Print 107 comment(s) - last by Smiting Eye.. on Apr 10 at 5:44 PM

"It's not a tumor!"
Top British researcher says cell phones more harmful than asbestos or cigarette smoke

Dr. Vini Khurana, a top British neurosurgeon and medical researcher, is trying ardently to grab people's attention about what he sees as a grave risk to health.  He has published over 30 papers; his specialty -- cell phones and their links to disease.  He has reviewed over 100 papers on the links between cell phones and cancer.  His latest research, currently under peer-review prior to journal publication, emphasizes a strong link between cell phones and tumors.

Not one to shirk from using strong language on the topic, Dr. Khurana states controversially, "Mobile phones could have health consequences far greater than asbestos and smoking."

The number of users is the first aspect to look at, says Dr. Khurana.  Over 3 billion people worldwide use a cell phone, according to Dr. Khurana.  Only about one billion people worldwide smoke, evidence to his claims.  The smoking population incurs approximately five million worldwide smoking related deaths a year. 

The doctor expresses no uncertainty about whether cell phones cause cancer.  He states emphatically, "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumors."

Government action is a necessity says Dr. Khurana, but he declines to elaborate on possible measures.  The cell phone industry meanwhile scoffs at the research.  Britain's Mobile Operators Association, a major telecomm collective commented that the new study was "a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual."

In the U.S. last September, a research study by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme indicated that there was no cell phone-cancer link.  However, the normally conservative National Academy of Sciences reporting at the bequest of the Food and Drug Administration ruled that there was a possible link, but more research was needed.  The National Academy of Sciences suggested studies on the effects of use on children and pregnant women and a comparative study of heavy users and the general population. 

In February, DailyTech reported in a study appearing in a U.S. medical journal, which indicated that heavy cell phone use raised the risk of some tumors as much as 50 percent.  Cancers of the salivary gland in particular were found to be the most commonly induced type.  This study differed in that it looked at the effects of long term use.  Also it was among the first studies to examine cancer rates in other organs besides the brain.

Many doctors have expressed concern since the 1980s, when cell phones came into widespread use, that the electromagnetic radiation from the cell phone transmissions might increase mutation rates, upping individuals' cancer risk.  With evidence mildly supporting such conclusions mounting, similar concerns have recently been voiced about Wi-Fi.  Sir William Stewart, chairman of Britain's Health Protection Agency, demanded a thorough investigation of possible cancer/Wi-Fi correlations, based on the fact that Wi-Fi exposure to electromagnetic fields is often even more prolific than that from cell phones.  Allegedly, some people are sensitive enough to Wi-Fi that it causes them headaches.  The Austrian Medical Association is lobbying for a countrywide ban on Wi-Fi.

The new research from Dr. Khurana also follows in the conclusions of other European studies.  A study in Finland found that cell phone users of 10 years or more were 40 percent more likely to get a brain tumor on the side of the head they usually hold their phone.  A follow up study in Sweden indicate this risk to be closer to four times as great.

Cell phone use is currently banned on planes due to interference dangers, however, most analysts agree that a national level ban in any industrialized nation is impractical.

Comments     Threshold

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

scary facts
By dmessman on 3/31/2008 7:14:01 PM , Rating: 3
This is how it starts. Doctors research things and then the lobby for the manufacturer in question says "we need more research." I'm mostly commenting on the US here. Even today, the cigarette lobby only has to put a label of "there is a possible link to smoking and cancer" - really? There really aren't millions dying from lung cancer? For decades, the cigarette lobby put out its own research that supported its own interests.

Now, we have cell phone technology with doctors starting to mention a possible cancer link. I'm not saying a causal link exists - but it could. And the sooner we know for sure, the better. What we need is a completely objective body not funded by the cell corporations or an anti-cell phone lobby to do research and give the public a real answer. I don't watch what I eat, exercise daily, not smoke so I can die of what I think is an otherwise non-threatening action like talking on my phone.

RE: scary facts
By m1ldslide1 on 3/31/2008 7:25:05 PM , Rating: 5
It's a tough situation, because given the proliferation of cell phones you want evidence NOW that clearly determines what the consequences of cell phone use are. Unfortunately I doubt there's an easy way to simulate decades of cell phone use in a lab, unless of course, you have decades to conduct the experiment. In the mean time, you'll have alarmists on one side and corporate attorneys on the other. It's going to be a long time before we find out the answers to these questions...

RE: scary facts
By dmessman on 3/31/2008 7:55:51 PM , Rating: 5
Here's the thing, we don't need rock hard conclusive evidence. We need opinions with a moderate level of confidence to be stated. Take 1000 rats and expose their tiny brains to cell phones for 6 months. Observe to see if any brain cancer percentages increase or decrease from the control. That's a pretty good indicator to start.

Do I want to give my cell phone? No way. But if it increases by chance of brain cancer by an amount that I find unacceptable, then I'm back to land lines.

RE: scary facts
By eye smite on 3/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: scary facts
By marsbound2024 on 3/31/2008 8:46:21 PM , Rating: 4
More like... hello bye pass... hello bye pass

RE: scary facts
By Smiting Eye on 4/10/2008 5:44:39 PM , Rating: 1
now that's funny

RE: scary facts
By BruceLeet on 3/31/2008 10:30:22 PM , Rating: 5
It's going to be a long time before we find out the answers to these questions...

So Apple users sitting in their Wi-fi Starbucks isn't enough proof of brain-damaging effects?

Those people will buy Jobs' fart in a bag for $2,499

RE: scary facts
By xsilver on 4/1/2008 3:20:09 AM , Rating: 2
if you were doing that, it would be hard to tell if you're having a brain tumor from your phone or your ego.

RE: scary facts
By Polynikes on 4/1/2008 7:18:26 AM , Rating: 2
Good thing I barely use mine.

RE: scary facts
By MrBungle on 4/1/2008 12:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
Great! Thanks for sharing.

RE: scary facts
By encryptkeeper on 4/1/2008 8:55:30 AM , Rating: 1
It's a tough situation, because given the proliferation of cell phones you want evidence NOW that clearly determines what the consequences of cell phone use are.

So with 3 billion cell phone users in the world, shouldn't this research be easy to come by? Even if this research were true, it always seems like there's 100 people saying that there isn't any link between cell phones and cancer. Getting scared by this is like listening to the one scientist out of 100 that doesn't believe in global warming, but for some reason that one idiot gets as much media attention as the other 100 scientists, making the overall argument look much more divided than it really is.

RE: scary facts
By sxr7171 on 4/6/2008 11:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if we err on the side of safety we would move towards finding solutions to reduce the amount of radiation emitted to the head from phones.

RE: scary facts
By masher2 on 3/31/2008 8:28:23 PM , Rating: 4
> "What we need is a completely objective body not funded by the cell corporations or an anti-cell phone lobby to do research.."

You mean like the WHO (World Health Organization)? Their studied opinion is that no evidence suggests any link between cell phones and cancer.

I'd also like to point out that Dr. Khurana is a surgeon, not an epidemiologist, oncologist, or even a statistician. As such, he's not especially qualified to comment on such research. I certainly wouldn't take his opinion over an expert in the field.

RE: scary facts
By TALENT on 3/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: scary facts
By Ringold on 3/31/2008 11:12:38 PM , Rating: 3
That comment would make sense if his comment were only of his own opinion. Instead, he was simplying relaying the 'studied opinion' of the WHO.

You shot at the messenger. :)

There's enough loonies running around that I'm happy to hear what research says over time beyond just the WHO (they could be right, I don't know), but just pointing it out. Masher didn't ask you to believe him, simply offered someone elses opinion up.

RE: scary facts
By Lord 666 on 3/31/2008 11:41:51 PM , Rating: 5
The same WHO that censored the impact of Chernobyl's health impact and mortality?

Please remember that Christopher Columbus was not a geographer, Thomas Edison never went to school, and Anand Lal Shimpi started something big when he was 15.

RE: scary facts
By masher2 on 4/1/2008 12:19:58 AM , Rating: 3
> "The same WHO that censored the impact of Chernobyl's health impact and mortality?"

Stuff and nonsense. If anything, the linear exposure model used by the WHO slightly overestimates the results of Chernobyl's effects. The WHO simply refused to bow to the demands of anti-nuclear activists, who wished to portray the event as far more deadly than it actually was.

> "Please remember that Christopher Columbus was not a geographer..."

Columbus also thought the experts were wrong, and that the world was only 1/4 the diameter it actually was....which is why he thought he'd reached the Indies when he landed in America.

> "...and Anand Lal Shimpi started something big when he was 15"

And this proves cell phones cause cancer?

RE: scary facts
By slunkius on 4/1/2008 1:55:21 AM , Rating: 2
The WHO simply refused to bow to the demands of anti-nuclear activists, who wished to portray the event as far more deadly than it actually was.

it's a real pitty you were not living in a soviet union in the time of the event. i'm sure you would have volunteered to disaster management squad, you know, those guys who went there to fix the mess.

RE: scary facts
By MeTaedet on 4/1/2008 1:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
Who up-voted that? Really now...

Please remember that Christopher Columbus was not a geographer, Thomas Edison never went to school, and Anand Lal Shimpi started something big when he was 15.

I am so very tired of seeing this fallacy on Daily Tech. I've already seen it some 20 times or so.

Do the following phrases mean anything to you?

Availability heuristic
Spotlight fallacy
Misleading vividness
Thought terminating cliche
Proof by example
Cherry picking
Fallacy of insufficient sample

And there was an appeal to novelty earlier.

I do wonder how many more people than those three you cited have made claims out of their depth and beyond their area of study and been wrong?

Masher never said that he was necessarily wrong because we wasn't an epidemiologist or oncologist, only that he wasn't as trustworthy a source as he might otherwise be. In the absence of any information or understanding upon which to predicate a truth-value statement about one notion or another of opposite purport, one is often left to do no more scientifically rigorous than to trust what another, hopefully credible person, says. After all, one can't gain a perfect grasp of all fields of science. Therefore, given the choice to believe what one of two men says, each saying the opposite, it is sensible to choose to believe what he says who be formally trained in the field most relevant to the matter in question. Taking a brain surgeon at his word that cell phones cause brain cancer over the word of oncologists et al. who say they don't isn't particularly sagacious, unless we have reason to suspect mendacity or deceit on the part of the latter group for some reason.

RE: scary facts
By Lord 666 on 4/1/2008 11:58:02 AM , Rating: 2
Greed would be the reason for deceit and there is a ton of change to loose if there is a correlation.

Case in point, the pharmaceutical industry. You can cherry pick examples of pulled drugs or ones that have later proved less effective after approval (Rezulin, Avandia, Vytorin, or Prozac) but the one that really comes to mind is Vioxx. There was evidence that Merck was aware of the issues prior to releasing along with the FDA. It passed many subject matter experts (Merck, independant studies, and FDA), but only after a off-label research study using Vioxx to treat colon cancer exposed detrimental circulatory effects.

An IT example of this is Windows Home Server... I was even a beta tester for this product. How did "experts" miss the file corruption issue, should we question the Q/A methods, manufacturer, or beta testers? It was only the end users who unfortunately found the problem after their files were corrupted (did not include me)

Experts can sometimes suffer from tunnel visioned or for malicious resons such as greed ignore conflicting evidence. Either way, the truth is out there for someone to find.

RE: scary facts
By blowfish on 4/1/2008 12:04:12 AM , Rating: 2
but any prudent parent, learning the results of the studies in question might sensibly think twice about having their children use cell phones. There's a resonance effect with the radiation, so that the energy penetrates disproportionately further into a child's brain than an adult's.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the telcom lobby in the US will succeed in preventing any actions likely to reduce their profits.

Just look at the number of states that allow drivers to use non hands-free cell phones whilst driving - something that puts you at the same level of risk of having an accident as driving with a blood alcohol level of around 100mg/l.

Looking on the positive side, maybe it's just free market economics, and natural selection in action. It may certainly prove to be a bonanza for the biggest growth industry in the US - "health" care.

RE: scary facts
By Lord 666 on 4/1/2008 12:13:28 AM , Rating: 2
What long term effects have been studied with hearing loss and use of hands free earpieces? There is research that negates any difference between hands free vs. holding the phone. Its the cognitive effort that impacts the driving regardless.

Either the same study or related one demonstrated that talking with another passenger in the car is not the same as cellphone use because the passenger self-regulates speech based on the driver's need to focus.

RE: scary facts
By rebturtle on 4/1/2008 2:55:55 AM , Rating: 5
I can attest to that. Follow my wife in her car while she's driving, and then after she starts talking on the phone. She'll start to zone out right away. I bought her a hands-free bluetooth (on the visor, not in her ear) for the dang thing just because I can't convince her to stop talking to her mom and sister while she drives. I only hope that it can help at least a little. Anyone who thinks they aren't affected by it is in utter denial. Yes, I've done it before, and I don't like the feeling of driving for 5 minutes and realizing after the call that I have no idea what speed I was doing, where I was in traffic, or anything else I normally focus on just fine while talking to a passenger.

Over the last 10 years or so, I've noticed a new proliferation of people driving about 10-20MPH slower than the flow of traffic, usually in the fast lane, often swerving, and completely oblivious for miles and miles. Usually you see the tell-tale hand at head-level, but even with hands free you can pull up next to them and see that they are completely oblivious. I prefer to call them in as DUIs anyways.

Yes, if my wife gets pulled over like that, I will be happy of sorts. She won't actually get a DUI, but if it drives the message into her head in a way I haven't been capable of, it might save her life.

Sorry for drifting off-topic :)

RE: scary facts
By xsilver on 4/1/2008 3:27:18 AM , Rating: 2
does the US not have laws about driving while on a cell phone?

Here in australia its a fine and demerit points for not using bluetooth or wired handsfree and I think the UK has it too.

It is especially dangerous for those people who usually need 100% concentration while driving while some people can drive perfectly fine with a cigarette in one hand, a phone in the other, and a starbucks between their legs ;)

RE: scary facts
By Omega215D on 4/1/2008 7:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
In the US you have to be caught committing another violation in order to be reprimanded for using a cell while driving.

RE: scary facts
By napalmjack on 4/1/2008 8:41:50 AM , Rating: 2
Not all states have laws against it, and (for the most part) I don't believe that you have to be doing something else illegal to catch heat.

RE: scary facts
By FITCamaro on 4/1/2008 9:41:16 AM , Rating: 2
No it varies by state. In Florida you can be pulled over for driving without a hands free device. Whether the cops enforce it is another matter.

RE: scary facts
By Lord 666 on 4/1/2008 10:11:02 AM , Rating: 2
In NJ, using a cellphone without handsfree became a primary offense on March 1 of this year.

RE: scary facts
By MrBlastman on 4/1/2008 12:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
Using a cellphone while driving, handfree or not, should be a violation period.

You should be focusing on driving, not talking on the phone, when in a car.

RE: scary facts
By Sulphademus on 4/1/2008 3:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
does the US not have laws about driving while on a cell phone?

No federal laws. Some states have enacted such laws and even some counties & cities have made such if their state hasn't and they felt it worthwhile.

AFAIK, Maryland hasn't.

RE: scary facts
By roastmules on 4/1/2008 4:15:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, AFAIK, ALL of the states have a law against driving while distracted... This covers any distraction, including talking, regardless of whether it is hands-free or not, or even to a person in the car...
Just because the law doesn't say that it is illegal to set the time on my car's clock while driving doesn't mean that it's ok... It can be distracting.

The bans on cell phones are problematic, most contain clauses for exceptions for "emergencies", and are based on no data.

I've been using a cell phone -not hands free- in a car for over 12 years. No accidents, wrecks, points, fines. But, I rarely carry on a conversation, usually "I'm on my way home, do you need anything from the grocery store?"

People who carry on long conversations and have conference calls while driving, or worse, texting/emailing should be whooped.

RE: scary facts
By tmouse on 4/1/2008 11:49:54 AM , Rating: 2
Well I do not feel that Dr. Khurana's zeal is necessary at this time however the WHO (the medical organization, not the band ; ))study is probably wrong if they did state "no evidence suggests ANY link between cell phones and cancer". It is simply too soon to see a statistically observable increase in brain cancers. In the third world the data is virtually non-existent, in the more developed countries most people never get scans to look for early lesions. While many brain cancers do grow quickly little is known about the time from progression to proliferation, so in 5-10 years we may observe a rapid increase. There is evidence of cell damage from exposure to the electromagnetic frequencies used in cell phones in vitro, but it can be hard to extrapolate. I know epidemiologists who stood firmly behind the idea that the “love canal” disaster had no effect on the persons exposed, but as someone who had seen some of the damage during the clean up; well some of the walls actually "bled" multicolored secretions, and as for smell I was in a full hazmat suit with a Scott air Pac. The national academy study was inconclusive due mainly to the dearth of information, there is simply no common databases to supply this type of information and studies to gather it are expensive, and take a great deal of time and effort so generally only persons for or against make the effort. Unfortunately there are people who will bow to these efforts and suborn their work to the will of the people who pay their bills.

RE: scary facts
By tmouse on 4/1/2008 11:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
As an aside it is never a good idea to simply note the majority of scientists in an area feel this way or that so it must be true. The majority simply follow the most vocal just as in other areas of life. Unfortunately while skepticism IS important for science, Dogma can stifle innovation. Today; new or contrary ideas often lead to the death of the careers of the proponents. As an example the NIH has just begun to fund special sections for projects that are "out of the box", the very NEED to do this speaks volumes.

RE: scary facts
By JustTom on 3/31/2008 9:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
Even today, the cigarette lobby only has to put a label of "there is a possible link to smoking and cancer" - really?

The Surgeon General's warning is quite a bit stronger than that:

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.

There is nothing weasly about those warning; anyone who takes up smoking now is using a product that is obviously going to cause him or her harm.

RE: scary facts
By just4U on 4/1/2008 4:58:06 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot one ...

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking may cause Erectile dysfunction.

I am sure there's more out there but hey I got a laugh from that one when I read it.

RE: scary facts
By robinthakur on 4/1/2008 6:29:11 AM , Rating: 4
And May Complicate Pregnancy.

Surely its complicated enough as it is :) Life was far more fun when you could just do what you want without snarling levels of bureaucracy and legislation telling you that its wrong.

RE: scary facts
By nekobawt on 4/1/2008 12:20:53 PM , Rating: 1
I know! Life was so much better before I realized my actions have *shudder* consequences....

RE: scary facts
By Alexstarfire on 3/31/2008 11:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if there are really 3 billion cell phone users worldwide, which is highly unlikely BTW, then I think it'd be quite clear if there is even a remote possibility. I mean, out of 1 billion smokers you can bet that many of them have some signs of lung cancer. The same can't be said about the cell phone users. Of course, if it only increases your chances of brain cancer by like .001% then you're probably not going to notice it anyways. Think of it this way, we know pretty much how everyone dies. I know we can't know how everyone dies, but if their body is taken in for an autopsy then we will likely know. If brain cancer was how most of them died, or even if they only showed signs of brain cancer, we'd know.

I think they'd have a much better argument in showing how cell phone relates to stupidity rather than brain cancer.

RE: scary facts
By tmouse on 4/1/2008 11:24:05 AM , Rating: 2
Well why I do not necessarily share the good doctor’s urgency, the vast majority of people never have a brain scan and only fairly well sized tumors show up in the more routine scans so the “unlikely” hood simply cannot be determined by that anecdotal evidence. Actually we do not know how most people die generally just the easiest explanation is looked at. You have to exclude all "unnatural" deaths, since outside of CSI-TV small lesions would probably not be looked for as well as all deaths from existing known diseases.

RE: scary facts
By FITCamaro on 4/1/2008 9:38:29 AM , Rating: 2
If cell phones caused brain cancer, every 16 year old girl in the country with a cell phone would be dead.

RE: scary facts
By mal1 on 4/1/2008 10:35:10 AM , Rating: 2
The symptoms of brain death are already there...

By MateaMatt on 3/31/2008 8:22:08 PM , Rating: 4
I don't understand how cellphones would cause cancer, as they do not produce ionizing radiation.

RE: Mechanism?
By BucDan on 3/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: Mechanism?
By Complex Pants on 3/31/2008 9:03:26 PM , Rating: 3
Tumors are caused by mutations in DNA. DNA mutations can be caused from many sources from high energy radiation (ionizing radiation, UV light, X rays, etc) or even from your body making a mistake while copying DNA during cell reproduction (mitosis).

A tumor is just a cluster of cells that are growing in an unregulated fashion. In fact in the case of brain tumors, they are not even malignant. However, the problem is that a growing mass in an enclosed space, such as your skull, is a problem. This is one reason why these tumors are so deadly.

I believe you are talking about lead poisoning, which deals more with mental illnesses not tumors. In the case of cell phones, they do not produce much high energy radiation and much of it should be absorbed by your skull. However, over time, some radiation could reach brain cells and potentially harm them. It is essentially playing a lottery. Of course if you play enough you might win, but the chances are still very very low.

We are bathed, every day by electromagnetic radiation (light) and we don't develop cancer/tumors commonly. Skin cancer can happen, but only if you are fair skinned and outside constantly. Your TV, microwave, radio, Wi-Fi, light bulbs, alarm clocks, Remote controls, keyless entry on your car, all emit radiation, yet still very few of us develop cancer from these sources. I think the research should be done, but as of now, I feel quite safe using a cell phone.

RE: Mechanism?
By masher2 on 3/31/2008 9:20:32 PM , Rating: 3
> "We are bathed, every day by electromagnetic radiation (light) and we don't develop cancer/tumors commonly"

Even more to the point, people who work in or near radio towers -- which emit signals millions of times more powerful than the milliwatts put out by your average cell phone -- don't have cancer rates higher than the average population.

RE: Mechanism?
By ikkeman on 3/31/2008 9:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
actuaaly, High UV exposure (excessice sunbathing) is recognized as the major cause of skin cancer...

Also, EM radiation strengt reduces by you distance to the source cubed... That means if you're 100 times farther removed from the source, the signal strength dimishes ba a factor of one million. Lets say you hold your phone 1cm (or 1") away from your brain - the tower would only need to be 1m (or 8'4") away to generate equal power.

RE: Mechanism?
By masher2 on 3/31/2008 10:14:42 PM , Rating: 3
> "actuaaly, High UV exposure (excessice sunbathing) is recognized as the major cause of skin cancer..."

UV is ionizing radiation. There's no question that it can cause cancer...UVC energies run over 10 eV/photon, not that far below soft X-rays. Cell phones, though, operate below 1 Ghz, a band with a frequency hundreds of millions times lower...meaning photon energies lower by the same order of magnitude.

> "Also, EM radiation strengt reduces by you distance to the source cubed"

Eh? EM radiation follows an inverse square law, not an inverse cube. Your calculations are far off.

RE: Mechanism?
By ikkeman on 4/1/2008 2:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for assuming EM radiation radiates in 3 dimendions. If you're right the distance to experiance similar levels of radiation from a source a million times stringer would be a 1000 factor instead of 100 - 10m vs 1m.

Not so big a difference I think

I don't know about the link between ionizing capacity of radiation and cancer, but there are other health problems than only cancer.
You should see what can be done using an localized magnetic field on the brain (google TMS with Dystonia).
You can litterally induce movement in a specific bodypart throught the application of a magnetic field on the brain. That shows low energy radiation can definately impact your body.

RE: Mechanism?
By masher2 on 4/1/2008 3:12:08 PM , Rating: 3
> "Sorry for assuming EM radiation radiates in 3 dimendions"

Of course it radiates in 3 dimensions. But radiative flux follows an inverse square law because the surface area of that three-dimensional sphere which contains the wavefront grows as the square of the radius. Make sense?

> "Not so big a difference I think"

In your calculations, you assumed a distance 100X greater, which you then calculated as a signal one million times weaker. The true value is actually 10K times weaker...a large difference indeed. And, when you're talking about a signal strength of 100,000 watts versus a few milliwatts, a much stronger effect on the human body.

> "That shows low energy radiation can definately impact your body. "

Low energy radiation? First of all, its not radiation at all-- its a magnetic field. Second of all, its not low energy. TMS uses magnetic fields typically in the 25,000 gauss range. For comparison, the earth's magnetic field runs about half a gauss.

RE: Mechanism?
By MrPoletski on 3/31/2008 11:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
"We are bathed, every day by electromagnetic radiation (light) and we don't develop cancer/tumors commonly."

What do you think those brown spots all over your skin are? Those moles are tumours, albeit harmless ones (unless you're REALLY vain)

RE: Mechanism?
By masher2 on 4/1/2008 12:32:22 AM , Rating: 3
> "What do you think those brown spots all over your skin are? Those moles are tumours,"

No. Sun-induced freckles are simply accumulations of pigment. The larger, more predominant patches known as "lentigines" are simply local proliferations of melanocytes. Neither are tumors...they're essentially no more than an irregular form of tanning.

While it is true that UV can and does cause both sink damage and skin cancers, the vast majority of sun-induced spotting is not a form of cancer, benign or not.

RE: Mechanism?
By nomentanus on 4/1/2008 7:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
"We are bathed, every day by electromagnetic radiation (light) and we don't develop cancer/tumors commonly."

