Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

NYC Subway Cell Service, No Cell-Related Cancer

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:07 AM
from the so-few-places-are-safe-now dept.
Communications Technology Science
Luke PiWalker wrote to mention a CNN article discussing a bid process for offering cell phone service to NYC subway stations. The contract is only to wire up stations; moving trains will not have service. Those New Yorkers will also be safe from their phones, as the BBC reports on a study indicating cell phones don't cause cancer. From that article, submitted to us by Dan Hope: "She acknowledged that there appeared to be an increased risk among brain cancer sufferers on the side of the head where they held the phone. The team, however, did not put this down to a causal link, because almost exactly the same decreased risk was seen on the other side of the head, leaving no overall increase risk of tumours for mobile phone users. Instead, they blamed biased reporting from brain tumour sufferers who knew what side of the head their tumours were on."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Swedish Study Finds Cell Phone Cancer Risk 282 comments
dtjohnson writes "A new Swedish study has found that heavy users of cell phones had a 240 percent increase in brain tumors on the side of their head that the phone was used on. The study defined 'heavy' use as more than 2,000 total hours, or approximately one hour of use per workday for 10 years. An earlier British study was previously discussed here that didn't find an increased risk, although that study covered fewer subjects and only followed one type of brain tumor for a shorter period of time. Or course, the biggest epidemiological study of all is the one we are all participating in whenever we use our cell phone. The results from that study won't be available for a while."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

NYC Subway Cell Service, No Cell-Related Cancer 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I'm curious to hear from someone who knows--how difficult would it be (in terms of what kind of technology would it require, and relatively how expensive compared to stantionary-wiring would it be) to have service in the trains, too?
    • The Metro in DC has cell service in Trains. I am not sure how they do it, but that would be a good place to research to see how it is done.
    • They'd have to setup mini-cell towers at intervals along almost the entire length of the system. It would be prohibitively expensive to try and shoehorn this is after the fact.

      Like many things, it's invariably cheaper and easier to implement 'features' while you're building/developing something than after the fact.

      IMHO, this is not a bad idea to limit this to the platform. Subway trains are kind of like being in an airplane or a full elevator. You want everyone to mind their own business and stay out of you
      • It appears that terrorists are now using the advanced "oppossable thumb" technology and a secret apparatus known as "PED" to carry out their sick plots.

        To ensure freedom, we must ban hands and feet. Please do not be alarmed by the chopping squads that will begin making their rounds in your city in just a few days.

      • Re:How hard would it be? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Biomechanical (829805) on Friday January 20 2006, @10:34AM (#14519041) Homepage

        Actually, servicing a subway train would not require antenna's all along the tunnels.

        You put a cell-receiver in the train, and run communication signals from the train through radio signals out the tracks, the same as you can control model trains on a DCC setup railway, or do IP over powerlines.

      • This might enable the next terrorist attack though.

        Well, it sure worked (at the technical level) in Madrid. Thankfully they didn't plan/execute it very well, though, as apparently their initial plan was to have all of the onboard backpack bombs go off at once, aboard trains that were all in the station (this didn't work too well, since some went off outside) - with the intention of bringing the entire terminal down on all of the commuters inside. That would have been hundreds more or thousands dead. And
      • Terra!

        Anyway, I don't see why they can't put a picocell [phonescoop.com] on the train and have simple uplink stations for it along the tracks. Would probably be cheaper than having complete cell towers stashed throughout the tunnels.

    • Leaky Coax (Score:5, Informative)

      by RingDev (879105) on Friday January 20 2006, @10:36AM (#14519057) Homepage Journal
      Leaky Coax would likely be a cheap way to handle it. You would still need "towers" at regular intervals, but then you run a copper line along the train line for each antena. This is a pretty common trick in large buildings. You let the carrier install antenas on your roof line and drop leaky coax off one of them so that the signal inside the building is just as strong as the signal outside. The expencive part would be getting the pipe to support the volume. I road the DC blue line a few times during rush hour, there are ALOT of people in a very small area. Running that many people on one antena might not work so well, expecially when they are all getting handed off every 45 seconds. You might need some type of redundant line of antenas to handle the call volume, hand offs, and load balancing. And then likely a fiber line to carry the data from the antenas back to the junction. -Rick -Rick
  • Maybe the reaearchers have this whole brain tumor thing backwards.

