103 comments so far...

• 1.
  June 11th,
  
  2008
  
  4:36 pm

  TPP, why should anyone really care? You’re not buying this idiocy that cell phones cause brain cancer, are you???

  Between this and your vaccine/autism kick, I think you’ve been reading too much Joseph Mercola. This serves only to whip up unproductive anxiety and to take away the spotlight from prevention issues that really have a solid medical and scientific basis.

  — Posted by jack

• 2.
  June 11th,
  
  2008
  
  4:46 pm

  I would be most appreciative if you would do a little research on the issue of using earpieces (not Bluetooth). Do they increase, decrease, or have no effect upon the amount of radiation to the brain. Thanks so much, karen in portland

  — Posted by karen berry

• 3.
  June 11th,
  
  2008
  
  5:27 pm

  I think using the word “radiation” is unnecessarily alarmist and will make people think of atomic radiation, which is not produced by cell phones. Many kinds of energy travel as radiation: sound, heat, light, cosmic ray particles, and the electromagnetic waves we use for communication.
  
  How about the more neutral and perfectly accurate “radio waves” or “radio wave energy”?

  — Posted by Brian R Stanley, MD

• 4.
  June 11th,
  
  2008
  
  6:42 pm

  Ditto the need for data on earpieces and Bluetooth.

  — Posted by Senalishia

• 5.
  June 11th,
  
  2008
  
  6:53 pm

  As Donnie Brasco would have said, forgetaboutit!

  Here is, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, one easily avoidable and definitely lethal source of radiation exposure:

  “The effective doses from diagnostic CT [computer tomography] procedures are typically estimated to be in the range of 1 to 10 mSv. This range is not much less than the lowest doses of 5 to 20 mSv received by some of the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs.”

  This is what one gets (5 to 10 mSv) while having abdominal CT scan for virtual colonoscopy, angiography, or routine “body scan” in the name of cancer and heart disease prevention.

  According to the same source, “A CT examination with an effective dose of 10 millisieverts (abbreviated mSv; 1 mSv = 1 mGy in the case of x rays.) may be associated with an increase in the possibility of fatal cancer of approximately 1 chance in 2000. This increase in the possibility of a fatal cancer from radiation can be compared to the natural incidence of fatal cancer in the U.S. population, about 1 chance in 5.”

  This information is provided by the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, and analyzed in depth on my site.

  Cell phone me worry? Nope…

  Konstantin Monastyrsky

  — Posted by Konstantin Monastyrsky

• 6.
  June 11th,
  
  2008
  
  7:09 pm

  Is there a comparable list for cordless phones?

  FROM TPP — I don’t know of one although perhaps readers do. I dont’ think we have cordless phones at our ear nearly as much as cell phones.

  — Posted by Peter Silverman

• 7.
  June 11th,
  
  2008
  
  7:12 pm

  Cell phone users face more danger plowing into a light pole while driving than they do from the booga booga of cell phone radiation. If this story is, in fact, true, then the people whose brains get cooked from their cell phones a) did not lose much and b) deserved it for driving the rest of us crazy with their yapping in theaters and restaurants.

  — Posted by G H Waite

• 8.
  June 11th,
  
  2008
  
  7:22 pm

  What happens to truth when an unreliable source parrots a thought-to-be reliable source? The “in-depth analysis” is sure to be a nightmare.

  That being said, with a greater than 1 in 5 risk personally (due to some youthful indiscretions) I’m not too concerned about a theoretical risk from a source without a known mechanism of injury (I’m referring to medium- and long-wave radiation here) like my cellphone.

  — Posted by Anonymous MD

• 9.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  2:04 am

  I carry my phone in my pocket (inches from several vital organs) for several hours a day. How about some research regarding possible health risks from that practice?

  — Posted by robin w.

• 10.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  2:17 am

  We are talking about radiation without identifying the type of radiation. Some types are more onerous than others. So, the discussion seems to have little worth. Also, I believe it is obvious to all that radiation damage from cell phones is orders of magnitude less hazardous than talking on the cell phone while driving.

  The radiation from my cell phone is low enough i must use a powered t-coil (magnetic induction loop) on my cell phone to increase the radiation enough that my hearing aids can detect it, and translate it to audio so i can hear it. Phones made before about 1990 were high enough in radiation that a t-coil was not necessary to boost the radiation.

  Sometimes I forget to turn my hearing aids off from the t-coil setting after a phone call. But I always remember to turn the settings off after walking by a fridge, a power transformer near a building, or a utility room in an office building, a fan, a running auto engine. These radiation emitters speak loudly to my hearing aids.

  — Posted by Don Bailey

• 11.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  3:54 am

  heiya! interesting findings but when are we ever gonna get the final word on this issue???

  — Posted by kims

• 12.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  4:00 am

  Before I started using an earpiece with my Blackberry, my ear would get hot when I was on the phone a long time. It was a weird feeling. I wondered if my brain was getting cooked. Don’t know if that’s radiation or what, but something was going on and it can’t be good…. but it’s a choice.
  
  It feels like there’s a lot of fear that something we all want and need so much - cellular phones - might actually be damaging to our health. Everyone always says there’s no proof and there’s no not proof. Cellphone makers pay for research, others do research with their own agenda. I choose to use the technology and minimize my exposure to what will undoubtedly be found to have bad side effects someday soon…. Would you hold up a cellphone to a baby’s ear for an hour? There’s your answer.

  — Posted by matt

• 13.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  4:11 am

  Forsooth, let us stop all this talk of invisible animalcules so tiny we cannot see them, which you claim cause illness. Your claims border on witchcraft. We elder students of medicine know that all illness is caused by imbalance or lack of proper humors, vital earth, air, fire, or water!

  Centuries later: microscopes, bacteria; electron microscopes, viruses, DNA, technologies for studying DNA.

  Forsooth, let us stop all this talk of damage from cellphones. The learned elders have proclaimed that they cannot cause damage because they do not emit ionizing radiation! Go forth and talk for many a year, it is harmless and there is no cumulative risk!

  Years later (2025?): “Scientists discover hitherto unknown mechanisms for subtle damage to DNA from low-power radio-frequency energy next to the head. Telephone companies apologize: ‘Ooops. We bad.’ Meanwhile, HMOs go broke treating tumors in longterm cell phone users.”

  By the way, I’ve seen protozoa on a slide under a microscope literally exploded from low-power radio energy coupled into them at a specific resonant frequency. And that was for moments. What is the cumulative effect of lower power RF next to the ear and brain over years? Unknown.

  — Posted by Walt D

• 14.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  4:12 am

  This whole argument is silly. Worry more about that Mack truck coming down the street…

  — Posted by John Fasoldt

• 15.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  4:17 am

  wow, people are so hostile about the radiation issue.

  Even at Motorola, from the earliest days { when I was there } people knew putting such high frequency radio wave generators right next to your head for such long periods of time as phone use, probably wasn’t the smartest thing to do, but just did not consist of a direct threat to health. And since it was legal, and people wanted it.. well…

  Funny, all the extreme people who commented will not recognize this, are just as bad as people who prevent cell phone towers from entering their town. There is not explaining to them, that the radiation level is about the same as the phone, except it is out in the woods and up on a tower, vastly reducing the danger.

  I guess this whole issue should be wrapped up with everything else in modern times about science, where political and religious beliefs now blurr commmon sense.

  *sigh*

  — Posted by Joe

• 16.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  6:13 am

  I would like to make a couple of comments.
  
  First, in the previous comments, there are many discussions of mechanisms. It seems that the MD’s accept that there is a mechanism for ionizing radiation to create cancers. I would like one of the commenting MD’s to give a rigorous explanation of the mechanism for the creation of cancerous tumors from ionizing radiation, including the appropriate chemical reactions. This mechanism would have to explain the well-documented and interesting long latency (10-20 years after exposure). The data is clear. Gamma’s, for example (very high-energy photons) are carcenogenic. But the mechanism (from ionization to cancer) is not, to my knowledge, actually articulated. So, I don’t think you should be calling for a mechanism for the creation of cancer by non-ionizing radiation when you really don’t have one for ionizing radiation. What you should be asking for is data! If the data is compelling, the mechanism will follow (eventually).
  
  This brings me to my second point. Several commenters act as if the idea that non-ionizing radiation can be harmful is the most blatant of witchcraft. However, everyone knows that, at sufficiently high intensity, RF and microwave can cause damage, because we have all seen meat cook in a microwave oven. So now, we aren’t talking about mumbo-jumbo. Rather, the discussion should center partly on exactly what Ms. Parker-Pope has brought up, power density and the efficiency of absorption. It should also center on how relatively low-level local heating can effect cell structure, and how the immune system reacts to persistent local heating.
  
  Finally, while cancer is scary, non-cancerous lesions in the cranium are also dangerous because they take up space in a confined volume. Meningioma’s are good examples of non-cancerous lesions. They grow in the meninges, the membranes between the skull and the brain. I have recently had one removed. It started as an incidental finding and was monitored over two years. It was, indeed, near where I placed my cell phone. I’m not claiming that this proves anything, but, to the patient (me), it’s very interesting. I am asking for an exploration of how non-cancerous lesions form and whether low-energy, non-ionizing radiation can be a crucial factor. Again, what is needed initially is not the mechanism, but the data. It is not alarmist to ask for data. It’s responsible.

  P. S. Don’t be cowed by the comments of MD’s, unless they are also Ph. D.’s and are active researchers in the field. They are trained to treat disease, not necessarily to understand the physics. When I was in graduate school, I had Bell’s Palsy (partial paralysis of the face.) When I asked what it was the treating Physician had only a notional idea. I was fine with it because I was given good treatment. My Math Physics Professor had a less generous response. “Doctors give things names, and the pretend to understand them.”

  — Posted by Art Edwards

• 17.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  6:18 am

  Agree with the comments above about the very low to no risk from electromagnetic waves emitted from cell phones. Too many unnecessary CT scans presents a much greater risk.

  THE major health risks are actually captured in your Times Health Guide:
  
  * Alzheimer’s Disease
  
  * Weight Control
  
  * Sleep Apnea
  
  * Rheumatoid Arthritis
  
  * Prostate Cancer
  
  * Osteoarthritis
  
  * Headache, Tension
  
  * Diabetes, Type 2
  
  * Cholesterol
  
  * Breast Cancer
  
  * Back Pain
  
  * Heart Attack
  
  Most of these are related to eating too much (especially of the wrong kind of food) and sedentary lifestyle.

  — Posted by Another Anonymous MD, MPH

• 18.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  6:19 am

  To Senalishia:

  There is good reason to believe that even blue-tooth head sets are significantly less likely to cause damage. Blue-tooth has a range of tens of meters. A cell phone has to send a signal a few kilometers. Given the inverse square relationship between intensity and distance, and assuming that the sensitivity of the receivers are comparable, the required initial intensity would be roughly 1000-10000 times larger for a cell phone than for a blue-tooth device.

  — Posted by Art Edwards

• 19.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  6:26 am

  Who in the world came up with the watts/kilogram rating? That is absolutely meaningless. It is the absolute transmission wattage that counts!! (I have been in electronics for 45 years) This “rating” is like rating the car headlight brightness as lumens/kilogram - the weight of the the car makes no difference on how the absolute brightness the headlight. All the phones must have the wattage to reach to towers - period - and that maximum amount is controlled by federal law. this sounds like some sort of advertising gimick. What will they come up with next?!!

  — Posted by Mark Pavlich

• 20.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  6:29 am

  Well, was this article intended to impart information or an attempt to scare people?

  It is amazing how many people use cells phones as their only phone system, and these people reading an article such as this are NOT being served well without REAL, provable facts that cannot be refuted.

  — Posted by Lady Jane

• 21.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  6:31 am

  OK, I’m a Ph.D chemist. So I suppose half the readers can dicredit me as biased from the start. BUT, I would say th cell phone risk is ridiculously tiny. One thing about a scientist is they will never say never. That’s because we are always discovering things, and these things are often unexpected. Still, there is only one known interaction between RF radiation and molecules (which your cells are made of). That interaction is a coupling of the RF energy with rotational modes in the molecules. This is actually how a microwave oven works - it uses a frequency which couples with one of the rotational modes of water. A microwave is tuned to water. What happens when you pump rotational modes of molecules? They basicaly get hotter. That is all. They don’t disintegrate, they don’t mutate, they don’t isomerize (believe me people have tried to prove these things), there can’t be any conceivable mechanism for DNA damage (which is what causes cancer). So, your cell phone could result in a little bit of heating of your cells. But nothing like a hot day in the summer would do. One thing to distinguish about radiation is that it is made of photons with different energies. Radio frequency radiation has a miniscule energy per photon. The energy is like >10 orders of magnitude too low to break bonds or even access vibrational modes. The energy of photons that can damage DNA? That would be in the range of UV radiation, which our friendly sun bombards us with every day. Fortunately for us, UV radiation doesn’t penetrate very far into the skin. OH, and I should add that the RF frequency used in cell phones is far away from the RF frequency used in a microwave - so you don’t really need to worry about heating either! And the RF is a broad spectrum rapidly changing signal, etc etc. It’s just so far removed from any radiation source we know of that might even begin to interact with cells or molecules…

  — Posted by David

• 22.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  6:47 am

  I have a house and a garden deep in the country. I have not seen a honey bee in five to ten years. This spring the bumblebees were sampling the Hen Bit but they have left also. I’m concerned at the low “take” rate of my tomatoes. But we have plenty of cellphone towers and four bar coverage. It may be a case of just planting more insect friendly flowering bushes and other flowers.

  There is one other suspicion, a farmer down the road sprays his crops twice a year, with a plane! Of course, the chemicals are safe.

  With respect to cellphone radiation and humans. Before the link is dismissed, former smokers die of lung cancer 20 years later, a person exposed to asbestos may develop the signature cancer many years later. It doesn’t take much and we are still infants when it comes to understanding science. We are at the stage where if it doesn’t hurt me tomorrow or possibly in the next 30 days, it can’t hurt me.

  — Posted by Ransome

• 23.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  6:49 am

  “I don’t know of one although perhaps readers do. I dont’ think we have cordless phones at our ear nearly as much as cell phones. ”

  How do you figure that? How many hours a day are you talking about? There are people that use cordless phones in their office.

  — Posted by Pilgrim

• 24.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  6:52 am

  I’m old enough to remember when doctors went on television and radio to advertise the benefits of cigarettes. It’s good to see that the perpetual ignorance of the medical profession has not changed.

  — Posted by Bill Fox

• 25.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  7:07 am

  Life is risk, we just have to balance the convenience with the risk. With cars, the trade off is high, approximately 100 people die every day, with airlines it is much lower. How much are we willing to pay for the. specious in my opinion, convenience of being always reachable?

  — Posted by Richard Kiley

• 26.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  7:11 am

  The radiated power specification of 1.6 watts per kilogram is meaningless. The more meaningful specification is in terms of watts per meter, measured at some point. The current US specification for unwanted radiated power is 1 watt per meter. Compare this to the amount of radiation received forkm the sun at noon on the equator, which is 10 watts per meter. AS the sun radiates electromagnetic energy across the entire spectrum, from below the AMbroadcast band through X-rays, it is a useful standard.

  However, all current tests of undesired radiated power are made at some point which is significantly separated from the radiating object. Usually, but not always, this distance is of the order of 30 times the wavelength being measured, as it takes aboutthat distance for the electromagnetic waves to “caolesce” into a meaningful pattern. The problem is that cell phones are much closer than the 30 wavelengths. In addition, they may be probpagating through the skull. the skull, as do all parts of the body, have semipermeiable membranes, which have been shown to act as diodes, which convert alternating radiation into direct current. I’m not aware of any measurements of DC in the brain resulting from the presence of a cell phone, but simple physics suggests there will be some.
  
  As to “cordless” phones, the comments are the same. Use both (cell phones and cordless phones) with caution.

  — Posted by GenotheGreat

• 27.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  7:12 am

  Seems to me an echo of the past:”9 out of 10 doctors smoke Chesterfields.” A present day lucrative product flackery is following a well worn path. Guess we will have to wait to see the effects of long term low level ultra-high frequency radiation.

  — Posted by john

• 28.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  7:17 am

  It isn’t really “radiation” as stated in the story and an earlier comment. It is best described as “RF” (radio frequency) or “RFI” (radio frequency interference). Talk to a radio engineer who’s been around this stuff for years including AM, FM, VHF(tv) and UHF (both radio and TV plus all the variants of police, fire and military radios. I think its something worth discussing rather than just shoving it under the rug. Discussion promotes investigation, worrying promotes angst/stress.

  — Posted by Steve Hoad

• 29.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  7:31 am

  I emailed back and forth with that Pogue guy about this and he laughed at me for caring about the radiation amount. I mean he is a bit of an idiot, but still.

  — Posted by jim

• 30.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  7:31 am

  Because it bears repeating: “Cell phone users face [much greater risk of injury from] plowing into a light pole while driving than they do from the booga booga of cell phone radiation.”

  Thanks.

  — Posted by Mark in NY

• 31.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  7:36 am

  Re comment #2:

  Simple answer: 1/r^2
  
  Long:
  
  Using a simple earpiece that does not itself have a transmitter dramatically lowers the (already small) amount of RF reaching your head. Intensity of the field falls off as the square of the distance from the antenna, so changing from, say, 2 inches to 2 feet reduces the amount reaching your head by a factor of about 140.

  Bluetooth headsets put out far less power than the phone. They need reach only a few feet, not hundreds of yards.

  To put it in perspective, you will get a much more harmful type of radiation in higher quantities from a long airplane ride, as you are then exposed to the cosmic rays mostly blocked by the lower atmosphere. A more immediate hazard is using the phone while driving, which is comparable to driving after several drinks.

  — Posted by Robert

• 32.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  7:41 am

  Wired (non-Bluetooth) earpieces are no different than iPod earbuds or the like. There’s no radio-frequency signals sent or received by the earpiece, just audio and (maybe, depending on the earpiece) some control signals.

  — Posted by Asad

• 33.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  7:42 am

  I think the authors should have made clear that by “radiation” they mean radio transmissions, not nuclear radiation.

  The unscientific public could be easily mislead by this vagueness.

  — Posted by chris

• 34.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  7:46 am

  In response to the bluetooth question here is one guideline. The range of a cell phone is several miles. The range of a standard bluetooth device is about 30 feet. My estimate is that the bluetooth is many times safer than the relativity high power of a cellphone.

  — Posted by arydberg

• 35.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  7:47 am

  Pregnant women who use cell phones a lot can cause damage to their babies, and kids who use them a lot also suffer effects:

  http://www.seventhgeneration.com/learn/blog/pregnant-pu t-your-cell-phone-use-hold

  This is a large study, and one of the co-investigators was a skeptic (he didn’t think there would be any effect). You should feature this study in a column!

  — Posted by Maria

• 36.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  7:55 am

  In response to the questions above about ear pieces, the standard type, with a cord leading back to your phone, do not emit non-ionizing radiation, because they are not transmit and receive devices. There is a tiny bit of electrical energy in the ear pieces and I have never seen any issue raised in regard to any effect, if any, that might have on the brain. Ear pieces move the radiation from the phone itself away from your brain so that it is not an area of any concern. Blue tooth? That’s an entirely different matter that someone else needs to address.

  The concern about cell phone derives, in large degree, from the fact that many people use them for long periods of time, perhaps even an hour or more per day. More exposure means more theoretical risk.

  It is my understanding that current cell phones emit much less radiation, with lower power, than phones of ten to fifteen years earlier. One of my first cell phones came with a separate transmitter pack and the user guide advised not touching the antenna when the phone was in use. These phones were designed to reach cell towers that were much more scattered in the earlier days of cell use. They were, in effect, little radio stations. Current phones are also, but the power has been reduced significantly.

  I have also read, but can not independently confirm, that current cell phones vary their power according to need. Someone living in a more rural area, where towers are more distant, would then be exposed to more radiation on a regular basis than someone living in an urban area.

  My own skepticism about cell phones and their danger comes from two primary sources: First, how many times have we been told that something is “perfectly safe”, only to learn years later that it was not? Perfect and safe are words that probably never should be used together. We were told the air in Lower Manhattan was safe after 9-11 and we know now it was anything but. Second, there are enormous sums of money being generated by cell phones around the world. Protecting that “revenue stream” is massively important to hundreds of corporations (and thus governments) and thousands of people. It took decades for the toxicity in cigarettes to be acknowledged and acted upon and the most dramatic steps only came when state governments realized they could get billions of dollars in health settlements. The historic record, thus, in such matters is far from reassuring.

  Gotta go now. My cell phone is ringing.

  — Posted by DougTerry at terryreport.com

• 37.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  8:01 am

  I agree with Dr. Stanley (#3), the use of the alarmist term “radiation” is unhealthy and not useful to the general population. Land phones emit electromagnetic waves as well; is there a SAR measure for those phones?

  Your use of the term “radiation” is interesting, also, given that the industry report cited by CNET used the term “radio frequency energy”; also, your use of the term gave the NYT editors the idea for the article title. Why not practice responsible journalism, Ms. Pope?

  — Posted by JKNousak PhD

• 38.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  8:02 am

  The CNET list is great — but what about phones that are now discontinued? I don’t mean very old phones: the ones used by my family are not more than a year old, but apparently are no longer being manufactured. Is there no data available for these?

  — Posted by Portia

• 39.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  8:04 am

  I am curious why almost every comment I have read outright dismisses the idea that cell phones can cause some damage to the brain? I think that there is a possibility that it could cause some change in the brain, however small it might be. But dismissing it out right is callous and reminds me of the Catholic church dismissing Galileo’s championing of Copernicanism (heliocentrism). This subject needs to be researched more to find out if there are long term effects (Ten to Twenty years) of holding a cell phone so close to the brain that is transmitting radio-frequency (RF) energy, a form of electromagnetic radiation. It is a small amount of RF radiation 1.6 W/kg-2 W/kg but over many years of use it must have some effect.

  — Posted by RJA

• 40.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  8:04 am

  I actually find it hard to buy a ear piece with a cord these days. Everybody is pushing bluetooth. The Most reliable place to find one is from a street vendor. The only exception to that is the iPhone, and that is because it share responsibilities with the ear phones.

  — Posted by Jeremy

• 41.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  8:28 am

  I wouldn’t worry about the effect of cellphones on brain function. Conversations overheard of people on their cellphones has led me to the conclusion that they have very little brain to damage.

  — Posted by C Byrne

• 42.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  8:33 am

  This list appears to only include phones currently sold in the United States. Is there a list for phones sold elsewhere?

  — Posted by Charlene

• 43.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  8:33 am

  sorry, but microwaves are microwaves… there are no ‘nice’ microwaves… i would no more use a cell phone then i would stick my head in a microwave oven…now, about all those cell phone antennas.. if we’re really worried about global warming, is it wise to point literally millions of microwave transmitters at the sky? think of what happens when a cup of water is put in a microwave oven…the sky is mostly water vapor and gas and dust…but president clinton signed the telecommuncations act of 96 and it is illegal to sue the microwave companies on health concerns… imagine if the tobacco companies had that…

  — Posted by ???

• 44.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  8:33 am

  Quoting radiation levels emitted by a CT does not indicate that lower levels of radiation must therefore be safe. CT scans are not safe. They are administered when the benefit of the scan outweighs the risk.
  
  All this article is encouraging is that cell phone users also weigh the risks and benefits of use of their model of cell phone.

  — Posted by Grace

• 45.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  8:34 am

  we are all trained to worry ……..guess what
  
  it seems to be everywhere

  — Posted by Rrose Se'Lavy

• 46.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  8:35 am

  The issues raised seven years ago in the following important book on the potential cell phone dangers have yet to be addressed. Public health epidemiologist and pathologist Dr. George Carlo was appointed by the budding cell phone industry as an independent scientist to study the question. See his “Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age–An insider’s alarming discoveries about cancer and genetic damage.”

  The book can still be bought on Amazon:

  http://www.amazon.com/Cell-Phones-Invisible-Wireless-Di scoveries/dp/078670960X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid= 1213273217&sr=8-1

  It has been suggested elsewhere that the earpiece unit and its wire act as an receiver/antenna and actually focus the radio waves at the site of the earpiece. There are some companies releasing earpieces that transmit the sound via an empty airtube where one can attain a safe distance between the unit and the earpiece while sound quality is maintained. Keep in mind, too, that since the intensity of the radiation varies inversely by the square of the distance, just getting the unit a short distance from your body can be quite useful.

  — Posted by Roy Nitzberg

• 47.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  8:38 am

  Since when does a thing have to cause cancer or brain tumors to be dangerous? What about the subtle unknown dangers of a thing like this? What about anomalous firing of neurons and things like that and subtle diminution of neuronal processes? With the constant bombardment of radio waves we receive constantly I do not see how we could reasonably establish any dangers or benefits from cell phones. Are we addicting ourselves to cortical stimulation, or subtly inducint an altered state of brain function, we will never know. These things are tools and perhaps they should be limited to just that for the sake of the users and us innocent bystanders who cannot stand having conversations interrupted by technology gone wild. Aaaah! Who needs nicotine! We have the almighty cell phone!