Where have you been? Most breast cancer is linked to excess exposure to visible light and the only cancer that looks like it doesn't have this correlation is lung cancer. Our whole hormone system gets whacked by too much light at night. See

RE: Mechanism?
By MrPoletski on 3/31/2008 11:33:26 PM , Rating: 1
They produce microwaves. Microwaves are small and energetic enough to cause an atom (which is a dipole - think bar magnet) to spin and align with the electric field. This is how a microwave oven warms things up. Unfortunately, this inducing of energy into the atoms can cause some chemical compounds to break down.

It is when the chemical compounds that are in DNA are broken down that mutations *can* occur. But it should be mentioned that DNA is an unstable molecule and breaks down by itself anyway. In fact, a significant portion of a cell has the sole purpose of constantly repairing the DNA inside of it.

So whether the added degredation of the microwave emissions is at all significant compared to the DNA's normal rate of decay is 'the question' because if it is not, then microwaves are not worth worrying about in terms of cancer.

headaches from microwaves I can only assume would be attributed to mild heating of areas of your brain. It only takes a small temperature variation in your head to cause you bad headaches. Try eating ice cream, you get the brain freeze headache because the 'sensor' used to regulate body temperature is just above the roof of your mouth. Cool that down and the body heats itself up, mistakenly, to compensate and you get a headache.

RE: Mechanism?
By masher2 on 4/1/2008 11:13:59 AM , Rating: 3
> "Unfortunately, this inducing of energy into the atoms can cause some chemical compounds to break down."

If the radiation is non-ionizing (which cell phone frequencies are), then this breakdown only occurs by absorbing enough energy to raise temperatures dangerously.

Now, how much energy does your brain absorb from a cell phone signal? The average phone emits about 1/4 watt. The human head subtends at most a 180 degree angle, and will absorb much less than half of the signal passing through it. That works out to (generously) about 1/16 of a watt absorbed. Compared to the 40+ watts of heat energy the brain itself generates, one easily sees that a cell phone isn't significantly raising the temperature of brain tissue.

The frequencies used by cell phones are no different than radio fact, the frequencies below cell phones (the 30-300mhz VHF band used by TV) are absorbed much better by the human body, and produce more heating per watt of energy.

The IEEE sets a safety limit for RF heating at 4 watts/kg of body tissue. For cell phones, an even more stringent limit of 1.6 w/kg is set...and most handheld cell phone are well below this extremely pessimistic safety limit.

RE: Mechanism?
By geddarkstorm on 4/1/2008 12:37:03 PM , Rating: 3 here is one of the first research papers showing how UV damages DNA. The spectrum is very narrow, as it is only a small range (285–350 nm) where thymine can absorb photons to create a dimer that results in mutations. At higher energies (smaller wavelengths, like X-rays), damage to DNA begins to become indirect, via the formation of reactive oxygen species which can oxidize DNA bases leading to mispairing, or even lesions where bases are removed from the DNA backbone.

Microwaves are very low energy (~10-11 orders of magnitude less than visible light) and very long wavelengths (centimeters long instead of nanometers). They are way too low energetically to create ions (which start at UV energies and above). It just so happens that water has a quantum dipole resonance frequency in the microwave gigahertz range that causes it to absorb those photons into kinetic motion, but DNA does not (nor do many other dipolar molecules). This kinetic motion only creates heat, it isn't kicking around electrons, so it can't ionize anything.

It seems very unlikely that cell phones have anything to do with cancer in a causal way, but may be correlated, that is those who use cell phones may also do other activities that raise cancer rates. If the article is right and 1/2 of the world's population uses cell phones, then it seems safe to say they do not appreciably change cancer rates as we haven't seen a sudden increase of millions coming down with brain tumors (which would only be a 1-3% increase in cancer rates).

RE: Mechanism?
By flipsu5 on 4/6/2008 5:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
If the radiation wavelength is small enough to be ionizing, it will knock off electrons from atoms or raise them from the valence band to the conduction band, and these roaming electrons will lose energy gradually through heating and chemical damage, until their recombination.

Even if the wavelength is not that small, if there is a chance that two (or more) photons are simultaneously absorbed, their total energy can have the same effect. The chance for this to happen is very low. You need to have sufficient exposure time, plus sufficient exposure intensity. There is always a small chance of enough microwave photon absorption to produce a direct chemical effect but it is negligible in realistic situations.

The other way radiation can have direct effects is not absorption but directly oscillating the free charges that are around. In the human body, there are lots of ions (such as H+) which can be vibrated by cell phone radiation. If they are suddenly vibrated at GHz en masse, that may disrupt the local electrochemistry. The vibrations can also lead to local heating which could influence the chemical reaction rates.

By ikkeman on 3/31/2008 9:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
You mean this highly educated, probably pretty smart person says their is a link between a source of major EM radiation held right besides my head and my health...

You know what - I think he might be right. Subjecting the human body to influances or situation for witch evolution (or the creator - let's not start that discussion here) did not prepare it is usually detrimental to health. Right?

Spaceflight (osteoporosis), smoking, not eating a varied diet, not excercizing, having a phone against your head all day - excess is always a bad idea
What I'd like to know - what about headphones??? I don't phone that much but listen to music all day!

RE: really???
By masher2 on 3/31/2008 10:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "Subjecting the human body to influances or situation for witch evolution ...did not prepare it is usually detrimental to health."

Evolution didn't prepare us for wearing clothes, taking showers, or cooking our food either. Does that mean they cause cancer as well?

RE: really???
By cputeq on 4/1/2008 2:17:51 AM , Rating: 2
Don't be obtuse. You know very well that's a fallacious argument.

Wearing "things", getting wet, and applying heat to one's food (all things possible in nature) are hardly comparable with having a small, portable source of EMR in close proximity to one's head hours at a time.

While I agree with your general stance that this doctor's assertions should be taken with a large grain of salt (as with any small-focus research results), vacuous responses like this should probably be left by the wayside.

RE: really???
By masher2 on 4/1/2008 11:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
The fallacious argument here is the belief that anything "unnatural" must automatically cause cancer. And point in fact, there's far more evidence of increased cancer risk from our dietary changes (such as eating large amounts of cooked meat) than there is from cell phones.

RE: really???
By ikkeman on 4/1/2008 2:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
I never claimed it causes cancer - only that it changes your body - usually in a non preferable way.

Wearing clothig probably has something to do with our nakedness conpared to other mammels/apes. Cooking our food results in a verry weak resistance - your intestinal track is basically no different from that of a chimp, but you'd die trying to survive on their diet.
The environment has a verry profound impact on your body - a cell phone is for some a major part of their environment.

RE: really???
By masher2 on 4/1/2008 3:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "I never claimed it causes cancer... "

You said, and I quote, "You know what - I think he might be right". The "he" in this case being the doctor who claims a link between cancer and cellphones.

If you misspoke and really don't believe this, then there's no need to belabor the point.

RE: really???
By mindless1 on 4/1/2008 5:40:02 AM , Rating: 3
Not quite accurate.

Yes, evolution did prepare us for wearing clothes, or didn't you notice how our ancestors had less and less body hair? It was a reactionary evolution but nevertheless...

As for taking showers, yes evolution did prepare us for getting wet but as for the soap or detergent part - it is known to dry out skin which can age it. Perhaps even then, evolution allowed those who didn't have adverse enough reactions to remain more visually appealing and find more mating opportunities.

Evolution didn't prepare us for cooking food, but evolution at the faster rate we had, did require it. Oh wait, evolution DID prepare us, in that our developing brains realized the benefits of cooking food.

The general idea about cell phones is correct. It is a stress upon the body. Would a hypothetically perfectly healthy person realize enough of a damaging effect from them to significantly change their health level? Probably not, but as a contributory factor that results in someone having a lesser level of health to the point where they might not exercise as much, might not sleep as well, might have medical bills causing more time spend working instead of focusing on other areas of personal health - there are many factors that make minor things add up to at least the sum of the parts and even more.

We humans do strive to avoid clear causes of cancer (at least some, perhaps a majority of us do), and yet it is still apparent that it is not enough, we could argue away each thing in turn as not being signifcant and it does not dismiss the fact that many do still get cancer. Is it spontaneous? Is there a more systemic genetic problem? These things should also not be ignored.

More questions, more research, a larger body of evidence is worth having. We SHOULD assume something could be harmful until it's proven otherwise - a bit similar to how you wouldn't want to just randomly eat berries found in the woods until you know what they are or at least try a small sample and wait a while. We don't have that scenario with cell phones and the longer term exposure to radiation. That shouldn't mean we take a "sky is falling" alarmist position, but on the other hand we know that even though there are background radiation levels, increasing that exposure shouldn't be casually dismissed as harmless.

RE: really???
By Cogman on 4/1/2008 3:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Yes, evolution did prepare us for wearing clothes, or didn't you notice how our ancestors had less and less body hair?"

Umm, We have less hair because we began to wear cloths, we dont wear cloths because evolution forced us to. This point is valid as the origional unnatural use of clothing should, by the ops standards, have been shunned because it might cause cancer.

"Oh wait, evolution DID prepare us, in that our developing brains realized the benefits of cooking food."

Or "developing brain" didn't realize the benifits of cooked food, It realized food tastes good. By that measure my developing brain tells me candy and sugar have the ultimate nutritional value. Dogs like chocolate, are you going to claim evolution prepaired their brains to love it because of its nutritional value? If cooked meat didn't taste better we would have cooked it in the first place, evolution had little part in that except for giving us the taste buds to determine that food has flavor.

Might I be so bold as to say that in all the research done on cellphones and cancer, a link has NEVER been discovered by a creditable source. The most you get is "While we didn't find an increase in cancer, it still might happen." So for this guy to come out and say "Cell phones are worse then smoking!"

People that say that more data might show a link are forgetting something, cell phons have been around for over 10 years now, 10 YEARS. Almost since the adoption of the cell phone the media has been trying to make it look like a cancer stick, that alone has drummed up tons of research and study into it. Don't you think that if cell phones are as big of cancer causers as people like this nut are saying we would have just a little bit more evidince in the affirmitive?

"We SHOULD assume something could be harmful until it's proven otherwise"

So then, every new product that enters the market needs to be treated as the death to humanity, even when it is based on previous technologies?

Heres a question for you, are radio, tv, wireless routers dangerous? Some of them are operating at the same frequencies as cell phones and you are exposed much more to then you might think (Think of how long you have lived your life exposed a radio signal, even before birth you had been exposed to that type of radiation.) Most people agree that all these signals don't cause any damage. Yet cell phones for whatever mysterious reason have been singled out as the cancer causers of america. It is sensationalizm at its best.

"We don't have that scenario with cell phones and the longer term exposure to radiation."

Again, might I point out... TEN FREAKING YEARS. Are people really that stupid to think that cell phones where invented yesterday? Lets not forget that weather you owned a cell phone or not, you where still being exposed to the radiation given off of the cell towers for those that did. Not only that, but areas more populated are the ones that have the highest exposer. So why aren't we dropping like flies? If ten years of CONSTENT exposure haven't raised cancer rates then I don't know what would.

more research needs to be done
By mooncancook on 3/31/2008 7:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
Most people probably won't take it seriously until themselves or someone they love were attacked by cancer. I hope more conclusive researches will be done soon as cell phone is pretty much part of everyone's life now.

RE: more research needs to be done
By masher2 on 3/31/2008 8:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "Most people probably won't take it seriously until themselves or someone they love were attacked by cancer"

And those that get cancer will now automatically blame their cell phones, regardless of the true cause of their illness.

What we need is rationality, not emotional knee-jerk responses.

RE: more research needs to be done
By mooncancook on 3/31/2008 8:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
don't start by making your own "knee-jerk" responses. No one is saying anything about the true cause of cancer. Cancer can be caused by many factors combined.

The last thing a cancer patient wanted is for the cancer to come back after series of treatment. It would be wise to advise the patient to reduce cell phone usage as much as possible if it is found that cell phone can cause or increase the risk of cancer.

RE: more research needs to be done
By charliee on 3/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: more research needs to be done
By MrPoletski on 3/31/2008 11:17:25 PM , Rating: 5
Some mental ones are the result of religion.

RE: more research needs to be done
By Nightraptor on 4/1/2008 4:25:45 AM , Rating: 1
I normally avoid theological arguments, but this one is just too crazy to not speak up. I'd recommend reading the account of the blind man in John 9:1-41. You'll see in verse 3 Christ seems to reject the very argument you've made.

By charlieee on 4/1/2008 4:22:28 PM , Rating: 1
You would have a case if I stated, "[ All ] physical disorders are the result of sin."
But I used the word " some " therefore your case is invalid.

RE: more research needs to be done
By TALENT on 3/31/08, Rating: 0
By LivingDedBoy on 4/1/2008 5:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to break it to ya but my mom got cancer, I still don't take it seriously. There are apparently a million an one ways for you to get cancer, why worry?

By nsymons on 3/31/2008 7:38:55 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry to be boring but all this guy has done is to look at other peoples data (selectivly choosing papers that support his pet theory) and then say: "look everyone, these papers I chose all say that mobile phones cause cancer"

He has done no new research himself. This does not change the body of evidence in the literature at all.

As a doctor myself I can see that there may be a link between mobiles and cancer but more research is needed. This story gets us no closer to understanding, it's just propaganda.

RE: Propaganda
By Complex Pants on 3/31/2008 8:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with what you are saying. I just receive my Masters degree in Anantomy and Neurobiology and did my graduate research on glioblastomas. When I included that cells may be a potential cause of GBM development in my thesis, my adviser (a neurosurgeon) very firmly told me that there was no link he knew of between cell phones and brain tumors, and that I should remove that statement from my thesis.

I think more research should be done, but I am afraid it will take many many many years to complete. Clinical research is a very slow process.

It's common sense
By Shadowmaster625 on 4/1/2008 10:17:45 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to be a dumbed down cattle, go right ahead. Maybe you'll win a darwin award.

But if you actually do the research, you'll find that the evidence for cell phone brain damage is quite strong. 99% of the damage can be mitigated simply by keeping the microwave transmitter away from your head. For example, a bluetooth wireless headset works great. So does texting.

If you're wondering why bluetooth is ok but its not ok to hold the actual phone up to your head, its because the bluetooth transmitter is far less powerful. It's all about the number of milliwatts being outputted by the rf transmitter.

RE: It's common sense
By masher2 on 4/1/2008 11:17:18 AM , Rating: 3
> "If you're wondering why bluetooth is ok but its not ok to hold the actual phone up to your head, its because the bluetooth transmitter is far less powerful"

Eh? A Class 1 Bluetooth device emits 100 mWatts of power. Your average handheld cell phone emits 250 mWatts. That's not a huge difference.

> "you'll find that the evidence for cell phone brain damage is quite strong"

Such as?

RE: It's common sense
By aos007 on 4/1/2008 10:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
But you are cherry picking here. Most of bluetooth devices are class 2 and they emit 2.5mW. That is two orders of magnitude better, no? If there is a risk from cellphone usage, using 100x weaker field would probably drop risk factor very significantly, perhaps to the point of making it almost irrelevant.

Hey, wait a second!
By paleguy on 3/31/2008 6:56:36 PM , Rating: 5
This has already been know. I believe it was in 1993, when Ace Ventura said: "Be careful with that phone lieutenant; in time you could develop a tumor."

Back in style!
By marsbound2024 on 3/31/2008 8:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
*puts on aluminum foil cap*

RE: Back in style!
By aos007 on 4/1/2008 10:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
Except that a foil hat would only stop static fields...

This appears to be incorrect
By masher2 on 3/31/2008 8:34:18 PM , Rating: 4
> "He has published over 30 papers; his specialty -- cell phones and their links to disease..."

According to this list of Khurana's published papers, he hasn't published anything that relates in any way to cell phones and cancer, or even anything to do with epidemiology in general:

Alarmist reaction.
By ice456789 on 3/31/2008 9:56:51 PM , Rating: 3
Millions more people are affected each year by skin cancer caused by sun exposure than brain tumors, yet still people are stupid enough to walk outside. This guy is fighting the wrong battle. He should be encouraging all humans to stay indoors until after dark. He would save many more lives that way. Is that any more ridiculous?

By SiliconAddict on 4/1/2008 1:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
Problem solved...maybe. So what does having a BT radio in your ear do to you?

By rdsoftware on 4/1/2008 4:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
You guys have noticed its the 1st of April... right?

At least
By martinrichards23 on 4/1/2008 6:39:37 AM , Rating: 2
At least your mobile doesn't make your breath smell like a coal fired power station.

Natural Selection?
By JonnyDough on 4/1/2008 7:05:12 AM , Rating: 2
Does this mean natural selection is still occurring among human beings afterall?

Completely Absurd
By Durrr on 4/1/2008 8:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
Smoking causes 1 REM of radiation exposure to your lungs for every year you smoke from Polonium-214 alpha decay (same thing that killed the Russian spy a while back). To equate cellphone usage to 1 REM of ionizing radiation exposure, makes zero sense. This Doctor, while I'm sure he's a very respected neurosurgeon, doesn't have any credentials in health physics or anything of the like on top of it.

I really wish people would stop with the alarmist attitudes.

If you really want to see what is ACTUALLY being transmitted, federal limits and everything else, here's a good link.

water causes cancer then!
By bharatwaja on 4/1/2008 8:33:24 AM , Rating: 2
lets say all ppl drink water, and ppl die of cancer, then did water cause cancer in them?

Saying that among 3 billion mobile users, 5 million die of cancer (smoking related or otherwise) is unrelated and absurd.

By uhgotnegum on 4/1/2008 9:23:15 AM , Rating: 2
...I'd take a risk of cancer.

I think it all comes down to cute over cancer. In order to reduce my risk, I ask that all cell companies require caller ID to include a photograph. Analysis will need to be done on how frequently we can legitimately require the photograph to be updated, and come to think of it, how much of one's body need be included in the picture (oh the humanity if cute girl's face is attached to a horrible body). However, I really think I'm on to something...If we simply require photographs to be included with caller ID, fewer people will answer the calls of ugly people, which means lower cell phone usage, which leads to lower risk of cancer.

Humanity needs deep thinkers like's sarcasm, people!

Technically they are right.
By Mitch101 on 4/1/2008 9:47:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yes if you are in front of me and when the light turns green and your too busy talking on the phone instead of driving. There is a possibility that I may get out of my car to kick your butt. In that scenario talking on the cell phone may be more dangerous that smoking.

By TimberJon on 4/1/2008 10:40:18 AM , Rating: 2
That cannot be correct.

There are approximately 6,658,536,638 people worldwide. give or take a thou.

There are a little over 334 Million people in the U.S.
Over 900 million if you include all the americas.

Approximately 3,733,783,474 people in asia. Smoke from what age?

800+ Million in Europe.

And a little under 500 million in the EU.

SO! I see the fact sheet on, but it says 1.1 Billion.

I would still think that this number is a bit higher. More like 1.5 billion. I guess the more accurate #s come from the sales of cigarettes themselves.

By MrBlastman on 4/1/2008 10:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
It is exactly what I see every day when I'm driving anywhere and look into a car that is driving erratically, wrecklessly, slow, or oblivious to the rest of the world.

