF (using a high estimate, 1.6W/kg * 0.2kg = 0.32W) is actually causing harm, do you? The WHO, being extra cautious, said that they don't have enough evidence to say whether or not a cell signal can cause cancer. Understandable, since cell phones haven't been around long enough to do long-term studies. Keep in mind, though, that other things generally considered benign, such as coffee, are in the same WHO list.

If you're concerned about your cell phone causing cancer, I would recommend you adopt a nocturnal schedule, because the sun is harming you much more than a cell phone ever will. You should also avoid microwave ovens. Furthermore, find out where every TV and radio broadcast tower is (those can go as high as 100,000 watts!), draw out a healthy buffer zone around each, and make sure you don't go too close. Alternatively, build a Faraday cage, put some wheels on it, and get inside.

And don't drink coffee, either.

Re:Only people.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36335938)

the SAR is how much energy is being absorbed by your flesh, not how much is being radiated by the phone. That 1.6w/kg is 1.6w of power being absorbed by 1kg of your skull and brain, not 0.32w being radiated from a 0.2kg phone.

While I don't think electromagmetic radiation is a significant cause of cancer, there may be danger involved in the long term effects of the cellular heating caused by absorbing the radiation.

Also power drops by the square of the distance, so a full power broadcast tower at 30m (probably as close as you could get because they're pretty tall) is the same as a 1w transmitter at 0.1m

Re:Only people.. (1)

toxickitty (1758282) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336408)

I'm not worried per say but looking at your 0.32W then I imagine all the people with cell phones and yeah.

1.1 million gigawatts (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36335750)

Great scott! Mine is listed as having 1.1 million gigawatts!

Re:1.1 million gigawatts (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36335970)

Just don't be talking on your phone when your car hits 88 mph and you should be fine.

Everybody panic-Ionizing & Non-Ionizing Radiat (2)

Nittle (1356899) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335752)

I'll worry when someone proves non-ionizing radiation causes cancer.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/ionize_nonionize.html [epa.gov]

Re:Everybody panic-Ionizing & Non-Ionizing Rad (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335994)

Just because it's non-ionizing radiation doesn't mean it can't damage cells, or alter proteins. Otherwise a microwave oven wouldn't be able to cook stuff. Or people wouldn't have to be careful about radar exposure[1].

Damage cells enough and the odds of cancer go up.

The risks are probably not that high (compared to smoking and some toxins). But the phones often operate rather close to heads. And there are measurable effects ) http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/8/808.abstract [ama-assn.org] ). So I'd keep my cellphone usage as low as possible. Maybe some people's brains can take it (or might even do better) but others might not fare so well.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10926722 [nih.gov]

Re:Everybody panic-Ionizing & Non-Ionizing Rad (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336196)

Remember that the energy pumped out by a microwave is roughly 1000 times that of the peak output of a CDMA phone. And that the energy of said phone is focussed away from your head (for the simply reason that you don't want to waste transmission power), whereas the energy of the microwave is bouncing around a small box.
Radio antenna output can be orders of magnitude more than the microwave oven, depending on antenna application, and increased proximity causes an exponential increase in exposure (in addition to beam shaping, this is why hugging a mobile phone antenna is a Bad Idea, but standing under one is of little effect).

You're at more danger from the thermal radiation emitted by the phone's electronics being absorbed by your skin than RF radiation absorbed by your brain.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36335852)

Just input your number here...

Cell phones cannot cause cancer. Here's WHY. (5, Informative)

Sipper (462582) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335856)

The reason is that the frequencies cell phones use are below the spectrum of ultraviolet light. It is near the spectrum of ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation occurs, which is required to be able to cause cancer. Ionizing means that the energy level of the individual photons of the transmission have enough energy to disturb the molecular structure of live cells. Microwave "radiation" (which has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear radiation) is far within the level of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum, so there is no possibility of it having the energy required to cause cancer.

