Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-or-asbestos-802602.html?r=RSS

by gibsonf1 • 18 years ago

21 46 18 years ago

independent.co.uk

groovyone3• 18 years ago

Oh god. I bought an iphone and my landline went off for two weeks. I started getting a 'numb' head and my head 'tingled' from its use. I have tried to limit it and have also started to put back in Ethernet rather than the 3 wifi routers I currently have. This might sound stupid, but what scan would you need from the hospital to detect if you have a tumour?

gibsonf1• 18 years ago

I have an Iphone too, and it seems to be the least shielded device I've ever had (as much as I can't live without it). It is the only device I have that interferes with all my electronics within a few feet whenever it interacts with a cell tower. (I hear a buzz on all my computer speakers).

nickb• 18 years ago

>(I hear a buzz on all my computer speakers)

Was your previous phone GSM-based? That buzz is not specific to iPhones. All GSM phones have it (to a certain degree). Search for 'gsm buzz'.

tobiazz• 18 years ago

All PDA phones emit relatively high amounts of radiation.

You can find the radiation level of your phone at the link below. Enter the FCC ID that is located on your phone. The lower SAR, the better. Anything over 1.0 is relatively high and 1.6 is the maximum legal limit. I think the iPhone is around 1.0-1.1.

https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cf...

iamelgringo2• 18 years ago

CAT scan or MRI.

yummyfajitas• 18 years ago

There are two types of scans they could do.

The first is CAT, or Cancer Assisted Tomography. They can shoot high energy cancer rays (a particular type of radiation) through your skull and measure what comes out the other side. Tumors sometimes absorb more cancer rays (also called x-rays) than other tissue, basically creating a shadow they can see. This doesn't work all that great, also the cancer rays are also millions of times more likely to cause cancer than your iphone.

The other type of scan is nuclear magnetic resonance imaging or NMRI. In NMRI, they stick your head into a big magnet. Then they take a big cell phone transmitter, point it at your brain and turn it on (i.e., sending radiation into your brain). This (combined with the magnet) basically turns your brain into a nuclear powered cell phone transmitter. Then an RF coil inside the Nuclear MRI machine picks up the calls your brain makes, and they get a picture out.

Did I use the words nuclear and radiation frequently enough to make you afraid?

groovyone3• 18 years ago

Great. Thanks for this. You've.... erm.... really helped.

stcredzero• 18 years ago

There is strong scientific evidence that pretty much all "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity" is just incorrectly attributed anxiety and stress.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4072

groovyone3• 18 years ago

Interesting article. Still, I do yoga and meditate so don't feel too stressed. I think I'd feel happier if I get myself checked out. Going to look into it though being in the UK I'll probably have to pay if I want someone to take me seriously

goodkarma• 18 years ago

When you put a device that transmits energy right next to your head, you're taking a risk that the transmitted energy interacts with the matter in your head/brain. The longer and more often you put the device up to your head, the more opportunities there are for the interaction.

Everything else is just a mathematical probability.

attack• 18 years ago

[numbers needed]

To say that an activity is "taking a risk" with total disregard as to the magnitude of the risk is misleading to put it nicely.

How does this compare to the exposure from other electromagnetic signals? Should I immediately rip out the power lines going through the wall that I'm sitting next to? Destroy my tv?

mrtron• 18 years ago

When you put a device that contains chemical potential energy over your legs, you're taking a risk that the energy is released and interacts with your legs/groin. The longer and more often you put the device over your legs, the more opportunities there are for the interaction.

Everything else is just a mathematical probability. Let's stop wearing pants.

iamelgringo2• 18 years ago

I guess it's time to start wearing my tinfoil hat: http://tesladownunder.com/TeslaPoolTinHat.jpg

tptacek8• 18 years ago

The best medical evidence is always published "exclusively in the Independent on Sunday".

whalliburton4• 18 years ago

DH1

tptacek8• 18 years ago

We're not starting this now, are we? At least use the primary source, not Graham's superficial rehash:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

KirinDave6• 18 years ago

Perhaps, but the Independent has a long history of posting spurious health and environment articles (e.g., "Mobile phone threat to honeybees", which was a massive press misunderstanding because CCD was such a headline-grabber at the time). Guilt by association is a real and valid reason to dismiss a news article about a complex scientific subject. Even the article itself mentions the general line:

> Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khurana's study as "a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual". It believes he "does not present a balanced analysis" of the published science, and "reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews".

People talk about the dangers of radiation, but electromagnetic radiation isn't the same kind of radiation we generally worry about. Anything that uses electricity and wires creates this kind of radiant energy, including pacemakers and implantable defibrillators.

That doesn't mean there is no potential for health risks, but thus far the science suggests no significant increase in risk. What's more, the mechanism for such health risks is likewise unclear as the wavelengths for cellphone radiation are quite long. It's also unclear why cellphones would cause problems but people living near radio transmitters wouldn't (and we'd have probably seen these effects by now, radio isn't exactly new).

Unfortunately, it takes a lot of work and a lot of time to build up long term clinical studies. In the meantime, all we can do is wait.

mechanical_fish5• 18 years ago

News.YC is a conversation in English. It is neither a Perl script nor a super-secret members-only club.

Use words.

logjam2• 18 years ago

Error in reasoning. You obviously need to read PG's recent article.

tptacek8• 18 years ago

Sorry, there appears to be an incompatibility between us. Whereas you've wired your brain directly to Paul Graham's website, my thoughts and ideas are in fact dictated by a combination of Eric Sink and Joel Spolsky. Because we are parroting different web personalities, I see little chance for us to resolve this debate.

I humbly suggest that we simply agree to disagree.

eusman2• 18 years ago

good link bait, clueless article.

"Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos"

I am surprised by the ease of spreading panic. Really bad taste of them.

There is not even a link to a a url of the research. the quality of YC submitted stories are in downhill.

If everybody has a mobile phone, then it's impossible to limit the cause for their health failure to a mobile phone, so no study can proove anything...

for every study that "proofs" the negative effects of a mobile phone there is another that does the opposite.

Until there is one that proofs the problem either use a hands free or limit the use...

whalliburton4• 18 years ago

I would not say that this is a clueless article.

The doctors website and the article in question: http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobilephone.html

The doctor appears competent to me, but I haven't actually performed any brain surgery so cannot rate his work, but at least he claims "success".

http://www.brain-surgery.net.au/c_a.html

eusman2• 18 years ago

if the article is ready to spread panic then it is their responsibility to include the url.

KirinDave6• 18 years ago

Being a successful surgeon does not necessarily mean he's an authority on brain cancer and tissue interaction with EMF over prolonged periods.

tptacek8• 18 years ago

The notion that brain surgeons are automatically qualified to conduct and evaluate complex biomedical research in oncology and neurology strikes me as approximately as valid as the idea that skilled software developers are automatically qualified to evaluate cryptosystems, compression algorithms, or semiconductor process technology.

xirium• 18 years ago

> "Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos"

They may. They may not. Unlike smoking, it would be entirely foreseeable.

> If everybody has a mobile phone, then it's impossible to limit the cause for their health failure to a mobile phone, so no study can proove anything...

I disagree. A Finnish study found that cochlea cancer was more common in the right cochlea of mobile telephone users.

dhimes• 18 years ago

Gee, guys. Just go hands-free!

michaelneale• 18 years ago

Ionising radiation, and non-ionising radiation - I assume the general public still does not know the difference?

JBiserkov• 18 years ago

Might seem like offtopic, but it's not: Have you seen the movie "Thank you for smoking"?

Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'

Related Stories