There is always, without fail, someone yapping on a phone, staring off into some non-existent plane completely failing to pay attention to the MOST important thing in their life right THEN: Driving!

I don't know weather to believe these studies on cancer due to cell phone usage, but what I do know is - Cell phones ARE a Cancer to our roadways. I think this can not be disputed in the least.

It is clear that they:

a. Cause traffic
b. Increase the danger factor on the road
c. Decrease situational awareness
d. Increase (and cause) accidents
e. Are multiplying (a chief symptom of a malignant cancer)

There are people that argue handsfree devices are acceptable alternatives. I argue they are not as they are still detracting the drivers attention from the task at hand - DRIVING. Your safety, and everyone elses safety around you, is the important thing right then and there.

Not some phone call to your friend to gossip about what is going on in your lives.

If everyone would remember this, and keep the phone usage to nil when driving, I think traffic would flow more expeditiously.

So, study or not, they are a Cancer of their own sorts when related to driving.

Now, if we could only legally use Cell Phone jammers.... Or even import them for use... :(

By snownpaint on 4/1/2008 11:22:50 AM , Rating: 2
First off.. Get a blue tooth hands free ear bud, though you will look like a rambling sociopath talking to yourself, it does help in the following: It leaves both hands free to operate a car (mythbusters- drinking vs cellphone), rummage through your purse for change while I wait in line behind you("hold please!!", then put the phone down and dig with both hands-I love it), and (my favorite) trying to enter a phone number into your phone 3 digits at a time while talking on it.. ha-ha.

Seriously.. The output power of the cellphones are a fraction of what they use to be, though the amount of time used has increased exponentially. As with all radiation, time is just as an important factor as strength. you can nuke a potato for 5 mins on high, or 15 min on medium.. both result in a cooked potato.. the cell phone may be at a setting of ultra-low, however, 1000mins (16.6 hours a month) is very long time. (that is almost 1 yr of talking for every 40)

Finally, the communication towers/satellites can range in strength from 100W to 1500W. cellphone .2W. Add in 8011g wireless hot spots, police and military towers, off air broadcasts, XM radio, satellite TV, airport beacons, and thousands of other sources. We are being blasted with micro, radio, and long waves like nothing in the past. It may do nothing, but it wasn't there before..

Common Sense?
By PWNettle on 4/1/2008 6:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
I won't be surprised if we do learn for sure that cell phones cause health problems like cancer. Common sense dictatest that it can't possibly be healthy to have such a device next to your head excessively.

You know the insanely wealthy corporations overcharging for phones and especially service aren't going to let common sense or even research slow down their profits. They might even get Dubya to go to war with science to protect their right to continued profits.

By phxfreddy on 3/31/2008 8:46:05 PM , Rating: 1
......trial lawyers too???....we should kill them all because they might be dangerous. We must find out. Let's research it.........................This cell phone thing could not possibly be another attempt to find a cash cow like the farse that is cigarette taxes....or global warming from the policians....on no no no....could not be. These people only want the best for us. And they are perfectly willing to take all our money from us to buy it for us. Funny thing happened on the way to the bank though..........................

By Mootang on 3/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: Plagiarism?
By Duwelon on 3/31/2008 7:09:42 PM , Rating: 1
If you're going to call plagurism, you better back it up with more than just "I heard".

RE: Plagiarism?
By Mootang on 3/31/2008 8:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's not my name on the line, and I'm too lazy to go spend my time researching to prove something like that. I'm glad of this article because the public needs to be educated, but perhaps the author could watch how he or she reports stories; for that matter he/she might not have been aware that their words were very similar to the words of another.

Not to mention I did say that the NPR story did not give any mention of the comparison between cell phones and cigarette smoke, so it is by no means a direct or over arching instance of plagiarism.

I'm glad to see this is getting some attention, something that almost everyone uses should not put us all in mortal peril years down the road without the public being aware of the risks associated with use.

RE: Plagiarism?
By Ringold on 3/31/2008 11:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
So DailyTech is guilty until proven innocent, even by someone that makes unsubstantiated claims against them?

Sounds like our legal system!

These people probably all get the news from a small number of original sources. I think it's not at all shocking that two or more news providers sound quite similar to each other. If they got too creative, they could begin to distort the actual story I would imagine.

At any rate, the burden of proof isn't on DT. At least, thats how my moral system works anyway.

RE: Plagiarism?
By Diesel Donkey on 3/31/2008 8:22:09 PM , Rating: 1
Indeed, I think you should replace that cell phone. My phone wakes me up with audible noise. Yours sounds pretty useless in this capacity if it attempts to wakes you with imperceptible (though potentially harmful) radiation :)

RE: Plagiarism?
By daInvincibleGama on 3/31/2008 8:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
... nice. Well done.

RE: Plagiarism?
By Mootang on 3/31/2008 8:38:05 PM , Rating: 2
Audible noise? As does mine. What purpose does your comment serve?

RE: Plagiarism?
By Diesel Donkey on 3/31/2008 8:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
The purpose of my comment was to express my amusement with the accidental insinuation of your post that your phone was emitting harmful radiation while behaving simply as an alarm clock. I'm just not quite sure what your phone's alarm capabilities have to do with the wireless transmitting abilities that the article suggests may be dangerous to our cells (no pun intended).

RE: Plagiarism?
By Mootang on 3/31/2008 9:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Well think about it. When a cell phone is turned on (unless it has an 'airplane mode' as my previous model did), it is communicating with your wireless provider, which emits radiation that, as this article states, could potentially be harmful. What I was implying is that by using a cell phone as an alarm clock is subjecting you to excess radiation that could be avoided by simply turning the phone off and using a different device that does not emit radiation to the same degree, if at all, might be beneficial to my, or anyones health.
Clear enough?

RE: Plagiarism?
By Diesel Donkey on 4/1/2008 3:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, I see what you're saying. I guess I didn't really think it all the way through because I use a Palm Treo and I turn off the wireless transceiver when I go to bed. However, I would think that your cell phone is emitting orders of magnitude less radiation when it is just keeping in touch with the nearest tower, as opposed to when it's actually transmitting during a call.

RE: Plagiarism?
By mindless1 on 4/1/2008 5:49:30 AM , Rating: 1
First, as an alarm clock you won't have nearly the exposure level unless you were holding it to your head (if the radio is on at all in this mode). Distance matters quite a lot.

Second, you may not know how news distribution works, at TV and Radio stations, apparently here too. Ever heard of a news feed?

"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki