That Borowitz piece is good stuff. We can only hope that there a high percentage of the rude are also dumb enough to believe the report linking cell phones with cancer.

that there a high = that a high

And I can only hope that I'll remember to preview in the future.

Yeah, because if even one douchebag has a rudimentary knowledge of science, they'll know that non-ionizing radiation (RF) doesn't harm cells.

All those "heating effects" that people talk about from phones? Ain't caused by RF baby. Those transmitters generate a fair amount of waste heat. Ditto the batteries.

The only way your cellphone will kill you is if you are paying attention to it rather than the road while in your car.

A friend of mine is an epidemiologist and does not use a cell phone. Does not own a cell phone. He sent me this study by Swedish oncologists:

http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/64/9/626

Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: increased risk associated with use for 10 years

Lennart Hardell1, Michael Carlberg2, Fredrik Söderqvist3, Kjell Hansson Mild4, L. Lloyd Morgan5

Aim: To evaluate brain tumour risk among long-term users of cellular telephones.

Methods: Two cohort studies and 16 case–control studies on this topic were identified. Data were scrutinised for use of mobile phone for 10 years and ipsilateral exposure if presented.

Results: The cohort study was of limited value due to methodological shortcomings in the study. Of the 16 case–control studies, 11 gave results for 10 years’ use or latency period. Most of these results were based on low numbers. An association with acoustic neuroma was found in four studies in the group with at least 10 years’ use of a mobile phone. No risk was found in one study, but the tumour size was significantly larger among users. Six studies gave results for malignant brain tumours in that latency group. All gave increased odd ratios (OR), especially for ipsilateral exposure. In a meta-analysis, ipsilateral cell phone use for acoustic neuroma was OR = 2.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 5.3) and OR = 2.0, (1.2 to 3.4) for glioma using a tumour latency period of 10 years.

Conclusions: Results from present studies on use of mobile phones for 10 years give a consistent pattern of increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma. The risk is highest for ipsilateral exposure.

(Ipsilateral = tumor on same side you use the cell phone on.)

Nearly everyone has a dominant hand. I am right handed and usually put my phone to my left ear as to keep my dominant hand free.

Did they do a control study with a group of people who talk just as often only without cell phones?

Or perhaps it is mearly wishful thinking on my part that nature is inflicting brain tumors upon the assholes who insist on inflicting the dull inanity of their daily lives on the rest of us

Well, I have a cell phone, but use it rather sporadically, at best. If I'm at the store and one of the girls needs something, I'll call and ask what it is, if I don't remember. I'll call my brother in Florida, or one of my nephews, once in a while. I'm not on the thing 24/7, I don't need to be. Am I still at risk just for using one once in a while? o_O

Amy - if that study is valid (and I'm arguing that it is not), then we'd better get rid of all radio transmitters pronto.

I've read papers by biologists that say that there's simply no way that non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer. If that is not true, then we are in a world of shit.

Because the simple act of sitting in front of your computer is bathing you in more RF than using your cell phone.

What's killing me, is this scare-mongering about cell phones has been going on for years and they're just hearing about it now? Well, I guess I shouldn't expect assholes like the one quoted to be well-read.

I've read articles about it "may" cause cancer and then I've read the opposite, pretty much stating what Brian does. I don't think they really know.

In any case, it's impossible to avoid everything they claim causes cancer these days and really can it do me more harm than air and water pollution? Please.

It's possible, I believe, to diminish your possible risk by wearing a headset and keeping your cell phone away from your body. I do this, and I also use a headset with my cordless phone...a little cord and an earpiece and mike that go into my ear. Unfortunately, I don't have a substitute for my computer. My writing style is best on a computer, and I'm unable to blog from a yellow legal pad. It seems prudent, in all things, to diminish potential risk the best you can. Go ahead and cross the street, but look first.

if that study is valid (and I'm arguing that it is not)

Based on what?

It was sent to me by the guy who kicks my ass on how to read studies.

Valid and reliable, by the way, are terms that pertain to studies.

http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/programs/ptefiles/311content/assess&eval/validity&reliability.html

Validity relates to the question of whether or not one assesses what one claims to or intends to assess. It deals with whether or not an assessor's findings correspond to some form of objective reality. The data collected during an assessment must in some way accurately reflect the actions being assessed. To the extent that this is so, the assessment is valid. Reliability relates to whether or not the findings can be replicated, either by the same observer watching similar teaching practice or by another observer viewing the same teaching practice as the first assessor.

"She glared at me. "I'm talking to my son!" "

Once Upon A Time I was sitting in an airplane waiting to take off. The wanker sitting next to me was yammering away on what sounded like some sort of business call, but he was making it sound like he was some kind of wheeler dealer. The kind that fly in cattle class.

Anyway.

The flight attendant came down the aisle checking to make sure that the seat belts were fastened and whatnot, and they made the announcement about how now would be a good time to get off the phone. Mr. Wanker shifted the phone over to his right in order to hide it between his head and the side of the place. I glared at him, and he said, "It's a conference call."

Like I fucking care who you are talking to while you screw up the whatever in the plane that makes it fly properly. I told him he should schedule his calls better, and if he didn't get off the line I was going to rat him out. He glared at me, called me a lousy cocksucker (to which I took umbrage. I'm not gay, but if I ever got it into my head (heh) to suck a cock, I'm sure I'd be very good at it), but he hung up.

"It's a conference call." Like we should give a shit.

I'm sure I'll be flamed for this, but what the hell. I'm not anti cell phone, just like I'm not anti gun: I don't blame the tool for poor use.

Yes, sometimes cell phones are annoying, and so are the users, but honestly, what's wrong with someone talking on the phone? Are you telling me that someone talking to a person on the phone in a restaurant is unacceptable, but talking to a person in the restaurant is acceptable? The only real difference is presence. The assholes are, unfortunately, on both sides.

Reminds me of the time BF and I were going to New Orleans. The connecting flight was Charlotte and there was a guy on the flight, lotsa bling, cell phone, no luggage, not even a carry-on. One row over, one seat up from us. We could see and hear him on his cell. Pilot announced, flight attendants echoed all cell phones off. Asshole kept talking. Plane started taxiing. Attendants announced it again, guy kept talking. The one attendant made it a point to look at the offender. He totally ignored her. Just as BF was about to say something, the pilot annouced a "short delay", and here came the co-pilot, followed by another attendant, who both escorted the moron off the plane, amid cheers. Nice!

"I don't have a substitute for my computer. My writing style is best on a computer, and I'm unable to blog from a yellow legal pad." If you are worried about EMF but still want a computer get one with an LCD display. I went to an FDA lab where the test medical devices and the slapped an EMF sensor to an CRT. Lit up like a gas covered Christmas tree with candles. Plopped in onto the LCD and nothing, dead.

The other thing that gives some credence to the dangers of cell phones as opposed to radio is that EMF field strength drops off as a function of the square of the distance and frequency (double the distance and decrease the field strength by 4, 4 x distance 16x field reduction etc). Your radio is not transmitting so your only exposed to background EMF. Also different frequencies will attenuate at different rates with respect to distance. Personally I don't think there is any real danger from using a cell phone but those who are assholes about it usually have a higher stress level which does have a link to cancer.

If there was any danger those little ear roaches would be just (if not more) dangerous than using a cell phone. Bluetooth head sets work at 2.4 GHz while cell phones go from 380 MHz to ~ 1.8 GHz. Ionizing radiation is at higher frequency so technically Bluetooth is closer than GSM to the dangerous ionizing radiation. Ionizing UV-A starts at around 750 THz so both are actually quite far away from it and as far as we know currently safe.

http://tiny.cc/9zeVv

"Yes, sometimes cell phones are annoying, and so are the users, but honestly, what's wrong with someone talking on the phone? Are you telling me that someone talking to a person on the phone in a restaurant is unacceptable, but talking to a person in the restaurant is acceptable? The only real difference is presence."

The difference is usually volume. For some reason, people talking on cell phones seem to talk much louder. In a restaurant, there is usually a buzz of conversation that is unintelligible, but you can clearly make out what the asshole three tables away is saying.

@Donkeyrock - what's wrong with someone talking on the phone?

Loud half-conversations are irritating in the way a toddler's deliberately high-pitched wail is. It's as if the extra volume and irregular timing triggers something in your brain that demands attention, because usually, these signals mean someone is trying to get your attention. It's like having someone tugging on your sleeve all the time. Does that answer your question?

It was sent to me by the guy who kicks my ass on how to read studies.

I don't kick ass at reading studies, but I do understand what Bob Park thinks about this:
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/index.html

Also, here are a few other quotes from the meta study that you linked that make me suspicious:

Most of these results were based on low numbers.

