Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Scientists link eye cancer to mobile phone use

By skim123 in MLP
Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 10:31:53 AM EST
Tags: Technology (all tags)
Technology

According to this BBC article a scientific study has shown a three-fold increase in eye cancer cases for people who regularly use mobile phones.


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT
What do you think of the link between cancer and mobile phone use... does it exist? I think it would be impossible to setup a true causal study, but how much correlational data is needed before people really start getting concerned about the safety of cell phones?

The article mentions that this study might help open the door to further lawsuits. What would be a kicker would be, say in 10 years, people claim harm from second-hand cell phone radiation and sue like crazy. :-)

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
How often do you use a cell phone
o Several times a day 10%
o Once a day 2%
o Once every couple of days 16%
o Once a week 6%
o Never / Extremely rarely 64%

Votes: 78
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o this BBC article
o Also by skim123


Display: Sort:
Scientists link eye cancer to mobile phone use | 32 comments (27 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
Eye cancer? (2.33 / 6) (#1)
by untrusted user on Sat Jan 13, 2001 at 09:12:05 PM EST

I've never even heard of eye cancer before. So do mobile phones increase the probability of eye cancer from one in three billion to one in two billion, or what?

Sure you have (4.66 / 6) (#2)
by fluffy grue on Sat Jan 13, 2001 at 09:30:48 PM EST

I'm sure you've heard of retinal cancer (and the retina is part of the eye), which does happen quite a bit (relatively speaking), especially in people who have had cataract surgery (or have otherwise had their corneas replaced) with an older technique. The tumors form for the same reason that the cataracts form - ultraviolet light; the cornea humans are born with typically does a lot to filter out UV, whereas older replacement corneas didn't. I believe that nowadays replacement corneas do filter out UV, though.

It's rather ignorant to assume that cancer doesn't happen just because you haven't heard of it. Until maybe 20 years ago, almost nobody had ever heard of breast cancer, probably simply because it wasn't considered "appropriate" for discussion ("Oh my god, they said 'breast'! On the television!"), and even recently, testicular cancer is pretty much unheard of even though it's quite common. I think it took Frank Zappa dying of it to finally bring it to the public's attention.

As far as why cancers of the eye wouldn't be mentioned, since when do people in general care about causes of blindness, barring external factors (accidents etc.)? Macular degeneration is rather common but, again, most people don't even know what it is. Considering that the eyes are probably the most important sensory organs to humans, people sure don't pay much attention to them...
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

For a good reason... (3.33 / 3) (#4)
by skim123 on Sat Jan 13, 2001 at 09:37:03 PM EST

Considering that the eyes are probably the most important sensory organs to humans, people sure don't pay much attention to them

Ironically, this low level of importance we give to our eyes is probably because we can't see them (well, without a mirror or fork).

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


[ Parent ]
this is actually pretty serious (1.60 / 5) (#5)
by xah on Sat Jan 13, 2001 at 09:44:43 PM EST

Eye cancer (link here) is not something you want to get. Treatment can involve removal of the eye. This study found a tripling in the incidence rate of eye cancer amongst cell phone users. That is quite significant. Imagine if that was a tripling of breast cancer, or lung cancer. Imagine all of the class action lawsuits.

The real significance of the study is that we may have conclusive proof, for the first time, that cell phones really are risky. Furthermore, if cell phones cause eye cancer, what else do they cause?

My questions to all the regular cell phone users would be: what are you thinking about this? Are you in denial? Are you going to keep using your cell phone?

[ Parent ]

ugh.. didn't realize this was a double post (none / 0) (#26)
by Sheepdot on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 11:22:46 AM EST

I thought k5 was getting fascist and voted this 5.. didn't see the double.

[ Parent ]
this is actually pretty serious (3.75 / 4) (#7)
by xah on Sat Jan 13, 2001 at 09:48:22 PM EST

Eye cancer (link here) is not something you want to get. Treatment can involve removal of the eye. This study found a tripling in the incidence rate of eye cancer amongst cell phone users. That is quite significant. Imagine if that was a tripling of breast cancer, or lung cancer. Imagine all of the class action lawsuits.

