Study Shows Cell Phones Safe 210
PreacherTom writes "In a move worthy of the Mythbusters, scientists in Denmark tracked over 420,000 cell phone users over the course of 21 years in an attempt to determine if the urban legend that cell phone use causes cancer is true. Their results: the RF energy produced by the phones did not correlate to an increased incidence of the disease. Please note that this doesn't make chatting on the highway at 85 mph any more safe." From the article: 'This so-called Danish cohort "is probably the strongest study out there because of the outstanding registries they keep,' said Joshua Muscat of Pennsylvania State University, who also has studied cell phones and cancer. 'As the body of evidence accumulates, people can become more reassured that these devices are safe, but the final word is not there yet,' Muscat added."
Misleading title... (Score:4, Insightful)
Mabe worrying about cell phones causing cancer... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, at least there's a mechanism. Stress has been implicated in contributing to a lot of other diseases, why not cancer?
What about for driving? (Score:4, Insightful)
21 years? (Score:1, Insightful)
Mythbusters != science (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had an important paper published in a respected scientific journal and someone told me my work was 'worthy of the Mythbusters' I'd punch them in the face.
And what of it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:21 years? (Score:5, Insightful)
People plain just don't like cell phone users (Score:4, Insightful)
Or perhaps any less safe than chatting with a passenger while drinking a soda at 85 mph, unless we have data to show otherwise.
Re:21 years? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not always correct to assume that USA is on the edge of technology development and deployment.
Not at all like MythBusters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They didnt let the facts get in the way before, (Score:4, Insightful)
My question is - who paid for this study? Was it Nokia (caveat, I own shares in them) or some other cell phone firm?
Mythbusters == science lite (Score:4, Insightful)
Mythbusters is probbably the only show on TV that actually DOES science and shows what it is rather than just acting as a mouthpiece for science. The do everything that other scientists do, albiet within the confines of a television show. They repeat experiments, they accept "peer review", they establish controls. They do everything but publish a paper in a journal. Tell me how what the Mythbusters do isn't science?
It might not be something you'd want to site in a research paper, so it's not really up to the standards of acadamia, but calling what they do not science is simply wrong.
Re:Neverending circle of theories (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no serious study that can be 100% conclusive. If anybody comes to you preaching 100%-fool-proof numbers that is a sure tale-tale sign you are dealing with a wanker. What you can do is set extremely low chances for your study to be wrong (less than 2%, less than 1%, etc). Unfortunately the closer you get to zero, the more effort (read size of your case study) you must put into it. At some point you have to have some faith in probability.
There will always be incredulous people or consipiracy theory types. Not much you can do, there have been now plenty of serious studies which have not found enough evidence to correlate cell phone usage to cancer, to me it is enough to feel safe while using it, but as I said no matter how many studies you make, there will always be people who chooses not to believe in them.
minor correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Fixed.
With all that worrying, you're going to get cancer (Score:4, Insightful)
Also according to my made-up numbers, 10 years ago people used to only worry about cell phones causing cancer 5 minutes a day. These days with people like you around people worry about cell phones causing cancer 20 minutes a day! Maybe the worrying wasn't detectable back then, but it is now! We'll only know in 30 years!
Putting a device that emits radiation next to your head is harmful. How much? Who knows.
Worrying about dangers that don't exist is harmful. How much? Who knows. But if I state things as if we don't know anything about it, that totally false sense of uncertainty sure sounds scary.
My prescription includes making fun of people that don't understand science.
Completely (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like science, the methods Jamie and Adam have used over the years have improved as have the certainty of their results.
Re:They didnt let the facts get in the way before, (Score:5, Insightful)
That depends on the study...most importantly, on its size. 21 years and 450,000 subjects makes for a pretty damn solid conclusion. And where are the studies that show any other conclusion?
Chris Mattern
Re:They didnt let the facts get in the way before, (Score:3, Insightful)
Could you show me the three independent studies that prove this fact?
Actually, what has been more often proved is that it doesn't matter how many studies you do - some people are terminally clue resistant and will continue to believe whatever the hell they feel like [wikipedia.org] regardless of evidence.
Re:They didnt let the facts get in the way before, (Score:2, Insightful)
This one was reported by slashdot some time ago. The Swedish Cell Phone Study [slashdot.org] said there was a 240% incerease in risk for heavy users.
It was done over ten years, and was considered better than previous studies. I think this debate is not over yet, and we'll probably see more studies claiming cancer causing and non-cancer causing over the next ten years plus till something completely conclusive happens, or we humans start using a new form of communication which does away with mobile phones altogether, as it's easier not to lug a mobile phone around. Then the debate might start a new around the new device.
Re:It's not about Cancer. (Score:1, Insightful)
What's the html tag for sarcasm
PS I am half serious, or there is a half seriously missing. But even if there is a hint of this working I will try it (IAAS).