You decide:
Mobile phones 'alter human DNA'
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/4113989.stm
Study finds brain tumor connection to cell phone use
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2795
Posted 13 September 2007 - 06:39 PM
Posted 21 November 2007 - 08:02 PM
Posted 02 June 2008 - 02:33 AM
I've looked into this issue a bit. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that cell phones damage somatic cells. The effect seems to be on the blood brain barrier, and the brain (by that or another mechanism) which is made more permeable by cell phone radiation. Rats take longer to perform tasks when exposed to cell phone radiation, for instance.
Posted 17 November 2008 - 08:24 PM
Posted 17 November 2008 - 08:58 PM
Cell phones has enabled direct communication between almost anyone almost anywhere, including many of the poorest people in the world. Those "bloody irritant" uses are well worth living with compared to the revolution in communication those devices have enabled. Spreading information is invaluable, especially medical information but also all kinds of educational material and news from both near and far, and not least social communication like gossip and friendships that are maintained are of immense importance to society. Cell phones can be used for many other things than voice communication. In many cases they can be used as a link to the Internet.which ultimately is just a device to make and answer calls
That's a pretty narrow observation. Sure, there are lots of silly uses for a mobile phone, but the benefits outweigh the negative uses enormously. Besides, its all those "superficial" teenagers that pay for the development of better more advanced communication technology for everybody. Eventually those mobile phones will be de facto mobile computers with all the features and benefits that will bring with it.they consume a lot of resources only to satisfy the vanity of a bunch of superficial people
Posted 17 November 2008 - 09:48 PM
Cell phones has enabled direct communication between almost anyone almost anywhere, including many of the poorest people in the world. Those "bloody irritant" uses are well worth living with compared to the revolution in communication those devices have enabled. Spreading information is invaluable, especially medical information but also all kinds of educational material and news from both near and far, and not least social communication like gossip and friendships that are maintained are of immense importance to society. Cell phones can be used for many other things than voice communication. In many cases they can be used as a link to the Internet.which ultimately is just a device to make and answer calls
That's a pretty narrow observation. Sure, there are lots of silly uses for a mobile phone, but the benefits outweigh the negative uses enormously. Besides, its all those "superficial" teenagers that pay for the development of better more advanced communication technology for everybody. Eventually those mobile phones will be de facto mobile computers with all the features and benefits that will bring with it.they consume a lot of resources only to satisfy the vanity of a bunch of superficial people
Posted 17 November 2008 - 10:32 PM
I don't agree. They leave much to be desired. They are still too large and fragile for general portability. Bandwidth is too slow for many of the applications that are coming out of the computer enabled Internet. Many of those features are in demand for mobility. Power consumption and battery life is still too limited for many applications. This is only the beginning for the mobile computer / communication device. We have a long way to go yet.As communication devices cell phones are already more than satisfactory as they are now.
For you its a stupid fashion, but for some these new mobile features are life saving. Lets just take a medical example. Rural areas in developing countries have a lack of experienced doctors because most of them are attracted to large cities for larger salaries. Teleconsulting is making it possible for people in rural areas to get qualified opinions from well educated doctors by sending them high quality images and written descriptions of their illnesses. Before the camera merged with the mobile phone, cameras where too expensive and you needed a computer to transfer the images to the phone, if the phone even supported file transfers. That almost all mobile phones today contain a camera has lowered the price of those cameras significantly. Imaging technology brings a lot of possibilities. One of those possibilities is the ability of witnesses to a crime or an accident to document that event. In the future you will see this happening a lot. In fact it will probably have a significant effect on violent street crime.It's only a stupid fashion, but one that diverts technology and brains.
No it would not be more efficient. Demand is driving development of smaller and more powerful phones. As more features are demanded in phones ( features that are available on laptop computers ), phone developers are generalizing their devices. Many of the new lines of mobile phones are running Windows and Linux. The market has decided that phones should transform into computers because that was the most efficient and profitable road.If you want to create a small handheld computer, it would be much more efficient to develop it directly rather than going through the phone phase
Stationary phones are becoming obsolete simply because they have one damning limitation. They are stationary. The only reason we still use stationary computers is because they are more powerful. In fact many are now switching to portable computers because they have overcome some of those limitations. Mobile phones are like clothes. Some use them as status symbols, others just want functionality. That is a social phenomenon and has nothing to do with phones specifically.Why there is not so much fuss about stationary phones or laptops, for instance?
Posted 17 November 2008 - 10:42 PM
Edited by lightowl, 17 November 2008 - 10:43 PM.
Posted 18 November 2008 - 01:21 AM
Mobile phones are like clothes. Some use them as status symbols, others just want functionality. That is a social phenomenon and has nothing to do with phones specifically.
Posted 18 November 2008 - 10:04 AM
Where do you get those numbers? If its strictly from experience, then it is just a guess. In relatively rich countries there may be more people focusing on fashion, but that is certainly not the case in poorer countries where price/performance is a big issue.Cell phone market is more focused on fashion than on strict functionality.
Since when did status and fashion become not useful? And why do you think its a problem that innovation is also driven by fashion? The important thing is that innovation is driven by market forces, because market forces is a very effective innovator. It is those who are willing to pay for something that most people find stupid that is paying for the next generation of innovation. That is what sparked the computer revolution. Computers where stupendously expensive in the early years. A few bought them for status and/or for being on the bleeding edge of technology. That enabled the many to buy the same technology a lot cheaper a few years down the road. We should be thanking the young people and risk takers and thrill seekers for their willingness to spend money to be early adopters no matter how stupid other people think it is.That, especially among young people, happens not because the new model has a marked improvement in usefulness or practicality on the previous one, but just for a question of fashion and status.
Edited by lightowl, 18 November 2008 - 10:09 AM.
Posted 18 November 2008 - 10:53 AM
That depends on who that one is. If ones social circle requires one to get a new phone or new shoes or a new car every year, then either one get a new social circle or one get the latest "what ever is required". In many cases the social circle is more important to people than the money people spend on those new things. That especially applies if one is rich and money is of little concern to one. It is not a good idea to assume everyone has the same requirements as one self. In most cases that will not be true. Just because something is not important to you does not automatically make it unimportant to everybody else.but certainly one doesn't need to change a phone every year
Edited by lightowl, 18 November 2008 - 10:54 AM.
Posted 18 November 2008 - 11:00 AM
You decide:
Mobile phones 'alter human DNA'
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/4113989.stm
Study finds brain tumor connection to cell phone use
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2795
Posted 18 November 2008 - 11:02 AM
You decide:
Mobile phones 'alter human DNA'
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/4113989.stm
Study finds brain tumor connection to cell phone use
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2795
This won't help you feel any safer!
Posted 18 November 2008 - 12:43 PM
Edited by lightowl, 18 November 2008 - 12:54 PM.
Posted 18 November 2008 - 01:14 PM
That depends on who that one is. If ones social circle requires one to get a new phone or new shoes or a new car every year, then either one get a new social circle or one get the latest "what ever is required". In many cases the social circle is more important to people than the money people spend on those new things. That especially applies if one is rich and money is of little concern to one. It is not a good idea to assume everyone has the same requirements as one self. In most cases that will not be true. Just because something is not important to you does not automatically make it unimportant to everybody else.but certainly one doesn't need to change a phone every year
Posted 18 November 2008 - 07:07 PM
This is the case with any popular children's product. If many children didn't already think cell phones where cool they would be much less susceptible to commercial pressure. The phone companies are simply taking advantage of a social phenomenon that has less to do with cell phones and more to do with children's need to fit in with a group. If you don't like cell phones because of this, then you might need to reevaluate what is really the problem. Perhaps its just children's behavior you don't like.In the case of cell phones, it's evident that it's the market that artificially boosts the 'need', by increasing the social pressure on young people, so that if they don't have the coolest model, they feel almost as outcast.
Yep, that's how most children behave. If their friends have something cool they want it too. Its not unique to cell phones. Children put a lot of pressure on parents, period. It is the role of the parents to teach children how to prioritize things in life.I know personally families in difficult economic position whose children put a lot of pressure on their parents to buy very expensive phones, only because they are in turn subjected to a very strong peer pressure.
The media is reporting anything they think will get people fired up and angry about something. Just because the media is reporting something does not mean its important.And that's not only my experience, even the media has reported this phenomenon.
If labeling people makes you more comfortable, then I guess its your prerogative. Fortunately many people do not fit your narrow labels. In the case of technological development market pressures work in our capitalistic world. That's just a fact. That is not a statement that concludes that anything else might not work better. If that confuses your prejudiced way of evaluating people, then you might learn something.Btw, I believed you were a leftist? How is it you defend tooth and nail those private companies and their struggle for profit?
Edited by lightowl, 18 November 2008 - 07:11 PM.
Posted 18 November 2008 - 09:25 PM
Posted 22 November 2008 - 07:16 PM
If you look at the full text, the "Fraud" article raises some flags, but does not actually provide evidence that there was fraud or even draw the conclusion that there was such. Devra Davis' website reproduces a rebuttal to the Science "Fraud" article on cell phones:I looked around PubMed and DID find several relevant studies on cell phone usage association with DNA damage:
The mentioned study seems to have been manipulated, which made the news some months ago:
The article errs in the first sentence "(T)he only two peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cell phones can cause DNA breaks are at the center of a misconduct controversy at the Medical University of Vienna (MUV)." The BioInitiative Report, Section 6 by Henry Lai, PhD – Evidence for Genotoxic Effects (RFR and ELF) reports that:
• Of 78 relevant, peer-reviewed studies on genotoxicity and RFR exposure, forty-three (43) or 55% report effects on DNA. The data available are mainly applicable to cell phone radiation exposures.
• Of 41 relevant studies of genotoxicity and ELF exposure, 27 studies (66%) report effects on DNA and 14 studies (44%) report no significant effect.
No one at this point can say whether there has been intentional or unintentional misconduct, or if the lab technician even looked at the hidden exposure codes, because the second Medical University of Vienna (MUV) 'investigative body' has not yet made its Report available to all REFLEX authors for review. The second MUV 'ethics commission' needs to finish its assessment, and if they find solid evidence of scientific fraud, the paper or papers that are directly questioned should be disregarded. However, this does not extend to the entire body of research outside of this immediate investigation.
One should be reasonably skeptical when researchers who have been primarily "funded by multiple cell phone operators and manufacturers" discredit the work that may threaten the industry that funds them. The burden of proof for those alleging scientific misconduct should fall to those making charges, and their research records and funding sources should be considered as well.
Cindy Sage
Co-Editor, BioInitiative Report
Posted 25 November 2008 - 05:32 PM
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the average time between first exposure to a cancer-causing agent and clinical recognition of the disease is 15 to 20 years or longer—and cell phone use in the U.S. has only been popular for about a decade. (In 1996 there were 34 million U.S. cell phone users compared with more than 200 million today, according to CTIA–The Wireless Association, a Washington, D.C.–based cell phone industry group.)
Carpenter told the congressional panel that most of the studies that have shown an increased risk are from Scandinavia, where cell phones have been popular since the early 1990s. Herberman added that most of the research showing cell phones are safe is based on surveys of consumers who have used them for less than 10 years.
Despite a dearth of human studies, more than 400 experiments have been done since the early 1970s to determine how cell phone radiation affects animals, cells and DNA. They, too, have produced conflicting results. Some suggest that cell phone radiation damages DNA and/or nerve cells, others do not. At the hearing, Carpenter suggested that cell phones may increase the brain's production of reactive forms of oxygen called free radicals, which can interact with and damage DNA.
Posted 26 September 2009 - 02:34 PM
Henrietta Nittbya, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Arne Brunb, Jacob Eberhardtc, Lars Malmgrend, Bertil R.R. Perssonc and Leif G. Salforda
aDepartment of Neurosurgery, Lund University, The Rausing Laboratory and Lund University Hospital, S-22185, Lund, Sweden
bDepartment of Neuropathology, Lund University, The Rausing Laboratory and Lund University Hospital, S-22185, Lund, Sweden
cDepartment of Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, The Rausing Laboratory and Lund University Hospital, S-22185, Lund, Sweden
dThe MAX Laboratory, Lund University, The Rausing Laboratory and Lund University Hospital, S-22185, Lund, Sweden
Received 17 December 2008;
accepted 30 January 2009.
Available online 2 April 2009.
Abstract
Microwaves were for the first time produced by humans in 1886 when radio waves were broadcasted and received. Until then microwaves had only existed as a part of the cosmic background radiation since the birth of universe. By the following utilization of microwaves in telegraph communication, radars, television and above all, in the modern mobile phone technology, mankind is today exposed to microwaves at a level up to 1020 times the original background radiation since the birth of universe.
Our group has earlier shown that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phones alters the permeability of the blood–brain barrier (BBB), resulting in albumin extravasation immediately and 14 days after 2 h of exposure.
In the background section of this report, we present a thorough review of the literature on the demonstrated effects (or lack of effects) of microwave exposure upon the BBB.
Furthermore, we have continued our own studies by investigating the effects of GSM mobile phone radiation upon the blood–brain barrier permeability of rats 7 days after one occasion of 2 h of exposure. Forty-eight rats were exposed in TEM-cells for 2 h at non-thermal specific absorption rates (SARs) of 0 mW/kg, 0.12 mW/kg, 1.2 mW/kg, 12 mW/kg and 120 mW/kg. Albumin extravasation over the BBB, neuronal albumin uptake and neuronal damage were assessed.
Albumin extravasation was enhanced in the mobile phone exposed rats as compared to sham controls after this 7-day recovery period (Fisher's exact probability test, p = 0.04 and Kruskal–Wallis, p = 0.012), at the SAR-value of 12 mW/kg (Mann–Whitney, p = 0.007) and with a trend of increased albumin extravasation also at the SAR-values of 0.12 mW/kg and 120 mW/kg. There was a low, but significant correlation between the exposure level (SAR-value) and occurrence of focal albumin extravasation (rs = 0.33; p = 0.04).
The present findings are in agreement with our earlier studies where we have seen increased BBB permeability immediately and 14 days after exposure. We here discuss the present findings as well as the previous results of altered BBB permeability from our and other laboratories.
Edited by rwac, 26 September 2009 - 02:35 PM.
Posted 26 September 2009 - 03:56 PM
Posted 26 September 2009 - 05:25 PM
wireless LANs also bug me too. i had one for a while and got rid of it, along with adding a headset to my mobile phone.
Posted 26 September 2009 - 08:59 PM
Posted 27 September 2009 - 10:53 AM
wireless LANs also bug me too. i had one for a while and got rid of it, along with adding a headset to my mobile phone.
Posted 28 March 2010 - 04:01 PM
WASHINGTON (CNN) - The science is still out, but evidence so far indicates people should limit how much we use a cell phone, BlackBerry or iPhone due to a possible cancer risk, a Senate subcommittee heard Monday.
While no solid connection between mobile communications devices and human cancer has been established, studies indicating the likelihood of such a link call for a precautionary approach, medical experts testified at the hearing chaired by Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa.
Recommendations included using such devices less, keeping them away from the body, and limiting their use by children.
"Children have a configuration of their skull that does allow penetration of cell-phone radiation," noted Dr. John Bucher, associate director of the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health.
However, Bucher stopped short of declaring a causal link between cell-phone use and human cancer.
Other witnesses before the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee noted the relatively short history of widespread cell-phone use, dating back only two decades.
Early studies are inconclusive, said Dr. Siegal Sadetzki of Tel Aviv University, but those done on subjects after 10 years of cell-phone use were showing higher incidences of tumors and other problems.
She cited a correlation between the amount of use, the side of the head where the device was held for talking, and incidences of tumors in salivary glands in that area.
"Until definite answers are available, some public health measures - especially for children - should be instituted," Sadetzki said. "It's not whether we should use cell phones, but how we should use them."
None of the participants in the hearing - including Harkin - said they were giving up their cell phones, but all agreed that restricting use and keeping the units away from the body were good ideas.
Dr. Devra Davis - a founding director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute - criticized U.S. regulators and researchers for a lack of attention to the issue. She called for updated standards based on new research, and increased funding for more extensive research.
"I am not alarmed - I am concerned, because the world has changed very rapidly and we have a right to know," Davis said.
Edited by bobdrake12, 28 March 2010 - 04:02 PM.
Posted 29 March 2010 - 07:27 AM
preemptive/slightly placebo. i just find it irritating. even when someone im sitting next to in a plane seat decides to whip out a cellphone next to my head.
i realize the emission is far less as the distance parts from the scalp, but i guess it is a pet peeve of mine.
Posted 29 March 2010 - 10:26 AM
Posted 29 March 2010 - 03:07 PM
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users