Huge 30 Year Cellphone Study Starts To Research Link With Disease

rated by 0 users
This post has 12 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,161
Points 1,185,490
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Sat, Apr 24 2010 1:31 PM
At last. We were beginning to wonder when a full-scale, no-holds barredcell phone study would be launched to investigate the pros (but mostlycons) of using a mobile long-term, and it seems that 2010 is the year.Small-scale studies have been conducted ever since wireless phonesbecame a commodity, but up until now, no company had decided to studythings long-term. It's being called the biggest study on cell phonehealth effects ever, and any study that will take three decades tocomplete probably qualifies for "biggest."

The Cohort Study on Mobile Communications(COSMOS) has begun a thirty year look on how the long-term use of cellphones effects disease and health, with cancer and neurological disorders being right in the cross-hairs. Jack Rowley, director of research and sustainability at industry body the GSM Association stated that "one ofthe limitations of research to date is thatwhen you ask people about their mobile phone use say five years agothere's a lot of error," and now that five billion mobile phones are inuse globally, it's the perfect time to bite the bullet and get the realresearch going. To date, the WorldHealth Organization, the American Cancer Society and the NationalInstitutes of Health haven't found any direct link between cell phoneuse and disease, but other smaller investigations have foundconflicting evidence. It will certainly be nice to have a three decadestudy to finally put an end to the debate.



People working in the research have noted that many cancers take 10+years to develop, so studying mobile users long-term is the onlyaccurate way to find out if there's truly a link between the two. Itshould be interesting to see these results in a few years--if directlinks are drawn, will mobile use suddenly go down? Will science createnew technologies that don't harm health? Only (lots of) time will tell.
  • | Post Points: 185
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 318
Points 3,180
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Louisiana
la_guy_10 replied on Sat, Apr 24 2010 3:51 PM

I can attest to this as my grandfather worked for Motorola and tested and validated new technology before it hit the consumer market. I remember him bringing home the first Pager or "Beeper" for those of you too young to remember, he also had the first cell phone AKA "The Zach Morris" from saved by the bell. I saw many first thanks to my grandfather unfortunately he died ate up with cancer!!!! Tumors were all throughout his body. I will not put it all on Motorola but I am sure he was exposed to lots of radiation over the course of his career. I remember my dad explaining to me a cell phone works much like a microwave and that is why cell phones used to get hot against your face when they were first released, they have since changed alot of stuff, but the concept made since.

It is this reason I understand the benefit of texting not while driving of course but,,, I would want to keep that phone far away from my brain as possible, not saying you are not still getting exposure but definitely not as bad as pressed right against your skull.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,654
Points 29,000
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: United States, Texas
Drago replied on Sat, Apr 24 2010 7:41 PM

Everyone talks about keeping the phones away from their head, but what about the risks of keeping them in your pockets. What are the risks to the reproductive organs and such around those areas? Any link between that and kids having cancer? Next step is to evaluate all this new WiMax and 4G stuff and how that stuff messes with our bodies.

A+ Certified PC Repair Technician
Associates Degree in Computer Science
Bachelors Degree in Computer Information Systems

DFI Lanparty UT NF3 250GB Dead.......Replacement  Abit KV-85
Learn more about Comp TIA A+ Certification.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 318
Points 3,180
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Louisiana
la_guy_10 replied on Sat, Apr 24 2010 8:45 PM

You make a valid point Drago, again I am sure they cut down on the radiation Immensely since then. Keep in mind I am talking about 20+ years ago. Tech has come along way, not saying we our 100% safe but progress has been made from a public safety standpoint.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,795
Points 40,670
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: New York
Inspector replied on Sat, Apr 24 2010 11:27 PM

Will im looking forward to seeing that report on HH in 30 years :P.

Im sure they are making cellphones and many other technology more friendly to us and our health. Drago's point is very true after thinking about it :D, I keep my phone in my pocket like all day and its only out at night right next to me bed :D

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 5
Joined: Apr 2010
jstrask replied on Sun, Apr 25 2010 10:51 AM

Enough of this. Cell phones DO NOT CAUSE CANCER

" All cancer agents act by disrupting chemical bonds. In a classic 2001 op-ed LBL physicist Robert Cahn explained that Einstein won the 1905 Nobel Prize in Physics for showing that cell phones can't cause cancer. The threshold energy of the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won the prize, lies at the extreme blue end of the visible spectrum in the near ultraviolet. The same near-ultraviolet rays can also cause skin cancer. Red light is too weak to cause cancer. Cell-phone radiation is 10,000 times weaker."

Taken from:

http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN08/wn072508.html

Anyone have a rebuttal to this?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 1,072
Points 11,625
Joined: Jul 2009
Joel H replied on Sun, Apr 25 2010 12:39 PM

There's no evidence that cell phones cause cancer. None, zero, zip, zilch, nadda. The "conflicting" small studies mentioned here don't even deserve to be called that.

La_guy: Wow. Just...ok. First, anecdotes are not *evidence,* and the plural of anecdote is not data. Your grandfather died because cancer metastasized and spread throughout his body. That's a terrible thing, but you can't automatically link it to his job. Questions of family history, his personal habits (did he smoke or drink), the environment he grew up in or worked in besides Motorola, and the simple question of where his cancer started are all extremely pertinent.

Second, your father (and I do not mean this insultingly) was either joking with you or is extremely confused. Cell phones do not emit microwaves. While they use a similar area of the spectrum, the rays are not strong enough to penetrate your skin (much less your skull.) Also, a device emitting microwave energy wouldn't get warm. If it was your *face* that blistered after a three hour phone conversation, you'd have a point. It's the phone that gets hot--and it gets hot because it's been working and drawing significantly more power than it does in standby.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 318
Points 3,180
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Louisiana
la_guy_10 replied on Sun, Apr 25 2010 1:27 PM

@joel H I am not saying it was because of his job that he died of cancer, that's foolish I am saying it did not help. Look my grandfather died doing what he loved he lived for electronics and I will follow in his footsteps, get rid of the bitterness I am by no means bitter bro.

As far as my dad he could be off base, but to me it made sense and still does today. There was talks back in the day that Cell phones cause cancer, is it true? I don't know, but it was thrown out there by some people.

Everyone has their opinion I got mine, you got yours.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 8,648
Points 104,085
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
MembershipAdministrator
Moderator
realneil replied on Sun, Apr 25 2010 2:26 PM

We'll see what the results of this study show. Well, some of us will see anyway.

For years, I worked for an Aerospace company that didn't properly protect us from carcinogens that were in rampant use within the industry. We were told that we didn't need anything but cotton gloves on when using trichloroethylene to clean surfaces. This turned out to be totally untrue (chemicals are absorbed through your skin and into your bloodstream) and not wearing protective equipment when using it nowadays will get you fired from your job immediately. It was 2 years before they started us using chemical resistant gloves and respirators when using it. It is a known carcinogen, so I'll probably end up kicking from cancer myself. (I've already had Bone Tumors)

Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 1,072
Points 11,625
Joined: Jul 2009
Joel H replied on Sun, Apr 25 2010 5:37 PM

LaGuy,

When we're talking about scientific data, "everyone has their opinion" simply doesn't work. There's either a correlation or there isn't--and in this case the data points toward "isn't."

Realneil: Ow, sorry man. Not cool.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 5
Joined: Apr 2010
jailbush replied on Mon, Apr 26 2010 12:32 AM

I don't know why people think that the WHO or the American Cancer Society are anything but quarterbacks for the telecom industry. There are telecom CEO's sitting on the boards of both organizations. The corruption in WHO is now being investigated by the European Union. THE ACS receives huge donations from the telecom companies and that keeps them quiet. There are many many organizations that are much closer to the research that is snowballing almost daily that links RF from all sources with cancer and many other acute and chronic diseases. check www.magdahavas.com or www.wirelesswatchblog.com

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,809
Points 18,105
Joined: May 2009
Location: Waikiki

I am sure in thirty years Cell phones will be Bionic implants embedded in your brain and controlled through an on screen interface projected within your retinas!

Of course I will probably be gone from all that asbestos sandwiches and lead base paint chips I used to have for lunch back in the 70's :P

Intel Core i7-875K Quad
Asetek 510LC 120MM
4GB Kingston Hyper-X DDR-3
ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
CyberPower 800 PSU
Kingston 64GB SSD 
2 Hitachi 1-TB HDD'S
FirePro V8800
8X Blu-Ray DVD±R/±RW
HPw2207 22" LCD
Cintiq 21UX
CoolerMaster 690II Advance
Win 7 Pro 64 bit
Special thanks to HotHardware.com!
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 5
Joined: Apr 2010

The fact that this question is now being dealt with with all the seriousness it deserves is great, but thirty years --or even fifteen--is far too long to wait in my book.  How many cases of cancer and other calamitous illnesses have to develop before popular ignorance is tolerated and corporate greed has been satiated? My position is clear, I suffer from electrical sensitivity I know we are playing with fire. I comment more fully on this issue in my blog http://electricsense.com/2010/04/30/thirty-year-long-study-on-cell-phone-danger-too-long-to-wait  

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (13 items) | RSS