Cell phones use frequencies around 800 MHz to around 2 GHz or so. 3 GHz has an energy level of about 12.4 ueV; ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation is possible is around 124ev -- that's a 10,000,000:1 difference in energy level. Have a look at the energy level chart on the right hand side of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum [wikipedia.org]

or even better, see page 3 of FCC OET Bulletin 56, which is a Q&A on Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf [fcc.gov]

People are also afraid of the cell base stations, because they don't know how safe they actually are. The transmitters for these typically send 20 - 40 watts -- that's all. This is then sent through directional "sectored" antennas that typically have 120 degrees of horizontal beam width and only 6 to 15 degrees of vertical beam width; so the three-dimensional antenna pattern is like a 120 degree slice of a pancake, yielding gain of about 13 dBi. This focusing is where the "gain" of antennas comes from -- by focusing where the energy is transmitted.

In the U.S., the standard for specifically what frequencies and power levels are considered safe is the IEEE C95.1 standard, which is unfortunately not freely available, however there's a an overview here: http://www.interferencetechnology.com/uploads/media/AG_07.pdf [interferen...nology.com]

This standard is incredibly long to read, but boils down to this: the only proven effect of microwave radiation in 60 years of research is the effect of microwave heating. No cancer. Further than that, the standard narrows down to the power levels that are safe for various frequency regions concerning microwave heating.

But if you really want something to "bite your teeth on", have a look at the international ICNIRP guidelines: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf [icnirp.de]

Now, if you go through the MATH of how close you have to be to the antennas of a cell tower for it to be "unsafe", the result is pretty interesting:

    Spec limit for human-absorbed power per IEEE C95-1 at 900 MHz: 50 Watts/m^2
    13 dBi gain = gain of 20
    EIRP = 20 W transmitted power * gain of 20 = 400 W
    400 W / 4*pi*R^2 = 50 W/m^2
    R = 0.636 meters
    0.636 meters = 2.09 feet

So at 900 MHz and with a typical transmit power of 20 Watts and a sectored antenna with 13 dBi gain, you need to be 2 feet in front of the antenna while it's transmitting for it to be considered unsafe. This means the only way it's unsafe for a human being is if they're not only on the tower, but right in front of the antenna while it's operating at full power.

The cell phones themselves have a limit on how much power they are allowed to transmit. There are different power limits in various countries; in the U.S. the limit is 1.6 W/kg SAR, in Canada I believe the limit is 10 W/kg SAR. SAR stands for "Specific Absorption Rate". What you really want to know is "what SAR power level is unsafe?", and the answer is that in lab tests, rabbits developed cataracts when exposed to SAR of 100 to 140 W/kg for a period of 2 to 3 hours. The eyes are the most sensitive part of the body because they have only capillaries in them, so there is too little blood flow to allow effective cooling.

Cell phones cannot cause cancer. Period.
And they can't cook you, either.

Re:Cell phones cannot cause cancer. Here's WHY. (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335892)

The reason is that the frequencies cell phones use are below the spectrum of ultraviolet light. It is near the spectrum of ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation occurs, which is required to be able to cause cancer.

I don't think that's the reason at all.

A more likely reason is that UV frequencies have a hard enough time passing through a plane of glass let alone all the walls in your house, all the trees outside, that hill at the end of the street, and the big plastic shield over the antenna on the comms tower.

Re:Cell phones cannot cause cancer. Here's WHY. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336424)

Why don't you think that, and why should I care what you think? Most real scientists claim this to be the reason.

How does what you add clarify anything? You're saying a more likely reason that cell phones wouldn't cause cancer - I think that's "the reason" you're talking about - is that they don't use near-UV frequencies? Well, yeah... that's also what the person you're replying to is saying.

Worthless post. How was it modded +2?

Or another way to look at things. (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335974)

Ionizing radiation starts above visible light, radiation below visible light is non-ionizing. So if you are wondering if something has the possibility to be ionizing or not you need to ask "Is it higher frequency than visible light?" The only things that are would be ultra-violet, X-rays, gamma rays, and cosmic rays (or high energy gamma rays more properly). Anything else is below visible light and thus has no possibility to be ionizing.

In terms of frequency, visible light ends at about 800 THz so that is a rough "where ionizing radiation might start," yardstick (it doesn't right at that frequency, just an easy yardstick).

Cell Phones INDUCE cancer, here's how. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36335980)

1 Minute of every Cell Phone conversation is equivalent to 1 X-Ray. The electro-magnetic inductance inhibits the oxygen-transport and Immun System response in the effected area where is influenced by the Cell Phone radio propogation. Given the nature that Cancer is a fungus, it can only spread and live in a acidic environment and thereby an oxygen-depleted location such as wherever a Cell Phone is being held. Everyone has cancer naturally, and the body is constantly trying to re-calibrate the Immune System to detect that invading fungus; all cancers try like parasites to reduce the bodily rate of immuno response by releasing neurotoxins and integrate with the nervoise system to mimic itself as part of the host , yet likewise when the body is impugned in any way is when the cancer gets out of control and spreads: this is whta a Cell Phone INDUCES, not causes.

Citations: Lord Otto Von Warburg (1930 Nobel Prize winner on Oxygen as remedy for Cancer), Sir Raymond Royal Rife (Inventor and Observer that Host substrate PH as a medium for Viral & Fungal culture growth), Dr. Thadeus Simoncini (http://CancerIsFungus.Com), Dr. Ghianni Hayes ( http://giannihayes.net/ ).

PS: I have ARRL Ham Radio friends that all have cancer on the back of their Mic-weilding left hands and on their listening ears, yet their equipment was always tx'ing far away from their body because they knew all along that VHF and such can INDUCE cancers but what they didn't realize was that the effects can carry all the way to the Mic by inductance, SO BE YE WARNED that there is no real way to isolate yourself other than go back to the non-cancerous CB Radio!

Re:Cell Phones INDUCE cancer, here's how. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336106)

have you been licking cane toads?

Re:Cell Phones INDUCE cancer, here's how. (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336112)

1 Minute of every Cell Phone conversation is equivalent to 1 X-Ray

If this were even remotely true, everyone who uses a cell phone would have cancer.

what they didn't realize was that the effects can carry all the way to the Mic by inductance

Do you even know what 'inductance' means? I don't know why I bother asking, from the way you use it, you obviously don't. What you're looking for might be more akin to coupling, I don't know. Either way, the EM radiating out of the microphone is nowhere near, and not related to, what is coming out of the transmitting antenna.

Re:Cell Phones INDUCE cancer, here's how. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336280)

Whooosh.

Re:Cell Phones INDUCE cancer, here's how. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336298)

I am sorry to inform you that the parent post was what we refer to as "a joke", not meant to be taken as seriously as you apparently did. More precisely, it was in this case a satirical take on the GP's post.
It's ok, it happens to all of us sooner or later. Though for most of us it's not as bad.

Also, "wooooooooooooosh" :-)

Re:Cell Phones INDUCE cancer, here's how. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336340)

You are swimming in the ocean. There is a supertanker bearing down on you.

The noise it makes as it passes over you is going to be amazing.

Re:Cell phones cannot cause cancer. Here's WHY. (0)

geogob (569250) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335990)

The reason is that the frequencies cell phones use are below the spectrum of ultraviolet light. It is near the spectrum of ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation occurs, which is required to be able to cause cancer. Ionizing means that the energy level of the individual photons of the transmission have enough energy to disturb the molecular structure of live cells. Microwave "radiation" (which has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear radiation) is far within the level of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum, so there is no possibility of it having the energy required to cause cancer.

This is total bullshit. There are a lot of studies show the link between EM radiation at longer wavelengths than the UV causing an increase in cancer rates. I'm not even going to bother providing a references to one of the thousand papers on this subject. Just look at some studies performed in England and Belgian on the incidence of cancer for radar operators in WW2. We are speaking of other magnitudes of energy levels, but it still invalids your opening statement. Maybe you also overlooked non-ionizing biological effects?

And then... the eyes... Again a falsehood. The eyes are very actively cooled, and that with a very high blood flow, to cool them down from the incoming and concentrated (through the eye optics) radiation. On a very sunny day, where you have over 1 kW/m^2 of irradiance, without a good cooling, they would simply burn/cook.

I wonder how one can present such a thought out post, with calculations and everything, but with such blatantly falls information at the same time.

Re:Cell phones cannot cause cancer. Here's WHY. (5, Insightful)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336024)

Link them. I just checked the top Google results and there is a whole ONE paper with a group of 25 men which shows a correlation. There is another which covers most of the US forces in Korea and specifically looked at radar technicians which found no correlation (in fact for several categories they had lower cancer rates). All the others are mixed which screams to me "random cancer cluster" not "non-ionising radiation causes cancer".

The thing you are missing is that early radar equipment used exciters that emitted large amounts of IONISING radiation. The stuff that come out of the antenna was non-ionising, but it wouldn't have been healthy sitting next to the actual transmitter.

And those power levels of orders of magnitudes higher then from a cell phone. So the claim is that not only does non-ionising radiation cause cancer in a way that hasn't been identified in over a century of research, but that repeated small exposures are worse then single large exposures of the same overall magnitude. The opposite of how ionising radiation works.

Re:Cell phones cannot cause cancer. Here's WHY. (4, Insightful)

Sipper (462582) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336092)

The reason is that the frequencies cell phones use are below the spectrum of ultraviolet light. It is near the spectrum of ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation occurs, which is required to be able to cause cancer. Ionizing means that the energy level of the individual photons of the transmission have enough energy to disturb the molecular structure of live cells. Microwave "radiation" (which has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear radiation) is far within the level of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum, so there is no possibility of it having the energy required to cause cancer.

This is total bullshit. There are a lot of studies show the link between EM radiation at longer wavelengths than the UV causing an increase in cancer rates. I'm not even going to bother providing a references to one of the thousand papers on this subject. Just look at some studies performed in England and Belgian on the incidence of cancer for radar operators in WW2. We are speaking of other magnitudes of energy levels, but it still invalids your opening statement. Maybe you also overlooked non-ionizing biological effects?

No; as I said, the non-ionizing effects are microwave heating... and there aren't any ionizing effects. And I quoted both U.S. and international studies and standards that cover over 60 years of scientific research on the subject.

The only thing you're correct about in your comment is that there are papers as well as books that claim a link between microwaves and cancer; it's a very popular myth, and has been for over a decade. I'm saying it's a myth, and I've told you why I'm personally sure it's a myth, and I've given you some of my research on the subject. ...and you've given me your opinion.

And then... the eyes... Again a falsehood. The eyes are very actively cooled, and that with a very high blood flow, to cool them down from the incoming and concentrated (through the eye optics) radiation. On a very sunny day, where you have over 1 kW/m^2 of irradiance, without a good cooling, they would simply burn/cook.

I wonder how one can present such a thought out post, with calculations and everything, but with such blatantly falls information at the same time.

I never said the eyes weren't actively cooled; I said that they're the most sensitive part of the body because they don't have much blood flow due to only having capillaries in them. They're also the most sensitive because with a sufficient increase in temperature, cataracts will result. On other places on the body, an increase in temperature would mostly cause temporary damage or a burn that would heal later -- but not with the eyes.

Re:Cell phones cannot cause cancer. Here's WHY. (1)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336550)

This is total bullshit. There are a lot of studies show the link between EM radiation at longer wavelengths than the UV causing an increase in cancer rates. I'm not even going to bother providing a references to one of the thousand papers on this subject.

Then it shouldn't have been that difficult for you to find one or two *good* studies to link to. Absent a few worthwhile links, your post is equivalent to "because I say so...."

Plastics (4, Interesting)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336050)

IMO the most logical explanation for the correlation between cell phone use and cancer is that the cancers are from the KNOWN carcinogens that leech from plastics. Like the plastic cases that most phones used until the iPhone made metal/glass cases cool. Holding a piece of carcinogen leaking plastic to your head for hours on end for a decade or more seems a much more logical culprit then non-ionising radiation.

P.S. The plastic theory would probably explain why bowel cancer is spiking amongst the young. Young people are eating/drinking from crappy plastic containers at higher rates then ever. If you like carrying water around all the time get a metal or glass flask.

Re:Plastics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336144)

you should also find a matching correlation between headphone (not earbud) usage and cancer then

Re:Plastics (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336358)

Right. Since phones were never ever made of plastic back in the days before wireless.

Re:Plastics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336374)

Has anyone looked for correlation between old fashioned wired phone use and cancer?

Re:Cell phones cannot cause cancer. Here's WHY. (2)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336226)

The thing that always amuses me about cancer panic regarding non-ionizing radiation from cell phones and now wifi, is that we're literally living in a sea of non-ionizing radiation, and have been for 70 years. If you look at the energy/m^2, radio and television broadcast radiation are significantly higher that cellphones, and WAY higher than wifi. TV and radio sit firmly in the 'radio band' at frequencies lower than 1GHz, while mobile phones straddle the border with the microwave band, at between 0.9GHz and 1.8Ghz or so. The top end of the microwave band is 300GHz, and the UV band doesn't start until 750Thz or so; phones, wifi, radio, tv all sit will below the visible spectrum, and thus simply do not have enough energy per quantum to ionize atoms or molecules—that is, to 'knock off' an electron from an atom or molecule. It is this that causes damage to cells in the body that can cause cancer, or unregulated growth of cells. If this wasn't true, we'd all have cancer already from our lifetime exposure to TV radiation.

UV sunlight, x-rays, cosmic and gamma rays (i.e. nuclear radiation) lie in the frequency range above visible light, and DO have enough energy to ionize atoms. This is ionizing radiation, and is why we must be careful of our exposure to man-made x-rays, exposure to too much UV light, exposure to cosmic radiation when we fly too much etc because they can and do cause cancer.

Microwaves like TV and mobile phones? They do not, and cannot cause cancer because they simply are not the type of radiation that can. Heating? Well, they do cause heating of course - we exploit that fact in microwave ovens - at 800W or so. A cellphone that emits power in the milliwatt range is not going to cause much heating, which is why we have the SAR ratings - they measure how much heating they would cause in the most sensitive tissue in the brain to that. All current phones, even high power smartphones, lie well below the guidelines for safe operation.

Note, standing in front of a high power TV transmitter is still dangerous for your health, as is being literally right in front of a tower mounted high power cell phone transmitter, because the level of heating starts to go up, and can damage tissue through heating - especially the eyes. IIRC, this is how the idea of microwave ovens came about - high power radar dishes (which operate in the microwave spectrum) were literally cooking birds to death that roosted in front of the dishes - and they roosted there because the air was nice and warm...

Re:Cell phones cannot cause cancer. Here's WHY. (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336394)

If the frequency is not the problem, then how do you explain the large number of children having cancer, living near the radio aerials in the Vatican?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10634977 [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Cell phones cannot cause cancer. Here's WHY. (1)

ortholattice (175065) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336706)

If the frequency is not the problem, then how do you explain the large number of children having cancer, living near the radio aerials in the Vatican?

How do you explain the large number of children not having excess cancer, living near the other thousands of high-powered radio aerials in the world?

Re:Cell phones cannot cause cancer. Here's WHY. (2)

starless (60879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336526)

The reason is that the frequencies cell phones use are below the spectrum of ultraviolet light. It is near the spectrum of ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation occurs, which is required to be able to cause cancer. Ionizing means that the energy level of the individual photons of the transmission have enough energy to disturb the molecular structure of live cells.

Certain viruses, such as HPV, can cause cancer without ever producing anything in the EM spectrum more energetic than miniscule amounts of IR radiation.
It probably is the case that cell phones don't cause cancer, and theoretical considerations are important, but it'd be foolish to not regard the observational data as the real arbiter of this. If a statistically robust connection is found, then the interesting thing is to find out how that can happen.

On theoretical grounds, dark energy either doesn't exist, or it should be 10^(huge number) times larger. But observations clearly show that it's real.

Maybe this is a dumb question but... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336656)

Is it possible for multiple radio waves of a non-harmful frequency to overlap and produce harmful frequencies? It seems just from picturing it in my mind that it would work but it would produce a signal with less power.

wow, you know THE cause of cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336668)

congratulations. please publish a paper and send it to the WHO.

Stop reporting it as a finding that "may cause" (4, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335912)

Stop giving so much weight to this idea that they have concluded that cell phones may cause cancer. It's listed with a ton of other things under the "maybe" level. It's only based on repost that they've read. There was no independent study involved. They read a bunch of reports and based on those, concluded that it falls under the "may cause cancer" classification. As in, they can't state that it does or that it doesn't. Prior to this, they hadn't even gotten around to classifying it. This is a non-news story, except by twats trying to sensationalize it.

Re:Stop reporting it as a finding that "may cause" (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335932)

Do not underestimate the power of twats. They only need a single report to take out of context, and they have their excuse. Just look at the antivax movement. They got exactly one study linking vaccination to autism, and that was withdrawn some years later with the researcher's in disgrace. There are hundreds of studies showing no link. And yet the anti-vax movement is still going strong, driven by powerful appeals to fear.

Die-hards die harder - Mitt Romney acknowledge CC (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335916)

Smoking and cancer?

Cell phone and cancer?

Humans and Climate change?

Well, die-hards die harder, but now! Mitt Romney acknowledges Climate Change [huffingtonpost.com] !

Times are a changing

Re:Die-hards die harder - Mitt Romney acknowledge (0)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336230)

So did President Nixon and the Democrat Johnson before him. The anti-intellectual luddite insanity started with Reagan at a time when his brain was not as good as it previously had been.
For decades the Republicans were inspired by him so much have been behaving as if they have had Alzheimer's disease. It's about time they recovered.

no (5, Informative)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335956)

Re:no (1)

RebelWithoutAClue (578771) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336070)

You know I was about to write a rebuttal to the article when I noticed that the FCC had already done the job for me. Too bad nobody actually bothered to read the FCC link because it wasn't in the /. summary.

So uh... (2, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335960)

Where is even the correlation, let alone causative link, to brain cancer?

This was on NPR the other day and it was all "LOL we don't know but it /might/ cause brain cancer even though every study we have shows there isn't any correlation."

And the brain cancer it supposedly causes is a rare type that has not shown an increase in incidence from the time of no cell phones to the time of cellphones everywhere.

This is fucking pseudoscience scare mongering. There is a moneyed interest here somewhere for the scare mongering. Grants? Maybe. But that doesn't explain the actions of Sweden. Who wants to scare people into not using cellphones, and why?

That would explain this bullshit.

--
BMO

Re:So uh... (1, Troll)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335992)

Seems to work pretty well for global warming. Why wouldn't it work well for cell phones? Same BS science, same faulty methodology. Oh I'm sure I'll be modded into oblivion now, but whatever.

Re:So uh... (2)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336130)

There is a causative link between increased CO2 and planetary warming. The scale of the warming is what is up for debate, not the fact that 'Higher % CO2 --> Greenhouse effect --> Warming'. This cell phone thing is not the same thing at all. There isn't even any shown correlation, nevermind proven causation.

A fable of fear of radiation (1)

joneshenry (9497) | more than 3 years ago | (#36335968)

Once upon a time there was a country Germany that had the world leading technology in maglev trains. Unfortunately while the Germans had the technology, due to their regulatory system they could not actually build the systems in their own country, so they shopped their technology to a country that could, China.

The Chinese paid for building one demonstration system in Shanghai and seemed to be interested in paying for more maglev business from the Germans. Unfortunately after "public protests" [usatoday.com] of radiation further projects kept getting delayed so nothing was actually built. Then the Chinese developed their own maglev technology and no longer needed the Germans. The end.

Re:A fable of fear of radiation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336370)

> due to their regulatory system they could
> not actually build the systems in their
> own country

I do not know if I would call that "regulatory system", unless everything is regulatory system that prevents the goverment to throw money out of the window is "regulatory system".

Those maglev trains need new 'rails' incompatible with everything else, if they are significantly faster than classic trains, they are almost as loud as starting planes. (And need quite more energy than normal trains unless they drive only as slow as normal trains).

So you need to get new routes, either placed on stilts (then they are too expensive to be profitable, and you cannot schield the noise), or you need routes where every other rails or roads need new bridges or tunnels to cross (no way to just forbid all local transport for long times like Russia is doing for Moskow - St. Petersburg) with several hundred meters each way no dwellings (or you have to spend them all thick windows, better walls, ...).

To it is simply economically not viable. The only reason to build something like that in Germany is the "Wow, maglev trains, wow" factor. But Germany is no theme park, so bad luck for you..

Re:A fable of fear of radiation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336390)

Actually, most of China's high speed rail is a similar quality and speed to Amtrack. They've copied it right down to the passenger numbers.

Re:A fable of fear of radiation (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336730)

I'd love to take amtrack instead of fly, but they have bad routes, at bad times, with rumored mystery delays because of some sort of cargo train deciding to take a break....

If they could fix those things, I'd be using it.

E = hv. Not just a good idea, it's the law. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336002)

Sigh, more fearmongering for the ignorant, probably sponsored by the same trial lawyers as the ones who took down Dow Corning.

