UK study finds no link between illness and cell phone towers

Researchers in the UK have all but debunked the theory that cell phone towers, or electronic interference, is making people physically ill. A recent study done by Britain's Health Protection Agency (HPA) said that they could find no scientific evidence that feelings of anxiety, nausea, and tiredness occur due to the presence of electronics, or GSM and 3G cell phone equipment. The tests, carried out in 2005 and reported in Environmental Health Perspectives today, claim that when neither the researcher nor the subject knew if cell signals were being emitted, the number of symptoms reported was not related to signals present. Participants did report feeling ill, but it was independent of any cell phone signals, "Hence the range of symptoms and physiological response does not appear to be related to the presence of either GSM or 3G signals," the study said. Yeah, right, next thing you know they'll be telling us those voices we hear aren't "real" either.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

[Chuckles McGee @ Jul 25th 2007 12:27PM]

See, that's just the cure these poor, Wifi-sensitive suffers need- a good dose of scientific scrutiny.

[Matt @ Jul 25th 2007 12:44PM]

No one is denying their symptoms aren't real, it's just that EM waves are not causing them.

[bombastinator @ Jul 25th 2007 12:44PM]

how about a link between stupidity and believing RF scare stories?

[Pa$cal Votan @ Jul 25th 2007 1:12PM]

hahahaahahahah haha ahhah haha ha, HA!

[mr friggles @ Jul 25th 2007 1:56PM]

As if engadget would post a study that said the opposite. I doubt any sane person would relocate next to a tower with their pregnant wife even if it was free.

[Andrew @ Jul 25th 2007 2:05PM]

[quote]Yeah, right, next thing you know they'll be telling us those voices we hear aren't "real" either.[/quote]

As Dumbledore said to Harry Potter just before the end - "Of course it's all in your head. But that doesn't mean it's not real."

[Jason @ Jul 25th 2007 2:11PM]

Well, the thing that's always had me confused about this issue is that the medical science seems to point to waves of this frequency/power level as conflicting with the body's ability to heal itself and build cells. Therefore I don't understand the point of this study except that it says you won't have your body slowly fried by sitting next to your wifi hub. It's about the same as saying cell phones are safe because you can sit next to them and talk for a few hours and not feel anything. It would be a long term disruption.

[TrueDis @ Jul 25th 2007 2:35PM]

I miss the cell phones are/are not dangerous part XXX headlines...

[Tobin @ Jul 25th 2007 5:19PM]

"Well, the thing that's always had me confused about this issue is that the medical science seems to point to waves of this frequency/power level as conflicting with the body's ability to heal itself and build cells."

When has any study ever proven that? That's something that people assume is true with no proof, just because it seems like it "should" be true when you pump out that much energy.

[Bob Avo @ Jul 25th 2007 7:00PM]

Why do journalists and bloggers alike continue to incorrectly refer to mobile phones and towers as "cellular" and "cell"? "Cell" is analog and we in the US finally have a digital networks.

Cellular is dead! Use another term, as you're propogating inferior, non-existant technology.

[zed @ Jul 25th 2007 7:57PM]

"cellular" is a network organized in "cells", all wireless phone networks are "cellular" in nature, or they wouldn't work, just because your phone company says that they're a digital network doesn't mean that they're not using a "cellular" network, I've had this argument with Sprint people for years since they started their PCS BS, it didn't change the organization, just the frequencies and decoding means.

[t-bone @ Jul 25th 2007 8:49PM]

Meanwhile, TV stations all over are belting out much more powerful signals. Take KAUZ-TV, for example. It has a broadcasting power of 100,000 watts and a signal strength of 47dBu at about 60 miles away. That's over 11,000 square miles of EM coverage! Where's the outrage?

[Mike @ Jul 25th 2007 9:22PM]

Newsflash: breaking mirrors may not bring you 7 years of unfortunate circumstances. If they want a long term study of EM health risks, why not study ham radio operators, or even WWII radar operators? The truth is, people just don't like ugly masts erected in their neighbourhoods, bringing their property prices down. Do you notice how they refer to it as "Electromagnetic Radiation" - to Joe public the word "Radiation" invokes thoughts of Chernobyl and nuclear haulocaust. It's radio waves, folks, calm down.

[Ben @ Jul 26th 2007 1:49AM]

The study itself is flawed. Here are a few points:

BBC Article: "Campaign group Mast Sanity said the results were skewed as 12 people in the trials dropped out because of illness."

* What the BBC fails to report is that the 12 dropped out seemingly because of the effects; From Mast Sanity: "Their conclusion was made possible by eliminating 12 of the most sensitive electrosentive volunteers who had become too ill to continue the study. Even a child can see that by eliminating 12 of the original 56 electrosensitive volunteers - over 20% of the group - that the study integrity has been completely breached."

BBC Article: "The study was funded by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research programme, a body which is itself funded by industry and government."

"Funded by industry" meaning those with special interests including Vodafone and the Mobile Operators Association.

See Mast Sanity's responses to this study at the following:
http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=158&Itemid=70
http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=156&Itemid=70