digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at independent.co.uk

Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'

independent.co.uk — Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.

Who dugg this? Made popular Mar 30, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

432 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • bulletproofx, on 03/30/2008, -5/+143Will iPhone tumors cost more to cure?
  • marklar69, on 03/30/2008, -61/+171Modern cell phones are less than .25 watts, the air is full of more powerful radio waves making this claim bogus.
  • nahsrocketeer75, on 03/30/2008, -20/+122He loses me with the claim about this being more dangerous than smoking. That kind of sensationalism might get him headlines in the short run, but it's also going to have a lot of people dismissing his assessment out of hand. It's also worth noting that he acknowledges that his theory is just that at this point, a theory, and that nothing has been proven.
  • prompel, on 03/30/2008, -12/+97Yeah, another one cries wolf. Whatever it takes to get a government research grant, I guess.

    I don't care anymore. The so-called experts can't agree on what day it is, much less on matters of importance. Screw them, I prefer to live a worry-free life. Worry will kill me faster than any cancer caused by cell-phone.
  • riskybeats, on 03/30/2008, -1/+79Second hand radiation kills!
  • BradHAWK, on 03/30/2008, -0/+61No brain cancer for me - I use a *wired* hands free set and keep my phone in my pock... oh crap.
  • plutarch, on 03/30/2008, -12/+68The problem with this (ridiculous) claim is that cell phones don't emit ionizing radiation:

    "The energy levels associated with radiofrequency energy, including both radio waves and microwaves, are not great enough to cause the ionization of atoms and molecules. Therefore, RF energy is a type of non-ionizing radiation. Other types of non-ionizing radiation include visible light, infrared radiation (heat) and other forms of electromagnetic radiation with relatively low frequencies."

    Source: http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html

    Additionally, people have used wireless telephones in their homes for years and we've yet to see a cancer epidemic linked to those EM spectra. This whole story smacks of sensationalism.
  • lokiexinferis, on 03/30/2008, -10/+63.25 watts of what, transmission? The question I ask you is, how strong are any other waves in the air by the time they reach your head. The electromagnetic field gets weaker by the inverse square, so that while TV and radio signals might be in the kilo and megawatts of power, by the time they reach your head miles away, they're measured in micro watts. Meanwhile a cellphone at .25 watts is transmitting almost all of that straight to your skull.

    I don't think that we should stop using cell phone (I'll take brain cancer over no cell phone any day, I'm addicted), but at the same time I believe that the industry needs to respond and provide some EM shielding around active components in cell phones to reduce emission to outside the cell phone's case.
  • kublerross, on 03/30/2008, -5/+44wow +14 diggs of people unaware of the inverse square law
  • S1ngular1ty1, on 03/30/2008, -0/+36Yes, but you are forgetting the inverse square law. .25 watts right next to your head can be worse than 1000 watts 100 yards away.
  • Persian5Life, on 03/30/2008, -3/+37well everything is causing cancer theses days.
  • Neoanarchist, on 03/30/2008, -1/+35If you go somewhere other than iHospital then it will void your warranty :/
  • inactive, on 03/30/2008, -3/+34The problem isnt cell phones.. the problem isnt cigarettes. Its the human body. Its clearly weak and fragile. Once people realize this, God is in for one massive class action lawsuit.
  • sockpuppets, on 03/30/2008, -1/+31What?
  • smashingmonkey, on 03/30/2008, -11/+40OK everybody, let's digg this up or down according to our prejudices about this topic!
  • inactive, on 03/30/2008, -4/+33Land line phones and headsets for them are completely different technology then the cell based phones. This theory has been around for awhile about the dangers of cell radiation and as time goes on we should know more. Just like smoking, etc. Oh btw, the west will only get to certain point before Marxism/Fascism takes hold before people keep from being quiet.
  • SlamShut, on 03/30/2008, -7/+35There is no radiation association with wired phone lines. A cellphone is basically a small miicrowave transmitter, and you hold it directly against the side of your head. The idea that it is dangerous to use a cellphone is unproven, but it's not insane.
  • inactive, on 03/30/2008, -3/+30I wish someday you use proper grammar.
  • ileftfark, on 03/30/2008, -1/+26"Can you kill me now? Good."
  • LinusTheLim, on 03/30/2008, -1/+24Actually this is consistent with what Mythbusters found when they busted the myth that cellphones cause fires at gas stations. Right before the call connects with a cellphone the RF intensity goes up. Their meter showed it.
  • Qxzkjp, on 03/30/2008, -2/+23Dugg down for ignorance. There has not been one single confirmed instance of death by marijuana.
  • justiceape, on 03/30/2008, -0/+21Ha ha, so many are weighing in like they know one damn thing about cancer or the radiation emitted by cell phones! At least I have the sense to not think I know enough to have an opinion about this, other than the fact that this seems credible criticism of cell phones that should be looked into further. That's all there is to this story right now. If you think you know more, you're an idiot. "Duh, this couldn't be more dangerous than smoking." Oh, okay, so you're an expert in public health, huh?
  • vancanucksfan, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2299% of people with brain cancer drink water. OMG water causes cancer.
  • Balk2K, on 03/30/2008, -0/+20No, but they have a fancy multi-tumor interface
  • doob10163, on 03/30/2008, -11/+31Just some advice for you diggers - When you are first dialing a number and hit send, there is a period of time before you hear the ring. In this period of time, there is an extremely powerful signal wave (radiation) that is sent out to try to find a receptor. Don't put your head next to the phone unless it actually connects the call to reduce the radiation you get.
  • ClevelandBrown, on 03/30/2008, -1/+21i have no idea what the ***** you just said.
  • amawg9, on 03/30/2008, -3/+2399% percent of people with brain cancer own a cell phone, coincidence? Ok yea I guess it is.
  • camino262, on 03/30/2008, -4/+23Non-ionizing radiation will do nothing but heat your body up. The moving electrons in non-ionizing radiation do not have enough velocity to "knock" electrons out of their orbits. If an electron gets "knocked" out, the atom becomes an ion - thus changing the physical structure of the molecule. This is what causes cancer - your cells in your body are changing and dying. This is not to say that 900MHz radiation from a cell or cordless phone could cause cancer, however the power required to "knock" an electron out of it's orbit would be enormous. The higher you go in frequency the less power you need to ionize an atom, thus this is why we typically use x and gamma rays to produce ionizing radiation. This is no BS - It is my job to know this *****. I have spent many hours researching this topic.

  • icole1990, on 03/30/2008, -0/+19This is true. Stress related deaths are pretty high lol.
    And what doesn't cause cancer?
  • Purkake, on 03/31/2008, -0/+19So business as usual then?
  • dj43, on 03/30/2008, -9/+28Not that cell phones may not be dangerous, but it's dumb to think more so than smoking. 400,000 American deaths per year are caused by smoking-related illnesses. Anyone have the statistics on how many die from cell phones every year? That was the most glaring omission from the audaciously titled article.
  • jemka, on 03/31/2008, -0/+18You know, "no any cellphone".
  • gudnbluts, on 03/31/2008, -0/+18000 - thought you might need these
  • jbhannah, on 03/30/2008, -0/+17CAUTION: Handling this post will expose you to chemicals, such as lead and tobacco smoke, which are known to the state of California to cause cancer. Please wash your hands promptly following any handling of this post.
  • nazsco, on 03/30/2008, -0/+17Table for two. Non celphoners, please.
  • bootle, on 03/30/2008, -0/+17theory != hypothesis
  • DucoNihilum, on 03/31/2008, -0/+15Um, this guy has a HYPOTHESIS, not a theory.
  • ckedge, on 03/30/2008, -0/+15I have an MSc in Physics, and I'm the first person to point out when someone is Peter crying wolf. I can smell bad science 10 miles away.

    Upon quick glance, this guy has impeccable credentials, and shows NONE of the typical signatures of being a quack. I will be very very interested to see what comes out of the peer review and following analysis by others of his stature in the next year or two.

    I will say that it is entirely possible that the Independent's article and/or headline might be over hyped. If 20 years from now brain cancer rates have doubled - well - that is measurable and non-negligible, but according to wikipedia currently only 2.5 percent of all cancer deaths are brain cancer. Doubling it means an extra 10,000 deaths per year. Right now in North America alone we accept 50,000 deaths a year from car accidents. (/me shrugs his shoulders)
  • 4321234, on 03/30/2008, -3/+18So they're cancer-cell phones or cancer cell-phones?
  • Qxzkjp, on 03/30/2008, -0/+14Dugg down for bad science. Microwave is a frequency band, it has nothing to do with directionality. And mobile phone communications are in that band, as are wifi routers.
  • carpespasm, on 03/30/2008, -0/+14I'm not sure if his description is entirely accurate about that handshake proceedure's purpose, but anyone who's been near a radio or guitar amp/PA can attest to the fact that there's much more signal coming out of a cell phone when it's either about to ring or has just dialed out. I'm not sure what that means for the dangerousness of that signal, which I still very much doubt.
  • Pinkertinkle, on 03/30/2008, -0/+14Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking' when you're driving.
  • BradHAWK, on 03/30/2008, -4/+18A cell phone is in constant contact with the towers; why would it need to "find a receptor"? Source?
  • twrife, on 03/30/2008, -2/+15More of a hypothesis.
  • vancanucksfan, on 03/30/2008, -6/+19WHO GIVES A *****. Enjoy your life, when its time to go, its time to go. These days everything causes cancer,so if we have to worry about every little thing we eat,drink,smoke,use, it would be such a crappy way to live.
  • Chompy, on 03/31/2008, -0/+13You say that now. 10 years from now there will be a new headline:
    "BLUETOOTH LINKED TO MILLIONS OF CANCER DEATHS, OFFICIALS URGE NO ANY BLUETOOTH" and then where you be?
  • toxicshok, on 03/30/2008, -0/+13but then wouldn't it be to weak to reach the broadcast tower?
  • alex1015, on 03/30/2008, -9/+21Evolution is 'just' a theory as well, but that doesn't make it false. Theory itself doesn't mean an idea will be wrong just that it hasn't or cannot be proven absolutely. It may still very well be true.
  • jc7012, on 03/31/2008, -0/+12Sounds like he's been using a cellphone for more than 10 years...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 431 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.