
Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking' - gibsonf1
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-or-asbestos-802602.html?r=RSS
======
tptacek
The best medical evidence is _always_ published "exclusively in the
Independent on Sunday".

~~~
whalliburton
DH1

~~~
KirinDave
Perhaps, but the Independent has a long history of posting spurious health and
environment articles (e.g., "Mobile phone threat to honeybees", which was a
massive press misunderstanding because CCD was such a headline-grabber at the
time). Guilt by association is a real and valid reason to dismiss a news
article about a complex scientific subject. Even the article itself mentions
the general line:

> Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khurana's study
> as "a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual". It
> believes he "does not present a balanced analysis" of the published science,
> and "reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more than 30 other
> independent expert scientific reviews".

People talk about the dangers of radiation, but electromagnetic radiation
isn't the same kind of radiation we generally worry about. Anything that uses
electricity and wires creates this kind of radiant energy, including
pacemakers and implantable defibrillators.

That doesn't mean there is no potential for health risks, but thus far the
science suggests no significant increase in risk. What's more, the mechanism
for such health risks is likewise unclear as the wavelengths for cellphone
radiation are quite long. It's also unclear why cellphones would cause
problems but people living near radio transmitters wouldn't (and we'd have
probably seen these effects by now, radio isn't exactly new).

Unfortunately, it takes a lot of work and a lot of time to build up long term
clinical studies. In the meantime, all we can do is wait.

~~~
whalliburton
Dismissing a news article based on association is, for me, not a very good
method. Following the link that it provides is a useful method. In this case
to the actual paper in question:

<http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobph.pdf>

If the Register ran an article on a startup company, would that invalidate
what is really presented?

"Mobile Operator Association" sends up red flags for conflict of interest in
this argument. Not that I dismiss, but would hope for a more independent
assessment.

"the science suggests" is, to me, an appeal to the authority of a select
number of papers and implies that the paper in question is not "science". I do
not see a conflict on interest or false scientific reasoning in the paper in
question. If anything, this paper could be considered "newer science with more
data" with its 2008 publish date and recently cited studies.

The author directly contests the assumption that the long wavelengths used by
cellphones result in less risk to the users. He also mentions a report of an
office in the top floor being closed due to the "seventh working in as many
years" being diagnosed with brain cancer that he attributes to a cell phone
tower directly above the office.

~~~
KirinDave
The current body of medical literature is at best ambivalent about the risk of
long-term exposure. That's not an appeal to authority, that's just checking on
the state of the literature.

Science is always open to revision, and so I don't think it's impossible that
this is true (indeed, I use a handsfree religiously to minimize my potential
risk). But there isn't any hard evidence, and one study does should not a
panic take, especially given the profound and subjectively positive social
implications of mobile computing and mobile communication.

The article has nothing new for me, except sensationalist rhetoric and
carefully worded (and carelessly paraphrased) "Mobile Operator Association
points to these studies", when really that's the gross body of the current
medical literature. It's not cherry-picked literature, the bulk of the
literature suggests it is not true. That's not a conflict of interest, that's
just pointing to the independently funded science.

As for the story about the top floor of the tower, why would only their heads
be getting cancer if they're being universally exposed? The plural of anecdote
is anecdotes, not data.

Whenever we have a somewhat difficult to reproduce condition with less-than-
certain explanation in terms of the physical method, I demand more solid
evidence before taking drastic action. I also think that news outlets like the
register should take more responsibility and demand more evidence before
pulling out the dramatic horn kicks and warming up a headline like this one.

People have been expressing fear over EMF for a long time now, and in general
these fears have been dismissed and unsupported by scientific examination.
Until I see some hard evidence, I consider a cellphone is about as harmful as
a microwave. That is to say, there are small potential risks (particularly
with damaged units), but I'm more likely to be struck by a car while commuting
to work.

------
goodkarma
When you put a device that transmits energy right next to your head, you're
taking a risk that the transmitted energy interacts with the matter in your
head/brain. The longer and more often you put the device up to your head, the
more opportunities there are for the interaction.

Everything else is just a mathematical probability.

~~~
mrtron
When you put a device that contains chemical potential energy over your legs,
you're taking a risk that the energy is released and interacts with your
legs/groin. The longer and more often you put the device over your legs, the
more opportunities there are for the interaction.

Everything else is just a mathematical probability. Let's stop wearing pants.

------
groovyone
Oh god. I bought an iphone and my landline went off for two weeks. I started
getting a 'numb' head and my head 'tingled' from its use. I have tried to
limit it and have also started to put back in Ethernet rather than the 3 wifi
routers I currently have. This might sound stupid, but what scan would you
need from the hospital to detect if you have a tumour?

~~~
gibsonf1
I have an Iphone too, and it seems to be the least shielded device I've ever
had (as much as I can't live without it). It is the only device I have that
interferes with all my electronics within a few feet whenever it interacts
with a cell tower. (I hear a buzz on all my computer speakers).

~~~
nickb
>(I hear a buzz on all my computer speakers)

Was your previous phone GSM-based? That buzz is not specific to iPhones. All
GSM phones have it (to a certain degree). Search for 'gsm buzz'.

------
eusman
good link bait, clueless article.

"Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos"

I am surprised by the ease of spreading panic. Really bad taste of them.

There is not even a link to a a url of the research. the quality of YC
submitted stories are in downhill.

If everybody has a mobile phone, then it's impossible to limit the cause for
their health failure to a mobile phone, so no study can proove anything...

for every study that "proofs" the negative effects of a mobile phone there is
another that does the opposite.

Until there is one that proofs the problem either use a hands free or limit
the use...

~~~
whalliburton
I would not say that this is a clueless article.

The doctors website and the article in question: <http://www.brain-
surgery.us/mobilephone.html>

The doctor appears competent to me, but I haven't actually performed any brain
surgery so cannot rate his work, but at least he claims "success".

<http://www.brain-surgery.net.au/c_a.html>

Another similar article: [http://www.brain-
surgery.net.au/media/MobilephoneCT27-3-08.p...](http://www.brain-
surgery.net.au/media/MobilephoneCT27-3-08.pdf)

~~~
tptacek
The notion that brain surgeons are automatically qualified to conduct and
evaluate complex biomedical research in oncology and neurology strikes me as
approximately as valid as the idea that skilled software developers are
automatically qualified to evaluate cryptosystems, compression algorithms, or
semiconductor process technology.

~~~
mechanical_fish
But I _am_ qualified! I designed a cryptosystem just last week, and nobody's
broken it yet!

Moreover, the PDF that I published on my personal website sounds very erudite,
and doesn't contain any obvious spelling errors. I have over fifteen years'
experience in the lab [1], have authored nearly a dozen scientific
publications in prestigious journals such as _Physical Review Letters_ and
_Cancer Research_ [2], and have seven years' experience as a semiconductor
process technologist. [3] So I don't see how you can dismiss my work out of
hand, particularly since you, as a security professional, have an obvious
conflict of interest. [4]

[1] At least two years of which involved making photocopies, washing
glassware, and ordering pizza.

[2] This is actually true, for reasonable values of "nearly" and
"prestigious". You must also remember that being Nth author counts as
"authoring".

[3] Also true. And so relevant, too!

[4] Notice that "the desire to toot your own horn" never seems to count as a
"conflict of interest".

~~~
tptacek
While noting that nobody else is going to toot your horn _for_ you, I'll say
that cryptography was just the first thing to come into my head, for obvious
reasons. I can't tell from the tone of your comment, but if you've worked in
semiconductors, cancer research, and cryptography, let me be the first to
proclaim that you have a bad-ass resume.

~~~
mechanical_fish
Oh, I totally lied about the cryptography. :) I have a copy of Schneier on my
shelf that I occasionally put under my pillow at night... does that count?

All that I know about cryptography is that anyone who claims to have written
their own unbreakable system, but hasn't had that system vetted by other
cryptographers, is nearly 100% likely to be completely full of it.

The semiconductors and cancer research are true. It sounds so much more
impressive than it actually is, though, which is kind of my point. Yeah, I've
worked in several fields, and I like to think I learned _something_ from all
of that time, but if I wrote a crypto paper I would still be talking out of my
ass. Hell, if I wrote my own cancer research paper I'd be talking out of my
ass -- my role in the cancer lab was mainly "physics guy who knows how to
change the light bulbs on the multiphoton microscope".

~~~
tptacek
So then, I made a half-assed analogy:

    
    
      programmer : semiconductor engineer :: surgeon : researcher
    

Was I talking out of my ass? Because of the three CS fields I mentioned, I
_barely_ work in one of them. =)

~~~
mechanical_fish
Well, I want to avoid insulting, e.g., my former co-author, a neurosurgeon who
also does oncological research... but I don't think your analogy is bad at
all.

It's generally true that the skills, the approach, and the techniques of
surgeons and researchers are completely different. Surgery is a specialty. For
example, I've had the head of surgical oncology at a very prestigious hospital
tell me that he doesn't know much about chemotherapy -- there are other
experts for that. And none of those clinical guys are necessarily experts in
the _causes_ of cancer, nor in its rate of incidence.

The stereotype, of course, is that every surgeon thinks that being a surgeon
makes you an expert in everything. Sometimes that mold fits: Tremendous self-
confidence is almost a requirement for being a great surgeon, and the side
effect can be... an excess of confidence. And sometimes the mold is unfair.
The field I briefly worked in -- antiangiogenesis -- was founded by the late
Judah Folkman, a famous surgeon who did his even-more-famous research as his
second job. Folkman had to spend a lot of years gathering data before other
researchers were convinced that he wasn't just another surgeon with delusions
of grandeur. But, as it happens, he wasn't.

In the end, you've got to show the data, and it has got to survive real
criticism. That's the metric.

------
iamelgringo
I guess it's time to start wearing my tinfoil hat:
<http://tesladownunder.com/TeslaPoolTinHat.jpg>

------
michaelneale
Ionising radiation, and non-ionising radiation - I assume the general public
still does not know the difference?

------
JBiserkov
Might seem like offtopic, but it's not: Have you seen the movie "Thank you for
smoking"?

------
dhimes
Gee, guys. Just go hands-free!

