Isn't this old news? Seriously, I thought this crap was ruled out.

If you actually read it, they're not saying cell phones are carcinogenic. They're just saying that there's not enough evidence to be certain. "Possibly" is not being used for flavor in this instance. Possibly is distinct from definitely. Or even likely.

It was ruled unknown......with proof for either side not making a strong enough case to make an official declaration via gov't/etc insitutions.

They are basically saying they MIGHT be carcinogenic. Maybe. Not enough info to be sure.

Personally I'm not convinced. Cellphone radiation is non-ionizing and the 'microwave' effect seems trivial considering the power levels we're talking about, but who knows? That's why they are doing more studies.

What this post says (didn't find a link to the research paper, no idea what that says) is that despite having no evidence for or against cancer caused by use of cellular (or mobile) phones, since the wavelength used by them is known (known or supposed?) to cause cancer, the official classification of it is 2B, aka Possibly Carcinogenic.

Not sure if you mean by your post that it is known that phones cause cancer, or that phones do not cause cancer, but what is new in this post is the official classification.

[url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-30/world/bee.decline.mobile.phones_1_bee-populations-cell-phone-radiation-ofcom?_s=PM:WORLD]Study links bee decline to cell phones[/url]

This was always an interesting one. I like the theory behind it, but would like to see more followup.


Then the followup for when/if bees evolve around it.

Actually, some pesticide was officially foudn to be causing the decline of the bee population.....the companies making that particular chemical seem to be doing their best to keep that info hush hush though.

There are all sorts of reasons for "colony collapse disorder". The combination of pesticides and moving around (many beekeepers travel, since you can't bring the trees to the bees) is especially deadly.

The pesticide you mentioned is "imidacloprid" (Bayer, sold under many trade names), which is especially toxic to bees. France banned it (as well as related insecticides) over the hypothesized link to CCD; however, the ban (which has been in effect for more than 10 years) has not reduced the incidence of CCD. Inversely, Australia (which has not banned imidacloprid) has no serious CCD problem (and is a major exporter of bees). So the evidence has not been swept under the rug, but is equivocal at best.

Semantics. So basically, not much has changed since the 80's when the issue was raised in the first place.

Oh god damnit, Australia.

If cellphones are carcinogenic and I keep my phone in my front pocket, why don't I have giant balls that I can bounce all the way to the medicinal mary jane shop?

Wait, coffee?

I thought the coffee-cancer link turned out to be false 15 or 20 years ago and coffee was actually one of million half-decent-okay-kinda-mediocre-really ways to reduce the chance of cancer?

Anyway, I'd call BS on the cell phone issue. And the cell phone-bee issue.

Given how long cell phones have been out, and just how frequently they're used by SO many people - wouldn't one expect to see an increase in cancer rates linked to the increase in usage? As I understand this is not the case and that's reasonably compelling evidence to suggest that they don't cause cancer, no?

And how many farmers actually obey the bans? Do we have proof they're all doing so?