Skip to content

Mobile phones: dangerous until proven safe?

The paranoid will be all too convinced by cancer specialist Dr Robert B. Herberman’s tentative advice* based on unpublished data to limit cell phone use because of a possible risk of cancer.

Never mind that the University of Pittburgh release flies contrary to almost every major study on the cell phone-cancer link published to date.  In fact, let’s just ignore anything that could be considered remotely factual.  The advice from the University’s Cancer Institute centres on the same argument I hear from people who refuse to flash their headlights to tell others to turn theirs on: it’s not about what we do know, it’s about what we don’t know.

It is a recurring theme throughout the case: “Sufficient time has not elapsed in order for us to have conclusive data” … “Studies in humans do not indicate that cell phones are safe, nor do they yet clearly show that they are dangerous” … “we are not yet able to evaluate their long term impact on health.”  What Dr Herberman is promoting is fear of the unknown, a trait echoed by his colleague Devra Lee Davis:

“The question is do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain,” she said in an interview that she did from her cell phone. “I don’t know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don’t know that they are safe.”¹

One can only imagine the sort of lives we would live if we lived in fear of everything we “don’t know”.  We don’t know that walking to school, university or work’s safe on this particular day (think ambush, abduction, rape), but does that stop anyone?  This retort by PalMD in his blog sums it up well:

Hey, I don’t know for an absolute certainty that my popcorn won’t spontaneously combust, but I’m not yelling fire either.

I won’t provide a biological evaluation of the cell phone-cancer claim (I’m not a medical practitioner); Orac’s provided some analysis in his blog and I’m sure others will have done the same.  It is worth pointing out, though, an American Study, a British study, a French study, a German study and a Swedish study (the last of which studied long-term users)—and there are many more, you just have to run a journal search or Google it and follow some links—all of which find no link between mobile phone use and brain tumours, or at least no statistically worthwhile evidence.  If there’s a real case for us to be worried, I can’t find it.

Not so, says Dr Herberman:

“Really at the heart of my concern is that we shouldn’t wait for a definitive study to come out […]”²

So panic now, children, distance yourself from these guilty devices.  Until they are proven safe beyond all reasonable doubt, you should presume them to be dangerous.

* This article is from the Associated Press, so it’s the same in a lot of places, like NZ Herald, 3 News, Sydney MH, CNN, Fox.
¹ ² Both quoted from the Associated Press article.

4 Comments Post a comment
  1. Klodianemperor #

    Mobile phones are indeed dangerous. Just yesterday unconfirmed reports came in that a classroom full of bratty children who had mobile phones de-volved into monkeys (How does Darwin explain THAT?). They then grabbed the teacher\’s coat and cut it up into little pieces to make eyepatches, and ran off, after doing a tango in the principal\’s office.
    Don\’t say I didn\’t tell you that monkeys with eye patches weren\’t dangerous.
    They might even be working for the CIA.

    27 July 2008
  2. Klodianemperor #

    You have to be careful about dangerous things. That is why Dr Herberman says you have to be careful about them. If they weren\’t dangerous, he wouldn\’t tell us to be careful about them.Monkeys are also dangerous. When they are wearing eye patches, they are especially dangerous, because they are PIRATE monkeys. They rob you of all your bananas. Therefore it is safe (well, in this case, because the monkeys are dangerous, it is not safe at all, but if one was to say that it is unsafe to assume, the meaning of the sentence changes completely, and the Monkey-Wearing-An-Eye-Patch Overlord (May his eye patch stay on forever) will eat me) to assume them to be dangerous.

    28 July 2008
  3. Klodianemperor #

    Good Sir/Ma\’am.
    I would duly suggest unto your honourable self that in many cases, monkeys are a step forward on the evolution scale from children.
    If radiation causes an increase in the intelligence of children by turning them into monkeys (even if the monkeys do look ridiculous wearing eye patches, with all due respect to the Monkey-Wearing-An-Eye-Patch Overlord) is a good thing and we should start selling radiation pillows by the ship load.

    28 July 2008
  4. Klodianemperor #

    The Monkey-Wearing-An-Eye-Patch Overlord will send all his monkey minions after you for your grave insult to His Monkey-Wearing-An-Eye-Patch-ness. Monkeys are not an evolutionary step forward from children because children are able to cause mayhem without wearing eye patches, but monkeys have to wear eye patches to be dangerous.
    And His Monkeyness says so. Otherwise, how else would he control them the rest of the time?

    29 July 2008

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: