LG recalls 30,000 830 Spyder handsets for crappy 911 connections
[Via textually]
dangerous posts
While you're totally in your rights to keep frettin' over brain tumors, it looks like your eyes are safe from the cellphone cancer -- at least until another study is released. According to a paper published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, a German study involving roughly 1,600 people has found no conclusive link between cellphone use and uveal melanoma. This contradicts an earlier, smaller study by the same researchers that suggested that there indeed might be a connection. Is that clear? It doesn't seem that a consensus will be reached on this subject any time soon, but for the morbidly curious we have years of cellphone / cancer hodgepodge for your perusal.
We're not even going to pretend we fully grasp what's going on here, but the long and short of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences' latest findings are that cellphones can trigger the release of mercury from one's fillings. Yes, seriously. The study asserts that out of 14 test subjects with fillings, those who used mobile phones had a statistically significant increase of mercury from urine tests than those who refrained from yapping. The science behind all of this is far beyond our IQ levels, but we're a little freaked out/not freaked out, regardless.
In case it wasn't already obvious that kids under the age of eight should be using cellphones strictly for emergencies, here's another reason: Toronto's public health department says so. In what might be a first in all of Canada, the agency is officially laying down recommendations that tykes be restricted to emergency calls and teens talk on their phones for no more than ten minutes at a time (good luck with that one) due to growing evidence that prolonged use could lead to brain tumors and other health-related unpleasantness later in life. Moving up the governmental food chain, Health Canada still officially recommends no restrictions, so the endless confusion over cellphone safety continues as usual.
You've heard just how dangerous holding that cellphone upside your noggin is, but this time, the research is really for real. Reportedly, an award-winning cancer expert (Dr. Vini Khurana) has concluded that mobile phones -- in the long run -- could end up killing far more Earthlings than smoking or asbestos ever could. As we've heard countless times before, this fellow is warning that heavy mobile users could end up with brain tumors that threaten their livelihood, and feels that a direct link between handset use and certain tumors will be "definitively proven" in the next decade. Additionally, he suggests that individuals avoid using the cancer generators whenever possible, and that governments and the mobile industry at large take "immediate steps" to reduce radiation exposure. You won't be laughing if he's right.
Lest the danger (or non-danger) of cellphone use stray too far from your mind, here's a trio of recent studies to get the juices flowing again. First, the best news: an Australian researcher has come up with a five-point ranking system to lay out the likelihood of getting cancer from partaking in various substances and activities, and if that system has any basis in reality, cellphones are "unlikely" to cause cancer -- so take it for what you will. The second study, thrown down by the Cleveland Clinic, showed a significant decrease in sperm "quality" (as determined by a number of stats) as average daily cellphone usage increased; not necessarily a short-term problem for the users themselves, but a finding their future children (or lack thereof) might take issue with. The third study brings more bad news, showing that human skin exposed to cellphone radiation altered the cells' protein expression, a potential (though by no means definitive) precursor to cancer. As always, your mileage -- and your body's mileage -- may vary.
Just in case our long-running series of posts regarding the danger / safety of cellphone and WiFi radiation didn't tip you off, an FDA-commissioned study was just published by the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science that basically says we've got a lot left to learn about the effects of all those radio waves. The FDA wanted to know where to concentrate research efforts in order to better understand wireless safety, and it looks like there are quite a few gaps in the research: the study says there needs to be further study on the effects of wireless radiation on children, pregnant women, and fetuses, both long- and short-term, and that frequency and power differences between different types of radiation need to be better understood in order to apply current knowledge to new products. All in all, it looks like there's a lot we don't know -- but that's not going to stop us from rocking this Bluetooth headset while browsing and taking a call.
Never mind tumors, can we please just get a decent night's rest? New research from the Electromagnetic Academy at MIT (and commissioned by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, no less) found that individuals in their study who were blasted with RF typical of cellphones immediately prior to sleeping had their sleeping patterns adversely affected. Furthermore, when the relentless onslaught of electromagnetic radiation continued after the subjects were asleep, researchers found that were more likely to suffer headaches. A deadly side effect? Not really, though it might make us cranky enough to inflict some harm on passers by.
While we wouldn't mind a bit if the iPhone had an easy-to-replace battery like most mobiles these days, it seems that Exradia feels that such an oversight was nothing short of (potentially) harmful. As you very well know, we've seen so much conflicting data regarding the true danger of "cellphone radiation" that we've basically given up on trying to make sense of it all, but the aforementioned replacement battery outfit -- which just so happens to integrate a mystical RF-blocking circuit into each cell -- is reportedly "surprised [that] Apple has chosen to ignore this potential health issue" by not giving users the option to spend a bit of coin with Exradia. David Schick, the firm's chief executive, went on to state that there was "no scientific evidence that clearly demonstrates mobile devices are safe," but he unsurprisingly failed to mention that the flipside of that statement is also true. Whatever the case, we wouldn't worry too much about this shameless grub for money -- considering just how many mobile users are yapping it up right now, we'll all go down together should these fears prove true.
Apparently, talking on a cellphone for 60 minutes or more per day can result in a partial loss of hearing -- at least that's what some researchers in India are saying. The scientists conducted an experiment to test the correlation of hearing loss to the average use of a cellphone call. The experiment covered 100 participants with cellphone usage ranging from four years and over to just started using a cellphone. The results? Long-time users seemed to suffer some high-frequency hearing loss, usually in their right ears -- the ear most commonly used for chatting on the celly. There also seemed to be some correlation between warm, full, or ringing sensations in the ear, so if you're experiencing any of those, enjoy the stealth ringtone while you still can.
So apparently, virtually all existing official limits for radiation emitted by mobiles (FCC, we're looking at you) are based on the assumption that the dangerous effects of that radiation are caused by heating of the brain. Pretty big assumption, eh? A new study by Israel's Weizmann Institute of Science suggest that some "non-thermal" forces are at play, though, noting that chemicals involved in brain cell division were affected in tests on rats after just 10 minutes of exposure to cellphone radiation. Improper cell division goes hand in hand with cancer, so the finding is a rather alarming one. Of course, you know the drill: for every study that suggests phones are dangerous, we can certainly dredge up one that says they aren't -- just be forewarned that a cool brain isn't necessarily a healthy one.








