×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

150 comments

I expect... (3, Funny)

eexaa (1252378) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794312)

...someone here telling that mobile phones may not cause damage to us, but they certainly make bees behave weird and die.

Re:I expect... (2)

Mister Fright (1559681) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794360)

Huh. I thought bees communicated by dancing or something.

Re:I expect... (3, Funny)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794944)

That is sooooo 1990 of you. Join the 21st century- even bees have iPhones now.

The GPS function on it has revolutionized nectar collection.

Re:I expect... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37796996)

"Join the 21st century- even bees have iPhones now."

That's the latest buzz around these parts.

Re:I expect... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37794534)

Little known fact: Cellphones? Made out of bee parasites!

Re:I expect... (1)

vawwyakr (1992390) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794704)

Where did I miss this happening? Wait can I just hold my phone up to a bee and kill it now? Does this work on other insects? Is there an app for that?

Re:I expect... (3, Informative)

Dewin (989206) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794938)

Increased EM radiation from rising cellphone use is one speculated cause of Colony Collapse Disorder [wikipedia.org]

It's Bayer's Clothianidin causing the bee deaths. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37796226)

Bayer-AG made an insecticide called Clothianidin to replace Imidacloprid as the patent expires (or expired) on it.

In field tests in Germany, Clothianidin was found to be EXTEREMELY LETHAL to bees because they bring the tainted pollen back to the hive, and it is fatal in very low doses. Literally one bee carrying the insecticide back will kill hundreds of bees in the colony.

Needless to say it is banned in Germany and the rest of the EU.

But Bayer is selling it in America, and the appearance of clothianidin on the US market exactly coincides with the start of the colony deaths here. For whatever reason (disclaimer: I am a Democrat) Obama and the EPA are doing NOTHING about this.

What's worse is that a lot of Bayer-funded research groups are actively putting out FUD like blaming mold, weather, pollution, and cell phone radiation on the bee deaths as a misdirection. I'm not saying all the research is flawed, but a surprisingly large portion of it is funded by groups that are subsidiaries or Bayer or otherwise related to them.

Bayer own trial results are very clear about the bee deaths and the effect of clothianidin on bees. That point can't be disputed. But why they've been allowed to sell it in the US is the shocking part IMO.

It's like with genetically modified food, all of Europe bans it but nobody stops them in the US. Or feeding cows dead cows that causes mad cow disease, a practice which is also banned in Europe.

Re:I expect... (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37796246)

Guess you should read the information you link. here is a quote from that article.

In April 2011, a study conducted by a former investigator of the EPFL École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne appeared, which stated that active mobile phones placed directly inside a beehive can induce the worker piping signal (in natural conditions, worker piping either announces the swarming process of the bee colony or is a signal of a disturbed bee colony); the author mentioned that "phones are not present in the close vicinity of honeybees in real life" and did not demonstrate what negative effect, if any, worker piping might have within a colony, nor was any link to CCD demonstrated.[110]

All other references to electromagnetic radiation dealt with other types.

Re:I expect... (1)

Dewin (989206) | more than 2 years ago | (#37796492)

Admittedly, I only skimmed it and did read that the results seemed to conclude that cell phones were not a cause. However, I was trying to explain someone else's post -- probably a futile cause. The word "speculated" in my post for a reason.

Perhaps I should have emphasized that other people have speculated and there's no real studies that prove or disprove it (I won't count a single study as disproving, for all I know the methodology was flawed.)

What about the other studies? (0, Troll)

Mike (1172) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794352)

What about the other studies which have "again" shown there's some link between cell phone use and cancer.

Truth is, it hasn't been proven conclusively either way yet. And it may never be.

Re:What about the other studies? (4, Informative)

Nabeel_co (1045054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794390)

Actually, If you look at those studies closely, most of them say that there is no link, just a slight correlation.

Those studies are usually mis quoted, or taken out of context. Assuming they are not bias.

Re:What about the other studies? (2)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794434)

If their sample says there is, they write that there is, if then another study finds no cancer when exposing things to cell phones, they write that there isn't.

What I think is that there is such a low incidence, even if it exists, that it'll be almost impossible to prove conclusively.

Re:What about the other studies? (0)

ilguido (1704434) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794592)

However this study is certainly flawed: it doesn't take into account daily usage. It's just based on the years of subscription.

Re:What about the other studies? (2)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795134)

Years of subscription is a good proxy for the total exposation (and that's what matters here!).

Of course there are people who were heavy users from the beginning, while others got their phone just recently and aren't using it much.
And there are people who refrained from getting a cell phone as long as possible, and are now heavy users because circumstances were so pressing that they finally went for a cell phone.

But in the end, it will get out on average, and in each of the groups, there are heavy users and users who seldom use a cell phone.

Re:What about the other studies? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794444)

The problem is, the only way to do a study like this to be conclusive is well, you have to study over a long period of time. We're talking decades or more (I think this study only covered a decade).

They're all inconclusive because the link takes extremely long to develop. Cellphones in common use is a relatively recent thing (think 15 years or thereabouts where everyone has a cellphone), despite being easiliy available since the 80s.

Of course, though, we act like we can't live with them now. The 80s and early 90s must've been just terrible years for people who were growing up back then (mid-30s or so).

Re:What about the other studies? (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794666)

Don't worry my generation is doing a long term study now. If there is well only my generation and the next are likely to die from it so no big deal.

Re:What about the other studies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37797486)

And nothing of value was lost.

Re:What about the other studies? (4, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794486)

Those that aren't in the "We took 30 cancer patients and asked them if they used cell phones" category have generally not been statistically significant.

There's a good article about it here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100090300/do-mobile-phones-really-cause-cancer-probably-not-again/ [telegraph.co.uk] from a little earlier this year.

Generally, phones causing cancer is much more "interesting" than phones not causing cancer, so the studies that show even the slightest hint that they might garner far more attention from the media than they probably should, whereas those that don't have to be much more significant (like this one) before they get decent coverage.

Re:What about the other studies? (1)

Transcendz (955938) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794744)

What about the recent WHO alarm, then ? It's strange that when some studies find a correlation between phone use and cancer, almost immediately there's another one that shows the opposite.

Re:What about the other studies? (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795566)

The WHO said that cell phones have a cancer risk similar to drinking coffee. Hardly an alarm.

Re:What about the other studies? (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795800)

This just in: Coffee has been found to cause cancer!

Re:What about the other studies? (1)

rgbatduke (1231380) | more than 2 years ago | (#37797362)

Wait, are you trying to inject a note of sanity into an idiotic conversation using the medium of humor?

Forget it!

What's really fun is in trying to figure out how cell phones might cause cancer. Any sane analysis of the actual physics involved results in the wild, off the cuff guess that "they can't". Non-ionizing radiation with no more than a watt directed into the solid angle occupied by the head, no more than 4 watts if you ate a phone. You are at more risk putting on a hat than you are using a cell phone -- it prevents the loss of much more than 4 lousy watts (your brain burns almost a third of the total calories consumed by your body).

Let's see, a cell phone doesn't cause a measurable increase in temperature in tissue -- what little heating it might cause is instantly thermalized by the surrounding tissue and carried away and dispersed elsewhere in the body, just as is the energy trapped by wearing clothes, or a hat. The frequencies of radiation used aren't resonant with any particular structures (and are almost entirely attenuated within a CM or so of the skin anyway). At least two huge studies -- with commensurately good statistics -- find no correlation between cell phone usage and cancer. Various smaller studies sometimes do, but always at the limit of their statistical resolution, another way of saying "it's probably just statistical noise but we want to publish anyway".

The truly amazing thing is that nobody has the intestinal fortitude to just say it: Cell Phones Do Not Cause Cancer, So Get Over It.

It's not like there aren't plenty of things that do cause cancer out there to obsess over, after all. You know, cigarettes, coffee, booze, sex with many partners, certain common viruses, radiation, and a dazzling array of chemical additives that are routinely added to our food or pollutants to be found in our water. The really funny thing is that the person who rides a jet from where they do the research to the meeting where they present it in that one trip to 30,000 feet exposes themselves to real ionizing radiation that almost certainly increases their risk of cancer hundreds of times more than a lifetime of cell phone use (and is still such a small increase that it only shows up as a measurable increase in e.g. pilots and flight attendants who have flown almost daily for five years or more).

Somebody that actually wants to learn the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation could always go someplace like this:

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/MedicalTreatments/radiation-exposure-and-cancer [cancer.org]

Ionizing radiation is high-frequency radiation that has enough energy to remove an electron from (ionize) an atom or molecule. Ionizing radiation has enough energy to damage the DNA in cells, which in turn may lead to cancer. Gamma rays, x-rays, some high-energy UV rays, and some sub-atomic particles such as alpha particles and protons are forms of ionizing radiation.

Non-ionizing radiation is low-frequency radiation that does not have enough energy to remove electrons or directly damage DNA. Low-energy UV rays, visible light, infrared rays, microwaves, and radio waves are all forms of non-ionizing radiation. Aside from UV rays, these types of radiation are not known to increase cancer risk.

It is important to understand the difference between these types of radiation. For example, the non-ionizing radiation given off by a cell phone or a television screen is not the same as the ionizing radiation you might get from x-rays taken in the hospital.

(emphasis my own). That really says it all, doesn't it?

Cell phones cause cancer (if at all) by magic!

rgb

Re:What about the other studies? (1)

BBTaeKwonDo (1540945) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795884)

XKCD covered the WHO alarm quite nicely. [xkcd.com] .

Why is it that researchers always say that more research is needed? Is that like a barber always thinking you could use a haircut?

Re:What about the other studies? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#37796792)

Because in a paper you want to head of criticisms. In a perfect world by stating how you controlled for whatever the criticism is, in the real word often enough by sticking it in the "future work" bucket.

And journalists don't grasp that and hence when they read "further studies with large study populations, where the potential for misclassification of exposure and selection bias is minimised, are warranted" they read it as the scientists saying "more research is needed". When really they are saying "yes we didn't do that, but we know that and we didn't just not notice the obvious so please accept the paper anyway".

Of course no researched is going to turn down a grant :)

Re:What about the other studies? (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794834)

There are more Radio Waves coming from the SUN and Space than anything here on earth! Just step outside on a sunny day and you'll be exposed to 1000x more radiation than your cellphone!

Re:What about the other studies? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795194)

We should tell the "cell phones = cancer" nuts that computers definitely do cause cancer. Then at least we can get them off the Internet. From there, we tell them that bearings cause cancer, then their travel is restricted to within foot/horse range of their homes.

Re:What about the other studies? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37796206)

Truth is, it hasn't been proven conclusively either way yet. And it may never be.

Just like the existence of unicorns.

What about the towers? (1)

securitytech (1267760) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794440)

I have seen enough studies that conclude even high cell phone usage is not going to give you cancer. But I work directly under a 200ft cell tower. I would really like to hear about a few studies in reference to living/working long hours around cell towers.

Re:What about the towers? (3, Informative)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794520)

Radio output from the tower at 200 feet is nothing compared to a cell phone two inches from your brain. Inverse square law, QED.

Re:What about the towers? (1)

securitytech (1267760) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795028)

Thanks for the response. I have searched a bit but there are some variables I have not seen quantified in comparison studies. For example, some towers have more or less antenna and/or more power as well as the fact your phone is 2 inches from your head when on a call. The tower is on 100% of the time. Is the differences in exposure over time due to distance so great that these don't factor in at any significant amount?

Re:What about the towers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37795072)

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/cellair-a.gif [datasync.com]

Cell tower antennas are designed to get as much signal going horizontally as possible, with an implicit reduction in power vertically. That big empty whitespace above the tower in that graphic means you are safer 200 feet below a tower than the people in the buildings around you.

But those people still get more from their personal phones than they do from the tower.

Re:What about the towers? (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37796012)

That picture specifically does not show how the pattern looks like between top of the mast and ground at a particular site. It does not necessarily need to resemble the long-distance picture because local effects such as diffraction and reflection on nearby structures will greatly affect what's going on.

pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37794504)

how long did everyone say cigarettes dont cause cancer? How many studies back then did they have that found no proof?
Once enough people die then people will care until then ....

Re:pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37794564)

Dont worry, you will be ok, its obvious you allready wear a tinfoil hat to protect you.

Re:pointless (2)

aintnostranger (1811098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794848)

any study with 350 000 people would have found strong correlation between smoking and cancer no matter which decade it was made.

This isn't complicated (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37794518)

Cancer is the direct result of the fact that the Onca gene, the part of human DNA that controls the timing of cell division, is highly susceptable to mutation from outside radiation (much moreso than virtually any other gene in human DNA). In a cancer patient, cells divide before they are able to fully grow. This causes cells which require ourishment, but perform no useful work.

None of this is a secret. There's a reason why the doctors are called "Oncologists" and the study is called "Oncology" - we've known EXACTLY what causes cancer almost from day one. So...the fact that cell phones emit a (relitively tiny) measure of radiation, and is usually in very close proximity to our bodies, presents a possibility that it could cause mutations in the Onco gene, and thus could cause cancer. However, there is little factual evidence to support that this happens on any scale. That is, yes, there are definately several hundred people who, over 20+ years, developed cancerous cells as a result of radiation emitted from a cell phone. However, power lines produce over 6 times, and FM radio towers produce over 19 times the radiation of a cell phone tower, much less an individual phone. Granted, they arefarther away from you, but the risk posed from spending 1 hour near an FM radio tower is several orders of magnitude greater than spending 10 years with a GSM phone in your pocket.

So no, cell phones don't cause cancer. That is, sure, SOME people, at random, MIGHT develop cancer from cell phone radiation. However, this is comperable to the number of people who die from lightning strikes vs. car crashes. Lashing out at the less nessacary culprit - even though it's much less responsible for the problem - is a favorite pasttime of religious groups, politicians, and people seeking attention in general. The science, however, isn't there. Outlaw all high capacity power lines, FM and AM radio stations, TV stations, and roughly 70 other sources that we all encounter on a DAILY bases that produce more radiation, and then we can tackle cell phones.

Re:This isn't complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37795314)

Where's that "-i: WUT" moderation option?

Re:This isn't complicated (1)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795360)

This is stupid, "oncogene" is is a category of genes that have the potential to cause cancer. In effected cells, one of these genes would be mutated of heavily expressed.

There is no "Onca gene" and the rest is just ridiculous.

Type of radiation is crucial (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795664)

is highly susceptable to mutation from outside radiation

Make that ionizing radiation. It can strip electrons, damage DNA. Cell phones produce non-ionizing radiation. They don't have enough energy to damage DNA.

Re:Type of radiation is crucial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37796550)

I don't know if cell phone radio transmissions cause cancer.
But the line 'it is not ionizing radiation so it cant damage DNA' is bogus.

Just because it is non ionizing radiation does not mean that it is totally incapable of having any kind of biological effect.
It is not PROVEN that it does or can cause these cancers or have effects, but is also not proven that it CANT.

If it has energy, that energy can have a effect. If it can penatrate the body to any degree it can have an effect.

Still need proof, but it is impossible that non ionizing radiation could have some effect.

Re:Type of radiation is crucial (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37797182)

Non-ionizing radiation can heat molecules through excitation. It is conceivable that enough could heat tissue so much that DNA is damaged, but that is absolutely beyond the abilities of a cell phone. It's sticking your head in a microwave oven.

It CANNOT directly mutate DNA like ionizing radiation does, which means stripping off electrons. This mutagenic property of ionizing radiation is the normal association between radiation and cancer.

At the upper edge of non-ionizing radiation and going into ionizing radiation is ultraviolet light, which can cause skin cancer through free radicals. Below this is visible light, which can still excite electrons. Below this is microwaves, and at the very bottom end of microwave is where microwave ovens and the highest frequency cell phones operate (although at orders of magnitude lower power levels) as well as WiFi and many other applications.

It is not PROVEN that it does or can cause these cancers or have effects, but is also not proven that it CANT.

It is not PROVEN that my cat can beat me at chess, but it is also not proven that it CAN'T. However, I'm betting that it can't.

It's the other way around (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37794524)

Cancer causes cell phones...

No amount of proof is enough. (4, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794542)

People who believe that cell phones cause cancer and vaccines cause autism will never be convenced by any amount of evidence.

Re:No amount of proof is enough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37795192)

And people (well, mostly companys) who make billions with cellphones and vaccines will make sure that those people will be ridiculed into their grave.

Re:No amount of proof is enough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37795602)

I make zero off cellphone or vaccine money and I also plan on ridiculing those people into their grave. Guess there is a little flaw in your logic.

Re:No amount of proof is enough. (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | more than 2 years ago | (#37796006)

Like it should be. We don't need morons shouting that random stuff is bad for us. You know what vaccines really do? Save lives. "But I know a guy whose friend's kid was affected by a flu shot!" Do you now? What data supports your thesis? And as for cell phones, do you know what else is EM radiation? Light. Wanna go hide in a black room forever? Be my guest. Don't wanna take any shots? Then be my guest, but don't you dare leave your lightless hole.

Yes, but... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794556)

The use mobile phones while driving does multiply the accident rate, which can still kill people.

They also multiply rudeness in restaurants.

And no matter what any advertising tells you, you never look cool while holding or using one.

Lastly, the mobile you consider state-of-the-art will be mocked as utterly campy and brick-like by whatever they have in 10 years.

Re:Yes, but... (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37796214)

Lastly, the mobile you consider state-of-the-art will be mocked as utterly campy and brick-like by whatever they have in 10 years.

You're wrong here. Our hands don't get all that much smaller over time. The dimensions of a cell phone's user interface surface have to remain where they are. As to the rest: there isn't all that much to be done to an iPhone-sized cellphone. It's ridiculously tiny if you look inside. Even if the motherboard was infinitely small and took no volume at all, you still need the battery, antennas, UI surface. So all you could get is perhaps a slightly thinner iPhone and that's it. I'd say the original iPhone is still a very futuristic device, if you think as to what was available mere 10 years ago. The newer models are pretty much thinner and that's about it as far as form factor goes.

Re:Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37797316)

You're assuming the user interface will continue to use the hands...

I think therefore I call.

Re:Yes, but... (1)

green1 (322787) | more than 2 years ago | (#37797426)

Actually the introduction of smart phones has caused a slight increase in phone size. (you need a larger phone to type on than you do to simply dial, and a larger screen to play games/watch movies than to dial a number)

Unfortunately humanity as a whole is incredibly poor at predicting the future accurately enough to know where it will go from here, I expect thinner, though likely not much smaller in the short term, but without knowing what new user interface we will come up with farther in the future, I can't say what size or shape will be required to interact with it.

Re:Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37797530)

The disposable mobile phones with the weight, volume, and pliability of a piece of paper, will make our current phones seem campy and brick-like.

They had these in the movie Ultraviolet.

Or the cool phones might all have 3D resizable holographic UI, and be worn on the wrist. Or they are part of your sun glasses and just impose the UI image on the lenses. Or maybe they are surgically implanted and impose the UI directly on to your occipital lobes, and read input directly from your brain, with no need for physical gestures at all.

You simply lack imagination.

Re:Yes, but... (1)

green1 (322787) | more than 2 years ago | (#37797352)

The use mobile phones while driving does multiply the accident rate, which can still kill people.

So why is it then that no jurisdiction in the world who have introduced a ban on using a cell phone while driving have seen a reduction in accidents?

