![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-358755-100x100.png\")
Wow.....Consumerist spreading FUD now? Seriously, pretty much every electronic device emits something that is killing us, yet our mortality rate continues to rise. In the US, I doubt it is because of our wonderful healthcare system. Yes....I was being sarcastic there.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Hmm. They'll take away my jalapenos but won't take away my cell, that's weird.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-327386-100x100.png\")
Didn't know that a cordless phone emits the same stuff as a cell. I thought I was being smart. Time to go get a corded phone.
\"It is not a tumah!\"
They forgot #11..... Foil Beanies.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-59206-100x100.png\")
@CaptZ: I don't know, the intro paragraph was pretty much dripping with sarcasm.
All this mobile phone FUD is a little much, if you ask me. If we're going to get all worked up about carcinogens, what about that big yellow ball in the sky! Ban the sun! It causes cancer!
Realistically how many americans are going to follow this advice? If you answered \"less than 1%\" congratulations, you win this week's prize.
These are some of the most unrealistic guidelines for cell phone use I've ever seen. You know because there's NEVER any possibility of your phone shifting in a pocket.
Uh, This stuff about cell phones being dangerous is total FUD. Do some actual research on the study (scienceblogs.com has a number of blog posts by actual scientists about this issue) before you post hysterical woo.
First off the Pittsburgh study is probably poppycock. Everytime this comes up, 10 further studies come back not found or inconclusive. I wonder if UofP has a grant pending??
Look I have gone thru an MRI twice a year for the last 5 years. The amount of exposure I get by that machine is 10000x higher than all the cell phone exposure I will face in my lifetime. No tumors folks.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-295660-100x100.png\")
I've always been a strong believer that cell phones cause cancer and its nice every once in awhile to see an article that doesn't make me look crazy.
Even though the above isn't 100% proven, here's a fact that is: Cell Phones, if left on at night, can reduce the amount/quality of sleep that a nearby person has. It was done in a study. Look it up.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-374993-100x100.png\")
I recall doing some testing in a class, where we looked at cellphone usage and potential consequences.
The frequency they transmit, and the electric field, is not powerful enough to penetrate bone, and such, it can't do a thing to cause cancer or whatever other danger people worry about, as the waves cannot reach your brain or organs. It's simply not possible, when you look at the numbers. It's the definition of FUD.
Course, it is possible we fudged something up, so if someone can provide me hard numbers (not some study) proving the opposite , that would be appreciated.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-462100-100x100.png\")
fear mongering
NPR covered this release by interviewing the person who okay'd the statement to be made. I encourage everyone to check it out on www.npr.org because it pretty much stated that initial research leads us to believe these conclusions will be valid but the breadth of testing required is extensive so here is some advice.
It's good advice, but there is still more research to be done.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-80880-100x100.png\")
What about all the other electromagnetic signals that are bouncing through everyone's head all the time? Those are just as \"intense\" and constant. This dude is just looking for his 15 minutes using information that was being thrown around when phones started becoming popular.
These people know microwave ovens put out more signal that a phone, right?
And that signals are transmitted in 360 degrees.
I highly doubt anyone from the University of Pittsburgh can even read.
I'd rather live another 50 years with my awesome cell phone than another 60 years barely using that heavenly gift.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-104866-100x100.png\")
If I spend all my time watching YouTube videos on my iPhone, does that mean I'm going to die soon? If so, I should make the best of what little time I have left and get the new G3 iPhone, at the very least.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-11295-100x100.png\")
fuck it. i smoke, i drink, i have sex with random girls. im not gonna worry about my \"cell phone killing me\".
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-63807-100x100.png\")
1. Do not allow children to use a cell phone, except for emergencies. The developing organs of a fetus or child are the most likely to be sensitive to any possible effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.
Wow, in utero cellphone usage? I didn't know that kids start clamoring for cell phones even before they're born.
3. Avoid using your cell phone in places, like a bus, where you can passively expose others to your phone's electromagnetic fields.
No one wants to be exposed to your loud, one sided conversation either. I don't know anything about cancer rates, but people limiting their phone use in public would improve society in much more immediate ways. I fully endorse numbers 3,6, 8 and 9, regardless of potential death rays or whatever.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-145221-100x100.png\")
yeah - but in the future when someone gets sick from a cell phone Consumerist will be whining and bitching about how horrible it is that no one warned us not to pass electromagnetic waves through our heads
These sort of things never impress me. Jumping the gun and announcing to the world that tomatoes are... I mean cell phones are killing us but you've not done enough research to know for sure is just idiotic and serves only to create FUD.
Unless you glue the thing to your head and have to carry extra batteries because you use it up before you are done talking. I don't think you've much to worry about.
@Michael Belisle: ... exactly
What's a pregnant woman supposed to do? Wear her cell phone at the hip with a headset (Rule 2) or use the phone like a normal person (Rule 1).
It's frustrating, since several of the rules indicate a profound ignorance of modern cell phone systems, while others are good advice for reasons differing from Dr. Herberman's. For example Rule 8:
Avoid using your cell phone when the signal is weak or when moving at high speed, such as in a car or train, as this automatically increases power to a maximum as the phone repeatedly attempts to connect to a new relay antenna.
You're probably more likely to die from cell phone related auto accidents than any cell phone induced brain tumors.
I wouldn't trust an engineer to do a doctor's job, so why am I trusting this doctor's advice on what's safe over an engineer's.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-432320-100x100.png\")
As long as it doesn't infect my junk, I'm good.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-24204-100x100.png\")
thelushie: Didn't know that a cordless phone emits the same stuff as a cell. I thought I was being smart. Time to go get a corded phone.
With a corded phone, you can get zapped by lightning.
@MyCokesBiggerThanYours: \"gets sick from a cell phone\"
And exactly how is that going to be diagnosed? Do the cancerous cells look like little cell phones?
@cjdmi: What's a pregnant woman supposed to do? Wear her cell phone at the hip with a headset?
Remember to put your phone in Airplane mode before using the new iPhone ultrasound app, now available for $9.99 in the App Store. It uses a technology not unlike that used in a recent documentary, The Dark Knight.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-147040-100x100.png\")
I wonder when the portable and ultra-light weight lead suits are going on sale to counter all the radiation we are all supposed to be getting from cell phones. Of course, if they don't work, then we will hear about it on Consumerist. Everyone Wins!
Cheers!
@cjdmi:
I wouldn't trust an engineer to do a doctor's job, so why am I trusting this doctor's advice on what's safe over an engineer's.
AMEN!
I'm hoping that Carey is writing for The Onion on the side and accidently posted this here.
As was pointed out to me elsewhere energy is directly proportional to frequency, but the lower the frequency (which is where the cell phones and bluetooth headsets are) the lower the energy. They don't break the threshold of damaging, ionizing radiation. (which reminds me, radiation is not equal to dangerous, people.)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-302597-100x100.png\")
@LostAngeles: I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. 1.8Ghz and 1.9Ghz ARE in the microwave range. And although cellphones have low power (.6 watts), the farther you are from the cell tower, the more power the phone needs to use to compensate. No one knows the long-term exposure, how some are affected and others not, etc.
FUD or not, please be responsible.
How about the NUMBER ONE safety tip: don't use your damn cellphone when driving a car. For the life of me, I cannot fathom the love affair people have with their cellphones. Hang up and drive.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-118059-100x100.png\")
You forgot the only method that gives 100% protection: Abstinence!
I have a question, you savvy consumerist commenters--
we know that now cell phones can cause cancer... but what about laptops? i am on my macbook at least 7-10 hours a day, and sleep with it next to me on the bedside (so i can work in bed). is this hazardous?
thanks!
Just when I thought the whole cell phone/wifi/microwave oven/power lines will kill you FUD was over it comes back. Please people. Radio waves and microwaves are non-ionizing radiation. They don't have enough energy per photon to damage DNA and cause cancer. All they can do is warm things up.
Although the thought of idiots walking around with tinfoil around their heads and blabbing on a cell phones does make me laugh.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-101046-100x100.png\")
No, no, no. It's only cheap cellphones that are a problem. You need a new, expensive cellphone to avoid problems. And a more expensive plan, because pre-purchased and rollover 'minutes' are possibly bad for you.
Breathing is bad for you as well. So is eating and drinking.
Why no studies on car exhaust and factory emissions (but OMFG second-hand smoke!)?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-307161-100x100.png\")
Cordless home phones don't put out nearly as much power as cellphones, as they only need to function relatively close to the base (~100 feet or so) vs. the miles from a tower a cellphone may need to cover. At the least, the worry over the cordless phones seems overblown.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1797-100x100.png\")
Use your speakerphone in a public place and I may kill you before your cellphone does the job.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-343730-100x100.png\")
@dhmosquito: Amen. People freak out over a theoretical risk (which I think is largely negligible) but concretely and drastically increase their chances of dying by gabbing while driving.
