Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Communications Science

Study Links Cell Phones to DNA Damage 360

Posted by CmdrTaco from the also-to-be-an-obnoxious-prick dept.
Amit Malhotra was one of several readers to point out a story running on numerous sites about a study linking cell phone use to DNA Damage. Of course, a recent gammaworld campaign has served to remind me that mutations are almost always beneficial, so there is nothign to fear.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Links Cell Phones to DNA Damage More

Study Links Cell Phones to DNA Damage

Comments Filter:

  • I love my cell phone (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:15PM (#11148001)
    The super speed and x-ray vision are great superpowers.
    • The super speed and x-ray vision are great superpowers

      ...not to mention the green skin and slight resemblence to Lou Ferrigno.

    • I didn't know that a cellphone could wreak havoc with Microsoft's distributed network architecture... oops, wrong decade...

      Eric
      View your HTTP headers here [ericgiguere.com]
    • The truth of the matter is: cellphones are so useful and people have become so dependent on them that even if it could be proven that cellphones can cause cell mutations, cancer or whatever, most people will continue to use them. People drive cars knowing they could be killed in an accident, because cars are just such a necessity. Same with cellphones. Although if the safety risk were found to be severe, there would probably be some sort of accessory that could be attached to the phone to shield the user or
      • Any sort of shield would also do bad things to the radiation pattern, which would ruin your signal quality. And phones generally are able to throttle down their power when they are very close to the tower. So, a shield might just make the phone throw out MORE radio energy in order to overcome the loss associated with the shiled.

        Well, they DID suggest using one of those earbuds or headset device.

        Soooooooo, instad of holding the phones up to our heads, and giving ourselves a brain tumor, we are to leave t
    • Actually, I believe this research.

      I have personally seen instances where DNA mutuation has caused people to begin shouting into their cellphone as if the sound waves will travel farther the louder they talk.

      I've also seen evidence where the mutation effects the frontal lobe and diminishes the inhibitions of the person using the phone, so that they don't even care about notifying the 50 other people on the bus that they are currently on their period, and are experiencing that "not so fresh" feeling.

      DNA

  • possible mutation effect... (Score:3, Funny)

    by GabrielPreston ( 636827 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:16PM (#11148025) Homepage
    Maybe one of the effects of these mutations could be better spelling...

  • Stop that train... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fimbulvetr ( 598306 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:17PM (#11148033)
    recent gammaworld campaign has served to remind me that mutations are almost always beneficial
    Any one have a link? I find this extremely hard to believe.

  • Oh Sweet Jesus No... (Score:5, Funny)

    by JossiRossi ( 840900 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:17PM (#11148035) Homepage
    Now all those Valley Girls who use cell phones all the time will get super powers.

    "We have to, like, go save the president, you know. hee hee! *Laser Beam Eye Sound Effects*"

  • I don't see a problem (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:17PM (#11148039)
    you have to die of something...

    but do you think this will make people stop using their damned cell phones? no way, they need to figure out a way to make them less harmful yes, but what incentive will they have to do that if this isn't hard fact.

    remember teh craze a few years ago when they thought it gave you cancer? how many scares are we going to have. do people realize how many radio waves go through your body every single day? i am sure sitting infront of a computer monitor each day is a bit worse than me using my cell.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • With cell phones there is a small amount of radiation but....

      Your outer skin is dead and acts as a great resistor. The signal does not get through your dead outer skin to the inner living skin to mutate it. Every cell phone goes through tests on this.

      Older cell phones did not look into this and there were problems. This is one reason they can't ramp up the power level in the cell phones to improve your signal.
    • I'm still waiting for a scientist to say "If It uses electricity, is a chemical or is not natural in any way, It will kill you slowly" and get it over with.

      They must make more money doing it individually then all at once.

      • Re:I don't see a problem (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Enigma_Man ( 756516 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:49PM (#11148482) Homepage
        I hate the word "natural" when used describing what something is made of... What does it mean exactly? Especially hair products that are "all natural". Does that mean they didn't refine the crap they put in it at all? They just dumped leaves and shit into the shampoo? Or did they have to extract certain chemicals, like you do with just about everything else. Where is the line between "natural" and not, in both marketspeak and some sort of sane opinion?

        A lightning bolt is natural, and is pretty damn dangerous, as is arsenic, and bears.

        -Jesse

  • From TFA: Adlkofer ... recommended the use of a headset connected to a cellphone whenever possible.

    I thought the prevailing wisdom was that using a headset actually made things worse: If you use a headset, you place the phone in your pocket; it needs to run at higher power to get reception; the skull is good at blocking radiation anyway; and the wires connecting the headset to the phone can also conduct the radiation up to your head.

    • Not to mention the fact that if it's in your pocket, the twins are recieving the radiation.

    • Radiation (Score:3, Informative)

      by neoshroom ( 324937 )
      Conduct the radiation up to your head? Its radiation, from the word radiate! It goes out in all directions! Radiation (at least certain types) needs thick lead to block it. Other types are stopped by your skin. Now why in the world would radiation be conducted by a wire? It would either pass through the wire or be stopped by it.

      However, there might be a few other good reasons for not putting a radiation-emitting device in your pants ;).

      • Re:Radiation (Score:3, Interesting)

        by P-Nuts ( 592605 )

        Conduct the radiation up to your head? Its radiation, from the word radiate! It goes out in all directions! Radiation (at least certain types) needs thick lead to block it. Other types are stopped by your skin. Now why in the world would radiation be conducted by a wire? It would either pass through the wire or be stopped by it.

        Okay, I've probably been a bit careless in my use of word "conduct". A wire can channel radiation by acting as an aerial - in that radiation induces currents to flow in the wire,

  • I always said the loud talkers were brain damaged.

  • Look, the tobacco industry is milked... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:22PM (#11148126) Homepage Journal
    They // lawyers // need a new cow.

    The pharmaceuticals, fastfood, and cell phone companies have money. They are nice big cows waiting for the right amount of scaremongering to generate up public concern. The big lie works well here, keep repeating it, getting it into newspapers, internet chain letters, and voila!

    So what if there are any possible beneifts, if there is a negative its a horror! Think of the children, the elderly, the dienfranchiesed. These huge evil corporations slowing killing us for a profit.

    So, who files the class-action suit first?

    * NO I did not RTFA - it died already.
    • I always wondered why the radar gun manufacturers weren't hit. There were lots of stories of police officers with tumors when they had the rear mounted radar shooting past their head. Hell they're pointing it at civilians still.
      • I believe the association was between Testicular Cancer and radar guns.

        There were some court cases over this, with police officers suing radar gun manufacturers over their cancer cases (let's face it, if you lost a testicle(s) and thought it was somebody's fault, you might look for a scapegoat too). There was one study done (about ten years ago, if memory serves) where a cluster of Testicular Cancer cases was noted in State Troopers... the only common thread seemed to be that they all held their hand-held
  • This has been postulated ror years now. God knows what we're doing to ourselves with technology.

  • New commercials. (Score:5, Funny)

    by zwilliams07 ( 840650 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:23PM (#11148130)
    Can you tumor me now? Good.

  • thin on details (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Tyro ( 247333 ) * on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:23PM (#11148132)
    There's not nearly enough information here.

    I'd like to see them cone down the exact wavelengths that are purported to be problematic. It may be only a certain portion of that band that causes enough resonance in the DNA molecule to break the molecular bonds. The EM spectrum is large... and this could be a very wavelength-specific phenomenon.

    For example, everyone knows that Ultraviolet radiation is harmful to humans... it causes sunburns, skin cancer, etc. However, clinical effects within the ultraviolet range of the EM spectrum (consisting of UVA, UVB, and UVC in order of increasing frequency) vary significantly. UVA will tan your skin, but isn't terribly harmful otherwise. UVB, and part of UVC will cause Ultraviolet Keratitis ("welder's eye" or "snow blindness"), and UVC is the worst for causing skin cancer (UVB causes cancer too, but UVC is worse).

    We frankly need much more information... particularly a bit more specifcity about what wavelengths of Cell phone radiation cause DNA damage. A shift of only 20-30 nanometers in the UV range can make a big difference in clinical effects... who knows where the sweet spot is in the cell band?

    I'm not throwing away my cellphone until I know more... a LOT more.
    • The wavelength of cell phones frequencies are of the order of magnitude of 10-30 cm in vacuum. In any other material, they are lower (by reasonable factors, depending on the material, e.g. 3). Now I am not saying there cannot possibly be any bad effect, but I would be highly surprised if these waves brought DNA (very small, microns or so?) into resonance.

      Optical frequencies are orders of magnitude away from cell phone frequencies, UV even more.