    Instead of:
    "Cell phones cause brain tumors," they could look into "Brain tumors cause cell phones."

    Maybe people who already have a tumor in the side of their head are naturally attracted to using that side to hold their phone.

    • Hey, if I read the article correctly, keeping your phone on the side you don't have a tumor yet will remove the tumor you have on the other side and will thus restore balance again.

      Next headline: Cell phones cure brain tumor!

  • RE Cells (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alex P Keaton in da (882660) on Friday January 20 2006, @10:11AM (#14518857) Homepage
    I still would rather have my cell to my ear, than sitting in my lap while I am using a headset, for obvious male reasons.
    The Metro in DC has had Cell service for quite sometime. As much as the NYC subway is nice because it is free from Cell yell, I can'y imagine not being able to use my wireless services while commuting.
    • Foil underwear would stop any conserns about nut cancer and as an adder bounou the goverment mind controll devices for males would be disabled.
      • "i mean, look, i'm as attached to my genitals as anyone"

        Most people do prefer to be totally attached to their genitals. Not just slightly attached.

        Also, prioritizing genitals over brains appears to have worked fine for most species in the world. Genitals have a better track record for keeping a species around than brains.

  • Above ground (Score:5, Informative)

    by friedo (112163) * on Friday January 20 2006, @10:14AM (#14518874) Homepage
    It's worth noting that a good 40% or so of what we call The Subway is actually above ground, on elevated and surface lines, and you can blab on your cell all you want while riding.
    • True, but the 40% of the NYC subway system which is above-ground also tends to be in more outlying areas of the system, and therefore less-traveled and sometimes less-populated areas.

      A train's time spent above ground may also be quite brief, as is the case on the F line in Brooklyn, where it runs underground to Carroll Street, goes elevated for only 2 stations in order to pass over the Gowanus Canal, and then returns underground for several more stations. A short "hi, I'm on my way" call might be possible
      • Yeah but most idiots that move to New York from out-of-town think that Manhattan is the only borough of New York and they are afraid to go to Brooklyn or Queens or The Bronx for fear of getting lost.

        Most life-long Manhattan dwellers think the same way.

  • Well, It's a good beginning, but in downtown Montreal we have cell services even in the Métro (subway) train !

  • While I don't relish... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PornMaster (749461) on Friday January 20 2006, @10:18AM (#14518904) Homepage
    While I don't relish the thought of hearing people chattering away on their phones while waiting for a train, the idea of being able to reach people I'm trying to meet up with sounds good. Especially when going outside to get service means being out in the rain.
  • So, now that you can choose which side of your brain is more likely to get a tumor, decide which hemisphere you need more and use the other ear for your cellphone.
    Logical. Artistic. Logical? Artistic? Logical! Artistic!
    Choices, choices.

  • Good news. (Score:4, Funny)

    by GillBates0 (664202) on Friday January 20 2006, @10:19AM (#14518913) Homepage Journal
    She acknowledged that there appeared to be an increased risk among brain cancer sufferers on the side of the head where they held the phone...Instead, they blamed biased reporting from brain tumour sufferers who knew what side of the head their tumours were on.

    I hold my phone on the outside of my head. Does that mean I have a reduced risk of getting brain cancer inside of my head? This is good news for people who use my cellphone usage technique.

  • Studies. What do they know? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kohath (38547) on Friday January 20 2006, @10:24AM (#14518955)
    Why should we listen to studies? Shouldn't we believe that cell phones cause cancer if that belief meets our emotional needs?

    After all, all studies are funded by someone. So we can decide they're biased based on what we wish their conclusions were. And then we can continue to believe what we want.

    C'mon. Everyone's doing it.
      • This is totally unrealistic in this case.

        Your view of what's realistic insensitively disregards my feelings about the reality that works for me.

        I'm not sure that's officially considered a hate-crime yet though.

  • If it isn't the cellphone that kills, its the AIR (Score:4, Informative)

    by digitaldc (879047) on Friday January 20 2006, @10:25AM (#14518963)
    According [acs.org] to Swedish scientists, people should be more worried about the subway air they breathe, than their cell phone use.
  • I doubt there was a conspiracy. More likely, people drive with the phone on their left if they drive manual transmission, and they drive with the phone on their right or left fairly equally if they have automatic. Further, people have tended to shake with their right hand for a very long time, which is a hard habbit to break. The right hand has been left as the "free" hand for openning doors, etc. The left hand has tended to be the hand that carries things. So the right hand then became the cell phone
    • Did you even read the blurb? All the things you're saying wouldn't cause a _decrease_ in the chances of cancer on the LHS of your brain. You've explained very well why there might be an increase on the right side, but that's only half the equation.

      -Erwos
  • Buenos Aires had coverage in the whole subway (it's called "Subte" over here) network for the last 5 years, they have upgraded to GSM last year, the cell equipment underground is provided by Nokia.
  • Maybe the problem isn't that the phone cause the tumors, but rather your hand preference. Think about it. Most people will, a majority of the time, use their dominant hand to hold the cell phone when talking on it. So of course the tumor that supposedly is caused by the phone is also going to match up to their dominant had as well. So maybe this is about your dominant hand being the deciding factor in the location NOT the phone!

    What percent of persons using a cell phone have developed a tumor in the fir

  • Powerwatch is a company, not a nonprofit. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Nephroth (586753) on Friday January 20 2006, @01:55PM (#14520789)
    If you have a look at the powerwatch [powerwatch.co.uk] website, you'll notice two sections that are rather interesting: catalog [powerwatch.org.uk] and price list [powerwatch.org.uk].

    They sell worthless junk along the same lines as aluminum foil hats, and magic-crystal healing devices. They aren't protecting people from EMF, they are getting rich of scaring people into believing that it's going to destroy them and their families.

    They completely disregard the fact that we have been, and continue to be bombarded by radiation from natural sources such as the sun, celestial events, and the Earth's magnetic core. Making our homes into faraday cages just means that we won't be bombarded by EMF in our houses, but wait! Every single electronic device emits some amount of EMF, from your toaster, to your microwave, to your vibrator, it's all going to emit some amount of EMF and you really can't escape it without becoming a Luddite and living in a sealed hovel in some remote location.

    It's also important to note that there are different kinds of radiation, at its purest definition, it's the transmission of energy via waves. In that case, sound is radiation, ripples in water, also radiation. What most people confuse, however, is electromagnetic radiation versus particle radiation. Electromagnetic radiation is the oscillation of magnetic fields, particle radiation is caused by nuclear decay and the two are quite different. Electrons moving around is a lot less invasive than a red hot proton ripping through the nuclei of your cells which leads us to how cancer is caused by radiation. Particle radiation, caused by nuclear decay, shoots off ions at high velocities which actually shoot through your body and kill cells. Sometimes, in the process of doing this, they will damage the nucleus of a cell but not so much that the cell dies, just enough to mangle its DNA. This can cause faulty reproduction of this cell which can, in turn, cause tumors, or even cancerous growths. This kind of radiation is fundamentally different from the kind of radiation that makes your microwave and even oven (yes, heat is radiation!) work.

    It's this lexical confusion that throws a lot of people off, yes it's radiation, no it's not dangerous unless at very high energy levels. And even then, it just cooks you like so much hot dogs. You don't grow tumors, you don't get cancer, you don't turn into a hideous fly-man, you just pop like a big water-ballon.

    • The whole point in using a cell is as a remote detonator.

      If you can see the subway from far enough away to not be caught in the blast, and hence it's outside and the cell works, or you can't see it, and hence don't know when to detonate it, or you are willing to be caught in the blast, and hence don't need a cell at all.

      Do people not sit down and think this stuff through? The use of cell phones it to hide explosives and blow up certain people when they go by. They're using it as a radio.

      Now, how the heck

    • Crawl back into the hole you came from, moron.

      I live in Madrid, and used the same line where the train blew up to go to class every day. One of my friends was even there when it blew up, but fortunately wasn't hurt.

      However, I happen to be sane enough to realize that this nonsense leads nowhere. You can't have perfect security unless you decide to move into a bunker and never come out, but that's not a very nice way to live. I like living in a country without armed guards standing everywhere and draconian se
    • I want to use my cell phone on the subway. I don't care if a terrorist might use it to blow me up. I don't see that terrorism is a significant threat to my person.

      However, terrorism will become a threat to my way of life if the fear of it prevents me from using my cell phone on the subway.
      • You're right that we can't be too safe.

        This is like calling a bug a feature.

        I mean, sure it's a feature, right up until something goes wrong (Windows wmf exploit), then it's a bug.

        I'm just putting that out there, because the majority of slashdotters would agree with my statement, just maybe not in this context.

    • Re:cooking the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lisaparratt (752068) on Friday January 20 2006, @10:29AM (#14518995)
      C. Cell phones don't cause cancer.
      • That's not "C". That's "A", and it's still damning.

        Why would the cancer appear on one side? Answer: the study is biased, and thus worthless.

        Oh, there are other possiblities:

        C. People feel an urge to use a cell phone on the side of the head with an existing cancer.

        Sure. Well, maybe, if the phone makes the cancer side feel better. It's like a heating pad on an injury, but for the inside of your brain. Hmmm? That would be fascinating, but damn unlikely.
        • Well, since AFAIK the left ear signal is decoded on the right brain half and vice versa, I could imagine a cancer which reduces your ability to hear and/or understand to make you more comfortable to put the phone at the cancer side, so that your non-cancer side does the decoding.

          Of course, there's also another possibility for the bias:

          D. Most people use the phone on the right hand side (because most people are right-handed). For some reason completely unrelated to cell phones, there is more cancer on the ri

        • Re:non-users adds bias (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Dun Malg (230075) on Friday January 20 2006, @11:42AM (#14519611) Homepage
          What you have left is simple: does the cancer happen on one side more than the other? Well, yes it does. That's enough to say that cell phones are almost certainly affecting the cancer.

          But you are missing the entire point of the study. They found that there was a corresponding drop in cancer on the side of the head where the cancer wasn't, in comparison to a control group of one-side cancers who don't use cell phones. In other words, cell phones aren't causing elevated levels of one-side brain cancer, cell phone users with one-side brain cancer are (intentionally or unintentionally) erroneously claiming the cancer side is the side where they used their cell phone most.

    • Am I the only one that thinks this is a very bad idea?

      Aren't some of the Improvised Explosive Devices used in Iraq triggered by calling a cell phone strapped to the bomb?

      Blowing up a military convoy as it drives by requires precise timing. Blowing up a subway car full of people does not. An egg timer set to go off two minutes after you get off the train or leave a subway platform would be sufficient to kill quite a few people.

    • Re:Oh hell. (Score:5, Funny)

      by afabbro (33948) on Friday January 20 2006, @11:19AM (#14519394)
      When they get obnoxious, I just participate in their conversation.

      Obnoxious Cell Phone User: "Dude did you hear about Heather and Mack?"

      Me, over his shoulder: "Is Mack banging Heather?"

      OCPU: "Excuse me?"

      Me: "Oh, sorry, your voice was so loud I thought you were talking to me."

      OCPU: "...so, anyway, Heather and Mack...(talks a while and then he gets loud again)...yeah, man, they were in the hot tub for two hours."

      Me: "I hear that Mack's member was shriveled up like a prune from the hot water."

      OCPU: "Dude, I'm not talking to you!"

      Me: "Then stop shouting how Mack is sodomizing Heather in the jacuzzi."

    • Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by d-e-w (173678) on Friday January 20 2006, @12:11PM (#14519857)
      No, the problem is that it proves nothing except a possible reporting bias.

      Someone with a brain tumor knows it's on the left side of his head. When asked which side he holds his cell phone on, he reports that he holds it on the left side of his head.

      For those that report that they hold the cell phone on the left side of their head--if cell phones caused an increased risk of brain tumors--you would see an increased risk of left-side tumors and a STANDARD risk of right-side tumors. But what the study actually found was that there was an "increased" risk of left-side tumors and a "decreased" risk of right-side tumors with left-side cell phone holders.

      What that indicates is that the reporting of which side of their head they have historically held the cell phone on may have become biased due to them knowing that there's a tumor in the left side of their head. They might have been right-side holders, but "recall" that they were left-side holders because, of course, everybody knows that holding the cell phone on one side of the head causes brain tumors. It's an indication of a possible self-reporting bias, rather than an actual connection.

      So, basically, what the study said was that people with left-side tumors reported that they held the cell phone on the left side, while people with right-side tumors reported that they held the cell phone on the right side, WHETHER OR NOT it was reality. The decreased risk of other-side tumors indicates that it may not be reality--that the public assocation between brain tumors and cell phones causes a person to report that they held the cell phone on the side of their head with the tumor even if they did not.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.