what? what? cell phone safety debate again

[easysurfer]

Okay..here we go again....

Experts say cellphones are possibly carcinogenic - Yahoo! News


Only conclusive risk of cell phone danger is risk of car accidents

[M Paquette]

Scary Headlines! Now with 100% Less Statistics!

In other news, scientists estimate that 30 percent of cancer deaths are attributable to smoking, and another 20 percent are attributable to obesity. Worry about that first. And maybe getting smooshed by falling asteroids...

I found some statistics to put the risk in perspective.

The overall incidence rate for various gliomas is 2 to 3 per 100,000 in the general population. The largest differentiator across the population for risk factors is being female, with the incidence between male and female running 1 to 1.8. (If you are a man, and the stats reported are correct, heavy cellphone use make you about as likely to die from a glioma as being a woman who never uses a cellphone.)

IF the results of the study cited by the Intertubes are being reported accurately, and cell phones are found to double the risk of various gliomas, then we would be looking at an incident rate of 4 to 6 per 100,000 in the heavy cell phone user population. Compare with the risk for death by flood at 3 in 100,000, death from air travel accidents at 5 in 100,000, and death by motor vehicle accident at 1,000 in 100,000. If you prefer medical causes only, there's death by stroke at 4,300 per 100,000,or heart disease at 20,000 per 100,000, or the broader field of cancers in general at 14,200 per 100,000.

Remember the TSA full body X-ray fuss a few months back? The odds for death by cellphone-induced glioma are about the same as for death from skin cancers induced by the TSA's X-ray full body scanners.

In other news, You're All Gonna Die Eventually! Details at 11...

[braumeister]

Despite the fact that there is no known physical reason that cellphone radiation can cause cancer (look it up), this nonsense just won't go away.

From the linked article:

Quote:

We found some threads of evidence telling us how cancers might occur, but there were acknowledged gaps and uncertainties

Quote:

The study was controversial because it began with people who already had cancer and asked them to recall how often they used their cellphones more than a decade ago.

Quote:

the radiation produced by cellphones cannot directly damage DNA and is different from stronger types of radiation like X-rays or ultraviolet light. At very high levels, radio frequency waves from cellphones can heat up body tissue, but that is not believed to damage human cells

If there were any truth to the claims, then a great many ham radio operators, and emergency first responders all over the world would be dropping like flies. They spend a great deal of time holding handheld radios next to their skulls, and those radios emit levels of RF radiation that are orders of magnitude greater than cellphones.

OK, I'll get off my soapbox now.
No disrespect to the OP, who was simply reporting the news, but this stuff gets my goat.

[Purron]

Who cares? The world is ending on May October 21st.

[Webzter]

So, conclusively, the worst thing someone could do for their health would be to get fat and then smoke a cell phone.

[ChadR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webzter So, conclusively, the worst thing someone could do for their health would be to get fat and then smoke a cell phone.

[kumquat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webzter So, conclusively, the worst thing someone could do for their health would be to get fat and then smoke a cell phone.

Hey, I'm sorta fat and I smoke some things but not cell phones. Wanna bet.

[GregLee]

Coincidentally, I just heard bits and pieces of a CNN replay of Sanjay Gupta's rather breathless report on the possible cancer danger of cell phones. He offers the moderate recommendation that you just don't press them right up against your ear, which is consistent with manufacturer's specs, he says. Am I glad that Sanjay turned down Obama's offer to become our Surgeon General? Yes, I am.

[M Paquette]

For folks worried that there may really be a brain cancer threat from cell phones, here's a puzzler for you:

Brain and central nervous system cancer incidence and mortality has been virtually flat since 1987.
http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/servi...hots/brain.pdf

You'd think that going from 2% of the population up to around 70% being cellular subscribers would show some effect.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette For folks worried that there may really be a brain cancer threat from cell phones, here's a puzzler for you: Brain and central nervous system cancer incidence and mortality has been virtually flat since 1987.

My reflex reaction was "Heyyy, waitaminnit, that green line with the pink squares looks like it's going up pretty steadily!"

Then I realize it's labeled "average monthly bill".

At which point my next reflex reaction was "Holy crap". I think it's conclusively demonstrating the difference between "convenience" and "value"...

[M Paquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords My reflex reaction was "Heyyy, waitaminnit, that green line with the pink squares looks like it's going up pretty steadily!" Then I realize it's labeled "average monthly bill". At which point my next reflex reaction was "Holy crap". I think it's conclusively demonstrating the difference between "convenience" and "value"...

And THAT is why I personally don't have a cell phone.