Disturbing

Post Reply New Topic

No doubt there are problems with information but this item from Slashdot raises uneasiness to a new level.

Over the years we've discussed the possible health risks of cellphone and other microwave radiation: studies from Israel and Sweden indicating a link between cellphone use and cancer, one from England exonerating cell towers as a cause of "microwave radiation sensitivity," and a recent 30-year Swedish study that found no link to cancer. The question won't go away though. Reader Artifice_Eternity writes "I've always tended to dismiss claims of toxicity from cell phone and Wi-Fi signals as reflecting ignorance about microwave radiation. However, this GQ article cites American and European studies going back decades that have found some level of biological harm caused by these signals. Why haven't they gained more attention? Quoting: 'Industry-funded studies seem to reflect the result of corporate strong-arming. Lai reviewed 350 studies and found that about half showed bioeffects from EM radiation emitted by cell phones. But when he took into consideration the funding sources for those 350 studies, the results changed dramatically. Only 25 percent of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects, compared with 75 percent of those studies that were independently funded.'"

It impacts all the nutty conspiracy theories that keep bubbling up from flying saucers through the Kennedy assassination into the pharmaceutical assurance that autism is not caused by mercury compounds in immunization.

There is only one solution. Put on a tinfoil hat prior to using a cellphone.

ruveyn

common fallacy.
A claims B
A would benefit of B being true.
------
therefore B is false.

I forgot how it was named.

Neverthless, if cell phone "radiation" causes cancer, there is nothing we could do to avoid it. The waves will still go to your home , even if there was a person with a cell phone 100 meters away. In fact, cell phones have a long ago stopped being the only thing with so many waves. We have all sorts of gadgets out there...

I wonder, of the 25% of 'independent' reports that found a correlation between cell phones and cancer, how many of them were funded by one of those companies that try to sell those ret*d thingies that are said to 'protect you from your cellphone's radiation' ?

Oh, and nowadays there are two cell phones per person in some countries, brain tumors do not seem to have increased that much.

Studies show everything gives you cancer.

I'd just rather not worry about it.

With radiation they have stated they don't know if it's bad, good for you, or indifferent. They use it in high, concentrated doses to eradicate cancer cells in the body so in that sense it's good for you. With all the concerns about brain cancer and cell phones, they have also attributed brain cancer to artificial sweeteners but don't know if this is in fact true either but I would think things closer to home have a greater or more significant impact than those far fetched.

No doubt the possibility of brain cancer is upsetting but the point of the article is not so much the brain cancer but the trustworthiness of scientific studies financed by parties with interests in the outcomes.

Though Vexcabular is somewhat correct about it being a fallacy, there is a degree to which the corporate environment encourages dishonesty for the sake of benefiting higher-ups, suchs as middle management, upper management, and the share holders. The arrangement of statistical data in a manner that looks relevant is not too difficult to do if one tries. Certainly though, the factor of 3 difference between corporate financed and otherwised financed is interesting to note.

As per physics, there is a rather large spectrum of light in the microwave section of electromagnetic radiation. Some frequencies tend to resonate with molecular bonds and cause a change in temperature. If the particular frequency of microwave light emitted from cell phone were to cause heat gain, then the maximim increase would still be limited to the wattage of the transmitter and stored energy amount in the battery.

Microwave radiation is lower energy light than those which tend to break down biomolecules, such as ultraviolet, xray, gamma. Light forms such as visible, infrared, microwave, and those with lower frequencies and longer wavelengths tend to be less dangerous. Microwave light does effectively induce heat gain though, but even so the wattage of the emission source and rate of heat sinking should be considered.

Totally independently funded research is getting increasingly rare these days. My first question with regard to any study now is 'Who paid for this?' I'd go further and have the name of a) company that funded the research and b) specific product they make which aims to profit from the results, included by law in any media headline on the subject. Then we'd have a better idea of where this stuff is really coming from...

You can cook a raw chicken using refracted microwave towers, so why not a brain?

Doesn't taste as good.

That's why there's no Kentucky Fried Brain any more...

There's no doubt microwave ovens work. The reason I started the thread is not to guess whether or not cell phones and like gadgets are dangerous, but whether the research in the area sponsored by firms whose profits depend on their being safe is valid research.

Well of course not - why? Because the people doing the research are company employees first and scientists second and the company has final edit on the conclusions. It's hardly going to be objective if the findings are detrimental to profits. It's a bit like big tobacco medical research. It's actually a form of propaganda.

Work out the physics. A cell phone or a closed microwave oven does not radiate enough energy externally to penetrate the skull bone. We are talking basic physics here.

ruveyn

Work out the physics. A cell phone or a closed microwave oven does not radiate enough energy externally to penetrate the skull bone. We are talking basic physics here.

ruveyn

Since this is so obvious to you why isn't it obvious to the people who carry out the studies?