Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Government

Legislator Wants Cancer Warnings For Cell Phones 314

Posted by Soulskill
from the reading-this-may-give-you-cancer dept.
Cytalk writes "A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders dispute the claim. The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though no US states require them, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom wants his city to be the nation’s first to require the warnings."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Legislator Wants Cancer Warnings For Cell Phones

Comments Filter:
  • by grub (11606) * <slashdot@grub.net> on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:41PM (#30514182) Homepage Journal

    Just a lameass politician trying to make a name for himself.

    Next will be the "Vaccines cause Autism" warnings, the "Aspartame makes you Fat" warnings and the "Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug" warnings.

    They really should have a "Politics makes you a fuckhead" warning.

    .
    • by citab (1677284) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:50PM (#30514286)

      Warning: "Politics makes you a fuckhead"

      That should totally be made into a T-Shirt

    • by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:54PM (#30514354) Journal

      I can prove that Cell phones cause cancer because they are always emitting their GPS signals to the government, and they can remotely activate the voice input on your phone to listen to what you are saying. Luckily, I've got a free open source non-patentable method of keeping them out. You take some regular household tinfoil, and you wrap it around your head, so that it nicely rests on the ears. Make sure you get everything North of your eyebrows covered, and all the way around to the strange marking on that back of your neck from that one night you were abducted. (For those not abducted, just cover the entirety of your neck, to be safe).

      Next, you need to take your passport and stick it in the Microwave, because the government put an RFID in there, to keep track of what terrorist states you are visiting. While you're in the kitchen, get a water filter, but not Brita, that is clearly alluding to England which is a close friend to the United States Government. Make sure you filter your water twice, and possibly even Distill it to make sure any and all drugs in the water are not present.

      You should start a garden in your basement and grow some wheat (not outside! They'll see your crops on Google and poison them!). You can then turn that wheat into your own flour and use your own non-contaminated water to make dough, which you can then turn into a wide variety of foods.

      Last but not least, every time you use your computer, make sure to open a text document and type in "I KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING" so that the FBI/CIA/Military Industrial Complex knows that you know and won't bother watching you. Follow these simple steps and you too can free yourself from the insanity that oppresses the sheeple into doing the corporations bidding. Maybe one day we'll rise against the new world order together, and take back what is rightfully ours **(I don't know what that is yet, but when I figure it out I'll let you know.)

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Eowaennor (527108)
        I recall a study done several years ago by MIT students regarding tin foil hats. Apparently certain folds will actually amplify certain frequencies!
        http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/ [mit.edu]
        • Totally! Besides, it makes a nifty parabolic dish for their underground thought scanners. Everything is done from underground these days. I thought by now everybody knew the satellites were a ruse. They haven't used them since the Roswell aliens had Kennedy assassinated. Of course the real issue is that they are embedding nano RFID thought scanners right into the tinfoil now. Why do you think they warn you not to microwave tinfoil? Where do you think those sparks come from?
    • by BeanThere (28381) on Monday December 21, 2009 @01:06PM (#30514514)

      What this legislator is really saying is that he doesn't have anything better to do to justify his presence on the payroll. In these tough economic times useless asses like this should be given the boot, so that the money can go to somebody who can do something that is actually productive and useful. (Not just the cost of his salary, imagine the cost of implementation of this thing.)

    • by BeanThere (28381)

      That would be "her"self in this case.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mcgrew (92797) *

      Well hey, Linda used a cell phone and she died of cancer! Funny how a cell phone can cause a cancer on your gall bladder...

      TFA said something about studies showing a link, but I haven't read about any of those studies. The ones I've read about showed no correlation at all. Odd that TFA mentioned studies showing a link but didn't point to a single one.

    • by joocemann (1273720) on Monday December 21, 2009 @01:52PM (#30515168)

      Just a lameass politician trying to make a name for himself.

      Next will be the "Vaccines cause Autism" warnings, the "Aspartame makes you Fat" warnings and the "Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug" warnings.

