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!

11-Year UK Study Reports No Health Danger From Mobile Phone Transmissions

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the take-off-the-tin-foil-hat dept.

United Kingdom 180

Mark.JUK writes "The United Kingdom's 11-years long Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR) has today published a comprehensive report that summarizes 31 research projects, which investigated the potential for biological or adverse health effects of mobile phone and wireless signals on humans (e.g. as a cause for various cancers or other disorders). The good news is that the study, which has resulted in nearly 60 papers appearing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, found 'no evidence' of a danger from mobile transmissions in the typically low frequency radio spectrum bands (e.g. 900MHz and 1800MHz etc.)."

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

I agree (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about 8 months ago | (#46236217)

I agree. If I say so, then it must be true!

Re:I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236235)

Brought to you by Google and Apple, bringing the inevitable, faster.

Re:I agree (4, Funny)

mjwx (966435) | about 8 months ago | (#46236281)

I agree. If I say so, then it must be true!

B-B-B-But all the astrologers told me this radiomation is dangerous to mi Qi. That and I may face challenges today.

Who is this "study" to cast doubt on that.

Re:I agree (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236537)

You know, I think you might be right. Oh, and you spelled IQ wrong.

Re:I agree (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 8 months ago | (#46236827)

This study brought to you by an endowment from THE PHONE COMPANY. WHOOPEEEE!

Hey, balloons! (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 8 months ago | (#46236221)

Beta sucks! not in the air regioneither. Capitalism is even worse because it creqatewdhbjnmk kluh id78wgyushjbmn the ass AS I WAS SAYING!

Low Frequency (3)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about 8 months ago | (#46236233)

So, 900MHz is the new LF band. Now where did I put my 2m VHF handheld...?

Re:Low Frequency (1)

thephydes (727739) | about 8 months ago | (#46236371)

mmmmm I can lend you one if you need it. Like you I've always believed that LF means KHz or perhaps even low MHz (depending on the decimal point). Shows how out of touch we old hams are ..... Think I'll go back to my radio.

Re:Low Frequency (1)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about 8 months ago | (#46236495)

Sadly I lost my ham license while immigrating to a new country. I should really go get it sorted and a new call sign, but I find less and less free time for the hobby these days... Ah, well, such is life.

Re:Low Frequency (3, Informative)

telchine (719345) | about 8 months ago | (#46236519)

Sadly I lost my ham license while immigrating to a new country. I should really go get it sorted

You can do it online ;-)

http://totl.net/Ham/ [totl.net]

Re:Low Frequency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236405)

To do what? Listen in? That might be a bit difficult.

Re:Low Frequency (1)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about 8 months ago | (#46236413)

The implication being that if LF is 900MHz, what is VHF? Visible light?

Re:Low Frequency (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#46236707)

Given that we're talking about cellphones, yes, it's the low frequency band.

Re:Low Frequency (3, Informative)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about 8 months ago | (#46236745)

No. Please see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]

That is technically the UHF band.

Re:Low Frequency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46237605)

You do realize that there are other contexts and that is not the only meaning of LF? In many circuit and RF equipment design, LF, IF, and HF/RF have relative meanings depending on what part of the circuits you are looking at and if multiple bands are being used, etc.

It doesn't matter. (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 8 months ago | (#46236257)

Scares usually persist long after any scientific backing is gone. Look at anti-vax, for example - the one study showing a link between vaccines and autism has not only been discredited but exposed as an outright fraud by a doctor who was paid to produce specific results. Yet the anti-vax movement continues to believe in the connection regardless. Or the abortion-breast-cancer link - originating in a study which misinterpreted results due to the lack of a true control group and now rejected by just about every reputable cancer-related organisation. Yet, once again, belief in the link remains widespread in the pro-life movement - largely because they wish it were true. This is the same thing again - it doesn't matter how many studies show no adverse effects, we're still going to see a lot of people claiming wireless networks gives them a migraine and worrying about phone-induced cancer.

Re:It doesn't matter. (4, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | about 8 months ago | (#46236305)

A determined idiot can be an almost unresolvable roadblock.

It doesn't mean we should stop beating sense into them, though. I find it much more scary that something like 50% of Americans believe that astrology has some effect on their life... at least these people are basing their prejudices on something that appeared (for a while, in a modern environment) scientifically plausible.

Sorry, but until we can eliminate the UFO-believers( and the astrologers and palm-readers and the conspiracy theorists, and whole swathes of others) we don't stand a chance of having no misinformation being spread by idiots about health-scares.

Go ask people about swimming on a full stomach. Then find out the truth (it makes no difference!). We're in the Misinformation Age.

Re:It doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236401)

Eliminate UFO believers?

I have seen a UFO myself, at close range. I can't say who or what (if anything) was piloting it, as I didn't see anything but the outside of the craft, and I assure you it was entirely unlike anything else I've ever seen on land, sea or in the air, before.

Perhaps what we need to eliminate is jumping to conclusions?

Re:It doesn't matter. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236457)

Yes, you saw a UFO. That is, it was a Flying Object, and it was Unidentifiable to you. That happens all the time, and various armies, navies & air forces take UFO sightings seriously.

It's when people start ascribing extra-terrestrial origin nonsense, or claims of alien abduction, where things start to get hokey.

Re:It doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236515)

Yes, you saw a UFO. That is, it was a Flying Object, and it was Unidentifiable to you. That happens all the time, and various armies, navies & air forces take UFO sightings seriously. It's when people start ascribing extra-terrestrial origin nonsense, or claims of alien abduction, where things start to get hokey.

There are studies showing strongly increased UFO sightings at times and areas we decades later know was used for secret testing, like the SR-71 Blackbird.

But here is the reason it is right to be sceptical of UFO's as in the extraterrestrial interpretation -- there are zero non-debunked evidence backing up any of the stories. You would especially think that in this age of ubiquitous cameras, radars and other sensors someone would catch something, but zero..

Re:It doesn't matter. (4, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | about 8 months ago | (#46236863)

Yep. This is what annoys me.

I totally, 100% believe in extra terrestrial life. The Drake equation and simple statistics says that there has to be some - even if it's just a scientist "hunch".

But I cannot fathom why people think they are visiting us in little spaceships that happen to look EXACTLY like the movie little space ships (yet, before movies, reports all looked like descriptions from popular sci-fi books, etc.).

I can't walk down a street without being caught on a thousand CCTV cameras. I wouldn't be able to send up a Chinese lantern without the local police coming to find out who did it. Hell, if someone comes in and is spotted by the military the first we're likely to know is from the fallout when they try to blow it out of the sky thinking it's an enemy deviating from their airspace.

Yet, somehow, these aliens with inter-system flight technology always seems to be "just" caught in blurry, out-of-focus, tiny image as just a fleeting dot and yet nobody else in the area notices anything at all. Until you ask them. Then they saw five guys in silver suits.

I believe in "U.F.O."'s (the unidentified object kind). The theories for what they are is absolute crap as they have only ever turned out to be aircraft, sunlight, camera aberrations, and hoax.

Hell, some bloke phoned 999 in the UK and reported a strange light in his garden hovering over him. Ten minutes later he called back to apologise as it was "The Moon". The clip plays on every "funny clip" show on TV. When you factor that into UFO reports, you really have to wonder how the human race manages to get to work in the mornings.

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

jc42 (318812) | about 8 months ago | (#46237337)

I have seen a UFO myself, at close range. I can't say who or what (if anything) was piloting it, as I didn't see anything but the outside of the craft, and I assure you it was entirely unlike anything else I've ever seen on land, sea or in the air, before.

While reading your comment, I just saw a UFO myself. It flew through the leafless maple maybe 10m away, but it was in my peripheral vision, so I couldn't identify it. And it was very likely to have been an actual alien, since the most common flying things in this suburb of Boston are English sparrows, and starlings. But I can't say that for sure, since it could have been a native flyer such as a grackle, cardinal, or one of those pesky robins (the American kind, not the European) that no longer bother migrating south in winter because the winters here are now warm enough for them. Actually, it probably wasn't one of our neighborhood cardinals, because I'd likely have noticed the red color even though I didn't see it clearly. But it was definitely flying, I can't identify it, and it's unlikely that anyone was watching it from any of the neighbors' houses, so we'll probably never know what it was.

The robins are especially useful when people complain about all the aliens moving north and taking up residence here in the US, displacing the natives. And we can even tie in a comment about global warming, to further confuse the issue. "When did the robins arrive this year? They didn't; they never left."

(Hey, do you think we can make a connection between mobile phone transmissions and global warming?)

Re:It doesn't matter. (2)

greenfruitsalad (2008354) | about 8 months ago | (#46236521)

and yet you are one of those people. i often see comments about swimming on full stomach here (i'd say from people who either don't swim or eat). if you want to know why it's stupid, eat and drink until you're full, go to bed, lie down on your belly and wait for a burp to come. if you don't barf, you're not human. to better simulate swimming, you should have somebody shake you at the same time.

BTW, I swim for an hour 4 times a week and have seen this full stomach swimming way too often. when you see a person suddenly stop and stand up in the middle of a pool, they're either burping (if they're quick) or swallowing sick.

Re:It doesn't matter. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236733)

Some of us have strong enough stomach valve muscles to be able to be horizontal on a full stomach.

Some of us can't handle fast blinking reddish lights. Some people get sea sick or puke when watching 1st person shooters. Others puke when people near them puke (an evolutionary good idea if you're all eating the same food and someone gets sick). Some people sneeze when you flash a light in their face. Humans have very few magnetic sensitive cells but we do have some. If someone says he can feel when he's facing north no matter the time of day there's reason to believe him. Just because something is rare doesn't mean it can't happen. Some people have allergic reactions to light.

It's not hard to believe that a few people can be affected by every new tech we created. It's unlikely that many people are affected by most radio spectrum bands, but I'd bet money that someone out of the 7 billion people on the planet does have some type of issue. It's even more believable when you learn that your heart responses to different radio frequencies by beating differently: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/90/5/2299

People need to keep their minds open. It's an interesting world and we know very little about how it all works.

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) | about 8 months ago | (#46237113)

Please mod parent up, sadly out of mod points today.

Re:It doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46237643)

Holy crap, that paper you link to mentions using an RF ablation tool, as in RF strong enough to actually physically burn off or remove material. No shit, if you start physically cutting things, you can expect a physiological change, which is a whole different ballpark than RF used for communications as long as you aren't sticking your head inside a multi-kW waveguide.

Re:It doesn't matter. (5, Insightful)

Welsh Dwarf (743630) | about 8 months ago | (#46236525)

> I find it much more scary that something like 50% of Americans believe that astrology has some effect on their life...

But it does, it's called the placebo effect!

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46237565)

Posting anonymously because modded.

I think you actually meant the Barnum Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect):

The Forer effect (also called the Barnum effect) is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people.

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

jc42 (318812) | about 8 months ago | (#46237391)

I find it much more scary that something like 50% of Americans believe that astrology has some effect on their life...

But it does; reading astrological "information" wastes lifespan that could have been used to read something informative and increasing your knowledge of the world. That's time that you can't ever get back.

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 8 months ago | (#46236323)

Do people still think cell phones cause gas pumps to explode? Some of my early cell phones had warnings about that in their manuals.

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 8 months ago | (#46236373)

What have we got to lose by acting as if it's true?

Re:It doesn't matter. (2)

MrMickS (568778) | about 8 months ago | (#46236385)

There are still signs around the all of the pumps here banning use of a cell phone in a filling station. The current reasons is because they could cause a spark. Is there any evidence of this, or is it another feeling that's become true by repetition?

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

telchine (719345) | about 8 months ago | (#46236553)

There are still signs around the all of the pumps here banning use of a cell phone in a filling station. The current reasons is because they could cause a spark. Is there any evidence of this, or is it another feeling that's become true by repetition?

Well, as they say... no smoke without fire :p

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236701)

I think the *real* reason is because it's a polite way to prevent the idiot on the phone from getting distracted and forgetting to remove the gas nozzle from the car before driving off. Kinda like how tech support will tell people to "remove the plug, blow on it, and put it back" rather than just say "make sure it's plugged in".

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

itsthebin (725864) | about 8 months ago | (#46236911)

Is there any evidence of this,

if the vapour was over the LEL and the battery was removed ( fell out when dropped ) you may be able to cause ignition.

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#46236933)

Is there any evidence of this,

if the vapour was over the LEL and the battery was removed ( fell out when dropped ) you may be able to cause ignition.

Ah, that Steve Jobs. Always looking out for us.

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

coofercat (719737) | about 8 months ago | (#46237471)

Literally 10 seconds of googling found this: https://www.osha.gov/dts/hib/h... [osha.gov]

When I did some RF stuff at college, they talked about the possibility of a spark coming off a (high) power antenna if various other factors all came into play at the same time (intuitively it makes sense - you've got a whole lot of energy in the antenna, which you're providing an easy release for). I assume it to be true, although I've never seen it (because I don't do any RF work to speak of).

I'd imagine that way-back-in-the-day, the first generations of mobile phones were literally hand-held cookers. There was some story where some BT engineers were going a bit doo-lally and it was supposed their phones were the cause. I don't know if that's true, but I do know that modern phones use a lot less power than their older counterparts, so I presume the risk of sparking to be as good as zero these days. I still wouldn't want to find out I was wrong in the presence of petrol fumes that ignite rather easily though.

As for this study, it's really saying exactly what we expect them to say. There was no way a 'proper' study was going to say there was any risk using a phone. As I say though, I'm rather glad I didn't have one of the first generations of phones - I seriously doubt they were safe in the longer term (and no, I can't prove it).

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 8 months ago | (#46236551)

I remember seeing this explained somewhere that it's not that a cell phone makes the pump explode it's that if you touch your gas tank and have a lot of excess static electricity the pump explodes, and if you shock a gas tank on purpose you will blow it up. While a normal phone should not cause a static charge that would lead to an explosion, it's conceivable that some phone somewhere was malfunctioning leading to this "myth." Just like how, given all the people electrocuted while on their phone recently, you might erroneously believe talking on your cell phone while plugged in leads to death.

A car is a big static electricity generator (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 8 months ago | (#46236677)

One thing to keep in mind. A car is a big static electricity generator.

Re:A car is a big static electricity generator (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 8 months ago | (#46236761)

Eh I'm not so sure about that. IANAE (I am not an electrician). However wouldn't any static created by the car discharge as you're getting out of the car (or at least there should be no difference in potential between you and the car)?

Re:A car is a big static electricity generator (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 8 months ago | (#46236829)

However wouldn't any static created by the car discharge as you're getting out of the car

Yes, right into the spilled fuel next to the pumps as it's stepped into. Such a static electricity discharge must happen several times a day if considered globally.


What we have here with the phones is electrical safety standards for other devices near fuel being applied as a blanket rule. Static electricity never came into it.

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 8 months ago | (#46236671)

I think it's Italy where people pay at the pump using their mobile phones. That was a few years back so it's probably more widespread.

Re:It doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236673)

Despite documented cases, forensic investigations and reports, even at least one video of it happening? And that's just from waht I can recall.

The banality trolls are out in force today, and mixing apples and pears like there's no tomorrow. Thousands of qualified to highly qualified (technically skilled and competent) people have seen UFOs and testified to it. Plus the hundreds of military and government sources that have equally come public. Oh, and there's FOIA'd documentation and reports that were found "misplaced" all over the place. Including some very standard FBI reports and intercepts going back to the 40s. Plus the Battle of L.A., plus the Washington Flap, plus ... at least a score of other occasions when thousands of people in large cities or regions saw what wasn't flares or chinese lanterns. Or Venus.

I wouldn't doubt that they put crud in the vaccines. Just as they put it in food and everything else. Or fill a third of the world with a few total nucleare war's worth of radiation. And more.

I'd just want better quality vaccines. Not just herbal teas.

And it doesn't make sense that arrays of ionically and eletrolytically loaded bags of water can't suffer charge effects - not lust water heating - from all sorts of frequencies and intensities. Even when microwaves emitters are held close to the brain for 5, 10, 20 or more minutes at a time.

And the studies that reported minor brain edema - something basic oozed out of the cells, albumin? - at every use. It seems at least logical to suppose that at some point, fatigue would involve some sort of scarring and damage. But why worry, right? It's just the whole population including their loved ones, If they have any.

Re:It doesn't matter. (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#46236947)

Here. this [timecube.com] should help a bit.

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 8 months ago | (#46236693)

Do people still think cell phones cause gas pumps to explode? Some of my early cell phones had warnings about that in their manuals.

I don't think that a cell phone would cause a gas pump to explode, but let's say static discharge or a faulty battery cell could. Just as much as someone with a pickup truck that has a plastic liner could cause the same thing. Or you could, should the fumes in the air be sufficient and the grounding wire from the pump had failed.

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 8 months ago | (#46237177)

Do people still think cell phones cause gas pumps to explode? Some of my early cell phones had warnings about that in their manuals.

It's highly unlikely at the powers involved with cell phones, but have you have put tin foil in the microwave? Many cell phones operate in the microwave range. Last I checked, most vehicles are more out of metal.

Re:It doesn't matter. (2)

MrMickS (568778) | about 8 months ago | (#46236377)

The problem about not believing this sort of report is that there will always be some pseudo scientific journalism piece that will highlight a leukaemia cluster [canceractive.com] , or similar, near a phone mast. The fact that it doesn't happen around all, or a significant number, of phone masts won't make the piece. The conclusions will be incorrectly drawn that there is no smoke without fire and that the cause must be the phone mast, regardless of the fact there there are many other factors influencing these people and its likely to be something else.

A lot of the anti-vax in the UK was linked to a single, now discredited, study that was latched onto by a journalist eager to make a name for themselves with a scoop. The measles outbreak, and potential deaths, that it has led to are as much on their hands as they are on Andrew Wakefield [wikipedia.org] who faked the evidence of the link.

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | about 8 months ago | (#46236379)

Vaccinations ... Finland is in trouble. One (Pig Flu 2009) vaccination provably caused several cases (more than ten) of narcolepsia.
Now, understandably, people are frightened to get any vaccinations, especially for Pig flu. Unfortunately totally unrelated vaccinations (MMR, HPV) are also opposed.

Re:It doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236485)

Sadly, four people have already died of swine flu this year in Finland. They were around 55-65 years old. At least it's sparing children this time around.

Re:It doesn't matter. (2)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 8 months ago | (#46236555)

You'd think Fins would be more susceptible to gill rot or swim bladder rupture or some other fishy disease.

Re:It doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236889)

I've never in my life heard of an abortion-breast-cancer link except from you using it to claim another group of people believe in it in order to disparage them.

Re:It doesn't matter. (1)

jc42 (318812) | about 8 months ago | (#46237519)

I've never in my life heard of an abortion-breast-cancer link ...

Me neither, so I googled "abortion breast cancer link" (minus the quotes, of course). The first page's 10 (out of 1.7 million) hits were mostly about the studies debunking the idea, but a couple of them were links to comments on a recent Chinese study supporting the idea. A quick scan of the 2nd page's 10 hits shows roughly the same.

So it's a real thing. But granted, it can be difficult to keep up with all the misinformation that's flying around among the general population.There are probably a lot more such bogus "health risks" that neither of us knows about.

What about the missing bands between 900 and 1800? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236321)

What about the missing bands between 900MHz and 1800MHz?

I mean isn't it the same as what creationists are always pointing out? Where's the missing link?

Re:What about the missing bands between 900 and 18 (1)

Vanders (110092) | about 8 months ago | (#46236461)

What about them? This is a UK study. The UK doesn't operate any mobile telephone devices between 900Mhz & 1800Mhz.

Re:What about the missing bands between 900 and 18 (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#46236963)

What about them? This is a UK study. The UK doesn't operate any mobile telephone devices between 900Mhz & 1800Mhz.

Hmmm. Makes you wonder why. Maybe they know something...

Re:What about the missing bands between 900 and 18 (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 8 months ago | (#46237691)

Or maybe that spectrum is already assigned...

Prediction (1, Troll)

virtualbedouin (260105) | about 8 months ago | (#46236363)

My astrology reading says I should make a prediction today, so here it is...

This study will NOT measure all the cumulative wireless frequency you and i experience every day and night. That would be too tooo hard. So instead, I am betting they just based the study on the weakest signal they could find (not from your mobile phone but rather the super weak signal from the base stations that send signals to your mobile).

So rather than doing a study on a typical human, they will study the safe and wonderful effects of these signals that could only possibly relate to your cat, who stays at home 24/7 and is exposed to base station signals... oh wait, I forgot about TV signals, Radio signals, WiFi signals, etc...

Ok, I am off to read the report...

Back

Yep, another pointless study that is so narrow and specific that it can not possibly relate to a normal typical human on the planet, Except for that desert bedoiun that live near a cell tower I suppose.

Re:Prediction (4, Insightful)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#46236417)

There is a simple long term study that proves that cell phones do not appreciably increase brain cancer risks. It is the basic cancer statistics [cancer.gov] . That graph covers the years 1992 to 2010. Over that period of time cancer rated have been pretty steady. Considering the explosion in subscriber [areppim.com] after 1998 there should be an explosion in brain cancers. There is not. No correlation therefore no causation.

Re:Prediction (-1)

virtualbedouin (260105) | about 8 months ago | (#46236453)

Hmmmm. Cancer.gov as in U.S. government as in the most trusted source in studies.

Here is a simple analogy for you, to help you understand your position and how studies work in general.

I am making brownies for my friends. A trace amount of Dog Poo gets into the mix. I ask a friend to study the effects of this trace amount of Dog Poo on my friends and he concludes it is negligible. I tell all my friends they are safe.

What I don't tell my friends is that I am not the only one mixing the ingredients, and that as the Brownies were being mixed by numerous individuals throughout the day, each has added their own trace amount of Dog Poo. I won't tell you how many individuals, because there are too many variables, but rest assured, I CAN provide you with a wonderful and conclusive study that TRULY states, a single trace amount of Dog Poo in my Brownies is TOTALLY SAFE.

I am off to make some yummy and safe Brownies!

Re:Prediction (1)

virtualbedouin (260105) | about 8 months ago | (#46236587)

God Poo is yuck!

Re:Prediction (4, Informative)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#46236607)

Cancer.gov as in U.S. government as in the most trusted source in studies.

Your best shot is a general disbelief of anything coming from a government agency? Get real. Look at any epidemiology report from anywhere on earth and you will fine no increase in brain cancers. If you don't believe that one then try this one [cancerresearchuk.org] as it is non-governmental.

If dog poo is present and no one got sick then dog poo is safe. If you do the same test on millions of people in ever increasing numbers over 15 years and there is no upward trend in illness then dog poo is safe. If dog poo was unsafe there should be at least a few people who got sick. There are two parts to a study; correlation and causation. Correlation asks the question is there a similar trend in two factors. For example, the increased presence of dog poo and the increased incidence of illness. The second step is to prove if that correlation might be caused by a third factor. Possibly the presence of dog urine also increases with the presence of dog poo and it is the urine that is causing the issue and not the poo. If the correlation step fails there is no possible causation. There had been a dramatic increase in the number of cell phones used yet no increase in the rate of brain cancers. There is no correlation therefore no possible causation.

Re:Prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46237111)

UK, 1993..2010. Check out what happened in around 2008. People stopped talking to their phones when iPhones came around and started texting instead. Mora data usage, less talk.

Re:Prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46237423)

Cell phones spend more time next to a person's leg than next to their brain. How about leg cancer stats?

Re:Prediction (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#46236657)

Cancer.gov as in a US government site summarising information from boundless non-US-government sources (scientists) who are in constant competition to one-up each other and for whom the prize for finding an interesting counter-intuitive result and proving it is fame and glory.

Re:Prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236471)

What if by chance whatever was causing cancer dropped off at the same time supposedly-cancer inducing spectrum picked up, thus making it appear that there is no chance? Unlikely, but we can't necessarily rule that out.

There may or may not be something to WiFi causing migraines and whatnot. But until we have conclusive proof that it does cause migraines, we shouldn't necessarily take legislation to outlaw or restrict it.

As for the anti-vax thing, I don't feel the government should force us to be vaccinated. It should be a personal decision between patient, parent, and doctor. However, I feel that health care should cover vaccines 100% in full regardless of how someone feels, but it should be voluntary if someone wants to be vaccinated.

The same goes for global warming. Some people may think it's primarily caused by humans. Regardless, we should take steps to reduce pollution anyways, for it's own sake of reducing pollution. "If it stops global warming, yay! If it doesn't, at least we get some clean air out of it."

Re:Prediction (3, Interesting)

Warma (1220342) | about 8 months ago | (#46236565)

The anti-vax thing is entirely different, because by choosing not to become vaccinated, you are increasing existential risk for others. Being of that mindset is internally consistent only, and only if you really think, that harming others based on your personal beliefs, is justified.

However, even being internally consistent does not necessarily mean, that you are doing the smart thing or even that you are doing the right thing. Please think about this.

Re:Prediction (3, Insightful)

Bengie (1121981) | about 8 months ago | (#46237255)

As for the anti-vax thing, I don't feel the government should force us to be vaccinated. It should be a personal decision between patient, parent, and doctor.

Except in exceptional situations like a family history of adverse reactions, not getting vaccinations is about as much child abuse as only feeding a child candy for their entire life. Not only is that detrimental to the child, but it is also a huge risk for the rest of society.

If people get to willingly choose not to get vaccinated(assuming we have high quality vaccinations), other people should have the choice of not allowing willingly unvaccinated people near them in any way. Turn it into a crime of attempted murder with malicious intent.

For me, vaccinations rank right up there with courts and law enforcement, as a modern requirement for a health society. Again, assuming we have stringent requirements on the quality of vaccines.

Re:Prediction (1)

cmdr_tofu (826352) | about 8 months ago | (#46236575)

There may indeed be an increased risk of brain tumors from cellphone use though http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... [sciencedirect.com]

This has been known for a while. I didn't even know about the risk of cancer (which we now believe isn't there), but the risk of brain tumors is a concern for me. My phone switches to wifi when I am at home or work, and I increase the distance of the phone from my head by using bluetooth, or car stereo, and also limit time spent on the phone to try to decrease my risk.

Re:Prediction (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#46236667)

It would be nice to read the report but it is paywalled. It seems that a similar study done in the UK had different findings.

Re:Prediction (1)

msauve (701917) | about 8 months ago | (#46237371)

"I increase the distance of the phone from my head by using bluetooth.."

So, you decrease the RF by putting an RF transceiver on your ear. I don't follow your logic.

I am still skeptical (2)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | about 8 months ago | (#46236423)

I looked briefly to some of the reports published by MTHR, and it seems to me that there is a fundamental flaw (pretty much common to many studies published on this topic). The absorbed dose from the tissues is proportional to the transmitter power. Now the transmission power of handeld devices (like GSM) depends from the received SNR at the BTS: actually a negotiation about the power to use takes place between the BTS and the handeld device to limit the transmission power, so that batteries of the handeld unit last more and interference to neighbour BTS cells is reduced. IIRC power can be varied between 1 milliwatt and 8 watt, i.e. three orders of magnitude. If this enormous variation of the radiated power (and of the absorbed dose) hasn't been taken into account in the study (as I suspect), the research conclusions are very questionable.

Re:I am still skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236451)

8 watt

2 watts.

Re:I am still skeptical (1, Insightful)

_Shorty-dammit (555739) | about 8 months ago | (#46236473)

It's still non-ionizing radiation. Be as skeptical as you want. The rest of us will just point and laugh.

Re:I am still skeptical (2)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about 8 months ago | (#46236499)

But it is an invisible thing that he doesn't understand. Don't interfere with his panic attack with reason or logic. Fear of what you can't see is a cornerstone of our society. Never mind the EM radiation coming out of his (probably 2GHz) computer. Or the wifi. Or, the X-rays from the sun. These aren't relevant, cell phones are evil cancer causing devices!

Re:I am still skeptical (1)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | about 8 months ago | (#46236617)

You probably lack some knowledge about effects of EM fields on tissues. The damage possibly caused by RF fields generated by mobile phone is due to heathing, not to ionization.
BTW, most of the damage caused to tissues exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation is still due to heathing. Damage due to chemical effects caused by ionization and to DNA damage appear later in those who received exposure to ionizing radiation.

Re:I am still skeptical (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#46236689)

Actually if there's one thing we can agree on, it's that thermal effects are not the cause of the problem. The energies involved are vanishingly low; holding your hand near your face has more of an impact on its heating than holding a phone there.

Re:I am still skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236781)

All those heating effects are extremely minor compared to the heating effects you experience from other parts of the EM spectrum every time you step out into sunlight.

Re:I am still skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46237357)

hey asswipe, he said "heathing" not "heating"

those are HEATHING effects.

go buy a heath bar, rub it on your skin. you'll see what i'm talking about.

Re:I am still skeptical (3, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about 8 months ago | (#46236723)

Before you laugh you need to add the words "low intensity" (which this most definitely is) since high intensity non-ionizing radiation is a known hazard. Enough to make you warm by induction alone (which is a hell of a lot of RF) is a big problem and that's why the really dangerous stuff gets shielded before anyone is expected to work near it. Faulty shielding in some RF welders for plastic seams caused quite a few miscarriages in one factory a few decades ago.
Still don't believe me? Microwave ovens use non-ionizing radiation. Several orders of magnitude more than if you had your head stuffed in the transmitting dish from one of these towers, but it's the intensity and not the type of radiation that divides safe as background from cooked in two minutes.

Re:I am still skeptical (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#46236491)

IIRC power can be varied between 1 milliwatt and 8 watt,

You may be recalling incorrectly. The car phones from the 80's maxed out at 3W. According to this

The transmission power in the handset is limited to a maximum of 2 watts in GSM 850/900 and 1 watt in GSM 1800/1900

The 8Watts seems a bit high. Most handsets max out at about .3 Watts to conserve battery power.

Re:I am still skeptical (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about 8 months ago | (#46236513)

Just like the flawed science in climate change and evolution.

The difference between conservatives and liberals with science is that conservatives refuse that something will be bad for them vs liberals refuse to believe that something new is not harming them.

They are both refusing to believe science because it messes up their world view.

Re:I am still skeptical (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 8 months ago | (#46236739)

They are not "conservatives". That's just the sugar coating so that the travelling medicine show scam tweaked into dumbed down Christianity can hide that it is about control and hatred instead of anything Jesus spoke about. They see biologists, geologists and climatologists as hated enemies getting in the way of their rubbish about an unchanging earth - and they've lumped in the rest of science in as fellow travellers.
Bit of a rant, but that's what we are facing.

Re:I am still skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236945)

No, that's how liberals see them (and by definition that is bigotry).

When I quit carrying my cell-phone in my pants... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236479)

I still felt ghost 'buzzing' and had muscle twitches in that area of my leg for 6 months.

The study is flawed or incomplete

Re:When I quit carrying my cell-phone in my pants. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#46236675)

That's because you've conditioned yourself to expect a vibrating sensation and respond promptly to it; your brain is hypersensitised. The same phenomenon occurs with the actual ringing sounds of phones, landlines or otherwise.

Re:When I quit carrying my cell-phone in my pants. (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 8 months ago | (#46236741)

I still felt ghost 'buzzing' and had muscle twitches in that area of my leg for 6 months.

It a very serious illness, it's called hypovibrochondria [wikipedia.org] (aka ringxiety or fauxcellarm)...
I reckon not carrying you mobile in your pants will result in massive improvement on the life expectation... of your mobile.

Absent minded much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46237001)

It took you 6 months to take that vibrator out?

Hello. Fuckbeta (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236509)

Fuck beta. That is all.

Re:Hello. Fuckbeta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46237011)

That line is a bit passé already yanno. :D

Makes total sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236511)

Considering the amount of default background radiation we always get from space and the radiation from natural sources, the tiny bits from cell phones is nothing.

sorry to invoke godwin's but: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236649)

The nazis banned smoking and western science said this was paranoia. All the studies from the west showed smoking was fine and doctors were on TV saying how good it was for you. Not till the late fifties was it 'discovered' or 'acknoledged' in the west that smoking was harmful.

Re:sorry to invoke godwin's but: (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#46236683)

A stopped clock is right twice a day: there are no prizes for getting the right result from dumb luck, contrary to or in the absence of evidence.

Re:sorry to invoke godwin's but: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236841)

Motorways and rockets were blind luck also I take it.

some more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236865)

'A stopped clock is right twice a day'

'there are no prizes'

'dumb luck'

Any more thought stopping colloquialisms, sockatume our resident propadanda pycops person

finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236879)

The '*dumb luck*' is the banning of smoking

if banning is is 'contrary to or in the absence of evidence' then it means that evidence shown would support smoking so this evidence is wrong.

This is a great piece of psycops with colons and commas and field testing but it is illogical.

Re:sorry to invoke godwin's but: (1)

msauve (701917) | about 8 months ago | (#46237411)

When my clock stops, the LCD simply goes blank, you insensitive clod!

and mental health ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46236823)

> report concludes by recommending further studies to look at the behavioural/neurological outcomes of mobile phone usage on children, as well as to examine other areas like its potential impact upon sleep and brain function among other things.

which thus weren't part of the study. Granted it's not exactly health, but neither is far from it.> report concludes by recommending further studies to look at the behavioural/neurological outcomes of mobile phone usage on children, as well as to examine other areas like its potential impact upon sleep and brain function among other things.

Grain of Salt (4, Insightful)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 8 months ago | (#46237023)

How many studies were there that showed that smoking wasn't bad for your health?

It would be interesting to know who funded all the referenced studies, as well.

Low Frequency (1)

INT_QRK (1043164) | about 8 months ago | (#46237205)

The "typically low frequency radio spectrum bands (e.g. 900MHz and 1800MHz etc.)" of which the submitter speaks, are solidly in the Ultra High Frequency band, which ranges from 300–3000 MHz. He many have meant to say "low-power," which is very true but different altogether.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?