When talking about such a serious issue as whether or not cell phone use may possibly cause brain tumors it is imperative that we stick to the facts and do not overstate them. The IARC panel has not yet published its rationale for its recent decision. The publication is scheduled for July 1, 2011 in Lancet. We do know that they reviewed the literature to date, including 4 studies that have not yet been published, but have been accepted for publication in peer reviewed journals. The highly mentioned 40% increased “risk” of developing a glioma in heavy, long term users, comes from the controversial Interphone Study published a year ago. The authors of this study conceded that statistical Biases and errors limit the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from these analyses and prevent a causal interpretation. In fact it was the publication of this study one year ago that prompted both the WHO and the FDA to declare that there was NO definitive link to the use of cell phones and the development of brain tumors. Why this weak data is now the cornerstone of the recent WHO announcement is unclear. What is known is that at least four of the authors of this 10-year, 25 million Euro, controversial trial, and who now, with this new classification stand to get millions more in funding, were ALSO members of this WHO panel. You do the math..
There are a number of issues with mobile phones, it is always a good Idea to keep your phone away from other computing equipment, certainly anything that has a disk drive.
As most people are aware when a phone communicates with the tower you can pickup a "beep-biip-bip-bip" sound on any local audio device -phone-tv-monitor-Ipod etc.
I did a test a few years ago with a Seagate disk drive and my Nokia phone, specifically I set up the disk drive to write out data, then triggered the phone to ring, when close enough the phone was able to disrupt the embedded CPU in the disk drive causing data to be written erroneously, which is what was actually completely expected.
So the first rule is do not keep your mobile near any datastorage systems of value, since they can lead to data corruption when the device is writing data.
Secondly, women who use the phone for the same time as a man are at less of a risk, since most women pack the phone into their hand bags, keeping a mobile phone close to the groin region (belt clip), has been shown in a number of studies to lower sperm counts.
Keeping a phone around your neck or in your top pocket is highly risky, due to a number of incidents with exploding batteries.
On the electromagnetic radiation risk, a mobile phone has now been given the same rating as drinking coffee, I like coffee more than I use my mobile phone, so I guess the coffee is going to get me before my Nokia does.
I have worked on radar for 30 years electronic warfare, radar ranges/microwave ovens operate at 2450 mghz at 500 to 1000 watts in order to cook....a cell phone emits 1/4 watt..........you cant cook a molecule at that power level!
I recall seeing a YouTube video a couple of years ago where it showed popcorn kernels next to a few cell phones; the cell phone rang and the kernels popped.I believe this video was shortly proved to be a hoax, but I have been close to many a computer monitor when my cell phone has rung and I witness the monitor display picture becoming fuzzy and making a noise.Like Bolaji, I am glued to my electronics and I prefer to use a corded headset whenever possible.Let’s hope these RF emitting devices can be improved in the very near future to become safer…please.
Warning: junk reporting of junk science threatens individual freedom Friday May 6, 2011 Another day another scary health study, says Brian Monteith. But that’s the way of the bully state: junk science, junk reporting followed by junk laws.
Dr. Jonathan Samet, Chairman of the IARC, stated that “the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.”
This same nutcase samet is the father of many a junk science study and a major ring leader in so many shake downs of industry its pathetic and it appears the cell phone carriers didnt contribut to the WORLD HEALTH ORGINIZATION so now we see this study come out after all previous studies say nope it aint causing cancer....
WHO funding for the next two years is currently $3 billion short of its roughly $4 billion goal, most of which comes from the United States and other developed Western countries.
And, all their so-called "independent" reports were ring-led by the same guy, Jonathan M. Samet, including the Surgeon General Reports, the EPA report, the IARC report, and the ASHRAE report, and he's now the chairman of the FDA Committee on Tobacco. He and his politically privileged clique exclude all the REAL scientists from their echo chamber. That's how they make their reports "unanimous!"
They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’ World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
Whether such reports sound and alarm bells to the heavy users or not is debatable but one thing is for sure that the money-hungry lawers will definitely use such reports to file the lawsuits against mobile companies to claim millions of dollars in damages to the lives of their carelss clients who did not heed to such potential dangers, the way the cases are filed for the victims of lung cancer due to heavy smoking.
The problem is, I don't think those that SHOULD know know what the solutions are. It usually takes years of research and data points for researchers to come to a conclusion that something is 'bad' for us. Then solutions begin to get churned out. I am not sure we've reached that point yet with wireless (electromagnetic frequencies, etc).
I am more in Bolaji's camp. Everything wireless all the time. I use my cell phone constantly for texting, email, GPS, web browsing etc. It is always by my side, in my purse, in my car, sometimes even by my bedside if I was texting too late into the night. I have everything wireless in my home (including my Tivo). I don't think the answer is how we can use the technology less - lets face it, that problem will get much bigger with new generations, its how can we adapt the technology to make it safer for such wide and prevalent use. I don't have the answer either, but if I did, I'm sure I'd be a lot richer.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.