4 ms·

Females, at least where I'm from, regularly keep things in their bra such as cell phones. It never ceases to amaze me when a phone suddenly materializes from se

Females, at least where I'm from, regularly keep things in their bra such as cell phones. It never ceases to amaze me when a phone suddenly materializes from seemingly nowhere. Given that I feel they would hardly be opposed to some thin embedded electronics in the bra.

loceng 13y ago
Yes, I have seen this too. I'm sure they're not aware of or perhaps don't believe the studies showing that there's increased cancer around the area where heavy cellphone use it as. Sure, you can argue they're not using the phone - however phones more and more actively push and receive data.
- daeken 13y ago
  Citation badly needed. There have been many studies on this and, as far as I'm aware, not one has shown such a link.
  - loceng 13y ago
    I have to head out now - this was nearest I could find at the moment - http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/43/6/1833 http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/43/6/1833 - if clicking "View Affiliations" you can see where study was done, who's involved, and could do more searches. The study's conclusion is 70% increased in certain cancers if used 1 year or longer, and 300% increase if 25 years or longer (cordless and cellphone) - though not many participants had used cell or cordless phones for 20-25 years.
    - smtddr 13y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6850697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6850697 I already tried this subject on HN and failed miserably. There are a few things in life that I kinda trust my gut-feeling more than science[1]. Or rather, in the same way there was a time where jewelry was made from radioactive material because science couldn't detect the danger yet; one day science may find that previously undetected thing that cellphones emit and the human body absorbs. I have no proof and this "logic"(fear) could be applied to anything. It's just a gut feeling I have. 1. This probably already qualifies me as insane & absurd by 98% of HN readers. I just don't think the science of humans can completely capture & comprehend the universe or even the human body. I think we're more than the sum of our parts, but don't ask me to prove it. I can't. :(
      - daeken 13y ago
        > one day science may find that previously undetected thing that cellphones emit and the human body absorbs. This makes no sense. While it's easy to argue that cell phones are safe because of non-ionizing radiation, that's now how science works. The reason we feel that cell phones are safe is that we have 25 years of evidence showing no statistically significant link between cell phone use and cancer. Even if there's a magical field that a cell phone produces that causes cancer (something we can't detect in any way), we'd still detect that cancer with a higher rate than in a population that doesn't use cell phones, or uses them with a lower frequency.
        loceng 13y ago
        But that is generally what these large studies are finding. Interphone study says no risks? The results are far from conclusive. http://interphone.iarc.fr/interphone_results.php http://interphone.iarc.fr/interphone_results.php http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835 - "CONCLUSIONS: Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation." This conclusion has sentences that contradict each other. E.g. Heavy long-term use has higher negative numbers, compared to the "normal use" that causes "no increased risk" ?!
        daeken 13y ago
        Have you read the paper? What that means is: no statistically significant links were found. But because of bias in the study, it's possible that we're wrong about the highest end of exposure, so this should be studied further. Claims that interphone found any statistically significant risk increase due to the use of cell phones is not backed up by the data in any way, shape, or form. (But this, of course, doesn't mean there is no risk, but that we haven't seen it. Future studies could find such a risk, as unlikely as that may be.)
    - daeken 13y ago
      So, I just read over the paper, and the biggest thing that stands out to me is: it's completely backwards, methodology-wise. They start from tumors, then work backwards to collect data about their mobile phone usage, and compare them to a control that is selected from a comparable population. I'm sorry, but that's not good science. Read over the "Materials and methods" section. It also has a remarkably low sample size (n=593). This is in contrast to the Interphone study (n=~14000), which found no statistically significant correlation between brain cancer and cell phone usage.
      - loceng 13y ago
        Seriously? This is how many studies are done, unless you can have a highly controlled environment say with breeded rat populations. And yup, wouldn't it be great to keep track of absolutely everyone - and then see how they progress? The problem is most of us are bombarded with a lot of pollution (not just electrical), which all will affect our body's ability to cope with dis-ease and sickness. I'm not sure where you're getting the sample size of 14,000 ... though different pieces of the study had upwards of 5,000 participants.
        daeken 13y ago
        This is indeed how many studies are done. It's also why many studies are 1) completely worthless, and 2) impossible to reproduce. This is simply not valid science. It's not blinded, it's not representative of the population at large (or these would've come out of a randomly selected population), and it's not properly controlled. It's junk science.
        loceng 13y ago
        So you believe it's completely useless and no value to take 1 common factor, and see what other common factors exist or vary from others who don't have that common factor?
        TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago

loceng 13y ago

Yes, I have seen this too. I'm sure they're not aware of or perhaps don't believe the studies showing that there's increased cancer around the area where heavy cellphone use it as. Sure, you can argue they're not using the phone - however phones more and more actively push and receive data.

daeken 13y ago
Citation badly needed. There have been many studies on this and, as far as I'm aware, not one has shown such a link.
- loceng 13y ago
  I have to head out now - this was nearest I could find at the moment - http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/43/6/1833 http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/43/6/1833 - if clicking "View Affiliations" you can see where study was done, who's involved, and could do more searches. The study's conclusion is 70% increased in certain cancers if used 1 year or longer, and 300% increase if 25 years or longer (cordless and cellphone) - though not many participants had used cell or cordless phones for 20-25 years.
  - smtddr 13y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6850697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6850697 I already tried this subject on HN and failed miserably. There are a few things in life that I kinda trust my gut-feeling more than science[1]. Or rather, in the same way there was a time where jewelry was made from radioactive material because science couldn't detect the danger yet; one day science may find that previously undetected thing that cellphones emit and the human body absorbs. I have no proof and this "logic"(fear) could be applied to anything. It's just a gut feeling I have. 1. This probably already qualifies me as insane & absurd by 98% of HN readers. I just don't think the science of humans can completely capture & comprehend the universe or even the human body. I think we're more than the sum of our parts, but don't ask me to prove it. I can't. :(
    - daeken 13y ago
      > one day science may find that previously undetected thing that cellphones emit and the human body absorbs. This makes no sense. While it's easy to argue that cell phones are safe because of non-ionizing radiation, that's now how science works. The reason we feel that cell phones are safe is that we have 25 years of evidence showing no statistically significant link between cell phone use and cancer. Even if there's a magical field that a cell phone produces that causes cancer (something we can't detect in any way), we'd still detect that cancer with a higher rate than in a population that doesn't use cell phones, or uses them with a lower frequency.
      - loceng 13y ago
        But that is generally what these large studies are finding. Interphone study says no risks? The results are far from conclusive. http://interphone.iarc.fr/interphone_results.php http://interphone.iarc.fr/interphone_results.php http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835 - "CONCLUSIONS: Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation." This conclusion has sentences that contradict each other. E.g. Heavy long-term use has higher negative numbers, compared to the "normal use" that causes "no increased risk" ?!
        daeken 13y ago
        Have you read the paper? What that means is: no statistically significant links were found. But because of bias in the study, it's possible that we're wrong about the highest end of exposure, so this should be studied further. Claims that interphone found any statistically significant risk increase due to the use of cell phones is not backed up by the data in any way, shape, or form. (But this, of course, doesn't mean there is no risk, but that we haven't seen it. Future studies could find such a risk, as unlikely as that may be.)
  - daeken 13y ago
    So, I just read over the paper, and the biggest thing that stands out to me is: it's completely backwards, methodology-wise. They start from tumors, then work backwards to collect data about their mobile phone usage, and compare them to a control that is selected from a comparable population. I'm sorry, but that's not good science. Read over the "Materials and methods" section. It also has a remarkably low sample size (n=593). This is in contrast to the Interphone study (n=~14000), which found no statistically significant correlation between brain cancer and cell phone usage.
    - loceng 13y ago
      Seriously? This is how many studies are done, unless you can have a highly controlled environment say with breeded rat populations. And yup, wouldn't it be great to keep track of absolutely everyone - and then see how they progress? The problem is most of us are bombarded with a lot of pollution (not just electrical), which all will affect our body's ability to cope with dis-ease and sickness. I'm not sure where you're getting the sample size of 14,000 ... though different pieces of the study had upwards of 5,000 participants.
      - daeken 13y ago
        This is indeed how many studies are done. It's also why many studies are 1) completely worthless, and 2) impossible to reproduce. This is simply not valid science. It's not blinded, it's not representative of the population at large (or these would've come out of a randomly selected population), and it's not properly controlled. It's junk science.
        loceng 13y ago
        So you believe it's completely useless and no value to take 1 common factor, and see what other common factors exist or vary from others who don't have that common factor?
        TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago