Brains and mobile phones
BMJ 2006; 332 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7546.864 (Published 13 April 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;332:864
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Sir or Madam,
Life is not a risk-free occupation. Part of life is communicating with
others around you. When it is made illegal for a single adult to travel
in an automobile with unattended children in the back seat less than six
years of age, I will begin to have some sympathy for this idea that people
in the front seat should not talk to other people. A cranky three year old
in the back is far more distracting from driving than any conversation I
can remember with someone in the front seat. What is the difference
(hands-free, of course) with speaking with a living person in the front
seat and a telephonic communication?. Airline pilots talk to each other,
in flight, about golf, vacations, family, sportcars, and so on. People
listen to the radio, glance at maps, sip coffee. Driving is a multi-
tasking situation, and people will act in ways other than giving total
concentration of driving. Given all the medical problems to which we
should attend, I simply do not understand why there is such energy devoted
to the concept that speaking on a telephone should demand more legislation
to limit our actities of daily living.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir,
If the suggestion is to ban even 'handfree' mobile phones whilst
driving - should drivers' conversation, discussion & argument also be
banned with passengers?
What about in-car listening to music, current affairs, etc?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir,
Since I would imagine the lending of mobile phones to be unusual, I wonder
if the authors have overlooked a glaring objective measure of telephone
exposure. Cellular phone companies can give very accurate accounts of time
used. Even considering other factors such as hands-free equipment, why was
this not analysed? Doubtless the companies would have been keen to assist
if, as seems likely, their product would have been given the all clear.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Thanks for clarifying article and thanks for good quality and quantity of information
in your time saving article.
I think this is a true need to reduce the pandemic concern about the use of mobile
phones. These concerns about the harms of mobile phones to children and all others
have induced lots of stress in general population.
However, their harm is not countable due to all harms we receive everyday from
different kinds of pollutions and heavy metal poisoning, around us and so close to us.
In fact, as you said, mobile phones have helped to save lives not only by reporting
accidents but also by calling physicians in emergencies.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Where were the media?
The media, of course, took little notice of a paper that failed to
find evidence of a health risk of mobile phones. The Daily Mail is
especially fond of health scare stories, but searching their website on
"mobile phones" and "cancer" turned up no new stories, just the old ones,
mostly suggesting the phones are a risk to health. I note that e-letters
to Hepworth and co-workers' study point out that the mobile phone industry
helped fund the study. What does anyone expect? To me, it was implausible
that mobile phones could cause brain tumours, as it was that power lines
could cause cancer. For anyone other than the phone companies to fund such
studies would seem to me a waste of money. We spend inordinate amounts on
research into risks of little account, while ignoring things that
undoubtedly harm our health. This makes it not just a shame, but a
dereliction of duty, that the media ignore evidence when it fails to make
a good first page splash.
Yesterday, I passed a van driver who was holding a cigarette in one
hand while he spoke into a mobile phone in the other. The risks of the
real world make it irrelevant that mobile phones do not cause gliomas.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests