Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / UK Group / October 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Mobile phones can trigger eye damage, fear scientists By Peter Zimonjic

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
blair lied - 30 Oct 2005 12:06 GMT
Mobile phones can trigger eye damage, fear scientists By Peter Zimonjic
(Filed: 07/08/2005)

Prolonged use of mobile phones can lead to permanent eye damage including
cataracts, scientists believe.

Medical researchers have found that microwave radiation of the type
emitted by mobile phones causes eye tissue to "bubble" - a precursor to
the formation of cataracts - and can also interfere with the ability to
focus. An eye test The risk of permanent eye damage from mobile phone use
has been revealed by radiation tests on calves' eyes

Professor Levi Schächter, who led the Israeli team which conducted the
study, warned: "Our results show that microwaves can cause irreparable
damage. Our advice to people with mobile phones is not to use them if they
have the option of using a land line until we can conduct more research."

The new findings will reignite the debate into the safety of mobile
phones, after warnings from a Government minister earlier this year that
parents should be "very careful" about how much time children spend
talking on their handsets. More than 50 million mobiles are in use in
Britain.

The new study, conducted by the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine at the
Israel Institute of Technology, in Haifa, found clear risk to eyesight.

Scientists exposed lenses taken from male calves - whose eyes, until they
are two years old, have close similarities to humans' - to mild heat,
comparable to the raised temperature caused by extended mobile phone use,
and to microwave radiation no greater than emissions from mobile phones.
After two weeks the lenses, kept in a culture medium, were compared with
others which had not been similarly exposed, to identify biological
changes.

Prof Schächter's team found that the exposed lenses were less able to
focus clearly on a beam of light, which would cause an eye to record a
blurred image - but found that over time, when exposure stopped, the
damage healed. However the exposure also caused bubbles to form within the
tissue of the lens, which did not disappear over time - an indication of
development of cataracts, or permanent eye damage.

Prof Schächter said: "There has been much research to determine whether
mobile phones cause cancer or brain damage, but until now very little on
their effects on vision."

Shortly after the study was published in the Journal of
Bioelectromagnetics the authors were invited to present their findings to
the Israeli parliamentary health committee. The country's health advisory
body subsequently urged the Israeli government to fund more such studies.

Last year a major review by the International Commission for Non-Ionising
Radiation of all published research concluded that there was "no
consistent or convincing evidence of a causal relation" between mobile
phone use and any adverse health effects.

However, the new findings have provoked consternation in Britain. Dr
Michael Clark, a spokesman for the Health Protection Agency, said British
researchers should broaden the range of possible dangers being
investigated.

"This is a good piece of work that is properly published and we are
looking at it carefully," he said. "If future research delivers the same
or similar results then public health practices may need to be
re-examined."
cool_and_funky@yahoo.com - 30 Oct 2005 13:00 GMT
A little alarmist fella.

The study (Localized effects of microwave radiation on the intact eye
lens in culture conditions, A. Dovrat et al., Bioelectromagnetics
26:398-405, 2005) it references is based on in vitro data (which is
dodgy anyway and never correlates well to in vivo), and exposes the
lenses to radiation for 36 hours none-stop, and does mention that
recovery occurs if there's a break in the radiation (who would ever
talk on a mobile phone for 36 hours without a break? Is there a phone
thats battery would last that long? Where did the cows get these
phones?).

The research bears proper investigation, but this study alone does not
prove anything; the weight of scientific evidence indicates that there
is no evidence to support harmful effects from mobiles, either directly
or epidemiologically.

Interesting to look at though, while I can still see through my mobile
phone exposed eyes.
blair lied - 30 Oct 2005 16:42 GMT
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 04:00:24 -0800, cool_and_funky wrote:

> A little alarmist fella.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> The research bears proper investigation, but this study alone does not
> prove anything;

No perhaps that one does not.

> the weight of scientific evidence indicates that there is
> no evidence to support harmful effects from mobiles, either directly or
> epidemiologically.

Rubbish.

> Interesting to look at though, while I can still see through my mobile
> phone exposed eyes.
blair lied - 30 Oct 2005 19:53 GMT
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 04:00:24 -0800, cool_and_funky wrote:

> A little alarmist fella.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> no evidence to support harmful effects from mobiles, either directly or
> epidemiologically.

let me make it more clear, a single well designed positive finding study
may overturn any number of negative studies. So called "weight of
scientific evidence" is illusory unless you are adding apples to apples
and as far as most research goes you are adding apples and oranges because
even so called replication studies in this field are rarely so.

> Interesting to look at though, while I can still see through my mobile
> phone exposed eyes.
hairydog@despammed.com - 30 Oct 2005 20:36 GMT
>let me make it more clear, a single well designed positive finding study
>may overturn any number of negative studies.

Er, no. A single well-designed and well-conducted test might overturn
positive ones just as easily.

In this case, we are hearing second-hand about a very dubious
experiment that has not yet been properly peer reviewed or replicated.

If it were the case, where is the statistical data of all thee
cataracts?

If these results bear scientific scrutiny, we may have to say goodbye
to broadcast TV.

Signature

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

cool_and_funky@yahoo.com - 30 Oct 2005 23:20 GMT
>Rubbish

Trying to open an intellectual discourse there. Should've known better
on the newsgroups, but I'll try nonetheless.

>let me make it more clear, a single well designed positive finding study
>may overturn any number of negative studies.

No, in the real world it would need to be replicated several times by
several independant laboratories before it was even taken seriously by
the scientific community at large. Especially an in vitro experiment
such as this one. Cultured anythings (lenses included) are unreliable
at best, you should know that.

>So called "weight of
>scientific evidence" is illusory unless you are adding apples to apples
>and as far as most research goes you are adding apples and oranges >because
>even so called replication studies in this field are rarely so.

Weight of scientific evidence is just how things are done. If something
is true, then the weight of evidence will tend to turn in it's
direction, albeit slowly at times. A single positive study proves
absolutely nothing other than a possibility.

I read the original paper (its online via Wiley interscience) and it's
a different species and ex vivo, so I wouldn't be anywhere near
convinced let alone worried just now.

And I really don't get the apples and oranges analogy fella.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.