HHS Announces New Study of Cellphone Radiation and Health (usnews.com)
- Reference: 0180627536
- News link: https://mobile.slashdot.org/story/26/01/20/2215254/hhs-announces-new-study-of-cellphone-radiation-and-health
- Source link: https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2026-01-20/hhs-announces-new-study-of-cellphone-radiation-and-health
> U.S. health officials plan a new study [1]investigating whether radiation from cellphones may affect human health . A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said the research will examine electromagnetic radiation and possible gaps in current science. The initiative stems from numerous concerns raised by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has linked cellphone use to neurological damage and cancer.
>
> "The [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] removed webpages with old conclusions about cell phone radiation while HHS undertakes a study on electromagnetic radiation and health research to identify gaps in knowledge, including on new technologies, to ensure safety and efficacy," HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said. He added that the study was directed in a strategy report from the president's Make America Healthy Again Commission.
>
> Some webpages from the [2]FDA and the [3]U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say current research does not show clear harm from cellphone radiation. The National Cancer Institute, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, [4]says that "evidence to date suggests that cellphone use does not cause brain or other kinds of cancer in humans."
.
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2026-01-20/hhs-announces-new-study-of-cellphone-radiation-and-health
[2] https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/home-business-and-entertainment-products/cell-phones
[3] https://www.cdc.gov/radiation-health/data-research/facts-stats/cell-phones.html
[4] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet
Moron (Score:2)
Something caused his damage but it was nothing to do with a cellphone (at least based on the current numerous prior studies).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
14 years of heroin addiction [1]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/h... [pbs.org]
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/recounting-heroin-addiction-and-spiritual-awakening-rfk-jr-urges-focus-on-prevention-and-community
Re: Moron (Score:2)
That's certainly a start. I genuinely cannot think of any redeeming thing he has done.
Re: (Score:1)
It seems you and RFK Jr have something in common: you both need to get a basic education. The history of the world is full of brilliant heroin addicts.
Re: (Score:1)
You have to be a real piece of shit to make such a comment. Perhaps if you’ve ever seen someone you love suffer an opioid addiction you wouldn’t be so quick to judge the strength it takes to conquer one.
I get it, he has done lots of weird things, but who of us hasn’t. Which vaccines has he banned? Oh right, none. I’m a vaccine proponent and somehow you hard line hard left ideologists look like the idiots to me. He’s proposed perhaps not loading up extremely young children wi
Re: (Score:3)
Since you're a kool aid drinker, I'll leave you with RFK Jr's own words.
"I don't want to seem like I'm being evasive, but I don't think people should be taking medical advice from me."
[1]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/r... [cbsnews.com]
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-medical-advice-vaccine-question-hearing/
Re: (Score:2)
> Which vaccines has [RFK Jr.] banned? Oh right, none.
He may not have banned vaccines but he sure has taken lots and lots of steps against them. Below is the output from Google Gemini from the query "what steps has rfk jr taken against vaccines":
As Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has taken significant, unprecedented steps to alter federal vaccine policy and oversight in 2025 and early 2026, aiming to overhaul the U.S. vaccination system. His actions, under the banner of "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA), have included pers
i think we all know the answer to this one.... (Score:1)
as long as it allows someone to sell a lubricant made out of toxic waste in an unregulated market to people who are gullible enough to misinterpret marketing research, this is going to say whatever its paid to say
neurological damage and cancer (Score:2)
But he won't investigate those Zyn pouches he's always sucking on.
One thing is certain. (Score:2)
They definitely cause brain rot.
New studies to follow (Score:3)
1) Does having worms eat your brain actually increases your intelligence?
2) Is delicious, divine, undercooked pork worth the risk?
3) Is it a good idea to trust someone that had 'cognitive difficulties' from a totally preventable issue with maintaining the health of a nation?
4) Can you totally laugh at Republican Senator Cassidy for thinking Trump would not support a republican primary against him if he just voted for RFK jr?
Don't worry - only 11 more months to get protection against further stupidity and 3 more years left before we can get rid of the big problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Protection how?
The left has no chance to get enough seats to override vetoes, and Trump is doing everything he can with executive orders.
We already know re: Intrusive ads (Score:1)
> [Can we also study] what constant exposure to intrusive ... ads does to us?
We already know: Increased use of ad-blockers.
How cell phones cause cancer: mechanism (Score:1)
User unlocks cell phone and looks at his feed.
Feed tells him to eat something that will cause cancer, without saying it will cause cancer.
He eats it.
He gets cancer.
"Researcher" does a "controlled study." Pretty much the same results, with a few outlyers just to show it's a "real study" and not a "rigged one."
Logically, cell phones cause cancer and now we know why!
I have a copy of the results of the study (Score:2)
It causes cancer and neurological damage just as RFK jr said!
The study is complete (Score:2)
Virtually every US citizen has been exposed to said radiation for decades. We also don't need a study to prove that paving roads doesn't cause flat tires.
Invisible = Safe? (Score:1)
For most people what we don't see with our eyes presents less of a risk. It's true with airborne diseases as well as with cell phone radiation/Wi-Fi/EMFs. The fact that most studies are sponsored by the cell phone industry may have something to amplify this popular view.
Perhaps this video will help change some minds. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Like at 37:00 when they show an image of tumors exactly where a woman held her phone for hours at a time while talking; or at 32:35 where they talk about eviden
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCY
Uneccesary? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I am all for research in general, how is low-power non-ionizing supposed to cause any interesting problems? This just seems like anti-vax level paranoia nonsense.
Also - similar to vaccionations - we already should have a gazillion data-points about this, and surely any significant patterns would already have been identified.
Re:Uneccesary? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's going to keep on re-studying the data until it damn well provides him with the conclusion he wants to reach!
Re: (Score:3)
He's not, the war on facts is waged directly. No one in the administration would use a study at all.
Re: Uneccesary? (Score:3, Insightful)
to be fair that's exactly how science works. else you'd still sacrifice things to gods to make it rain. process, not "unquestionable truth".
Re: Uneccesary? (Score:3, Informative)
Good point - good science and use of resources would be for the HHS to announce a study to find out whether sacrificing things to gods makes it rain. After all, like you said, we'd never be here we didn't stop questioning literally everything over and over until the end of time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You decide want you want your conclusion to be and then you keep testing until you get results that support your conclusion?
Pretty sure that's pretty much exactly what the scientific method is not.
Re:Uneccesary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because we have an idiot running it, and wasting money.
Its a waste of time as well, as they wont believe the study until it proves their point.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that just like the "vaccine 'studies'" and the "global warming hoax" stance, this here "study" is no real research to find out some objective facts about the effects of exposure. This is a budget grant allocated to cronies to push a political agenda and create the illusion of work.
Since the money is limited, it would have better been spent on real shit, which would have helped real people suffering from real problems, but it won't.
Too bad, but perhaps fully deserved.
Re: (Score:2)
The frequency cell phones and wi-fi use keeps going up and that means the energy keeps going up as well. (Energy = Planck's constant × frequency).
Furthermore the higher the frequency the lower the penetration so that higher energy load is deposited in a shorter distance into you.
At some point there will be a problem but where exactly I don't know. It's worthwhile checking every decade or so.
Remember not long ago everyone thought that firefighting foam was too chemically inert to be a health problem an
Re: (Score:2)
The most that non-ionizing radiation can do is heat up the tissue it encounters. Now, that can in fact do something: for example, microwave ovens use non-ionizing radiation to wiggle the (dipolar) water molecules in your food to heat it up.
So, you need only be concerned when the power of the source is high enough to cause damage. The amount of power deposited by non-ionizing radiation in the tissue can be no more than the amount of power in the source. For cell phones, it's a fraction of a watt. It's no wor
Re: (Score:2)
This is the dumbest take, seriously.
Wifi does not have any negative impact on your body.
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side if it shows no link maybe we can get at least the maggots to stop talking to their phone on speaker in public