backtop


Print 64 comment(s) - last by The0ne.. on Sep 17 at 3:27 PM

UK report shows no link between mobile phone signals and health related side effects

Conclusions from a study conducted in the UK on the health impact of using mobile telephones were released today. The Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR) undertook the study as part of its 2007 report.

The study concluded that there was no evidence linking short-term mobile phone use to brain cancer. Tests performed on volunteers in the study showed that brain function was not affected by mobile phone signals or signals used by emergency agencies. The MTHR says that the results are definitive enough that no further research is needed into this area.

Part of the study included what is called the largest and most robust study of electrical hypersensitivity undertaken anywhere in the world. No evidence was found that any unpleasant symptoms experienced by sufferers are a result of exposure to mobile phone signals or from cellular towers.

Further results in the study showed after investigation that mobile phones have no affect on cells other than heating them. Longer-term exposure to mobile phone signals still warrants more research in the opinion of the study because a limited number of study participants had used a mobile phone for more than 10 years.

Further studies by the MTHR also confirmed that the use of mobile phones while driving using hands-free devices or simply holding the phone caused no more impairment on the part of the driver than any other in-car distractions.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Foreign radiation in our bodies
By borowki on 9/12/2007 7:06:52 PM , Rating: 5
It may not cause cancer, but the low-level radiation can be harmful in other ways. After many years of mobile phone usage, recently, I have started to experience this profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness. I was able to interpret these feelings correctly: loss of essence.




RE: Foreign radiation in our bodies
By ChronoReverse on 9/12/2007 7:15:08 PM , Rating: 4
Ever thought it might just be you getting older?


RE: Foreign radiation in our bodies
By Captain Orgazmo on 9/12/2007 7:59:10 PM , Rating: 4
That reference obviously flew over your head like a B-52 piloted by Slim Pickens flies over Siberia on it's way to bomb the Russkies.


By The Boston Dangler on 9/12/2007 8:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
i enjoy the company of women, but i deny them my essence


RE: Foreign radiation in our bodies
By ChronoReverse on 9/12/2007 9:42:27 PM , Rating: 1
Alternatively you could've missed a counterpoint.

Fortunately for you I did indeed miss the reference by about a thousand miles.


RE: Foreign radiation in our bodies
By Gul Westfale on 9/12/2007 10:42:01 PM , Rating: 5
please, gentlemen, there's no fighting in the war room!


RE: Foreign radiation in our bodies
By The Boston Dangler on 9/12/2007 11:16:13 PM , Rating: 3
that does it, i'm watching dr. strangelove again ASAP


By Gul Westfale on 9/12/2007 11:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
:)


RE: Foreign radiation in our bodies
By Samus on 9/12/2007 11:36:21 PM , Rating: 5
i still dont get it. the whole thing. you're all on crack.


By Misty Dingos on 9/13/2007 7:38:22 AM , Rating: 2
You're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola company.


RE: Foreign radiation in our bodies
By borowki on 9/13/2007 11:54:42 AM , Rating: 2
Don't you get it? The hard-core commies with their radiation emitting phones are trying to sap and impurity our precious bodily fluids!


By Misty Dingos on 9/13/2007 1:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
He is likely one of them and no doubt he is trying to gain our trust to get a chance to see the Big Board.


RE: Foreign radiation in our bodies
By rogard on 9/13/2007 5:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
By theapparition on 9/13/2007 9:24:40 AM , Rating: 2
Got married lately, did ya?


By knowyourenemy on 9/13/2007 5:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
It must be cell phones! It explains everything!


By Cincybeck on 9/13/2007 11:59:33 PM , Rating: 1
While very funny there could be some truth in that. I've heard of strong EMF waves causing; fatigue, depression, paranoia, and the feeling that some one is watching you. Supposedly most the time some one experiences any of these on a regular basis in their home, a device such as a DC transformer can be found to be emitting a powerful EMF wave and if the device is removed the effects go away. It's not cancer but it's something. Not only that but it has been proven that the repair men who work on the cell phone towers start developing cataracts way before they should.


RE: Foreign radiation in our bodies
By Calin on 9/14/2007 11:13:04 AM , Rating: 2
In french, essence stands for fuel.
Go refuel yourself


By TimberJon on 9/17/2007 11:09:24 AM , Rating: 2
Your loss of essence is easily remedied. Get off the computer, stop talking on your cell phone all day, and go do something fun like racing through a mountain pass, mountain biking, hiking, river rafting or joining Mike Rowe.


Yeah Right
By slickr on 9/12/2007 7:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
As sky is red and water is gray
As we breathe methanol and eat grass.

Come on short term?
What about when using mobile phone for 5+ years.
Yeah even 10 seconds of nuclear radiation may not have serious health consiquences but stay 1 minute and you are mutant or dead!




RE: Yeah Right
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 7:58:41 PM , Rating: 1
If someone pushes on your hand for 10 seconds with a light force, does it break your hand? No.

If someone pushes on your hand for 1 hour with the same force, does it break your hand? Still no.

Why do you assume everything must accumulate to eventually do some harm?


RE: Yeah Right
By siberus on 9/12/2007 8:23:46 PM , Rating: 5
xD the first time I read your post I misread it. Thought u were using jedi powers to push his hands. Damn I'm aging horribly, stupid cellphone :'(


RE: Yeah Right
By xsilver on 9/12/2007 9:46:34 PM , Rating: 5
conversely; if you put a piece of meat in the microwave on low power for 10 seconds does anything cook? no.

if you put it in there for 1 hour does anything cook?

Im not saying I agree with this but there is no hard evidence either way imo.


RE: Yeah Right
By slickr on 9/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah Right
By Misty Dingos on 9/13/2007 7:52:22 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly you must be uninformed as to the nature of non-ionizing radiation. Is there a risk of cancer if you are exposed to a heat lamp for an extended period of time? Perhaps. What if you kicked that up to a UV lamp? Maybe a little more but still doubtful. Now kick it up another notch and you have some RF radiation. Every time you chit-chat on your cell phone you expose yourself to a small amount of RF radiation. It does not accumulate in your tissues anymore than light accumulates in your skin. End the call and it stops. Now could you suffer ill effects of extended cell phone use? Yes. But you are more likely to have tennis elbow or carpel tunnel syndrome from holding the phone for hours or from franticly punching on the key pad. An ulcer is also possible from getting the bill for all the charges and hidden fees. Or knee injuries from groveling on them when you beg the boss for a raise to pay for your cell phone plan.


RE: Yeah Right
By jajig on 9/13/2007 8:01:52 AM , Rating: 2
Well here's a link to someone that died from the radiation given off by UV lamps http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/13/2031...


RE: Yeah Right
By acer905 on 9/13/2007 9:27:06 AM , Rating: 2
One slight problem... A heat lamp uses infrared thermal radiation, which sits just lower than visible light in the EM spectrum. A UV lamp is Ultraviolet radiation, which is just above visible light in the EM spectrum. a cell phone uses radio waves which are much, much lower in the spectrum. IF you want numbers, IR radiation is measured in THz (10^12) UV radiation is measured in PHz (10^15) and Cell phones have a frequency measured in GHz (10^9) So the order of power is RF, IR, UV.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf


RE: Yeah Right
By Misty Dingos on 9/13/2007 10:09:53 AM , Rating: 2
But none of them are ionizing radiation. And while it has be shown that UV radiation can cause cancer, exposure to it in moderation is not likely to result in anything other than premature ugliness. If you want to get cancer from you cell phone. Take it apart and eat it. That will likely cause you greater health concerns than using it.


RE: Yeah Right
By acer905 on 9/13/2007 4:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, don't get me wrong i agree with what you're saying... i just wanted you to make sure you knew the right order. Personally i think that California is what causes cancer, you know, with everything in existance being "known to the state of California to cause cancer"


RE: Yeah Right
By slickr on 9/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah Right
By Misty Dingos on 9/13/2007 2:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
So I am a blinded fool. Hmmmm. And I should STFU. Hmmmm. And you want me to have a leg placed in my rectum. Hmmm. And you feel my view is uninformed and unwise. Indeed as if I were a toddler. And you further feel that if I were to be diagnosed with terminal brain cancer (caused by cell phone radiation) that this would indeed change my view point. But you further feel that I would weep for my maternal parent as I have been proven ignorant. That cover it? It was a little hard to follow.

You seem very angry.

Let me see if I can help you out a bit. Please answer these questions.

Does feeling angry make you feel important?
Or alive?
Do you feel as if you aren't appreciated by the DT community or the community at large?
That they take you and your opinions for granted?
Do you feel that your anger gets the better of you from time to time?
Do people that you know agree with you so that you won’t be angry at them?
Do you feel that others around you don’t see the “big picture”?
That indeed it is your personal task to correct them?
Is being angry a good feeling to you?
Do you feel that you are proportional in your responses to opinions that you disagree with?
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest, how often is your anger at or above 6?
Sometimes when you are angry do you wish to hurt yourself or others?
If anger was a rainbow what color would your anger be?

You mail post your answers here and we will try to help you.


Wow
By A5un on 9/12/2007 6:27:35 PM , Rating: 4
Title: Cellphone use don't cuase cancer.

Content: there's no direct link between short term cellphone use and cancer.

Big jump there, mate.




RE: Wow
By Oregonian2 on 9/12/2007 6:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, quite different. They've only shown that there's no proof that it does cause cancer, not proof that it doesn't.

Could probably say the same thing about Sony PS3's too though.


RE: Wow
By fk49 on 9/12/2007 9:12:41 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, PS3 cures cancer.

..via medical research using the cell processors!


RE: Wow
By Oregonian2 on 9/13/2007 2:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
Unless those cell processors are running Borg software routines....


RE: Wow
By BBeltrami on 9/12/2007 6:50:49 PM , Rating: 5
I dunno, it's right there:

"The MTHR says that the results are definitive enough that no further research is needed into this area."

And there you have it! The scientific equivalent of, "Trust me."


RE: Wow
By Alexstarfire on 9/13/2007 11:34:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think after more than a decade of use by some people that if there was a link between brain cancer and cellphones that we would have found it by now. There are too many people that talk on cellphones as part of a daily routine that we would have missed something like that. I for one have a cell phone, but I hardly talk on it. It's more like my text messaging and MP3 device, nothing more. The fact that I can use it to talk is almost like an extra feature.


In related news...
By PLaYaHaTeD on 9/12/2007 6:11:21 PM , Rating: 5
In related news, members of the group MACPAD (Mothers Against Cell Phones And Driving) are disputing the accuracy of the studies performed by the MTHR. Specifically, they claim that the trials conducted on cell phone users while driving were "highly biased" and "compared against unrealistic in-car distractions". Among the study's qualified distractions, the most notable were: 1.) Lighting firecrackers in the driver's lap 2.) Having a rear passenger randomly cover the driver's eyes, and 3.) Driving while receiving a blowjob.

MTHR could not be reached for comment. O2, the UK's largest mobile network operator and co-sponsor of MTHR's research studies, declined comment.




RE: In related news...
By Oregonian2 on 9/12/2007 6:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really think the first two of your list of distractions are realistic. I also don't understand how talking on a speakerphone is more distracting than talking to someone in the back seat.


RE: In related news...
By PLaYaHaTeD on 9/12/2007 6:43:51 PM , Rating: 3
Sir, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your response. It could go either way...


RE: In related news...
By marvdmartian on 9/13/2007 10:24:42 AM , Rating: 2
...and yet, can we take a realistic look at just how (forgive my political un-correctness) RETARDED most people drive while talking on a phone?? So fine, cell phones don't cause brain cancer.......

....they only cause DAIN BRAMAGE!!!


RE: In related news...
By Treckin on 9/12/2007 11:10:53 PM , Rating: 2
OMFG Why isnt that a 6?

Best. Comment. Ever.

Yadda I mean?


BS, I have phone brain cancer
By Fnoob on 9/12/2007 6:40:55 PM , Rating: 5
I bot a iPhone for 6 hundrit




RE: BS, I have phone brain cancer
By BBeltrami on 9/12/2007 6:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
That's funny right there...

I'd rate you up if I weren't a NOOB. :)


RE: BS, I have phone brain cancer
By Fnoob on 9/12/2007 8:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
Tis a given name kind sir. Got it back with Halo. These days the F means 'former'.

Cheers


RE: BS, I have phone brain cancer
By BBeltrami on 9/13/2007 10:30:45 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know if it's irony or inattention (or iDork?) but I hadn't noticed your handle.

... I still can't rate yet... hehe


duh
By whickywhickyjim on 9/12/2007 8:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
two words:
non-ionizing radiation




RE: duh
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 9:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
^--- bingo!

In other words, as long as it doesn't heat up the tissue, it's not hurting the tissue.


RE: duh
By jajig on 9/12/2007 11:49:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the study showed after investigation that mobile phones have no affect on cells other than heating them


So does that mean it is hurting them?


RE: duh
By Misty Dingos on 9/13/2007 8:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
When you are warmed by standing in a warm room are you hurt by it? No.

But since you want to have something to be afraid of so I will help you out. No you don't have to thank me! This is just my way of giving back to the community.

Here goes. If your body does not have adequate circulation to dissipate the heat generated from the RF radiation from the cell phone it will literally cook a portion of your head or brain! Never ever use a cell phone for more than five seconds! Unless that is on speaker phone. Afraid now? Good.

For you hard cases out there who are still not afraid. Vampires and werewolves are real. And there is one in the room with you right now!


sounds right
By acejj26 on 9/13/2007 12:21:13 AM , Rating: 2
With all the natural radiation around us not causing us any harm, why would the specific frequencies of a cell phone magically do us damage?




RE: sounds right
By jajig on 9/13/2007 12:34:33 AM , Rating: 2
Natural radiation causes a lot of harm in my country, Australia, lots and lots of cancer.


RE: sounds right
By Pythias on 9/13/2007 8:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
I say we ban the sun.


RE: sounds right
By nekobawt on 9/13/2007 2:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
Aye, well, that's what happens when you (by which I mean the UK) test nuclear weapons in the outback.

No, seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_tests...

(And for the record, I didn't first learn about that from the Wiki.)


Gotta love their reasoning
By 91TTZ on 9/12/2007 11:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The MTHR says that the results are definitive enough that no further research is needed into this area


And in related news, cigarette manufacturers conducted a study proving that cigarettes are safe, and they say that the results are definitive enough that no further research is needed into this area.




RE: Gotta love their reasoning
By wired00 on 9/13/2007 2:32:50 AM , Rating: 2
precisely 91TTZ

the whole mobile phone health debate constantly reminds me of the cigarette issue and their "studies" years back. They seemed to categorically prove that cigarettes were healthy for you >_<

a decade or so down the track i doubt anyone will be surprised if people start dropping like flys from low level radiation exposure.

The things which worry me is the fast uptake of home wifi routers.


Are these studies
By uglyone888 on 9/12/2007 5:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
valid enough to justify the claims? I thought that it would take up to 30 years to figure out the effects on the human body from cell phone usage? 10 years seems just too short...




Medical research isn't up to this
By CSMR on 9/12/2007 5:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think medical research can detect small changes in cancer risk with so many other factors present. It is a difficult statistical question even with the maximum possible amount of data available. It is considered an unsolved question for example within medicine whether a small amount of radiation exposure is protective against cancer or cancer-causing.




hmm
By Murst on 9/12/2007 5:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Further studies by the MTHR also confirmed that the use of mobile phones while driving using hands-free devices or simply holding the phone caused no more impairment on the part of the driver than any other in-car distractions.


What other "in-car distractions" compare to holding a cell in one hand and driving? The study just doesn't seem right after reading that last line.




valid study?
By cigar3tte on 9/12/2007 6:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Further studies by the MTHR also confirmed that the use of mobile phones while driving using hands-free devices or simply holding the phone caused no more impairment on the part of the driver than any other in-car distractions.

did they conduct this research by having someone holding a phone to the ear while focusing on the road instead of talking/listening on the phone?




funding
By BAFrayd on 9/12/2007 7:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
Wolfgang, next time don't forget to state that the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR), is funded by the telecommunications industry, in association with the UK government.
In addition, lack of evidence does not equal proof of absence, especially in a short-term study such as this, and this fact would make your headline misleading, at best.
I don't believe the book can be closed on this subject.




Get real
By viperpa on 9/12/2007 7:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Further studies by the MTHR also confirmed that the use of mobile phones while driving using hands-free devices or simply holding the phone caused no more impairment on the part of the driver than any other in-car distractions.


Tell that to the person who is driving from home to work, on there cell phone using a hands free device, driving 50mph in the left hand lane. Backing up traffic cause they have no concern in the world except there phone call.

I wonder what we did when there weren't cell phones around?




Truly A Shocker...
By Fnoob on 9/12/2007 9:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that I have not seen ANYONE walking around... thinking they are cool by YELLING into a size 15 (army issue) boot sized cellular phone in awhile.

Those were bad, MmmmK ?




Short-term Risk
By AnnihilatorX on 9/13/2007 5:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
If you pay attention the conclusion is there is no short term risk

It's harder to investigate long term risk as mobile phones had only been out for 20 years, and it's only become affordable for around 10 years.

The longer a risk is, it's also harder to investigate because of many more other variabes and factors coming in




key here is...
By The0ne on 9/17/2007 3:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
The key words in this study is "short-term." I don't expect much from a short term study but I do and am expecting better results from a long-term study of the issue. I say better in the sense that it'll provide more valuable data instead of doing a study for few days and claiming the issue is ok.




"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki