• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Are Cells the New Cigarettes?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blackhead

Redarse
So asks the New York Times: Are Cells the New Cigarettes?

Maureen Dowd said:
SAN FRANCISCO

The great cosmic joke would be to find out definitively that the advances we thought were blessings — from the hormones women pump into their bodies all their lives to the fancy phones people wait in line for all night — are really time bombs.

Just as parents now tell their kids that, believe it or not, there was a time when nobody knew that cigarettes and tanning were bad for you, those kids may grow up to tell their kids that, believe it or not, there was a time when nobody knew how dangerous it was to hold your phone right next to your head and chat away for hours.

We don’t yet really know the physical and psychological impact of being slaves to technology. We just know that technology is a narcotic. We’re living in the cloud, in a force field, so afraid of being disconnected and plunged into a world of silence and stillness that even if scientists told us our computers would make our arms fall off, we’d probably keep typing.

San Francisco just became the first city in the country to pass legislation making cellphone retailers display radiation levels. The city’s Board of Supervisors voted 10 to 1 in favor. The one against, the Democrat Sean Elsbernd, said afterward: “It’s a slippery slope. I can go on Google right now and find you a study that says there’s a problem with the Starbucks you’re drinking.”

Different phone models emit anywhere from 0.2 watts per kilogram of body tissue to 1.6 watts, the legal limit. The amount of radio frequency energy seeping into the body and brain is measured by a unit called the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR).

“You see all these kids literally glued to their phones,” Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, told me. “And candidly, my wife was pregnant and on her cellphone nonstop. So I dusted off some studies and started doing research.

“That’s when I discovered that companies who make cellphones are already required to disclose that information to the federal government, and that it exists but somewhere on someone’s Web page on the 88th page.” Why not underscore it, he thought, by alerting consumers at the store, putting the SAR level in the same font as the phone price?

His alarmed advisers, accustomed to seeing the sleek Newsom diving into bold stands without calculating the potential blowback — as with gay marriage — told him to focus on jobs and the economy.

“They said: ‘There you go again. They’re going to mock you. It’s going to be another sideshow,’ ” he recalled. But stroking his baby daughter’s soft head and reading new studies on the vulnerability of children’s thinner skulls to radiation, he persevered.

One Swedish study that followed young people who began using cells as teenagers for 10 years calculated a 400 percent increase in brain tumors. But as Nathaniel Rich recently pointed out in Harper’s, studies about cellphones’ carcinogenic potential all contradict one another, including those involving children.

When Newsom proposed the bill, telecommunications lobbyists went to the mattresses, as did hoteliers, who feared losing convention business.

He said that lobbyists from Washington made it clear that they would invoke “the nuclear option” and come down “like a ton of bricks.”

“This is tobacco money, oil money,” he said. “But these guys from D.C. do not know me because that has exactly the opposite effect. Shame on them, to threaten the city. It’s about as shortsighted as one could get in terms of a brand.”

Months before the bill passed, he read me part of a letter that Marriott sent him: “CTIA — The Wireless Association, which is scheduled to hold a major convention here in October 2010, has already contacted us about canceling their event if the legislation moves forward. They also have told us that they are in contact with Apple, Cisco, Oracle and others who are heavily involved in the industry, as you know, about not holding future events in your city for the same reason.”

Sure enough, when the bill passed Tuesday, CTIA issued a petulant statement that after 2010, it would relocate its annual three-day fall exhibition, with 68,000 exhibitors and attendees and “$80 million” in business, away from San Francisco.

“Since our bill is relatively benign,” Newsom said, “it begs the question, why did they work so hard and spend so much money to kill it? I’ve become more fearful, not less, because of their reaction. It’s like BP. Shouldn’t they be doing whatever it takes to protect their global shareholders?”

So now we have Exhibit No. 1,085 illustrating the brazenness of Big Business.

They should be sending Mayor Newsom a bottle of good California wine for caring about whether kids’ brains get fried, not leaving him worried about whether they’ll avenge themselves in his campaign for lieutenant governor.

He’s resigned to that possibility, just as he is to his own addiction. “I love my iPhone,” he said cheerfully.

:lol AT&T wouldn't bother fixing their shitty service in San Fran now
 
I agree with the guy. It seems like fairly benign legislation. The organization's response is weirdly extreme.
 
Jal said:
Something iPhone 4 something

Have iPhone 4 radiation levels been released to the public?

And probably impossible to determine at this point, but I'm also curious about what consequences might exist for having direct antenna-to-skin contact like you would using an iPhone 4 naked.

That said, I'm planning on using an iPhone 4 with a bumper as soon as I can get a hold of one.
 
santouras said:
if you hold the iphone in your left hand it cuts down the SAR to negligible levels. Also reception
:lol

spunibard said:
Have iPhone 4 radiation levels been released to the public?

And probably impossible to determine at this point, but I'm also curious about what consequences might exist for having direct antenna-to-skin contact like you would using an iPhone 4 naked.

That said, I'm planning on using an iPhone 4 with a bumper as soon as I can get a hold of one.

Not exactly related but that reminds me of this Apple Apps ban story: Tawkon Measures The Radiation Spewing From Your iPhone. No Wonder Apple Doesn’t Approve It.

... It’s perfectly natural to be skeptical about Tawkon’s app, so let me lay out a couple of things to set the record straight: first, Tawkon is not looking for controversy. They contacted me weeks before they submitted the app to the App Store with the sincere hope of not being stonewalled. Ironically, were this a gag app, not only would there have been no controversy, the app’s revenue potential may actually be higher. Second, I have no way of testing whether the app’s output is actually correct. However, I took the time to meet the three founders and feel comfortable stating that they struck me as serious, highly capable hardware and software engineers who’ve spent 18 months developing a technology they believe holds real compelling value for users. They claim the app has gone through lab testing to ensure its output is correct. For what it’s worth, I take their word for it.

Tawkon’s app has been in the approval process for a couple of weeks with the App Store denying approval on the grounds that a diagnostic tool of this nature would create confusion with iPhone owners from a usability perspective. This reasoning was communicated by an App Store representative on a phone call with the Tawkon team. I find this claim questionable as I’ve been using the app and there’s nothing problematic about it in this respect...

It's not just Apple though; no manufacturer wants the information to be out there.
 
The article in the OP basically says that there are a ton of studies that contradict each other and that there is no conclusive evidence if there are any longterm affects or not.

Weird bolding, CG :(
 
Since no one really agrees on the studies I doubt it will have much impact to see the levels. That said I'm pretty sure ars had posted a bunch of levels a few weeks ago when this was first brought up. The most popular smartphone were the highest and basic phones the lowest so it's not going to change anyones habits... especially in san fran. What about the ipad? Is that making everyone sterile because it's in peoples laps?
 
I've been hearing the cell phone causes brain cancer myth since the late 90's. Figure it out and then get back at me. Until then I'll be texting 98% of the time so when you tell me that having my cell phone so close to my dick will give me testicular cancer get back to me on that one too.
 
RubxQub said:
The article in the OP basically says that there are a ton of studies that contradict each other and that there is no conclusive evidence if there are any longterm affects or not.

Weird bolding, CG :(
But it's not really about studies, is it? The mayor isn't pushing to put the results of various conflicting studies, or one set of negative results, on the packaging. SF is simply asking that the manufacturers make it easier for customers to find a federally regulated radiation rating the companies are already required to publish. I tried to bold the pro/against points in the article but hey, it's Dowd reporting, the post is light on arguments. I think the bigger story is how pissed the companies are about it. Will customers really be scared because a SAR rating of 1.5 suddenly appear in the fine print of the cellphone package they never bother to read anyway... SARS... 1.5... :lol ok, I may be over estimating the intelligence of the average cell phone buyer...

gcubed said:
What about the ipad? Is that making everyone sterile because it's in peoples laps?
WiFi version now re-branded to 'Think of the children' model
 
nyprimus2 said:
I've been hearing the cell phone causes brain cancer myth since the late 90's. Figure it out and then get back at me. Until then I'll be texting 98% of the time so when you tell me that having my cell phone so close to my dick will give me testicular cancer get back to me on that one too.
Radiation causing cancer? Preposterous. Next thing they'll tell me is that I need to wash my hands because of "bacteria". I wiped them. My hands are clean, I don't see anything. It's all lies. PEACE.
 
Charred Greyface said:
But it's not really about studies, is it? The mayor isn't pushing to put the results of various conflicting studies, or one set of negative results, on the packaging. SF is simply asking that the manufacturers make it easier for customers to find a federally regulated radiation rating the companies are already required to publish. I tried to bold the pro/against points in the article but hey, it's Dowd reporting, the post is light on arguments. I think the bigger story is how pissed the companies are about it. Will customers really be scared because a SAR rating of 1.5 suddenly appear in the fine print of the cellphone package they never bother to read anyway... SARS... 1.5... :lol ok, I may be over estimating the intelligence of the average cell phone buyer...
As long as the number isn't something massive right next to the price like that one dude wants, that's fine.

The last thing we need is people misinterpreting fuzzy data and having it influence their buying habits until we know something concrete. If we can get some highly conclusive and confirmed evidence across multiple credible studies, we can talk.
 
I don't know, I think texting kinda cut this issue off (if there actually is a problem). Most of the younger people that are on their phones non-stop sure as hell aren't talking, they're TEXTING.
 
Grizzlyjin said:
I don't know, I think texting kinda cut this issue off (if there actually is a problem). Most of the younger people that are on their phones non-stop sure as hell aren't talking, they're TEXTING.
More like sending those texts directly into their respective genitals for cellular mutation!!!

"Hay balls, i'm gvn u cancer, lol! bai!"
 
I have a feeling there is truth to this...but then again I only use my cell phone I NEED to use it.

Like I am here, meet me here...or mom I arrived here safely...or shit 911.
 
Pimpwerx said:
Radiation causing cancer? Preposterous. Next thing they'll tell me is that I need to wash my hands because of "bacteria". I wiped them. My hands are clean, I don't see anything. It's all lies. PEACE.
'Radiation' describes any form of energy traveling through space. Saying 'radiation causes cancer' is about as meaningful as saying 'life causes disease'. Well, sure it's true. But only some types of life will cause disease to you, and only some types of radiation will cause cancer.
 
Jexhius said:
Well, you'd be surprised....
I remember hearing some story on the news that said something like eating any kind of baked bread was shown to increase the chances of getting cancer.

...at this point I'm convinced that anything and everything increases the likelihood that someone will get cancer.
 
usea said:
I agree with the guy. It seems like fairly benign legislation. The organization's response is weirdly extreme.

I have to disagree. It looks to me like they are picking on cell phone companies without any solid science behind it. I doubt most consumers will even know how to interpret the information. Not all radiation is the same. People who think that radiation = cancer are oversimplifying things. Some types of radiation can cause cancer. It is called ionizing radiation. It is called this because the photons are energetic enough to actually disrupt the chemical bonds of some types of matter they interact with (such as your DNA). No cell phone frequencies even come close and are several orders of magnitude away. UV light is one of the lowest forms of ionizing radiation. Its energy is between 3-124 eV. The highest frequency cell band would have an energy of 8.7 x 10^-6 eV. Not to say there is no effects at all. It can cause localized heating, but we are talking minute amounts that the body could easily handle. Until there is some prove that cell phone radiation is harmful, I think this is just a scare tactic. Lastly, the differences between the lowest and highest radiation listed in the article, 0.2 W/kg to 1.6 W/kg, are so small as to not really make a useful distinction. Cell phones are far more dangerous to your health as a distraction from your environment than as a radiation hazard.
 
RubxQub said:
I remember hearing some story on the news that said something like eating any kind of baked bread was shown to increase the chances of getting cancer.

...at this point I'm convinced that anything and everything increases the likelihood that someone will get cancer.

No I think what he meant was that Oxygen is very corrosive and indeed damage the body by simply being there.
 
RubxQub said:
I remember hearing some story on the news that said something like eating any kind of baked bread was shown to increase the chances of getting cancer.

Fry-chewing.gif

I'm eating bread right now.
 
RubxQub said:
I remember hearing some story on the news that said something like eating any kind of baked bread was shown to increase the chances of getting cancer.

...at this point I'm convinced that anything and everything increases the likelihood that someone will get cancer.

It's true. Anything that has been "browned" or burnt to any degree will be carcinogenic. Oh well.
 
What the hell does the word "cells" refer to in the thread title? Cellular phones? Cellular phone towers? The range of signal for said tower?