Physics or GTFO.

Hip level phone holder (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336040)

My iPhone is at hip level, in a "dollar store" 2$ holder clipped to my Levis jeans pocket...

It's right next to my nuts, probably incinerating them everytime I receive a call...
I don't even mind it, since listening to every article's "OMGZ ITZ KILLING ME" will mean I'll start living like an amish... (besides, as a typical /. user, I'll never meet a woman :)

Like my favorite satire magazine liked to put it (CROC, Quebec), Living will give you cancer :)

They still work OK, according to some girl friends of mine, but it's unusual for most /. users...

Re:Hip level phone holder (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336132)

I used to drive everywhere with my cell phone resting between my thighs... and then one day I thought about it, and decided to start keeping it somewhere else. I don't actually believe the phone was doing any harm, but when it comes to mah nutz, better safe then sorry.

Re:Hip level phone holder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336194)

I'm married and have a wonderful girlfriend also. Both love me and give me high marks in the bedroom. (Yay, open marriages!) The "unusual" for /. users may be less unusual than assumed.

Brain Cancer? (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336044)

If a news article about a possible link to cancer from cell phones has you worried about brain cancer I don't think you are actually qualified to get brain cancer -- so you have no reason to worry.

Next up: Breathing air and eating food can cause cancer

Re:Brain Cancer? (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336202)

Next up: Breathing air and eating food can cause cancer

Living for a period of time may cause death.

The proof is: (1)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336046)

The proof is that if you look around you, there are people dying left and right from brain tumors, which the cell phones cause, since the majority of people (in "civilized" cultures) use cell phones. Right?

What? People AREN'T dropping left and right with brain tumors?

Re:The proof is: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336346)

um, cause cell phones have been around, for -like- for-freaking-ever, why isn't everyone dead ?
even though known toxins causing known cancers can take decades to develop in random ways... ...but, but, but, i use a cell phone and i'm not dead yet, so must be some stupid hippie shit again
cause hubris-filled techno-grunts who serve the masters of the universe know everything about everything, right ?
what's left to discover about the interactions of thousands of toxins, dozens of radiation sources, and our bulletproof endocrine system, etc...
its all just 'a' plus 'b' equals 'c', we've figured all that shit out already... *snort*
yeah, if you cheezy doodle encrusted nerds are so fucking smart, how come the planet is falling apart at the seams ?

Re:The proof is: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336614)

You should see a doctor. Depression is a treatable disease.

good show iphone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336072)

Learning how to distress jeans can save you a bundle of money, http://www.ebyjeans.com while at the same time offering you a simple and fun way to personalize your wardrobe.

You mean I can get something else? (3, Funny)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336120)

So apart from;
  • Getting run over while I am sms'ing and walking across the phone with my headphones on and getting run over by a stewpid driver talking on their mobile phone cause *they* wern't paying attention
  • Having to catch stupoid from a shitty provider because they all are stupoid
  • getting knee cancer in my knees cause my leg is on the phone
  • getting ball cancer in my balls because my dick dials numbers
  • getting bum cancer in my bum because my phone makes bum calls from my back pocket leading to an anus transplant
  • Almost getting hit while I am waiting at the lights in my car cause the guy has one hand on the wheel and the other talking on his phone while he is going around a corner (it really happened) DRIVING A TRUCK
  • being gps tracked, triangulated and targetted for sms advertising
  • having the cops go through it to search for any useful drug contacts that they can score from and then bust
  • My boss can call me
  • Getting brain cancer from a stoopid phone because hey when it's on your head is when it needs full power *sorta mostly*

now your telling me I can get SARs from a phone. I'm just wondering if it's just me that would find it immensely satisfying to smash their phone with a hammer, sometimes.

Worrying (1)

olterman (2230796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336240)

It's worrying how much attention this "radiation problem" receives from the Average Joes. Funny also to see how hard it is for some people to keep their heads cool (no pun intended).

Individuals (people) have the protection against "false claims", "harassment", etc. Science is objective (or should be). It is a "false claim" to point your fingers to somebody and shout "Person X might be a KILLER!" and after that continue investigations for 20 years, trying to find the link. There might be lots of "clues" for this person to be a killer, for example he just played violent games, watched a detective movie or just walked near some crime scene. After 20 years of investigations the public thinks this person is a serial killer when he/she actually ate meat.