I guess that's nothing new though...people always worry about cancer and still line up at the McDonald's counter and give themselves heart attacks.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6170-100x100.png\")
@thelushie:
A cordless phone has a shorter range, and presumably emits far fewer electromagnetic fields.
@ds143:
There are no studies linking laptops to cancer (yet), but there ARE studies linking them to male sterility when used as a \"laptop\" rather than being used on a table or a lap-desk. The amount of heat generated is apparently very bad for the male swim-team.
At the post in general, I vehemently disagree with ANY advice that encourages more text-messaging. America's grammar skills are already bad enough!
Has anyone bothered to check this guys ties to the Blue Tooth industry? This is not the first time this scare gone around. Remember the viral popcorn video.
I heard him interviewed on the radio. He was distinctly unscientific. I can remember the quote exactly. It was something like; all the data isn't in yet but we can't wait for it.
In science you wait for the data before making pronouncements.
5. If you must carry your cell phone on you, make sure that the keypad is positioned toward your body and the back is positioned toward the outside so that the transmitted electromagnetic fields move away from your rather than through you.I am a physicist and if any of my students said this, I would force them to take E&M I again.
What a maroon.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-336355-100x100.png\")
This is fucking stupid. Now, we're supposed to treat our cellphones as a radioactive device. Next, some idiot like Al Gore will start some kind of \"crisis\" over the notion that cell phones are dangerous. The truth is that they don't emit any more electromagnetic radiation any other electronic devices such as computers, televisions, etc. This is all horse shit.
1. Do not allow children to use a cell phone, except for emergencies. The developing organs of a fetus...So now I've learned not to allow my fetus to use my cell phone.
You can also put it on \"flight\" or \"off-line\" mode, which stops electromagnetic emissions.Oh, you mean \"off\"? The mode where you can't receive calls? Yeah. That's useful.
3. Avoid using your cell phone in places, like a bus, where you can passively expose others to your phone's electromagnetic fields.Here we go... Cell phones are the new cigarettes. Watch out for that second hand cell phone radiation exposure! It's just as deadly!
This is stupid. Cell phones don't cause cancer and if you think they do, you're stupid.
\"Cell phones haven't been around long enough for us to have long term data\" - no but guess what, humans have been exposed to electromagnetic emissions FOREVER, we evolved with bodies which are not affected by it.
I'm surprised to see The Consumerist fall for this bullshit... even if they are treating it less than seriously, they shouldn't reprint this kind of FUD-spreading nonsense. I'm disappointed in you guys.
@gymnjim: \"In science you wait for the data before making pronouncements.\" The only problem is, once the data is in, if it turns out we are all going to die from brain tumors, it will be too late.
Could someone please explain to me why my cell phone is going to kill me, but having my bluetooth earpiece in my ear won't?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-369596-100x100.png\")
@LostAngeles: Yes, in fact, cell phones use frequencies which are less energetic than visible light and infrared. For the most part, the radiation will pass right through most matter without being absorbed. However, there are specific frequencies even in extremely low-energy bands that carry almost the exact same amount of energy as certain vibrational modes of biological important molecules which could impart such vibrations to those molecules. This is basically the principle by which microwave ovens work. They excite certain vibrations of water molecules, and those vibrations break down into translational movement which, on a molecular level, is heat. The dangers from things like microwaves (and the cellphone bands are in the microwave range, although not quite the same frequencies as the ovens) are from the possibility that absorbed radiation could result in a vibrational mode in that destabilizes biological molecules in such a way that they can react or malfunction. In the case of ionizing radiation, that will often cause biological molecules to directly break apart (by exciting them to a vibrational state where the vibration imparted to a specific bond exceeds the maximum bond length, kind of like pulling a slinky until it breaks), leaving free radicals which rapidly react resulting in all kinds of badness, biologically speaking. Ultimately, cell phone radiation is FAR FAR less likely cause a mutations and is therefore FAR FAR less dangerous than ionizing radiation. But there still exists a possibility that it can trigger a mutation, and with any mutation, there is a possibility that it will be harmful to the organism. It's a remote possibility, but a possibility nonetheless.
@SigmundTheSeaMonster: Which is non-ionizing. Bluetooth, some cordless phones, and my WiFi at least, run at 2.4GHz which is a higher frequency and therefore a higher energy than your average cellphone or microwave. Or you could simply read down the thread.
@dangermike: Exactly, but it's so remote, I'm more concerned about an earthquake. This whole thing strikes me as SCARE TACTICS using the scary word, \"radiation.\"
@jonworld: Correlation does not equal causation. Give us more information on this study or I'm going to think that there's one obvious reason why people might not get a good night's sleep if their phone is on while they try sleep (IMO that ringing thing they do doesn't make for a good night's sleep).
I'm a bit skeptical of this article. It seems a bit too lacking in hard data and too many statements are qualified with \"may\". Even the main publication they're counting on hasn't actually been published and they don't provide any information to indicate that they have an inside line on what it'll cover.
It seems like work that cherry picked what it wanted to make it's point and ratcheted up the whole fear factor as a way of giving itself some self importance.
@dhmosquito: It's not just cell phones. In typical fashion people went after the easy target and completely ignored the overriding problem (i.e. inattention). Do we want safer roads? Then make any driver inattention a crime, don't get into involved conversations with your passengers (i.e. don't yell at your kids if they misbehave in the car), don't touch the radio while driving (or just do away with it and DVD/video game system in cars). Don't drive if you didn't get a full night's rest. Etc... etc...
Or better yet how about educating people on the need to pay attention while driving. Don't eat, don't shave, don't apply make-up, etc... Just drive. Of course that would be too hard so we just make it illegal for people to have their phone up to their ear while driving (but using a headset is ok even though that negates the entire pay attention thing).
@nonzenze:
I'm glad you said it, because I thought I was going crazy.
Any \"study\" that doesn't understand how EM works WRT directionality isn't worth paying attention to.
@gymnjim: The whole thing fails the smell test.
The earth puts out .3 to .6 milligauss continuously, 24hrs a day, your entire life.
The average modern digital cellphone (PCS/CDMA)held at the ear is about 1 to 3 times that level, depending on the mode, active, standby or \"burst\".
So holding it for a reasonable amount of time to the ear should not matter over any exposure time. Even 24 hrs a day would only be 2-3x the natural exposure.
You get far more from using the microwave for 5 minutes a day.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-326654-100x100.png\")
@ds143:
we know that now cell phones can cause cancer... but what about laptops? i am on my macbook at least 7-10 hours a day, and sleep with it next to me on the bedside (so i can work in bed). is this hazardous?
/slowly takes laptop off lap, places on couch.
//quickly walks away.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488076-100x100.png\")
Too bad I put my phone on my nightstand by me bed...it's my alarm clock most of the time, and I live with a roommate, so if family calls or there's an emergency or something happens, it's nice to know when it happens, not the next morning. This list is dumb. And why put my phone on speaker for the whole world to hear? Because \"whenever possible\" is less than 5% of the time for me.
I have seen a study that found leaving a cell phone next to your head while asleep [even if it's shut off] impacts your brain, but then again, I'm sure the alarm clock you have nearby does, too.
I did find a study that shows EEG-determined sleep is delayed when sleeping next to a turned-on cell, but that's just one study. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
But then, the BJM just published the results of a German study that said these phones pose no health risk.
[www.bmj.com]
Who knows.
\"Of course, science doesn't actually know for certain whether cellphones are safe\"
Yes they do, what kind of ridiculous article is this?
LOL Holy crap this was news? I work at the UPCI, and when we all got this email we literally laughed out loud and made fun of it for at least 20 min. We all got a hoot out of #3 and said the next time we passed Herberman in the halls we'd whip out our cellphones and chase him away like a vampire with a cross.
He's retiring next year, so I guess he figured he'd go out with a bang. Seriously, the guy is like your mother with the charisma of a potato. I guess now I realize why he \"felt the need\": press release. This just makes it that much richer.
>.< !
Next: Radio, poison for the mind, literally? Film at 11.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-25946-100x100.png\")
I'm not a physics geek, but come on... almost every suggestion shows a serious lack of even basic understanding of microwave EM prorogation it's astounding.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21380-100x100.png\")
Wait..where's the study here? I'll I see is a bunch of oncologists that \"suspect\" phones cause brain cancer without having any evidence of that whatsoever.
The most recent studies, which include subjects with a history of cell phone usage for a duration of at least 10 years, show a possible association between certain benign tumors (acoustic neuromas) and some brain cancers on the side the device is used.[6, 7, 8, 9]
However, human epidemiological studies on cell phones conducted to date cannot be conclusive. Due to their recently increased use, we are not yet able to evaluate their long term impact on health.
So we have some people who've had used a cell-phone for 10 years that end up with benign tumors that might possibly be associated with brain cancer. Could that connection as stated be any more vague? And then in the next paragraph, it goes on to say that there's not enough data yet to asses long term impact on health.
Wait...what's that whole thing about science again...forming a hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis over and over again to see if it's true? Wow, I'd expect better from well-educated doctors than just throwing out loose speculation in order to scare people. Additionally, just because they are doctors doesn't mean they know anything about RF.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-83261-100x100.png\")
Don't believe something without verfiable proof, double-blind scientific studies or peer reviewed experiments to back it up. Other physicist are very skeptical of this:
\"By now everyone has heard the news frenzy over Ronald Herberman, Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, advising faculty and staff to limit cell phone use because there is no proof that it's not a cancer risk. Nonsense! 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.\" ~Bob Parks
@Grrrrrrrrr: Well, the problem is, you can't bake a bunch of people's brains with radio waves and see what happens (well, ethically - maybe China's doing this study already). And, doing it to rats, etc. would be pointless. Maybe monkeys, but research monkeys are hard to get now (never mind the cost and trying to get it through the animal ethical use committee), and even then, still not quite the right size. They showed computer models in the email attachment of hypothesized brain penetration, but I never trust computer models when it comes to biologic systems: you can't model what you don't know (and I wish to God that someone would explain that to PETA).
\"3. Avoid using your cell phone in places, like a bus, where you can passively expose others to your phone's electromagnetic fields.\"
How long till the cries for banning cell phone use in public because it causes \"secondhand cellphone syndrome\"?
You think I'm joking, but who would have thought even 10 years ago we'd be banning smoking in public.
Meh whatever. I use my cellphone and so does everyone else around me in my city. I liked #3 hah. About 50% of people sitting in the bus are using their cell phones lol, wishful thinking FTW! I say, phuck it. Live life, it's too short, use your damn cell phone 24/7 if you want. The guy next to you will never use a cell phone and be fit and healthy and he could get hit by a mack truck on his way home from work. Wifi devices are everywhere. Wifi keyboard, mouse, headset, cell phone, home phone, routers, NIC cards...
\"1. Do not allow children to use a cell phone, except for emergencies. The developing organs of a fetus or child are the most likely to be sensitive to any possible effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.\"
--That's right parents - dont let your fetuses use your cell phone. Imagine the mechanics of how that phone call would take place....
We should stop reading the Consumerist as we are exposed to the electromagnetic field from computers (particular applicable if on Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, or Air-card).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-462821-100x100.png\")
@JohnMc: OMG, i'm of the same oppinion. Expecially seeing as how they've yet to release how they came to these precice findings.
cellphones have been mainstreem for a decade now, lets see some retroactive studies, please.
I am now afraid of my cell phone. It's 2 feet away, lurking, waiting to radiate me...
Although the beginning of this article does seem pretty sarcastic there is some common sense advice...I'm not waiting until there is PROOF that my cell phone killed me.Although there isn't a PROVEN, without a doubt, connection between cell phone and cancer...I think this is another one of those instances where there just isn't enough time under the bridge for the effects to show up. Do I want to wait until there is proof? I don't think so. I've never been much for wanting to be the proof of something being harmful. So in the meantime I'm using a headset or a speaker phone, I have a BioPro Chip on my phone and I'm wearing my BioElectric Shield. www.bioelectricshield.com. I think I'm at least as well protected as possible. Which chance are you betting on that cell phones do or don't cause cancer, infertility or other diseases? Maybe caution and protection is a smart idea....how many studies have there been that this drug, additive etc is harmless...only to have it pulled off the market after thousands of deaths?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-158037-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-4752-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-342765-100x100.png\")
![](\"http://img147.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fiphoneoe3.jpg\"){kind=link}
This article actually serves to illustrate one of the finer purposes of the Consumerist; namely, providing a PSA-type service to consumers regarding research in an area that directly relates to a consumer product. Bravo, Consumerist.