"Cell phone" is a ridiculous term. I'll always call it a mobile phone, despite the extra syllable, because it's understood everywhere in the world. It's a mobile phone because I can use it while I'm mobile; it describes its essence. Why would I want to refer to it by some vague description of the technology behind it? Who cares about that?

i mad
 
Battersea Power Station said:
What the hell does the word "cells" refer to in the thread title? Cellular phones? Cellular phone towers? The range of signal for said tower?

"Cell phone" is a ridiculous term. I'll always call it a mobile phone, despite the extra syllable, because it's understood everywhere in the world. It's a mobile phone because I can use it while I'm mobile; it describes its essence. Why would I want to refer to it by some vague description of the technology behind it? Who cares about that?

i mad

Why "car?" It's an automobile, dammit!
Why "TV?" It's an electronic television!
Etc. Etc.

Linguistics, son. Learn some!
 
RubxQub said:
I remember hearing some story on the news that said something like eating any kind of baked bread was shown to increase the chances of getting cancer.

...at this point I'm convinced that anything and everything increases the likelihood that someone will get cancer.
No no, only the enjoyable things in life.
 
When Newsom proposed the bill, telecommunications lobbyists went to the mattresses, as did hoteliers, who feared losing convention business.

He said that lobbyists from Washington made it clear that they would invoke “the nuclear option” and come down “like a ton of bricks.”


“This is tobacco money, oil money,” he said. “But these guys from D.C. do not know me because that has exactly the opposite effect. Shame on them, to threaten the city. It’s about as shortsighted as one could get in terms of a brand.”

Months before the bill passed, he read me part of a letter that Marriott sent him: “CTIA — The Wireless Association, which is scheduled to hold a major convention here in October 2010, has already contacted us about canceling their event if the legislation moves forward. They also have told us that they are in contact with Apple, Cisco, Oracle and others who are heavily involved in the industry, as you know, about not holding future events in your city for the same reason.”

Sure enough, when the bill passed Tuesday, CTIA issued a petulant statement that after 2010, it would relocate its annual three-day fall exhibition, with 68,000 exhibitors and attendees and “$80 million” in business, away from San Francisco.

“Since our bill is relatively benign,” Newsom said, “it begs the question, why did they work so hard and spend so much money to kill it? I’ve become more fearful, not less, because of their reaction. It’s like BP. Shouldn’t they be doing whatever it takes to protect their global shareholders?”

Yeah the reaction of CTIA and its constituent companies is the most interesting and scary thing about this story.

I don't know what the companies are worried about. People are addicted to their phones. SAR levels on the box isn't going to change their behvaiours.
 
WanderingWind said:
Why "car?" It's an automobile, dammit!
Why "TV?" It's an electronic television!
Etc. Etc.

Linguistics, son. Learn some!
?

We don't call a car a "combu car" because of the combustion engine, and we don't call TV "cable screen" because the images are transmitted over a cable. It's ridiculous to call it a "cell phone" just because the towers that transmit the signal form "cells."

It's a silly pet peeve, I know, but that doesn't stop me from getting pissed off.
 
Battersea Power Station said:
What the hell does the word "cells" refer to in the thread title? Cellular phones? Cellular phone towers? The range of signal for said tower?

"Cell phone" is a ridiculous term. I'll always call it a mobile phone, despite the extra syllable, because it's understood everywhere in the world. It's a mobile phone because I can use it while I'm mobile; it describes its essence. Why would I want to refer to it by some vague description of the technology behind it? Who cares about that?

i mad
It's not the "trunk" of a car.. It's the "boot" of a car...

...And what's with "French fries"? They're "chips"!

blimey.
 
radioheadrule83 said:
Yeah the reaction of CTIA and its constituent companies is the most interesting and scary thing about this story.

I don't know what the companies are worried about. People are addicted to their phones. SAR levels on the box isn't going to change their behvaiours.
The reaction doesn't seem all that strange to me.

Mainstream consumers in general total idiots, and would surely overreact to something on their phones that warns them about the radiation levels their phone emits. You can already see the headlines: "Newest HTC device has the highest SAR rating possible...are your children safe?" ... and of course the story would be full of drama...only to end with a "while it's not known if these levels pose any real danger...would you want to risk your loved one's lives over a phone?"....

...and other crazy shit like that.

Unless there's a mountain of conclusive evidence about the negative effects, I wouldn't even dream of trying to warn people about something that may not be worth anyone's concern.
 
