What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
98 Comments
- Keropipi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29a bluetooth headset still transmits wireless signals through your head.
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28Everyone please calm down.
Cell phones use radio waves, which are physically to big (the wavelength) to mess around with things inside cells - ggarenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21as long as the tumor can connect through bluetooth and act as an earpiece, i'm all for it.
- EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17And BOY have we patented it!
- littleidiot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13what are you talking about??? the iphone can heal tumors!
- macbwizard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Yes, Cell Phones use microwaves which are lower in energy than visible light. Microwaves are also non-ionizing meaning that they do not change genetic material in any way. People who believe that cell phones cause tumors do not understand the science behind it at all.
- TheAkolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9nothing can penetrate my aluminum cap!
- ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13"This is NOT good."
No, there is something wrong here. If 39% of those who had used cell phones for ten years had tumors, we would be hearing a good bit more about it. It may be true that out of those in the study that was true, but how big was the study?
I've used a cell phone since 1998... "oh noes!" Coming up on 10 years! - alex189a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9-TheAkolyte
Yes, often manifested in unhealthy usage of sarcasm and cynical humor. Wait a sec... - sorgasm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Although Bluetooth is indeed transmitting wireless signals, the power is MUCH less. Cellphones typically emit a signal of about .5W, while the Bluetooth standard used in headsets is no stronger than .001W = 1mW - several orders of magnitude smaller.
http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/corporate_responsibility/health/radiowaves.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth - jsg7, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13"Cell phones use radio waves, which are physically to big (the wavelength) to mess around with things inside cells"
And the scientific proof of this is where? - Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8very very very very very hard to believe, considering how dense the EM activity is without cellphones taken into account, we should all be riddled with cancers.
- Jolls, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9cellular waves are everywhere, whether or not you are holding a phone. Think of all the electromagnetic waves traveling through you at any given time. TV signals, Radio Signals, Cellular signals......
- dopplerdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Neither does correlation."
- diggmeplease, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If you think that wearing a bluetooth headset is going to keep a tumor from growing, you better check "the googles."
- laserman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Before separating out long-term users or looking at the different risks of developing tumours on the side where users held the phone, the scientists found no link between mobile use and gliomas."
THIS IS REPORTING BIAS
Basically, the people with gliomas are told they are participating in a study about mobile phones and cancer. What do you know? More of them say they used their phone on the side where they have cancer. It is likely don't accurately report their behavior.
I talk on the phone 2000 minutes/month and couldn't even tell you what side I put my phone on. This is crap. - zephc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8obligitory "It's not a toomah!"
- jsg7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9And a lot of people have them on their head CONSTANTLY. Worse than cell phone radiation that's only in effect while you talk.
Best thing might be earbuds with wires... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7When I see the study, I'll believe it.
- CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I have a problem with this. There are 2 types of radiation, ionizing and non-ionizing. Ionizing radiation, as the name implies, can ionize or pull electrons from the atom. Gamma rays, x-rays, UV are forms of ionizing radiation. There is tons of research that support exposure to ionizing radiation causing cancer. Radio, microwave, visible light are non-ionizing. They can excite the electron (change it's orbit) but not pull the electron from orbit. There is a lot of research on the health effects of non-ionizing radiation and there is non that I am aware of that links this type of energy to cancer.
I, for one will continue to use both my cell and 5.8 Ghz wireless phones, as well as my wireless network. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Corrality does not imply causalation?
- kurophoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The original research (or at least the abstract) can be found here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114072761/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
The important part relating to the 10 years of mobile use:
"For more than 10 years of mobile phone use reported on the side of the head where the tumor was located, an increased OR of borderline statistical significance (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.01, 1.92, p trend 0.04) was found, whereas similar use on the opposite side of the head resulted in an OR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.71, 1.37). Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn."
The "of borderline statistical significance" seems to be the important bit - richfiddler11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You're probably more likely to die from a car crash due to talking on the cellphone instead of watching where you're driving
- jurow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4obligitory "I'm in ur cellphone irradiating all ur brainz"
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4there was a story on digg a few months ago about pizza causing cancer
- AnotherBrian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Re: DigeratiPrime
Further more, microwave ovens can't cause cancer either, even if you cooked your head for years. You would die of over heating just like in a gas or electric oven. - felderado, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You get larger doses of radiation from standing in the sunlight and we aren't walking tumors.
I call BS. - quackbot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Microwaves excite electrons, causing heat, which cooks the food. The microwaves themselves do not 'cook' the food.
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4correct, spending time at the corral does not imply causality
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Microwave ovens use 2.4 ghz, as does bluetooth and 802.11.
Cell phones (GSM) use somewhere between 800-900 Mhz or 1800-1900 Mhz.
Not the same frequencies at all, although technically they're still "microwaves". - sn00kie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Not to sure what to make of the article... I've heard so many things.....
My modern physics teacher insisted that the wavelength was to large and radiation was just not enough....
On the other hand, my last cell phone, LG, had actually written into the user manual that 'this product may cause cancer'. (Not those words but you get the idea) - idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Your mom gave me cancer.
- Opperior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OK, everyone say it with me:
"Corrality does not imply causality."
Keep in mind also that the analog cell phones of 10 years ago used a lot more power the today's digital cell phones. - davecor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4OK... so let's say one day they prove conclusively that cell phones cause brain tumors...
I bet some people will continue to use them - and will ignore the mandatory Surgeon General's warning label.
Some people's urge to blather the mundane details of their lives in public will supersede their survival instinct. - DRTED, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Beepers are gonna make a comeback
- mttrvn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Use txt messages
- UnderWurlde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, it doesn't excite electrons (or else the dish/plate itself would get hot!) but close to it: water molecules. And for those of you who are about to say "But, my plate _does_ get hot", it's basically the heated food that transfers its heat to the plate.
- mark_in_bc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Cell phones causing brain tumors has been proven to be ***** many times over. Why won't this urban myth die?
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4>>>"Basically, it means that if you have a 10% chance of getting a brain tumor, on average, then you have a 13.9% chance to get one if you have used a cell phone heavily for ten years."
Exactly. The article is completely misleading in that respect.
Think about the chances of getting a brain tumor. They ain't 10%. They ain't even 1%.
This study just suggests that there may be some form of correlation. It's a *looooong* way from causation. - sixarmedgod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes, ask the smokers.
- nayten, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8...Bluetooth still emits signals.
- AnotherBrian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Skin and other materials don't act like a low/high-pass filter. The act like band-reject filters. Lower frequencies can definitely penetrate us. The issue with EM radiation and cancer is energy. Because of the fixed velocity (c), below a certain frequency a photon doesn't have enough energy to strip an electron off an atom, thus ionizing it and causing it to interfering with normal chemical reactions in the body. If an atom that was part of a molecule of DNA was ionized, that could damage the DNA and potentially cause the cell to become cancerous. The only other way would be for a photon to have so much energy that ti could split an atom, but that requires WAY more energy than ionizing. Both of which are FAR above the 2.4GHz range used in cell phones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"A spokesman for the Mobile Operators Association said: 'The overall results of this study do not show increased brain tumour risk in relation to mobile phone use.'"
This is simply another exercise in finding correlation, without proving any sort of causation. - TheAkolyte, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Are there any repercussions from looking at monitors too much and too long?
- spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Aren't there a tonne of studies that completely contradict the findings of this one?
Must be a tough one to accurately test. I think we'll only really know in another 10-20 years when either people start developing tumors like there's no tomorrow, or wonder what the hell everyone was so worried about - Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wasn't there an article here on Digg about a month ago that was debunking that kind of "myth"?
- acr2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why are the people saying 'use bluetooth headsets' being dugg down?
A bluetooth headset emits a FAR FAR weaker signal than your actual cell phone. So much so that its trivial. So YES using a bluetooth headset will cut MOST of the exposure. Go look it up if you don't believe me. - Fush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Very Comprehensive study from Denmark, it was on dig a while ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6209960.stm
Using official danish health and mobile records for over 56000 people since 1982 researches found no correlation between mobile use and tumors/cancers - tmach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In Soviet Russia, tumors give you cell phones.
It was one of the kinda cool things about Soviet Russia - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2obligitory: obligatory is speled [sic] with an 'a'
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 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