New study: Mobile phones signals cause cell damage

[Alexander Turcic]

German research foundation Verum exposed cells of human tissue in glass dishes to mobile phone signals and discovered that the low-power microwaves they emit can damage DNA, potentially causing cancer and other illnesses.

The so-called Reflex study which took four years to complete is the second independent study released within the last two months which links cell phone use to body cell damage, adding to the already heated debate over mobile phone safety.

It also found that the risk was increased in areas with a poor signal because the mobile phone used higher-powered radiation to maintain contact with the network. The output from a single handset can range from a minimum of two milliwatts to a maximum of about a watt, depending on whether the phone is in use and how good the signal is.

The experts involved included scientists from the universities of Vienna, Bologna, Milan, Hannover and Bordeaux, as well as Finnish experts in radiation and nuclear safety. They admit the results do not yet prove mobile phones are harmful, because although the cells were affected in the laboratory, the body can often tackle any damage through its own immune system.

What should we believe? Is this study one more piece of evidence that mobile phones are not as safe as the industry tell us they are?

[via Wired]

[Pride Of Lions]

I know a lot of people who choose their phones based on whether they have an extendable antenna (because the logic says that the radiation will emenate from the furthest point on the antenna), but those phones look sucky so I don't get them.

Other people religiously use those wired hands-free cords to keep the radiation away from the head altogether, but they always get snagged on something or the other person can't hear and you have to hold the mic up to your mouth (making it not so hands-free.)

Now, I love my Bluespoon headset, but what about the poossible effects of BT on my head? And if I keep my phone on a holster on my belt, am I exposing my nads to undue radiation?

And on the subject of phones, whatever happened to phone books with pay phones? I needed to look up something today, and I went to a bank of pay phones only to find absolutely none. What is this world coming to?
POL9A

[Colin Dunstan]

... and what about my WiFi PDA. If I have WiFi enabled, and the PDA naturally close to my face when browsing the web or checking e-mails, is that bad? Are there any studies available regarding WiFi exposure?

[cbarnett]

We're surrounded by all sorts of radiation already, in the modern world (TV, radio, etc), so is this extra radiation going to make much of a difference? I don't know, and each time a study comes out saying phones are bad for you, it's shortly followed by another saying it's fine.... what we really need is that cure for cancer that's supposed to be just around the corner....

Craig.

[hacker]

Originally Posted by cbarnett

what we really need is that cure for cancer that's supposed to be just around the corner....

I think I speak with a bit of authority on this, because my wife works as a Research Biologist at the largest pharma in the world (take one guess, starts with "P"), in the Cancer Discovery group.

They're close to a possible solution, but cancer is an affliction that affects the cellular level (i.e. down at the signalling and programming level of the cells, i.e. DNA). To "cure" cancer, you have to either inhibit the signalling that is telling the cells to multiply (incorrect signalling) or enhance the signalling, telling the cells when to die (apoptosis).

At a very basic level, cancer and alzheimers are polar opposites. In cancer, the cells are programmed to die at a certain life-stage, and ignore that signalling (hence causing new cells to grow underneath them, causing the "tumor" of undead cells commonly associated with cancers). In alzheimers, the cells die early, before they are programmed to (causing the signals between two neighbor cells to never reach each other, because the "man-in-the-middle" cell has died early).

It'll be a tough nut to crack, since there are so many hundreds of cancer strains, affecting all kinds of cells, organs, and organ systems, but they're very close to something that should prolong quality of life for those afflicted with it.

I, of course, am entirely opposed to the way corporate pharmaceutical companys approach these problems (it was part of the reason I resigned from the same pharma she still works for, after 5 years in "Emerging Technologies" [land of the unlimited budget]). There are a LOT of diseases that these companies can provide long-lasting cures for, actual cures, not temporary pill-for-life fixes, but they ignore them.. why? Because the disease only affects 5% of people or 10% of another people. Its not a broad enough audience for them to consider, for profit reasons. This includes simple things like Diabetes (they have treatments in academia using porcine [pig] islet cells to replace human islet cells), celiac (the gluten peptide has already been discovered, and [again, academia] has a compound which allows the gluten peptide to pass through the intestines, unimpeded). There are dozens of others, and each of those 5% adds up, but not to the bean-counters are big pharma companies.

Mark my words (archived here), we're going to see a lot more large pharmaceutical companies going directly into "licensing" compounds and pharmaceutical treatments from smaller biotechs and academia, and giving up their own R&D groups in favor of it. Its too costly to perform R&D and have so many compounds fail when they reach the human testing stage. Its easier to rely on the smaller companies to produce the R&D, and to just license what they produce. You spend 10 years and $200M to develop a compound that has a market shelf life of 2 years. This is why medicines cost $7/pill in some cases. They have to recoup the cost of the R&D process (and yes, it takes that long to bring a drug to market).

Cancer poses a very interesting biological problem to solve, but the technology is improving, and the speed of development is improving. Unfortunately, the number of people with inoperable, untreatable cancers, is also improving at an alarming rate.

10 years from now, if we still don't have a "cure", we're going to see a very large percentage of people developing cancers. We just don't have enough data to know if all of this Bluetooth, cordless, wifi, cellular radiation is doing any long-term damage to our brains and cellular makeup. Remember Ritalin? Thalidamide? Those were thought to be harmless, and decades later, they've realized the dangers.

[hacker]

Originally Posted by Pride Of Lions

I know a lot of people who choose their phones based on whether they have an extendable antenna (because the logic says that the radiation will emenate from the furthest point on the antenna), but those phones look sucky so I don't get them.

This is all irrelevant, if you interact in society with any other humans in public.

Why? Because your phone may be shielded to deflect the radiation away from your delicate organs, the person standing next to you, or behind you, or in front of you, is using the same technology to deflect the harmful radiation away from their delicate organs, right back into yours.

And what about ALL cellphone and mobile device belt clips and holders? Every single one I've seen and used personally, puts the phone pointing away from you, i.e. facing outward. This puts the shielding, if any exists, on the wrong side, pointing all of those wonderful harmful rays back into your pelvis and groin region. For women, this is on their purse (breast area), for men, this is on their hip or pocket (testicle or pancreas area).

<paranoia_mode>
What a coincidence, the largest cross-section of cancers are in those three areas
</paranoia_mode>

[Bob Russell]

Wow. If that corporate pharmaceutical stuff doesn't make you stop and shake your head, I don't know what will. Makes a lot of sense though. Hopefully, the non-profits and the academics will prevail on the research side for a real cure.
Reminds you of energy, doesn't it? Oil companies don't exactly want to see a cheap renewable source of energy discovered no matter how wonderful it would be for mankind.

Let's just hope he radiation doesn't turn out to be worse than we think in the long run. I don't know how many teens are left that don't have cell phones anymore!

[Francesco]

Where's the smiley for depressing threads?

[Alexander Turcic]

Originally Posted by Francesco

Where's the smiley for depressing threads?

Heh, you can click on [More] under the smilies to see all smilies we have... I am sure there are some appropriate among them. How about:

[Francesco]

Originally Posted by Alexander

Heh, you can click on [More] under the smilies to see all smilies we have... I am sure there are some appropriate among them. How about:

LMAO!

Mire, señor, un sombrero!

[sucahyo]

From WHO facts http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/:

Several important considerations must be kept in mind when evaluating possible health effects of RF fields. One is the frequency of operation. Current mobile phone systems operate at frequencies between 800 and 1800 MHz. It is important not to confuse such RF fields with ionizing radiation, such as X-rays or gamma rays. Unlike ionizing radiation, RF fields cannot cause ionization or radioactivity in the body. Because of this, RF fields are called non-ionizing.

Do you believe independent organization more ?

External / extendable antenna will not make any differences in radiation. Even internal antenna can easily make radiation bigger than FCC safety limits.
Using wireless or wired headset do not reduce the radiation on body. Just look at your phone manual, look at FCC certification page, there is SAR Rating on body too. Solution: use speaker phone, or place the phone far away from you.