NYC Subway Cell Service, No Cell-Related Cancer 234
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."
How hard would it be? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How hard would it be? (Score:3, Interesting)
read about it here (pdf) (Score:3, Informative)
PDF file warning!
http://www.adc.com/Library/Literature/100557.pdf?
Very interesting (Score:2)
Re:How hard would it be? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:How hard would it be? (Score:2)
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:2)
Lemme assure you, those countries with Islamic Law solved the hands and feet problem a long time ago.
Aren't you glad we can joke about things like that?
Re:How hard would it be? (Score:2)
Actually, muslim countries solved their terrorist problem by sending their evil maniacs to kill us and blow themselves up in the process. A problem they didn't anticipate is that the more diabolical maniacs tend to be not only evil, but smart as well - ever notice how Osama sends others to blow themselves up, but hasn't shown any sign of doing so himself ?
Re:How hard would it be? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:How hard would it be? (Score:2)
Re:How hard would it be? (Score:2)
Now just imagine trying to optimize a network with something running in and out of the coverage of some cell areas. You would have to plan your frequency range (for GSM and TDMA) or P
Proof of concept already done, in Madrid (Score:2)
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
Re:Proof of concept already done, in Madrid (Score:2)
Re:Proof of concept already done, in Madrid (Score:2)
I believe you are correct, though the same guys (some of whom they caught, some of whom blew themselves up in an apartment as they were trying to catch them) were also rigged with some that were call-based (with the vibrate-based ring action prepared to set it off). Certainly the best way to deal with that threat is to suppress/j
Re:How hard would it be? (Score:2)
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.
Re:How hard would it be? (Score:2)
Hey, New Yorkers aren't THAT obnoxious. We'd only knife you if you really deserved it.
They'd have to setup mini-cell towers at intervals along almost the entire length of the system.
Or, put low-power base stations in the cars themselves, and communicate with the outside world through the train's own electronic dispatch/comms system. Granted, some of the system's technology hasn't been updat
Re:How hard would it be? (Score:2)
No, only about 60% of the "subway" system actually consists of subterranean trains. The rest is elevated and above ground.
Re:How hard would it be? (Score:2)
Um, why not just put the tower into the train ?-) It must have some way to communicate with the control center for safety reasons, and that may be updatable to be able to carry call data as well.
Leaky Coax (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Leaky Coax (Score:2)
The problem of scaling for a gazillion phones in a very small space has been solved, and is deployed in most large airports: the so-called pico-cells have coverage that is entirely within another macro-cell. The trick is to have network software that tells the
Re:Leaky Coax (Score:2)
s/road/rode/
I have ridden it frequently, as well.
This raises the issue of monopolistic behavior.
Unless things have changed, you can use Verizon, Verizon, or Verizon within the Metro tunnels/stations.
T-Mobile, at least, dies at roughly the speed of critical thinking within the DC beltway.
Actual solutions need to be implemented in a let-us-play-nicely-now way.
The Other Way Around? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:The Other Way Around? (Score:2, Insightful)
Next headline: Cell phones cure brain tumor!
Re:The Other Way Around? (Score:2)
> remove the tumor you have on the other side...
If that were the case the study would have revealed a slight decrease in brain tumors among cell-phone users. Obviously cell phones don't cause tumors: they attract them. Keeping your phone on your tumorless side will merely cause your tumor to migrate.
Re:The Other Way Around? (Score:2)
I suspect that people with equally good hearing in each ear whould choose to hold the phone in their non-dominant hand, leaving their better hand available to write notes.
At least that's what I, a left-hander, have consoled myself with when I notice that just about every public phone and push-button office phone in existence is designed for the phone to be held by a left hand and dialed by a right hand.
Bring back "ambidextrous" rotary phones! Those things had the handset horizontally across the top!
RE Cells (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Funny)
Re:RE Cells (Score:2)
and that's to say nothing of the likelihood of the brain being more susceptible.
Re:RE Cells (Score:3, Funny)
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)
Re:Above ground (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Above ground (Score:2)
Seriously, the first time (and last time) I went to Coney Island and the W came up out of the ground I was like "Whooooa!" and one of the first things I did was check to see if my cell worked.
Re:Above ground (Score:3, Informative)
Most life-long Manhattan dwellers think the same way.
moving trains will not have service (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:moving trains will not have service (Score:2)
Re:moving trains will not have service (Score:2)
Re:moving trains will not have service (Score:2)
While I don't relish... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:While I don't relish... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:While I don't relish... (Score:2)
Ever try a ride longer than a half-hour after you've been out drinking all night? Having to pay another $2 just to pee isn't exactly fair.
Re:While I don't relish... (Score:2)
I never get them because 30-days worth normally costs $80 anyway. I take off at least one day sick each month, and usually another day off from holiday. Catch a ride in once or twice -- it always ends up costing the average person more.
Choose your hemisphere wisely (Score:5, Funny)
Logical. Artistic. Logical? Artistic? Logical! Artistic!
Choices, choices.
Good news. (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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.
Re:Studies. What do they know? (Score:2)
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)
Re:If it isn't the cellphone that kills, its the A (Score:2)
biased? probably just not enough info (Score:2)
Re:biased? probably just not enough info (Score:2)
-Erwos
Buenos Aires has coverage on all the network (Score:2, Interesting)
all-over in Europe (Score:2)
maybe it's not the cell phones? (Score:2, Interesting)
What percent of persons using a cell phone have developed a tumor in the fir
Re:maybe it's not the cell phones? (Score:2)
> in the first place?
The same percentage as the general population.
> I think that with the massive use of cell phones in our culture,
> and the lower numbers of tumors in the same population, we are
> going to find that there is probably not a real strong correlation.
There is no correlation at all, nor is there any plausible theory that predicts that there would be.
The Truth cannot save you now (Score:2)
We're better fed now than we've ever been -- but there are still people with eating disorders, and there isn't a single
Re:The Truth cannot save you now (Score:2)
Not sure that one's true. I was reading something the other day and they were comparing the diet of someone 100 years ago to today. We've replaced whole grains with refined grains and added a lot of refined sugar to our diet.
Interestingly (and off topic) they said the question is not "why are 50% of Americans obese" it's "why aren't the other 50%".
Re:The Truth cannot save you now (Score:3, Informative)
Fundamentally flawed research (Score:2)
I can't conceive of a way of creating a proper control for an experiment comparing total tumor counts, while a control for an experiment comparing left-right imbalances is much easier.
Screw cell service, improve the subway itself! (Score:2)
Come on guys, focus! 2nd Ave line. Update terminals and technology. Open up your books.
Then talk to me about frills and sweetheart corporate tie-in deals like cell service for the subway lines.
Any link to the actual study? (Score:2)
No overall increased risk vs. what? People who have absolutely no exposure to similar sources of radiation, including wireless home phones? If that's no
Looks like shaky science (Score:2)
Subway gets something i can't do from my apartment (Score:2)
cell phone cancer sufferers reassured of otherside (Score:2)
They are reassured to know that there is less chance of getting it on the other side of their head.
Yes, I know one person that had a "hot spot" where his cell phone antenna was. And that's where they found and removed a tumor and installed a metal plate.
I'm not sure which I'd rather have... (Score:2)
adjusting for the bias (Score:2)
This bias could probably be eliminated by asking the cell phone users if they are right or left handed. It appears that most cell phone users hold the phone in their dominan
Powerwatch is a company, not a nonprofit. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Increase terrorism this way? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Increase terrorism this way? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Increase terrorism this way? (Score:2)
They also use washing machine timers and RC car remotes yet we don't see people clammoring about those products.
Truth of the matter is that if someone wants to bomb the NYC sub system, they will try it rega
Re:Increase terrorism this way? (Score:2)
And I heard some terrorists use the internet to communicate too, so let's shut down the internet ASAP to avoid a terrorist attack. I'm sure this will decrease terrorism.
I Don't Care (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Increase terrorism this way? (Score:2)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:cooking the numbers (Score:2)
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.
Re:cooking the numbers (Score:2)
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:cooking the numbers (Score:2)
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 right hand side than on the left hand side. Together, this means more cancer on the phone side.
Of course, sample bias is simpler and requires no new phenomena.
Re:cooking the numbers (Score:2)
Just because we don't know _why_ this happens doesn't mean the sample was biased. For example, it could be that for some reason, cancer cells are more likely to survive in strong cellular signals (unlikely, I know, but not impossible). Overtime, the ones closer to the phone would maybe live, and the ones farther away die-- one sided, but without the phone causing a one si
In other words, it causes cancer? (Score:2)
Dude, that means it causes cancer.
There is more to "causing" cancer than the original mutation. There may be many mutations, suppression of immune system responses, and who knows what else. It all counts
non-users adds bias (Score:2)
If you look only at the cell phone users with one-sided cancer, that bias goes away. There might be some remaining issue related to people being left-handed or not, but that is probably minor.
So let's figure that the side without the cell phone is normal, and the side with the cell phone has extra exposu
Re:non-users adds bias (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:non-users adds bias (Score:2)
They found that there was a corresponding drop in cancer on the side of the head where the cell phone wasn't
So how often is cancer found on both sides? (Score:2)
Did they separate out the cancer inflicted people and see if the same proportion of people who already had cancer in one side of the head had cancer in the other side of the head as everyone in the general populace would have cancer in that side of the head? If so, that seem correct.
If not, then it seems like you're trying to sa
Re:non-users adds bias (Score:2)
> more than the other? Well, yes it does. That's enough to say that
> cell phones are almost certainly affecting the cancer.
If that were true they would have found an overall correlation between cellphone use and cancer. They didn't. They found a small increase on the reported phone-use side and a matching decrease on the reported non-use side. This is completely explained by assuming that some subjects erroneously reported using t
Re:Cell Phone Triggered Bombs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cell Phone Triggered Bombs (Score:2)
No... (Score:2)
Re:I don't doubt they cause _tumours_ (Score:2)
</conspiracy-theory>
Re:bombs with cell phone triggers (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:cell phones suck (Score:2)
Re:Why the focus only on cancer? (Score:2)
My theory: Cell phones affect the part of the brain controlling your lungs when speaking, causing an increased level of neural activity there. This results in speaking extraordinarily loud into the phone.
A cure for PSD has not yet been found.
SCNR
Re:Why the focus only on cancer? (Score:2)
My theory: Cell phones affect the part of the brain controlling your lungs when speaking, causing an increased level of neural activity there. This results in speaking extraordinarily loud into the phone.
PSD is caused by lack of sidetone. Sidetone is what you have on regular phones, where you hear your own voice in your ear, acting as a feedback loop, allowing you to adjust the volume level. Dumbs
Re:Oh hell. (Score:5, Funny)
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:2)
Maybe this is an example of why I'm not a scientist, but doesn't that prove the connection?
This is a great example of a biased study. If we asked Slashdot, how many people use Linux and 25% say they are, does that 25% of the world is using Linux? No, it means the people you are asking are in a biased (weighted in one direction) group.
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Maybe this is an example of why I'm not a scientist
It is a VERY good example of why you shouldn't be a scientist. Any good scientist knows that correlation doesn't imply causation. Also, any good scientist actually reads the article before going off and making conclusions. The researchers believe the increased risk on one side, and decreased risk on the other is because people were more likely to remember which side they had cancer on if it also was the side they used their cell phone on.
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
No. What the study showed was that either one of two things was true:
A) Cell phones cause cancer on the near side while suppressing it on the other
B) People who find out they have cancer on one side will tend to erroneously claim that side is their predominant cell phone side.
If you look just at the
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:Is this really a good idea? (Score:2)
> the cheapy, throw-away cell phone.
Generally used as a timer, not a remote-detonation device.