Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Drowning in a Sea of Microwaves 238

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i'm-doing-the-backstroke dept.
luciensims writes "The Independent is running an article on another study of the long-term effects of mobile phones. Given how widespread mobile phone use has become, will we even have an adequate control group 50 years from now to gauge what the effects have been?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Drowning in a Sea of Microwaves More

Drowning in a Sea of Microwaves

Comments Filter:

  • Control group (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jhines ( 82154 ) <john@jhines.org> on Sunday September 14, 2003 @09:47AM (#6956767) Homepage
    the Amish come to mind, they don't seem to make much use of cell phones.
    • I would not say so, since the now have more interaction with locals for sales of crops and goods.

      I would guess, any nomatic tribes of eskimos, or very small islander where the cost of cell towers compared to return (ROI) makes so that phone companys NEVER would place one there.

      Even in the US, that are still large parts of the land that will NEVER be covered by a cell tower and people live there year-round.

      • Re:Control group (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Ryne ( 78636 )
        Your comment made me remember a documentary I saw about Douglas Adams. It mentioned how he was a total technology junkie and when he was at some remote island on vacation (not a popular semester resort, but some isolated one, in the pacific I think) he was amazed that he had better reception on his cell phone than he did in England.

        So, the question is how many places in the world there are where there are no microwaves at all?

        • Re:Control group (Score:4, Funny)

          by scottme ( 584888 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @02:40PM (#6958293)
          how many places in the world there are where there are no microwaves at all?

          I live in the heavily populated south-east of England, 100 meters off the main road between two large towns each with a population of around 140,000; I'm six miles away from one and ten from the other. The only place I can get any signal on a cellphone in my house is if I stand in the corner next to the window in one of the bedrooms upstairs.

          I am ten miles due east as the crow flies from a major TV and radio transmitter mast and I cannot get a strong enough signal on the digital terrestrial channels to even register on a regular set-top box. To get acceptable signals on analog TV I need a carefully aligned roof-mounted fourteen element high gain aerial and a signal booster. I cannot receive FM broacasts on portable radios with telescopic aerials; I need a roof-mounted aerial for that too. I'm not in a dip or hollow either.

          It's like something is sucking all the radio waves around here into a black hole.

      • Re:Control group (Score:3, Insightful)

        by gl4ss ( 559668 )
        **Even in the US, that are still large parts of the land that will NEVER be covered by a cell tower and people live there year-round.**

        never say never(population density in finland isn't much and lapland is covered 100%)..

        anyways, people in those areas still might have satellite phones, but they wouldn't make a good comparision against people who use cellphones and live in the middle of new york.

        anyways the radiation spreads so thin if you're not having it next to your head/cohones that it would probably

      • Re:Control group (Score:4, Interesting)

        by netsharc ( 195805 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:33AM (#6957012)
        Unfortunately Eskimos/islander would probably be way too different to city humans, I wager they'd be healthier because they have a better environment and they don't sit in a car/on a chair in front of a computer all day, but instead move a lot, their diet would be different as well.
        • Unfortunately Eskimos/islander would probably be way too different to city humans, I wager they'd be healthier because they have a better environment and they don't sit in a car/on a chair in front of a computer all day, but instead move a lot, their diet would be different as well.

          Actually, their diet is worse and the huge percentage of eskimo youths who huff gasoline makes them prone to a lot of strange illnesses. But yes, they are a bad choice as a control group.

    • Cell phones, the next planet killer? Mass extinction caused by brain cancer is statistically possible.

      I'd like to think we'll survive but I am skeptical. All hope lies in the Amish.

    • Re:Control group (Score:5, Informative)

      by nightgeometry ( 661444 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:03AM (#6956855) Journal
      I can not quote sources, *but i seem to remember* that the Amish and Menonites (sp), were quite into cell phones.
      They actually fit into the whole idealogy of technology that these two groups have, in that technology should be the slave of community. In this mode of thought it is a distinct advantage that cell phones are able to be turned off, they do not needlessly interupt personal life, as a 'normal' telephone does, and such like.

      Okay, heres that source I was talking about [wired.com]
      • Well, I can understand how they might not know this what with their phobia of technology, but many phones have a ringer which can be turned off. I thought the idea was that the amish didn't use any technology less than a hundred years old or something. That can't be true though because I've heard of Amish on laptops... there was something about not depending on the grid.

        • Re:Control group (Score:4, Informative)

          by Xerithane ( 13482 ) <xerithane.nerdfarm@org> on Sunday September 14, 2003 @11:15AM (#6957259) Homepage Journal
          It's not a phobia of technology, it's independance from technology. The majority of Amish agree that technology has benefits, but for their daily life and work it is better to not use it unless they can build it/understand it themselves.

          • The majority of Amish agree that technology has benefits, but for their daily life and work it is better to not use it unless they can build it/understand it themselves.

            Doesn't that also describe the geek mentality ? Like "If it's not broken then take it apart and find out why."

      • Re:Control group (Score:5, Funny)

        by binarybum ( 468664 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:25AM (#6956976) Homepage
        cell phones are able to be turned off,

        What?! Are you serious? I'm going to be so much less forgiving of those people in the movie theater now that I know this.

        p.s. I'm working on a l337 h4ck that will permit me to turn my 'normal' telephone off.

      • Re:Control group (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dissy ( 172727 )
        An amish friend once told me, he concidered there were (at least) three groups of amish. All this is his opinion, and possibly some of it is corupted from my relaying of it (And it was a few years ago) so keep that in mind.

        He said some amish reject all technology, which is usually defined as something they cant put together themselfs and isnt obvious.

        I told him that even building a house with 'advanced' features isnt obvious, and he said i was correct, they concidered that a learning experence and they

    • Re:Control group (Score:3, Informative)

      by cpuffer_hammer ( 31542 )
      Sorry; the Amish are not anti tech. They are strongly into community and social leveling. Phones were band by the bishops because of party lines (where more than one household shares a line) cause private matters to become public. So the use and even ownership of cell phones seems to still be in question. Amish use all forms of tech (but, often can not own it. Borrowing a chain saw is ok, owning one is not.

      (I can speak with a little authority on this my wife live form many years next to a number of Amish (
    • I live in an central Pennsylvania, and I've seen Amish with cell phones. I've also seen Amish shooting billiards, playing video games, and smoking cigarettes. Teens often have boom boxes (battery powered) and listen to the radio.

      Two things to remember:
      1) The Amish are not monolithic - there are several sects with varying degrees of strictness.
      2) Kids get away with more "violations" than adults would.

  • Easy to create a control group (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14, 2003 @09:48AM (#6956773)
    Tinfoil hats

  • Sea of Microwaves (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kardis314 ( 707019 )
    I don't own a cell phone, but with all the microwaves floating around major metro areas I wonder if even those of us who shun this technology will be affected.

    • Re:Sea of Microwaves (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BrokenHalo ( 565198 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:07AM (#6956876)
      You might want to read this New Scientist article [newscientist.com] where (it is claimed that) "Mays Swicord spent 26 years searching for a health effect of radio-frequency radiation. He tried and tried to falsify the notion that this radiation - the kind emitted by mobile phones - has no effect. He failed."
      • interesting article, but it's hard to prove a negitave. There would seem to be many studies that disagree w/him, and I doubt his assertion that *none* of them have been independantly verified, simply due to the sheer volume of studies that have been done in this area. Sounds more like he got paid off by motorola.

    • Re:Sea of Microwaves (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MickLinux ( 579158 )
      That's no joke. Since a vehicle is rather like a wave box, the microwaves inside public transportation (autobuses, trains) would probably be greater than for a person just holding it up to their ear.

      However, having read the article on Google, I would like to preemptively say to those people who work for cell phone companies: THIS IS NOT FUD. When the companies actively squash research to find out whether such a thing is safe, it implies that the companies know ahead of time what the results will be, and
    • Given that the microwaves are strongest right by the antenna, and fall off rapidly (what is it? The sum of the square... oh shit, I Can never remember this mathematical crap) I'd say that's not really all that much of an issue compared to people who actually use them. It's probably a very good idea to use a hands free kit of some kind, and keep your phone away from your head.*

      * Note: Putting it in your lap is also contraindicated.

      • Re:Sea of Microwaves (Score:3, Informative)

        by Dun Malg ( 230075 )
        microwaves are strongest right by the antenna, and fall off rapidly (what is it? The sum of the square... oh shit, I Can never remember this mathematical crap)

        Inverse square. one-over-distance-times-itself. 1/D^2

  • WiFi? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by N8F8 ( 4562 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @09:48AM (#6956776)
    Do any of these studies include WiFi effects? I just went wireless in the house and the last thing I want to do is cause brain bleeding in my kids. Seriously.

    • Re:WiFi? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SirNAOF ( 142265 )
      Sad that I never thought about that...

      I have at least 7 access points within detection distance of my room, which now makes me wonder how many waves pass through me from those alone...not to mention the rest of the world.

    • Re:WiFi? (Score:5, Funny)

      by l810c ( 551591 ) * on Sunday September 14, 2003 @09:53AM (#6956799)
      last thing I want to do is cause brain bleeding in my kids

      Easy, have em put on their tin foil hats while at home.

    • Do any of these studies include WiFi effects?
      If there were studies done on 2.4GHz cordless phones or microwave ovens, they'd apply to WiFi since it's the same part of the spectrum.

      • Re:2.4GHz cordless phones and microwave ovens (Score:5, Interesting)

        by vlad_petric ( 94134 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:10AM (#6956896) Homepage
        The difference is that the mobile phone signal is much, much stronger. Using a mobile phone near a radio will give you an idea (and you'll see why their usage is always prohibited on airliners, as oposed to other electronic devices, which are allowed after takeoff)
        • Using a mobile phone near a radio will give you an idea
          Using my cordless phone near my microwave already gives me an idea.
          [cell phone] usage is always prohibited on airliners
          It's prohibited on airliners by the FCC, not the FAA, because cell phones in the air interfere with networks on the ground. You don't know what you're talking about.
        • I believe one of the reasons it is banned in aircrafts is you can hit so many base stations from air and create havoc on the infrastructure. Telecommunication companies don't like you messing with their hardware. Most of the cell phones are pretty low powered devices, max. 5W to my knowledge. 5W is nothing compared to what other in-flight equipment radiate. A 144-146MHz (in US 144-148MHz) amateur radio handheld can hit over 100 miles with 1W. As long as your receiver is sensitive enough and you are line-o
    • Seriously speaking, I have a kid, and in biological-related technology, I try to stay at least a generation behind the times whereever possible.

      That means that if there is an old standby drug and a newly patented drug that work equally well, I'm going to ask for the old standby. On the other hand, if what we have for our old standby is known to be bad, then I'm going to either decide if we can live with the problem, or go with the new, less tested drug.

      But the same goes for such stuff as Wi-Fi.
      • The (non-)problems of WiFi are widely known. WiFi is just like a microwave oven, it emits signals at a frequency of 2.4ghz. Because water resonates at 2.4ghz, it causes the water to heat. This is how a microwave cooks, by causing water to heat.

        WiFi is just a very low-powered microwave. If you put your WiFi card on your lap for a while, you might notice some extra heat. If the signal was too strong (such as if you setup a strong amp), it could potentially boil you.. but it would have to be a really strong

        • Re:WiFi? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 )

          WiFi is just a very low-powered microwave

          Yes. Microwaves operate at 700-1000W, while WiFi tops out at 250mW.

          If you put your WiFi card on your lap for a while, you might notice some extra heat

          That's from the electronics. RF chips are not 100% efficient.

          If the signal was too strong (such as if you setup a strong amp), it could potentially boil you.. but it would have to be a really strong signal.

          Say, around 800W should do the trick. 250mW will never boil you, period. That's like standing 4 feet fro

          • That's from the electronics. RF chips are not 100% efficient.

            More specifically, one could prove that water near the antennae (and away from the hot electronics) might be raised in temperature slightly. Chances are that it wouldn't be noticable at all without very precise equipment.

            Yeah, my netgear card is small enough to swallow.

            You can put the antennae in your mouth, it shouldn't cause a problem, but I wouldn't test it on small children.

            The side effects of long-term exposure are likely much less tha

    • Re:WiFi? (Score:2, Informative)

      by TimeForGuinness ( 701731 )
      Many cell phones have two signal strengths: 0.6 watts and 3 watts (for comparison, most CB radios transmit at 4 watts). The closer you are to a tower, the less power you need to transmit your data which helps in two ways: 1) radiation 2) battery life.

      Wifi transmits in the 100 mW range (I think... also depends on flavor of 802.11). This makes sense because you only need to transmit maybe 30 meters where cell phones may need to transmit up to 1 km.

      I don't think that your kids heads will start bleeding.

      • [blockquote][i] Wifi transmits in the 100 mW range (I think... also depends on flavor of 802.11). This makes sense because you only need to transmit maybe 30 meters where cell phones may need to transmit up to 1 km.[/blockquote][/i]

        Of course that can be modded. A friend of mine has a 1 watt omnidirectional mounted on top of a TV antenna in his back yard. This base station can be picked up for a mile around his house with his 3 foot omnidirectional on his SUV.

        One of these days I'm going to have to find h

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • As a constant cordless telephone user, I wanted to know myself, so I did a wee bit o' googling and came up with this FAQ, published by the FDA in 2002:
      http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html

      An exerpt:

      The term "wireless phone" refers here to hand-held wireless phones with built-in antennas, often called "cell," "mobile," or "PCS" phones. ... The so-called "cordless phones," which have a base unit connected to the telephone wiring in a house, typically operate at far lower power levels, and thus produce RF
    • Wifi is hundreds of times less powerful than mobile phones, so I don't think you have a whole lot to worry about.

  • maybe, maybe not (Score:3, Informative)

    by havaloc ( 50551 ) * on Sunday September 14, 2003 @09:49AM (#6956780) Homepage
    I read somewhere that in the early 50's, Motorola would strap two way radios on the heads of live pigs and expose them to *much* more radiation than a typical cell phone would emit. No ill effects were reported.
    • not that i don't believe there were no ill effects, but how would you tell if a pig is senile? they forget eachothers names or something?
    • And the ribs were excellent! The slow controlled cooking really helped break down connective tissue so those bones just slid out.
    • I'd love to see that picture. Pigs with antennas. Then again maybe thats where they got the idea for Bloop [angela-cartwright.com].
    • Odd, because I vaguely recall a History Channel (or Discovery Channel, or Learning Channel) documentary on the earliest cellular phones (could have very well been "Modern Marvels") and they said that the guy using the first prototype of the modern cell phone (early 80s, according to my fuzzy memory of the show) didn't fare so well.

      Just above and behind his right ear, the part of his brain that was directly next to the phone's antenna developed a tumor the size of an apple. I don't recall if they said he

      • > and they said that the guy using the first prototype of the modern cell phone
        > (early 80s, according to my fuzzy memory of the show) didn't fare so well.

        Yea but thats sorta like saying the first computers (that took multiple _entire_ floors of research buildings) were somehow bad, thus todays computers are possibly equally as bad.

        While it _may_ be true, one has to remember ALOT has changed between now and then.

        It may not have been the radiation coming from the antenna, but somewhere in the phone.

    • Re:maybe, maybe not (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:29AM (#6956996) Homepage Journal
      <Insert name of evil corporation here> reports no ill effects from use of their products. Leaders in the alcohol and tobacco industries were not available for comment. Film at eleven.

    • Re:the early 50's, (Score:3, Informative)

      by Technician ( 215283 )
      In the early 50's, Radio was just getting into VHF. Very little stuff used UHF except for some television. I don't think any of the tests were done on the 800, 900Mhz and gigahertz bands. Other than Radar, there just wasn't much in the Gigahertz bands. I don't think a VHF 160 MHZ or UHF 460 MHZ police radio has the same heating as a microwave PCS phone of the same power to organic tissue.

      Do you know what frequency was tested? Was it HF (3-30 MHZ), VHF (30-300 MHZ) or any UHF? I don't think they had a
  • The big question there is was the work done with a layer of bone and skin that the microwaves would have to pass through to get to the blood brain barrier.

  • Of course not. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jonas the Bold ( 701271 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @09:49AM (#6956783)
    Given how widespread mobile phone use has become, will we even have an adequate control group 50 years from now to gauge what the effects have been?"

    No, of course not. Cities (everywhere) are full of mobile phones. The country (everywhere) is not. However, people living in the city get much different carcinogens than those living in the country, so people in the country aren't a good control group. Any place where people are packed but there aren't mobile phones is likely to be very poor, and thus, different living conditions. So no control group.

  • Bullshit (Score:3, Funny)

    by l810c ( 551591 ) * on Sunday September 14, 2003 @09:50AM (#6956785)
    I've been using a cell phone for 10 years and and and ...
    • Late adopter huh? ;)
      • actually quite.. cellphones have been in use from late 80's.

        and back then there was some research done.

        and after that there has been some (major) research done too in the field(in finland at least.. after cellphone adaption stroke through the roof in mid 90's). some research ended up in stating that it pretty is less harmful than having your head in the sun when you talk(when the power is at highest).

        personally i don't care that much since it definetely won't be anything SO harmful that i would throw my

  • Nothing new... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @09:55AM (#6956814) Homepage
    Mobile phones and the new wireless technology could cause a "whole generation" of today's teenagers to go senile in the prime of their lives,

    No, no, teenagers have always been half-cocked. ;-)

  • The Abstract from PUBMED via the NLM gateway (Score:5, Informative)

    by nutznboltz ( 473437 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @09:56AM (#6956817) Homepage Journal
    Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones.

    Salford LG, Brun AE, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L, Persson BR.
    Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Jun;111(7):881-3; discussion A408.

    Department of Neurosurgery, Lund University, The Rausing Laboratory and Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. Leif.Salford@neurokir.lu.se

    The possible risks of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields for the human body is a growing concern for our society. We have previously shown that weak pulsed microwaves give rise to a significant leakage of albumin through the blood-brain barrier. In this study we investigated whether a pathologic leakage across the blood-brain barrier might be combined with damage to the neurons. Three groups each of eight rats were exposed for 2 hr to Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) mobile phone electromagnetic fields of different strengths. We found highly significant (p 0.002) evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats.
    PMID: 12782486 [PubMed - in process]

    From PubMed

    • Re:The Abstract from PUBMED via the NLM gateway (Score:5, Informative)

      by nutznboltz ( 473437 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:05AM (#6956868) Homepage Journal
      The other abstract too.

      Permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz.

      Salford LG, Brun A, Sturesson K, Eberhardt JL, Persson BR.
      Microsc Res Tech. 1994 Apr 15;27(6):535-42.

      Department of Neurosurgery, Lund University, Sweden.

      Biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on the blood-brain barrier (BBB) can be studied in sensitive and specific models. In a previous investigation of the permeability of the blood-brain barrier after exposure to the various EMF-components of proton magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), we found that the exposure to MRI induced leakage of Evans Blue labeled proteins normally not passing the BBB of rats [Salford et al. (1992), in: Resonance Phenomena in Biology, Oxford University Press, pp. 87-91]. In the present investigation we exposed male and female Fischer 344 rats in a transverse electromagnetic transmission line chamber to microwaves of 915 MHz as continuous wave (CW) and pulse-modulated with repetition rates of 8, 16, 50, and 200 s-1. The specific energy absorption rate (SAR) varied between 0.016 and 5 W/kg. The rats were not anesthetized during the 2-hour exposure. All animals were sacrificed by perfusion-fixation of the brains under chloral hydrate anesthesia about 1 hour after the exposure. The brains were perfused with saline for 3-4 minutes, and thereafter fixed in 4% formaldehyde for 5-6 minutes. Central coronal sections of the brains were dehydrated and embedded in paraffin and sectioned at 5 microns. Albumin and fibrinogen were demonstrated immunohistochemically. The results show albumin leakage in 5 of 62 of the controls and in 56 of 184 of the animals exposed to 915 MHz microwaves. Continuous wave resulted in 14 positive findings of 35, which differ significantly from the controls (P = 0.002).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

      MeSH Terms:

      * Albumins/metabolism
      * Animal
      * Blood-Brain Barrier/*radiation effects
      * Brain/metabolism/radiation effects
      * Capillary Permeability/*radiation effects
      * *Electromagnetic Fields
      * Female
      * Fibrinogen/metabolism
      * Immunoenzyme Techniques
      * Male
      * Rats
      * Rats, Inbred F344
      * Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

      Substances:

      * 0 (Albumins)
      * 9001-32-5 (Fibrinogen)

      PMID: 8012056 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

      From PubMed

  • quality of life (Score:4, Informative)

    by trolman ( 648780 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @09:59AM (#6956833) Journal
    They could use my parents [trolinger.com] as they have never had a cell phone and I do not think they have even used a cell phone.

    The more important question to answer is "how many have died or been injured while using a cell phone." The number of cancers will pale in comparision. Well Harvard [harvard.edu] studied it and came up with a new point of view that there is a risk to benefit to be considered that precludes all of the above.

    To myself it it is all about improving the quality of life [cgu.edu] and the cell phone does not improve my life.

    • They could use my parents as they have never had a cell phone and I do not think they have even used a cell phone.

      Owning a cell phone isn't so much the issue since they don't continously transmit, unlike the cell towers which generate a contant emission for mobility (so handsets can 'see' the network and make measurements). When a phone is idle, it is pretty much just that and even during a call, transmission at the handset will be reduced to just signalling if you don't make any noise (a technique ca

  • We will have a control group (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MickyJ ( 188652 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:03AM (#6956853) Homepage Journal
    Given how widespread mobile phone use has become, will we even have an adequate control group 50 years from now to gauge what the effects have been?

    You're kidding right? Isn't it true that 20% of people (1 billion) on this planet don't even have access to clean water [earthsummitwatch.org], never mind mobile phones. And how long have we had clean water? More that 50 years.

    Don't panic. Your control group will be here.
    • But shouldn't a control group be otherwise exposed to the same environmental circumstances than the group of people affected by mobile phones? People in a third-world country for sure do not compare well to first-world people, and you can not judge for sure whether any differences in health are related to using or not using cell phones. You would have to find a representative control group in the first-world countries that lives in a similar environment as regular cellular phone users. And that is pretty mu
    • Those people don't have access to clean water, because of technology (or the lack of more technology)

      To put it another way: A river usually contains clean water even without the help of technology.

      And putting up a infrastructure to sell cellulars even in the most remote areas has more powerful supporters than providing poor people in slums with essential neccessities like clean water.
      • Rivers not near large concentrations of people are usually fairly clean. Sewage from low tech people polutes a river just as effectively as sewage generated by people using cell phones.

        The idea that things were better, cleaner, and closer to nature in the past is just ignorant nostalgia. The last Lion in Europe was killed many hundreds of years ago. It was likely ddestroying the local ecologu that did in the Mayans.

  • Microwaves are good! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:04AM (#6956866) Journal

    I like microwaves from cell phones... Gives me a nice and warm feeling inside my head during those cold winter days!

  • Not your money! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekmetal ( 682313 ) <vkeerthyNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:10AM (#6956895) Journal
    Mays Swicord, a scientific adviser to Motorola told New Scientist magazine that governments and industry should "stop wasting money" by looking for health damage.

    Now why would Motorola want to advice the Government and others conducting the experiment how to spend their money? hmm... I wonder!

  • more research (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Councilor Hart ( 673770 )
    "stop wasting money" by looking for health damage.
    I don't regard research into health issues as wasted money. I rather waste money and find nothing than know nothing about the possible effects and slowly die ignorant.
    And every (decent) research that denies any effect, simple puts to rest any concerns. It would simply say that it is save to use a mobile.
    Unwilling to do research might cause unnecessary concern and can give the impression that there is something to hide.

  • It's a serious risk! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscowar ... m ['oo.' in gap]> on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:12AM (#6956906) Journal
    After smoking, drinking, driving, pollution, domestic violence, disease, war, invasion, drought, famine, and falling tree trunks.

    Some relativity is perhaps in order. The most extreme effects of the GSM that I've seen are (a) a lowering of concentration while driving, which has surely caused many deaths by now, and (b) the total destruction of the planned social agenda. People simply live ad-hoc these days.

  • There are microwaves everywhere. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:15AM (#6956915) Homepage

    I'm skeptical about this. First, there are microwaves everywhere, all the time. Microwaves are part of heat.

    A physicist friend of mine and I did the numbers. There is so much energy available everywhere at room temperature that a little bit more has no effect, as the article says.

    The chemical processes of the body are not fragile. We couldn't see any way that a little bit of outside energy could couple to a chemical process and make a difference.
    • Microwaves are part of heat.

      That's an oddly broad statement. Microwaves at the correct frequency can be absorbed by water molecules and cause the water to heat up, hence we have microwave ovens.

      Heat in and of itself does not have to involve microwaves. You may be thinking of infrared radiation?

      Whatever happened to the microwave clothes dryer? They had a prototype working a few years back, and then it disappeared. Seemed like a neat idea.

  • The Greatest Cause Of Cancer... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Effugas ( 2378 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:15AM (#6956917) Homepage
    ...is annoying other people:

    Cell phones involve ignoring whoever's around you while making them painfully aware there is a conversation occuring that they may not join. Cell phones cause cancer.

    WiFi involves sitting quietly, tapping away, but easy to interrupt on a whim. WiFi does not cause cancer.

    Smoking involves making other people smell you. Smoking causes cancer.

    Nobody wants to see you get your colon checked for polyps. Not going to the proctologist doesn't cause cancer.

    So says those who can't shut up about cancer.

    Don't take annoyance for granted -- a large part of the law, a much larger part than you'd expect, is purely devoted to preventing people from bothering eachother excessively. But never, ever forget the true meaning of statements like "the intense use of mobile phones by youngsters": It is great for me, but I do not like it for you.

    Yours Truly,

    Dan Kaminsky
    DoxPara Research
    http://www.doxpara.com

  • Euro Disney (Score:3)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:18AM (#6956936) Homepage
    Put all the people in a place no-one else goes. Euro Disney for example

    Rus
  • Robert A Heinlein wrote a story about the pervasive effects of broadcast electricity. One of the characters wore a lead coat and subsequently was in much better physical shape than the other characters.
    • Yeah, a lead coat is heavy. Assuming you didn't break open the protective seal and get lead poisoning, and the weight wasn't too much for you in the first place thus causing strain rather than an increase of strength and endurance, I'd say it would be very likely to increase your physical fitness. And as we know, low-impact exercise (like walking but not jogging) improves general health by stimulating circulation.
    • Linky: Clickit [wegrokit.com]

  • be careful with this study (Score:5, Insightful)

    by astrashe ( 7452 ) * on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:20AM (#6956949) Journal
    It's important for studies to be peer reviewed and duplicated. If this is real, other scientists will say its real, and they'll duplicate the results.

    (Here's a little pop-quiz to see if you were paying attention in science class. What's wrong with this Princeton project? [princeton.edu] The answer is that no one else can duplicate their results. Peer review and duplicable results are key, even with studies coming out of big name institutions.)

    There have been quite a few studies on the effects of cell phones, and dramatic evidence that they cause problems has not jumped out at anyone.

    And people have been using cell phones for a long time. I got my first one about 10 years ago, and they were already common back then.

    There's a doctor named Dean Edell who does a radio show, and he wrote a book called "Eat, Drink, and Be Merry." In that book, he spent a lot of time talking about how bad most medical reporting is. He makes a pretty persuasive case.

    Almost everything you hear on the radio or see on tv about supplements, studies, etc., is either totally false or based on weak science.

    I don't know anything about this particular study, but I do know that a study that doesn't find anything isn't news, while the opposite story -- we're all going to have our brains turn to mush in our middle years! -- is sensational news.

    And its news to say that the evil cell industry has used its vast power to suppress studies (that's a big red flag in this story for me). Apparently the cell companies aren't just evil, they're stupid, because if they did that they'd be sued out of existence. But hey, corporations are evil, and they're lust for immediate profits knows no bounds.

    This story got hyped mostly through a link on Drudge. I love Drudge, but you have to read him with a critical eye. He says outright that he'll put questionable stuff out there and let the readers decide. And I've heard him wax paranoiac on the dangers of cloning, he's kind of whacked out on some biological and medical stories.
  • "Given how widespread mobile phone use has become, will we even have an adequate control group 50 years from now to gauge what the effects have been?"

    Of course we will! People in the rainfore..

    oh. nevermind.
  • Given how widespread mobile phone use has become, will we even have an adequate control group 50 years from now to gauge what the effects have been?

    Yes, we will, and they are called the Amish. I doubt that there will be many cell towers built in areas where they live. Other rural areas, yes, because a cell phone is so damn convenient when you're out on the back forty, but not in areas where the land owners don't believe in any new-fangled technology more complicated that in-line roller skates [cora.org].

  • Ageing professor calls teenagers "dumb"!

    In other news: the sun rose this morning.

  • I'm thinking particularly of all those jobs that now issue a company phone as standard equipment, and what would happen if they could be conclusively shown to do harm. Sure, the legislation is attempting to pass asbestos reform, which is aimed not merely at asbestos tort cases, but also at class action suits... With asbestos, the lawsuits went after the companies who made it, and then when those went bankrupt, the companies which used it. It has gotten so out of hand that the suits are going after factories which had buildings in which it was used, but the workers suing didn't work in those, they oworked in plants that had none- and are suing over being scared, ten years into retirement, that they might have been exposed to it.

    So what happens when the entire country has a good case that they've been unwillingly (in some cases) exposed to dangerous radiation, and 'deceived' into using a dangerous device? (There's wisdom in the adage that says that if you don't know how dangerous new technology is, a little prudence- how does it go? Oh, right- something about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure...)

    Well, it's simple, unfortunately. Since those suits would bankrupt the nation (except for the lawyers), regardless of how justified some of the suits might be, most people are going to find that they

    a.) have been banned from suing by 'reformative' legislation,

    b.) have already been represented in an 'opt-out' class lawsuit that they may have known nothing about and may not be able to collect from, or can collect a five-dollar coupon from, or

    c.) are told by the courts that they had the choice to not use the technology, and vote at a town meeting about whether to put the tower up.

    On the other hand, they would still have to change the technology. And does anyone remember the big stir about police officers getting testicular cancer from holding the early radar guns on their lap while they waited at speed traps? while i wouldn't say that anyone 'deserves' to have it, i would say that there are times when illnesses can be a bit... ironic. Like if the tumours from cell phone use tend to take out the speech center...

  • Cell Phones are Nothing. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Enonu ( 129798 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @12:03PM (#6957544)
    It's my bet that the sun, you know, that big ball in the sky that emits so much radiation that it can heat an entire planet, burn you in less than 30 minutes, and make you go blind if you look at it for too long, has so much more of an effect on our bodies that any longterm study on the dangers of cell phones will prove pointless.

    Besides, any type of reasonable fear of cell phone radiation is only logical after you've quit drinking, smoking, lost your extra weight, and started a low stress level lifestyle.

  • Control Group? No problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DeafScribe ( 639721 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @12:26PM (#6957668) Homepage
    Just check on deaf folks. I don't know many who use cell phones. All this talk about third world countries being a haven for control groups is absurd; their adoption rate for cellular telephony is incredible. What you will find in the deaf community is a lot of users with Blackberries and, more recently, Danger Hiptops. If you start seeing tumors sprouting among deaf folks at the waistband, you with the cell phones better get your heads checked.

  • The 13 September 2003 issue of New Scientist [newscientist.com] has a special report on this topic:

    Special Report
    No one has yet proved that cellphones are bad for you. Is it time to give up on the hunt for potential dangers? p.12

    Unfortunately it isn't online (yet?). The interesting point from the article (I got it in paper form) is that the WHO is going to stop researching into the health effects of mobile phone use in another ~3 years unless a link is discovered; the article says that they have many other things

  • Now I'm paranoid. Any research being done on WiFi lap tops ... ? Them being "lap tops" I'm wondering if any particular "manly" parts of my body have been microwaved beyond functionality.

  • Good grief, will people stop worrying about this? (Score:3, Informative)

    by forkboy ( 8644 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @08:04PM (#6960333) Homepage
    Microwave and radio frequency radiation are not going to give you cancer. They are not of sufficient energy to be considered ionizing radiation. To actually break a chemical bond in a cell(a necessary step for formation of cancer at the cellular level) requires energy greater than what is contained in microwave or radio wavelengths. Ultraviolet radiation is where sufficient energy begins, with it being a minor threat. The worst is of course gamma radiation which carries the most energy of the spectrum.

    At a cellular level, cancerous cells are developed when an electron-deficient material bonds with free electrons on nitrogen atoms in DNA. Then when the DNA replicates on cell division, a mutation is formed. If the immune system cannot detect and destroy the rogue cell, it may be able to replicate on its own, depending on how badly the DNA is damaged. This replication is what we call cancer.

    Ionizing radiation creates positive ions and free radicals in the cells that can react as mentioned above. High energy radiation like x-rays and gamma rays can also penetrate past the skin and react with organs further in the body. (UV cannot, this is why skin cancer is about the only kind you can get from solar radiation) Organ cells reproduce quite more frequently as well, which makes them more susceptible to mutation. Radiation such as microwaves, radio waves, visible light, and the like will not break chemical bonds and hence cannot cause cellular mutations.

    Microwaves DO have the ability to vibrate the bonds of polar molecules (such as water) causing them to heat up. This is how your microwave oven works...water in your food is heated which inductively heats your food. Excessive heat can cause proteins to denature (i.e. cook) but will not break them into ions or free radicals.

    There's your lesson in cellular biology, chemistry, and eletromagnetic physics. Now quit worrying about your cell phone or microwave giving you cancer.

  • UHF TV towers (Score:3, Informative)

    by hpa ( 7948 ) on Sunday September 14, 2003 @10:33PM (#6961045) Homepage
    ... have been around for many decades, and are spewing *mega*watts of signals in the same general frequency range as cell phones for all that time.

    This would have much, much more health effects for those living nearby than all the microwaves we're "drowning" in ever will. To the best of my knowledge, it's zip.

  • A bit of irony... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Deven ( 13090 ) <deven@ties.org> on Monday September 15, 2003 @12:12AM (#6961496) Homepage
    Maybe I'm reading too much into things, but it struck me as somewhat ironic that this story came up with a Sprint ad for "advanced wireless devices". :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close