Maybe a giant ball is unlikely but a study of 24 men who carry their cell phones on their right side consistently found a lower bone mineral density in that leg.

http://www.sify.com/news/cell-phone-exposure-linked-to-bone-weakening-news-international-ldzmEgjccdj.html

Research does seem to be showing that the radiation is not powerful enough to damage organ tissue although electromagnetic fields are affecting things like blood cells and bones.

Well, the French government monitors for presence of imidacloprid in captured bees and honey and hasn't reported that the ban is being avoided, so the best answer is yes, the ban is holding.

Germany, Slovakia, and Italy have also banned imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids, so far without apparent reduction in CCD.

The problem is more complex than a single family of insecticides, and nobody is sweeping anything under the rug. This has had scientists puzzled for years. As is usual in any science, the answer is always more complicated than you want it to be.

I never said it wasn't.....just that one possible part of the cause was being underplayed possibly for friends in the pesticide industry.

But cancer rates are rising aren't they? It didn't used to be so common as something like 1/3 people experiencing it. Perhaps because it wasn't detected, but there is a fair indication that cases are on the up.
You mean you don't? Honestly, it's the only reason I still carry a phone. Check out the tennis balls ladies ;).

Last I heard about this is because other cases are on the down. We have developed medical treatments for so many other diseases in recent history, that the diseases we don't have treatments for have seen an increase.

I'm sure I read somewhere that there wasn't a statistically significant increase that coincides with the introduction of cell phones. Can't for the life of me remember where I saw it though. I'll post a link if I find it.

I wonder why my other post is low rated.....:\

I saw that study a while back and it's missing an absolutely critical control experiment- people carrying cell phones but having the phones always turned off. As it is the study completely fails to distinguish between whether the small loss in bone density is the result of cellphone activity or is purely a mechanical effect resulting from differences in posture as a result of carrying (or routinely reaching for) the phone. It's incredibly sloppy science to have left out such an obvious and critical control experiment.

As for the story the OP linked to, it sounds like the agency jumped onto public hysteria and issued an utterly meaningless classification. Basically you either have studies showing a statistically significant correlation between cell-phone use and some type of cancer, in which case you can say cellphone use is correlated with cancer, or you don't have any statistically significant correlation, in which case there's nothing linking cellphone use to cancer. Saying that cellphones may cause cancer in the absence of such a correlation is about as meaningful as saying that the invisible pink unicorns may cause cancer.

That's why i keep mine in the pocket, close to my.. oh..
Anyhow, they said the same about cigarettes, i didn't get my free cancer, i've cancelled my subscription. Can't even count on science these days.;)

Sounds like sufficient justification for further research to me. Even if we do conclusively determine close range electromagnetic fields are aligning minerals in our bodies, what are all the health implications? We are probably going to have to wait for scientists to stop barking up the cancer tree before we really start to see more substantial data, however.

It's conspiracy theory mixed with hysteric reporting of "Maybe X does Y!" and almost no correction when X is proved to not do Y statistically.

Oh, it's certainly justification for further research- proper, careful research that actually uses proper controls and doesn't just pander to the hysterics of the month. Something to be careful of is research that is pursued without any mechanistic hypothesis- initial correlative studies can be useful for putting us on the track of something, but that needs to be quickly followed by investigations into proposed mechanisms that would account for the observed correlation. If time passes and no such hypotheses are put forth or investigated then it can often mean that the initial report was more concerned with grabbing headlines than finding answers, or that the investigators are worried that further investigation into the initial correlation may show that there actually isn't much there of interest.

And despite concerns over effects of cellphones having been around for a while, I've come across very, very few scientifically sound hypotheses on just what mechanism could be responsible for the proposed effects. I must say that as a scientist it definitely makes me quite suspicious.

The radiation a modern cellphone emits is so minute that it is very unlikely of affecting soft tissue in any permanent way on it's own.

What is less explored, however, and potentially an actual problem, is the radiation suffered from the combined effects of all the electromagnetic waves we put into the air these days. To top it off there's no real way of establishing whether there is any effect - for one thing, nobody has been collecting data, and the widespread use of relatively high-powered wireless networks (at least compared to cellphones) have only been in use the past 10-15 years or so.

Orac has a problem with it too

The short version: He thinks its bollocks and is possibly corrupt since there's a single source for all the research and it happens to be from a guy who does witness work in lawsuits against phone companies