Wireless Companies Bury Studies, Discredit Researchers Studying Cellphone Radiation

are wireless bluetooth sets any better? they still use radio waves...

Sorry if this comes off sounding cynical, but so what? What is it you want?

You want the cell phone companies to put a big 'radiation hazard' sticker on every phone and acknowledge that their product causes cancer? Fine. Here's the result:
1. Nobody cares, buy phones anyway.
2. Wealthy lawyers file lawsuits on behalf of every person in the country who believes a phone caused their sickness.
3. Wealthy lawyers get much wealthier.
4. People who get sick get a token settlement and a t-shirt.
5. Everyone else pays for this in the form of higher cell phone rates. Congratulations.

Perhaps we should ban handsets with the microphone within 24 inches of the antenna. Fine. Then the focus will be on intestinal, kidney and testicular cancer 'cause the RF emitting section is now on their belt.

How about a free headset with every phone? Fine. Very few use them, everyone pays more. Doesn't stop lawsuits.

The last two cell phones I bought had RF exposure warnings in the manual. Wired headsets are under $10. I haven't seen anyone using one of them for months. Bluetooth headsets can be had for less than $30. Wear one of them, and the general public brands you a douchebag. And Bluetooth is still a radio transmitter, although an order of magnitude less intense than a phone.

The genie is out of the bottle here. All the research in the world isn't going to get people to stop using wireless phones. I personally think that RF probably DOES contribute to cellular-level changes that COULD possibly maybe eventually result in cancer. So does Diet Coke.

I am a chemist. When I first heard claims that cell phone "radiation" (ie, light...oh so scary) was causing significant health effects, I was completely skeptical. I still am. Why? Because there is no obvious mechanism for them to do so. The waves simply do not have enough energy to do anything to biological chemicals, which is why they are called "non-ionizing". Indeed, cell-phone microwaves have similar or less energy than the "radiation" you emit via your own body heat...you know, the stuff you get to see in the infrared videos. If your cell phone is frying you, you are screwed...because you are frying yourself 24/7.

Given that significant health effects are scientifically implausible, the burden of proof should be quite high. There have been a billion and two studies on this matter, and most have found nothing. A few find this or that, but the effects are weak and probably statistical blips. Remember, by definition, 5% of studies will find statistically significant results even when there is no effect.

If there is an effect, it is very small. Swap one donut for a couple carrots and you have just offset the danger of a year's worth of yapping. Simply put, there are better things to worry about.

maybe more research will lead to safer phones. I would gladly take your 5 scenarios if it ment we truly knew the dangers involved and could then make our own informed decision. Putting your head in the sand isnt a solution.

Here's a big problem with this entire argument: it's based on a TAUTOLOGY. It is a classic example of "P or not-P."

Cell phones may cause cancer (or they may not) gets us absolutely NOWHERE. Similarly, saying "what happens in the short term tells you nothing about what happens in the long term" is a great example of tautological thinking. We can respond with "what happens in the long term tells you nothing about what happens in the short term." Boom, tautology and failed logic.

I would also like to point out that it doesn't seem like the wireless companies have buried "studies" (as in plural), but that one study was possibly pressured in a less-than-optimal direction. Sensationalism in titles, much?

We also have to wonder if the article in The Walrus is by any means a balanced and fair take on the situation. If it is, then yes, this is a worrying development, as science is being impaired. If not, then it's just as worrying because we're having fallacies and half-truths presented as worrying evidence.

Still, I wonder... who's pressuring the WHO to say that "Current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones and their base stations, is unlikely to induce or promote cancers. Several studies are under way to determine whether the results of some studies on animals have any relevance to cancer in human beings. Recent epidemiological studies have found no convincing evidence of an increased cancer risk or any other disease with mobile phone use."

If anything, the single most worrying development since the dawn of cell phones is this: "Research has clearly shown an increased risk of traffic accidents, some 3-4 times greater chance of an accident, when mobile phones (either handheld or with a "hands-free" kit) are used while driving."

In other words, while Mr. Alter frets about what MAY be, we can DEFINITELY save lives by finding ways to get people off their phones while driving.

But I guess the title, "Cell Phone Use while Driving: Still Clearly Bad" isn't as exciting as showing that the big bad MNCs are trying to pull another Phillip-Morris on us all.

I use a wired headset with my phone every time I make a call. I use one of the good Sony ones that works with the MP3 playing functions in my phone as well. And my phone stays in my bag. Nice and easy. I think as good two-ear bluetooth headphones become cheaper and more mainstream more people will use them.

And to answer the charge of 'so what?' If people are concerned and want this problem fixed, then fixes will be found. If it was definitively stated that cell phones lead to brain cancer, then companies would start competing on offering safer phones (they already are to a small extent), for both legal reasons and commercial reasons.