  — Posted by Gerard

• 48.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  8:45 am

  If the word “radiation,” a standard term used when dealing with any electromagnetic wave, seems alarmist, you’ll like this fact even less. Cell phones emit electromagnetic waves in the Microwave spectrum (granted much closer towards the Radio side than the Infrared side). Cell phones use Microwaves, but in such small doses that the Sun’s radiation outshines them.

  — Posted by R. Westbrook

• 49.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  8:46 am

  To Jack (poster #1),

  Consider this:

  The risk of cellphones causing cancer is not zero. Nor is it (most likely) high. Reality lies somewhere between the two and is related to any number of factors. Are there people who have gotten brain cancer from cellphones? Sure - any radiation, ionizing or not, represents a risk factor, either huge or infinitesimally small or somewhere in the middle. Are there five million of them who have gotten cancer from cellphones? Probably not. (Or, scary thought, perhaps not yet.) Everything we do contains an element of risk, and I think the goal here is to quantify that risk. I don’t see that as unreasonable. That same thought process applies to vaccines and autism as well, of course — can vaccines cause autism and other vaccine-related injuries, including death? Of course (and the death part is documented, by the way). Is it worth pursuing to quantify that risk? Of course it is.
  
  Keep in mind that, to paraphrase your comment, things which have a “solid medical and scientific basis” don’t start that way out of the box. They all start with someone’s idea, and that idea is usually treated with initial contempt by most of the rest of the community. Cheap example: doctors washing hands greatly reduces passing infections from patient to patient? There was a time when the first few who put forth that idea were highly ridiculed and effectively run out of medicine. There are a myriad of examples just like that one.

  — Posted by Stuart

• 50.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  8:53 am

  These are terrible tests and do NOT consider many variables.

  Modern cellular phones adjust their output according to at least 8 different conditions, and trying to compare them this way is DECEIVING THE PUBLIC.

  Cellular phone makers must concentrate on reducing the direct-to-ear radiation by placing their products’ antennae at the bottom of the phone, as far away as possible from the ear.

  Moving the antenna just ONE INCH can reduce direct radiation by 1000% or more !

  — Posted by William Donelson

• 51.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  9:00 am

  There is a formula for radiation risk in which the danger is dependent upon three factors: level of radiation and time of exposure and proximity to source. In the case of cell phones, the radiation is low, but the other two factors are high. Thus with increase length of time of exposure (as this is the way of communication of the present and future) may affect our youth in years to come, especially as the radiation is going into the brain. There may be an increase in cancerous brain tumors in the future. Why take the chance? Use an earpiece or headphones.

  — Posted by Jeppydog

• 52.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  9:22 am

  Although there is no research that indicates a causal relationship between cell phone usage and cancer, isn’t it interesting that in your article that three prominent neurosurgeons, particularly CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, hold their cell hones away from their heads? Despite current research and evidence, which may be limited because of various shortcomings, these doctors’ behavior illustrate the power of perception and reality. Granted there are no longer term studies and their concerns may be reasonable. Nevertheless like many things we do in medicine, i.e. coronary stents are better than medication or that bone marrow transplants for metastatic breast cancer are better than conventional chemotherapy, often in medicine our perception what should be true doesn’t hold up to the evidence. In the previously mentioned cases, the more intensive treatments were found to be no better and often found more harmful than traditional care.
  
  That being said, I think I’ll be looking for an earpiece, not because I necessarily agree with my neurosurgery colleagues, but because the state of California as of July won’t let people drive without a hands-free set.

  Davis Liu, M.D.
  
  Author of Stay Healthy, Live Longer, Spend Wisely - Making Intelligent Choices in America’s Healthcare System
  
  http://www.davisliumd.com

  — Posted by Davis Liu, M.D.

• 53.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  9:43 am

  Bioelectromagnetic research shows that current safety levels are well beyond the threshold for biological effects.

  Cell Phone EM radiation (radio frequency)is considered “safe” unless there is localized heating of the tissue (i.e., “thermal effects”), and current US health officials do NOT recognize that non-thermal, biologically significant, changes to animal cells and tissues happens at exposure levels thousands of times less than current safety standards.

  While cancers induced from chemical or radiation exposure may take decades to appear, cancers associated with exposure to electro-magnetic fields are seen within a few years of the initial exposure.

  Americans are ignorant when it comes to environmental hazards, because they are complacent and accepting of the false notion that our Government is there to protet us from adverse environmental agents, whereas the opposite is true.

  For reference, see the “BioInitiative Report”, by Cindy Sage of Sage Associates.

  — Posted by Richard in NY

• 54.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  9:44 am

  Does anybody here really buy the idea that some cellphones emit less than 10% of the power of others, and yet they have anything approaching similar communication range and battery life?

  If SAR testing is anything like the EMI testing I am familiar with, it’s a dodgy business. You could test all these phones again and get completely different top and bottom 10 lists.

  — Posted by Joe

• 55.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  10:02 am

  If you think that the concern over RF radiation from cell phones is overblown, take a look at the recent scientific studies. Links to a number of publicly available reports are included below.

  A fair reading will find that there is certainly cause for caution, particularly with long term use. More research is needed, however:

  > Overview of recent studies, Italy, 2008: www.ccsem.infn.it/ef/emfcsc2008/bioelectromagnetics/Lag orio_Mobile_phone_use_and_brain_tumours.pdf

  > Meta-analysis of current studies, Sweden, 2008: www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/Int_J_Oncology_2008_32_1097-1103 _Hardell_et_al_1_.pdf

  > Long term cell phone use and brain cancer, Sweden, 2007: www.digimode.co.uk/development/exradia/cmtdoc/original- article-long-term-use-of-cellular-phones-and-brain-tumo urs.pdf

  > Acoustic neuroma risk, Sweden, 2004: www.sst.dk/upload/forebyggelse/cff/miljoemedicin/mobilt elefoner_svulster/653.pdf

  > Brain tumors, Sweden - survey study, 2007: www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/section_10.pdf

  > Interphone study update, multinational, 2008: www.iarc.fr/ENG/Units/INTERPHONEresultsupdate.pdf

  You can cut-and-paste these URL links into your Web browser. More research reports and articles are available via professional journals, e.g. the American Journal of Epidemiology. (A subscription is typically required to access the full text of the article / study.)

  I hope this is helpful.

  — Posted by M Hays

• 56.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  10:08 am

  CNET lists the SAR level as ‘SAR (digital)’ . What is the significance of them including the word ‘digital’ here? Is there an analog version of SAR for the phone that is somehow different? Does it refer to the fact that the phone is operating in some kind of digital mode (using CDMA, for example) as opposed to some older modulation scheme like TDMA?

  Why is the maximum amount 1.6W/kg? How was that decided? What is the amount at which is becomes dangerous? Is one second of use enough, or does it take a long time?

  It mentions that SAR may vary upon the model of phone, how close you hold it to your ear, and what frequency the cellphone is operating on. I no longer remember what frequencies are reserved for US cell phones, but which band was this measured on?

  This information is too vague to be useful. Come on NYT, if you’re going to do science reporting on something related to people’s health, at least help your readers out by asking questions and explaining things, rather than just linking to some crummy CNET article that has lots of numbers but no real explanation of their significance.

  I majored in electrical engineering in college, and one thing that I learned was that a list of numbers with some unit at the top is never going to convince anyone about anything. You have to explain what the numbers mean, and give them context. I’m sure that every other science person reading this would agree with me.

  — Posted by Max

• 57.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  10:10 am

  While more data is fine, I’d prefer to see more pragmatic analyses:
  
  - the elevated risks of fatalities due to crossing the street/driving while being distracted by a phone call;
  
  - the elevated risk of cancer due to increased background radiation from being underground and near high voltage (i.e. in the subway);
  
  - the number of fatalities per year in NYC due to ground level ozone, soot, and other pollution; or,
  
  - the increased likelihood of health problems due to elevated levels of hormones and DEET (bug spray, also a plasticizer) in drinking water.

  If you’re going to be an alarmist, at least do so about something more original and relevant. But never mind me: I’m just a statistician who has seen these analyses and thinks all of these risks are of nearly-ZERO practical significance.

  — Posted by D Rock

• 58.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  10:19 am

  why all the negative comments. she’s giving us information for us to use if we want to. amount of radio waves emitted is one characteristic of a cell that i would consider.
  
  just like this: i looking for a new lawnmower. i checked consumer reports. i want a relatively quite one for me and my neighbors, but they don’t tell me that.

  — Posted by bruce

• 59.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  10:31 am

  Anybody who doesn’t know that holding cell phones up to your head has huge health risks has been living in a cave
  
  It’s radiation folks. And it’s harmful radiation levels 3 inches from your brain.
  
