Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phone Companies To Release Radiation Data
digitalfrustration writes: "The U.S. cellular telephone industry will start publishing information on the amount of radiation that enters users' heads when they use various wireless phones." Story by CNN. By the way, on the off-chance that the data says the equivalent of 'For The Love Of God, Stop Using This Device, We're Surprised You're Not Dead Yet,' does anyone think that people would stop using them?
Oh yeah, science-boy. Have you ever read the transcripts of the tobacco liti cases? If you had, you'd know that the evidence on those eeeeevvvilllll cigarettes causing cancer is much less strong than you think. Let me put it this way:
- The one, genuinely, actually proven cause of cancer, is stress
- The one genuine, foolproof cure for stress, is nicotine.
- Therefore, one would expect to see a correlation (not causation!) between cigarette smoking and cancer. People who have stress get cancer, and people who have stress tend to smoke.
Everybody knows that "statistical" studies can only show correlation, not causation. The correlation here is bogus; you might as well argue that wearing big pants gives you a fat ass.If you read the transcripts (including the sidebars and expert witnesses), you'll see that this is actually the state of scientific opinion. The fact is, however, that if the real cause of cancer (stress) were to be recognised, then all the big capitalist industries which work their employees to within an inch of their life would be in the firing line. Instead, capital decided to throw the (largely agricultural, poor) tobacco growers to the wolves.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Do you have Vibe turned on your phone when it rings (mine does by default), the EMF from the Vibe motor is more likely the cause of the shaking than the phone radiation...
Have you ever been here before?
:P
I have been reading this page for about 2-3 months, although I just created this account a few days ago. Still, the idea is that people can discuss news and post their opinions and share them, not that the most common opinion be repeated and glorified while legitimate arguments to the contrary are censored. It doesn't happen that way all the time, but I'm idealistic enough to think that it can work.
Umm, I think the insults were based on the fact that your opinions were stupid, and you spelled things wrongly. Of course thats just speculation on my part.
Stupid is in the eye of beholder. Nothing can objectively be stupid, although maybe your definition of stupid means "something that contradicts your opinion." And a post shouldnt be marked down because I'm not the best speller. Even the writers here cant spell. Negative moderation is for spam, offtopic posts, or obscene posts, not posts you disagree with.
Hmm, thats rather a strong statement to make, Since you know so much about us all, whats my real name? Which country do I live in? What did I do last Friday?
It was an insult in response to an insult against me. I know that it is just as illogical and rude as saying someones opinion is stupid because you disagree with it and then providing no means to support yourself.
So what if you feel that? Others might disagree with you. Have you taken a driving test, or did you just decide that you know how to drive well enough?
Uh yes I took a test, thats how I got my license, smart guy! I'm not saying that I am the best driver, but I did get near perfect on the driving test, all my friends and my brother and sister and my parents say I'm one of the safest drivers they know, and unlike all of my friends I haven't been in any accidents, even minor ones. Of course I had my license for only a year or so, but for now I am a good driver and that is what counts.
Tell that to someone you crash into.
I haven't had one, and I don't plan on getting in one
Well yes, the media *always* has a field day. never let the facts get in the way of a circulation-boosting story
a couple of groups of "concerned citizens" will call for a ban
Sounds good - not for health reasons, but because they are *irritating* in cinemas, churches, anywhere really....
What I would *like* to see happen is that phone companies are forced to give free "hands free" sets with their phones; they aren't that expensive, and the number of idiots that currently would be driving at ($SPEEDLIMIT+5) with one hand attached to an ear and a piece of plastic might reduce (well, I *suppose* they are reducing now, but autodarwination doesn't really count)
and mobile phone companies will have a new number to differentiate their products with.
Saves them making something up. in any case, we will end up with some figure that is meaningless but has a very low value (like Peak Music Power but in reverse)
The funniest thing will be seeing whether lower radiation phones give poorer reception.
They will probably work around it - whenever there is a technical constraint, engineers find a way to make it work anyhow.
In a few years the media will have a new bogie man and no-one will care less.
Well, the "quality sunday broadsheets" will probably drag it back out every few years when things are slow, with a "still nothing has been done about it" piece.
--
-=DaveHowe=-
Until they do finite element simulations down to a much finer level as they have done up till now how can anyone say with total confidence that hot spot's intense enough to cause physical effects do not form? (for instance in regions the size of a cell, or the size of a gene...) SAR is nice and all, but what I care about is the distribution of the energy inside the brain not the amount.
Hey, you know, maybe you're right. I've been thinking for a while Slashdot needs a new moderation category. "-1: Stupid"...
From article in Nokia's paper:
ObMandyRiceDavies:-
They would say that, wouldn't they...
"Information wants to be paid"
I was thinking like that as well before my employer provided me with a cell phone and I got used to using it. The point is that a cell phone provides you more freedom: you can be easily reached by phone, but you can also screen what calls (caller id) to take and when to take them.
You see, if you don't want to be disturbed, switch the damn thing to silent mode or off. When you feel like it, switch the phone back to normal mode again.
Then of course there are all these young dumbass punks who have them because they think it is "cool" and who think they're impressing people when they're talking on them.
This phase is fortunately already over in Europe where it looks like everybody from kids to grandparents have cell phones. Claiming that people try to impress other people by carrying a cell phone is rather ridiculous in this situation. It's almost like saying that people who own a PC are just trying to impress their friends.
Malda, Bates et al. really ought to do more to try to encourage useful, polite discourse. A simple profanity filter would probably be easy to circumvent, but it would send a message.
--streetlawyer
-- the most controversial site on the Web
To date there is no evidence that cell phones have any serious adverse health effects (beyond being distracting while driving). There have been studies, most recently by Hardell et al this spring, which have shown a trend towards an increased risk, in that case of brain tumor, but the study had some weaknesses which would have made that fairly weak evidence, even had it been statistically significant.
The case which is often made by anti-cell-phone debaters is that "the industry" should somehow be responsible for "proving" that cell phones are "safe". Anyone who's worked with statistics or epidemiology knows that that's not what statistics do. The studies done so far haven't shown any statistically significant increased health risks, so in the statistical sense of the word, they've helped "prove" cell-phones are "safe".
The technically inclined know that the proposed biological ground for the danger of cell phones is shaky at best. RF "radiation", aka microwaves, is not ionizing, and so won't cause cancer by the mechanism that, for example, X-rays and atom bombs will. Cell phones do output a few watts of energy through the antenna, and some of this will be absorbed by the person holding the phone, causing their scalp to warm up one or two degrees. That regional temperature differences in the scalp or even brain could cause cancer is a claim that has yet gone unproved.
Some good reading for those of you genuinely curious about the phones, radiation, and power lines:
Linet et al, Residential Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Children; NEJM 1997, 337.1
Hardell et al, Case control study...risk factors for brain tumour; Medscape Gen Med, May 4, 2000. http://www.medscape.com/Medscape/GeneralMedicine/j ournal/2000/v02.n03/mgm0504.hard/mgm0504 .hard.html requires login
Hardell et al, Use of cellular phones and the risk of brain tumours, a case-control study; Int J Oncol, 1999. Jul 15.
But go ahead and check out PubMed for more articles, there's been quite a lot of research done.
I'd like to believe that when the right woman comes along I'll have the courage to say, "no thanks, I'm married."
Care to explain how exactly I am stupid using evidence? Oh, is it just because I disagree with you? I see :P
Moderate this post -1: Arrogant Chauvinist Pig
i also work for a power company, and one of the field technicians who measures radiation emitted from power lines/power plants, said he was at his kids school play, and while he was there in the school auditorium he wipped out his meter and what did he find? the radiation levels were higher in the school auditorium that they were under the 700+KV lines (those big towers that look like giant robots).
now thats scary!!
"The importance of using technology in the right way has never been more clear."
More seriously, if their is a problem with radiation they will say that their was a problem with the precedent generation but the new generation is safe and when the next generation comes we will know that the old generation was indeed dangerous (I never trusted Kirk ;)).
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Besides the real reasons for me not wanting a mobile phone -I don't need it and I don't want people to be able to contact me whenever they want- I have been concerned about this problem since it started to be known.
It's like smoking, anyway. I don't smoke, but I'm forced to smoke by people surrounding me. I don't use mobile phones, but people around me do all the time. So, you want it or not, we're all getting the crappy radiations in our brains and the stupid smoke in my (ill) lungs.
> how exactly I am stupid
Uh, I thought "Risking your life and that of others for no particularly good reason" was a fairly good indicator, actually.
> -1: Arrogant Chauvinist Pig
Have you ever noticed how that phrase is only ever used by women who are generalising about those evil nasty males? Funny, that.
Spoken by someone who uses her account to troll all the time. :P ("Lita Juarez" is supposed to
sound like "leet Warez").
You have to admit, that (original) post did look like a troll. It was full of strong opinions that weren't backed up by any facts, and then that "I can drive safely while using a cell phone" hook was thrown in at the end.
does anyone think that people would stop using them?
hey, i still smoke cigarettes.
Why would I want to travel more than 15 km from home, when there's everything I want less than 10km from home!!! Cars are diabolical because they cause you to spend time and money traveling to nowhere.
Then of course there are those dumbass punks who have them because they think it's "cool". Yeah, you're impressing me with your stupidity by paying lots of money when you have a perfectly good pair of feet. Get a bicycle if you want to move around.
(The above poster forgot to mention radiation risks with cellphones, but here's the matching paragraph anyway...) And of course using a car increase your risk of dying due to severe body trauma. Doesn't anybody realize this? Sure, the car companies try to conceal the effects, but <conspiracy>I've seen</conspiracy> what a car can do to you, and you'll never catch me in one.
[mods: this is ironic, not fbait, mod accordingly]
Right, as if health risk ever stopped a person from doing something. Please. Cel phones have permeated societies across the world, and their use will not stop just because they may have some silly little fatality issue.
And they certainly won't stop using them while driving.
See FDA Consumer Update on Mobile Phones (October 1999).
San Jose Mercury News has a story
My personal observation is that mobile-phone-dependent people tend to have a very short attention span. I don't know which causes which, though. Maybe the FDA will test that in lab.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -- Tennyson
I don't think people will stop using them for anything, they make people money, and that's certainly more important then health
I can just see it now... "That's not a tumor growing out of my head. It's a genetically enhanced cellular phone holder!".
"as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee" - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. (One man's humorous is another mans flamebait)
The world is full of people that are will take risks. It is like smoking, drinking and eating junk food since it has very little instant effect it will be ignored by the masses.
Uh, I thought "Risking your life and that of others for no particularly good reason" was a fairly good indicator, actually.
I'd appreciate if you'd further explain how I'm saying that, but thank you for being at least the first person to actually bother to give basis to their insults against me.
Have you ever noticed how that phrase is only ever used by women who are generalising about those evil nasty males? Funny, that.
