NotDangerous
Latest
Cellphones are dangerous / not dangerous: little tykes under the spotlight
In the rough and tumble debate surrounding the mobile phone's ability to cause cancer, both sides agree that our young ones -- indeed, some of the heaviest users -- could be at an increased risk for cellular-induced tumors. According to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the radio emissions from mobile devices penetrate much deeper into the brains of children, and in the case of little tykes ages five to eight, their noggins will absorb twice the energy of the average adult. This, combined with their developing nervous systems, has brought concern for the welfare of our youngest mobile-savvy citizens, and led to a European study of nearly 1,000 (informed?) participants. Data was gathered over a four-year period, which relied upon self-reporting methods, where youngsters were found to not talk very often, and typically sent text messages instead -- big surprise, right? While long-term risks remain unknown, the researchers conclude that "a large and immediate risk of cellphones causing brain tumors in children can be excluded." In other words: little Suzy won't begin sprouting cancer cells overnight. While you doting parents may find comfort in the latest research, you might consider stopping short of giving the mischievous rascal an unlimited voice plan. After all, gossip still spreads best at the school yard. [Image courtesy Derek Olson (flickr)]
Cellphones are dangerous / not dangerous: Danish chatterbox edition
Concerned that a decade and a half of regular cellphone will have a long-term effect on your health? Hopefully the latest study conducted by members of the World Health Organization (WHO) will put your mind at ease. The examination followed nearly 3 million Danish adults, studying links between phone use and the formation of acoustic neuromas -- non-cancerous, slow-growing brain tumors that form on the main nerve that connects the inner ear to the brain. The study concluded that people who've used a handset for 11-15 years weren't any more likely to develop a tumor than those who don't use cellphones at all, though scientists are unsure that this is a long enough period of time to determine a significant correlation (or lack thereof). Still, this comes as refreshing news two months after the WHO released a study revealing that RF waves coming from phones are "potentially carcinogenic," due to a limited link to glioma and acoustic neuroma. Of course, none of these reports can actually conclude that cellphones cause cancer -- only that the two may be correlated. So, what does this latest study really do? It legitimizes the need to conduct more studies.
Cellphones are dangerous / not dangerous: cancer experts say 'What, me worry?'
If you haven't already gotten whiplash from the ongoing cellphone-cancer debate, a freshly released scientific review might just do the trick. In the paper, published Friday, a panel of experts from Britain, Sweden and the US conducted a thorough survey of previous studies, before concluding that existing literature is "increasingly against" the theory that cellphone use causes brain tumors in adults. The researchers also questioned the biological mechanisms underpinning this hypothesis, while acknowledging some lingering uncertainties, since data on childhood tumors and longer-term research are still lacking. The results come just a few weeks after the World Health Organization released its own literature review, in which it claimed that cell phones should be considered "potentially carcinogenic." But Anthony Swerdlow, a professor at Britain's Institute of Cancer Research and leader of the most recent investigation, said his group's work doesn't necessarily contradict the WHO, since the latter was simply seeking to evaluate cancer risks according to its own "pre-set classification system" -- under which things like pickled vegetables and coffee are also considered "potentially carcinogenic." Unfortunately, this doesn't mean that the debate will die down anytime soon, though Swerdlow expects more definitive conclusions within the next few years -- assuming, of course, that all of our brains haven't turned to oatmeal by then.
Cellphones are dangerous / not dangerous: the WHO changes its mind
To say that experts generally don't agree about whether cellphone radiation can fry your brain is an understatement of massive proportions, but amazingly enough, the World Health Organization has come to a pseudo-conclusion. A group of 31 scientists from 14 countries working in the org's International Agency for Research on Cancer says that -- based on a survey of the literature -- those electromagnetic fields are as likely to be potentially carcinogenic as 266 other worrisome substances, including DDT pesticide and the exhaust from your automobile. Mind you, the WHO isn't saying that cellphones cause cancer, as today's decision is merely the latest call for more research, but the fact that respected scientists even claim that a correlation should be considered will probably be enough to stir the pot.
Cellphones are dangerous / not dangerous: handsets alter brain activity -- scientists don't know what that means
Cellphones are bad, mmkay? Or at least that is what many want us to believe, what with all these warning labels and studies telling us that mobile users will end up with brain cancer and kidney damage. Not to mention the dangers of phone addiction -- horror of horrors -- for our youth. Now, the National Institutes of Health have shown that radiation from your phone's antenna turns you into a supergenius increases brain activity. Using positron emission tomography (PET) scans on 47 individuals with a muted phone on each ear (to prevent aural brain stimulation), the study found a seven percent increase in brain activity in the area closest to the phones' antennas when receiving a call. The catch -- scientists don't know "whether this is detrimental or if it could even be beneficial," so don't go trading your Cell-Mate in for a Bluetooth headset just yet.
3D is dangerous / not dangerous: Nintendo 3DS warning label edition
Oh boy -- get ready for years of competing studies and hysterical news reports claiming that 3D is either life-threateningly dangerous or perfectly safe. (Cellphone radiation, take a backseat.) Today's delightful round of panic comes courtesy of Nintendo's Japanese warning guidelines for the 3DS: players are advised that 3D gameplay causes eye fatigue more quickly than 2D gaming and are told to take a break after 30 minutes of play -- and you should quit immediately if you get ill, which makes sense. Nintendo also says that children under six shouldn't use the 3D mode at all, since their eyes are still developing, and that parents can use controls built into the 3DS to lock it into 2D mode for children.
CTIA sues San Francisco over cellphone radiation law
San Francisco may have signed cellphone radiation labels into law, but the stickers won't stick without a fight -- the Cellular Telephone Industries Association (CTIA) just filed a complain in federal district court, claiming the new law supersedes the FCC's authority to regulate radio emissions and misleads consumers into believing some phones are safer than others. As we've discussed previously, the CTIA does have something of a point. Every phone that makes it to market is rigorously tested for cell phone radiation levels, and those that pass fall below a specific 1.6 watt per kilogram threshold already. But hey, we're all for bombarding our brains with that much less radiation, as long as our calls stay connected and our text messages arrive on time. If only there were a label for that... Read the CTIA's full complaint at our more coverage link.
Cellphone radiation law to help, confuse San Francisco consumers
Oh San Francisco, you and your progressive ways. The city just passed a law -- a first in the US -- requiring retailers to post the Specific Absorption Rates (aka SAR, the rate at which at which energy is absorbed by the body) in no less than 11-point font right next to any cellphone being sold. Sounds good as far as consumer education goes, right? And a functioning democracy demands an educated and informed electorate. But here's the thing: the jury's still out (just pick your favorite dangerous / not dangerous study to fit your belief) on the effect of radiation at levels less than the 1.6 watts per kilogram threshold set by the FCC. As such, CTIA spokesman John Walls has a point when he says that highlighting the SAR levels might confuse consumers into thinking that some cellphones are safer than others. In other words, consumer education needs to go much further than any retail-shelf placard could possibly communicate. Well, at least the law will keep us safe long enough to walk out the door and trip over a hippie. P.S. The image above is from the "Get a Safer Phone" (note the wording) rankings provided by the Environmental Working Group.
Cellphones are dangerous/not dangerous, watch your kidneys edition
Believe it or not, this latest study on how cell phones are killing you doesn't invoke the dreaded c-word. Instead, scientists at the European Research Institute for Electronic Components in Bucharest found that exposing red blood cells to low-level radiation -- lower than what emanates from your mobile buddy, apparently -- caused them to leak hemoglobin, which they say can lead to kidney damage and heart disease. The Federation of the Electronics Industry have already come out swinging, saying there is still no consistent evidence the mobile devices are physically hurting us. If history tells us anything, expect to see a report in the near future on how inconclusive these findings are, followed by separate findings on how beneficial a healthy kick of radiation to the kidneys can be.[Via textually]
Cellphones are dangerous/not dangerous, you're better off smoking edition
You've heard just how dangerous holding that cellphone upside your noggin is, but this time, the research is really for real. Reportedly, an award-winning cancer expert (Dr. Vini Khurana) has concluded that mobile phones -- in the long run -- could end up killing far more Earthlings than smoking or asbestos ever could. As we've heard countless times before, this fellow is warning that heavy mobile users could end up with brain tumors that threaten their livelihood, and feels that a direct link between handset use and certain tumors will be "definitively proven" in the next decade. Additionally, he suggests that individuals avoid using the cancer generators whenever possible, and that governments and the mobile industry at large take "immediate steps" to reduce radiation exposure. You won't be laughing if he's right.[Via Digital Lifestyles]
Cellphones are dangerous/not dangerous, hodgepodge edition
Lest the danger (or non-danger) of cellphone use stray too far from your mind, here's a trio of recent studies to get the juices flowing again. First, the best news: an Australian researcher has come up with a five-point ranking system to lay out the likelihood of getting cancer from partaking in various substances and activities, and if that system has any basis in reality, cellphones are "unlikely" to cause cancer -- so take it for what you will. The second study, thrown down by the Cleveland Clinic, showed a significant decrease in sperm "quality" (as determined by a number of stats) as average daily cellphone usage increased; not necessarily a short-term problem for the users themselves, but a finding their future children (or lack thereof) might take issue with. The third study brings more bad news, showing that human skin exposed to cellphone radiation altered the cells' protein expression, a potential (though by no means definitive) precursor to cancer. As always, your mileage -- and your body's mileage -- may vary.[Via textually.org]Read - "Cell Phones No Cancer Risk, Study Says"Read - "Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study" [Warning: PDF link]Read - "Mobile phone radiation might alter protein expression in human skin"
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.
Cellphones are dangerous/not dangerous, peaceful slumber edition
Never mind tumors, can we please just get a decent night's rest? New research from the Electromagnetic Academy at MIT (and commissioned by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, no less) found that individuals in their study who were blasted with RF typical of cellphones immediately prior to sleeping had their sleeping patterns adversely affected. Furthermore, when the relentless onslaught of electromagnetic radiation continued after the subjects were asleep, researchers found that were more likely to suffer headaches. A deadly side effect? Not really, though it might make us cranky enough to inflict some harm on passers by.[Via textually.org]