Anyway as the brain cancer worries are not about people but instead about objects (phones etc.), the claims must be investigated. And probably the only way to see if it is true is to rearrange the same experiment (probably multiple times) and see the results.

I let you to decide is it good practice in science to say "might cause" when only the initial experiment was finished. This reminds me of "The Science News Cycle" comic strip.

Odd selection (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336276)

What a curious selection of phones. The venerable Nokia 3410 is missing, but they somehow bothered to test an N-Gage.

Here is comprehensive data for Nokia handsets. [nokia.com]

How many times ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336294)

... is this tired story going to resurface?

These tinfoil hat wearers really need to be given a hobby -- like defusing IEDs in Afghanistan...

What doesn't cause cancer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336356)

I'd like to post my highly scientific argument as well...but someone already did that so just watch instead :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZTeSxWdk1g

Microwave Oven / Manatee Correlation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36336368)

I speak on my cell phone while warming coffee in a microwave oven. I wish to assume the microwave oven is not cooking me. There may be a "correct dose" of cell phone use which, in combination with microwave oven use, actually reduces brain cancer... Too late - my cognitive risk assessment lobe has been tripped.

It's part of the human industrial cycle... Use of the word "cancer" in conjunction with any common household appliance (cell phone, microwave, "e-waste", etc) will generate headlines and readership, due to human cognitive bias which equates change (technology) with risk. "Cognitive bias is a general term that is used to describe many observer effects in the human mind, some of which can lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation." [wikipedia] Higher news readership is associated with advertising stimulus, which equates positively to editorial story emphasis. Panic sells. Advertising for new technology devices increases sales, supplying tomorrow's cognitive risk. This stimulus correlates positively with scientific study funding at WHO.

The ideal scenario is to manufacture a device, such as a child safety seat, which is a) mandated, and b) recalled (banning sales in the secondary market), in a proportion which maximizes stockholder value, but only outside the manufacture takeback / warranty cycle. So "older cell phones" need to be identified as a risk, especially in proximity to older microwave ovens.

For a simpler explanation, see the South Park episode "Cartoon Wars", where episodes of Family Guy are written by manatees with "Idea Balls". http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103666/idea-balls Manatees can also pair different new technological devices with the word "cancer" to generate headlines, generating cognitive bias, generating panic, generating readership...

sell house fast (0)

florahills (2231048) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336388)

I was very encouraged to find this site. I wanted to thank you for this special read. I definitely savored every little bit of it. http://www.freehousevaluation.co.uk/sell-now/ [freehousevaluation.co.uk]

Cell phone companies must have too much money (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336420)

and the trial lawyers need something to move onto next.

Probably because they could not get lawsuits up and running against fast food as a whole. Seriously who comes up with this stuff? Possibly is not a guarantee but I am quite sure a good legal team will find a simpleton jury out there to award damages. I can see it now, warnings on the side of my cell phone that it may cause cancer, complicate pregnancy, or cause planes to fall from the sky.

Nope. (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336468)

you may have a new-found interest in knowing how much radiation your mobile handset is giving off — or, more importantly, how much your body might be absorbing.

Not really, no.

Bluetooth Headset Radiation (1)

Techogeek (1148745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336588)

I hardly ever use my cell phone held to my ear. What I am interested in and haven't seen yet is what kind of radiation Bluetooth Headsets puts out compared to the cell phones.

Do higher powered phones deliver better calls? (1)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336594)

The table had the opposite effect on me than what the author probably intended. I'm thinking that the phones with the highest power levels might have the best call quality. I understand that networks, phone circuits and antennas are major players in call quality but then again, if the first elements are equivalent, power is going to determine what you can hear.

.

I'm sick to death of "can you hear me now..." when I'm on my cell.

discount true religion jeans (1)

cheap true religion (2053288) | more than 3 years ago | (#36336616)

cheap true religion jeans Probably because they could not get lawsuits up and running against fast food as a whole. Seriously who comes up with this stuff? Possibly is not a guarantee but I am quite sure a good legal team will find a simpleton jury out there to award damages. I can see it now, warnings on the side of my cell phone that it may cause cancer, complicate pregnancy, or cause planes to fall from the sky.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?