Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Feeds
105363 items (97572 unread) in 19 feeds
Friends
(1021 unread)
-
2 Star
(84 unread)
-
John Carrino
(12 unread)
-
Comments for Josh the Outspoken
(296 unread)
-
Josh (34 unread)
-
Planet Matt
(595 unread)
Build
(68091 unread)
-
MAKE Magazine
(20292 unread)
-
Instructables.com
(35006 unread)
-
Hack A Day
(5017 unread)
-
Toolmonger
(7776 unread)
Heads
(716 unread)
-
Exploration Through Example
-
Paul Graham: Unofficial RSS Feed (113 unread)
-
Stevey's Blog Rants
(34 unread)
-
Joel on Software (207 unread)
-
Gibson Blog
(239 unread)
-
Adventures in Bloggery (123 unread)
News
(27537 unread)
-
Slashdot (25203 unread)
-
Economist.com Global Agenda (1412 unread)
-
Ruby Inside
(922 unread)
fun
(207 unread)
-
Templar, Arizona
(207 unread)
Slashdot
-
A Balanced Look At Cellphone Radiation
Posted: March 7th, 2010, 12:22am MST by kdawson
A month back we discussed an article in GQ on the alarmist side of the cellphone-radiation question. Now reader pgn674 passes along a PopSci feature article looking at the current state of cellphone radiation research. It profiles people who claim to be electro-hypersensitive, "who are reluctant to subject themselves to hours in an electronics-laden facility" for studies. The limited research on that condition is still showing that sufferers, in blind tests, are unable to detect radiation at levels better than chance. The article also touches on the relationship of non-ionizing radiation to cancer. The conclusion is that while it seems unlikely high-frequency fields in consumer devices directly cause cancer, they might promote it, and might also indirectly cause other health deficits beyond simply heating nearby tissue — though one skeptical researcher cautions, "The gap between a biological effect and an adverse health effect is a big one."