  An article a few days ago about this about this accounted neuroscientists who only use the speaker function and hold the phone away from the brain.

  It wasn’t too long ago when people were laughing at the idea that smoking is bad for you.

  — Posted by MJB

• 60.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  10:31 am

  The issue has been well studied with phones, laptops, and other wireless devices. The effects are not a result of “radiation poisoning” as we make it out to be, otherwise all people in the US would be equally exposed because wireless radiation is everpresent, regardless of if you’re holding a phone or not. The effects instead are a result of warming the fluids in the inner ear and/or brain when holding the phone up to your ear for extended periods of time. So switch ears, don’t talk so long, or swear off all wireless devices.

  — Posted by Carl

• 61.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  10:36 am

  Don’t fool yourselves people. And don’t bury your heads in the sand.

  Excerpt from article.

  Last week, three prominent neurosurgeons told the CNN interviewer Larry King that they did not hold cellphones next to their ears. “I think the safe practice,” said Dr. Keith Black, a surgeon at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, “is to use an earpiece so you keep the microwave antenna away from your brain.”

  Dr. Vini Khurana, an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University who is an outspoken critic of cellphones, said: “I use it on the speaker-phone mode. I do not hold it to my ear.” And CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital, said that like Dr. Black he used an earpiece.

  Along with Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s recent diagnosis of a glioma, a type of tumor that critics have long associated with cellphone use, the doctors’ remarks have helped reignite a long-simmering debate about cellphones and cancer.

  — Posted by MJB

• 62.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  10:47 am

  It is interesting that so many people will dismiss possible risks simply because they haven’t yet been proven. What about an ‘ounce of prevention’?
  
  Many things have been found to be dangerous, or have dangerous side effects after industries (and the public) accepted what common sense should not have, for example Mad Cow Disease or silicone breast implants bursting.

  — Posted by Emmely

• 63.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  11:15 am

  I will err on the safe side. I also feel it is uncool to run around with a cell phone stuck to my ear. Really cool is having a bluetooth ear bud and my cell in my pocket. Cell phone to the ear is so old.

  — Posted by Sam

• 64.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  11:22 am

  Common sense is really what is needed here.

  Nobody wants to believe that a consumer product could harm us. We have all these departments to look into our health and safety. Our history says otherwise: Look how long it took to prove tobacco causes cancer. Or take a look at the FDA and the number of drug recalls
  
  we have, or the FAA scandals.

  Although global warming is alive and well, many U.S. authorities cast doubt on it for a very long time.

  So, common sense is really what we need here. Anytime there is a lot of money to be made, there are very likely forces at work that are going to try and dilute, twist, cast doubt on the truth, if it threatens that money.
  
  Wouldn’t you?

  Why is it that both England and Germany have not only concluded this fact, but created a Schuman resonator for the phone?

  Besides the cell phone itself don’t forget all the towers. And don’t forget that radiation is CULMULATIVE. There is another basic fact which is that a scientist at SRI took two phones and placed them on either side of an egg, the egg was hardboiled after some period of time. hmmmm.

  The common sense of this is that we consumers have a history of not knowing something is bad for us until a lot of people get hurt, for a long time, until there is absolutely no doubt and then we look back and get mad that the govt didn’t warn us.

  Every electrical appliance has to be tested and approved by the UL.
  
  Look at your power cords, or any electrical device. Cell phones were never tested for biological side effects.

  Check it out, don’t take my word for it.

  — Posted by Anonymous PhD

• 65.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  11:23 am

  Wake up. It’s called electromagnetic pollution. We get it from the cell phone, computer monitor, microwave oven, etc. Of course it causes cancer just like smog causes alergies and other ailments. We need our phones but it doesn’t hurt to be proactive in our health. Stop denying that cell phones are harmful, find a solution to the problem. Headset research is a good start.

  — Posted by H from Long Beach, CA

• 66.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  11:55 am

  The demand for solid research proof about how cell phone irradiation may increase health risks shows a misunderstanding of how basic health research is planned and supported.
  
  Currently there is little interest in this question at the level of the NIH and NSF and other serious funding sources. All it takes is one reviewer who thinks the risk is zero and your application to study it will not get funded. Naturally, the cell phone industry has absolutely no interest in honest studies - they might find a risk!
  
  With the enormous amount of cell phone use in teens, it would be reasonable and prudent to do some research on short lived mammals, probably mice of several different genotypes know to have different levels of cancer risk. However unless this work is funded, it cannot be done.

  — Posted by David Harrison

• 67.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  12:19 pm

  Try This, 2 people required.
  
  Have subject sit and extend dominant (usually right) arm straight outward making a fist. Then, tester person to push down hard on the extended arm while subject strongly resists. Note the resulting resistance what ever it is, as a base line.

  Next, have the subject cover their sternum (middle chest) with their own fully powered cell phone, count 10 seconds, then do the same resistance test as above and note the marked loss of resistance as the cell phone wreaks havoc on the subject’s central nervous system.

  And you would put this device directly next to your brain or let your children do so? Not wanting to believe the science because its inconvenient doesn’t make it go away.

  — Posted by Alan Gruskoff

• 68.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  12:31 pm

  Why would you put a microwave source that reach a tower miles away next to your head if you don’t have to? Aside from the fact that it’s illegal while driving and can make your arm tired? Just put it on speaker or use an earpiece and that becomes one less thing to worry about (two if you’re driving). And for those who compare it to the sun - what does prolonged exposure to the sun produce? Cancer!

  And to those who worry about wireless headsets or cordless phones — Bluetooth emits far less power than a cell phone - it doesn’t need to reach a tower a mile away, just a phone that is at most 10-15 feet away. Evidence: my ear gets hot from the phone; it doesn’t from a bluetooth earpiece. Likewise, cordless phones need only reach into the next room.

  — Posted by DF

• 69.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  12:50 pm

  The SAR (specific absorption rate) of a cell phone, which measures the amount of radiofrequency energy absorbed by the body, is based on a heating or thermal effect. Its use as a safety standard is based on the erroneous assumption that there can be no adverse biological effects or tissue damage from exposure to nonthermal radiofrequency emanations. Adey demonstrated several decades ago that exposure to nonthermal radiofrequency fields with particular carrier and modulation frequencies could have significant effects on intercellular communication and membrane permeability by altering calcium ion dynamics. Since then, nonthermal fields up to 200,000 times below the current safety standard have been shown to cause DNA damage, impaired immune system defenses, activation of stress response genes, stress protein effects that reflect cell damage, the formation of micronuclei believed to be a marker for cancer, blood-brain barrier leakage that allows toxic chemicals to reach the brain and changes in brainwave patterns. A very recent study found that pregnant women who used a cell phone just two or three minutes a day raised the risk of hyperactivity, autism and other behavioral disorders 57% by the time their babies reached school age. This increased to 80% in those children who also used cell phones. Russia recently recommended that pregnant women not use cell phones, the UK bans cell phones in children under eight and France urges parents to limit their children’s use of cell phones to no more than six minutes a day. In contrast, the under 12 age group is the one now being targeted in the U.S, the average age of new cell phone users here is currently 10 years old and the market for children nine and under is predicted to increase to 9 million next year.

  SAR regulations for cell phones were established not by the Government, physicians, or public health officials, but by the telecommunications industry, which is now lobbying to make them less stringent. Many authorities believe that SAR criteria are obsolete because they only limit thermal effects and recent studies suggest they should be much lower. Since this is especially true for children, it might be prudent to adopt the precautionary principle, which essentially states that the lack of certainty regarding a threat should not be used as an excuse to do nothing to avert it. Over 150 years ago, John Snow stopped the London epidemic of cholera by removing the handle of a water pump. He didn’t know what was causing the disease but reasoned it was something in the water supply and the bacterium responsible was not identified until three decades later. Smoking was strongly suspected of causing lung cancer long before there was conclusive proof and countless individuals had died from the disease. The fact is that we do not know what the lowest safety limits are for bioelectromagnetic effects. if you placed the plus pole of a standard 1.5-volt battery in the Pacific off San Francisco, and the minus pole off San Diego, a shark could detect the intervening electric field.

  Paul J. Rosch, M.D.

  — Posted by Paul J. Rosch, M.D.

• 70.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  12:59 pm

  To David:

  While the initial excitation may be into rotational bands, the excitation will eventually be shared by all modes (equipartition theorem). Because they are resonantly pumped their population will be highly non-equilibrium (occupation of excited rotation states will not follow BE statistics for ambient temperature) and they will mix with other modes through anharmonic terms. So vibrations will be excited.

