The Story Behind Cell Phone Radiation Research 560
XopherMV writes "A study by Lai and Singh, published in a 1995 issue of Bioelectromagnetics, found an increase in damaged DNA in the brain cells of rats after a single two-hour exposure to microwave radiation at levels considered "safe" by government standards. The idea behind that study was relatively simple: expose rats to microwave radiation similar to that emitted by cell phones, then examine their brain cells to see if any DNA damage resulted.
The news was apparently unwelcome in some quarters.
According to internal documents that later came to light, Motorola started working behind the scenes to minimize any damage Lai's research might cause even before the study was released. In a memo and a draft position paper dated Dec. 13, 1994, officials talked about how they had "war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue" and were in the process of lining up experts who would be willing to point out weaknesses in Lai's study and reassure the public.
To this day, the cell phone industry continues to dispute Lai and Singh's findings although half of about 200 studies say there is a biological effect from cell phone radiation.
Read more in UW Columns."
Trivial solution ... (Score:5, Insightful)
So ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it safe ?
power levels (Score:3, Insightful)
Half of 200? (Score:3, Insightful)
So 100 studies say there are no problems. And 100 say there are problems.
So there must be problems!
I wonder. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trivial solution ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you sure that having a Bluetooth wireless unit close to your brain cells will make that much of improvement?
Half of studies...? (Score:5, Insightful)
But by that same logic none of us should worry because half of the studies say there is no damage.
I'm a minimalist w/ my cellphone for reasons other than radiation... but seems to me we need something better than "50% of studies say it's an issue."
Ah hell, who am I kidding, this is slashdot. I'm going to go burn my T610 now. That Bluetooth probably already killed my sperm anyway.
Rats! (Score:4, Insightful)
So, just how much radiation *does* the government consider to be safe for rats?
kids (Score:5, Insightful)
and guess who is the phone company's biggest new target over the last 3 years....? yep. teeenagers....
but who buys these phones for their kids? Adults...
Of course its for "safety" you know that
If i had a kid i would not let use one... yet parents don't even spend time to think of the health effects on their kids...
yet another sad statement on society...
Cue Theremin Sound (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The research is a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
The next step would be to test on higher-evolved species and mammals (e.g. guinea pigs, cats, eventually primates) to iron out the concerns you've identified. Most likely by the time it reaches humans this will not be a relevant matter... but at least there is some preliminary evidence that would suggest further testing is required.
Just like radium watches and flouroscopes. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think in 100 years they will be saying "They did WHAT?!? They put microwave transmitters RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR BRAINS! What morons!" The cell phone industry can fight it all they want, but the cigarette industry didn't acknowledge that cigarettes were addivtive until the 1990's.
Re:Trivial solution ... (Score:5, Insightful)
A cellphone need to reach the next antenna which may be 5 kilometers away.
There is a radical difference in signal strength here.
Re:The research is a troll (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thus Why I don't Use a Cell Phone (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Original paper author has moved on (Score:5, Insightful)
Questions:
Answer: because cell phone radiation doesn't cause cancer at any rate appreciable from statistical noise, IF AT ALL.
Do you realize the gasolene vapor and diesel fumes are far more likely to give you cancer, that they're both known, proven, undisputed carcinogens?
Re:Original paper author has moved on (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe he's just a fruitcake. The behavior of a researcher is no indication that his results are valid, just that he believes them, and just because some early quantum theorist started wearing "quantum snowshoes" to keep himself from falling through the floor doesn't mean I have to feel in any jeopardy of doing the same.
People, even researchers, are capable of believing all sorts of doofy shit, especially that shit they have produced themselves. Or Perhaps he has a brain the size of a rat's.
Personally wearing headphones doesn't work though, as I suffer far more brain damage from the emanations from the headphones than I ever could from those of the phone itself.
KFG
Why these studies are backpage stories (Score:3, Insightful)
Now one can argue that maybe the few positive results are the real ones and that experimental technology is just not very good. Fair enough but there is a second issue here. There is no plausible mechanism for DNA damage from non-ionizing radiation aside from possibly heating. Again, it doesn't mean that one doesn't exist but this is in stark contrast to damage from ionizing radiation where the basic mechanisms have been known for decades.