The real significance of the study is that we may have conclusive proof, for the first time, that cell phones really are risky. Furthermore, if cell phones cause eye cancer, what else do they cause?

My questions to all the regular cell phone users would be: what are you thinking about this? Are you in denial? Are you going to keep using your cell phone?

[ Parent ]

What I am about fed up with is: (4.66 / 9) (#6)
by elenchos on Sat Jan 13, 2001 at 09:45:04 PM EST

Traditional media (*Times) that can't be bothered to give a decent hperlink. If they can't do links, how about just a High School-level citation, like the name of the publication, the date, um, at least "Begins with a `J'..." Something that might give me a decent chance of following up their sources. Instead we get one name: Dr. Andreas Stang. If it were Rev. Ivan Stang I would know where to look, but Google doesn't give me much on this Andreas guy.

How are K5 authors ever going to learn to give references if our esteemed professional mentors cannot set the example?

Adequacy.org

I'm confused (3.50 / 4) (#8)
by jreilly on Sat Jan 13, 2001 at 09:55:33 PM EST

I don't claim to be particularly well-informed on the subject, but I thought that researchers had been studying the effect of cell-phones on brain tumors for years now, and found nothing conclusive. Now an out-of-the-blue study shows a tremendous effect on eye cancer? This seems fishy. Rather soon now, this study will be revealed to be flawed, or a counter-study will be started that shows no link between cell phones and eye cancer. At the very least, it seems implausible that cell phones would have such an effect on eyes and nearly none on brains.

Oooh, shiny...
Eye cancer - why (3.88 / 9) (#9)
by Signal 11 on Sat Jan 13, 2001 at 09:58:40 PM EST

Alright, some of you are wondering why eye cancer might be an issue. Two things - first, cell phones give off electromagnetic radiation. Whenever a magnetic field changes, any conductor it passes through will generate a voltage. Radio waves are high frequency (hence high energy) AC waves, which means they are constantly changing, inducing a voltage in nearby conductors.

Your brain and eyes are soft tissues that conduct electricity very well. As ohm's law will tell you, that means that the passage of that current generates heat, as well as voltages. Your eyes, ears, brain, and nerves are especially sensitive to electricity. They are also sensitive to heat, of course - if your brain or eyes heat up you can do damage to those tissues. However, a hundredth of a degree difference probably is not statistically significant. I say probably because I didn't go through the effort of finding a good report that runs the numbers. :)

Contact with even small voltages in either your eyes or ears can result in damage, including cataracts(sp?) for your eyes. This is where the "eye cancer" comes from - your eyes are just more acutely sensitive to small voltages, and the close proximity to the cell phone definately causes a voltage to be induced. If a significant amount of voltage passes through the eyes, ears, or brain, there is very little question that there will be adverse consequences, however!

There is no question that there is a correlation between cancer (of any type) and EM radiation, it's just a question of the amount of risk. To be honest, the data to date stongly suggests that there is no significant risk. The induced voltages are quite low, and due to the high frequencies of the EM radiation, the skin effect comes to mind - someone more knowledgeable in electricity please step up if I'm wrong, but I believe it starts at around 800MHz. So what I said above is the most plausible scenario, however the likelyhood of anyone ever developing eye cancer from cell phone usage is quite low - afterall, if it was at all a significant risk (like, say, on the scale of driving accidents) you'd know atleast a dozen people who had eye problems.

Cheers,


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.

Thank god this isn't Slashdot! (1.66 / 6) (#13)
by untrusted user on Sat Jan 13, 2001 at 10:48:25 PM EST

Otherwise, someone might be tempted to accuse you of Karma Whoring.

[ Parent ]
RE: Thank god this isn't Slashdot! (3.14 / 7) (#14)
by Signal 11 on Sat Jan 13, 2001 at 10:52:51 PM EST

Otherwise, someone might be tempted to accuse you of Karma Whoring.

That's right, we're more evolved - we have mojo whoring.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

ahh siggy, I just love your responses...... (2.50 / 4) (#22)
by Educated Escort on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 06:26:07 AM EST

Especially that one. Very good.

Hey listen, does this mean that the little earplugs we use in the cell can directly transmit the radiation straight to our brains? I read an article from England(that I am looking for) where they said the little ear pieces are far worse than using just the cell phone. IS this true?

Inquiring minds want to know! XOXOX

AM


"It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity"

Albert Einstein


[ Parent ]

ear plugs? (3.50 / 2) (#27)
by Signal 11 on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 12:37:11 PM EST

Hey listen, does this mean that the little earplugs we use in the cell can directly transmit the radiation straight to our brains?

It depends. It depends on if there is a filter in the earplug connector to block high frequency EM radiation, the orientation of the wires in relation to the cell phone, and the strength of the emission. Even if I had all those figures, your own physiology is different from everyone else's, so the best I could manage would be an aggregate statistic plotting the probability of a given radiation amount existing at a given location.

That aside, if you want my totally unscientific and utterly meaningless gut feeling - I wouldn't worry about it. As I said earlier, there's a correlation here, not a causation. People are afraid of radiation because they don't understand it. Most people aren't aware their homes contain a variety of EM radiating devices - computers, monitors, televisions - everything electronic. EM radiation is created by the magnetic field surrounding the earth, and from the sun in the form of infrared, ultraviolet, and visible-spectrum emissions. All of those are radiation.

Saying radiation is hazardous is like saying water is hazardous - drink enough of it and you will die, submerse yourself in it long enough, and again - you die. But there are no front page articles talking about the hidden dangers of water. Why? Everyone understands it, and more importantly - they can see and feel it.

Radiation exposure always, always, always needs to have three factors taken into account when determining risk - the frequency of the emmination, the distance from the source, and the power of the source. Without *atleast* those three, you can't even guess. Cell phones have radically different emission levels, many have frequency ranges they operate in, etc.




--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

The Electric Co even has to warn us about that.... (2.50 / 4) (#30)
by Educated Escort on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 06:44:48 PM EST

Most people aren't aware their homes contain a variety of EM radiating devices - computers, monitors, televisions - everything electronic.

I do realize that Siggy. Even the electric companies (good ole Southern CA Edison for me) has to send out pamplets warning their customers of this. It really is pretty scary. It says to not have the digital clock or lamp to near your head when you sleep.

I've even heard that cordless phones are bad for you (not cellular) is this true? AND we have the computer very close to our faces half the day! LOL

It reminds me of that sci fi short story Stephen King wrote where he believed all the electrical appliances were killing him. Anyone remember the name of that one?

Anne Marie


"It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity"

Albert Einstein


[ Parent ]

EMR (2.00 / 1) (#31)
by Signal 11 on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 08:26:09 PM EST

It says to not have the digital clock or lamp to near your head when you sleep.

Ooh, pulsed DC, heaven forbid! Or AC current! Nggggggh. I could puke, I really could.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

She's right, look: (none / 0) (#32)
by elenchos on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 09:31:28 PM EST

They do have a PDF brochure (scroll down to "Understanding EMF") saying that, sort of, on page 5:
    Human studies have not produced a consensus about any health benefits from changing the way people use electrical appliances. But, if you feel reducing your EMF exposure would be beneficial, you can increase your distance from electric appliances and/or limit the amount of time you use appliances at home or at work.

    For instance, you can place phone answering machines and electric clocks away from the head of your bed. Increasing your distance from these and other appliances such as televisions, computer monitors and microwave ovens can reduce your EMF exposure.

    You can also reduce your EMF exposure by limiting the time you spend using personal appliances such as hair dryers, electric razors, heating pads and electric blankets. You may also want to limit the time you spend using electric cooking appliances.

