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!

Can Cell Phones Damage Our Eyes?

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the ruination-and-damnation dept.

Wireless Networking 429

Roland Piquepaille writes "I'm sure you've read dozens of stories about how our cell phones could be dangerous to our health, causing brain tumors for example. But so far, there is not a definitive answer. But now, according to IsraCast, a team of Israeli researchers has discovered that the microwave radiation used by our cell phones could destroy our eyes by causing two kinds of damages to our visual system, including an irreversible one. If the researchers are right, and even if you only occasionally use your cell phone, the lenses in your eyes can suffer from microscopic damages that won't heal themselves over time. As this study has not been not done -- yet -- on humans, I guess the controversy can begin and that another scientific team will soon tell us that this study is not correct. In the mean time, read more for other details and references. And whether you think that cell phones can damage our eyes or not, feel free to post your comments below."

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

Everybody hurts (4, Insightful)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182350)

There are so many researches and studies in the last 20 years, to the point that I'm starting to ignore all but a few obvious ones (like how you could get AIDS).

In my opinion, anything you do will cause damage to your body, even reading Slashdot everyday is enough to damage my eyes to a certain degree in the next 5-10 years, this is not including hitting F5 every 2 seconds, god knows how much damage that will do!

So this frying cell phone theory is rather pointless to me. If I have to make a phone call, I would use it, because I might just get run over by a car while trying to use that public phone booth across the street, or maybe cause a minor but irrepairable damage to my knees because of the extra travelling?

Re:Everybody hurts (3, Funny)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182434)

Or pick up a disease from the phone! Don't forget that most pulbic fones are covered in feces.

Re:Everybody hurts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182462)

Let's talk in about 10 years and see if you think the same, ok?

Re:Everybody hurts (3, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182579)

and see if you think the same
or think if you see the same.

That attitude is pretty stupid (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182489)

I'm not saying cell phones are dangerous, or that they're safe. I don;t know. I have one so I hope they're safe.

But taking that attitude towards any potential bad news is just self reassuring stupidity.

Cell phones do vary widly in the amount of radiation they emit. They all emit quite a lot at the point of the antenna, and some emit far more than others.

The decay of the radiation is obviously cubic over distance, but where most are held, right next to the eyes and brain, the radiation is quite strong. At certain times such as call initialization it's very strong, strong enough to light batteryless LED accessories popular on some phones.

The notion that holding these close to our eyes and brains without worry of damage is pretty stupid, especially the sorts of damage which may take a decade or more to materialize in a serious manner, when cell phones have only been really popular for about a decade or less.

People should be concerned and not take for granted that new technologies are just automagically safe. Environmental effects of new technologies are increasing exponentially and we have absolutly no experience in human history to compare it with or assume it will be safe.

To do so is simply an unproven and rather stupid assumption.

Re:That attitude is pretty stupid (5, Insightful)

steelfood (895457) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182631)

Don't forget that cellphones operate in an area of the electromagnetic spectrum that's in between radio waves that go through human skin but do not have enough energy to do anything to our molecules, and infrared/visible light, waves that have enough energy to affect our molecules, but cannot penetrate our skin due to the reflective property of melanin. Effectively, it's in the same range as microwaves, which do in fact penetrate our skin and do have enough power to mess with out molecules.

The only reason why cellphones haven't been literally cooking our brains is because they aren't powerful enough to produce any immediate noticeable effects, even after a prolonged period of use. Basically, they don't have enough power to boil the water molecules in our body. This we know for sure, and is the basis of most studies claiming no link between cell phones and physiological maladies. However, what we don't know is what the long-term effects are, and these results I wouldn't expect for at least another hundred years (massively overdosing a few rats like we do with medicine and industrial chemicals won't work in this case).

I pretty much agree with you. What we don't know we shouldn't ignore, but attempt to find out. Nor should we be afraid of technology, but we certainly should exercise reasonable caution. The exact meaning of "reasonable" will vary from person to person, and should be debated.

Maybe you'd like to buy my... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182526)

Maybe you'd like to buy my plutonium table settings. I've been trying to get rid of them for years. The market really dried up. And the nice thing is they clean themselves!

Re:Everybody hurts (5, Funny)

magarity (164372) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182539)

because I might just get run over by a car while trying to use that public phone booth across the street
 
Fortunately for you, there aren't many public phones any more because if you were to cross the street to use one, you'd get hit by a car driven by someone yakking on a cell phone.

Re:Everybody hurts (4, Insightful)

cagle_.25 (715952) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182564)

Pointless or not, here are the numbers:

According to the FDA [goaegis.com] , typical cellphone exposure @ 900 MHz is around 1.3W/kg of body weight, which would be around 13mW for a 10-g calf eye.

These eyes got 2mW @ 1.1GHz, for the equivalent of 20hrs per day. The net result was significant, irreversible damage after 4 days -- 80 hours -- of exposure.

Seems like a study worth pursuing to me.

Slashdot doesn't damage your eyes, BTW; it only sucks one year of your life away, although one day it might go as high as five ...*





*Princess Bride reference for the humor-impaired.

I KNOW HOW YOU CAN GET AIDS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182598)

Spend a night at the Slashdot compound! Am i rite, CmdrTaco?!

It's true! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182354)

I can't see! Help!

Re:It's true! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182406)

Didn't your mother tell you that if you didn't stop doing that you would go blind?

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182356)

Fp

Well... (5, Funny)

DanielNS84 (847393) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182358)

They should add warning labels...those work great on smokers. ;)

Re:Well... (2, Funny)

trompete (651953) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182371)

My mom said I'd always go blind from other things. Nevermind....

cockgobbler (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182567)

CLUCK CLUCK CLUCK

Cell Phones are not new (1, Insightful)

ndansmith (582590) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182360)

Cell phones are not new technology. There have been enough people using them for long enough to qualify for a serious study of the adverse effects of cell phones on their users' health. We should be able to tell what cell phones do to us, without waiting another twenty years.

Re:Cell Phones are not new (2, Insightful)

op12 (830015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182461)

While true, they have evolved greatly in that timeframe, so I don't believe the results would accurately reflect the effects of use now. The nature of and amount of radiation emitted has to be quite different between the razor thin flip phones of today versus the shoebox-sized (ok, I'm exaggerating) phones of a decade (or two) ago.

Re:Cell Phones are not new (1)

danielrose (460523) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182540)

While true, they have evolved greatly in that timeframe, so I don't believe the results would accurately reflect the effects of use now. The nature of and amount of radiation emitted has to be quite different between the razor thin flip phones of today versus the shoebox-sized (ok, I'm exaggerating) phones of a decade (or two) ago.

exaggerating? I recall my first nokia had a handset like a normal phone which plugged into the shoebox sized (no joke) battery and hardware of the phone..

Re:Cell Phones are not new (4, Informative)

cagle_.25 (715952) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182592)

Not exactly. The FDA limit was fixed in 2000; most phones fall within 25% to 100% of that limit, with digital phones lower than analog by a rough factor of 2.

Here [cnet.com] is an exhaustive list of radiation exposures.

Re:Cell Phones are not new (3, Insightful)

datafr0g (831498) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182472)

Cell phones are not new technology. There have been enough people using them for long enough to qualify for a serious study of the adverse effects of cell phones on their users' health.

What about young kids - mobile phones have been popular with kids at school for only around 4-5 years now at the most. We don't know if they will be affected in 30 years time.
Maybe the effects will worsen or become noticable after using a phone for 30 years.

We should be able to tell what cell phones do to us, without waiting another twenty years.

Yeah but nobody still knows for sure - *Should* is not good enough.

Regardless of all these studies, the only sure way to know is wait - time will tell.

Re:Cell Phones are not new (1)

TCQuad (537187) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182636)

There have been enough people using them for long enough to qualify for a serious study of the adverse effects of cell phones on their users' health.

You're assuming that anyone thought to look. In this case, linking an auditory device to an optical decline isn't intuitive. Furthermore, it is very difficult to deconvolute optical damage due to cell phone use from normal optical decline, especially when the customers are older.

Now that the demographics have swung younger (teenagers and college students) and the use has increased (minutes per user per week), it should be possible to track the appearance of declines independent of those that typically occur at an older age.

Somebody call Congress (2, Funny)

daeley (126313) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182361)

But now, according to IsraCast, a team of Israeli researchers has discovered that the microwave radiation used by our cell phones could destroy our eyes by causing two kinds of damages to our visual system, including an irreversible one.

Well, the solution is clear: ban microwaves. It's a matter of national security.

Re:Somebody call Congress (1)

name773 (696972) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182440)

the pacemaker users group thanks you for your great insight into this matter

i really liked this line:
Too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?

Yet another Roland Piquepaille article... (1)

yogikoudou (806237) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182362)

For sure Roland Piquepaille didn't wait for cell phones to get a damaged brain.

Nonsense (0)

geneing (756949) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182363)

I know how much Israelis love to talk on their pele-phones. If there was any damage they would all be blind by now :)

What about Wi-Fi networks? (2, Interesting)

Teckla (630646) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182376)

I'm exposed to an 802.11b network all day at work, and exposed to another 802.11b network all night at home.

Should I be worried? Does anyone know if being exposed to 2.4 GHz emissions might also be harmful?

Re:What about Wi-Fi networks? (5, Funny)

spune (715782) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182393)

Microwave ovens use 2.45GHz; I say, that's close enough to 2.40GHz to reckon that you're cooking yourself alive. That's why I ran away from home and started my life in Montana, away from the scourges of technology.

Re:What about Wi-Fi networks? (5, Funny)

danielrose (460523) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182560)

but not so far as to be out of reach of slashdot?

Re:What about Wi-Fi networks? (1)

microwave_EE (768395) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182608)

" Microwave ovens use 2.45GHz; I say, that's close enough to 2.40GHz to reckon that you're cooking yourself alive. That's why I ran away from home and started my life in Montana, away from the scourges of technology."

I live in Montana... I do research with microwave stuff... Somehow, I must think of some witty comeback...

Got nothin.

Oh well.

Re:What about Wi-Fi networks? (2, Funny)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182401)

Should I be worried? Does anyone know if being exposed to 2.4 GHz emissions might also be harmful?

I wish I could give you more information, but the last thing I saw was the phone number of a workers comp. lawyer in the yellow pages. Now I am nearly blind, unable to work, and entitled to $75 million from cell phone makers, wi-fi makers, waffle makers, and McDonalds.

Re:What about Wi-Fi networks? (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182593)

While you laugh. There is NO health warranty by the cell phone manufacturers for your body. Look at all the small prints of your cell phone warranty coverage. Mine explicitly say "They are not liable for after issued dates".

Re:What about Wi-Fi networks? (5, Funny)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182410)

Should I be worried?

Yes! You should at least switch your home network to 802.11g, so that damages are done on different part of your body at night, similar to load balancing.

Re:What about Wi-Fi networks? (3, Insightful)

qw0ntum (831414) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182429)

No, I wouldn't think so. I think the danger of the cell phone emissions is the fact that they are so intense (seeing as they originate right next to your head). Unless you live with an AP right next to you all day, it's not going to matter, as these waves lose their intensity quickly with distance. Think light from a projector--if the wall is two inches away, it's going to be really bright, but if the wall is even ten feet away, it will be significantly less intense.

Re:What about Wi-Fi networks? (1)

rkitchen (723927) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182574)

What about high tension power lines? Microwaves (already mentioned...) Radio Station beacons (100,000 watts of power!) Cell phone towers the RF interference broadcast out of your big a$$ TV Wireless Telephones? Russian Satellites :)

Re:What about Wi-Fi networks? (1)

robbak (775424) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182594)

Should I be worried?

Only if you keep the access point on your head.
Repaet after me : "Inverse square law."

Re:What about Wi-Fi networks? (-1, Redundant)

magarity (164372) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182626)

Does anyone know if being exposed to 2.4 GHz emissions might also be harmful?
 
2.4Ghz is a resonating frequency of water which is why microwave ovens use it. Three quesses: of what is most of your body composed? (hint: not Twinkies)

Dont Believe it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182378)

This is silly... I use my cell phone all the time and my vision is fdlmw.

Not been not done? (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182379)

"As this study has not been not done -- yet -- on humans"

what the hell is that supposed to me? it Has been done? :|

Re:Not been not done? (1)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182509)

Mouse lenses? Or maybe a theory predicting that the water in the lens absorbs microwaves just like water in, well, a microwave oven?

I am protected from this problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182385)

I have tin foil glasses.
When the phone rings I put them on before answering.
I also have the phone rigged up to be hands free
so it is safe for driving.

feel the burn (2)

duhasteifersucht (859131) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182387)

one more excuse not to pick up the phone when my mom calls me.

Re:feel the burn (5, Funny)

PygmySurfer (442860) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182425)

one more excuse not to pick up the phone when my mom calls me.
--
She blinded me with science.


Even your .sig is on-topic!

Nice find, but... (3, Funny)

qw0ntum (831414) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182394)

Well, yeah, I'm sure microwaves can cause some damage to the eyes. But honestly, what do you think is more important to the average person, the long term health of their eyes, or their next phone call?

Scientists at the U. Washington have shown similar (5, Informative)

ReformedExCon (897248) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182399)

I believe that the UW study was on the affects of cellular radiation on mice, and the results were equally disturbing. The exposed mice were invariably stricken with cancer while the unexposed mice remained at the norm.

But that study also showed that such effects were only engendered when the amount of radiation was both high and prolonged. The bovine lenses in this article were exposed to cellular radiation for 22 hours a day. If the exposure intensity is to be believed, then the transmitting antennas were placed right against the eyeball.

Neither of those situations is remotely near what normal cellular phone usage patterns resemble (unless you are a teenage girl, I suppose, but even then you aren't sticking the phone in your eye) (are you?).

So more study is necessary. The edge cases like the ones in the article and the UW study are very important to know, but the results of real-world testing ought to be examined as well. If we see a huge increase in the number of cancer and scratched lens cases in the coming years, there may be some validity to these studies.

I'll continue using my cellular phone, though. The convenience is just too great to pass up.

hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182400)

"(like how you could get AIDS)."
I think the scientists got the "Unprotected Sex"
and "Cell Phone" folders mixed up on that one...

Better question (4, Funny)

Kohath (38547) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182408)

Can reading Roland Piquepaille's blog damage your eyes?

Re:Better question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182500)

Yes.
When I finish digging my eyes out with this spoon, you may use it next.

Can't I just... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182412)

Can't I just keep using it until I need glasses?

Wait.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182414)

" As this study has not been not done -- yet -- on humans ..."

So they had what, a bunch of monkeys in a room using cell phone all day?

Re:Wait.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182596)

Yeah, it was called Los Angeles.

WTF?? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182415)

And whether you think that cell phones can damage our eyes or not, feel free to post your comments below.

Whew, thanks. I don't think I can sit in silence any longer!

Personally the thought of holding a microwave transmitter next to my head freaks me out. My powerbook's wifi is as far as I'll go. At least that's only bathing my testicles in rich creamy radiofrequency energy, not my brain. Given a choice between lower earning potential at work, and my future kids being deformed and shriveled, I'll go with the special olympians.

Re:WTF?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182469)

And whether you think that cell phones can damage our eyes or not, feel free to post your comments below.

Whew, thanks. I don't think I can sit in silence any longer!

 
I know what you mean. I was going to avoid throwing around a not even remotely informed opinion on an entirely unresolved question until I saw the poster's blessing. I mean seriously, this is Slashdot, not um, um...

Wahhh (1)

JeiFuRi (888436) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182417)

This isn't Fark? My eyes must be failing me, oh look my cellphones ringing.

Not enough evidence to worry me yet (1)

Hannah E. Davis (870669) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182420)

There have been so many studies of this sort, and so many that have subsequently been proven wrong, that I'm just going to wait until something more conclusive comes along before I start worrying. As it is, I don't even own a cellphone anyway. I intend to get one at some point, but I'm in no rush. I spend almost all my time within arm's reach of a computer or a landline phone, so while the geek in me yearns for more gizmos, I'm practical enough to realize that the less I spend on gizmos that I don't need, the more I can spend on computer upgrades that I do need.

And if I do get a cellphone and it degrades my vision, at least I'll finally have an excuse to wear glasses (which I think are sexy) and try out coloured contact lenses. Hey, I just like looking on the bright side :)

Re:Not enough evidence to worry me yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182456)

And if I do get a cellphone and it degrades my vision, at least I'll finally have an excuse to wear glasses (which I think are sexy) and try out coloured contact lenses. Hey, I just like looking on the bright side :)

Clearly a woman's perspective on the matter.

Re:Not enough evidence to worry me yet (1)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182557)

Studies don't matter. Cellphones are so important to society now that we will be willing to live with whatever risks are discovered. Consider how many people each year are killed in car accidents. Why don't we get rid of these contraptions, which are clearly dangerous? Because they are too damn useful, just like cellphones have become. Even if it is determined that cellphone usage causes cancer, blindness, deafness, infertility, whatever, people will continue to use them because they are now such an ingrained part of our lives. The only thing studies can change is to give more ammunition to trial lawyers that are salivating at the thought of suing the entire cellphone industry on behalf of "injured" people.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182422)

feel free to post your comments below. Oh thank you, Roland. This is new. ; )

CRTs damage your eyes too (supposedly) (1)

dusik (239139) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182423)

Ever since I was born, my elders have been telling me that I'll ruin my vision by staring at the computer monitor. It was common knowledge.

I'm 21 and my vision is still fine, despite the fact that I've stared at monitors at lot. Last time I had a doctor check my vision, it was 20/15.

Cell phones are probably not harmless, but it will probably be a while before we have a clear understanding of the consequences of using one.

Re:CRTs damage your eyes too (supposedly) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182515)

I've been staring at CRTs daily since I was 15 or 16. Oscilloscopes, assorted CRT monitors (it's been LCD for the last couple of years). I got my first glasses at 48.

Re:CRTs damage your eyes too (supposedly) (1)

danielrose (460523) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182571)

Out of curiosity, do you know what the numbers stand for in 20/15? I've always wondered.. (and been lazy)

Re:CRTs damage your eyes too (supposedly) (1)

microwave_EE (768395) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182637)

20/15 means that you can see as well at 20 feet as an average person can see at 15 feet.

I think...

fuck roland piquepaille (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182424)

weblogging spammer.

Missing parameter (3, Interesting)

Muerte23 (178626) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182435)

They say they exposed the eye tissue to 2.2 mW of radiation at 1.1 GHz. But 2.2 mW over what area? the room? One micron? The ~100cm^2 device in their setup? The important unit is *intensity*.

How much energy per area hits my eye from my cell phone in comparison? They don't say. That's a very important free parameter that they can vary to cause sensationalism where there may indeed be no danger.

It would be more useful if someone calculated this in burnt Libraries of Congress per century per square cubit.

Also, looking back at the article, they have the eye tissue sample in some sort of transmission line resonator. They don't go into specifics, but such a device could increase the power density of the microwaves by several orders of magnitude over that of a point emitter.

m

Re:Missing parameter (2, Interesting)

cagle_.25 (715952) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182639)

The FDA [fda.gov] measures the radiation as a "Specific Absorption Rate", SAR = W/kg of body weight, averaged over the mass of a typical head. So if you have a large enough head, you can talk all you want.

Hey, does anyone remember that article... (1, Insightful)

phlegmofdiscontent (459470) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182441)

a week or so ago, basically saying 1/3 of all medical studies are pure bs? I know that's a horrendous paraphrase, but I still think it captures the gist of it.
In addition, they did this experiment on lenses taken from dead cows. Of course they're not going to heal, they're from dead animals! I'd be more impressed if the study was done on live animals (I can just imagine a chimp with a cell phone strapped to its head). I mean, last time I heard, dead people don't heal themselves, but live people do.

Re:Hey, does anyone remember that article... (1)

danielrose (460523) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182615)

And then if the skin could grow over the cell phone and the monkey could learn to dial using his brain and run it from his bodies electrical current. that would be cool.

Cars and cellphones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182442)

Great! Now we'll have blind and distracted drivers. How many times a day do you narrowly avoid an accident with a driver using a cellphone? Long overdue banning their use while driving, blindness or not.

No, but Roland Piquepaille articles can (4, Insightful)

terrymaster69 (792830) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182443)

Unless you enjoy what he has to say, stop feeding money to this guy.

Re:No, but Roland Piquepaille articles can (1)

eikonos (779343) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182587)

Then it's a good thing I didn't read the article!

Re:No, but Roland Piquepaille articles can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182644)

Yeah, prolonged exposure to Roland Piquepaille (Piqua Piqua!) articles causes your eyes to rot and fall out of their sockets.

Even worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182455)

Calling 900 numbers using a cell phone will make you go blind in a week.

My cell phone probably caused less damage (4, Insightful)

melted (227442) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182458)

My cell phone probably caused less damage than four pints of Guinness and six shots of Vodka I've downed last Saturday. And I'm not even beginning to mention the harm caused by the food I ate this week.

It's like saying "obese people run a higher risk of having high blood pressure and heart disease" and not mentioning their usually sedentary lifestyle, that, you know, may in itself cause higher blood pressure and heart disease.

Same here - OMG cell phone will fry your blinkers, while at the same time disregarding that these very blinkers are used to look at the computer screen for hours on end, and they weren't designed for that. How do you tell exactly what damages one's eyes when there are so many variables at play?

Study does not show actual operating condition? (1)

timgoh0 (781057) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182460)

The study has lenses(without the protection normally offered from eyesockets and whatnot) exposed directly to the radiation for 50mins/hour.

Is this how one normally uses a cellular device? By holding it directly in front of the eye for 50 minutes at a time?

Watch out! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182474)

Those Israeli cell phones can damage [taemag.com] more than your eyes!

Clinically Irrelevant (3, Insightful)

Geancanach (652302) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182480)

Even if this is a real finding (the data given on the linked article were a little vague), it's very far from being meaningful in a medical sense.

The bovine lenses were taken out of the animals, then given almost constant radiation for 2 weeks. And they showed more damage than the control lenses that got no irradiation. So what? What are the odds that this compares in any way to a few minutes of cell phone use a day over many years, in a living animal? We don't know, and this study doesn't really help us in answering that.

Only effects newer model cellphone users (1)

MidoriKid (473433) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182483)

The only people effected by this will be the owners of cellphones capable of displaying pornography. Fortunately, my phone has a text only display.

Hairy palm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182486)

Not sure about eyes, but I've noticed the palm of the hand I usually hold my cell phone in is starting to grow hair. Very odd.

My Tinfoil hat protects my eyes from Cell Phones (2, Funny)

GrpA (691294) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182488)

Although it does make it a little hard to see where I am going...

But it has the added benefit of keeping out the mind control rays...

GrpA

giant asteroid causes death... (1)

gadzook33 (740455) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182490)

yeah, technology probably hurts us, but evolution will sort it all out. Without adversity, there can be no change...granted the ability to reason must be considered as part of the evolutionary system. For example, as intelligent beings we could decide that it'd be in our best interest to give up cell phones. Or, alternatively, our genetic predecessors could decide to fly out of my butt.

Thermal? (3, Interesting)

tgibbs (83782) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182491)

I'd need to be convinced that this is relevant to lenses in an animal. It sounds a lot like thermal damage, so we need information about the temperature reached in the chamber and how the thermal conductivity of the chamber compares to the body. If you continually pump microwave energy, no matter how low in intensity, into a sufficiently well insulated chamber, you'll eventually manage to heat it up enough to cook a lens.

Piquepaille == spammer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182493)

this post [slashdot.org] has a good overview of piquepaille's link farming activities.

Cripes (3, Funny)

dada21 (163177) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182501)

I read/post on /. using my HP h6315 PDA phone using GPRS.

Between small fonts and this, I'm screwed!

All danger is relative (4, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182513)

Is it possible the study is right? Well, yes, we do know radiation causes biological changes, and depending on the frequency can do so at fairly low intensity levels, so it's at least certainly possible.

Is it a large risk? Very unlikely. If there wasa substantial risk of damage, we'd seen epidemological alarms spring up already. If there is a risk, it's small.

Do we need to actually care in practice? No.

Why? Because we always, at every turn, balance risks with benefits. Probably the single most dangerous activity we all do is move in automobile traffic. There are many, many well-known health risks - from accidents to the exposure of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals to hearing loss - but we decide that the very substantial benefits outweigh the risks.

Arguably, mobile communications are not quite as beneficial as car transportation - though I could certainly see a case for disputing that - but then the risk downsides are also very very much smaller, this study or not.

What about the other side of the argument? (1)

trime (733350) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182514)

There are all these studies showing that using cellphones are bad for health, but very few illustrating how many lives were saved because people in danger had the ability to call for help. I'm not saying the study isn't valid, it may be. It's just that I think, in general, we're much safer with cellphones than without them.

Same thing applies to high voltage electical lines running near or through towns, white noise from wind generators, and countless other examples of people not effectively weighing up the benefits of technology with the drawbacks.

Banana Phone can't blind you! (0, Offtopic)

JeiFuRi (888436) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182518)

Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring Banana phone
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring Banana phone

I've got this feeling so appealing
for us to get together and sing - SING!

Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring Banana phone
Ding dong ding dong ding dong ding Donana phone

It grows in bunches I've got my hunches
Its the best beats the rest
cellular modular interactivodular

Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring Banana phone
Ping pong ping pong ping pong ping Ponana phone

Its no baloney It aint a phony
My cellularBananular phone

Don't need quarters don't need dimes
to call a friend of mine
dont need computer or tv to have a real good time
I'll call for pizza I'll call my cat
I'll call the whitehouse, have a chat
I'll place a call around the world
Operator get me beijing jing jing jing

Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring Banana phone
Ying yang ying yang ying yang ying Yanana phone
It's a real live mama and papa phone
a brother and sister and a dogaphone
a grandpa phone and a grandma phone too - oh yeah
my cellular bananular phone

Banana phone ring... ring... ring...
Its a phone with appeal (a peel)

Banana phone ring... ring... ring...
Now you can have your phone and eat it too

Banana phone ring... ring... ring...
This song drives me .... bananas
Banana phone ring... ring... ring...

Bo ba do ba do do doob

Whoa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182551)

"As this study has not been not done -- yet -- on humans"

Alright, that's the LAST time I flip a mouse's cell.

Psh, poor thing *kicks dust*.

Nothing to See Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182561)

Please move along. I mean it.

microwaves and cordless phones? (1)

Neuropol (665537) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182562)

Same principle, been in use a long time, what's the verdict on those? Probably about the same as in home microwave usage.

Working for a cell phone outlet and activating phones, which can take place quitea few times every day and can last any where from 1-2 minutes, instead of hold the phone, I tend to place it on speaker mode if avaiable, and set the phone down during the programming process. I'm hoping that I'm decresing my bombardment a little bit.

my eyes! (1)

Illserve (56215) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182569)

Reading shitty media coverage of science like this is doing more to hurt my eyes than cell phones.

Exhaustive studies have shown that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182584)

...cell phone users who txt msg a great deal become increasingly unable to recognize a grammatically correct sentence.

Dont worry - evolution will rescue us! NOT !!! (1)

nicc777 (614519) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182585)

It's when I read research like this that I wonder about evolution. Apart from how right these researchers are (let's assume for this argument they are 100% right), then we should be able to "evolve" or adapt so that our body systems will become resistent to these kind of "attacks".

Maybe it's time to research a little more in the area of human adaption in cases like these. I suspect no surprises here really.

Back to the article - I wonder just how bombarded we really are? Radio, TV, Satelite, WiFi (essentially radio), Cell phones, Infra Red - the list just goes on. Surely this can not be good. Then again, do we live long enough to really care about these harmfull effects?

Just wondering.

Cheers

Nico

Cars & Cell Phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182591)

So that's why drivers using cell phones can't see where the hell they are going!

-- Obligatory comment

Two articles that show Israel is a good light? (1)

jack_n_jill (642554) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182601)

There are two articles on today's Slashdot that seem to imply that Israel is a country just like any other in the rest of the civilized world. It is not! It is a country that discriminates on the basis of religion and ethnic origin. It is a country where ethnic cleansing is the norm. America and the rest of the world should have nothing to do with these thugs.

I'm not sure if it's my cellphone but (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182602)

sometimes, I get this point of "light" in the middle of my field of vision, which expands into a lightning shaped halo, for lack of a better description, until it goes in all directions beyond my field of vision completely... I'm pretty sure this "signal" is not coming from any of my eyes, because wherever I look, it's always in the same spot.

I can still see but the presence of this phenomenon is so distracting, I can't do anything until it's gone.

Thank goodness it doesn't happen very often... does anyone have a clue what it could be?

If you poke yourself in the eye with it (1)

Brian Boitano (514508) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182604)

Considering how small cellphones are these days...

Thank you, Roland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182605)

It's very nice of you to tell us to feel free to post our resposes below, given that it's not your site.

Ordinarily I wait for an engraved invitation before posting.

Re:Thank you, Roland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13182630)

Almost like he knew it would be posted on /. ...

Brain Tumors? (1)

TardisX (15222) | more than 9 years ago | (#13182619)

Mobile phones can do this [flickr.com] ???

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?