With no body of reproducible results and no plausible mechanism, the null hypothesis that there is no effect is the one is generally accepted. You should, of course, pass your own judgement on the risk involved - I'm just trying to explain why these results are consigned to Electromagnetics rather than gracing the front pages of Science and Nature.
Re:Land line studies... (Score:2, Insightful)
Assumptions are not *studies*.
Re:So ? (Score:2, Insightful)
What kind of radiation? Outside the building, during certain hours one is certainly bathed in EM radiation from that big fusion reactor in the sky, but apart from the UV component it's not biologically hazardous - unless you're a vampire, of course...
Re:So ? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a reason for that. The sky can't suddenly develop a crack or leak and expose him to deadly doses of radiation in minutes.
Re:Trivial solution ... (Score:3, Insightful)
A normal (non-wireless) headset will simply act as an antenna and the radiation will be strongest at the tip of the antenna, which is now IN your ear rather than just next to it.
Bluetooth uses 2.4GHz frequencies, which according to a 1980's IEEE paper (I have a hardcopy around here sonewhere) is the PERFECT frequency to kill a lab rat, whilst leaving it's body intact.
Now, the radiation conforms to the inverse-square rule, so getting the equipment away from your head is the best way to avoid exposure, but it annoys the hell out of everyone else who has to listen to your conversations...
I HATE those damn Nextel walkie-talkie's!!!
Re:Russian Microwave emission standards (Score:4, Insightful)
The goggles are actually protection from a well known thermal effect of microwaves (cataracts). Goggles aren't some new idea in protecting from a previously unknown danger of microwave exposure. The OP is off his rocker.
Re:Half of 200? (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally, where there's smoke, there's fire, and even if it turns out there's no fire, all you did was move, fill water buckets, and make other sensible precautions against fire anyway -- no biggie. Get some perspective.
Let's put it another way. You get your hands on 200 studies of the stability of the office building you work in. 100 of those studies say the structure will catastrophically collapse, likely killing 99% of the people inside. The other 100 say the building is fine. Question: Will you step inside the building without any further investigation?
Re:Half of 200? --think like a scientist here.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Think as a researcher instead -- you can't prove a negative in science (you apparently can in politics, at least for decades at a time while avoiding action).
200 studies. At the standard for significance, five percent of those -- ten -- would be expected to show an effect by random chance alone.
100 studies -- ten times what you'd expect from random chance -- reported an effect.
--> There is an entire field of industrial chemistry using microwave pumping of chemical reactions to selectively favor one reaction path or another, changing the yield and outcome of batch production. There is no doubt at all that moving molecules around with microwaves changes chemical reactions. Nobody's sure HOW yet.
--> "No proven mechanism" -- it works, they don't know how it works, whether rearranging the pattern or movement of molecules alters the rate at which certain reactions happen.
--> "No proven mechanism" -- legally, you can't prove HOW it could happen so it can't happen (that's the legal/regulatory approach).
So we have an effect that's solid enough to build industrial chemical plants on, but not solid enough to believe is possible legally.
------
What do you think of intelligent life on earth?
I think it would be a good idea.
BS Meter spiking... (Score:4, Insightful)
I call bullshit on this.
Re:So ? (Score:3, Insightful)
The airlines don't want to be sued by people claiming that they got cancer due to the high levels of radiation that they were/are exposed to whilst flying at high altertudes.
Re:Original paper author has moved on (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you point us at a cancer rate by nation breakdown? Just curious, I spent a few minutes googling for one without success.
Well, let's be fair: the microwave oven is designed to keep its emissions inside.
It's certainly difficult to isolate from the risk factors we bathe ourselves in daily, yes.
I would guess that people who walk around with their cell-phone glued to their head all the time are likely to be type-A personalities with more significant lifestyle factors.
Re:Original paper author has moved on (Score:5, Insightful)
Too early to tell. Cancer is usually about 10years in development. We will see.
See above, plus the phone towers are very far away compared to the phone in your hand. The inverse square law again.
Because cell phones are new. New stuff is always blamed for all sorts of things. Plus the US system of civil suits are severely broken, so it sometimes pays to sue more or less randomly.
Because tin foil hats can't spell? It's probably something like Dinitroamino ethanolamine or similar. And google is not the best place to find chemical data (=such data tend to cost money).
You are probably right, but we can't conclude this quite yet. Ask again in 10 years.
Are you seriously suggesting that people give up their holy cows^H^H^H^Hcars instead of going after big corporations?
marked "insightful" by an idiot (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Original paper author has moved on (Score:4, Insightful)
SuperBanana [slashdot.org] writes: Answer: because cell phone radiation doesn't cause cancer at any rate appreciable from statistical noise, IF AT ALL.
Not necessarily. Some cancers take their time in developing, and some require a fair amount of exposure to toxins, etc., before a cancer is triggered. It may be that we will see rates soar in the next ten-twenty years, once time of exposure + time for appreciable harm to occur adds up to cancer. It may also be that there are other, much more subtle forms of damage, forms that are not cancer but which lead to equally unpleasant and debilitating diseases/syndromes/etc.
Re:Original paper author has moved on (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:kids (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm *glad* you don't have a kid.
Re:marked "insightful" by an idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of it like throwing stones in a pond; it'll take a lot of people doing that at the same time for a ripple to capsize a boat at a distance; but the force exerted on the water at the locus is probably enough to punch a hole through your boat.
If you prefer another analogy, think of people talking -- you aren't going to get a headache from someone a long way away yelling at your friend sitting beside you -- their voicewaves are distributed, with the signal getting fainter at any specific location the more dispersed they become. The problem happens when your friend, with his mouth right beside your ear, yells back.
Re:Trivial solution ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Wrong about prions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Half of 200? (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem is the news media grabbing the first piece of sensational non-news before any rigorous analysis and blabbing it all over. Then the idiot/ignorant masses converge and there you have it.
Re:I wonder. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Trivial solution ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Original paper author has moved on (Score:3, Insightful)
I managed to find this [nih.gov] after a few minutes of googling myself. I guess your success can depend on your googling skillz. It seems that overall cancer rates show no noticeable correlation with cell phone usage--Japan and Korea are in the middle to lower end of the scale in fact, at least in comparison to natinos not known for such widespread cellphone usage.
In any case, the data is for overall cancer rates, not brain cancer specifically. In fact, brain cancer is quite uncommon in comparison to lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphoma, etc. It seems quite silly to me to worry about the cancer risk of cellphones when things like tobacco smoke and industrial toxins are much more obvious problems to worry about.
Well, let's be fair: the microwave oven is designed to keep its emissions inside.
What is unfair about a comparison to microwave ovens? Or household cordless phones or wi-fi access points for that matter? They all emit high-frequency radiation. And yes, microwaves are shielded and meant to CONTAIN radiation, but they are not perfect. If they were, then setting your wireless access point too close to a running microwave oven wouldn't mess up your network access (it does--my cordless phone didn't play nice with the oven either). Keep in mind that a typical cellphone emits less than a watt of power and a microwave oven is over a thousand times more powerful. The shielding may be 99.9% effective, but even at that rate the oven will emit radiation at rates on the same scale as that of a cellphone (this is not just a wild guess--microwave ovens may emit up to 5 mW per cm^2 from its outside surface, as measured from 5cm from that surface).
It's certainly difficult to isolate from the risk factors we bathe ourselves in daily, yes.
I think that researchers could conduct a study that proved ANYTHING caused cancer, and that a lot of these studies are influenced by pre-conceived prejudices--it is a goal to establish some link to cancer then muck with the study until there is evidence to back that link. There isn't a substance in the world that could not harm us if misused, and any data could be interpreted to sound urgent. Ever seen the parody site about "dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO)"? There are no lies in that site at all, but it makes DHMO (better known as pure water) sound like a dangerous toxin.
Truth is, it is quite EASY to isolate some obvious risk factors. When people live and work around synthetically produced chemicals that'll make your eyes water and give you a headache, or you notice a town that has 5 times the cancer rate of the rest of the nation, then it's pretty easy to figure out there is a problem there. But this cellphone thing? We've had 20 years to look at this, and there've been no big cancer clusters, no obvious cause-and-effect relationship, etc, and studies that have been made indicate no solid consensus. I think there are much more important things to worry about right now.
Can you cite the Motorola-sponsored report... (Score:3, Insightful)