|
How Dangerous Is
Cell Phone Radiation? Part 2
Lifebluetube Headset
Cell Phone Towers Health Effects
Cell Phone Sensitivity
EM Field Meter
It started in 1993, when a guy named David Raynard went on
CNN's Larry King Live to talk about his lawsuit against the
cellular phone industry over the death of his wife from
brain cancer, who used a cell phone. Certainly we all
sympathize with Mr. Raynard, but that doesn't make him
right. Unfortunately for rationalism, being on Larry King
was all the credibility the story needed to become a popular
belief. Despite Mr. Raynard's claim that his wife's tumor
was in the same shape as the cell phone antenna, the case
was thrown out for a lack of evidence.
Another reason the belief persists is that it is constantly
being promoted by companies selling quack devices claimed to
protect consumers from any potential threat. Spreading fear
is a major marketing angle that they employ. Cardo Systems,
a maker of cell phone headset, broadly promoted as the best
way to minimize danger of radiation, famously released a set
of hoax videos on YouTube showing people popping popcorn by
setting some kernels on a table between several activated
cell phones. When nailed for the hoax by CNN, Cardo's CEO
claimed that the videos were meant only as a joke and that
the thought of scaring people into thinking that cell phones
could pop popcorn never entered their minds. You can judge
the credibility of that statement for yourself.
There are also a number of videos on YouTube showing eggs
being hard boiled merely by placing them between two
activated cell phones for a few minutes. This claim has also
been thoroughly debunked. The British TV show Brainiac even
tried it with 100 phones. The result? Zippo. It didn't
change the egg's temperature at all. Raw as ever.
Some of these companies selling products to protect you have
sections on their web sites where they cite official
statements reiterating that there is no proof that cell
phones are safe. They also tend to cite one particular
study, known as the Guy study and published in
Bioelectromagnetics in 1992. You might remember Guy's
co-author C.K. Chou, an RF scientist who did some research
we examined in our episode about The Hum.
The Guy study exposed rats to high levels of RF for 22 hours
a day for two years. 18 of the exposed rats developed
tumors, while only 5 of the control group did. The cell
phone accessory companies stop there, but you have to dig
deeper to find that other researchers have been unable to
replicate these results, and the conclusion was that the
tumor incidence, while statistically significant, was not
shown to have been caused by the RF. In fact, another study
also published in Bioelectromagnetics by Adey et. al.
exposed rats to a chemical carcinogen and then exposed some
of them to RF. Dr. Adey actually found fewer tumors in the
RF exposed rats, but again the result was not large enough
to draw conclusions. Even in the harshest of animal studies,
no evidence has been found to link cell phone radiation to
health problems.
We may quarrel with these companies' ethics in promoting
fear to sell their products, but that doesn't mean that the
products aren't a wise precaution. It can't hurt to be safe
rather than sorry, can it? Well, you will be sorry if you
spend any of your hard-earned money on a product intended to
protect you from cell phone radiation, and you hear what the
World Health Organization has to say on the matter. Their
summary on such devices says:Scientific evidence does not
indicate any need for RF-absorbing covers or other
"absorbing devices" on mobile phones. They cannot be
justified on health grounds and the effectiveness of many
such devices in reducing RF exposure is unproven.
So far, the science that's been done pretty much supports
the default skeptical position. When we hear a claim like
"cell phone radiation causes cancer", we assume the null
hypothesis until evidence is presented that supports the
claim. And to date, all the good evidence supports the null
hypothesis, not the claim. Maybe tomorrow things will
change, and we'll find that cell phones are harmful, or that
60-cycle electrical outlets are harmful, or that traveling
faster than 30 miles an hour is harmful. An open skeptical
mind is open to any good evidence supporting any claim. But
for now, I'm going to continue enjoying the usefulness of my
iPhone, and be damn glad there's a tower in my neighborhood.
How Dangerous Is Cell Phone Radiation?
Part 1
Palestinian State
Columbia, South Carolina
Tonga, Nuku'alofa
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Solomon Islands, Honiara
Los Angeles, California
Henderson, Nevada, USA
Reno, Nevada
Joondalup, Victoria, Australia
Al Quwayz, United Arab Emirates, Al Quwayz, UAE
http://www.emfnews.org/store |
