This raging nonsense has been soundly addressed at:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/03/cell_phones_and_cancer_real_or.php

including a great comment by Ben "Bad Science" Goldacre - http://www.badscience.net

Mine's the pack of Marlboro reds, please.

Have to agree with AC above - it's a bit like the Guardian's weekly sex therapist column which could be condensed each week into "The professional sex therapist recommends you go and see a professional sex therapist. Bring money."

1.8 - 19 GHz @ 1Watt are US frequencies for cell phones.

.8 - .9 GHZ @2W are frequencies elsewhere

2.45 GHz @800W is microwave frequency.

The US GSM frequency may not be the resonance frequency of the molecules that constitute the main part of human body but there may be some that are very excited at those frequencies.

Same story again, asbestos was OK ... but now it is said you cannot drill through a fibre cement roof sheet without damaging your health. <SARCASM> Apparently people have died in the past </S>, it took 20 years to figure out it was not safe to snort asbestos and an extra 10 to remove it from manufacturing processes. After being so safe for that many years the governments were keen on making mandatory to replace cylinder head gaskets.

I'd really like to see a study on the US cellphones heavy users.

Cell phone use doesn't lead to brain damage.

Brain damage leads to cell phone use.

Just going by the behaviour and overheard conversations of the average cell phone user.

Mines the one without the annoying sounds emanating from the pocket.

This, he says, involved a critical review of many existing medical resources and online information

So, he surfed the web for a long time, and decided cell phones were bad?

Bill Gates because he didn't write MS DOS either.

When discussing sexual therapy, it's a good idea not to describe yourself as sound like someone who sounds a lot like "Lord Veterinary".

Shoulda done it Jarvis-style instead:

"So.

Reading the sex therapist column.

In the Guardian.

Every week.

With MY reputation?

Ohhhh Ghhhhhod!"

hey, nothing wrong with tin hats of Aluminium variety ;p

I used to be normal(as much as any IT person can be), untill they threw up a mobile phone mast less than 300m from my front door.

Now i need tin foil 24/7, headache pills, sleeping pills, can't hold a job down, can't get 8 hours sleep at night, my life's a mess.(all thanks to the wonders of modern technology)

The danish study was a joke, much like the UK medical drug research studies, (where they excluded all those results where they killed off the test subjects and any subjects where they got results that they didn't like).

They excluded all those who had used phones longer than 3 years and all those that were corporate users(the heaviest users).

They also didn't chase-up what the stats on how many in the study group(all mobile phone users in denmark) had died of various cancers during the study period and during the previous 10 years.

Sounds much like the research results of the tobacco and asbestos companys before they were .

Pammy-C, (yummy mummy) i wish ;p

(i'd also wish she was 30 years younger as well)

illuminatus ;p

For anyone who is wondering what science is (and what it is not) and how the scientific process works, here's a nice link:

http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/symbols.html

Scroll down to the Science section.

It's been a while since I played with such things but I seem to remember that the frequencies chosen for GSM etc. were selected as being absorption bands for oxygen etc. as this limited the range of the cells and avoided interference between base stations.

Meanwhile microwave ovens are tuned for a water absorption band because they're intended to heat water & food.

While the human body is full of water, the quantity of gaseous oxygen etc. inside most peoples heads is probably minimal so the risk of efficient absorption of the tiny amount of energy from a mobile phone isn't exactly significant. And even 100% absorption wouldn't exactly do a lot!

Though those who promote the idea of huge risks from phones - especially on the back of some internet research and a few other peoples papers - are probably an exception, as I can imagine there's plenty of air in the appropriate place.

Mouarf. Read the POS. And he said he submitted it to a scientific journal? It's not even close to a correct draft (not to mention that because it's have been made available beforehand, there's no chance that it will be published. Ever.). The abstract is actually longer than the References section (and it's supposed to be a review!). Badly structured, no real argument but lots of "proofs by analogy" and authoritative sentences hammered again and again. I doubt this was actually written by anyone used to writing or reading scientific papers (or as a "bad example" case for teaching purpose). Someone is just trying to pass bullshit by shaping it the way they think a scientific review article looks like. Fail.

More scaremongering.

Next: Living may cause death!!!!

Mine's the asbestos-lined one with the tinfoil trim...

Hey if it culls the population of a few paris types... Can it really be so bad