Every study I've ever seen linking accidents to cell phone use fail to correct for percentage of drivers using a cell phone in the first place. If 10% of your drivers are using a cell phone, and 10% of accidents occur while a cell phone is in use, that does NOT mean that 10% of your accidents were caused by a cell phone, in fact it means that in all likelihood the cell phones had zero effect.

Now I think it's naive to believe that no accidents have been caused by a person due to their cell phone use, I also believe that it isn't nearly as significant a number as the alarmists want to believe.

But... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794566)

People really want to have a link between something popular and widely used and a deadly condition.
If we have it and we like it. It has to be bad and evil and must be banned so no one can enjoy this again. It is kinda funny that it is usually the less informed segment of the liberal groups (AKA Dirty Hippies) who really push this stuff. And not the religious right who many religions focus of steering away from early possessions.

Re:But... (1)

green1 (322787) | more than 2 years ago | (#37797460)

Religions are the origin of "have it and we like it. It has to be bad and evil and must be banned"! They trade on guilt, if you aren't feeling guilty, they haven't done their work right...

Roll back 60 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37794600)

Turn back the clock 60 years ago:

"Another study finds no link between tabbaco and cancer (again)"

Re:Roll back 60 years ago... (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794676)

Turn back the clock 60 years ago:

"Another study finds no link between tabbaco and cancer (again)"

"Another study finds no link between the ability to speak and real intellegence" FTFY.

Also, TOBACCO

Re:Roll back 60 years ago... (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795210)

Turn back the clock 60 years ago:

"Another study finds no link between tabbaco and cancer (again)"

"Another study finds no link between the ability to speak and real intellegence" FTFY.

Also, TOBACCO

Also, INTELLIGENCE

How's that foot taste?

Re:Roll back 60 years ago... (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794684)

Yes but those people were all crooks and liars and have paid for their crimes by becoming rich.

Re:Roll back 60 years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37794898)

Doctors surgery's today: You have a mouth, throat, repository tract cancer, did you ever smoke? Patient: Yes. Doctor: Smoking caused your cancer.

Should be pretty obvious by now (5, Informative)

some1001 (2489796) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794606)

E=hf.

Visible light does not cause cancer. UV, XRay, and Gamma (all higher frequency than visible) do cause cancer.

Even if we knew nothing about the fact that we are exposed to so much radio and microwave radiation on a daily basis, does it not make sense that electromagnetic radiation below visible light should also not cause cancer (that is, for it to not be an ionizing radiation)?

I mean, who cares if your brain dissipates some radio energy to heat in the brain? Has a small temperature in a localized part of the body caused cancer in the past? Unless the heat dissipated raises the temperature of the brain over 104, I do not see much concern.

Re:Should be pretty obvious by now (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794996)

But ... but ... its RADIATION! It's in the air! It's bombarding us! It must be EVIL cause it's RADIATION! We need to protect the children from the RADIATION! And... and... you made the radiation move in funny ways by modulating it! The funny moving radiation must cause cancer cause its funny and RADIATION!

Re:Should be pretty obvious by now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37795006)

Obviously you have a brain and actually thought about this rather then go off on emotions alone. I thereby ignore your results and continue to protest that it does cause cancer! Now where's my settlement cheque from the cell companies? I need it to go buy some more smokes.

Re:Should be pretty obvious by now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37795562)

You are right, the energy at cellphone frequencies isn't enough to cause cellular damage. This has been known for quite a few decades now. Why is this research still being funded.

Re:Should be pretty obvious by now (1)

dondelelcaro (81997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795930)

does it not make sense that electromagnetic radiation below visible light should also not cause cancer

Non-ionizing radiation shouldn't directly cause cancer by the inducement of DNA damage. However, non-ionizing radiation could conceivably cause inflammation due to localized increase in heat. Increased inflammation can increase the risk of cancer. [That's basically why asbestos causes cancer, even though asbestos itself is spectacularly inert.]

It's certainly unlikely that cell phones produce enough energy to cause enough inflammation to cause an appreciable increase in risk of cancer, but the possibility is large enough that it's reasonable to study.

Re:Should be pretty obvious by now (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#37796654)

Is there more cancer in warm areas then in cold ones? I would guess that then few milliwatts of RF would produce less heat than say living in the south or west?

Re:Should be pretty obvious by now (1)

dondelelcaro (81997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37796912)

Is there more cancer in warm areas then in cold ones? I would guess that then few milliwatts of RF would produce less heat than say living in the south or west?

External temperatures don't influence internal temperatures much, so long as humans can maintain homeostasis. That said, I would expect (after controlling for skin pigmentation) to find more skin cancers in warmer areas... but that's not what you're asking about.

It's not the power itself that is the issue, but the intensity. A few mW over a few um^2 is more likely to be problematic than a few W over a few meters^2.

Re:Should be pretty obvious by now (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#37797564)

but homeostasis is not perfect. 98.6 is just an average body temp. I agree with intensity being the issue but the intensity of sun light per area will much higher than the intensity of RF per area. Put a one cm2 sample in sunlight in the summer and check the heat gain vs exposing the same size sample to a milliwatt em source of your choosing.

Obligatory XKCD (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37794636)

http://xkcd.com/925/

Never "completely sure" (1)

jpwilliams (2430348) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794670)

Let's not forget that there are two types of conjectures: those that have been proven false, and those that have not yet been proven false, according to Karl Popper. So the conjecture "Cell phone's don't cause cancer" can be disproven by just one case where cancer is caused by a cell phone. Add that to the EXTREME difficulty in attributing the cause of cancer, and we'll never be completely sure.

Living causes cancer (5, Insightful)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794736)

So stop worrying about all the things that contribute so little to the risk that a 350,000 person study can't identify a link. Enjoy your life, and avoid the things with a strong correlation to cancer, like tobacco, excessive UV exposure, high levels of radioactivity, etc.

We don't need more study of a link between cell phone usage and cancer, because repeated studies have shown that any risk is too low to measure even in large studies of long term users, therefore, too low to worry about.

Re:Living causes cancer (1)

formfeed (703859) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795992)

The supposed cancer risk with cell phones is that a microwave radiation source close to your skin will increase the temperature in some cells which increases the cancer risk. However, this temperature increase is very localized and only temporary. If there is a risk, it will be way below 10^ -5 and hard to quantify, since it is somehow a problem to find people that don't expose themselves to other cancer risks, like walking in the sun, eating a byte of junk food, or not getting enough sleep or being stressed...

Re:Living causes cancer (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37797360)

The microwave frequency that heats water is 2.45GHz, and no cell phones operate at that frequency, so the effect will be minimal. Also, the transmit power of cell phones it 0.6W or less (usually much less except when you're at the fringe of reception). The power and frequencies are so small that they will probably never be able to establish a correlation, even if there is some small risk. The studies that have been done are sufficient to eliminate it as a real concern, even though we'll never be able to prove there is no connection and will probably never be able to prove there is a correlation.

But I started smoking. (2)

chrisj_0 (825246) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794838)

I gave up the cell phone last week coz I thought it would cause cancer. Now I smoke 2 packs a day and I'm going through cell phone withdraws FML

Early cell phone (1, Interesting)

Siggy200 (721326) | more than 2 years ago | (#37794852)

Worked at a radio repair shop 1980 to 1990. When the first cell phones came out they were the size of a briefcase and mounted in a trunk of a vehicle and the antenna mounted on the roof of the vehicle. The handset mounted on the center hump next to the driver was somewhat like a Princess phone. Mostly doctors and lawyers at that time were able to afford purchase of a cell phone and air time. One doctor came into the shop and he wanted to have the cell phone radio removed. The radio/cell phone was installed about a month earlier. We asked the doctor why he didn't want the cell phone. He took out a device that measured for microwave oven leaks and placed that device near the ceiling of his vehicle, the alarm sounded, then he said this thing is frying my brain, take it out. So we obliged him and removed the radio/cell phone.

Re:Early cell phone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37795176)

so, do you have a point to make or are you just sharing an anecdote?

Yet, people will consider to claim that it does (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37794876)

People are stupid.... People will continue to be stupid... That is the way of life.

Cell phones don't cause cancer, multiple studies show it..... "But a friend of a friend of mine says it does" so obviously they know more...

Global climate change is real, multiple studies show it.... "But the big oil companies say it's all lies" so obviously they know more...

Vaccines don't cause autism, multiple studies show it... "But it's all a cover up by the big medical companies and even a Bauchman said it does so it must me true!"

A different study desparately needed: (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795090)

Do tinfoil hats cause cancer?

Re:A different study desparately needed: (1)

formfeed (703859) | more than 2 years ago | (#37796204)

Do tinfoil hats cause cancer?

Most certainly!

If your brain overheats, it increases the risk of cancer and all kinds of degenerative diseases. On top of that, studies [intel-research.net] show that a tinfoil hat might actually work as a parabolic dish and increase radiation.

At the very least, wear an ice-pack and don't look at your wifi router while wearing a tinfoil hat

The corrolation the study funder and results (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795102)

A study did find a correlation between the funder of the study and the result of the study

The studies combined show about a 50% inconclusive result of the study.

The data was separated between the Industry funded studies and non industry funded studies and a strong correlation was found.

Industry funded studies find cell phones safe in 3/4's of the studies and only 1/4 show them not safe.
Non industry funded studies show the phones unsafe in 3/4's of the studies and safe in only 1/4 of the studies.

http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation [gq.com]

Re:The corrolation the study funder and results (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795266)

Can't edit.. The research was by Henry Lai of Oregon State University. He compared the studies and looked for the correlation.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Cell-phone-cancer-risk-debated-1281040.php [seattlepi.com]

Herberman, he said, was referring to the so-called Interphone study – a 13-country, $15 million European epidemiological study of tumor rates among cell phone users – which was completed in 2005 but remains unpublished because of disagreement among the scientists (some of them funded by industry) on how to interpret the results.

His result showed clearly this;

Lai noted with a chuckle that if you subtract from the literature all of the industry-funded scientific studies, most research shows evidence of health effects from cell phone use.

Re:The corrolation the study funder and results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37796998)

And his funding came from.... ?

It sounds like (1)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795398)

The Luddites have just about run out of steam on this front.

But hey, I'm sure there's yet another "cell phones cause cars to randomly detonate with nuclear force" study right around the corner.

But, but, but... (2)

RManning (544016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37795698)

But I heard that almost everyone who is getting brain cancer now is a mobile phone user. How can that be?

Other cancers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37796490)

To me, one of the biggest pitfalls of the "cell phones cause cancer" idea is that brain cancer is the primary kind being suggested. Why? The skin, bone marrow, and gonads (for those who keep phones on their belt or in their pocket) are all significantly more sensitive to radiation-induced cancer than the brain. And when you talk on the phone, any signal has to go through skin and bone before it gets to the brain. If cell phones could indeed cause cancer, we should see much stronger positive correlations in skin cancer, leukemia, and testicular/ovarian cancer than we do in brain cancer. But nobody is suggesting this (that I have seen). The whole idea is silly, from the perspective of both physics and biology.

Amateur Radio Operators study? (3, Interesting)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 2 years ago | (#37796782)

I wonder, in the last 100 years, has anyone done any study on Amateur Radio Operators and their families?

Most hams have antennas, on their roofs, or in the back yard, radiating hundreds or in some cases, up to 1500 Watts of power.

Seems like doing a cancer risk study on them might provide some useful insight into the question of whether RF exposure can possibly increase risk of cancer?

yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37797526)

and how many times did "they" say the world was flat? Enough with the "again" comment. You are not clever, you fucking retard.

Correlation does NOT imply causation (1)

Loundry (4143) | more than 2 years ago | (#37797556)

These kinds of stories sicken me. "No link". "No correlation". So what if there was? Correlation does not imply causation.

Yet "linked" and "correlated" appear everywhere in medicine. Why is our culture like this? I think it must be a kind of secular religion -- kind of like the faith we have in peer review.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...