Web 2.0's Business Model: Find The Biggest Sucker
Plumbers Union Fighting The Big Job Threat: Waterless Urinals!

Whoops, Cell Phones Will Give You Cancer Again

Studies

from the who-to-believe? dept

Fri, Mar 31st 2006 09:23am -

Continuing the long run of contradictory reports on the role of mobile-phone use in causing brain tumors, a new Swedish study says that long-term phone use raises a person’s risk of getting a malignant brain tumor. The “link” is apparently that of the 905 people they surveyed that had malignant tumors, 85 of them were “high users of mobile phones”. That really doesn’t seem to indicate much causation — all 905 people probably wore shoes at one point or another, so should we conclude that shoes cause brain tumors? The real long-term effects of mobile phone use on people’s brains and bodies remain unclear, but this type of study doesn’t really help clear things up, one way or another.


104 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Whoops, Cell Phones Will Give You Cancer Again”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
104 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You are a moron. I have known people with cancer and it is horrible. You’ll worry about cancer when you get it and you have to have chemo or have parts of your body amputated you selfish bastard. Personally, I would like to know everything I can do to avoid getting cancer. That is why we are worried about it.

ChocoTuar says:

Re: Re: Reply to ZEROTH404's comment

I don’t know if the original poster feels the same way, but I can honestly admit that I have no fear of death. I also believe that I could say that looking down the barrel of a gun.

My reasoning is that we’re all going to die eventually, why does it matter when you go? You just have to always be right with God, then you will have no worries.

The only thing I fear is the reaction of my death. The way my family will take it. I think I’ll have to tell them not to grieve for me…

Dr Knowitall says:

USA Study on Cell(phone) abuse.

A study conducted in the USA found that brain tumors caused heavy cell phone use. The data was backed up by other actions like talking on cell phones while driving and putting on mascara at 80 mph in the left lane, all at the same time. These actions can only be explained as the result of a brain tumor.

dani says:

I see I’m just in time for another wonderful techdirt debate…sounds like the usual intellectual crowd

If I survey a random 905 people on the street, I’d be willing to wager at least 85% will be heavy mobile users.

Heck, hold a poll here…I’m a heavy mobile user…that’s 100% so far.

When did a “research study” become any random survey or statistic, even if it holds nothing constant and doesn’t prove anything?

Zeroth404 says:

“Zeroth404,

Just so long as you don’t mind going first, I’m sure everyone else will be happy to take the same cavalier attitude…”

I’d rather do a random selection, or a logical selection. I’f I had to make a logical selection, I’d first throw in children under the age of 4 — these are people that have yet to develop a personality or the ability to think for themselves. I’d then throw in people over the age of 80 that are considerd senile. I’d then throw in all the bed vegetables that are in any sort of undefined-length coma.

This would be a large chunk of the population which leaves all the people that can say and comprehend “I think, there for I am.”

From there, I’d take all terminally ill patients. I’d then take people with incurable Sexually transmitted diseases such as aids.

You might be very angry with me right now, but if I had to make a selection of the population to live, then the people left over from what I’ve mentioned are the best suited to maintain the survival of our own species.

If at that point I still haven’t killed off as many people as I’ve been required, I’d make a completely random selection of the rest — including myself.

“A study conducted in the USA found that brain tumors caused heavy cell phone use. The data was backed up by other actions like talking on cell phones while driving and putting on mascara at 80 mph in the left lane, all at the same time. These actions can only be explained as the result of a brain tumor.”

Thats funny

c says:

Re: children under 4

just a side note…but children under 4 have very strong personalities and can definitely think for themselves…babies come into this world thinking for themselves…they need protection, and they need help because they do not have their motor skills together or direct access to a bank account, but they are worth saving…

x-vere (user link) says:

If it ain't cellphones...

… It’ll be something else. Cellphones cause cancer, Steaming vegtables with plastic wrap in the microwave causes cancer, being outside causes cancer, drinking diet coke causes cancer. EVERYTHING causes cancer. Let’s all accept the fact that we’re going to die of cancer. Then we can sip our diet drinks and chat with our girlfriends on the cell and live a carefree and cancerous life.

Anonymous Coward says:

Granted, the article didn’t mention this, but anyone who isn’t a moron in a hurry understands that when you do a study like this you compare a group of people who have tumors with a group of people who don’t have tumors. And they found that among the people who had tumors, a higher percentage were heavy cell phone users. Getting a brain tumor is still pretty unlikely to begin with, so even a 240% increase probably isn’t that significant. On the other hand, if something increased your chance of having heart disease by 240%, that would be a big deal.

dani says:

Re: Re:

Sorry..I’m not a moron, but I was in a hurry. Your point makes this “study” even more ineffective in my eyes.

“A total 85 of these 905 cases were so-called high users of mobile phones, that is they began early to use mobile and, or wireless telephones and used them a lot,” the study said.

85 of 905…and you really believe they asked another 905 without tumors and less than 85 were moderate to heavy cell users? Not in this day & age!

Andrew Strasser (user link) says:

Can you hear me now?

Did we forget they settled with him? We all know that high doses of RF can cause cancer. Cellphones use RF as well as many other devices. Most of which you don’t attach to yourself. Heck some of which they cover you in a lead jacket before just flashing it at you once. This should lead us to believe that it cannot be good to hold this next to our head.

You do have the handfree alternatives that the cell indusry has introduced that aren’t wireless that are safe though. This is exactly what it says. The truth being stated yet again by another place and even here being ridiculed when it’s factual if you know anything about the effects of radiation or Radio Frequency.

Caliber says:

Re: Can you hear me now?

Everyone is so worried about RF signals causing cancer. What about the THOUSANDS of employees that work 8-10 hours a day 7 days a week within a close proximity of large, powerful, Broadcasting centres? TV, and FM radio being the highest wattage output of them all. If RF was that much of a problem we would be hearing about it more often from other high risk groups not just the ass in the porche who is too self-righteous to put the damn thing down.

Robert S says:

what about the others?

so the study says that 905 out of 2000 ppl had malignant brain tumors.

however..i’m willing to bet that the other 1095 ppl who didn’t have brain tumors, also talked on cell phones. maybe not ALL were high users..but i can guarantee at least some were.

the study only shows half the story in order to even make a story.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Then you an even bigger idiot than I first thought. If your father could have done something to prevent himself getting cancer, then he could have lived.

If we can find out what CAUSES cancer then we can avoid those things and not get cancer. If I were you I would want them to find out as much about it as I could so other people wouldn’t have to lose their loved ones either.

Zeroth404 says:

“Then you an even bigger idiot than I first thought. If your father could have done something to prevent himself getting cancer, then he could have lived.”

You need to slow down and listen to yourself.

Cancer is caused by unseen forces acting on living cells. any kind of radiation can cause cancer. Probably even magnetism.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Cancer is caused by unseen forces acting on living cells. any kind of radiation can cause cancer. Probably even magnetism.”

True. But if they discover that the radiation in cell phones drastically increase the probability of getting cancer, then I want to know so I can stop using mine. Why don’t you want to be informed?

Zeroth404 says:

“just a side note…but children under 4 have very strong personalities and can definitely think for themselves…babies come into this world thinking for themselves…they need protection, and they need help because they do not have their motor skills together or direct access to a bank account, but they are worth saving…”

That may be true. I’m not sure children think for themselves until they learn it from other people. You can raise your child to believe in some religion, it doesn’t mean that the child chose to believe in it, they are only assimilating with the fear not to assimilate because its embedded in their mind.

One thing that you cannot argue is that children are ideolgical beyond belief. all they know is “I want, I want, I want” until you teach them better.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Why don’t you do some research yourself, instead of relying on “them,” whoever “they” are? ”

First of all ‘they’ are scientists and I would very much like to do the research but I lack the time and resources to do it myself so i will have to rely on someone else.

“Why don’t you want to be informed?”

“What gives you this impression?”

Because of your opening statement:

“If we lose half the population to cancer, that still leaves us well over 3 billion people left on the planet”

Zeroth404 says:

“First of all ‘they’ are scientists”

But WHO are they? you know their names? Are they competent? You just don’t know.

“Why don’t you want to be informed?”

“What gives you this impression?”

“Because of your opening statement:”

“If we lose half the population to cancer, that still leaves us well over 3 billion people left on the planet”

Is that not enough people? 🙂

“everything in moderation.”

even moderation 🙂

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“But WHO are they? you know their names? Are they competent? You just don’t know.”

No I don’t know them personally. I would think that at the very least they completed a PhD which means they cared enough about their subject to spend the years completing their education.

“Is that [3 billion] not enough people? 🙂 ”

It is enough people but your attitude shows that you care about only yourself.

Invidious says:

Population Control and You.

Given the fact that the worlds population is over 6 billion persons lends itself to the premise that we can lose a few billion and not be terrible unsure of our survival as a species. Yes there will be much gnashing of teeth and agonizing by some. Others will profit from such catastrophe.

Perhaps we should rethink our view on lengthening the human lifespan and ensuring that every poor person around the world has adequate food and protection from disease, etc. Perhaps it would, in the long run, be in our best interest to thin the congestion in large cities and lessen the burden on our producers of food, energy, material goods, etc.

Think about it.

Zeroth404 says:

“your attitude shows that you care about only yourself.”

I’m really not suer where you got that impression. Obviously I have my own will to live and will do anything necessary and rational to ensure that I stay alive. if I’m being attacked and my life is threatened, you’re damn right I’ll kill somebody, but if I had the choice of saving a large mass of people at the cost of risking my life, I’d do it. I’d only GIVE my life for people if I knew them personally. Otherwise, how am I to know what kind of people they are? maybe its a group of serial killers and child rapists?

I’m not maniacle. if you think I’m being irational let me know, though I can’t garauntee that I’ll agree.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I got the impression that you cared about only yourself from your comments. You are treating people like statistics. You don’t care if 3 billion people die of cancer as long as it isn’t you. You don’t care about people who are suffering. These are people we are talking about, not just statistics, not just numbers on paper.

I don’t think you are totally irrational in wanting to preserve your own life. I just don’t think you care about anybody other than yourself. I do care if 3 billion people suffer a horrible death that could have been prevented. Even if I don’t know a single one of them personally. Even though some of them are going to be serial killers and rapists, a larger percentage are innocent children and good people.

Zeroth404 says:

Re: Re: Re:

“You also do not reply to the comment properly, making threaded reading hard for everyone”

I don’t use threaded reading, I wasn’t even aware.

“You are treating people like statistics. You don’t care if 3 billion people die of cancer as long as it isn’t you. You don’t care about people who are suffering. These are people we are talking about, not just statistics, not just numbers on paper.”

I’m just trying to be unbiased. I do care if 3 billion people die, thats a lot of people. but if 3 billion people HAVE to die, no-matter-fucking-what, then I’d rather have it be people that aren’t sane enough to enjoy life, aren’t conscious, or are a threat to the rest of the population. like AIDS victims. there is reasoning in every single category of candidates that I’ve mentioned.

Invidious (user link) says:

Triage

Every day all over the world, rational people practice triage. Easily defined, it means:

1. A process for sorting injured people into groups based on their need for or likely benefit from immediate medical treatment.

2. A system used to allocate a scarce commodity, such as food, only to those capable of deriving the greatest benefit from it.

3. A process in which things are ranked in terms of importance or priority.

If we are to continue our self-destructive paths, we will have to make tough choices as to who survives and who does not. Cell phones are nice but to use one very often in light of all these, in my opinion, not so surprising discoveries concerning how human health is influenced negatively by them, is not terribly bright. We must concentrate our limited resources on those who show they can make reasonable choices towards maintaining a healthy lifestyle versus those who heedlessly do as they wish to do, regardless of the negative impact.

Zeroth404 says:

“If we are to continue our self-destructive paths, we will have to make tough choices as to who survives and who does not”

I’m having a terrible time trying to determine whether or not you are pro-traige or anti-triage. self-destructive? is that a bad thing as it seems you’re implying, or are you advocating these “tough choices” ?

Invidious says:

Zeroth404: “I’m having a terrible time trying to determine whether or not you are pro-traige or anti-triage.”

I’m saying triage is eventually unavoidable and acceptable:

“We must concentrate our limited resources on those who show they can make reasonable choices towards maintaining a healthy lifestyle versus those who heedlessly do as they wish to do, regardless of the negative impact”

Get with it says:

Stats

You are more likely to slip and fall in the shower ending your life to to even contract cancer. Now if you happen to be one of the unlucky people to contract cancer the only people you have to blame are your parents (genetics) and or your self what you eat mostly!! IF RF causes cancer which it can in extremly high amounts like x rays. Your cell phone is unable to put out that kinda of radiation I work in the cell phone industry and the phone are limited to milliaps of power barly enough to run your watch. This arugment and study are excersices in futility sorry for the spelling errorrs im working rignht fixing all your cell phones

Kratos says:

You can call me cruel or crass, but I see Zeroth’s point.

If 3 billion people are going to die of cancer, then it may as well be those who are already at the end of their road. If I get cancer, I’ll spend the last 6 months or whatever sorting out my life. Getting laid, getting wasted, and doing all the things that many “normal” people never do, because, they “don’t have time.” I’ll tell you how doesn’t have time; the 12 year old girl who was abducted and is being raped and murdered at this moment. I don’t know who she is and where she is, but the knowledge of it happening still makes me all the more worried for our survival.

So, cancer kills us. Big whoop. So do cars, fire, bears, and Muslim Fundimentalists.

Ponder says:

Common sense

If radio waves caused cancer we’d all be dead from the TV and radio channels, natural radio sources, never mind any form of medical scanning or two way radios etc. They are very well controled not to give out that kind of power. Strong dones will kill. For example: cellphone power measured in milliwatts-no damage, microwave oven measured in Kilowatts-will cock you to a crisp in a few minutes. They operate on similar frequencies-different strengths.

Rick Cooper, The PDA Pro (user link) says:

Use a headset

Well, for starters, use a headset. Either bluetooth or wired.This will at least move the phone away from your brain. I still see far too many people walking around with a phone glued to their head.

Consider using email, SMS or instant messaging on your mobile device when convenient.

Finally, there’s a company that promotes a product they say will reduce the risk of exposure from using a cell phone or cordless phone. I won’t mention it here because I don’t want to promote it directly.

Something to think about.

Hero (user link) says:

Thank you

frigorifero whirlpool
impianto depurazione acqua reflue
[URL=http://firenzeage.xu.pl]firenze agenzia matrimoniale[/URL]
jessy bruno sex video
collari
centro benessere sicilia
[URL=http://regaliraga.xu.pl]regali ragazzo[/URL]
[URL=http://disegnofan.xu.pl]disegno fantasy[/URL]
[URL=http://giochistup.xu.pl]giochi stupidi[/URL]
[URL=http://recensione.xu.pl]recensione playstation[/URL]

non of your business says:

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Coward Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Web 2.0's Business Model: Find The Biggest Sucker
Plumbers Union Fighting The Big Job Threat: Waterless Urinals!
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...