      They really should have a "Politics makes you a fuckhead" warning. .

      I agree. A search for published science (from university library resources) that would indicate a connection between cell phone EMR and brain tumors/cancer yielded NO DATA OR ARTICLES for the argument.

      What I did find was that there were two large scale studies done in 2000-2001 that showed there was no difference between cell use and not. Since then, no published work for or against.
      ---

      I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I'm definitely guessing it isn't probable and that I'll need a lot more FACTS before I'm going to believe this...

      Why?

      The big bang is still hitting us with EMR. The sun. Power lines. Satellite television hits us at every square inch of this planet. Radio waves, analog and digital are everywhere. And so you know, the powerlines don't stop outside your house, they go in your house and all around your rooms, and when you've got something on, the power going to that thing is making an EMR field.

      Also the EMR from cell phones is noted to not be able to break chemical bonds. That means it cannot damage any molecules in your body, including DNA.
      ----

      As it stands, I'm much more worried about our diet, our environment, our politics, our use of resources, and things like Cigarettes.... but that is because I have a set PRIORITY that puts the most SERIOUS things at the top of the list.

      What is more likely to kill you? Cell phone (maybe) caused brain tumors (as rare as that probably is, if at all), or congestive heart failure from poor diet. Or what about a car accident? Hell, we're not even taking the effects of hormone interference from manmade substances like BPA seriously, despite having wide areas of affect on sperm count and immasculation due to accumulation in water supplies.

      Cell phone brain tumors are in the least of my worries.

  • insanity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by haruharaharu (443975) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:41PM (#30514186) Homepage
    Scientists don't agree, no real studies confirm the notion, and the biggest reason in favor of this is 'they get warm'. Of course they get warm - the battery is discharging.
    • Re:insanity (Score:5, Informative)

      by broken_chaos (1188549) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:48PM (#30514258)

      no real studies confirm the notion

      Not stopping there, there is at least one major study [slashdot.org] that shows no significant link between cellphones and cancer -- not just a lack of any confirmation.

      They should keep these sort of 'warning' labels to items that have solid, reproducible evidence of significant increases in risks of cancer -- like cigarettes. If they start slapping them on everything that they (in their position as 'a legislator') think might cause cancer, these sort of warnings will lose all meaning.

      • Diabolical! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by KingSkippus (799657) on Monday December 21, 2009 @01:01PM (#30514448) Homepage Journal

        You know, now that you mention it, that's not a bad plan if you're a tobacco company. I can't tell you how many times when I try to get friends to stop smoking, they fall back on excuses like, "Well, eventually something is going to kill me..." or "Everything causes cancer..."

        Talk about lame rationalization. Still, if they start slapping "This may cause cancer!" labels on stuff that has been proven, in fact, not to cause cancer, it's just more ammunition. If you're a tobacco company, that might be a viable strategy. Get cancer labels on everything so that no one will believe the labels on anything.

      • by D Ninja (825055)

        Not stopping there, there is at least one major study [slashdot.org] that shows no significant link between cellphones and cancer -- not just a lack of any confirmation.

        Your quote reminds me of a very excellent movie that (sort of) brings up this exact same topic. Check out Thank You for Smoking [imdb.com]. It's also a pretty good movie, too.

      • While I agree that there's no causation there: I'm still incredulous that a 15% increase in brain cancer (0.5% per year * 30 years) is concluded by the study as "insignifigant".

        I'd love to see the year-by-year breakdown (it's not like there were cellphones in 1974).

        I'm not saying that cellphones cause cancer (though my own non-brain cancer was directly under where I carried mine), but I am questioning whether the cited study has any useful information either way.

        • Re:insanity (Score:5, Interesting)

          by gnick (1211984) on Monday December 21, 2009 @01:40PM (#30514988) Homepage

          Just to nit-pick a bit, 0.5% per year over 30 years is actually a little over 16%. But that was only in men - 0.2% per year in women. So that's an increase of ~11% in the overall population.

          Personally, I'm leaning toward the "We're getting better at identifying brain tumors" camp, but 11% does seem like a lot and the large discrepancy between men and women is a little distressing.

        • by nedlohs (1335013)

          That was not considered as "insignificant", the correlation with cell phones was.

          The entire conclusion was that yes their was an increase in cancer cancers over time, but the increase started before cell phones existed and didn't change once they became popular. Hence that increase is not correlated to cell phone usage (let alone caused by). Well OK it did see a spike in the 90s, but amongst 60+ year old women, not exactly the demographic you'd pick for if the cause was cell phone use.

          Seems the simple stand

        • by MBGMorden (803437)

          It may be insignificant to the posed hypothesis. I'm sure it's in TFA (the linked one, not the one in the story), but if the 15% increase was observed in both the control and the test group (ie, in both people who didn't and people who did use cellphones), then it is irrelevant in determining if the phones cause cancer. It may show that an additional study might be interesting to show exactly what IS causing the increase in cancer though.

        • by lorenlal (164133)

          Insignificant can mean that the population as a whole experienced a similar increase independent of cellphone usage.

          It's certainly not insignificant that there was an overall 15% increase, it's just not likely that cellphones were the culprit.

        • The article linked to from the Slashdot story [smh.com.au] discusses this a bit in the "No Significant Pattern" subsection, noting that the trends didn't change much in the late 1990s (compared to the 1970s and 1980s) when cellphone usage increased far faster than the cancer rates -- the most anomalous change being a larger-than-average increase in tumors for women over 60 (who were stated to already be the most at-risk subgroup).

          It's not conclusive proof, of course, but it's a fairly solid correlation, particularly giv

      • Not stopping there, there is at least one major study that shows no significant link between cellphones and cancer -- not just a lack of any confirmation.

        Science can't prove a negative. Science can only conclusive disprove hypothesis, never conclusively prove them. We cannot ever really prove that cell phones do not cause cancer, we can only find that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the theory that they do cause cancer. Furthermore when we say "no significant link" we are usually talking about correlation, not causation - and the distinction is important. To my knowledge there has been no "smoking gun" proof that there is any link between cell

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        Maybe RJ Reynolds and friends lobbied for this?

      • by hoggoth (414195)

        "Pot is deadly, and cell phones cause brain cancer."

        And we wonder why kids don't listen to anything we say.

        "Cocaine is deadly, and cigarettes cause lung cancer."

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by horza (87255)

        However, there is no major study disproving a link between garden gnomes and cancer. In fact, extensive searching shows no studies at all from which we can infer they are being suppressed. Whether this cover-up is by the government or by corporations is yet to be determined, but in the mean time there is no harm in warning the public that garden gnomes MIGHT cause cancer. And possibly syphilis.

        Phillip.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Rufty (37223)
        Warning: may contain nuts.
  • No proof? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:42PM (#30514194)

    If you want proof that cell phones cause brain damage, just listen to someone talking on one.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by maxume (22995)

      That's not fair, at least listen to someone smart enough not to stand on the thing when they try to make a call.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Kierthos (225954)

      I would posit that using Twitter causes brain damage at a far faster rate and in greater numbers of users then cell phones.

  • All over the place they have signs saying "This facility may or may not contain cancer causing chemicals".

    May or May not. I'll tell ya, I HATE checking into a hotel and the first thing I see is one of those.

    • by gregarican (694358) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:46PM (#30514232) Homepage

      I recall smoking cheap cigars and reading the warning label on the packaging. It might cause cancer in the state of California. Glad I smoked 'em in Florida. Made me rest a hell of a lot easier, ya know?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by gnick (1211984)

      For one of the facilities where I work, I had to take site-specific safety training before they would issue me a key. Included in the training was a note that there "may be nitrogen present in the air". This was included due to LN2 tanks being present in the basement, but it's a sorry state of affairs when you have to warn people that they MAY inhale some nitrogen.

      • For one of the facilities where I work, I had to take site-specific safety training before they would issue me a key. Included in the training was a note that there "may be nitrogen present in the air". This was included due to LN2 tanks being present in the basement, but it's a sorry state of affairs when you have to warn people that they MAY inhale some nitrogen.

        May be a legitimate concern. LN2 (liquid nitrogen) [wikipedia.org] tanks might leak, causing an asphyxiation hazard.

        Same with helium tanks. Break the valve, an

        • The problem isn’t the nitrogen, though. It’s the lack of oxygen.

        • by Matheus (586080)

          OR the helium tank may crush a few of them as it is cruising through them, the walls, the cars in the parking lot and the cell phone distracted mega-SUV that just happens to be driving by...

          • OR the helium tank may crush a few of them as it is cruising through them, the walls, the cars in the parking lot and the cell phone distracted mega-SUV that just happens to be driving by...

            Indeed. Wikipedia states:

            "Since the liquid to gas expansion ratio of [nitrogen] is 1:694, a tremendous amount of force can be generated if liquid nitrogen is rapidly vaporized. In an incident in 2006 at Texas A&M University, the pressure-relief devices of a tank of liquid nitrogen were sealed with brass plugs. As a

      • by nsayer (86181) <nsayer&kfu,com> on Monday December 21, 2009 @01:08PM (#30514550) Homepage

        Ironically, those LN2 tanks DO present a danger that is worth warning about. But the warning isn't that "nitrogen may be present," obviously. The issue is that a leaky LN2 tank in an enclosed space may wind up making nitrogen the ONLY gas present, which is extremely hazardous. You can pass out without feeling anything abnormal in advance, and then quickly suffocate. Nitrogen asphyxiation has been advocated as an execution method for this very reason, in fact. Two people died in a nitrogen asphyxiation accident at NASA some time ago. The second tried to rescue the first without first understanding what went wrong, and then succumbed himself (if I am remembering the story properly).

        • by clone53421 (1310749) on Monday December 21, 2009 @01:25PM (#30514786) Journal

          Note that the burning sensation that we associate with suffocation is actually triggered by excessive CO2 levels.

          Hence the acute danger of asphyxiation when a compressed gas (other than CO2) is displacing the atmosphere – you don’t feel anything.

          • by ceoyoyo (59147)

            The breathing reflex is also mostly triggered by CO2 levels, not oxygen levels. So even if there's still sufficient oxygen in the air to keep you alive, you can die of asphyxiation because your body is quite content with it's CO2 level.

      • by kimvette (919543)

        They're running safety training about equipment involving compressed gases and don't realize that we are always breathing 80% nitrogen already?!

    • by bdcrazy (817679)

      I think the big thing is that 'cancer' is now the boogieman. We're slowly getting rid of all sorts of things that used to kill us. We're living longer and healthier, yet cancer can kill anybody at anytime. So once you start getting rid of everything else, cancer is one of the few left. Sure heart disease is a big deal, but cancer, that is EVIL. My warning is thus: No matter what you do, you're gonna die. As a parting shot for the paranoid, staying in your house is hazardous because your roof COULD COL

  • by gbutler69 (910166) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:45PM (#30514222) Homepage
    Where's the Science to support this claim? Everything I've read, including a more than 20 year study of cell-phone users, concludes that it is not the case. Without the science, he should SHUT THE FUCK UP! I am so sick and tired of everything being ruled my malicious ignorance and stupidity. All the people who refuse to use science (i.e. Obser-fucking-vation) to form policy, guide their actions, and make decisions, and would rather use tea leaves, bones, or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass, need to FUCKING DIE!
    • by gregarican (694358) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:48PM (#30514252) Homepage

      Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays...

    • by gbutler69 (910166)
      Correction...

      being ruled by malicious

    • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:54PM (#30514366)

      Bah, since when are politicians logical, scientifically minded people? This is not exactly the age of Realpolitik (in its original meaning of practical, realistic, and effective; rather than it's more recent meaning of coercive, heavy handed, and amoral). The choices of our governments are based on religion, ideology, and vote pandering; much more so than they are based on what will actually accomplish our goals.

      As an example, it has been shown several times that handing out needles to IV drug users not only reduces disease but also, in the long run, reduces the number of addicts (since the users are meeting with trained counselors on a weekly basic to get their needles). Its even been shown to save money, since these users don't end up in the hospital later unable to pay their bills. Yet, any area that tries to start a program of supplying needles is denigrated and attacked. People say they are 'enabling' the users, when in fact their course of action has been shown effective in reducing drug use.

    • by nsayer (86181)

      All the people who refuse to use science (i.e. Obser-fucking-vation) to form policy, guide their actions, and make decisions, and would rather use tea leaves, bones, or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass, need to FUCKING DIE!

      Preferably, of brain cancer.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by demonbug (309515)

        All the people who refuse to use science (i.e. Obser-fucking-vation) to form policy, guide their actions, and make decisions, and would rather use tea leaves, bones, or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass, need to FUCKING DIE!

        Preferably, of brain cancer.

        Sadly, they are immune to brain cancer (for reasons that should be obvious).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kimvette (919543)

      They're taking cues from the global warming alarmists.

      SHOW US THE DATA.

  • by cheesybagel (670288) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:46PM (#30514234)
    Fried foodstuffs contain known carcinogens. We should add this informative label to potato chips as well.
  • by thomasdz (178114) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:48PM (#30514240)

    "Use of this device while travelling on public transit may cause people to hate you"

  • how about... (Score:4, Informative)

    by kellin (28417) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:48PM (#30514246)

    Who gives a flying leap? We're inundated with all sorts of things as we wander around this planet, and I for one think its a bunch of bollocks.

    And really --

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16059841 [msn.com]

    If 420k danes dont have cancer from cell phone use, then nobody will.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by StikyPad (445176)

      How do we know they're not some sort of superior race? Great Danes, if you will.

  • by a-zarkon! (1030790) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:48PM (#30514266)

    So does this mean that since my job requires me to carry a cell phone that my insurance rates will be going up? If I leave my job, will I be ineligible for future insurance coverage?

    On another topic, I notice in TFA that they reference using a headset instead of talking on the phone. So does this mean that Blue Tooth (which is in the 2.4 GHz range) has less of a health impact than the cellular radio? Here's a hint, Microwaves are in that magical 2.4 GHz range that is shared by WiFi and Blue Tooth. If I had to pick which antenna I'd rather have next to my head, it's probably not the same one that I use to warm my coffee and make popcorn.

    Instead of the headlines from the congress types and the opaque denials from the telecomm industry, is there any actual independent science on this? (There probably, is but I am far too lazy to Google).

    • by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Monday December 21, 2009 @01:17PM (#30514672) Homepage

      On another topic, I notice in TFA that they reference using a headset instead of talking on the phone. So does this mean that Blue Tooth (which is in the 2.4 GHz range) has less of a health impact than the cellular radio?

      I heard that secret government labs were working on a special new kind of headset that uses on ordinary _wire_ to connect to a telephone.

      I can't imagine how they have solved all the problems of carrying complex audio signals through something as simple as a wire, but I still predict that this new, previously unheard of, "wirelessless" technology may catch on in a big way over the next twenty years.

    • by sznupi (719324)

      Bluetooth headsets have orders of magnitude lower radiated power than cellphones. They probably still influence the matter from which your head is composed much less, even if frequency is more conductive for heating (cellphones do that to)

      Not that it makes a difference anyway; at least BT headsets are more comfortable.

  • The first (Score:3, Funny)

    by Culture20 (968837) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:49PM (#30514268)
    And you know how quick cities and states are to follow law fads. By next year, you'll see people using ear-buds and holding their phones two meters away with a grabber-arm.
  • by dakohli (1442929) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:50PM (#30514290)
    It seems that you need to be first with many things, such as warnings on consumer items. It's a race to keep your citizens safe, or is it? With this stuff, we seem to be living in a culture of fear. So it's a mad race for the politicians to be the first to react, so that they can claim to be the first, and of course that means their chances of re-election is that much better.

    I looked at various articles on this subject yesterday, and their are indeed two camps, the first who say that there are no statistically significant studies on this subject, and the second who claim otherwise.

    I am all for safety, but lets get real here. How long have cell phones been around? Not that long, In the past I've worked in the vicinity of high powered RADAR units. If I were to place paper clips on the cabinet where I used to sit for hours at a time, they would dance. I think the potential for cancer causing agents in our world is significant, but to be able to narrow it down will take a really well designed study.

    Personally, I don't trust the motives of any of the current scientists. The industry wants to downplay any threat, and there is a growing group of folks who just see danger around every corner. If we listened to this second set we would end up back in the 1800s in terms of technology. If we listen exclusively to the first, well, then we may be in trouble.

    There has to be some middle ground somewhere, where reasonable folks are just looking for the truth.

  • The end (Score:5, Funny)

    by lymond01 (314120) on Monday December 21, 2009 @12:53PM (#30514350)

    We all have to go sometime, son. And you've used all your rollover minutes anyway.

  • It's a lovely place to visit, but I am glad I don't have to pay taxes there.

    So what do they want the warnings to say? "Warning, this cell phone may or may not cause cancer?" Didn't they already pass prop 65 to say that damn near everything may or may not cause cancer? Honesty - the last time I went the movies there was a prop 65 warning on the door.

    They seriously need to stop crying wolf^wcancer.

  • I hear vibrating cell phones can also cause constipation if they end up in someone's butt. Where is the warning for that??

    It's a million to one shot, Doc. A million to one!

  • Idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tsotha (720379) on Monday December 21, 2009 @01:02PM (#30514470)

    Here in California we passed a law that requires any business or establishment to post signs if anything on the premises is a carcinogen. What happened was every single business in the state posted a sign. Legitimately, too, since lots of things we use on a daily basis are slightly carcinogenic, like gasoline and paint. Now everyone just ignores the signs because they're everywhere.

    If you actually had something dangerous people would ignore your sign unless you put something like "On these premises there's something really, really carcinogenic. We're not kidding, either. Don't push your luck."

  • by Pedrito (94783)
    There probably ought to be a warning. The evidence is inconclusive at this point, but there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing, at the very least, changes in levels of certain proteins in cells, but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer.

    I thought these were crazy ideas when they were first raised. I worked in the engineering side of the cell phone industry for a few years and I'm very aware of how little power they radiate. It just didn't seem po
    • "There probably ought to be a warning"

      No there shouldn't and the California debacle you've ignored the discussion of in this thread proves why.

      "The evidence is inconclusive at this point, but there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing, at the very least, changes in levels of certain proteins in cells, but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer."

      CITE THEM.

      RIGHT NOW. Unless you do so, you will be added to the rolls of those who try to make shit up and

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by paiute (550198)

        "The evidence is inconclusive at this point, but there are a number of studies that do seem to show that I am the Queen of England."

      • by Pedrito (94783)
        THAT YOU COMPLETELY FAIL TO CITE OR EVEN DISCUSS BEYOND VAGARIES.

        You mean THOSE studies? They don't exist. Prove me wrong.


        Try going here. Next, type the words, "mobile phone" (without the quotes) into the box and click where it says "search". Among the 2200 results are a number of studies on the influence of mobile phones on cells and EEG rhythms.

        Whether you agree or disagree with their results is another issue entirely.
        Have a nice day.
        • by Pedrito (94783)
          Messed up the link. Sorry. Go here [nih.gov]
        • by LanMan04 (790429)

          Please show us the study. In a real journal.

          This is not a case where "Let Me Google That For You" is appropriate. There is a MOUNTAIN of bullshit and misinformation out there, and Google finds all of it.

          Show us the study. Or STFU.

        • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Monday December 21, 2009 @02:07PM (#30515360)

          Be careful. You can type almost anything into a search engine (and PubMed is a search engine) and get back a bunch of hits. Some of them will even be related, and sound scary. The number of hits you get is strongly affected by the amount of hype around an issue.

          Scientific literature is like a massive debate. On any given issue you'll find a bunch of different viewpoints and a bunch of different proponents of each, some with more and some with less, evidence. Eventually the whole thing trends towards the right answer, but monitoring who is yelling the most is definitely not the right way to predict what that will be.

    • by klaun (236494)

      there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing, at the very least, changes in levels of certain proteins in cells, but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer.

      I don't want to be dismissive of this claim, but given the number of studies you mentioned, it would have been useful to reference some.

      I'd particularly be interested in how a study measures cell phone effects on protein levels in the cells of the brain. Also, you mention that they damage neurons

  • Please stop crying wolf and making warnings meaningless!

  • More warnings for everything, It won't be a truly safe place to live until everything in existence has yellow warning labels....

    Warning, walking may lead to falling.

    Warning, eating may lead to obesity.

    Warning, living may lead to death.

    Warning, thinking happy thoughts now may lead to bad thoughts later.

    Warning, life is dangerous, not worth living, please report to you government sponsored "permanent relaxation center" for treatment....

  • if radio waves caused cancer, we would all have been dead a long time ago. what exactly is supposed to be unique about cell phones? that you hold them to your head? anyone ever heard of a chemical bond that a 1900 mhz wave could break?
  • Too many warnings (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Explodicle (818405) on Monday December 21, 2009 @01:54PM (#30515188) Homepage

    Let's assume for a minute that there is some incredibly small increase in your cancer risk from using a cell phone. If it's small enough, I dare say we should have no warnings anyways. Constant warnings all the time about everything will just drown out the actually significant risks.

    "So what if this pack of cigarettes warns me? It's just another pointless government thing, like with cell phones."

  • The test (Score:3, Insightful)

    by w0mprat (1317953) on Monday December 21, 2009 @01:55PM (#30515202)
    Hypothesis: Cellphones give you the brain cancers.

    Test of hypothesis: There would be a world wide pandemic of unexplained tumours, that would stand out strongly in heavy cellphone using developing nations. This, thanks to the billions of cellphones out there and ubiqutous bath of cellphone radiation we're bathed in worldwide. We'd see a overall increase in cancers maybe, but a marked increase in a specific type of cancer, as a result of the characteristics here, such as specific brain tumours in the side of the head.

    Results: There isn't any. Or if there is an effect, it's very very small, such that 'there isn't any' is still valid for all practical purposes. Any claimed correlation is tenuous at best, what few studies their are haven't showed anything worth more study, and we're a long way from any causal proof. Orders of magnitude smaller than gee, I don't know, exposure to actual chemical carcinogens, sunlight and bad lifestyle?

    (EMF could be carinogenic, I would believe high-voltage powerlines cause cancer, due to the sheer energies involved, and the fact the people with cancer have probably lived under them for decades.)
  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Monday December 21, 2009 @02:22PM (#30515550) Homepage

    there is no consensus among scientists that they [cause cancer]

    That's a trollish statement if I've ever heard one. There's no consensus among scientists that the moon is made of cheese. There's also no consensus amongst scientists that playing video games causes cancer. And there's no consensus that socks are stolen by gnomes during the night.

    There's no consensus, because it is false.

  • by meerling (1487879) on Monday December 21, 2009 @03:53PM (#30516640)
    If they get this one without proof, how long until they start forcing others without proof.

    Before long, every male will be labeled as a sex offender, every food will warn of cancer or other health issues, every politician will have a scarlet letter, etc...

    Stop the insanity now by stopping this grandstanding moron on a soap box.
    Then get him and his cronies kicked out of office.
  • by LeadSongDog (1120683) on Monday December 21, 2009 @05:04PM (#30517494)
    You mock them now, but for how long?

Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. - Henry Spencer, University of Toronto Unix hack

Working...