What is Digg?97 Comments
- officecamel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23But cell phones do cause idiot drivers :)
- Railer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24Every time real science wins out over junk science, some where in the world, a trial lawyer cries.
- Motocompo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20OH NO!!! What if WI-FI causes cancer now? AAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
- primehifi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15May not cause cancer but it still contributes to a lot of deaths.
- jasondragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9One problem with cell phone studies are the numerous variables that have to be accounted for. How far away is the user from a cell tower, type of phone, how the phone is held, headset used, antenna up, which ear do they hold the phone to, etc.
- Alegis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Those who do venture outside their PC chamber once in a while appreciate the technology.
- Odweaver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Well this article ruined my hope of the people traveling in the left lane on the freeway at fifteen miles per hour getting a brain tumor from their damn cell phones.
- Alegis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8My tin foil hat protected me anyways
- _Caboose_, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Good job on spelling moron. I'm sorry, but that's just too ironic to keep quiet about :)
- NGNR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6What about cellphone towers? Cellphones might not cause cancer, and we don't carry towers in our pockets, but we cant dismiss everything else.
http://www.rense.com/general71/brain.htm
Also on the side, anyone recall any cellphone myths(if they are myths)?
-Such as, if you keep it in your pocket, to point the batter away from your body. - elk1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8second hand cellphone use kills 50,000 people a day
- NYC10004, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6That's great news. However cellphones haven't been around long enough to determine anything conclusively. Scientists are always comming up with contradictory results, so still they proabbly dont really know anything, but they never really do anyway.
- Raz75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Cell phones don't cause cancer? Well, something's definitely rotten in the state of Denmark...
- xocomil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Totally! I hate it when I'm talking on my cellphone and some idiot in their SUV cuts me off. Every time I drive by to flip them off, I've noticed they're on their cellphone. Damn idiot drivers and their cellphones...
- maehem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I'm so bummed. I was hoping that all those annoying loud talking cell phone adicts would die off.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here we go with the digg downs again. The title of bites off more than it can chew, people.
- jfarquhar, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Finally, I never believed that ***** anyway. These days just about everything cures or causes cancer.
- ncc1701, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@vandread
And how do you think we would've heard about it, smartass? Through studies like this, of course. - yadobaka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Motocompo: Most Wi-Fi does indeed operate at 2.4 GHz, which is the same frequency your average microwave uses. The reason microwaves use 2.4 GHz is because it is an ideal frequency which excites hydrogen atoms. As water (note: H2O) can be found in almost all foods, hydrogen is also found in all food. The moving hydrogen atoms create heat, and heat your food. So essentially, household electronics that operate at 2.4 GHz such as Wi-Fi and many cordless handsets act somewhat like an open microwave. It's great holding a mini-microwave next to your brain. This being said, cell phones do NOT operate at 2.4 GHz and seem less likely to cause damage. Below find typical cell phone operating ranges.
GSM cell phones use frequencies within four different frequency bands :
850 MHz (824.2 - 848.8 MHz Tx; 869.2 - 893.8 MHz Rx)
900 MHz (880-2 - 914.8 MHz Tx; 925.2 - 959.8 MHz Rx)
1800 MHz (1710.2 - 1784.8 MHz Tx; 1805.2 - 1879.8 MHz Rx)
1900 MHz (1850.2 - 1909.8 MHz Tx; 1930.2 - 1989.8 MHz Rx)
Although cell phones do not operate at 2.4 GHz I am still wary and use speakerphone when possible. Cell phones are a relatively new and untested technology. There are no 20 year studies and everything one can say about them and their affect on health is theoretical. I hear all the time "cell phones give you cancer, no they don't, yes they do, no they don't." Why should I listen to and trust one more study that says they don't cause cancer when there are many studies opposing this conviction? - colklink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3*ahem...aluminum...ahem*
Is there even such a thing as "tin" foil anymore? =) - WhyBother, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Or he could be a regular at fark.com.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fark.com_clich%C3%A9s
Just a thought.
/edit: whoops. beaten to it. - Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Look, the amount of radiation we walk through every day pales in comparison to what a cell phone puts out. From overhead electrical wires, wireless networks, and signals from satellites, along with the usual radio signals that we have lived with now for one hundred years , not to mention the earth's own magnetic field and radiation from space, cell phones are the least of my worries. If cell phone's and their typical 3 watts of transmission power caused cancer, then we would all be walking tumors.
If you are worried, stop using them, or put on your aluminum helmets and jocks. - SanTe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As do PDAs: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/294861_crash06.html
- Cyrack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3On a side note: the institute which conducted the study is payed by Kræftens Bekæmpelse (an Anti cancer organization, created to battle cancer and fund research to better understand how cancer works). If this study in any way was biased it would be cellphones == cancer.
- lopla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You idiots didn't read the fine print:
"This study funded by Nokia, Motorola and Sharp" - NGNR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2sorry typo...batter = battery.
- lordsandwich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hmm, no mention of analog vs. digital cellphones in the study? Wasn't the former supposed to emit a stronger and more constant signal?
- colklink, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What about testicular cancer and/or sterilization?
I'm not one who really believes these claims, but I have seen articles implying that this may be a problem with cellphones, especially since many men (not as many women I suppose) carry their phones in their pockets or on their belt.
Worrying about your brain is all well and good, but won't someone think of the testes!?! - dylanrush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If cell phone frequencies couldn't penetrate our bodies, we would have to stand and face cell phone towers whenever we had to make calls. Judging by the fact that we can still get reception while the phone is in our pockets, the waves do in fact penetrate our whole bodies. The question is whether or not it can break down DNA (which it probably can't.)
- lopla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No doubt, it's worse than the tobacco industry and their oh so famous "doesn't cause cancer" propaganda..
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The sad thing about this is that not nearly as many people will hear about this study compared to the number of people that heard the original declaration to begin with. There was also a link between aluminum vessels (pop cans, etc.) and Alzheimer's. Even though that study was debunked (turns out the samples were tainted), there are still millions of people that will not accept it. I know one of them. I even told him that the study was proven wrong, and he STILL believes it.
People have a tendency to believe the worst, and even if you tell them there's nothing to fear, they won't believe you and accuse the second study of being tainted (or corrupt, or whatever the usual conspiracy theorist nonsense of the hour is). - changyang1230, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The important difference between cellphones and other common electromagnetic wave sources is that you don't put satellites next to your brain regularly. And remember that the intensity of an EM wave is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A lot of money in the cell phone industry. Maybe the data was tampered with. It isn't like that hasn't happened before.
- glmory, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its really simple, it takes electromagnetic radiation of much higher energy than a cell phone has to break chemical bonds. Without breaking chemical bonds it is pretty hard to mutate genes(it would require some unknown and unlikely mechanism where radio waves cause cells to break their own genes). Therefore the DNA in your sperm is perfectly safe...
- lopla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Then why do several studies show changes in the brain chemistry and tissue from cellphone usage? You are going down the 'out of sight out of mind' road, have fun..
- colklink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum#Spelling
Apparently, both spellings are correct, which explains why my spell check allowed "aluminum". - randoms, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, cancer or not, they still make me dizzy and give me a headache after more than about 5 minutes of use. Call me crazy, a hypochondriac, whatever; I feel it.
- glmory, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2From a theoretical standpoint this was always a long shot that they cause cancer. low energy radiation like that in cell phones doesn't have enough energy to break bonds in DNA. The worst it can do is heat things up. If it did cause cancer it would have been a sign that we really are missing something big in physics and biology we have understood for a long time.
- RichSwoffer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Precisely my friend. In little Denmark there is a cell tower every darn mile. The crucial cancer factor is the signal strength your cellphone needs to use to have a strong connection with the nearest tower. The farther you are away from a tower the more "juice" is pumping through your phone, and in turn your brain and other specialized tissues of the head. These higher energy levels used for longer transmission/reception will mutate DNA in cells. This article's presentation as the "final truth" is a very scary lobbying attempt by the cellphone industry pundits who don't understand the human body, and only want more money in turn for less health.
- lenaris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Absolutely. Too soon to tell, but this is potentially good news. I've read frequencies above 600MhZ can penetrate skin. Let's give it another 10-15 years and see if anyone gets anything.
- vguard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So now, beaming microwave energy into your head is perfectly safe?...I still say, no thanks!
More propaganda from the cell phone industry...How many billions of dollars are on the line? Who's interest does this story benefit? Who commissioned the study? - sarusa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sorry, this will never convince all the nervous nellies.
OH YAH WELL MAYBE IN DENMARK THE FJORDS NEGATE THE BRAIN CANCER BUT HOW ABOUT THE US
Or such.
Edit: Aahahahaa. I didn't realize that glooper23 had basically done this as I was entering my comment. - atb12688, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm waiting for the Global "Warming" article like this to come out. Global Climate Change that we can't do anything about because of Red China.
- o2o2o2o2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5And if believe what they tell you today, you'll be sorry tomorrow. People wont believe things are bad for you till there is hard proof. Common sense is dead.
ASBESTOS - The wonderful new fire retardant......... Until you die a slow death from it.
LOVE CANAL - Lets build a community on top of a toxic waste dump....... Until everyone gets sick, some die.
GULF WAR SYNDROME - There's no such thing, doesn't exist...... Until it does. Many people have unexplained illness from the gulf war. Why its unexplained? Mixing all the different elements that lead to the illness probably has not been replicated in a lab environment, so with nothing to referr to, its easier to say it doesnt exist
LASIC SURGERY - Lets use laser beams to correct peoples vision..... Until we find out years later that unforeseen long term damage was done to the eye that cannot be corrected.
POWER LINES - Place homes next to power-lines.......Until people start getting high occurrences of leukemia, but, supposedly its not related.
CELL PHONES - Its totally safe...... Until it isn't. Years from now we will figure out why placing a radio transmitter directly against the skull next to the brain wasn't such a good thing.
DON'T always believe what people tell you. Sometimes you just gotta use your own common sense and judgment. If you want to place a transmitter next to your skull go for it, but understand it might have consequences later in life. - _Caboose_, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@bigdavediode:
I wasn't aware of that; that's hilarious. Maybe I was in the wrong (although I still don't believe I am). Either way, thanks for informing me. - tsaylor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4It might just be a misspelling, but google "get a brain morans" and you'll see his possibly accidental reference.
- CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The tumor in Johny Cochran's (a man notorious for being on his cell 24/7) head had me second guessing the things, but it's good to hear some positive news.
- Fracture98, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Stop worrying? Who was worrying. *Everyone* has a cell phone, but when was the last time you saw someone with a pink ribbon stuck to a huge scar on their phone ear?
- wolrah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Do normal cordless phones have the same effect? Because you know, GSM phones run at 850 and 1900MHz here in the US (900 and 1800 elsewhere). Older cordless phones and most radio-based personal devices (walkie-talkies, R/C cars, etc.) before 2000 or so used the 900MHz band, so logically these would produce similar effects as a GSM phone operating on an 850MHz tower, albeit to a lesser extent thanks to the lower power of unlicensed devices.
- iluvhatemail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2when i worked for nextel years ago i had to reassure nearly every elderly person that there was no scientific proof that cell phones cause cancer. I would ask where they heard that and they would always answer "the tv". Which I would reply the reporters on the news are not scientists. Finally some evidence supporting my claim.
-
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is