  — Posted by Art Edwards

• 71.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  1:11 pm

  I think having this list published is great. This is information I want to have and I’m glad this is a subject being studied. I use a headset because it feels better and because there may be health risks. Granted, it seems that most of the scientific community feels there is little to no risk, but we just won’t know for sure for many, many years.

  Reading through these comments, the ones that I respect and appreciate are the ones that admit that we don’t have the data to conclude what effect cell phones have long term one way or the other. The ones I find laughably ignorant and pompous are the ones like “Jack” (comment #1) who just poo poo the whole thing or the MD (comment #17) who lists the “real” health concerns we should worry about. Talk about alarmists. You guys are ringing the alarm that this discussion is taking place.

  The intelligent thing to do is to admit that we won’t know until long term studies conclude (perhaps over a generation) and to consider, just consider that there may be risk, and welcome all the data you can get – like the list published on CNET. But of course people believe what they want to believe because they love being right.

  Hey Jack, good luck with that lesion growing under your right ear.

  — Posted by Joep

• 72.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  1:30 pm

  In the Science Times a few weeks ago, there was an article about brain cancer. It said that scientists researching brain cancer don’t ever put a cell phone to their ear, instead using an ear piece (non-Bluetooth).

  Can we hear from those scientists here?

  To me, cell phones seem too young for us to know the long-term ramifications of daily use. How many years did it take for the public to understand the consequences of smoking tobacco?

  FROM TPP — There is a link to that story in this post. It’s the Well column link.

  — Posted by William

• 73.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  1:49 pm

  THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY PROVEN CLINICAL RESULTS THAT INDICATE A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN BRAIN CANCER AND CELL PHONES. However, as an engineer, I wouldn’t sleep with cell phone next to my hand or even put my phone inside my pants pockets unless I feel like I don’t want to have the next generation.

  Also, for those of you who think it’s a better idea to use a bluetooth device. THAT IS ALSO A WIRELESS DEVICE. ALL WIRELESS DEVICE HAS RADIATION. Now, your home in ur pocket and the additional radiation of the bluetooth device. Also, THE MORE WIRELESS FUNCTIONS YOUR PHONE HAS, THE MORE RADIATION. We do pay a price for convenience, but our body can deal with a certain about of radiation (see below to see how SAR is defined, there’s a safety factor!).

  Now, we shouldn’t get so self-conscience that we completely leave wireless communication. It’s more dangerous to live under an electric line than to use your cell phone. Also, it is best to not let kids use cell phones. CHILDREN ABSORB MORE ENERGY THAN ADULTS DO, because they have more moisture in their skin. Since they are still developing, it is best to minimize their use of wireless devices, particularly cell phones.

  By the way,SAR stands for “specific absorption rate”. The SAR is defined as the time
  
  derivative of the incremental energy dW absorbed by an incremental mass dm, contained in a volume dV of a given
  
  density ρ. It is used to quantify the amount of RF/microwave energy that gets ABSORBED into the body that gets turned into heat. The way it is defined is for an average HEALTHY 30 years old ADULT, a body temperature increase of 1 degree corresponds to a whole-body SAR of 1-4W/kg. (1 degree of change can cause permanent damage to cell tissues) Taking a safety factor of 50, the CONTINUOUS exposure limit is 0.08W/kg. The US and IEEE specifications say that the average over any 1 g of tissue may not exceed SAR = 1.6W/kg. The European Union limit stands that for an average over any 10 g of tissue, the SAR may not exceed 2W/kg. THE DEFINITIONS ARE DIFFERENT!!! Also, this is not just for cell phones. These limits apply to most user-end wireless devices between the frequencies of 100 kHz and 6 GHz.

  — Posted by RF Engineer

• 74.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  1:50 pm

  Hey here is an idea for those out there….

  1) go to radio shack and get yourself a small AM/FM receiver. or better yet, a little kit that can receive radio-through microwave frequencies. they exist.

  2) get a test subject, like a 99cent hamster at PetCo, and name him Bubba.

  3) place Bubba in a fresh little cage, and make him comfy.

  4) place the receiver kit in the cage.

  5) take ambient measurements for a few days, and also to make sure Bubba is not sick or anything.

  6) now turn on the cell phone in the cage. just leave it on. look at the output received in the cage near Bubba.

  7) try various things. Call the cellphone and see how the signal changes. Put big blocks around it to simulate movement and block transmission to force tower-connectivity changes.

  8) Then see how Bubba is doing. Does Bubba get hot? Does Bubba die? does Bubba turn into a fish? If you are not squeamish, you can do this for prolonged periods and see if Bubba grows a tumor or two.

  In general, you all need to STFU and actually become citizen scientists and PUBLISH your results. Then, and only then, will I trust anything anyone has to say either way. because then you tell me what you did to get your result, and I will get my own Bubba and try it out.

  The closest thing was the guy who said that he saw protozoa explode on a slide in a microscope. Now, I bet he’ll be glad to tell us what the frequency, intensity and flux of the radiation was that did it.

  You see, I actually assume that people want to UNDERSTAND things, and that words like “radiation”, and “experiment” and “science” and such.

  It will make you one of the educated elite: that is a GOOD THING. you will then be able to make statements and back them up with the fact of what you did to get them, and then someone can try it too and see if you are right.

  People, the only way to test this stuff is to try it out on living critters. Bubbas are cute and happy and friendly. If nothing happens to Bubba, you have made a friend who would be a co-adventurer in science. If he gets ill, then his illness will serve a higher purpose of resolving this thorny issue.

  To those that say I am a hamster killer, at least I don’t have a dog larger than a Chiahuahua in my Manhattan apartment. Besides, they are only a buck or two, and taste great with barbeque sauce.

  Enjoy the day.

  — Posted by jason kendall

• 75.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  1:52 pm

  More specifically, if you look it up, the European limit is 2W/kg in 10 grams of tissue. Whereas the US limit is 1.6W/kg in 1 gram of tissue. If you’re looking at concentrations in tissue, then does that mean the US will actually allow an equivalent of 16W/kg in 10 grams of tissue? Correct me if i’m wrong, but that actually makes the European limit 8 times more stringent than the US?

  
  
  FROM TPP — According to Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News — The 1.6 W/Kg limit is averaged over 1g of tissue, while the 2.0 W/Kg limit is averaged over 10g of tissue. The net effect of the different averaged volumes is that the European standard is approximately 2-3 times looser than ours.

  — Posted by Victor

• 76.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  1:58 pm

  My understanding is that cell phones vary their transmit power level from about 1 milliwatt up to something around 1 watt. They automatically adjust to the minimum wattage that reaches the cell site in order to minimize interference with other nearby cell sites. So, measuring and comparing the max radiation level and inferring safety from that is like checking the max reading on car speedometers and making conclusions about relative safety. In a large city one could expect the cell phone power to be miniscule and the radiation too. Out at the max range from a cell site, the phone will be at max power.

  — Posted by Michael Lee

• 77.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  2:03 pm

  Does sunblocker help? It does cut down the 100W/square foot from the Sun.

  FROM TPP — Interesting question. I don’t have the answer but perhaps a reader does.

  — Posted by DS

• 78.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  2:06 pm

  For whatever it’s worth, my approach to the aforementioned health risks is to be “cautiously pessimistic,” for the self-serving benefits of minimizing risks and obtaining peace of mind. My decision is based in facts that I believe are irrefutable:

  (1) The full impact of new products that are used repeatedly will only be known in future generations. 20 years ago. Now. Always.
  
  (2) Innovation has been the fuel for much of the prosperity that the world has benefited in the last century (socioeconomic disparities aside), and will continue being so at least until WW3.
  
  (3) Our current lobbying/capitalist environment allows “large industry” to strongly influence the health research that is conducted, whilst such players are heavily motivated to do so (e.g. tobacco, mobile phone, etc).

  The single subjective piece of information that I use in my analysis is “common sense”. Personally, the operation a wireless transmission device next to my ear for more than 300 hours per year is *highly likely* to be impacting at least one of my brain’s cells in some form.

  In spite of being a “gadget addict”, my top criteria in purchasing new cell phones is its measured health effects. My cell phone bill runs $200+ per month, but I favor using products that present “better-known” health risks (”wireline technologies” whenever possible).

  Sorry for an overwhelming pragmatic perspective (and long-winded) description of just one approach. Yet I sincerely believe that both research and market forces will follow what the cricial mass of opinion leaders believe. A “common sense” versus “science” approach can go a long way. All it takes is a purchase decision and a sharing of one’s opinion. Plus what is the price of “peace of mind”?

  (Ditto, “anonymous PhD”!)

  — Posted by Wax

• 79.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  2:09 pm

  There was a time once when shoe manufacturers would send adorable children on tour with their salesmen and a device called a fluoroscope. The device allowed viewers to see the bones of the childs foot while wearing the shoes and showed what a good fit the shoes were. I’m sure they had no idea how dangerous the X-ray radiation would be. Here’s an interesting you tube video (in French) of folks using 4 cell phones to turn kernels of corn into pop corn, just by calling the phones. Makes you think twice ..

  http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=qPCZvtOAc3I

  — Posted by BjP

• 80.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  2:12 pm

  In Joe’s comment,
  
  “Does anybody here really buy the idea that some cellphones emit less than 10% of the power of others, and yet they have anything approaching similar communication range and battery life?”

  If I understand the measurement correctly (if it is done intelligently), it reflects the amount of energy absorbed, not the amount emitted. This distinction could arise from the possibility of a more clever antenna design that directs the energy away from the skull.

  — Posted by Art Edwards

• 81.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  2:17 pm

  From TPP: Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, which tracks safety research and other cellphone industry issues, had this to say about this post.

  Hi Tara, I saw your latest post on the CNET listings of SARs.

  Two points:

  1) While the SARs submitted by the companies to the FCC for certification is an indicator of exposure, it is only part of the story. Other important factors are where and how you use your phone. For instance, using a phone inside entails more exposure than using it outside.

  And using it in a rural environment leads to more exposure than in an urban area. In addition, the distance you hold the phone from your ear can greatly affect your exposure. The closer it is, the higher the SAR.

  2) About the 1.6 W/Kg max SAR in the US and the
  
  2.0 W/Kg in Europe. Those two numbers may sound
  
  quite similar, but in fact it is more complicated than that. This is a bit arcane, but most important: The 1.6 W/Kg limit is averaged over 1g of tissue, while the 2.0 W/Kg limit is averaged over 10g of tissue. The net effect of the different averaged volumes is that the European standard
  
  is approximately 2-3 times looser than ours!

  Best,
  
  Louis

  — Posted by Louis Slesin

• 82.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  2:27 pm

  A lot of people are asking about how they can look up SAR values for their particular phones. They can go here: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/sar/

  — Posted by Usman

• 83.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  2:36 pm

  I think the cell phone-cancer link ought to be studied more — and expanded to all kinds of medical pathology.

  I simply say this because I had a couple of LG phones, a VX8100 and then a VX8300, and got headaches any time I used them. They also heated up a fair bit in use. I recently switched to a Motorola z6c, and what do you know — no more headaches, and the phone does not heat up as much. I’m not sure that SAR is the best way of measuring these things because the LG phones I had are just as good by numbers as the z6 if not better, but something is going on. The Moto clearly has better reception, so maybe it doesn’t have to crank up the power as much or something.

  — Posted by DBX

• 84.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  2:40 pm

  Big money is at issue here.

  Has anyone considered that many of the posts here downplaying cell phone dangers may have been coordinated by cell phone industry people?

  The NY Times gets massive exposure - its well worth their while to plant numerous pro cell posts. I have a cell phone - but I use it for short calls, usually on the speaker or a hands free car unit. We all know that proof of harm will come someday.

  — Posted by Chuck K.

• 85.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  3:06 pm

  just because “they” say it’s safe should we believe them?

  — Posted by Michael Schudlick

• 86.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  3:27 pm

  Chiming in again after the posting about bees and cell phones - I live in a four bar area in California. None of my neighbors use bugspray. My garden is filled with native wild flowers and I do precious little to it. I sometimes will sit out on the ground in my yard and chat on my cell phone while several of the 23 native bee species known to live in my neighbborhood are hard at work around me, pollinating my wildflowers.

  Its not cell phone towers. Its bugspray. Its golf course sized lawns. Its lack of food because gardens (certainly in the ‘burbs) are giant lawns anymore. Its people being terrified of bees and hives and getting exterminators to remove them. Plant lots of flowers. Stop fighting with nature. Watch the bees come back.

  — Posted by G H Waite

• 87.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  3:42 pm

  Here’s a video by Dr. David Furlong on the MSA 21 readings to check if you’ve been affected by mobile phone and other EM radiation: http://futuretechtoday.net/cmd.php?Clk=1922075

  — Posted by Randolph

• 88.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  3:45 pm

  Does anyone really trust the FDA????? The organization that’s supposed to protect us and is setting a clear path for cloned, genetically altered meat and has already allowed cloning of our corn and soy products.

  No wonder all our kids born in the past decade have a million allergies.

  — Posted by Jen

• 89.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  4:00 pm

  Using a wired headset actually amplifies the unwanted EMF your brain receives. However, a simple, cheap “Ferrite Bead” clamped onto the headset wire will stop the objectionable EMF from reaching your head, such as the one offered by “Mercola.com”

  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005  /02/16/cell-phone-radiation-part-two.aspx

  — Posted by Michael

• 90.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  4:14 pm

  But wait, what about all that other radiation I get exposed to all day, every day? Such as cosmic, solar, naturally occurring decay from elements on earth, all that radioactive potassium in bananas (fact, btw). All of which are at much higher levels than anything given off by a cell phone. You also forgot to mention that those 3 studies which suggest a link were very, very bad studies using few numbers of individuals, probably by hack scientists. Large meta-analyses of vast numbers of individuals conclusively show no link whatsoever from cell phone usage. Either get a scientific education or don’t report on scientific information.

  — Posted by bobby g

• 91.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  4:15 pm

  It is called electromagnetic radiation and it comes from RF Radio Fequency. It is just like a microwave oven. Before postind a dum comment read about. It causes human tissue to heat up from the inside of the cells too quickly and causes cancer and tumors. Wake up and smell your brain frying.

  — Posted by citizenx

• 92.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  4:29 pm

  I honestly dont think its enough to harm you over a long period of time. I do know for a fact that popcorn popping video with cell phones being shown all over the net is in fact FAKE.

  JT

  — Posted by John Thomas

• 93.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  4:42 pm

  I try not to use cell phones too often because I’ve noticed that they give me a headache. So I am a bit suspicious and nervous about them.

  — Posted by LA

• 94.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  4:51 pm

  Wake up people, this is serious stuff. Two years ago, a sat on a plane from Tokyo to Taipei, with a 50 year old scientist from a top Japanese research institute. His area of expertise was electromagnetic radiation, something he had spent decades researching, he was devoting his remaining years to the topic as it applies to cell phones and the towers we see everywhere. He died 18 months later from cancer. He was less concerned with his short time remaining on earth as he was regarding the “stupidity of mankind” in relation to EMF.

  He never called from a cell phone, would not allow his family to own cell phones. He said facts show the amplification of EMF in any metal container. His point was, trains, airplanes, automobiles, etc all caused the danger to spiral out of control, something like 20 times the expected numbers.

  Trusting in governmental bodies and their lobby feed agenda is a fool’s game. If you are in this camp, you must have believed smoking is safe, your government said so until very recently. Trust someone, seek facts.

  A solid article is found here:

  http://www.danreid.org/daniel-reid-articles-electro-mag netic-energy-pollution.asp

  Stay off your cell phone, your DNA thanks you.

  — Posted by Kamakura

• 95.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  4:59 pm

  If you are concerned about possible cell phone risks simply use a wired headset or speakerphone. The rest of y’all will continue participating in this massive, comparatively high stakes science experiment.

  — Posted by Mark

• 96.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  5:04 pm

  Almost no one ever wants to speak to me. I suspected there might be more than just one reason to be glad of that.

  — Posted by Rage Baby

• 97.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  5:37 pm

  Do wireless laptops have SAR values? Should we be nervous about using laptops on our laps, so close to our reproductive organs? Any danger of laptops causing cancer to reproductive organs?

  Thanks,

  FROM TPP — I’m going to try to get answer to this question for you. Watch this space.

  UPdate: I asked Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, to share his thoughts. Here they are:

  There is no available list of SARs for laptops, as far as I know, nor any consistent measurements of their electromagnetic emissions. (Note it took a committee years to develop a standardized protocol to measure SARs from cell phones. No one has yet tried to develop a protocol for laptops.)

  I would advise against putting a laptop, or any other electronic or electrical device, on or next to your body –if only as a precaution. I wrote a piece about this a few years ago. See: http://www.microwavenews.com/nc_aug2005.html

  The first paper I reference in that piece should be ample reason for men of reproductive age to be cautious:
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15591087

  — Posted by Elizabeth

• 98.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  5:41 pm

  To all you radiation-phobes: wake up. It’s all around you (see #89).

  If we weren’t so damn scared of it, we’d have have many more nuclear power plants by now, like France.

  Yes, France is energy-independent, and not contributing to global warming. The US getting out of Iraq ’cause we wouldn’t care about the oil? Priceless.

  — Posted by jack

• 99.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  5:52 pm

  so strap some phones on some animals, power up and study. instead of arguing how many rfs dance on the head of pin do the research.

  sheeze, you’d think this science thing was beyond us.

  — Posted by JackSpratts

• 100.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  6:11 pm

  I dropped my phone in water recently. I dried it off and it started working again. Could this have removed some sort of safety, i.e. is there a chance my phone now emits more radiation?

  — Posted by Dan

• 101.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  6:12 pm

  The research HAS been done, unfortunately the results don’t support the “cell phones cause brain cancer” theory so the press rarely report them, they prefer the smaller, statistically flawed studies that indicate a link. Alas fear sells newspapers and increases evening news ratings, reassurance doesn’t.

  http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/93/3  /166
  
  

  FROM TPP — That article is from 2001. Much else has been reported in the past 7 years. Also, the big studies that show no harm, as the FDA notes, are based on just three years of data. The more recent studies looking at 10 years of use show the higher risk for brain tumors. And they are not small studies. This abstract (click here) will tell you more about the Interphone study. TO see the FDA frequently asked questions about cell phone safety, click here. .

  — Posted by David S.

• 102.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  6:16 pm

  If you’ve forgotten the effects of microwave radiation, see this 1976 article on the then Soviet practice of beaming microwaves at the U.S. embassy in Moscow.

  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,911755  ,00.html

  — Posted by Phil

• 103.
  June 12th,
  
  2008
  
  6:43 pm

  On the other hand:

  http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp

  You have to ask yourself: Am I feeling lucky?

  FROM TPP — Good link — all about the false rumor that the heat generated by cell phones is enough to cook an egg. It’s not, but the history of the myth and subsequent efforts to prove it make for good reading.

  — Posted by Phil

Add your comments...

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

A Flashy Facebook Page, at a Cost to Privacy

Add-Ons to Online Social Profiles Expose Personal Data to Strangers

TOOLBOX Resize Text Save/Share + Digg Newsvine del.icio.us Stumble It! Reddit Facebook myspace Yahoo! Buzz Print This E-mail This COMMENT POST A COMMENT You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register  Why Do I Have to Log In Again? Log In Again? CLOSE We've made some updates to washingtonpost.com's Groups, MyPost and comment pages. We need you to verify your MyPost ID by logging in before you can post to the new pages. We apologize for the inconvenience.  Discussion Policy Discussion Policy CLOSE Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. Who's Blogging » Links to this article

Facebook fanatics who have covered their profiles on the popular social networking site with silly games and quirky trivia quizzes may be unknowingly giving a host of strangers an intimate peek at their lives.

SAN FRANCISCO — An American military supercomputer, assembled from components originally designed for video game machines, has reached a long-sought-after computing milestone by processing more than 1.026 quadrillion calculations per second.

Skip to next paragraph

Enlarge This Image

I.B.M.

The Roadrunner supercomputer costs $133 million and will be used to study nuclear weapons.

The new machine is more than twice as fast as the previous fastest supercomputer, the I.B.M. BlueGene/L, which is based at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

The new $133 million supercomputer, called Roadrunner in a reference to the state bird of New Mexico, was devised and built by engineers and scientists at I.B.M. and Los Alamos National Laboratory, based in Los Alamos, N.M. It will be used principally to solve classified military problems to ensure that the nation’s stockpile of nuclear weapons will continue to work correctly as they age. The Roadrunner will simulate the behavior of the weapons in the first fraction of a second during an explosion.

Before it is placed in a classified environment, it will also be used to explore scientific problems like climate change. The greater speed of the Roadrunner will make it possible for scientists to test global climate models with higher accuracy.

To put the performance of the machine in perspective, Thomas P. D’Agostino, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said that if all six billion people on earth used hand calculators and performed calculations 24 hours a day and seven days a week, it would take them 46 years to do what the Roadrunner can in one day.

The machine is an unusual blend of chips used in consumer products and advanced parallel computing technologies. The lessons that computer scientists learn by making it calculate even faster are seen as essential to the future of both personal and mobile consumer computing.

The high-performance computing goal, known as a petaflop — one thousand trillion calculations per second — has long been viewed as a crucial milestone by military, technical and scientific organizations in the United States, as well as a growing group including Japan, China and the European Union. All view supercomputing technology as a symbol of national economic competitiveness.

By running programs that find a solution in hours or even less time — compared with as long as three months on older generations of computers — petaflop machines like Roadrunner have the potential to fundamentally alter science and engineering, supercomputer experts say. Researchers can ask questions and receive answers virtually interactively and can perform experiments that would previously have been impractical.

“This is equivalent to the four-minute mile of supercomputing,” said Jack Dongarra, a computer scientist at the University of Tennessee who for several decades has tracked the performance of the fastest computers.

Each new supercomputing generation has brought scientists a step closer to faithfully simulating physical reality. It has also produced software and hardware technologies that have rapidly spilled out into the rest of the computer industry for consumer and business products.

Technology is flowing in the opposite direction as well. Consumer-oriented computing began dominating research and development spending on technology shortly after the cold war ended in the late 1980s, and that trend is evident in the design of the world’s fastest computers.

The Roadrunner is based on a radical design that includes 12,960 chips that are an improved version of an I.B.M. Cell microprocessor, a parallel processing chip originally created for Sony’s PlayStation 3 video-game machine. The Sony chips are used as accelerators, or turbochargers, for portions of calculations.

The Roadrunner also includes a smaller number of more conventional Opteron processors, made by Advanced Micro Devices, which are already widely used in corporate servers.

“Roadrunner tells us about what will happen in the next decade,” said Horst Simon, associate laboratory director for computer science at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. “Technology is coming from the consumer electronics market and the innovation is happening first in terms of cellphones and embedded electronics.”

The innovations flowing from this generation of high-speed computers will most likely result from the way computer scientists manage the complexity of the system’s hardware.

Roadrunner, which consumes roughly three megawatts of power, or about the power required by a large suburban shopping center, requires three separate programming tools because it has three types of processors. Programmers have to figure out how to keep all of the 116,640 processor cores in the machine occupied simultaneously in order for it to run effectively.

“We’ve proved some skeptics wrong,” said Michael R. Anastasio, a physicist who is director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. “This gives us a window into a whole new way of computing. We can look at phenomena we have never seen before.”

Solving that programming problem is important because in just a few years personal computers will have microprocessor chips with dozens or even hundreds of processor cores. The industry is now hunting for new techniques for making use of the new computing power. Some experts, however, are skeptical that the most powerful supercomputers will provide useful examples.

“If Chevy wins the Daytona 500, they try to convince you the Chevy Malibu you’re driving will benefit from this,” said Steve Wallach, a supercomputer designer who is chief scientist of Convey Computer, a start-up firm based in Richardson, Tex.

Those who work with weapons might not have much to offer the video gamers of the world, he suggested.

Many executives and scientists see Roadrunner as an example of the resurgence of the United States in supercomputing.

Although American companies had dominated the field since its inception in the 1960s, in 2002 the Japanese Earth Simulator briefly claimed the title of the world’s fastest by executing more than 35 trillion mathematical calculations per second. Two years later, a supercomputer created by I.B.M. reclaimed the speed record for the United States. The Japanese challenge, however, led Congress and the Bush administration to reinvest in high-performance computing.

“It’s a sign that we are maintaining our position,“ said Peter J. Ungaro, chief executive of Cray, a maker of supercomputers. He noted, however, that “the real competitiveness is based on the discoveries that are based on the machines.”

Having surpassed the petaflop barrier, I.B.M. is already looking toward the next generation of supercomputing. “You do these record-setting things because you know that in the end we will push on to the next generation and the one who is there first will be the leader,” said Nicholas M. Donofrio, an I.B.M. executive vice president.

By breaking the petaflop barrier sooner than had been generally expected, the United States’ supercomputer industry has been able to sustain a pace of continuous performance increases, improving a thousandfold in processing power in 11 years. The next thousandfold goal is the exaflop, which is a quintillion calculations per second, followed by the zettaflop, the yottaflop and the xeraflop.

Tips