This has raised concerns about health risks, primarily increased risk for brain tumours, owing to the proximity of the brain to the radiation antenna, with the potential for absorbing a comparatively large amount of electromagnetic energy.

The mechanism for the increased risk for acoustic neuroma from microwave exposure is unknown. An effect might exist at different stages in tumour development.

The Danish cohort study is not very informative, owing to the limits in study design, analysis and follow-up, and will not be discussed further.

More research is necessary for risk assessment based on higher number of long-term users.

Here's what I fundamentally don't understand about these kinds of studies: how can you possibly control for all the relevant variables that affect human disease by doing data analysis after the fact on such a small number of people? These are not double-blind, placebo-controlled medical studies.

Also: what brian and vlad said.

The reason such tales have been around for years is because the engineer who helped develop wireless phones got a brain tumor, and before he died, he tried to convince people such phones held close to the head were dangerous, and that in his belief they tended to cause brain tumors.

I do not have a source or link nor do I care. I am old, and I remember the articles in the electronic magazines at the time.

The Borowitz article was very amusing.

I'd have to say I'm also not a fan of the 'look at me, I'm on a cellphone' contingent. It's not really that hard to step outside (or at least away from the crowd) to make or take your call. In a place like a restaurant, where the ambient noise is pretty high anyway, I won't be too bothered by someone on the cell phone, as long as their voice doesn't carry over the ambient noise.

As for a connection between cell phones and cancer (or brain tumors), I'm going to have to punt. There's a truism in scientific investigation that correlation does not equal causation. Right now, there are no studies that unambiguously report an actual causative link, nor is there any proposed mechanism for the possible linkage (and no, simply saying that it is caused by a cell phone is not the proper definition of a mechanism). Given the sample sizes, and lack of controls, correlation is the only conclusion that can be reliably drawn from the Swedish study (which means that there's some use in pursuing the study further, but that nothing else can be concluded at this time, based on the study results).

Truth is, we're still in the process of figuring out what actually *does* cause cancer, at least in the sense of what specific chain of events causes the carcinogenic element to trigger the cancerous behaviour of a cell. Ionizing radiation, various carcinogens, and so forth, have some evidence that they can contribute to, and / or cause cancer, but what causes them to instantiate a cancerous growth in one person, and not in another is still not entirely clear.

I'm completely willing to accept any reasonably definitive evidence of a causative relationship, if one does in fact exist, but right now, the evidence simply is not there.

Not that I'm particularly worried anyway, I'm not really a heavy cell phone user, but it's important to keep this in perspective.

Truth is, we're still in the process of figuring out what actually *does* cause cancer, at least in the sense of what specific chain of events causes the carcinogenic element to trigger the cancerous behaviour of a cell. Ionizing radiation, various carcinogens, and so forth, have some evidence that they can contribute to, and/or cause cancer, but what causes them to instantiate a cancerous growth in one person, and not in another is still not entirely clear.

Exactly. Which is why it's been such a struggle to develop any kind of cure, or even a vaccine. You first have to find the true source, and it appears that there are too many variables to pinpoint any source accurately, at least at this point in time. (The company I work for is just now moving into Stage II of a clinical trial for a new flu vaccine, which looks very promising. We're also doing the research and development for myriad other vaccines, cancer among them, but it's not as easy finding a source for cancer as it is, say, for malaria.)

When there's not enough information to decide whether there's a link between, say, cellphones and brain tumors, some people opt for the "precautionary principle." They say, just to be safe, we'll avoid the cellphones.

This does not make sense. If, despite investigation, there's not enough evidence to establish a link, then the answer is "we don't know if there's a link." Any logical argument that leads from "we don't know" to "we'll pretend there is" also leads to "we'll pretend there isn't." For all you know, cellphone usage is beneficial. Perhaps it mitigates tumors you are going to get anyway. Perhaps it helps reduce your stress levels and so avoid heart problems. Perhaps there is a health risk but it is enormously less than the health risk you get from writing letters and licking postage stamps instead of calling people.

That's what "we don't know" means. As I've said elsewhere, you can't mine information from a seam of ignorance.

Amy,
Orac ran over this one:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/07/oh_no_my_cell_phones_going_to_kill_me.php#more

I think he presents most of why some science types think this report is a bit off

Right now it sounds like Movable Type is the preferred blogging platform out there right now. (from what I've read) Is that what you are using on your blog?