But then they waffle back:
    It is not known whether such actions will have any impact on your health.
It sounds like they are trying to cover their arses against lawsuits either way. `We never said EMF was a danger, in fact we don't think there is a danger. But on the other hand, stay away from your clock radio, to avoid the non-existent danger, if you think it exists, based on our useful advice that it either exists, or maybe it doesn't. Have a nice day.'

What cowards! Makes me sick too.

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

Re: (3.50 / 4) (#17)
by Dolgan on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 12:25:17 AM EST

While I disagree with your claim and its purpose, I would like to point something out about the concept of "karma whoring" on kuro5hin.

Note that, for many people (like the type of people who would "karma whore" on Slashdot), any sense of reward is a suitable goal.
Any. It's ego.

The advantages of gaining 5.00s on kuro5hin are:

  • For yourself: to know that you've impressed someone.
  • To gain trusted user status, and to see how long you can maintain it ("Wow, I have been trusted for three months now. I am such a cool mojo whore.")
  • For when people look at your user information page or their comments history, and see straight 4.50s and 5.00s. What a boost.
  • To feel special when you look at someone else's user information page, and see all 1.00s and 2.00s and note that they are, perhaps in some corner of the mojo whore's mind, inferior. At least when it comes to mojo whoring.
  • To prove to yourself and others that, while there may be no "Karma: 1000" line in your user information page, you can still whore for mojo!@

    I'm saying that if you don't want attention whores (the proper way to label them) and ego whores, then you need to have no system of rating or no way to be better than another in any way.

    Plenty of people mojo whore here on kuro5hin. The only way to prevent it is to strip away all ratings, make everyone's nickname identical and disallow signatures. That's not going to happen. Which means, of course, that attention whoring is always going to be around.

    Sucks, huh.

    [ Parent ]

  • Fame and fortune in science. (4.85 / 7) (#16)
    by claudius on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 12:11:43 AM EST

    ...how much correlational data is needed before people really start getting concerned about the safety of cell phones?

    In truth? Much, much more, and here's where the opportunity lies--the 60Hz radiation scare has provided a blueprint for how one can get rich in science. Listen carefully since there will be a quiz at the end:

    Start with a rare, yet frightening disease, such as childhood lukemia. Then perform a study where you assert an essentially negligible risk ratio--three will do. (The link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer has a risk ratio of around 30). The ratio needs to be small enough that most epidemiologists would consider it nigh near impossible to separate from all of the confounding factors, and a study exceedingly, prohibitively difficult to set up with a "double blind" test to eliminate sampler bias. This is where you gain competitive edge--you just need to be bold enough and sloppy enough to make the assertions and then, instead of rely upon peer review to validate your results, you call a press conference. Then you write a bookwith a provocative title like Currents of Death. (You can't use that exact title, however, since Paul Brodeur has already used it to make millions in the 60 Hz scare). Go onto Larry King Live, go onto the lecture circuit and pitch your book. Be sure to conjure up the doppleganger of children dying at the hand of evil, nasty, corporate greed whenever someone presses you hard for numbers. The key here is to maximize emotional impact, since that's what motivates people (and governments) to open their wallets. Get some allies in the scientific community who aren't averse to massaging their data to keep the controversy up. Fleece the public for $25 billion. (Incidentally, that's the estimated cost of researching the 60 Hz scare and eventually laying it to rest, according to the White House Science Office).

    Now here's the quiz: One question. Given that there is no honest way, with a rare disease, to validate a low risk ratio without a very extensive, costly study, should we invest the resources to conduct such a study? Even if true, we ignore such things as exercise, proper diet, and the risks of driving an automobile while using a cell phone, all of which are known to have a much bigger effect on our overall level of health than this.

    Well (3.50 / 2) (#21)
    by skim123 on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 02:58:50 AM EST

    Now here's the quiz: One question. Given that there is no honest way, with a rare disease, to validate a low risk ratio without a very extensive, costly study, should we invest the resources to conduct such a study? Even if true, we ignore such things as exercise, proper diet, and the risks of driving an automobile while using a cell phone, all of which are known to have a much bigger effect on our overall level of health than this.

    Should taxpayers pay for it? No. Should the cell phone companies pay for it? If they want to. If they pooled their money and did so, they could say, "Hey, no worries." If they didn't want to, fine. People would then have to make up their own minds on if they wanted to use cell phones or not. That's how it should be, IMHO.

    Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
    PT Barnum


    [ Parent ]
    Classic example (3.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Signal 11 on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 01:07:03 PM EST

    That is a classic example, and most EEs have heard of it by the time they graduate. I have no less than three books here at home that I picked up which contain mentions to Currents of Death as the one way *not* to approach a scientific inquiry. Good job on the writeup - +5


    --
    Society needs therapy. It's having
    trouble accepting itself.
    [ Parent ]
    I'm totally with you, except... (none / 0) (#33)
    by elenchos on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 09:43:08 PM EST

    ...for the part about that we "know" that cell phones are a significant risk when driving. I think they are a risk, but many in the cell phone industry (and their users) would make exactly the same argument you did about the insignificance of the risk, in comparison with real risks like driving drunk. Hence the need for a study, to measure the risk, and either lay it to rest, or warn of the danger. Hopefully for less than $25 billion.

    So it seems to just beg the question: How do I know if some suspected risk is worth doing a study on? By doing a study? Arrgh! Help!

    Adequacy.org
    [ Parent ]

    Study Methodology (4.40 / 5) (#18)
    by Wil Mahan on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 01:20:47 AM EST

    From the article:

    Dr Andreas Stang, who led the research, said he had examined 118 people with uveal melanoma and obtained details about their use of digital mobile phones. This was compared with a control group of 475 people without the disease.

    To prevent bias, the researchers were not told if the person they were examining suffered from cancer or was healthy. When the results were analysed they found the cancer victims had a much higher rate of mobile phone use, though Stang cautions that his study needs confirmation.


    As the writeup suggests, the study is apparently only correlational and thus is statistically meaningless with respect to causality. IMO such non-experimental studies are so flawed that they essentially add nothing to the debate about whether X causes Y, and they can be even be harmful by suggesting incorrect conclusions.

    Because the subjects were chosen after they developed cancer, there is no statistical way to determine the cause. More convincing would be an experiment in which certain subjects were randomly asked to use cell phones and then studied for side effects. But for now, the fact that cancer patients are more likely to be cell regular phone users could be due to the fact that, say, cell phone users are generally wealthier, and thus more likely to own computers, which are (hypothetically) the true source of the eye cancer. Or one of myriad other variables that might contribute to the cancer.

    Nor is it a question of "how much correlational data is needed" to establish causality. Hundreds of different studies might conclusively establish a "link" between cell phone use and cancer, but that wouldn't be any more convincing. Even assuming that correlation exists does not lead to the conclusion that there is causality.

    Of course it could be pointed out that, as the article says, cell phones have been shown to "temporarily alter the workings of the brain". Don't such findings provide an explanation for the correlation found in the study? Perhaps, but the study hasn't really strenghthened the evidence we had before. It leaves us with the same conclusion--we can surmise that cell phone use causes cancer, but there is no strong evidence.

    So I think that the news of a link between cell phone doesn't change the answer to the question of whether cell phone use causes cancer: we still don't know. It's important to point out that (AFAIK) there is not much evidence that it does not cause cancer either. Unfortunately, until we have more convicing data, our frightening ignorance about the effects of cell phone use (as well as many other common parts of our environment) will continue.



    Causality would be, uh, a human rights issue (3.50 / 2) (#20)
    by skim123 on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 02:56:08 AM EST

    As the writeup suggests, the study is apparently only correlational and thus is statistically meaningless with respect to causality

    The only way to prove causality would be to lock these people in contaminant free rooms with no carcinogens for their lives and give potentially harmful cell phone usage to the experimental group and see if they get cancer. Don't know who'd volunteer for that study! :-)

    Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
    PT Barnum


    [ Parent ]
    Not that difficult (4.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Wil Mahan on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 02:32:05 PM EST

    Well, to find convincing statistical evidence that something causes cancer, you don't really have to eliminate all other possible causes. You just need to ensure that the control group is exposed, on average, to the same level of carcinogens as the experimental group outside of cell phone usage, not that both groups are exposed to no other carcinogens.

    Such an experiment could be performed by randomly selecting which people would be cell phone users and which wouldn't. The idea would be that taking a (sufficiently large) random sample would lead to a mean level of exposure to carcinogens close to the mean level in the population. Thus the two groups could be ensured to have the same average exposure to carcinogens at an arbitrary confidence level, so that any subsequent difference between the two groups could only reasonably be attributed to cell phone use.

    I admit that such a study would probably be prohibitively difficult to perform, because participants would have to agree to either not use cell phones at all or to use them frequently, without knowing beforehand to which group they would be assigned. And of course no study can prove anything with absolute certainty, but such an experiment could make an assertion about whether cell phone use causes cancer at some arbitrary level of confidence, depending on the number of participants. So I think for now the obstacle to convincing evidence is one of practical, not theoretical, impossibility.



    [ Parent ]
    Joke (3.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Morn on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 08:47:38 AM EST

    I'm reminded of the joke:
    A man is sprinkling powder on his lawn in front of his house. A neighbour passes buy and asks, "What are you doing?". The man replies, "I'm sprinkling my anti-elephant powder on my lawn - I don't want any elehants here, they'd really mess up the garden". His neighbour becomes confused - "But you don't get elephants in this part of the world.". The man looks satisfied, "Yup - see how well it works!"


    [ Parent ]
    Meta: Possibly interesting scam (2.75 / 4) (#23)
    by Field Marshall Stack on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 06:32:01 AM EST

    (okay, it's a weak scam, but...)
    Say you've got a story you really want posted to the front page. Unfortunately, you don't think it's in and of itself interesting enough to get more than a sectional posting. What you do, you try to make it look as interesting as possible, then "accidentally" miscategorize it as MLP. People read the story, think it's pretty interesting, but realize it's miscategorized. To keep it from being consigned to the "MLP ghetto", they vote +1 FP on the story.

    I'm not saying this is what the author of this story actually intended (it is, after all, a fairly weak scam), but it's exactly why I voted +1 FP instead of +1 section. Perhaps if the author would resubmit the story in a more appropriate category, we could sink this version and post the corrected one to the appropriate section?
    --
    Ben Allen, hiway@speakeasy.org
    "Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense of humor"
    -Peter Tork

    Science and faith (4.00 / 1) (#25)
    by dj@ on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 11:02:12 AM EST

    If you wait until you're absolutely sure about something, it will be too late. I don't think enough attention is paid in science to the role of instinct and intuition. After all, people have to have a hypothesis in the first place before formulating an experiment, and everything after the hypothesis is only there to help validate or discredit by different degrees the original premise. The important part about science is why and about what we're experimenting in the first place. Nothing can be proven absolutely, and if you wait until you're absolutely sure, you will be dead by definition.

    Regardless of whether or not cell phones cause cancer, saying that we need "proof" first is silly. Due to the huge number of variables involved in something like cancer, it's very difficult to prove that something causes it, and even harder to prove that it was one thing instead of a number of things in combination. Even if something doesn't represent proof in a lab, the threshold in the real world might be exceeded when all of the negative or toxic forces come together in a real world setting. Inhaling gasoline at the pump may not cause cancer by itself, but in combination with pesticides, cell phones, poor nutrition, X-rays, drugs, alcohol, etc., it just might. At that point, whose reposibility is it?

    Scientists link eye cancer to mobile phone use | 32 comments (27 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!