Cellphones are dangerous/not dangerous, the lost episode

When last we visited our hero, the beleaguered cellphone user seemed to be in the clear: a British study had apparently found "no evidence that using a cell phone has an effect on the development of tumors." But in a startling twist, it now appears that those results may not be accurate. A recent German study of cellphone users found that the risk of glioma -- a form of brain cancer -- doubled after 10 years of use. Another study, conducted by Orebro University in Sweden, found an increased risk of acoustic neuromas in long-term users of cellphones. And critics continue to question the interpretation of the results of the British study, saying that the results do, in fact, imply a greater risk to phone users. Will cellphone users develop cancer? Can they protect themselves by using headsets? Or are they doomed to a life of shouting into tin cans connected by very long strings in order to protect themselves from deadly diseases? Find out in our next exciting episode!

[DJ @ Feb 3rd 2006 2:55PM]

If they were really dangerous, wouldn't you be able to make microwave popcorn in your car with one???

[Dave @ Feb 3rd 2006 3:00PM]

So to avoid BRAIN CANCER...I will now be switching to a headset.

Course it's the latest and greatest bluetooth model to avoid those pesky wires.

How long til I see a report on if Bluetooth gives me BRAIN CANCER too?

[lupinstel @ Feb 3rd 2006 3:17PM]

I keep my cell phone in my pocket far more than I keep it pressed to my head. The international community of scientists need to address the real question "Are my balls safe?"

[Fuzz @ Feb 3rd 2006 3:18PM]

Dave, anything called "bluetooth" should give you cause for concern. . .

[Lon B @ Feb 3rd 2006 4:04PM]

yes, to avoid cancer, let's use headsets and then place our cellphones in our pocket near our chest or genitals. I love this plan.

[Brian @ Feb 3rd 2006 4:05PM]

You know, if you drink too much water, it can kill you. Hypochondriacs! All of us!

[yelohbird @ Feb 3rd 2006 4:36PM]

after TEN years of use...

which means that the users probably went from 850MHz analog in the mid-1990s to CDMA/TDMA and/or 850/900/1800/1900MHz GSM, not to mention potential use of 900MHz/2.4GHz home cordless phones.

Do differing frequencies (850MHz vs. 1900MHz) or technologies (perhaps strong bursts of TDMA are more dangerous than continuous streams of CDMA) make a difference? Are newer cellphones safer than older cellphones, or vice versa?

Time to bring in the lab rats =D

[SubSpecies23 @ Feb 3rd 2006 11:27PM]

"Time to bring in the lab rats =D"

I instantly imagined cages full of rats with tiny cell phones taped to the side of their heads.

[ken @ Feb 4th 2006 5:50AM]

According to an expert in this that I know, current headsets are worse than the phones as the radiation actually travels up the headset and is concentrated into the brain near the ear. And he claims that blue tooth is the worst of all as the actual frequency that bluetooth uses is particularly damaging to human tissue. There are devices on the market that absorb most of the radiation or the plastic tube headset which definitely stops the radiation from reaching the head.

[san @ Feb 4th 2006 8:52AM]

"Are newer cellphones safer than older cellphones, or vice versa?"

I recall that one of the Swedish studies concluded that the older, analog phones provided the most significant increase in risk and that much use of these phones was required to bump up the risk.

Aren't there a slew of devices that emit electromagnetic radiation near the head or body? Why the focus on mobile phones? Is it the hours of daily use for some people? If there were a significant risk you'd have expected to see an outrageous spike in certain kinds of cancers over the last decade.

[Fergus Kane @ Feb 7th 2006 8:58AM]

From the article: 'George Carlo... said the findings indicate a 24 percent increase in tumors among people who used the phone on the same side as the tumor'.

WTF does that mean?