backtop

Print 17 comment(s) - last by Richie2011.. on Jul 12 at 12:25 PM

  (Source: philadelphiacaraccidentslawyer.com)
While the research team admits that proving an absence of association is much more difficult that finding one, they believe this debate will have a clearer answer over the next few years

Several past studies have said that cell phones can cause many different health problems, such as issues with male fertility and possible negative effects on brain activity. The World Health Organization even placed cell phones in the same carcinogenic category as engine exhaust, lead and chloroform.

But despite all of these conclusions, researchers from the United States, Britain and Sweden have conducted a review of these already-published studies, and decided that there are no clear cancerous links between humans and cell phone use.

Anthony Swerdlow, study leader from Britain's Institute of Cancer Research, along with a team of researchers from the U.S. and Sweden, have found that the evidence for cell phones causing cancer is not all there, and that the World Health Organization's classification reflected the International Agency for Research on Cancer's need to "put mobile phones into a pre-defined risk category."

Among many of the studies reviewed was the largest cell phone study that was published last year. This particular study focused on 13,000 cell phone users over a period of 10 years. After reviewing the study,, Swerdlow concluded that it had methodological problems because it was based on interviews that asked participants to remember phone use going back several years earlier.

Swerdlow and his team also found that studies conducted around the world 20 years after the introduction of cell phones and 10 years after their widespread use have shown no increases in brain tumors.

"Although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumors in adults," said the study.

While Swerdlow admits that proving an absence of association is much more difficult that finding one, he believes this debate will have a clearer answer over the next few years.

"This is a really difficult issue to research," said David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, who was not involved in the study. "But even given the limitations of the evidence, this report is clear that any risk appears to be so small that it is very hard to detect -- even in the masses of people now using mobile phones."

Approximately 5 million handsets are in use today, and industry experts believe that a potential health threat would not likely hinder the use of these devices.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
A small risk will have no effect on cell usage
By MrTeal on 7/4/2011 12:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Approximately 5 million handsets are in use today, and industry experts believe that a potential health threat would not likely hinder the use of these devices.


Even if there was a link, it's not like people would give up their cell phones because there's a small chance that you might develop cancer from them. People do stupid things all the time for worse reasons than cell phone use. The whole hysteria over cell phones and RF radiation in general is ridiculous.

From Wikipedia:
quote:
The WHO in 2004 projected 58.8 million deaths to occur globally,[10] from which 5.4 million are tobacco-attributed,[11] and 4.9 million as of 2007.[12] As of 2002, 70% of the deaths are in developing countries.[12] It is predicted that 1.5 to 1.9 billion people will be smokers in 2025.[3]




By Jeffk464 on 7/5/2011 12:27:00 AM , Rating: 2
I would not give up my phone, but I do try to use either speaker phone or Bluetooth to reduce the risk. Now where did I put the keys to my motorcycle, I need to go get some fast food and smokes.


By Solandri on 7/5/2011 3:50:17 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I do try to use either speaker phone or Bluetooth to reduce the risk

I never really understood this either. You're afraid to hold a phone transmitting EM waves at 1.8-1.9 GHz against your head during phone calls, so instead you walk around with a device transmitting EM waves at 2.4 GHz stuck in your ear all day?


RE: A small risk will have no effect on cell usage
By Paj on 7/5/2011 7:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
From what I understood its not so much the frequency as the wattage?


By nafhan on 7/5/2011 9:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
In the case of cell phones, it's actually neither. If the wattage was high enough (think a couple orders of magnitude or more), heating might be an issue, but it's not. Much higher frequencies at the same wattage could also be damaging (see: penetrating vs. non-penetrating radiation).


By seeker353 on 7/5/2011 9:56:11 AM , Rating: 2
The higher the frequency, the less ability it has to penetrate tissue at the same amount of wattage, plus Bluetooth operates at a lower wattage as well.

Not saying that Bluetooth will save you, I think the whole idea of RF causing cancer to be ridiculous, though there is a small amount of validity to the idea for people who are afraid of evil cancer-causing RF.


5 million? Is that all?
By PrinceGaz on 7/4/2011 1:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Approximately 5 million handsets are in use today, and industry experts believe that a potential health threat would not likely hinder the use of these devices.




RE: 5 million? Is that all?
By bodar on 7/5/2011 6:16:41 AM , Rating: 2
Well, seeing as how there are 350,000 Android phones activated per day and Apple sold 18.6 million iPhones in the first 3 months of 2011, this stat is just plain wrong. Great editing job again there, DT. Maybe she meant 5 billion?

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9216004/App...
http://www.dailytech.com/Android+Hits+350K+Daily+A...


RE: 5 million? Is that all?
By bodar on 7/5/2011 6:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
Oh hey, I bet she did mean billion after all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/15/business...


By phantom505 on 7/4/2011 11:09:42 PM , Rating: 5
It's the wrong frequency of radiation. Anyone with a real science degree in chemistry or physics knows this. Einstein proved this ~100 years ago. Geez! One idiot "doctor" in Britain who never had to study pure science made all this crap up!




By lightfoot on 7/5/2011 12:47:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
While the research team admits that proving an absence of association is much more difficult that finding one, they believe this debate will have a clearer answer over the next few years.

Without even being able to prove a correlation, they are trying to claim that there is a causal relationship. This isn't science. Just another "End is Nigh"/"The Sky is Falling" story.


tata
By fafafafa on 7/4/2011 10:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.benzlogo.com/

I tide fashion Good-looking, not expensive Free transport




RE: tata
By bodar on 7/5/2011 7:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, you smacktards aren't even trying anymore, huh?


OT: Looking at the image source...
By rennya on 7/4/2011 12:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
Those spam e-mails finally has their uses now eh?




Eggs are good for you
By RU482 on 7/5/2011 10:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
Eggs are bad for you




Nice example photo
By pandemonium on 7/6/2011 5:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
Moral of the story? It's good the chic putting on her make-up and talking on her cell while driving won't get the cancers; she'll just endanger a bunch of people getting to her destination. Yay!




Misleading Article
By Richie2011 on 7/12/2011 12:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
This article is misleading, and this is a very troubling journalistic practice. Why does this article report whatever is convenient for the writer, but omits important information for consumers?

Such as the fact that the authors of the article quoted and discussed, have profound conflicts of interest, and were funded by the mobile industry, and hold (themselves and their families) shares in mobile companies?

Also, what about the 2500 published and peer reviewed studies that reveal various biological effects from cell phones?

Sloppy, substandard journalism at best...disconcerting to see such articles, which present only one side of the story. In research, omitting whatever is not convenient, is called "misconduct". What is it called in journalism? Thank you.




"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki