Study: No Raised Cancer Risk From Cell Phone Use

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&amp;storyid=2006-01-20T003602Z_01_L19452292_RTRUKOC_0_US-MOBILES.xml">http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&amp;storyid=2006-01-20T003602Z_01_L19452292_RTRUKOC_0_US-MOBILES.xml</a><br /><br /><i>"Using a mobile phone does not increase the risk of developing the most common type of brain tumor, according to a study on Friday. After a four-year survey, scientists at the Institute of Cancer Research in London and three British universities found no link between regular, long-term use of cell phones and glioma. "Overall, we found no raised risk of glioma associated with regular mobile phone use and no association with time since first use, lifetime years of use, cumulative hours of use, or number of calls," said Professor Patricia McKinney, of the University of Leeds, in a report in the British Medical Journal. She added that the results were consistent with the findings of most studies done in the United States and Europe."</i><br /><br />So, by all means, talk away! <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2006/20060120-cellphone.gif" />

[Vincent M Ferrari]

I spend more time text messaging than making voice calls anyway :pimp:

[Constant Caffeine]

You might want to spell check the subject line.

[Ed Hansberry]

You might want to spell check the subject line.
Well... if you are going to be picky about it. :roll: :lol:

I was spelling it the european way. :wink:

[Jonathan1]

Question: Not to be cynical but who funded the study?

[pocketpcadmirer]

Question: Not to be cynical but who funded the study?

:lol: That was a funny. I too was reluctant to talk on the phone for prolonged duration with my friends. Now I can give them the link and I can now talk as much as I can

Sunny :D

[gibson042]

This field of research is so muddled (due in no small part to deliberate FUD on both sides) that it will probably take decades to satisfactorily sort it all out. But studies like this one are good, at least until the press gets ahold of them. It provides solid evidence that mobile phone use does not increase the risk of glioma. It says nothing about the other types of cancer that phones have been implicated as causing, some of which develop in the brain and some in the ear, which will all have to be studied individually. And then there is still the matter of analog transmission, tested by many previous (and some current) surveys, whose effects are largely unrelated to those of the much more common digital methods! Anyone waiting for complete results will never be able to get a mobile. The rest of us should just keep to an absolute minimum their use right against our heads, laugh at the conflicting results (so we don't cry :roll:), and perhaps maintain a scoreboard like Engadget's (http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/24/cellphones-are-s-dangerous-s-not-dangerous-chapter-8-042/).

[Raphael Salgado]

I bought my 3-year-old a Cingular Firefly, since it was only $8 a month more on my family plan and she talks more on the phone than I do (we're also saying goodbye to the home landline). I always felt that cell phone use was fairly safe - we're exposed to x-rays, towers, microwave ovens, wi-fi signals, cordless phones, and more our government will probably never disclose - this study eases my mind just a little bit more. A little.

[Jon Westfall]

Question: Not to be cynical but who funded the study?

This isn't cynicism, it's a perfectly valid question. I would love to read the actual study (If I had the time) Just to see what their operational definition of cell phone use was - is it number of minutes on the phone, having the phone on your person, etc...

[Jon Westfall]

I bought my 3-year-old a Cingular Firefly

8O I really curious to see the look on the kindergarten teacher's face when she (inevitably) brings it to school...

But if it lets you ditch a landline, makes sense to me.

[paschott]

While there may be no larger risk for cancer, I've got to be concerned when I'm on the other side of the house and my wife knows that I'm about to get a call or an e-mail because the speakers in the living room start to buzz.

Anyway, I just try to limit my use as much as possible. There really hasn't been a complete study and I don't know how they determined use. I've got the thing constantly - always @ my hip when not in use, get a ton of e-mails, respond to quite a few of them, don't call that often due to the e-mail functionality. I don't know if their sample set was composed of people who use a cell phone for maybe up to an hour a day and don't have it near them 24x7. I know it sounds cynical, but I agree with the previous posters - who funded the study?

-Pete

[mrchampipi]

As soon as I've read it, I smelt BS.

So:
The study was funded by, among others, Orange, O2, T-Mobile, Vodafone, the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, and the GSM Association.
Furthermore: it's already been criticised in its methodology.
Both info taken from engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/20/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-next-generation/

I've always been facinated by how hard it is to prove that an obviously dangerous thing actualy is, while "proving" that it's not seems easy as a pie.

Even a science dummy like me knows that it's just criminal to say that exposure to high frequency radiations has no major impact on ealth. Especialy regarding habits that are less than 2 decades old.
A simple goolge will educate some, or one could jump straight to http://www.microwavenews.com/

As some article titled: The cell phone industry= Big Tobacco 2.0

(but ok, that won't stop me from using gprs and wifi ;-p)

[PDANEWBIE]

I really curious to see the look on the kindergarten teacher's face when she (inevitably) brings it to school...

Jon,

Actually those phones are made just for kids.

http://www.fireflymobile.com/phone/specs.php

PIN-protected Phone Book with up to 20 numbers
Optionally rejects calls from numbers not in Phone Book

With these 2 features in place and the fact the phone has not hard coded number pad to dial what they want you can effectivly cut out anyone but family calling them :)

I almost got my neice one before her parents decided to get her a full fledged one. I do refuse to buy one for my 4 year old though *snicker*

[Jon Westfall]

Jon,

Actually those phones are made just for kids.



I'm familiar with the product. Made for kids or not, I doubt teachers will much like them. My high school was VERY anal about students even HAVING cell phones (Even if they were turned off they were confiscated), so I can't imagine an elementary school having a very good attitude toward them. Granted it's been 6 years since highschool, but I don't think their policies have changed since I left.

[k1darkknight]

I bought my 3-year-old a Cingular Firefly

8O I really curious to see the look on the kindergarten teacher's face when she (inevitably) brings it to school...

All joking aside, though, I WOULD recommend the parent in this situation explain the phone to the kid's teacher(s) in advance, just to keep it from being an issue later on.

[k1darkknight]

As soon as I've read it, I smelt BS.Oh, sorry...that was me...(lol)

The study was funded by, among others, Orange, O2, T-Mobile, Vodafone, the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, and the GSM Association.
Furthermore: it's already been criticised in its methodology.
Yeah, well...who funds all those studies saying that cell phones DO cause cancer? The medical industry, which makes millions (billions?) on (not) finding a cure for cancer?