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


Forgot your password?

World Health Organization Says Mobile Phones May Cause Cancer 354

Schiphol writes "A new study by the World Health Organization (WHO) concludes that mobile phone radiation presents a carcinogenic hazard. Are cell phones going to be the new tobacco, then?" This seems to be a new interpretation of a long-tern WHO study of possible cellphone health risks that had "inconclusive results" last May.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World Health Organization Says Mobile Phones May Cause Cancer

Comments Filter:
  • by CRCulver ( 715279 ) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @09:05AM (#36307180) Homepage

    Citrus Red No. 2 which is used to color the oranges you buy in supermarkets.

    Why the fuck do oranges have to be coloured? Are oranges not sufficiently orange?

  • Use a headset (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MrKaos ( 858439 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @09:24AM (#36307312) Journal
    I don't think it's that complicated really. 15 years of mobile phone use and I've rarely put a mobile phone near my head not because of fear but because of caution. At first I just wanted a headset so I could keep two hands on the wheel of my car, so in a sense it was a safety issue to begin with.

    With a little research in to understanding how these devices worked from an electronics perspective I discovered that a mobile phone frequency transmits between 900Mhz and 2400Mhz. A rough calculation revealed the wavelength of 2400Mhz is roughly 13cms with the wavelength getting longer as it gets lower. That means your head is within the wavelength of the transmission. When the device is in contact with your head absorption quadruples due to inductance AND the device varies it's power output according to signal strength, so if your brain is absorbing the wavelength then the device increases it's power output. Even simply breaking contact with your head reduces absorption by three quarters, put the device in speaker mode and turn the volume down.

    I think to anyone who understands the nature of the devices this is a no brainer, one of my relations recently died of brain cancer so I witnessed first hand that it is a very bad way to die. A bluetooth headset is about $200, why would you bother taking the risk?

  • Perspective (Score:4, Interesting)

    by roachdabug ( 1198259 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @09:40AM (#36307452)

    According to the report there was a 40% increased chance of glioma among the heaviest cell phone users. According to wikipedia, glioma affects approximately 2-3 in 100,000 people. That's a 0.0025% chance. A 40% increase means cell phone users now have a 0.0035% chance, or 3-4 out of 100,000. You're still 3 times as likely to get hit by lightning and 250 times as likely to die in a fiery car crash.

  • by Knutsi ( 959723 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @09:56AM (#36307650)
    As far as I understand the mechanisms though, the reason cancer develops over time is that a certain number of mutations have to occur (5-7) for the cells to show hyperplasia, mutator phenotype etc. and eventually metastasize. But in people who lack one or more DNA repair mechanisms, cancer will arise sooner, since the risk (and thus rate) of the mutation is greater (they are not supposed to ever get an X-ray, e.g., or develop breast cancer at a young age. People with xerodema pigmentosum is a example, and they get all sorts of skin cancers eve as children - but you might not want to google that). So I'm asking if there should not be vanguard of sorts, a group of people in which we could detect this. If they have an already identified condition, it might be possible to see that they are getting allot of cancers since cellphones became commonplace.

Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.