●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
180627536
story
Posted
by
BeauHD
ary 20, 2026 @07:02PM
from the tin-foil-hat dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from U.S. News & World Report: U.S. health officials plan a new study 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 FDA and the 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, says that "evidence to date suggests that cellphone use does not cause brain or other kinds of cancer in humans.".
You may like to read:
UK Mulls Australia-Like Social Media Ban For Users Under 16
Developer Rescues Stadia Bluetooth Tool That Google Killed
Post
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
| Reply
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byschweini ( 607711 ) writes:
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.
Reply to This
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
byJeremi ( 14640 ) writes:
He's going to keep on re-studying the data until it damn well provides him with the conclusion he wants to reach!
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
bydfghjk ( 711126 ) writes:
He's not, the war on facts is waged directly. No one in the administration would use a study at all.
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
bySirSlud ( 67381 ) writes:
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.
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
byBoogieChile ( 517082 ) writes:
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.
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
byBoogieChile ( 517082 ) writes:
The Pseudo and junk branches spring immediately to mind.
●ent threshold.
● threshold.
byjhoegl ( 638955 ) writes:
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.
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
byMr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) writes:
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.
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
● threshold.
byMspangler ( 770054 ) writes:
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
byClickOnThis ( 137803 ) writes:
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 worse than shining a penlight against the side of your head.
My guess is that any new studies funded by HHS will find what the old studies have found: there is no risk from exposure to cell-phone EM radiation. Whether that's the story that will be made public ... we'll see.
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
byAnonymous Coward writes:
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.
Yes. And chronically heated up tissue can tend towards inflammation. Which seems to be a precursor to many cases of cancer. My take here is also that the main question is where the threshold is.
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 worse than shining a penlight against the side of your head.
The problem I see is that Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) figures and limits are specified for single devices under fairly ideal conditions. Under non-ideal real world conditions, e.g. inside heavy concrete walls, in basements, or being surrounded e.g. in a car or a building with metal siding (shipping container tiny
●ent threshold.
bymagamiako1 ( 1026318 ) writes:
This is the dumbest take, seriously.
Wifi does not have any negative impact on your body.
●nt threshold.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
While I am all for research in general, how is low-power non-ionizing supposed to cause any interesting problems?
The same mechanism by which Tylenol causes autism.
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
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
byusedtobestine ( 7476084 ) writes:
Good luck with that.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Oh no doubt, but one obvious solution would be to put out some allegedly right-wing-source propaganda saying that speakerphone is for soyboys and cucks and nobody else is dumb enough to believe that cellphones are bad for your big beautiful uh-brain
bychas.williams ( 6256556 ) writes:
Could they also study how a tiny sticker placed on the back of my cellphone can protect me from this dangerful radiations?
bytlhIngan ( 30335 ) writes:
Well let's not be too hasty. If they anti-vaxxers want to remove cellphones and wifi from their homes, I think we should be all for it. It's a lot harder to spread your misinformation when you're chained to a computer you know. And recording vertical videos to appeal to the TikTok crowd is oh so much harder.
Let them have their study and let them voluntarily remove cellphones and other modern tech conveniences from their lives. Heck, maybe because of it the enshittification of the world will slow down becaus
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
Well, it could solve the annoying problem of people insisting it's true.
●nt threshold.
byliqu1d ( 4349325 ) writes:
Something caused his damage but it was nothing to do with a cellphone (at least based on the current numerous prior studies).
Reply to This
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
byArchieBunker ( 132337 ) writes:
14 years of heroin addiction https://www.pbs.org/newshour/h... [pbs.org]
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
byliqu1d ( 4349325 ) writes:
That's certainly a start. I genuinely cannot think of any redeeming thing he has done.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
It was a cocaine habit, which Watson criticized. Doyle was a trained doctor, and at that time cocaine was used as an anesthetic.
●rrent threshold.
byArchieBunker ( 132337 ) writes:
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."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/r... [cbsnews.com]
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
byClickOnThis ( 137803 ) writes:
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 personnel changes, regulatory actions, and funding cuts, according to numerous reports and official HHS announcements.
Key steps Kennedy has taken against established vaccine policies include:
●- Replacing the Vaccine Advisory Panel: In June 2025, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which advises on vaccine recommendations. He replaced them with critics of current vaccine policies.
● - Restructuring Vaccine Recommendations: His new, hand-picked panel immediately moved to change guidelines, such as recommending against the combined MMRV vaccine for children under 4 and proposing, then delaying, changes to the routine infant Hepatitis B vaccine schedule.
● - Cutting COVID-19 Vaccine Recommendations: In May 2025, Kennedy announced that the CDC would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women.
● - Restricting Access to Vaccines: Following his appointment, the FDA updated its guidance in August 2025 to limit updated COVID-19 shots to only those 65 and older or those with underlying conditions.
● - Halting mRNA Research Funding: Kennedy cancelled $500 million in federal contracts for developing mRNA vaccines, claiming they "fail to protect effectively" against respiratory infections, a move that impacted projects by Pfizer and Moderna.
● - Revisiting Vaccine-Autism Link: Kennedy directed the CDC to alter its website to remove the statement that vaccines do not cause autism and has promoted investigating the debunked link between vaccines and autism.
● - Proposing New Testing Standards: Kennedy has pushed for requiring new vaccines to be tested against a placebo rather than existing vaccines, a move experts say could make it harder to bring new vaccines to market.
● - Shaking Up Vaccine Safety Programs: He has initiated a review of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and, in January 2026, removed members of the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccinations to revamp it.
● - Reducing Vaccine Mandate Pressure: In August 2025, Kennedy repealed a rule that tied federal funding for hospitals to their reporting of staff COVID-19 vaccination rates.
● - Changing Childhood Vaccine Schedule: In January 2026, the CDC (under Kennedy's guidance) reduced the number of diseases covered by routine childhood vaccinations from 17 to 11, moving others to "shared clinical decision-making".
While Kennedy has stated he is not looking to "take vaccines away," his actions have been described by public health experts as an "assault on vaccine access" and a significant, ideologically driven, and scientifically unsubstantiated overhaul of the U.S. public health infrastructure.
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
byTim the Gecko ( 745081 ) writes:
I get it, he has done lots of weird things, but who of us hasn’t.
If we're using RFKjr as a comparison, then I haven't done lots of weird things.
Federated Union Of Bear Cub Carcass Dumpers Endorses RFK Jr. [theonion.com]
●current threshold.
byKwirl ( 877607 ) writes:
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
byArchieBunker ( 132337 ) writes:
But he won't investigate those Zyn pouches he's always sucking on.
bydevslash0 ( 4203435 ) writes:
They definitely cause brain rot.
Reply to This
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
bygurps_npc ( 621217 ) writes:
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.
Reply to This
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
byHoli ( 250190 ) writes:
Protection how?
The left has no chance to get enough seats to override vetoes, and Trump is doing everything he can with executive orders.
bygurps_npc ( 621217 ) writes:
The majority of Trump stupidity s caused by him totally ignoring the Constitution and then ordering the Republicans to vote in the things he wants.
Tariffs? That's a congress thing, not a presidential one. He can't create them, Congress has to.
Appointing Supreme Court Judges requires Senate approval. In fact almost every appointment requires Senate approval.
Getting rid of departments and cutting budgets? All Congress.
If you do not think the Wannabe King is not going to do something stupid like appoint hi
bykwelch007 ( 197081 ) writes:
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?
Trump encouraged people to vote for RFK Jr. in states that were safely Red. There could be any number of other reasons for Trump to support a primary challenge. Facts matter.
bygurps_npc ( 621217 ) writes:
In the process of confirming RFK, Trump specifically promised Cassidy that he would not support a primary challenge if Cassidy voted in favor of RFK. Trump has since reneged on that promise.
bydavidwr ( 791652 ) writes:
[Can we also study] what constant exposure to intrusive ... ads does to us?
We already know: Increased use of ad-blockers.
●urrent threshold.
bydavidwr ( 791652 ) writes:
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!
byolddoc ( 152678 ) writes:
It causes cancer and neurological damage just as RFK jr said!
Reply to This
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
byZero__Kelvin ( 151819 ) writes:
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.
byeasyTree ( 1042254 ) writes:
Incoming shill attack in 3, 2, 1...
bygreytree ( 7124971 ) writes:
Studies have identified a link between Robert Kennedy and pointless studies.
byunami ( 1042872 ) writes:
regarding the current political climate in the U.S., I would not trust ant "scientific" output that comes at the behest of the gang of idiots at the top.
Reply to This
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
bycosmicl ( 1034776 ) writes:
has been delayed? But once available, the RFK Jr-lead test on that model and its user population? Now that's a study!
bywhitroth ( 9367 ) writes:
The worm in RFK, Jr's brain is complaining that it's cell signals are being disrupted.
byKerry Boehm ( 4570163 ) writes:
I'd hope we would have recognized some patterns over the last 30 years if this were a problem.
●current threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
●
284 commentsTrump Organization Announces Mobile Plan, $499 Smartphone
●
211 commentsFree 'T-Mobile Starlink' for Six Months Announced During Super Bowl. Also Available to Verizon and AT&T Customers
●
163 commentsGavin Newsom Is Reportedly Sending Burner Phones To Tech CEOs
●
155 commentsNew Design Trend: People Downgrading 'Smart' Homes to Analog 'Dumb' Homes, Some with Landlines and Offline Appliances
●
153 commentsTaliban Leader Bans Wi-Fi In an Afghan Province To 'Prevent Immorality'
Developer Rescues Stadia Bluetooth Tool That Google Killed
UK Mulls Australia-Like Social Media Ban For Users Under 16
Slashdot Top Deals
Slashdot
●
●
ofloaded
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Developer Rescues Stadia Bluetooth Tool That Google Killed
8comments
UK Mulls Australia-Like Social Media Ban For Users Under 16
25comments
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...