      Z (didn't read TFA)

    • Re:thin on details (Score:3, Informative)

      by Leers ( 159585 )
      You want details? RTFJA ;)

      http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstr ac t/108069855/ABSTRACT

  • News Flash: The Sun Emits Radio Waves (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phlegmofdiscontent ( 459470 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:24PM (#11148138)
    It's interesting that they don't offer up an explanation for the cellular damage. Last time I checked, microwaves were non-ionizing. The worst you should experience from a cell phone might be a little heat. I'm skeptical, as usual. Remember the scare about power lines? About alar? Remember a couple years back when there was a study that showed that heated carbohydrates can produce a cancer-causing chemical (I forget the name)? Wine was bad for you, then it was good, then it was bad, and now it's good again. There's a new study every year that shows something from the modern world kills us. Well, last time I checked, living in a modern society generally means you're going to live 40 years or more beyond what someone in a primitive society could expect. So even if everything is bad for you, it's more than balanced out by the things that are good.
    • You are right about that. If cell phones really did the damage they say, we would be seeing a whole lot more smoking guns.

      However, I cannot talk on a cell phone very long because it causes the muscles in my face to spasm and/or hurt - not a sharp pain, but noticeable. It was WAY worse with the 800 Mhz phone than with my 2.4 GHz phone, but there definitely is an effect. I limit my calls to about 5 min.
    • but your children will turn out as freaks with 6 fingers, three legs, a brain the size of Tokyo and psychic powers...
    • It's interesting that they don't offer up an explanation for the cellular damage. Last time I checked, microwaves were non-ionizing. The worst you should experience from a cell phone might be a little heat. I'm skeptical, as usual.

      Skepticism is certainly warranted, but I haven't had time to look at the published paper. (Lay articles are always skimpy on details and often get them wrong anyway....)

      Even though heat won't directly cause DNA breaks, it might muck up DNA repair machinery so that breaks form

  • Actually, (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:25PM (#11148163)


    My observations suggest that they merely destroy the part of the brain that regulates manners.

    • No, seriously: why? Why is a person sitting on a train next to you who is talking on a cellphone rude and/or annoying? Why is it different than a person talking to another person face-to-face?

      If the person talking on a cellphone is talking too loudly, then it's the fact that the person is talking too loudly that is annoying. The fact that the person just so happens to be talking on a cellphone while doing it is irrelevant.

      I've occasionally been around people who simply talk too loudly to other people

      • audio feedback (Score:3, Informative)

        by Fzz ( 153115 )
        If the person talking on a cellphone is talking too loudly, then it's the fact that the person is talking too loudly that is annoying. The fact that the person just so happens to be talking on a cellphone while doing it is irrelevant.

        Not entirely. Wired phones feedback part of the signal from the microphone to the earpiece. This audio feedback is a side-effect of simple analog phone design, but it also serves to help you know the line is live, and help you regulate your volume because you can hear yours

  • Another cleverly disguised press release (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Emperor Shaddam IV ( 199709 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:26PM (#11148166) Journal
    In a separate announcement in Hong Kong, where consumers tend to spend more time talking on a mobile phone than in Europe, a German company called G-Hanz introduced a new type of mobile phone which it claimed had no harmful radiation, as a result of shorter bursts of the radio signal.

    (Additional reporting by Doug Young in Hong Kong)


    Everyone seems to have an agenda in the news these days. Is there no such thing anymore as a news release not trying to sell something or push an agenda?

  • Gotta Rethink This... (Score:4, Funny)

    by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:29PM (#11148198) Homepage Journal
    Hmmm, guess I've gotta rethink putting my cell phone in my pocket eh? Fortunately, my kids came before I started doing that! So I guess that means...errr, forgot where I was, nevermind!

  • Chapter 1. (Score:2, Redundant)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) *
    As Max Russel starts his normal day a television exec. Before breakfast he pickup his cell phone to call a co-worker. Then at that minute **BANG** **ZAP** **POW** His DNA Changes and he becomes Cell Phone Man! With his inate ability to call people telephathicly to their cell phones avoiding add Roming and Overage Minute charges. Mean while at the same time a Lawer from the West Side talking on his cell phone got his DNA Changed too to become The Sun of SCO! With his super power of being the arch rival of C

  • So? (Score:2, Informative)

    by dr_d_19 ( 206418 )
    Still:
    Because of the lab set-up, the researchers said the study did not prove any health risks. But they added that "the genotoxic and phenotypic effects clearly require further studies ... on animals and human volunteers."

    So the point remains, it has still not been proven dangerous.

    DNA breaks all the time in cells (think thousands per day for each cell in the body) but since we are in fact using the double-stranded DNA (think RAID 0), it can be repaired rather easily. And even if it can't that still d

  • Publishing by press release (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nucal ( 561664 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:31PM (#11148225)

    Here is yet another example of releasing findings by press release. This is amazingly irresponsible, since it looks like the study involved irradiating cells in a dish. Not applicable to human exposure at all ...

