US politico calls for cancer warning on cell phones
This is your child's brain on who knows what
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
There's no consensus among scientists whether mobile phones actually slow-cook human brains, but one US legislator is hoping her state will be the first frightened enough to assume they do.
Maine state legislator Andrea Boland plans to introduce a bill in the upcoming legislative session that would require mobile handsets in the state to carry warnings saying they might cause brain cancer.
Boland told the AP that (conclusive proof of hazards be damned) the state's roughly 950,000 cell phone users "do not know what the risks are" while they unconcernedly hoist the devices to their noggins.
Under her bill, mobile phone makers must place labels on handsets and packaging cautioning users of potential threats of brain cancer associated with electromagnetic radiation. It calls for a permanent advisory label with the word "warning" written in large, bold letters — plus a color graphic of a child's brain next to the warning, according to the AP. [Yes, a child's brain specifically]
Boland said enough studies have indicated risks that she has convinced her state's legislative leaders to allow her to propose the bill at the upcoming 2010 session in January, usually reserved for emergency and governors' bills.
Although the Federal Communications Commission maintains that phones sold legally in the US are safe, Boland is not the only legislator calling for warning labels.
Earlier this month, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom endorsed a proposal that would require cell phone retailers there to cite radiation levels next to each phone in a font size at least as large as the price.
Scientific studies, meanwhile, are at considerable odds as to whether mobile phone pose any observable health hazards. A recent study from researchers in Denmark said that based on statistical analysis of nearly 60,000 brain tumor sufferers between 1974 and 2003, no cell-phone causation was found.
On the other hoof, a researcher from the University of Albany told a US congressional committee last September that based on evidence available, humanity soon faces "an epidemic of brain cancer and cancers in the future as a result of the uncontrolled use of cell phones."
The US National Cancer Institute says that studies don't show any consistent link between cell phone use and cancer, but it adds that scientists feel that additional research is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. ®
COMMENTS
Wi-Fi by AC 22nd December 2009 10:30
No mate - you are wrong. There have been many studies, some taking data over 15 years or more - the bottom line is that there is no correlation between cancers and mobile phone use. Similarly, no correlation has been established for proximity to cellular base stations, WLAN access points, etc. There has been some correlation between childhood leukaemia and power distribution lines but it is difficult to isolate this from other factors.
" I reckon there may be a significant difference between the original 900 mhz band and the more recent trend to Ghz 1.8, 1.9, 2+ frequencies."
You "reckon" - based on what exactly?
This is what pisses people off so much: Someone comes along and says "I am not an expert and have no evidence but my Johnny gets headaches and I think it is due to <insert chosen technology>". Then a bunch of politicians and journalists jump on the idea, with a view to furthering their own careers. It is scaremongering, plain and simple. What is annoying is that when presented with several studies showing the absence of any correlation, the answer is always "you might have missed it", "your study might not be long enough",etc. - never, "we have a longer, better study which provides conclusive proof of a link".
Sir
I know, it's a killer..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032795/Man-dies-water-overdose-drinking-17-pints-hours-soothe-sore-gums.html
Seriously, more* people die from DiHydrogen Monoxide poisoning than from Ecstacy.
Mind you, I once knew a bloke who went horseriding, whilst high on an E, and he also drank lots of this poison - yet he survived !
So you can't believe everything you read I suppose.
Non-ionising radiation...
.... is not capable of breaking chemical bonds or damaging DNA, the energy per photon is simply not high enough. The point at which this happens is in the UV light/X-ray spectrum so RF at a few GHz is simply not dangerous in this way.
The only known proven effect of RF is thermal, and microwave energy is only dangerous because you can look into an open waveguide and receive concentrated energy into the crystalline lens in the eye. This has no blood flow, so is more likely to be overheated by these thermal effects.
So, while there may be other effects, no one has yet managed to demonstrate them in a way that proves they exist using irrefutable evidence.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
Cloud based data management
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