RubxQub said:
I remember hearing some story on the news that said something like eating any kind of baked bread was shown to increase the chances of getting cancer.
I love bread.

...bread makes you fat?
 
Seth C said:
It's true. Anything that has been "browned" or burnt to any degree will be carcinogenic. Oh well.

Heating shit denatures proteins and such. All cooked food is giving you cancer.

Cell phone radiation causes cancer. The question is "To what degree?".

Everyone has cancer. It only becomes a problem when the cancer growth rate outpaces your body's ability to deal with it.
 
Mudkips said:
Everyone has cancer. It only becomes a problem when the cancer growth rate outpaces your body's ability to deal with it.
No, this is just plain wrong. You're redefining the word. Cancer is a well-defined diseased state; mutated cell lines with certain attributes like knocked out checkpoints that prevent damaged cells from replicating.
 
Mudkips said:
Everyone has cancer. It only becomes a problem when the cancer growth rate outpaces your body's ability to deal with it.

There is always one in every thread. :lol
 
Pimpwerx said:
Radiation causing cancer? Preposterous. Next thing they'll tell me is that I need to wash my hands because of "bacteria". I wiped them. My hands are clean, I don't see anything. It's all lies. PEACE.
Not sure if serious, but here we go anyway...

No Apparent Cancer Link for Other Electronic Devices
Considerable research has also found no clear association between any other electronic consumer products and cancer. Cell phones, microwave ovens and related appliances emit low-frequency radiation — the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that includes radio waves and radar. Ionizing radiation such as gamma rays and X-rays can increase cancer risk by causing changes to DNA in cells of the body. Low frequency, non-ionizing radiation does not cause these DNA changes.


Source: http://health.discovery.com/centers/cancer/top10myths/myth8.html


Cyan said:
Why is everyone overlooking this? Frankly, this is the most worrying aspect of this story.
:lol
 
The problem with citing a lot of these stories are that these were short-term, smaller studies. There's a massive one that's going on right now that started earlier this decade, and we're supposed to get results back before 2015, I believe. That studies supposed to be the first really conclusive one with a wide enough berth to merit any sort of authority.
 
You would think this would be something the Bluetooth headset manufacturers would love. To be honest I hope my mobile device makes me sterile. No brain cancer though please.
 
esc said:
No, this is just plain wrong. You're redefining the word. Cancer is a well-defined diseased state; mutated cell lines with certain attributes like knocked out checkpoints that prevent damaged cells from replicating.

Actually Mudkips was pretty close. There was a recent study where a group looked for tumor or tumorgenic cells in people in their 30s-40s who died of car accidents/suicide/other sudden deaths and found that the incidence of small tumors that displayed enough cell abnormalities that they should be considered cancerous far exceeded the rate of diagnosis or even death of that cancer type. It seems like many cases of cancer are caused as much by our body failing to maintain a proper immune response as it is from cell mutations.
 
RubxQub said:
The reaction doesn't seem all that strange to me.

Mainstream consumers in general total idiots, and would surely overreact to something on their phones that warns them about the radiation levels their phone emits. You can already see the headlines: "Newest HTC device has the highest SAR rating possible...are your children safe?" ... and of course the story would be full of drama...only to end with a "while it's not known if these levels pose any real danger...would you want to risk your loved one's lives over a phone?"....

...and other crazy shit like that.

Unless there's a mountain of conclusive evidence about the negative effects, I wouldn't even dream of trying to warn people about something that may not be worth anyone's concern.


This is the rub. People are stupid. Why give them anything else to freak out over, especially if the information is of dubious value to anyone? Studies are all over the place. The only thing this could possibly do is damage the wireless industry. It is currently of no benefit to anyone but fear mongerers.
 
sharkmuncher said:
Actually Mudkips was pretty close. There was a recent study where a group looked for tumor or tumorgenic cells in people in their 30s-40s who died of car accidents/suicide/other sudden deaths and found that the incidence of small tumors that displayed enough cell abnormalities that they should be considered cancerous far exceeded the rate of diagnosis or even death of that cancer type. It seems like many cases of cancer are caused as much by our body failing to maintain a proper immune response as it is from cell mutations.
Tumorgenic cells are cancerous? Benign tumors have mutations but if there is no malignancy no-one would ever call the cells cancerous. This is getting into semantics, but the word cancer is pretty well defined.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom