Cellphones are dangerous/not dangerous, just a hint edition
Researchers across the pond at the UK Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHRP) are without a conclusive answer on the short term effects on the brain from mobile phones. After a six year study on the effects of mobile phones on brain and cell functions, researchers found what's to be described as a hint of a cancer risk when exposed. Does anyone else feel a little nervous with non-scientific words being used to describe negative consequences of something most of us do on a daily basis? Leave a comment if you can break the medical jargon![Via textually.org]
Filed under: Studies
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mike @ Sep 19th 2007 1:29AM
Seeing as how it is impossible to prove that something does not have an effect (how would you test it? how would you ever really know for certain you've exhausted all possible tests?), and seeing as how so many studies have been coming up as inconclusive, it doesn't seem terribly likely that cell phones are going to cause cancer. After all, there are so many wireless signals out there that if cell phones were dangerous, so would cordless phones, Wi-Fi, radios, Bluetooth, etc. I just don't see how anything that weak could really harm you, even if placed close to your head.
Louis DeScioli @ Sep 19th 2007 1:52AM
6 years later and all these scientists can conclude is that there's a "hint" that there might be some negative cancerous effects from cell phones? I hope they didn't get paid much...
1st post!
Louis @ Sep 19th 2007 1:53AM
Yea... nevermind about that first post thing
Jackstacks @ Sep 19th 2007 3:16AM
WHo knows it could be true. I bought a blue tooth headset and about a year later i found out i had a tumor right where i always hold my phone and where the ear piece was. Now i cant even hold my phone up to my right ear and i when ever i put my ear piece in it freaks me out. I had a rare tumor called Ewings Sarcoma that can develop from nerve mutation. So did the cell phone and or bluetooth do something to cause it? Ill never know but its always on my mind.
webon @ Sep 19th 2007 6:51AM
All I can say is be careful, every aspect of your life can eventually kill you. ugh paranoia attack!!
s @ Sep 19th 2007 10:49AM
i would be interested in seeing a study that compares the effects of gsm vs cdma technologies. I just wonder if one is less dangerous than the other.
kookoobirdz @ Sep 19th 2007 11:40AM
As a service to readers, I'd love to see Engadget include a quick statement about the funding sources for each of these cellphones-are/aren't-dangerous studies. I just remember the tobacco industry's funding of studies for decades that never managed to find any link between smoking and ill health effects of any kind, while every study not funded by them found the opposite. Thousands of them. This phony debate went on for decades as the industry shielded itself (because what average person investigates funding sources behind research studies that result in reports that result in articles that result in headlines that they scan for 5 seconds? They just read it, hear "science" and believe it.).
I'd like to think that all research is independent and objective, but when industry dollars enter the mix, I can't feel entirely confident trusting the scientific results. And it's easy to just read quick blurbs like these and assume that they wouldn't be reported if they weren't true. I mean, it's science, right?!
Looking into this particular case, it appears fine. I found no specific listing of the funding sources beyond this, "The Programme received approximately 8.8 million of funding from a variety of government and industry sources." But the rest of the details of the project, e.g., the academics that oversaw it, the report that prompted it, the independent experts group that wrote the report, the radiological health protection agency that convened the experts group, and the UK health ministry that requested that agency to convene that group and which oversees the money all sound solid. Even if cellphone industry money went into it, there appears to be more than enough government and academic scrutiny and oversight, both financial and scientific, to eliminate any possible influence the industry might theoretically have liked to inject (not that they necessarily did).
The current consensus appears to be that none of the major studies that have looked at this issue have found any link, except for two whose methods are at least questioned by the scientific community. So hooray. But do keep your eye on who has funded these studies and who funds future ones. Help us out if you can, Engadget.