Cell Phone Use Study Sees Increased Cancer Risk 222
Dotnaught writes "Frequent cell phone users face a 50% greater risk of developing tumors in the salivary glands than those who don't use cell phones, according to a recently published study. The study, led by Tel Aviv University epidemiologist Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, appeared last December in the American Journal of Epidemiology 'Sadetzki's findings are sure to add to confusion surrounding the already contentious debate about the health effects of cell phone radiation. Many other studies in recent years have found no increased risk of cancer due to mobile phone use, but a few have stopped short of ruling the possibility out and a few have said increased risk of cancer is small but real.'. Even with the increased risk, however, you're still about three times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year."
I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Cancer Machine ON" (Score:3, Interesting)
So what? Chocolate makes you fat, Tobacco gives you cancer, Death and Taxes are inevitable. Until humans live forever and are tax-exempt, at least they DO have a choice on the others.
if you can pry it from my cold dead fingers... (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, I would basically be saying goodbye to my social life (what little I have of one after work) if I stopped using a mobile phone.
Therefore, I hope this study is wrong. If it isn't I hope that mobile manufacturers can somehow make next gen phones slightly safer, if possible.
Margin of error (Score:4, Interesting)
How do you hold it? (Score:3, Interesting)
From the article:
Does this simply mean we should use handsfree headsets or hold the phone away from our heads?
I happen to hold mine in front and use the loudspeaker but that's purely because I'm deaf in one ear and don't like not being able to hear anything else that's going on.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
On top of that, many people CANNOT talk without using their hands. This is a direct conflict with driving, which requires use of at least one hand (for normal people). Yes, I have seen people driving down the road, with a headset on, AND talking with both hands... at this rate I believe that it is an activity which should get its own subcategory rank in the Darwin Awards runner's up list.
Re:if you can pry it from my cold dead fingers... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)
It matters not if you are eating, talking on the mobile, using the computer, reading a magazine/newspaper, or what have you.
All show signs that complete concentration are not being used for driving. When we're using directly controlled missiles with 3 sicks of dynamite of energy in them, we need our best concentration.
I also remember what the original "Cell phones cause Cancer" was about: somebody called the Larry King show about them being diagnosed with a brain tumor after using the mobile many hours per day. One anecdote lead to mass hysteria about RF and cancer.
What *type* of cell phone? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have access to the main journal article, so it's possible the answer is in there, but there are potentially a lot of variables in 'cell phone' use. The article kind of hints at that in the following:
I would be curious if anyone has done a larger break-down of the 'risk' seen in this study, to find out if users were using older analogue phones, or newer digital, spread-spectrum phones (which, I believe, typically run at much lower power levels). What frequencies do the phones run at? (It might be, I dunno, that different mobile phone networks around the world use different frequencies, and there might be a correlation to specific frequencies used and an increase in cancer). I would also be curious to see if anyone is able to repeat this finding in other populations outside of Israel? Maybe the increased risk is really something in the air or water? Hard to say sometimes. . .
Honestly though, if it were me, and I were living in Israel, I think there are risks I'd be more worried about than my cell phone. . . like Hezbollah missiles, Palestinian suicide bombers, another war erupting with the neighboring countries, etc. . .
Re:Hmm...Actually (Score:2, Interesting)
I do notice the phone has a lot of leaky radiation, when i set on my desk, my desk landline starts cacklin, often right before I receive a call, or tm.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
But the mechanism is real. (Score:1, Interesting)
Absolutely. But then again, this is only a study regarding tumors of the salivary glands. What this and other studies DO show is that it is factually incorrect to say there can be NO effect. Often the Slashdot crowd brings up comments like, "There's no ionizing radiation!" or "impossible!", when a steady stream of studies of various forms keep showing effects. Taken in isolation, each study shows a small effect which appears to not be sufficient to do drastic things like attempting to remove all the cell phones from the world.
What they DO show, is that there ARE biological implications and impacts of cell phones and other wireless devices, and that these are occurring through non-ionizing mechanisms which are not fully understood. The solution is therefore not to make radical changes to cell phones yet, but instead, to study this much more intently. The correct approach is also to stuff a cork in the blind skepticism about the impossibility of these effects. It is more scientific to attempt to understand than to attempt to ignore. When we pursue this matter fully, we will know quite a bit more about the effects of these wavelength ranges on biological tissue and organisms than we currently do, and this is definitely worth doing with an open mind. It could lead to novel therapies, and it could lead to insights about which wavelength and protocol choices are safest. Even with JUST consideration of salivary glands, (0.0045-0.003%) * 6 billion would be 90,000 lives. If you could save a mere 90,000 lives a year by a patch which changes a protocol, or a simple infrastructure change to another wavelength, then you'd be a fool not to do it.