FDA-commissioned study says we don't know much about wireless risks

Just in case our long-running series of posts regarding the danger / safety of cellphone and WiFi radiation didn't tip you off, an FDA-commissioned study was just published by the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science that basically says we've got a lot left to learn about the effects of all those radio waves. The FDA wanted to know where to concentrate research efforts in order to better understand wireless safety, and it looks like there are quite a few gaps in the research: the study says there needs to be further study on the effects of wireless radiation on children, pregnant women, and fetuses, both long- and short-term, and that frequency and power differences between different types of radiation need to be better understood in order to apply current knowledge to new products. All in all, it looks like there's a lot we don't know -- but that's not going to stop us from rocking this Bluetooth headset while browsing and taking a call.

[Austin @ Jan 21st 2008 9:24PM]

But what if those waves are a good thing? like "mini-chemotherapy"? Hah! This bit of ignorance can answer any medico-ethical questions we might have.

[Andrew @ Jan 21st 2008 9:51PM]

Instead of spouting out random useless garbage, you should have just typed "first" and saved us all the trouble of reading that.

[Flashpoint @ Jan 21st 2008 9:52PM]

Every Human Being is BATHED in electromagnetic radiation 24/7 from their birth till their death. And that is only counting the radiation from the sun, starlight and Earth itself. However, I sincerely doubt that evolution (which I believe in) would allow man to survive and adapt if natural radiation wasn't somehow factured into our adaptation.

But as for artificial electromagnetic waves...they must be harmful in some way we don't understand fully. EM energy has the ability to ionize particles - which means that even the atoms of our skin are at risk. EM energy has the ability to excite particles in our biochemical makeup.m That is PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT.

So what would make anyone think that surrounding ourselves with electromagnetic waves for our entire lives wasn't dangerous?

Do these people not believe in radiation at all?

Why not get them to stand unprotected in front of an Xray machine or hand them a block of Uranium and see if they are still nay sayers 24 hours later.

And why would the industry lie about it? TO SELL MORE DEVICES.

If you can't get the "industry" to come clean about cigarettes causing cancer, then I sincerely doubt they will blink before selling you an iPhone or a Nintendo DS even if their is a possibility of wifi causing damage to life.

And if we proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that wifi was dangerous...would people stop using it? NOPE.

Tell W Bush that the sonar that he allowed the NAvy to use is causing whales to beach themselves BTW.

[Andrew @ Jan 21st 2008 9:56PM]

My goodness you're a sad cynical person.

[DarkLightConnection @ Jan 21st 2008 10:06PM]

What?

I voted + to Flashpoint

He just said the truth... Want it or not, is the truth.

And cigarettes are a nice example of it.

What at some point they thought to be a good thing, is now causing millions of deaths and going illegal in a lot of countries.

[aguiluz @ Jan 21st 2008 10:08PM]

@ Flashpoint

"Why not get them to stand unprotected in front of an Xray machine or hand them a
block of Uranium and see if they are still nay sayers 24 hours later."

A block of Uranium and an X-Ray machine? A household transmitter (Bluetooth, Wifi, GSM, etc.) only creates waves in the strength of milliwatts. Milliwatts!

Comparing a household transmitter to U-232 and an X-Ray machine is like comparing the breeze of an electric fan to the blast of a jet engine. Really. Oh, so I am bathed in reactor-class nuclear radiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 52(?) weeks for life?

[aguiluz @ Jan 21st 2008 10:12PM]

In the light of these facts that *we* are bathed in reactor-class nuclear radiation, we might be considering radiation suits as the new fashion. Then that will solve our problems.

[Shane @ Jan 21st 2008 10:12PM]

@Flashpoint:

We're talking about NON-IONIZING electromagnetic radiation (i.e. Radio Frequency) here. COMPLETELY different from the kind of radiation you refer to.

The biggest risk from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation is heating of tissue. This heating is what actually causes tissue damage but otherwise there have been no proven ill effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.

Obviously the power level, frequency and exposure duration may change the effect but the casual exposure most people receive is nothing to worry about.

[DarkLightConnection @ Jan 21st 2008 10:22PM]

@Shane: I overlooked where he said ionizing..

Yes, this is non-ionizing radiation, much less dangerous... but it still can harm you. In the mW range of power. It not being oficially proven yet is a totally different thing, but it can. And it has been "unoficially" proven.

[Don @ Jan 22nd 2008 1:20AM]

"but it still can harm you. In the mW range of power."

No, sir - it cannot. A 10 year study on the effects of EM more or less put the nail into the EM-Cancer supposition. It was undertaken as a response to the science ignorant among us. They clamored that it was nearby electrical towers and not their low-income status/poor prenatal care/ high industrially polluted neighborhoods that was causing ailments in their kids. They were, in a word, completely wrong.

In the course of 10 years, hundreds of millions of dollars (that could have been spent on actual disease research) were spent mollifying a group of people who got all their science information from 'In Search Of". Your insistence doesn't change that *no study* has shown a link between human Radio transmission and various forms of cell and genetic damage.

All of you damn luddites who think that your sky is crashing down because waves less powerful than that of a mild sunset are hitting your precious cells are making us waste time on research that is unneeded, unwarranted, and most of all, repetitious.

"Yeah, and because the part that generates semen is invincible. It's a man's strongest point. Nothing hurts in there."
You don't have ANY idea of how gametogenesis works, do you? *sigh :(.*

[teej @ Jan 22nd 2008 8:45AM]

Andrew = wet blanket

[DarkLightConnection @ Jan 22nd 2008 6:58PM]

OK, I see I'll never win this war with words..

Just hold on to your opinions, and I'll hold on to mine... we'll see who wins

[dshankar @ Jan 21st 2008 9:31PM]

Lol when I saw the title, I thought you meant wifi risks not radiation from wireless stuff.

I remember a thorough British study claimed that cellphone radiation may cause sterility in the long term.

[Reader @ Jan 21st 2008 9:39PM]

That's because Brits are crazy. Yup, every single one of them. No exceptions.

Trying my best to sound like one of them when they talk about Americans :D

[Andrew @ Jan 21st 2008 9:53PM]

Wifi and wireless....something tells me they're, for the most part, one in the same.

[HyperHacker @ Jan 21st 2008 11:06PM]

So the radiation is strong enough to cause sterility but not brain damage? What exactly are they doing with these phones?

Also, my first thought when I saw the title was "no shit, nobody encrypts their wifi".

[dshankar @ Jan 22nd 2008 12:09AM]

@Andrew Although wifi and wireless may be the same (they are not necessary - bluetooth can be wireless, 2.4 Ghz keyboards, phones etc. are wireless, some speakers are wireless etc.) but we meant that 'wireless risks' may be interpreted as 'risk of having wifi' or as in this case, 'risk of using wireless devices such as cell phones and bluetooth headsets.'

[paul34 @ Jan 21st 2008 9:37PM]

In other news today, the FDA commissioned a study which concluded that a study needed to be done in order to find out whether we need to do a study.

[what @ Jan 21st 2008 9:40PM]

The FDA, along with the USDA, is a joke. Any organization that would allow the legalization of r-BGH, among other substances, into our food supply should be ignored when studies on health are involved.

[Jeebus @ Jan 22nd 2008 12:43PM]

Why? It's a simple protein, easily broken down in your digestive system, rendering it completely and utterly useless. Why do you think it has to be injected to be useful?

Mmmm, protein.

[DarkLightConnection @ Jan 21st 2008 9:41PM]

"but that's not going to stop us from rocking this Bluetooth headset while browsing and taking a call."

Wrong. That's exactly what keeps me from using a BT headset and using WiFi when my laptop is on my legs or in any other way near *that* part.

[Andrew @ Jan 21st 2008 9:54PM]

Yeah, because semen isn't being regenerated constantly.

[DarkLightConnection @ Jan 21st 2008 10:01PM]

Yeah, and because the part that generates semen is invincible. It's a man's strongest point. Nothing hurts in there.

[Jack Storm @ Jan 21st 2008 11:33PM]

haha paranoid. you should stay in doors all day. and DO NOT even think about going into a starbucks, mcdonalds or your local high tech cafe, the rayz will nuke ya!

[aguiluz @ Jan 21st 2008 9:55PM]

It could be dangerous when you ram the transmitter up your nose. Seriously, only high powered transmitters (read: magnetron) can cause "enough radiation" to harm us.

[KC @ Jan 21st 2008 10:03PM]

Sounds like some research department wants more money to continue "their research" by using a tagline like "we've got a lot left to learn about the effects of all those radio waves".

[HyperHacker @ Jan 21st 2008 11:07PM]

Japan has wireless stuff everywhere. 'nuff said.

[Jon Doe. @ Jan 22nd 2008 12:48AM]

No it isn't enough said. I'm so sick of people coming onto these boards acting like they know the answer to everything. How fracking long did we use CFC's before it was found that it fucks the ozone up badly? Take a look at every other invention by man. DDT and asbestos two more good examples. No one has done extensive studies on this subject. The most we have is 2-5 year studies. Tell me what happens to someone 20 years from now. Hell 20 years ago the cell wasn't even at a Ghz.
The simple fact is we really aren't going to know the fallout of our wireless world for at least a couple more decades. Let the frog sit in the boiling water a little longer before we start calling it safe.

[Don @ Jan 22nd 2008 1:22AM]

John, you don't get sarcasm well.

[Kyle @ Jan 21st 2008 11:09PM]

Pfft... Maybe the rest of you don't...

[Jon Doe. @ Jan 22nd 2008 12:40AM]

Before you can have an answer you must know what the questions are grasshopper.

[Nerdelphia @ Jan 22nd 2008 4:13AM]

Screw that!
Maybe being exposed to this "harmful radiation" will help me gain those superpowers I always wanted!
With everyone getting the bad side effects surely somebody will get the benefits of laser beams shooting out of their hands, x-ray vision & super strength!

[Rocketboy @ Jan 22nd 2008 8:54AM]

So, the FDA says that although MILLIONS (Billions?) have all ready been spent all over the world studying "wireless risks", they think that we would be best served by spending more taxpayer money to find the same results? Thanks for that one.

[jason @ Jan 22nd 2008 12:39PM]

Perhaps the reason we know so little about the risks of wireless tech is because there are no risks to it. The risks of nuclear tech are evident as are the risks of over exposure to sunlight. Put simply, there are no evident risks of wireless tech.

[prefora @ Jan 22nd 2008 7:20PM]

Well, both my father and my brother are neurosurgeons, the former being one of the top experts in the world and they rather do not use a cell phone unless necessary... I rather trust their intuiotion and decades of exploring the human brain than anyone else. We don't know shit how big the risks are, we will know in 10 - 20 years and I'm sure big money will talk to not have them exposed.