    Here are my favorite quotes:

    Because of the lab set-up, the researchers said the study did not prove any health risks.

    and

    "We don't want to create a panic, but it is good to take precautions," he said, adding that additional research could take another four or five years.

    In other words, I need more funding to support my sketchy research that may or may not be applicable to human exposure - sheesh.

    • They've got plenty of funding, the whole "scientific study article" is little more than a press release for a "reduced emissions" phone from some german company.
    • #1 reason I don't care about the results of this study:

      Any damage done by microwave radiation is non-ionizing. Basically, instead of "flipping bits" in your DNA directly, microwave radiation causes heating, which can increase the probability of protein denaturing, transcription errors, etc. if singificant enough.

      Thing is - Isolated cells in a culture don't really have a way to transport away excess heat. Meanwhile, in reality, we have our blood constantly flowing through our tissues to provide temperatu
  • No. They are not. It is rare that mutations improve life... but when they do, they rarely stick around... but sometimes they do.

    I've got two cell phones that I carry around... man... I'm frikken doomed!

  • Evolutionary biology says the contrary (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Flubu! ( 322749 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <etoclgr>> on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:34PM (#11148263) Homepage
    to remind me that mutations are almost always beneficial

    Most mutations are harmful, or neutral at best. To use the watchmaker analogy, chipping away at the gears of your watch is more likely to break something than to make your watch into an atomic clock.
  • Forget the tin-foil hat stuff - the only two solutions are either shield the head or place the transmitter in a relatively remote location. Cell phone manufactueres need only create a phone in two pieces with the high power rf part seperate from the handset. You could place the rf unit only a short distance away (like the back window of your car or on top of the cube wall) and field strength drops dramatically. Link between the handset and the rf unit can be wired or something like bluetooth but will likel
  • So how does this relate to the Slashdot article [slashdot.org] from yesterday about DNA being used for data storage? It seems to me that that cellphones (and other such devices) are going to continue to proliferate and at the same time DNA does seem promising for data storage. But in light of this new study isn't DNA going to be too unstable and prone to mutations due to the fact we are constantly bombarded with various waves?

  • Let's remember some basics... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ancient_Hacker ( 751168 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:41PM (#11148364)
    If radio waves caused DNA breaks, then we should see lots of tentacled zombies walking out of taxicabs, radio stations, TV stations, cruise-ships, diathermy clinics, radio shacks, microwave oven companies, airline pilots, airport birds, aircraft carrier deck crews, TV reporters, NIST personnel, base-jumpers, helicopter pilots, metal-forging shops, police, fire, utility workers. Cell site repairpersons, microwave signal repeater tower workers, cell-phone testers, walkie-talkie repairfolk, CB radio aficionados, FM and TV tower painters. TV tower red flashy light bulb changers, Pierce Brosnan (fought at the focal point of the Arcibo dish in some paltrily above average Bond movie) If the damage was proportional to the absorbed dose we should see about one out of 23 cell phone users with huge tumors by their ears, smaller suppurating pustules down their cheeks, and just raw purplish open sores over the rest of their heads. I must be hanging around with the wrong crowd.

  • Mutations: nothign to fear (Score:3, Funny)

    by dmccarty ( 152630 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:43PM (#11148394)
    except the failure to be able to read or write
  • Scientists have created a cellphone cover that grows into a sunflower [yahoo.com]. I wonder if this means we'll start seeing some mutated plants when these "environment-friendly" casings catch on world-wide.

  • Risk analysis (Score:2, Interesting)

    by LordEd ( 840443 )

    The biggest things about all of the 'you are going to die' studies is what are the actual odds of getting the negative effects? One in 10? One in 1000?, One million?

    Everytime the news says that if you do something you like doing, you increase your risk of such a horrible side effect that even though it would be more likely that you win the lottery, you immediately change your lifestyle to avoid it at all costs.

    But put it in perspective. Lets say the odds of getting a harmful side effect from a cell p

  • is a pretty good shield. Your 'boys', however, are not. I'd suggest those of you who carry your phone in your front pocket think about carrying it somewhere else.
  • there is nothign to fear

    Except bad spelling!

  • Self Evident (Score:3, Funny)

    by LabRat007 ( 765435 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:47PM (#11148444) Homepage
    We did not evolve with a microwave transmitters straped to our heads so guess what? Its bad for you. If we had developed in a setting with high levels of this form of radtion our DNA repair mechanisms would be undoubtly able to deal with it; but such is not the case.

    Also, most critical damage will result in either programed cell death (apoptosis) when the cell figures out its scewed or death by necrosis when the cell has been too damged to do anything. The third alternative would be cancer. If anyone is hoping to get a useful mutation that you can pass on to your kids I suggest holding the phone as close as possible to your gonads while in use. If you are lucky your sperm progenator cells (or eggs for the ladies) will pick up the useful mutation and pass it on.

    If the rest of us are lucky you will just be sterilized.

  • Wifi (Score:2)

    by TummyX ( 84871 )
    I've just recently started using wifi devices regularly and I generally use wifi for a much longer time than I do cellphones. I kindda worry about it a bit. Does wifi broadcast all the time or just when data is sent?

    Does anyone else worry about using wifi notebooks/tablets on their laps?

  • How is it possible? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Teknikill ( 611011 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:49PM (#11148483) Homepage
    ONLY ionizing radiation can cause dna breakage

    Cell phones do NOT emit ionizing radiation, and therefore they can not cause dna breakage and cancer (byproduct of dna breakage). The article does mention SAR of non-ionizing radiation, but those levels are too low to even move molecules.

    Non-ionizing radiation is also not cumulative.

    This study is spreading FUD.

    " In a separate announcement in Hong Kong, where consumers tend to spend more time talking on a mobile phone than in Europe, a German company called G-Hanz introduced a new type of mobile phone which it claimed had no harmful radiation, as a result of shorter bursts of the radio signal."

    Non-ionizing radiation is not cumlative, and would not make a difference if the signal was sent in shorter bursts.

    I wouldn't be suprised if this research company in Germany is tied to this G-Hanz company (also in Germany)

  • In other news... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Raul654 ( 453029 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:50PM (#11148490) Homepage
    The cell phone industry issued an internal memo discouraging employees from using the term 'mutation', and instead having them call it 'unanticipated DNA improvements'
  • Flash!: New report finds that the Tinfoil Hat, previously announced as beneficial has very harmful effects. And Worsens the effect of cell phones.

    AP: In an article released in this months New Englund Journal of Medicine, studies have found that the reflective nature of the Tinfoil hat is the problem.

    "Most people realize that tinfoil reflects electromagnetic energy, which is correct" - Said Dr. M. Day Shamalan. "However, what they fail to realize is that the tinfoil only covers approximately 60% of th

  • More funding (Score:2, Insightful)

    by methano ( 519830 )

    What this study did was what every good study does. It leaves the researchers at an impasse that can only be crossed with more funding.

    This is a good example of an excellent study. The results are very important, millions could die horrible deaths and it effects just about every one on the planet. What's a few more million for an extended study when so much is at stake.

    I don't have a sig

  • For those who will never RTFA (Score:3, Informative)

    by nwbvt ( 768631 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:53PM (#11148540)
    The so-called Reflex study, conducted by 12 research groups in seven European countries, did not prove that mobile phones are a risk to health but concluded that more research is needed to see if effects can also be found outside a lab.

    In other words, no news here, move along.

  • No, no, no... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ryanvm ( 247662 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @12:59PM (#11148641)
    This is silly, they just have cause and effect backwards. The real truth is that only mutants use their cell phones that much.
  • Ok, cell phones are evil and it damages your DNA... Again. There's just one thing bothering me though. If cell radiation is so bad for you, WHY ISN'T THE SIDE OF YOUR FACE FALLING OFF? Oh, that's right. This is that extra special radiation that somehow bypasses your skin, punches through bone and only affects the organ of the week. You'd think SKIN CANCER would be tops on the list of afflictions, followed by blindness as it slowly turns your optic nerve to JELLY.

    I sure it did kill some cells and damage som
  • I peel myself off of the monitor or the computer on my lap.

  • Icon is funny/insightful (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JeffTL ( 667728 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @01:27PM (#11149133)
    Note the icon for this story -- an analog land-line telephone (Western or ITT 500, ca. 1961). No risk because the part you stick up to your head is just a speaker and a microphone in a piece of hollow plastic, and even the desk unit is pretty simple.

    Same holds true for more modern landline phones, such as 2500 and Trimline, and even the fancier digital landline sets you sometimes see in offices.

    While I use cellular occasionally -- I keep the phone in a fanny pack, at great risk to my reproductive health -- I by and large stick to the land lines, not only for safety and convenience, but also for clarity.

  • SUV's (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ranger ( 1783 ) on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @01:31PM (#11149192) Homepage
    study linking cell phone use to DNA Damage.

    Well, that explains alot. It explains why people run red lights, why people use ambulances and fire trucks on emergency runs to get into and out traffic, and why the fuck people driving SUV's don't pay attention while talking on their goddamn cell phones. It has mutated the DNA in their brains into one giant asshole.

Slashdot Top Deals

How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz

Close