HHS Announces New Study of Cellphone Radiation and Health (usnews.com) 60
An anonymous reader quotes a report from U.S. News & World Report: U.S. health officials plan a new study investigating whether radiation from cellphones may affect human health. A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said the research will examine electromagnetic radiation and possible gaps in current science. The initiative stems from numerous concerns raised by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has linked cellphone use to neurological damage and cancer.
"The [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] removed webpages with old conclusions about cell phone radiation while HHS undertakes a study on electromagnetic radiation and health research to identify gaps in knowledge, including on new technologies, to ensure safety and efficacy," HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said. He added that the study was directed in a strategy report from the president's Make America Healthy Again Commission.
Some webpages from the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say current research does not show clear harm from cellphone radiation. The National Cancer Institute, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, says that "evidence to date suggests that cellphone use does not cause brain or other kinds of cancer in humans.".
"The [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] removed webpages with old conclusions about cell phone radiation while HHS undertakes a study on electromagnetic radiation and health research to identify gaps in knowledge, including on new technologies, to ensure safety and efficacy," HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said. He added that the study was directed in a strategy report from the president's Make America Healthy Again Commission.
Some webpages from the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say current research does not show clear harm from cellphone radiation. The National Cancer Institute, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, says that "evidence to date suggests that cellphone use does not cause brain or other kinds of cancer in humans.".
Uneccesary? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also - similar to vaccionations - we already should have a gazillion data-points about this, and surely any significant patterns would already have been identified.
Re:Uneccesary? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's going to keep on re-studying the data until it damn well provides him with the conclusion he wants to reach!
Re:Uneccesary? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not, the war on facts is waged directly. No one in the administration would use a study at all.
Re: Uneccesary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point - good science and use of resources would be for the HHS to announce a study to find out whether sacrificing things to gods makes it rain. After all, like you said, we'd never be here we didn't stop questioning literally everything over and over until the end of time.
Re: Uneccesary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty sure that's pretty much exactly what the scientific method is not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Uneccesary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a waste of time as well, as they wont believe the study until it proves their point.
Re:funny you should say that (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that just like the "vaccine 'studies'" and the "global warming hoax" stance, this here "study" is no real research to find out some objective facts about the effects of exposure. This is a budget grant allocated to cronies to push a political agenda and create the illusion of work.
Since the money is limited, it would have better been spent on real shit, which would have helped real people suffering from real problems, but it won't.
Too bad, but perhaps fully deserved.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The frequency cell phones and wi-fi use keeps going up and that means the energy keeps going up as well. (Energy = Planck's constant × frequency).
Furthermore the higher the frequency the lower the penetration so that higher energy load is deposited in a shorter distance into you.
At some point there will be a problem but where exactly I don't know. It's worthwhile checking every decade or so.
Remember not long ago everyone thought that firefighting foam was too chemically inert to be a health problem an
Re:Uneccesary? (Score:5, Informative)
The most that non-ionizing radiation can do is heat up the tissue it encounters. Now, that can in fact do something: for example, microwave ovens use non-ionizing radiation to wiggle the (dipolar) water molecules in your food to heat it up.
So, you need only be concerned when the power of the source is high enough to cause damage. The amount of power deposited by non-ionizing radiation in the tissue can be no more than the amount of power in the source. For cell phones, it's a fraction of a watt. It's no worse than shining a penlight against the side of your head.
My guess is that any new studies funded by HHS will find what the old studies have found: there is no risk from exposure to cell-phone EM radiation. Whether that's the story that will be made public ... we'll see.
Re: (Score:1)
The most that non-ionizing radiation can do is heat up the tissue it encounters. Now, that can in fact do something: for example, microwave ovens use non-ionizing radiation to wiggle the (dipolar) water molecules in your food to heat it up.
Yes. And chronically heated up tissue can tend towards inflammation. Which seems to be a precursor to many cases of cancer. My take here is also that the main question is where the threshold is.
So, you need only be concerned when the power of the source is high enough to cause damage. The amount of power deposited by non-ionizing radiation in the tissue can be no more than the amount of power in the source. For cell phones, it's a fraction of a watt. It's no worse than shining a penlight against the side of your head.
The problem I see is that Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) figures and limits are specified for single devices under fairly ideal conditions. Under non-ideal real world conditions, e.g. inside heavy concrete walls, in basements, or being surrounded e.g. in a car or a building with metal siding (shipping container tiny
Re: (Score:3)
Wifi does not have any negative impact on your body.
Re:Uneccesary? (Score:4, Funny)
While I am all for research in general, how is low-power non-ionizing supposed to cause any interesting problems?
The same mechanism by which Tylenol causes autism.
Re: (Score:3)
On the plus side if it shows no link maybe we can get at least the maggots to stop talking to their phone on speaker in public
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no doubt, but one obvious solution would be to put out some allegedly right-wing-source propaganda saying that speakerphone is for soyboys and cucks and nobody else is dumb enough to believe that cellphones are bad for your big beautiful uh-brain
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well let's not be too hasty. If they anti-vaxxers want to remove cellphones and wifi from their homes, I think we should be all for it. It's a lot harder to spread your misinformation when you're chained to a computer you know. And recording vertical videos to appeal to the TikTok crowd is oh so much harder.
Let them have their study and let them voluntarily remove cellphones and other modern tech conveniences from their lives. Heck, maybe because of it the enshittification of the world will slow down becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Moron (Score:3)
Re:Moron (Score:5, Insightful)
14 years of heroin addiction https://www.pbs.org/newshour/h... [pbs.org]
Re: Moron (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Moron (Score:4, Interesting)
Since you're a kool aid drinker, I'll leave you with RFK Jr's own words.
"I don't want to seem like I'm being evasive, but I don't think people should be taking medical advice from me."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/r... [cbsnews.com]
Re:Moron (Score:4, Informative)
Which vaccines has [RFK Jr.] banned? Oh right, none.
He may not have banned vaccines but he sure has taken lots and lots of steps against them. Below is the output from Google Gemini from the query "what steps has rfk jr taken against vaccines":
As Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has taken significant, unprecedented steps to alter federal vaccine policy and oversight in 2025 and early 2026, aiming to overhaul the U.S. vaccination system. His actions, under the banner of "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA), have included personnel changes, regulatory actions, and funding cuts, according to numerous reports and official HHS announcements.
Key steps Kennedy has taken against established vaccine policies include:
While Kennedy has stated he is not looking to "take vaccines away," his actions have been described by public health experts as an "assault on vaccine access" and a significant, ideologically driven, and scientifically unsubstantiated overhaul of the U.S. public health infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
I get it, he has done lots of weird things, but who of us hasn’t.
If we're using RFKjr as a comparison, then I haven't done lots of weird things.
Federated Union Of Bear Cub Carcass Dumpers Endorses RFK Jr. [theonion.com]
i think we all know the answer to this one.... (Score:2, Offtopic)
neurological damage and cancer (Score:2)
But he won't investigate those Zyn pouches he's always sucking on.
One thing is certain. (Score:3)
They definitely cause brain rot.
New studies to follow (Score:4)
1) Does having worms eat your brain actually increases your intelligence?
2) Is delicious, divine, undercooked pork worth the risk?
3) Is it a good idea to trust someone that had 'cognitive difficulties' from a totally preventable issue with maintaining the health of a nation?
4) Can you totally laugh at Republican Senator Cassidy for thinking Trump would not support a republican primary against him if he just voted for RFK jr?
Don't worry - only 11 more months to get protection against further stupidity and 3 more years left before we can get rid of the big problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Protection how?
The left has no chance to get enough seats to override vetoes, and Trump is doing everything he can with executive orders.
Re: (Score:3)
The majority of Trump stupidity s caused by him totally ignoring the Constitution and then ordering the Republicans to vote in the things he wants.
Tariffs? That's a congress thing, not a presidential one. He can't create them, Congress has to.
Appointing Supreme Court Judges requires Senate approval. In fact almost every appointment requires Senate approval.
Getting rid of departments and cutting budgets? All Congress.
If you do not think the Wannabe King is not going to do something stupid like appoint hi
Re: (Score:2)
4) Can you totally laugh at Republican Senator Cassidy for thinking Trump would not support a republican primary against him if he just voted for RFK jr?
Trump encouraged people to vote for RFK Jr. in states that were safely Red. There could be any number of other reasons for Trump to support a primary challenge. Facts matter.
Re: (Score:2)
In the process of confirming RFK, Trump specifically promised Cassidy that he would not support a primary challenge if Cassidy voted in favor of RFK. Trump has since reneged on that promise.
We already know re: Intrusive ads (Score:1)
[Can we also study] what constant exposure to intrusive ... ads does to us?
We already know: Increased use of ad-blockers.
How cell phones cause cancer: mechanism (Score:2)
User unlocks cell phone and looks at his feed.
Feed tells him to eat something that will cause cancer, without saying it will cause cancer.
He eats it.
He gets cancer.
"Researcher" does a "controlled study." Pretty much the same results, with a few outlyers just to show it's a "real study" and not a "rigged one."
Logically, cell phones cause cancer and now we know why!
I have a copy of the results of the study (Score:3)
The study is complete (Score:2)
Re: Invisible = Safe? (Score:1)
Incoming shill attack in 3, 2, 1...
More links (Score:2)
Sure, but even if it finds something, (Score:3)
So that's why the Trump Mobile Phone (Score:1)
5G again (Score:2)
The worm in RFK, Jr's brain is complaining that it's cell signals are being disrupted.
A Little Late (Score:1)