I won't get into the timeless gender debate, but of course the phrase is coined by feminists, as we're the ones who started the whole movement against gender bias. I really do like guys (not the jerks on here though), but the reason I'm saying this is I feel like I'm being written off as some "ditzy little airhead girl" because I'm 'openly' female. I've read this article thoroughly and I've noticed that the other controversial posts at least recieved detailed rebuttals, not rude insults with no explaination whatsoever. I guess, being a teenage girl, I'm "immature" and "stupid" and "lack the ability to carry on a debate" although teenage guys can. If you think I'm so stupid, I installed and set up Debian Linux on my IBM and put Linux PPC on my mom's old mac, so I'm at least as smart as most of the people here.
And they laughed at my tinfoil hat! Let's see whose brain the cell-phones take over now!
>put the base unit in your pocket /me/ :-)
Would this be your trouser pocket? That is, your pocket next to your reproductive organs? Doesn't sound very safe to
Glad they are going to publish those data, it will be most interesting.
Also YES, those cell phones shouldn't be used in some cases like:
* by drivers of vehicles in motion
* by anyone in movie theater or other public place of performance
* by anyone in restaurants (ever noticed that guy that is talking louder than the whole room? yup, he is trying to use his cell phone.)
As for not using them because of cancer and stuff... well if you really use them tons, just het a headset and you are safe.
Then in 20 years sue the company for 2 tons of gold
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
A woman with a cigerette is standing on a corner waiting for a bus. Another woman walks up. Her cell phone rings. Cigerette woman exclaims, "Don't answer that! Don't you know you can get cancer from the radiation!?".
-Antipop
Hell no! Especially if the info suggests that I can hold an egg on the other side of my head and cook it? Breakfast and communication, what a package!
A friend on mine just sent me this email...
---- Begin ----
- Background 'ambient' radiation: negligible, 0.1-0.5 microwatts per
cm^2.
- Radiation from GSM antennaes: Unless you're within meters of the front
of one of the antennaes, radiation is negligible. 1000s of microwatts
per cm^2 right against it and falling according to the square of the
distance (i.e. dramatically) as you move away.
- Radiation from phones: When you dial a number, never ever hold the
phone up to your ear until the phone connects and starts ringing.
Radiation is at its highest during this early stage. 150-200 microwatts
per cm^2.
- Radiation during a call: slight 10-20 microwatts per cm^2, regardless
of whether you're speaking or listening.
- Radiation from handsfree kits: Non existant on Nokia hands free kits.
Media stories are contrived and don't tell you the full story.
0.0-0.5 microwatts per cm^2.
Source: we had health and safety people here in our building with a
radiation meter and we went around and took measurements ourselves.
----- End -----
T.
If cell phone manufacturers have been cowed into releasing radiation data, then how long before the computer industry does as well since my monitor and PC are both giving off radiation (and I'd bet a significant amount more than my cell phone is). Remember all the radiation scares re: computers in the 1980s? Same thing all over again with cell phones.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
I use my mobile while I'm driving quite often, however, I also still pay utmost attention to the road (which has caused me many times to ask the person on the other end to repeat a sentence). Just because most of the public doesn't really care doesn't mean that 100% of all mobile phone users don't.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Commodore 64 Democoder
FC Closer
The consensus reached was that there are already laws concerning reckless driving. It doesn't take a cellphone to make someone drive recklessly, although it may help... what I mean is that anything that is going to take your attention away from driving thousands of pounds of metal, glass, gasoline (and the means to ignite it) at high rates of speed, should be an offense, not just portable phones.
Anyone who gets in an accident while using a cellphone should automatically get ticketed for reckless driving, but the same thing applies to, for example, getting in an accident while eating a Big Mac while holding a shake between your legs.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Hey, I've had ACs on slashdot say MUCH worse things to me, and I survived. And she does sound painfully stupid. (And I'm female, so that assessment can't possibly be sexist. Mean and judgemental maybe, but not sexist)
What I'm trying to say is that maybe you would have a better opinion of women if you met some intelligent ones, rather than the typical low-grade sluts that most men go for. Then you'll find that women can be more than just sex objects.
Oh yeah, I know how to do housework and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I am what the media describes as a "New Man". Please grow out of your Victorian values.
--
--
Donald "Don Juan" Kerr
Look, I have a NOKIA phone (and I love it), but this is like reading the "facts" about cable modem service on the GTE DSL web page.
Or, to put it in a way that doesn't reflect something I was actually doing recently, it's like reading a statement about the health risks of smoking on the Philip Morris website. Sure, they might have some studies to back it up, but it's hard to take what they say at face value considering their interest in having the "facts" support their side of the story!
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
Actually, I specifically stay away from electric blankets, it may be superstitious and not grounded in scientific fact but it just seems like asking for trouble to be wrapping yourself in a cosy EM field at such close distance (no help from the inverse square law there! ;) ... I'm just never that cold that an extra traditional style blanket or a notch on the thermostat won't do the trick.
My operating philosophy is that people should balance the need to stay away from EM fields and environmental toxins with the convenience of products which expose them to these things. With cell phones the balance is easy, just use a headset! With electric blankets the balance is just don't bother because they are frivolous. With TV's, it only makes sense for the population to move towards LCD. With powerlines, provably harmful or not, why choose to live near them if you have a choice?
Have you ever read the list of possible side-effects of your prescription drug? Sometimes they're pretty wild. The best I've seen so far was psychosis, but since this extreme side-effect is so rare, the drug is still deemed "safe". I don't think there would be any drugs available if complete "safety" was required (like the people who are now whining about cell phones and GM food).
For those interested, a very level-headed, well researched FAQ on "Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health" can be found at http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/ cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.html. It is very good reading for anyone concerned about this topic.
A controversial report here in the UK claimed that hands-free kits (headsets, whatever you want to call 'em...) acted as antennas, effectively increasing the signal and piping it straight to your brain!
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
By the way, on the off-chance that the data says the equivalent of 'For The Love Of God, Stop Using This Device, We're Surprised You're Not Dead Yet,' does anyone think that people would stop using them?
Well, probably not. But just in case, I understand the cellphone companies are looking into equipping each mouthpiece with a nicotine dispenser. . .
I decided that behaving ethically was the most nihilistic thing I could do. - Paul Pavel
Not that I intend to drag myself into the gender debate, but the way Patricia and Lita being treated is quite uncalled for. It's also sad that any woman with intelligence who is not passive is considered a feminist.
Grow up majority-of-men, this is not the 1950s. It's time you stop feeling threatened by intelligent women. You can handle being beat by a man, but can you handle being beat for by a woman? The mentality in play here is quite sad.
Regards,
Matt Heckaman
PS: I'm not a troll, though I'm sure I'll be moderated down for my non-conformist view.
Don't take life so seriously; it isn't permanent.
"but I'd rather take that risk than risk missing an important call from one of my girlfriends." was the phrase you used...
>written off as some "ditzy little airhead girl"
Maybe I missed some posts, but I never saw anybody actually bring your gender into it, particularly.
If it turns out that it's as dangerous as smoking, I'll just use a headset instead. I'd rather have a tumor in my hip (belt clip) than in my head.
You just proved my point. You point to "historical fact" to use your own term, when what you need to do is get the hell over the past and start building the future. Learn from the past and move on--don't repeat it. You're repeating the past because you're fostering divisiveness, pointing to disparities based on race and ethnicity when you should be thinking about commonalities.
You say I am a "bigoted fool who can't recognize the effects of your society on others." Bullshit. I point it out all the time, including on Slashdot, that American values are often fucked up, that our priorities are often out of whack, and that we use the wrong means to achieve ends which we assume are good just because they're the ends we personally believe in, not necessarily the ones that are best for everyone. Look at my posting history here to see that I do not believe in the globalization of Americanized culture, or that our government always does the "right" thing.
Before I posted saying that you're a racist, I *did* take the time to look up your own posting history, because I don't use the term "racist" lightly. Your posting history indicates that you frequently post inflammatory and divisive crap. But most telling is the first line in your user bio: "My goal in life is social justice for mi gente and everyone else." Nice. Let's dissect it: you put "mi gente" separately, and before, "everyone else," not just in that sentence but philosophically. That is evidence which supports the assertion that you are a racist. And, let's linger on the term "social justice": it is typically used by those who seek to promote division between the races or classes, who seek to levy some sort of revenge or extort "compensation" from the race or class (or race/class; you earlier in this thread equated white with wealthy/powerful, displaying great animus in the process) which is singled out by those seeking so-called "social justice" as being a wrongdoer, an aggressor, which deserves to have to dole out compensation for either real or imagined wrongdoings. Divisive people in the black and Hispanic communities in America today use the term "social justice" in claiming that they deserve preferential treatment in hiring and entitlement decisions, through notions such as "Affirmative Action" and racial quotas. "Social justice" is used in South Africa when referring to how white South Africans don't deserve protection for their well being and property, don't deserve protection from mobs and rapists if the mobs and rapists happen to be black instead of white. "Social justice" has been and continues to be a term used in South American countries, in reference to stripping property from people once a communist regime comes into power, in reference to the murders and tortures of the people who were in charge under old regimes.
So I stand by my assessment that you are racist, though I should have added that you're a classist as well. Never forget that wealthy classes have, according to the history you so like to point to instead of the future, often assisted the proletariat in taking power, as many forward-thinking aristocrats did during the French Revolution, as some of the wealthy Chinese did during the Cultural Revolution--and history is full of examples of people who did *not* break down into lines by class or race. So, you do everyone a disservice by being a small minded bigoted racist classist individual.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
By posting here I'm losing my ability to moderate in this discussion, so don't blame me for the "Troll" on the post at the top of the thread, it's not me.
In all honesty I find it hard to believe that you think it sensible to drive and speak on the phone at the same time. Admittedly there are a lot of people that do it, there are also many cases of car accidents caused by people driving and talking on the phone at the same time. A number of studies have been carried out and they indicate that even if you have a hands free kit, the attention you have to pay to the conversation you're having has a very detrimental effect on your reaction times.
So without wanting to use words like "Stupid", I still have to say that I find your point of view irresponsible - but that's just an opinion too.
Finally - being able to install Linux hardly makes you a rocket scientist, after all, even I managed to do it.
Salocin.com
They obviously cause brain damage, otherwise how can you explain the idiots that leave their phones on at the movies (or Wimbledon, for that matter - every match has to have a "please turn off your cell phones" warning from the umpire), or even worse, the people that call other people from the movie theater to tell someone they are at the movies!
To sum up, brain damage must be the only explanation, I mean otherwise I would have to assume that ther are really that many insensitive and/or stupid people in this world...oh wait, forget I said that.
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
Rule #1 on /., don't advertise your gender. It tends to draw peculiar attention. :) Scrap your username and create a new one. I know that it's not how it SHULD be, but like many things, the workaround is simpler than the solution.
/., don't take it personally. Few, if any people here actually know you. The rest of my response may offend you. Keep Rule #2 in mind. It isn't personal, don't take it as such.
/., recognize that threads have critical-mass potential. Once you start arguing about moderation, the flames begin.
/., let's not be so naive.
/. afterall. This is the only possible 'troll' aspect of your post - but it's a perfectly valid POV as well.
:)
/., come on! This HAS to be an hones POV of a 16 year old girl...
:)
/., you're beyond that by virtue of speaking on this forum.)
Rule #2 on
Rule #3 on
Ok, now onto your post:
stir up controversy about cel phones.
Probably right. After the results come out, and show no real danger (beyond that of wearing a walkman or watching TV), everyone will breate a sigh of relief and buy more cell phones. It's reverse psychology folks! Scare 'em, and relieve them of stress... Then relieve them of money. Please,
Besides, why worry yourselves with this POTENTIAL radiation damage and POSSIBLE side effects? You're forgetting how advanced and quickly moving our technology is anyway.
Spoken like a true neophile. I'm really surprised that this didn't get you a +2 Insightful, considering this is
I can handle driving my Chevy Tahoe while talking on the cel phone quite well.
Gasp! Your Tahoe?? Daddy bought you a Tahoe? You lucky thing, you!
Frankly, driving a Tahoe is much more dangerous than driving ANYTHING else and using a cell phone. See yesterday's discussion about the Honda Insight.
I know a few rare accidents occur because people drive while talking on cel phones, but I'd rather take that risk than risk missing an important call from one of my girlfriends.
Ok,
Tell me Pat, how IMPORTANT are those calls?
Maybe some of you guys just need a life so you can see how important a cel phone actually is
Ooh! Glad you put that smiley there. No better way to incite the masses to riot than to act like 'the popular girl'.
And the remainder:
Now, all that said, I'll agree with Pat. She gave us an honest view into the mind of the average, non-hardenned-geek cell phone user. Cell phones are a convenience that most people are not willing to set aside while driving.
We're used to thinking in terms of accountability, delayed gratification, self-imposed hardship and responsability. We're used to solving problems created by technology, not just sucking the marrow out of tech, and letting others wipe our chins. This is why we run Linux.
Most people out there are Mac users, if not in practice then in mentality. They want the convenience, without considering what goes on under the hood. They consider their phone calls IMPORTANT, because Josie and Barbie just heard that Scott and Joel have tickets to the next Britney Spears concert - or, like, whatever. (I'm not judging you Pat, relax, it's an umbrella statement about the breadth of people who wouldn't even try to make sense of
These people (they, not you Pat) don't think in terms of consequences, because most of what they have is given to them. Like a new Tahoe on a 16th b-day.
Now, just for the record, I have a cell phone, and I sometimes use it while driving. To use it on the road, I pull into the right lane, fall well behind the car in front of me, and make/take a quick call. If the call runs over three minutes, I pull over. I drive a stick, so I only use the phone on open highway. You'd have to be insane to handle a stick and a phone at the same time.
I also leave the phone OFF 90% of the time. It's there for my convenience, I am not there for its convenience. The phone spills to vmail when off, and that suits me just fine.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Ah, but do get into cars? Your risk of injury from an auto accident is tremendous compared to the chance of cancer from a cell phone.
The fact is that people are scared of technology because they don't understand it and they don't feel like they have control. And there's no consistency here, either. Other people have mentioned electric blankets. Electric razors for men have got to be just shooting radiation right at a very important set of glands, but no one is whining on the evening news about them.
So, there are two options: actually learn enough science to make an informed decision on your very own, or keep running around like Chicken Little. Personally, I'll take the science.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
At least he didn't start giving you a hard time for exposing him to "secondhand radiation," thereby exposing him to an unacceptible health risk.
If the data can be manipulated and interpreted in such a way as to find the tiniest glimmer of a possibility of a health hazard resulting from cell-phone use, then this is the argument that will be used by the scaremongers to legislate their demise.
What do you want? To press a button and get an instant answer?
The only way to get a definitive answer to the question of whether mobile phones are harmful is to study the experience of the general population. This takes time.
Well, I'm way too late into this for anyone to read this, but this has to be said. Nicotine does not help with stress. Nicotine calms withdrawal symptoms that compound the stress you are feeling, thus providing the illusion of calming.
Scam idea: Charge $100+ for a "modification" which "reduces radiation exposure by 99%"... and just swap out the speaker. Use the above mentioned "monitor shake" test as your proof
It's amazing to me how much power people give away because they don't understand science. I think Arthur C. Clark was right when he said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". It's not magic... but I could certainly treat it as such, and get quite a few people to believe me. (In this case, at least)
--Mike--
Never. It's all part of the genocidal conspiracy to corrupt the DNA of the poor, to lower their birth rate and destroy their communities. They also scan your brain for subversive thoughts.
I mean, since cell phone users are predominantly white, middle to upper class males, of course this gets investigated.
How else can we coordinate the global conspiracy (The Plan(TM)) to keep you down if we don't have our cell phones?
The Man(TM)
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
heh, in Michigan if you drive 5 over, you're going too slow. This is mainly due to the high number of idiots who choose to drive $SPEEDLIMIT+25. Want proof? Try driving the I-94 stretch from I-275 to Telegraph road, at say 5:00pm. There are only two speeds on the road, 0mph, and 95mph, anything in between causes accidents.
But I do agree with you, cell phones are dangerous. And although I'm not for a ban of cellular telephones in the car, I do think that those who talk and drive poorly should be cited for failure to maintain control, or possibly careless driving.
This posting's a bit late, but the web site of the UK committee on cell phones and health, mentioned in the article, is at http://www.iegmp.org.uk. There's a PDF of the report there, which includes the interesting observation that the cords in headsets could actually act as aerials and increase the signals entering the brain.
"Surgeon General's Warning: Cell phones /ahem/ *may* cause cancer!"
I have no doubt that the cell phone industry will continue on its happy ol' way. I know damn well that smoking is the worst thing I can do to myself, however I still smoke more than the Asarco smelter!
I think that cell phones, just like smoking, has social status, glam maybe, and other social stigmata associated with having / using them. I don't think people will stop talking on cell phones, just because they think they look cool walking down the street telling their friends that they are *actually* walking down the street and talking on the phone at the same time!!! Maybe this isn't most of the time, but it is incredibly common, nonetheless.
Not to mention that the cell phone industry is one hell of a huge industry. If RJ and Mr. M can get away with a known and severe health hazard for so long, just because of the size of the industry, I don't think there is much to stop the cell phone thing either.
I swear, the next thing we'll see is ads on the sides of busses saying, 'Mind if I take this? Mind if I die?' Yeah... That's sure curbing the attitudes of the great Amearican populous.
Sexist? What? Because someone was moderated down? This is Slashdot, as others have said. Everyone gets hammered on some level at some point. It's a basic facet of posting here; Simply keep your pile of salt handy when reading raw content.
Speaking to the "Sexism" issue, I don't know that I've ever particularly known or cared about the sex of a given poster. As much as the sexual anonymity of the net has been turned into something of an cliched aphorism over the past years, it still holds quite true for many. Seriously. The only time this becomes an issue, of course, is when the subject matter is directly related to some sexual dichotomy, discrepancy, or similar issue where input from one sex or the other is particularly valued.
Granted, this whole thread is pretty off-topic, but I guess I just don't follow. To Patricia, whoever "she" is, I'm sorry that you percieve yourself as being unfairly persecuted, but I'd argue that it's really not something to get worked up about. Just keep posting, as many others have been doing for years. Also keep in mind that while the moderation system does generally work rather well to get a percentage of quality posts to 4+, there are times when it fails and a number of posts remain below that threshold; Don't take it as a personal offense when this happens to you for whatever reason.
The way that Patricia has been treated today is disgusting, and I hope you're all ashamed of yourselves. She implies that she's 16, so of course she's going to make a few naive comments. But this is hardly an excuse for the sort of hostility she has received. Maybe people should have politely corrected her, rather than resorting to flames. We should be trying to nurture and encourage young female geeks, rather than treating them so badly.
Patricia: keep posting to Slashdot, and try your best to ignore the comments of some of these cavemen. The majority of Slashdot readers and moderators are decent people, but there are a few sexist neanderthals who try to spoil it for everyone.
Very well said, you sum up my thoughts very well.
Matt
Don't take life so seriously; it isn't permanent.
All they need now are ominous warning labels that they can collect and trade.
You need to stop idealizing the French Revolution and look at what it actually did: a reign of terror, and terrible persecution of the typical French peasant. I'll just mention the fact that when the Revolution happened, only one third of the population of France actually spoke French; yet the Revolutionaries declared even the private use of any other languages illegal.
As a last note, everyone who has any doubts about Mr. Martinez's bias and racism and classism should follow the URL provided at the top of his user page here on /. It leads to a hate-filled tabloid which does nothing but portray white Americans as evil racists and Hispanics as poor downtrodden people who are oppressed by the evil white upper class.
You must truly enjoy misrepresentation, right? The top headline says "Mexican Migrant Workers Savagely Attacked by Racists in San Diego, California; Seven Skinheads Arrested". It doesn't say "white", it says "racists", "skinheads". How is that racist?
Next headline is about a Mexican Deputy who joins a bi-national mobilization to stop border violence. How is this racist?
The third headline, "US/Mexico Border Crisis" leads to an investigative report about the shooting of a Mexican in Arizona by organized white supremacist vigilante militias, which the local authorities don't investigate. Again, who is this racist?
Nowhere in the site you find anti-white statements. You find anti white supremacist statements. Statements against groups of the likes of American Patrol, which spout true racist propaganda.
This paints a very disturbing pattern about you. You are obviously given to cry out "racism" and "classism" whenever a non-mainstream social group that is being attacked tries to defend itself. You are given to, whenever you are countered with the sheer implausibility and unsupportedness of your accusations, to pointing to silly evidence like my saying "mi gente and everyone else" (if I'd written "my friends and everybody else", would you have called me a "friendist"?), or blatant misrepresentation of facts (like you did with La Voz de Aztlán's page).
Are you adequate?
And, let's linger on the term "social justice": it is typically used by those who seek to promote division between the races or classes
I'll just let others judge for themselves about the contexts in which the term Social Justice is used. (Also see here.)
Never forget that wealthy classes have, according to the history you so like to point to instead of the future, often assisted the proletariat in taking power, as many forward-thinking aristocrats did during the French Revolution
You are rewriting history. The French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution. You can find this in any history book.
you put "mi gente" separately, and before, "everyone else," not just in that sentence but philosophically. That is evidence which supports the assertion that you are a racist.
What will you do next, add up the letters in my name and find out that they add up to 666? Please. You are utterly ridiculous.
Are you adequate?
Tell that to someone you crash into. I haven't had one, and I don't plan on getting in one :P And part of you accident avoidance strategy is to distract yourself and obscure part of your peripheral vision? Nice. Nobody is saying that if you use a mobile phone you *will* crash, they are saying it is *more*likely* you will crash, and they're right. How good a driver you are is not relevant, it is the effect on your 'basic ability' that is being considered, even Michael Schumacher would be *more*likely* to crash if he was using a mobile phone while driving. Chances are you won't get into a crash if you use a mobile phone in a car. The chances are even better that you won't get into a crash if you don't.
--
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Don't worry, I'm real. My parents were foolishly unaware of the term when the named me, so I just hope people dont notice my initials now :( Not like I haven't heard it before when my friends started making fun of me that way in middle school. Now it's more of a 'close' nickname a few of my friends call me, hehe. But, no I'm not a troll, I am definitely real, though with those moderators out there, you might not realize that :(
The likelihood of being killed by or in a car, or dying of heart disease from too many burgers is so large as to make all of these modern scares meaningless. In fact the only form of electromagnetic radiation in any way likely to kill you is lightning.
So if you're really concerned about extending your lifespan, give up smoking, stay away from all mechanised vehicles and live on a diet of bread, cabbage and potatoes (and possibly the odd fish). Otherwise stop complaining about irrelevant risks!
And by the way, don't play golf in a thunderstorm.
If anyone on Slashdot has a ham license (as I'm sure many do), it's a "WELL DUH!" type of question as to the amount of RF pumped out by cell phones. The higher the frequency, the more RF per watt. The FCC tells me that my VHF handheld (which runs 144-148 Mhz) puts out enough RF to cause cataracts in my eye if I was dumb enough to have it that close. Cell phones put out more power at higher frequencies (800-900 Mhz) which means a higher SAR. More SAR means that my body is absorbing more RF, more absorbtion means more tissue heating, and putting that right next to my brain... yee haw! Sounds like a good old time. My point is, I haven't bought the RF lies from the cell companies since day 1. The FCC tells ham ops to point their lower power, lower frequency handhelds away from their head and away from others. Great. All just stand right next to that guy on the bus who's having a 30 minute conversation with his wife about who's fault it was that the toaster doesn't work. By the end of that conversation, we should both have some nice warm and toasty brain tissue.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Well, I can't speak authoritatively on this, of course, but I used to work at the George Washington University Medical Center's Animal Research Lab (and before anyone jumps on my case, it was a very humane lab, and it was a work study position. I don't want to hear it.)
Well, I will jump on it.
Actually, this is the kind of thing that animal research should do. I'd much rather have some dogs, monkeys or mice die than watch my son or mother slowly die of cancer. (Look at the word humane versus inhumane, and pick - a pig dying in a clean lab, or a loved one dying in a hospital unable to help).
Realistically, there is no way I can glean any information from the slip of paper that comes with my new cell phone that tells me that I'm going to get 1500 bogorads of radiation across these nine spectra.
If, however, I hear that every mouse exposed to a PCS phone developed a three-ton tumor on their nads after two months, I think I might look at getting a different phone.
Oh, and didn't the research already occur in europe regarding this issue? (Good Science requires checking the study elsewhere, so it's not a useless study). I seem to remember reading about it, but a minute of browsing didn't find it. (Although there are some good scare pages on Anglefire about radiation).
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
I don't know any mice that use cell phones. But that's just me. It would help explain how those cell phone companies are making so much money. :)
On a more serious note, mice are way different than people physiologically. Doing it on monkeys would be a better test.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Millions of cell phone users won't stop using them, instead they'll file a class action lawsuit against cell phone manufacterers for $837 Trillion dollars and the lawyers will begin buying islands in the pacific rim.
v
I sig, therefore I am.
Oh yeah, I know how to do housework and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I am what the media describes as a "New Man". Please grow out of your Victorian values.
Just as a side note, the misogynist posts would be totally against Victorian values, as no true gentleman would insult a woman like that (yes, that's a sexist viewpoint too, but a slightly different kind of one)...
I mean, if you go outside, you might be KILLED!!
"And like that
Are cell phones dangerous? For the casual user, probably not. I can't see them doing more to damage you than microwaving a burrito every night (well, microwaving anything every night). What's going to cause problems is that for those total and complete sociopaths who use their cell phones constantly (cars, elevators, walking the dog, etc), the effects of the phones are going to build up over time and really mess them up. It's like a drug addiction: If you did it once in a long while in high school, you're probably fine. But if you do it constantly, you're in trouble.
But then, you've got a better chance fo dying in a car accident 'cause you were too %*!(&%(!&% busy on the phone to bother noticing the two cars in front of you slamming on their brakes, than you are to actually worry about radiation.
I haven't posted to Slashdot for a while because I was getting sick of this kind of sexist abuse. I tried to share my insight with Slashdot (and I was mostly successful - I achieved a +1 bonus within a couple of weeks), and yet I was still greeted with ignorant comments like "You're just a girl, what do you know?". Some people obviously found it too challenging to see past my sex and read what I was actually saying. I'm a big girl and at first I didn't take much notice of this sort of small-minded abuse, but after a while I decided it was no longer worth the hassle to post to Slashdot. Does Slashdot really want to drive insightful posters away?
The way that Patricia has been treated today is disgusting, and I hope you're all ashamed of yourselves. She implies that she's 16, so of course she's going to make a few naive comments. But this is hardly an excuse for the sort of hostility she has received. Maybe people should have politely corrected her, rather than resorting to flames. We should be trying to nurture and encourage young female geeks, rather than treating them so badly.
Patricia: keep posting to Slashdot, and try your best to ignore the comments of some of these cavemen. The majority of Slashdot readers and moderators are decent people, but there are a few sexist neanderthals who try to spoil it for everyone.
The frequencies cell phones use are in the low microwave band, around 1000 Mhz (10^9 Hz). This is much lower than the frequency of visible light (about 10^14 Hz), and very much lower than the high energy radiation which can cause cell damage (over 10^16 Hz or so).
Now, this is not to say that cell phones aren't dangerous. There could be a problem with the fair amount of energy they deposit in your head. However, I doubt that any danger from them would involve genetic damage.
Physics, Cosmology and
I work for a cellular provider. One of the top 5 reasons we push digital phones over analog is due to high radiation from analog phones. Think about it. It requires 2 to 3 watts analog, in order to maintain the same amount of coverage as a 2/10 of a watt digital phone requires. This dramatically reduces the amounts of radiation.
right here - the Al Foil Deflector Beenie, altho targeted at deflecting psychotronic mind control carriers, it may also help with your cell phone problems.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I hope someone posted this earlier.
The reason cell phone companies are releasing this data is to try and convince us all to get head sets for our phones. This isn't about health, there is, as has been pointed out, a very low risk from cancer from these things. This is about selling accessories.
When did people found out that smoking caused lung cancer and other ailments? 30 Years ago? Last I check there were record profits for tobaco companies.
If cell phones are found to be harmful I figure that consumers will just file a few class actions suits against cell phone makers (which are also posting record proffits) to make up for damages. They will claim something about "But you knew the risks....etc" and get some Jury to award them $145 Billion or so. Just because they had to talk to their boyfriend at THAT instant......(sorry, I'm getting off topic)
Is there a side affect? Probably, maybe, who knows. (There is a side effect to everything, the question is whether it will have more damaging effects or more positive effects.) Do we care enough to stop using cell phones until we have further scientific proof? Yeah Right. Will we continue using them if proof comes? Of course.
BTW-what does this have to do with slashdot? or is it a slow news day and there is nothing else to talk about here?
what are you talking about this research was completely months ago. the official findings are that radiation from cell phones causes a .1 - .4 degree temperature difference in the brain, but the human brain varies in temperature by one whole degree over the course of a day. Bren.
...is someone who's living in the past but doesn't even know his history. Of course the French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution of the middle and lower classes, but what your narrow, selfish, classist and skewed view of history makes you unable to realize is that that brevolution was fomented by the writings of a faction in the well-educated upper class who realized that the system was flawed, that the segregation of the classes was wrong. Read the writings of the pre-Revolutionary French Enlightenment, which were predominantly written by aristocrats or wealthy middle class gentlemen. Go to a decent college or university, my friend, and take a few classes on this period, and maybe then you can discuss it intelligently instead of spouting off historically inaccurate post-revisionist claptrap. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," the stereotypical theme of the French Revolutionaries, has its philosophical basis and in the writings of the Enlightenment, most of whose celebrated authors were wealthy upper class or well of middle class. Name one celebrated bourgeois author of the same period, and I will name ten at least as important who were in the upper classes. You sir are a classist, and a racist, a bigot who prejudges people based on which class and race they belong to instead of looking to the individual. People like you are the problem with America and elsehwere: whether you are prejudiced against the poor or the rich, against the whites or the Latinos, you are wrong and your thinking is insidious and evil. It is the type of person that matters, not his race, class, gender, etc.
/. It leads to a hate-filled tabloid which does nothing but portray white Americans as evil racists and Hispanics as poor downtrodden people who are oppressed by the evil white upper class. It even sensationalistically declares that U.S.-Mexican relations are breaking down because the U.S., it proclaims, is allowing state-sponsored beatings and murders of Latinos. What lying, venomous, hate-filled bullshit; I have many Mexican American friends in Texas, and messaging with one of them to check out that site, he was appalled at its lies.
As a last note, everyone who has any doubts about Mr. Martinez's bias and racism and classism should follow the URL provided at the top of his user page here on
Lastly, I apologize that this thread has gotten off-topic but this man's hate had to be countered--I posted down to +1 instead of my default +2 because of that, and would have posted down to 0 if I could have since this is getting off-topic, but Slashcode doesn't provide that option.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Some people would scoff at a product like that then go out and put magnets in their shoes to relieve pain. It is like that joke saying: "My numerologist told me that only fools believe in astrology."
I haven't posted to Slashdot for a while because I was getting sick of this kind of sexist abuse.
What is it with you feminists who think that just because a woman displays some kind of interest in a masculine domain that they are entitled to some kind of protection? At the first sign of controversy you start whining about sexism as if you had some kind of right to air your empty-headed views in public.
Some people obviously found it too challenging to see past my sex and read what I was actually saying.
It's a well known and scientifically proven fact that women's brains are a) smaller than mens and b) less able to cope with technologically complex tasks. It's not being sexist to be brave enough to admit a politically incorrect truth even when you know that people are going to jump all over you for it.
She implies that she's 16, so of course she's going to make a few naive comments.
Then what's she doing here? We don't want people like that posting to this forum, the signal-to-noise ration is low enough already.
[fines for driving and mobiling]
Why? Because it's DANGEROUS. You're concentrating on who someone was seen with at someone's party? While you're in control of a 1 ton vehicle doing 55 miles an hour?
The issue isn't that you're talking to someone else, otherwise conversations with passengers would be banned, it's that you have to take one hand off the wheel for the whole call and take your eyes off the road while making/answering calls.
--
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
I seem to recall that some consumer group did a test of the wired handsfree kits that are very popular in the UK/Ireland. They discovered that in fact they made the radiation *worse*.
It turns out that the piece of wire connecting the phone to the earpiece was acting as an antenna and somehow focusing the radiation even more...
Ah, computer dating -- it's like pimping, but you rarely have to use the phrase "upside your head" -- Bender
Why? Because it's DANGEROUS. You're concentrating on who someone was seen with at someone's party? While you're in control of a 1 ton vehicle doing 55 miles an hour?
Oh, and in case anyone says "ooh, Australia. Backwards. Censorship. Evil. Nasty" - Australia has the third highest uptake in the world of mobile phones, second only to two Scandinavian countries.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Here at work I'm stuck in the "server room" with very limited space. My "desk" is a 19 inch rack mounted shelf with a small 14 inch monitor sitting on it. The useable space is about 6*19. When sitting down I put my cell phone on the shelf. It's rather cool to see the monitor shake when I recieve a phone call, but that's the only time when the rads interfears with the monitor. With normal talking there is very little or no monitor shaking. To go along with the story, just don't have the phone by your ear when it rings.
MarNuke
The journey is better then the end.
"Women's brains are smaller than men's and...". You can _bet_ he doesn't have a PhD in semi-conductor physics!!!
Knowing people with PCS phones, that would be an improvement!
Seriously, most people won't change their behavior. Maybe they will though. Maybe everyone will eat a "perfect" diet, drive the speed limit, always wear their seat belt, never drink more than 2 glasses of alcohol a day, stop doing drugs, stop stressing out to the point of a heart attack, stop missing sleep, make sure to exercise every day, and whatever other things they come up with next to prolong our lives.
But I doubt it.
And would doing everything right be the way to go. Live to 100 and be miserable. Oh wait, being miserable is unhealthy too.
Let's hope we can strike a balance hear.
P.S. Protesting cell towers is a bad idea. More towers = less distance = less power needed (by both phone and tower) = less risk (if there is any, it is likely to be dose related).
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
While it will be interesting to know which phones produce what amount of radiation, the data just aren't good enough to even know whether cell phone radiation can cause cancer, let alone whether there is a dose-response effect that matters. Let's face it, for these things to cause cancer, they have to cause some disruption of either proteins responsible for maintaining the integrity of DNA or DNA itself (to an extent that overloads the body's capacity to repair DNA). While radiation clearly can at the right wavelengths, there's just no data that the wavelengths involved, at the doses involved, does anything. There's data in mice that show that their brains heat up some, which would not be related to cancer but might be dumb for a child less than 5, and there's some questionable data I think in rats that there might have been some protein deformation at super high doses. The topic may well merit further research, but I think it's a bit premature to care what the radiation doses are from phones. I'm a heck of a lot more worried about cigar and cigarette smokers and the macho "low-intensity light bulbs" among us that don't wear seat belts. Let's worry about the real public health threats, eh?
Ahh, that'll be it. We all know about computers. Therefore we can't communicate with other human beings.
Truth is that we can communicate with humans, but which is more fun?
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Earbuds people, they're called earbuds. Whenever I talk on my cell it's usually sitting on my hip and the only thing near my head is a tiny speaker/mic combo that sits in my ear. Possible radiation to my brain, nil. Possible radiation for my future generations, that's another story (and probably the least of their worries).
.sig is as true today as it was when Heinlein first said it.
Now do I do this because I fear the cell phone will fry my brain? Hell no, for the same reason I don't worry about spending all day staring into a monitor or freak out if there are power lines near my house. It's a crock, unfortunately not everyone out there was a physics major in college and most people will unquestioningly believe anything someone in a lab coat tells them.
It's a sad commentary on modern society that the vast majority of people have lost the ability to think for themselves. Alas, my
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -RAH
Good intentions, but, I hate to say it, Lita's a troll too.
:)
Lita Juarez --> l33t w4r3z.
Basically LWM. Been seen as a troll UID before. And, if you follow the trolls and read the last paragraph, there's a rather blatant in-joke in there.
Nice try, though.
damn! you see - they ARE very intelligent people. it doesn't make me angry that i got fooled, it makes me laugh.
oh well.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
The title kinda says it all, who wants to find a pay phone these days? Thou it might spur a comeback of bag-type car phones, remote antenna plugins, things in general to keep delicate human brain tissue away from rads. I know my dad is worried enough about that kinda thing that he uses a crappy sounding speakerphone adaptor, making his PCS phone sound perfectly analog.
Summary of rambelings:
It'll cause changes, but cell phones are here to stay. But who doesn't know that?
bash: ispell: command not found
This sig left intentionally blank.
If you want to see pure, unleashed fury, check out the movies at http://www.phonebashing.com/. These guys dress up in cell-phone suits and smash the cellphones of passersby. I'd try to start a local chapter, but I'm way too timid.
First, if you're trolling, congratulations, you got me, and in grand style.
p . Note the part about cellphones increasing the risk of an accident fourfold. Also note the bit about a hands-free phone providing no significant advantage. Even though that comes with a disclaimer (study may have been too small), you can bet that it's still around the same increase.
If not:
What's the difference between talking on the phone and talking to someone sitting next to you?
First, if you don't have a hands-free set, you've got your hand by your ear the whole time. You're obstructing your vision and giving yourself one fewer hand to keep control with.
If you do have a hands free set, your attention is diverted from your immediate surroundings. Someone else in the car is responding to the same visual cues as you are, and you are free to break off any moment with no explanation. You can also do this on the cellphone, of course, but there's pressure not to.
These are small factors that don't matter most of the time, but are crucial if you need fast reactions.
Also, I hope you don't check directions on the map on a busy freeway at 60mph or check your blind spot every 10 seconds for the duration of a typical phone call (or when the road's not safe for at least a fraction of a second into the foreseeable future). You have far less control over the timing of a phone conversation than most things you do in the car. People can call you, and people hate being ignored or hung up on. It would be nice if the social pressure against that didn't exist, but it's not going away anytime soon.
Check http://www.onhea lth.com/conditions/in-depth/item/item,2350_1_1.as
It's government, trying to protect it's citizens from anything potentially harmful; and this is wrong!
They ban drunk driving, too. What's your point? They may be different quantitatively (I'm not sure), but you're making a qualitative point here.
What's the next step? Legislation requiring homes to be one level only, so no one can hurt themselves by falling down stairs? Federally mandated safety-scissors? Restricted, liquid-only diet to reduce risk of choking?
Yeah, where do they get off requiring drivers to get licensed? Or not letting you drive without insurance?
I note your point, but then again, when you're driving, you can hurt a lot of people besides yourself very, VERY easily.
Banning a single technology or behaviour is sheer ignorance.
That's an awfully ignorant statement. Everything in moderation.
This cellphone ban may be the wrong idea, but it may not be. Is it considerably more or less dangerous than drunk driving? Than checking a map? Than talking to your friend? And then the decision needs to be made on those grounds.
I'm not too worried about the radiation but with the amount of heat this thing is giving off I think I have just fried a few gazillion sperm.
;), it should be. The testicles nominally keep producing sperm for as long as you're sexually capable. Only the female of the species has a limited number of genetic carriers. Fortunately, ovaries are better protected.
No joke -- the ideal temperature for sperm is actually several degrees cooler then the 98.6 F that most of the body runs at. That's why the testicles are swinging in the breeze, instead of tucked inside the body for protection.
I've heard it told of a primitive tribe in Africa that employed a method of birth control where the males would soak their testicles in hot water for several minutes before engaging in sexual intercourse. No word on how well it worked.
I wonder if the heat effects on balls are more than just temporary.
As long as you're not actually burning yourself (and if you keep something that hot on your balls, you don't deserve to reproduce
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
apologies for a lame attempt at a first post.
...
It sounds like a real trade-off:
signal strength vs. possible health effects.
Filters, or filterless? Chooose yer poison.
My guess is this: adaptations will be made.
Take for instance the earpiece/microphone attachments. These put the base unit in your pocket. Those components could be made wireless, only having to transmit a strong enough signal to be picked up by the base unit and amplified to hit a tower/satellite.
I'll bet that the 1st generation of TVs would cook a TV dinner in under an hour
.
Actually, a science institute in Skövde, Sweden announced that their cellphone-labs made people smart. I think there was a small article att SvD, but I can't seem to find it. Does anyone else have links to this?
First of all, this isn't just typical EMF radiation like you'd get from an electric razor. That's why it's currently under study. Science says beware, consequences are unknown. It's simple technophilia that would say without pause "don't worry- those scientists don't know what they're talking about, and even if they do, technology will save us!" Secondly, driving a car has known associated risks. The risks associated with using a wireless phone are currently unknown. Personally, I'm no expert on the effects of radiation on living cells, and even if I was, this seems to warrent further study. I'm going to wait and see what the experiments have to say.
I live out in the middle of nowhere and there is no usable digital coverage here. The Nokia 918 AMPS phone I use has to crank itself way up to reach a cell over two miles away. That requires about 16 times the power of reaching a cell 1/2 mile away.
--
Gleepy the Hen. More intelligent than the average hen.
Attention! A Warning from the Surgeon General:
Excessive use of Slashdot may cause dizziness, eyestrain, headaches, hypertension, reduced brain function, loss of memory, brain tumours, cancer, spontaneous combustion, and the urge to GPL any and all code.
Mr. Ska
I heard on the radio the other day about a poll they did for people 95 years-old+. They were asked what they would have done differently if they started over. And the guy on the radio said that they ALL said that they would have taken more risks. just interesting to think about...
Now THAT'S a troll, everybody! :)
This seems very familiar territory to me. If some people remember when color televisions came out there was controversy over radiation resinating from the television screen. We dont see radiation placquards on television boxes though. I fail to see why people are so concerned with the issue of cellular phones emitting radtiation when they most likely recieve more radiation while they are at work on their computer and then go home and watch the tube.
~~~ Linux is user Friendly.. It's just picky about it's friends.
Ummm doesn't Nokia already sell a huge number of phones that are already regulated by EU radiation standards? Can someone comment on this? If this this true then the whole act is just window dressing. AFAIK EU regs are years ahead of the US anyway. They were years ahead of us in monitor emissions at any rate.
I'd be much more concerned if my office mate's 21" monitor was beaming x-rays at my head all day out the back of the tube which is where most of the errant radiation comes from.
Obviously nobody is going to pay attention to the radiation levels on the box, which is good. I suggest we go a step further: equip all cellular phones with GPS. As soon as a cellphone is activated in a movie theater, restaurant, moving vehicle, etc, then immediately lower the lead shielding and expose the user's head to pure weapons grade uranium. In addition, if the cellphone user is driving 10MPH under the speed limit and constantly swerving onto the shoulder, have their FAMILY exposed to radioactive material as well. And anyone talking about something stupid in a crowded line, doing everything they can to broadcast the message "Look! I have a cellular phone!" would immediately be shot.
I think this is the kind of law we can all get behind.
So I was watching Discovery Wings a few weeks ago, and started seeing advertisements for little oval-shaped "filters" that you put over the earpiece of your cellular phone to block the radiation. I just about fell out of my chair.
These people are serious! They actually think a patch the size of an elongated quarter placed over the earpiece of a cel phone will save you. They had it all. Everything from a generic American mother saying, in a deadpan face and a concerned voice "I'd never let my teenager use an unprotected celluar phone!" to a really scientific test where they held a cel phone up to a monitor and showed how it made the monitor shake. Then they put one of their magical filters on the phone, and showed how the monitor didn't shake anymore. Riiiiiiight. They must have that special Gauss-model phone that wasn't available when I went shopping for my PCS phone (Which doesn't, for the record, make my monitor shake)
I certainly hope nobody is taking that product seriously. As if the only radiation in a phone comes directly out the earpiece in a unidirectional fashion. They even suggested you can use their filters on standard wireless phones.
I suppose they're just feeding on the classic fear (And in many cases, paranoia) of the unknown that seems to be an all-too-constant aspect of humanity. Even if cel phones are harmful, these filter-making folks definitely don't have the solution.
apparently 1Ghz processors give off radiation getting on for microwave levels, tho I don't pretend to know about how strong this radiation is, and even then we aren't quite there yet for the laptops. Alsotheir might be shielding in teh case or something.
:-)
It all makes sense to my SYS level Physics
Avendit
Nuff Said.
Well, the power line EM field studies have shown to be blatantly flawed, so I don't see why this would be dangerous at all....
But, on the off chance that it is, there are a number of viable alternatives. You could keep the antenna on a belt unit the size of a pager, and have an IR, wire, or weak radio connecting it to a corresponding handset. Of course, I still think subdermal microphones and earphones are the best idea, with a wire running under the skin to flat antennas implanted on the shoulder blades.
People smoke - even though they know it will kill them.
People don't eat GM food - because it might be bad for you.
People use mobile phones a lot - even though it's a fact that they give off radiation, and people know it.
If you erect a phone mast next to someone's house they'll moan like anything, all the time complaining about the radiation coming from it and giving them cancer, but then they'll happily put a smaller version of it right next to their head for 5 minutes while they make a phonecall.
---
I'm not sure about where you are, but in Oregon it is illegal to have any sort of headset on while you are driving so be careful of doing that. At any other time i dont see why not.
Although putting the cell phone on your belt of hip pocket might give you colon or prostate cancer or make you impotent.
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
BTW - There is a news story on Yahoo about the growing problem of the High-Tech driver distraction threat.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
Remember, water is toxic when inhaled.
Really, there seems to be no data supporting even a casual connection between cell phone use and cancer. And while I support the commission of studies to determine if consumer electronics are deadly (Conclusion: Don't drop the 36" TV on your kid), we seem to be beating a dead horse with this particular issue.
It's a 50 year old problem that seems to get worse every day: Mention radiation and people will freak. Put the absorbed radiation data on a cell phone and people will worry and buy the one with less, even if it has no relevance in the issue of health. Bugs me.
I wonder who's making money off of this particular piece of legislation. Trial lawyers? Advocacy groups? The mafia?
-M
aFUCKINGmen! Tell it how it is, preach!
Why would I want to carry around a device which would allow anyone in the world to call and bug me at any time?
In my case, it's because my employer pays me to.
Would I do so otherwise? Unlikely. Nobody I know needs to get in touch with me that badly. I've got an answering machine.
I did carry an unactivated cell phone in my glove compartment before I got this job, though. (You can still use an unactivated phone to make emergency calls).
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Dead serious, I was standing outside with a coworker one day who was taking a smoke break, I answered a cel phone call, and the smoking coworker told me how those cel phones will kill me someday.
:)
He realized, of course, of the pot and the kettle situation. But still, it happened.
Well nicotene helps me when I'm stressed. Sure it may noy solve the long-term problems, but it certainly helps to go and sit down and have a quick smoke.
See, and you thought nobody would read it eh? :)
Maybe this will be the next Mountain Dew commercial.
No more guys in shorts with long hair mountain biking off cliffs, and bungie jumping off of spikey mountains. The next wave of commercials will be business men in Suits daring to speak into their cellular phones.
Do the RADical Dew!!!
"as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee" - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. (One man's humorous is another mans flamebait)
They do make announcements. Those silly little fake-trailers you watch before the movie always say "Enjoy our popcorn - please silence pagers and phones."
As for I need to get a call, well, don't go to a movie then. It's that simple.
By far the most annoying place for mobile phones is the restaurant though. I find it incredibly rude to sit at a table and eat while someone else at the table yaks on the phone. At least get up and go outside, damnit.
Unfortunately, this study seems to indicated that it is the act of taking the telephone call that adds risk to driving - hands-free phones didn't significantly reduce the risk.
YS
"Arrr! The laws of science be a harsh mistress." -- Bender
Not wanting to be too stupid, but I can't figure out which article you are disagreeing with.
After seeing a report on Dateline or another one of those you-need-to-see-this-next-report-or-you-will-die type of "news" shows about the amount of radiation given off from popular cell phone brands, she realized her phone (the very popular Nokia one, I think the 6100) gave off the most radiation. In response to this, she bought a headset attachment for it so the radiation would be away from her head. She used it for a week, then it sort of faded out. The sad thing is, I think she did more than most of the general public would.
Yah, you see how you scum
Maybe, but for most of us, this research is useless. I don't mean to say that its not worth doing, just that it isn't going to do me any good since I can't wait that long for an answer.
Current CDMA/TDMA cellphones pump out 0.6 watts (carphones/bag phones use 3.0 watts). As the power decreases the health risks will decrease aswell, even if they are minute to begin with.
Solution? Move to the next generation of Cellular Phones, ala Time Domain's Time Modulated UltraWideband Impulse tech, or what ever they are calling it these days. From what I understand, phones built upon this tech would only produce 0.0025watts... Hell I make more power belching.
--
Ok, I come back, and I find that my post's been marked down as a troll. What gives? Can somebody here use more than one goddamned word ("troll") to explain this to me?
If I'm wrong, tell me, but I'll be damned if I'm going to listen to you if you don't also tell me why.
We've now got the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer... but it's still a multi-billion dollar industry. ;-( So no, even if they do publish that the mobiles are generating dangerous levels of radiation, I seriously doubt that people will stop using them.
I wish more places would install Cellular Firewalls like this one. I think every theatre should have one - if you want to make a call, go outside dammit.
...when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
::evil grin::
I'll still be using the miniature microwave to nuke my brain until I have a tumor the size of Rhode Island--only then will I admit that it's hazardous to my health and not before!
Hell, without my cel, no one would ever be able to get a hold of me. The world would miss my winning personality
Beware the Whyte Wolf.
With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...
I work for an electricity distributor, and we used to have a lot of complaints from people about the "radiation" from power lines. This was, of course, due to media attention and it seemed no amount of scientific facts can appease them once it's been mentioned on the nightly news. However, as the most recent such report was a few years ago most people don't actually bring it up anymore.
The funny thing is, the same people who are concerned about power lines and mobile phones have no qualms about sitting in front of a TV or computer for hours each day being bombarded with X-rays, or being subjected to large EM fields by electric blankets, hair dryers, etc. They just saw some reporter claiming an small, unsupported study found an extremely weak link between power lines and some disease.
Unlike power lines, mobile phones may actually damage cells due to the high frequencies used, but I doubt it will be significant. I predict the media will have a field day, a couple of groups of "concerned citizens" will call for a ban and mobile phone companies will have a new number to differentiate their products with. The funniest thing will be seeing whether lower radiation phones give poorer reception. In a few years the media will have a new bogie man and no-one will care less.
If any harmful effects do exists, they will only show up as statistical deviations in cancer rates many years hence. This will be explained by the medical community as "possibly due to mobile phone usage, but could have many other causes."
It's a cruel world.
On the other hand I do wish they would put up devices in movies etc so that they would block cell phones (Mine gets turned off) as its just annoying when you are in the middle of a film and someone's phone goes off
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
.. I can just see it, mandatory labels on cellphones.. "Using this phone will kill you"
;)..
Hell, using the cell can be just as rude as smoking cigarettes, and cellphone use is higher in Europe than the US (by roughly the same percentages even?
Your Working Boy,
- the cell phone industry simply has to state it's radiation level in relation to other sources.
Like you compared cancer risks to driving or flying, they need to compare their radiation levels to other "common" emissions which will both comply with the proposed law AND shift attention away to other items.
Picture this in a commercial:
Radiation levels
Flying at 20,000 ft: 1000x
Dental X-ray: 200x
Watching a 35in TV: 20x
Talking on a cell phone: 1x
"Go ahead, talk all you want. . . but don't call the dentist!"
Without a relative benchmark that number would be as meaningless as MHz :-)
It's a blatant lie that cell phones cause cancer!
The evil machine would have you believe this, to hide the truth. Through my own highly $cientific intellect, and numerous infallible studies, I have determined that cancer is caused by those dubious antagonists of our existence... BODY THETANS!
So continue about using your cell phone. But beware the body thetans...
*Note: Have Body Thetans personally removed from your system for a nominal fee.
Get a random sampling of marketing people and hold a Geiger counter up to each of their heads. Whoever makes the counter register the highest, find out which cell phone he uses and give the same model to the rest of the marketing guys. Then wait.
These comments and opinions are mine and mine alone, although they shouldn't be.
Speaking of Michael Schumacher, I believe he does, in fact, use a cell phone while he's driving around the F1 track.. Well, ok it's not a cell phone, but he's in radio communication with his pit-crew, and his earplug is attached to him so he's not holding the phone in one hand. It's hard to up- and down-shift, let alone steer an F1 car while holding a phone, which brings up the interesting question if the holding of the phone contributes more to the chance of accident than the potential distraction of talking or listening.
Plenty of people listen to the radio while they drive, and tons of people eat while they drive. Women often apply makeup while driving and guys adjust their balls while driving, parents play with their toddlers while driving. All in all I'm surprised there aren't more accidents!
Btw: if Patricia is a troll, my hat off to her, wow! Same goes for if she's real, putting up with all this crap from all these insensitive asshole geek guys.. wew!
If the data supports the claims that have been made over the years about cell phone radiation causing increased risk of cancer--and I'm not saying it *does* in fact do so, just that many people have claimed it--then the question will become how long have they known and have they been hiding it.
Well, I can't speak authoritatively on this, of course, but I used to work at the George Washington University Medical Center's Animal Research Lab (and before anyone jumps on my case, it was a very humane lab, and it was a work study position. I don't want to hear it.) doing administrative computer stuff that included a bit of data entry for a study on the effects of cell phone radiation on mice. IIRC, this was one of the larger such stdies, and it was a multi-year project.
Since I was working there in '95 and '96, that probably would have put the project completion around '98. Give another year for chewing on the data, internal meetings and such, and you'll prolly find that they only really completed things last year. However, I also remember that the study results, to that point, were mostly inconclusive. There really wasn't a higher incidence of tumors, malignant or otherwise, in the test groups as compared to the control groups.
-Todd
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Surely most people in the USA will think, If it does kill me I don't care because I can just sue the cell phone company for millions! :-)
What sort of advertising campaign could convince people that inhaling smoke is actually good for you? Where's the common sense?
Oh, wait... This is America after all, and people get an extra large burger, and a Diet Coke to go with it! This is where people eat exorbitant amounts of beef and chicken fat, because they know that they can always have it violently vacuumed (liposuctioned) out of their ass by a surgeon. And if they're too poor for that, they can use a drug to reduce their cholesterol - hell, we can transplant a new liver for you after the drugs fry the original. This is where people buy a Ford Excursion (14MPG) to go to the grocery store; and drive the beast at 90MPH in the right lane. This is where people will buy sour-cream labelled as 'lite' to counter-act the burger (since the Coke didn't do it); and where the marketter can label a product as 'lite' because it's brighter in colour than the "leading national brand". This is where people move to the 'big city' for the higher paying job, and spend twice as much as they should for rent; where they ride a stationary bike (that doesn't go anywhere), so they can look good while baking in the sun.
Convenience-lemmings will, of course, keep on using cell-phones; even if the price is a guaranteed brain tumour by the age of 80... After all, most will die of emphysema, skin cancer, colon cancer, car accident or heart attack long before that.
And the remaining rich have good insurance.
This is a disposable society, using disposable goods, disposable resources and disposable organs. There are disposable people living in the streets. Disposable kids, the products of disposable marriages, let themselves into their empty disposable homes after school and get baby-sat by an idiot-box whose only purpose is to reinforce this mentality. They hope that, their disposable dad doesn't get disposed of by his employer and doesn't dispose of their step-mom whose disposable T&A are starting to sag again.
But hey, it's all good.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Everyone is wondering about the radiation from a device used as frequently as a cell phone.
What about putting a laptop right on top of the family jewells?!
A laptop is certainly using more power than a cell phone (unless it's using transmeta, hehehe) and while it does offer more shielding, it usually sits there for a lot longer I would guess.
Also, I hope they show comparisons to normal 900MHz/2.4GHz phones.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
that could kill wireless internet for laptop users. Afterall..... what self-respecting person would want to run the risk of sterilizing themselves by having a laptop in their lap which is sending out dangerous levels of radiation?
If the data supports the claims that have been made over the years about cell phone radiation causing increased risk of cancer--and I'm not saying it *does* in fact do so, just that many people have claimed it--then the question will become how long have they known and have they been hiding it. That's what got the tobacco companies: that their product causes increased risk of cancer isn't very actionable in and of itself--the fact that they knew it caused cancer, and did nothing to stop it, and denied any knowledge of the risks, is what made the tobacco lawsuits so profitable. I myself smoke cigars, but have no sympathy for a cigarette industry which has lied and cheated and in effect caused more people to die than might have if they'd come clean years ago. Anyone remember those cheesy 50s and 60s cigarrette commercials which touted the "health benefits" of smoking?
But seriously, I doubt that cell phones cause cancer any more than everything else around us does these days. Face it: life causes cancer. Most modern tech increases health risks. Six inches away from a small 15" CRT that I am, I am undoubtedly increasing my risks for cancer somewhat. Sitting a couple feet from a 19" CRT probably contributes just as much. Running your computer caseless probably contributes a tiny little bit to cancer risks, as probably does using cellphones, preservatives, cultured cheese products, soy products (recent studies suggest soy is a carcinogen in mice), diet soda, and just about anything useful. Personally, I'm fed-up with the overly-health-consciousness which causes us to put so many constraints on life that it isn't as fun as it should be. Plus, most of it is bullshit--fat and cholesterol are supposedly bad for you, yet the French practically have IVs of pure butter hooked into their veins and yet they're healthier than and live longer than Americans. To hell with no drinking, no smoking, no eating greasy pork products, and no enjoying buttery sugary eggy confections. It's time we just started enjoying life and not being so concerned with radiation, dietary intake, and how many hormones are in milk: who cares if we live to a hundred carefully if we could just have sixty five really fun years? Just my opinion.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
It would be interesting to get its radiation signature, if for no other reason than to understand and compensate for these annoying "features."
But I wonder: What happened to the FCC rule that said that an item "must not cause interference, and must accept interference from other items"? Last time I checked, all electronic equipment had to be tested to meet this rule. What changed?
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
If this lead to standard use of headsets in conjunction with cellphones, we might see two birds killed with one stone:
- lower radiation exposure (which lowers a persons IQ without actually imposing a true evolutionary penalty through hereditary defects).
and
- Lower fatalities resulting from cell-phone use while driving.
Here's to hoping for the best!
--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
- size
- weight
- battery life
- features
A lot of people say that releasing this information won't deter cell phone usage. That's not the point. What WILL happen is that manufacturers will try to develop cell phones that emit less radiation than their competitors. The above list will then become:--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Tell that to the residents of Ouruhia, New Zealand.
The cell companies have conducted extensive research
Bah. You disqualify yourself the moment you drag in research by an interested party.
Are you adequate?
Magnetic bracelets to get rid of arthritis, magnetic insoles (even Dr. Scholes (sp) actually sells these) to get rid of whatever affects feet, magnetic sheets to place between your mattress and box-spring to cure insomnia...
EnerX, an 'all natural' alternative to Viagra, which is most likely just a 'secret' blend of Ginseng, Ginko and St. John's Wort; sold at 10x the price of the ingredients.
Viagra, and the whole slew of 'lifestyle' drugs - while there are valid medical reasons for a few individuals, people are popping these things like M&M's. Just wait until we get to see the long-term effects of that one... Ritalin, given to every child who doesn't pay attention in class (like any of us did, right?) is the new Valium...
I suspect that mothers who took Valium while pregnant, brought forth kids who now NEED Ritalin. These same mothers are much more likely to cure their kids' problems with pills than with proper upbringing... And these are the same mothers who defer parental responsibility to the TV set and school system.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
I mean, since cell phone users are predominantly white, middle to upper class males, of course this gets investigated.
Uh-huh. And what countries are Nokia, Sony, Samsung, etc. based in again? Do you have any idea how widespread cel phone use is in Europe and Asia? Cellular tech has exploded in areas of China and India because there was essentially no prior infrastructure. So why not build up the current thing, cellular, instead of waste time evolving an infrastructure like the US has done? It's a classic leap-frogging in technology.
Rich white males indeed. Hell, even if we were to assume it was an American thing, wander through an assortment of high schools sometime and show me the rich people based only on if they have a cel phone glued to their ear. Sheesh.
Now THAT was uncalled for.
~~~ Linux is user Friendly.. It's just picky about it's friends.
I realize I should wait for the report.. but..
What 'radiation' do people think comes out of cellular phones?
I mean, are they worried about the 800Mhz -> 5 Ghz range?
The thing is, when Joe American (or any other Joe..) thinks Radiation, he thinks like 'nuclear bomb' and 'radioactive isotope'.)
Are we talking alpha, beta, gamma. or.. ????
No.. we aren't. We're talking about a couple of watts of 900Mhz (or perhaps 2.4Ghz or somewhere in there). It's *NOT* ionizing radiation. As far as we know, it can't break down molecular bonds.
2.4Ghz is used in microwave ovens, to shake polarized molecules (chiefly water) , but that takes a reflecting cavity to keep the microwaves in, and a 600 watt microwave emitter! And that's just to heat food up! (really.. if you stuck your hand in a microwave oven for like 3 seconds, it probably wouldn't do any permanent damage to you. Might hurt though...)
I'm not denying that cellular phones may pose some kind of health risk to do the RF.... but if they do, this wouldn't be just about cellular phones, it would be a study into the effects of RF from *all* sources. Something we keep using more and more of, and still consider harmless.
When people ask you if there's a cell phone number you can be reached at, you just say "nope" and they'll give you a quizzical look- like you just fell off the turnip truck- but nothing really bad has ever happened to be because I didn't have one.
There's a chance that I'm hamstrining my career by not making myself availible like that, but I bet that career advancement looks pretty short-sighted when you're sitting on the terminal end of a brain tumor.
I hope that didn't sound like a flame. Those are just the honest reasons why I stopped. And no, I'm not saying that I think these phones necessarily cause cancer, I'm just saying that in my opinion, some things just aren't worth risking.
I see many post along the lines of "Everything causes cancer so who cares!" I realize that's the expected viewpoint from students, but there are different types of risk. Monitor and house wiring EMF has been an on and off issue; studies aren't clear one way or the other. Other so-called risks, like peanut butter causing cancer, are also peculiar, because how much peanut butter does one really eat in a lifetime? Occasionally, though, something really bad gets out into the mainstream. For a long time it was standard medical practice to X-ray pregnant mothers to check on the state of the fetus (this was before sonograms). This went on for ten or more years before anyone questioned it. Now we're horrified. How could we have done that?
There is a possibility that the risk of cell phones is more than just background noise. We should wait and see. We we shouldn't just ignore it if the results are bad.
Someone I know reckons that Mobile Phone Radiation is the cause of CJD - It's difficult to argue against him - anybody want to provide some ammunition???
Yah, I agree with you; what pissed me off was that an apparently sincere attempt to defend the troll from the people who took the bait got moderated to +5, when even people who didn't realize the post was a troll should have realized that it was full of shit. Now, if only the moderators would always agree with ME, the moderation system would be perfect...
Well, the problem is not the potential distraction of talking or listening, well illustrated by our racecar driver example, as well as people listening to the radio or even talking with other passengers while driving. The big problem is an interactive source of distraction which isn't sensitive the the context of driving. The radio isn't sensitive to driving stimuli, but you don't need to respond to it. The conversational passenger does require responses, but if the passenger notices that the traffic is getting a little difficult, they'll usually shut up so you can concentrate on driving. The person at the other end of a cell phone doesn't know whether you're alone on a sleepy suburban road or trying to execute a tricky high speed merge on the freeway, and they don't know when to not distract you. That's why it's more dangerous...
We are going to see piles of unbought cell phones at stores just like we saw boxes of cigarretes after we learned they were harmful to our health.
This paid my last vacation, it mi
I have FRIENDS, unlike you and your little computer life, so I need a way to keep in contact with them
and that's how it's a troll. You had a line in your original post saying pretty much the same thing.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I'm loaded with midi-clorians!
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Well, this kind of thinking worries me. Why?
There are plenty of products out on the open market that are unsafe. You see, companies work to create the highest profits. If a company can save a few dollars, or even a few cents, per product, that translates to millions of dollars if they sell enough product. And if they determine that by excluding x safety feature from y product saves them a amount of money, if a amount of money is more than it takes to deal with b amount of isolated lawsuits, guess what -- the safety feature will be left out. It's happened time and time again.
Doesn't that just give you the warm fuzzies?
Actually I believe this poster is 100% correct. Most technology comes with justified risk. Safety is often overlooked in favor of conveniance. If you guys want to live in a cabin in the klondyke eating enriched wheat bread and drinking stream water, be my guest.
I prefer my cell phones, vehicles, microwaves, electronics, escelators, guns, heaters, air conditioners, antibiotics, compressed air products and all the other modern convieniences that have been called health risks at one time or another.
And if you think cell phones are an unnecessary extravagance, talk to me again in a few years, when having a personal communications device is not only expected, but as required as normal telephones are today.
"Those who choose safety over freedom deserve neither"
Uhh, yeah, while you are using that headset keep the phone on and clipped to your belt; bring that active cell phone antenna closer to your reproductive organs and your soft underbelly area. Good idea. At least your brain has a shell of bone around it! Granted, it's not lead-lined bone (well, my skull isn't), but hey, you can't have everything, right?
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
I truely wonder how dangerious cell phones actually are. It seems to me that if you look hard enough you can find a report or study that claims that any [RANDOM ACTIVITY OF CHOICE] is potentially harmful to your health. More scientific proof, less hype. Anyone have a link to actual radiation numbers for existing cell phones?
Same... hands free and in car kits are perfectly okay. Strangely, though, CB's are still legal to use...
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
>The one genuine, foolproof cure for stress, is nicotine.
Evidence? Studies? That's the first I've heard of that... the only stress I was aware that it cured was the stress of addiction waiting for that next one...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Don't be deceived by the fact that many non-whites "make it" nowadays. The very concept of "making it" is ethnophobic, since it crucially involves surrendering native values to "civilized" Western values.
Are you adequate?
I'm not sure you were being sarcastic, but in case you were not:
BULLSHIT!
What's the difference between talking on the phone and talking to someone sitting next to you? Or drinking a hot coffee? Or fidgetting with the radio controls? Or checking your blind-spot, hence taking your eyes off the road ahead? Or checking directions on a map? Are all these activities, and countless others, somehow less distracting to a driver? Should (Are) these also be banned?
Banning cell-phones have been done in a few towns in a few states here in the US as well. It's stupid and short-sighted. It's government, trying to protect it's citizens from anything potentially harmful; and this is wrong!
What's the next step? Legislation requiring homes to be one level only, so no one can hurt themselves by falling down stairs? Federally mandated safety-scissors? Restricted, liquid-only diet to reduce risk of choking?
Banning a single technology or behaviour is sheer ignorance.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
This regiester article tells how someone was killed by a mobile phone.
A report from the cellular phone industry about itself is worth as much to me as a report on smoking from the tobacco industry. I don't necessarily think that they (cellphones) are dangerous to inviduals using them yet, but I would rather see a report from the AMA or other medical institution than the industry itself. Doesn't everyone like an RF field being generated about 1 inch from their brain?
Can you imagine the trillion dollar lawsuits if the millions of self-important professionals and pampered teenagers get ear-lobe cancer?
Lawsuits will surface like mold on old bread. Yuck.
Ever since my parents bought me a sweet cel phone for my 16th birthday, it has become a HUGE factor in my life. I use it for talking to friends, finding out about parties, contacting my boyfriend when I'm away, and ordering pizza. I mean it's just way too convenient for me to give up. I guess you could use pay phones at times, but you still have to find one first, and even then I can't be bothered to carry odd amounts of coins in my purse. It's just easier to have my cel on hand.
:)
I don't see why everyone here is so uptight about cel phones. I read the article, and looks to me like it's just trying to stir up controversy about cel phones. I firmly believe that if they were truly unsafe, the big companies would not have released cel phones to the market.
You know, I've been using my cel all the time for almost a year, and guess what? I haven't died of radiation poisoning, ok! Besides, why worry yourselves with this POTENTIAL radiation damage and POSSIBLE side effects? You're forgetting how advanced and quickly moving our technology is anyway. And even if some minor radiation issue is discovered, I am fully confident that businesses will honestly address it and that medical science will immedietally find a cure for any illnesses or symptoms caused by cel phone usage.
And one more thing I want to know is why do people make such a big deal about using cel phones while driving? I never saw any huge complaints about carphones before, but when they come with cel phones it's all "OH MY GOD YOUR GOING TO CRASH IF YOU USE A CEL PHONE." Well I've been only driving for less than a year, and I can handle driving my Chevy Tahoe while talking on the cel phone quite well. If a 16 year old girl can handle it, I think the people in general are intelligent enough to be able to drive while on the phone. I know a few rare accidents occur because people drive while talking on cel phones, but I'd rather take that risk than risk missing an important call from one of my girlfriends.
I really wonder why the slashdot community has it in for cel phone users and why they're falling for all this muckracking press. Maybe some of you guys just need a life so you can see how important a cel phone actually is
If you had just bothered to look at the link I gave, you could have found this page.
Are you adequate?
Um, I think the radiation might cause mutations, but the heat might just cause a few cells to die, although I'm not sure that would be enough heat to actually do anything.
Not to worry, it shouldn't take long to produce a few gazillion more.
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
By the way, on the off-chance that the data says the equivalent of 'For The Love Of God, Stop Using This Device, We're Surprised You're Not Dead Yet,' does anyone think that people would stop using them?
No
This
I think the real question here is, will my kids be able to control the weather by mind control or shoot laser beams out from their eyes if I continue to use a cell phone? And will society fear them?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
This is all pure rant, you have been warned!
============================================
A cell phone is useful only if you want to talk to someone. I get enough of that supporting over 1400 users at my place of work. A pager is fine if the family needs to get a hold of me when I am not with them, which is a rare occurance. In the last 2 years I can see where a cell phone might have been handy for about 2 or 3 MINUTES. I am not going to make the phone company any richer for a convienence whose usefullness is totally manufactured by the producers of the product. A cell phone will not help your career, make you more popular, or improve your love life. They are being promoted in exactly the same way that tobacco and alcohol have been and because of the herd instinct of humanity most humans suck it in and spew it out in the form of corporate profits and loss of quality of life.
===========================================
Hope you enjoyed my rant. :^)
Jumping to correct solutions slowly is better than jumping to incorrect solutions quickly.
You hit the nail squarely on the head. Besides, even if you wanted to find a pay phone, it's getting tougher. There was a story in City Pages (Twin Cities arts/entertainment weekly) a few weeks ago about dwindling numbers of pay phones.
;)
In some of the more unsightly neighborhoods in the city, US West (now Qwest, apparently) has been pulling out phones like crazy because they are hot spots for drug activity and/or prostitution. They attract unsavory elements of society, and plenty of businesses that used to have them decided to have their pay phones removed.
So I guess it all boils down to a choice: radiation to fry yer brain or a healthy economy in the world's oldest profession?
Actually, this won't happen because these numbers won't mean shit to people.
"Buy our phone, it only has an SAR of 11.53, the competitor's phone is at 12.92 - it'll give you cancer 14% faster!"
We won't know whether the phones are actually killing us until the following has happened:
Not that I'm particularly worried about cell-phone radiation, but headsets don't necessarily help. Aside from the potential for increased risk of hip-cancer :-), a lot of phones don't properly isolate the headset from the transmission components of the phone, so the headset just acts as an antenna. I think I even remember reading that some headsets increase the amount of radiation your head gets. Of course, it is non-ionizing radiation, and is probably far less harmful than the constant onslaught of muons, gamma rays, and other high-energy radiation we're constantly bombarded with from above...
:-)
There's soon going to be a big outcry about second-hand cell phone radiation from people who wouldn't understand the inverse-square law if it bit them in the ass. This is the problem with having a general public that doesn't understand anything more complex than a channel changer (I'm probably giving too much credit--I'd bet the majority of people don't know how to use their VCR remote to get rid of the flashing 12:00). These are the people I'm going to chase down the street with my cell phone
Would be some serious, relatively objective, relatively trustable data on how much cell phone usage while driving increases the chance of an automobile accident. A possible >60mph crash seems to be a hell of a lot more of a vital concern than a 5% increased chance of cancer in the next 30 years, no matter how statistically or scientifically likely either one is.
there was some study or other in canada a few years ago that wound up with data suggesting that the increase in probability of accident caused by using a cell phone was equal to the increase in probability of accident caused by being drunk. I don't remember who held this survey, so i can't testify as to its validity, but if it's real that's pretty damn scary. We were handed a copy of a summary in drivers ed, and it's buried somewhere in the piles of paper in my room. During drivers ed we spent several days doing nothing but watching videos talking about how if we are caught drinking while driving, our liscences are taken away forever and we have trouble getting jobs. That piece of paper was the only thing they gave us telling us not to talk on cell phones while driving, and i was given no indication that the law would be particularly harsh on me were i to cause an accident through careless driving because i was busy with a cell phone, or that the law was taking any steps whatsoever to prevent cell phone usage from causing accidents.
I believe some federal agency recently held a study of cell phone accident statistics that indicated cell phones or other driver-distracting electronics were a factor in 25% of all automobile accidents, or some such horrifying number. I would like to request that anyone who has some actual real information on this post it.
[insert unfocused, offtopic rant here about how last time i checked Houston had the highest auto accident death rate in america, and how the bit of the 610 loop between I-10 and I-59 is pure hell and i have to drive it every day and i'm constantly having my life put in danger by people talking on cell phones who fail to notice even the most basic of things about the very dangerous environment they are in blah blah blah]
The major difference between this kind of thing and cancer from cell phone overuse is that with cell phone cancer, you the user are the only person likely to die as a result..
Anyone with any kind of further information more real than my vague recollections of statistics, please reply.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I hate cellphones and consider them to be evil tools of the prince of lies!!
Why would I want to carry around a device which would allow anyone in the world to call and bug me at any time? Cell phones are diabolical because you can never escape your office, it follows you around.
Then of course there are all these young dumbass punks who have them because they think it is "cool" and who think they're impressing people when they're talking on them. Yeah, you're impressing me with your stupidity by paying a ton of money for a mobile phone when you've got a phone at home already. Get a pager if you want people to be able to get in touch with you. Save your money for more of those trendy logo'd clothes that cost twice what they are worth and which you also wear to try and impress people.
Cellphones suck.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
This is an honest question for any of the engineers here: would using a headset(which would move the phone from right beside your head to your hip pocket) help at all? (Yes, I understand the idea of the inverse-square law, so I would naively think that this would help a fair bit--I just would like to know if there's some other factor I don't know about that would cancel out this seemingly easy-to-achieve benefit...)
while pms is obviously a troll, (s)he is one who is making a valid point. open your eyes, kiddies... this is what we call irony.
heidi
Karma Police, arrest this man, he talks in maths
He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
I reckon it would have little real affect if they were to come out and say that mobile phones are causing damage. Here in Australia we have some pretty hellish health warnings on ciggo's,
'Smoking Causes Heart Disease'
'Smoking is Addictive'
'Smoking Can Kill' (There are actually like 6 or 7 different ones)
Yet it don't seem to make any difference
I get headaches when I use mobile phones, so I try to limit my use of them, if it's giving me a headache, it can't be too good!!I wonder what yould happen if i went to alt.morons.who.believe.everything and post a message that says that police radar guns cause cancer, and that airport metal detectors cause hardening of the ateries.
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
Regardless, everyone can use a headset.
Here's a good summary (with more links) on mobile phone safety
__________________________________________
God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ --1Thes5:9
Which? said this:
s trict=&exclude=&method=&words=radiation)
6 57.html
:)
"Think again if you use a hands-free kit to protect yourself from mobile phone radiation - the two we tested increase the radiation levels inside your head compared with holding the phone by your ear."
Unfortunately, it's a pay site, and this is from the article summary. (http://www.which.net/cgi-bin/htsearch?config=&re
According to The Register (and the WHO), anyhow, there's no noticeable risk:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/11
I don't use my phone on the road, and I don't use a hands-free kit. So I guess I'm gonna live forever
--
Peter
Karma Police, arrest this man, he talks in maths
He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
If you read the original post along with the latter comments PMS makes, she (well, let's just say "she" for convenience's sake) sounds like she is trying to make a point about moderation and the whole Slashdot system. What's the whole purpose of a Troll except to get people to mouth off and sound like idiots?
I mean, you've got people here refuting point by point everything she says when some of those statements should make you suspect something is up! I mean, the whole thing about how driving for almost a year means she is a good driver, and what she said about not getting cancer in one year of cell phone use? Jeez, look at her writing style - no one who can write in such a coherent manner (see her later replies) would make such insane statements except on purpose! Another thing, the number of "16-yr old girl" phrases seem to drop off dramtically in the later posts.
Oops, she's got me doing it now! I just discussed two points from the origninal post! Man, I'm a sucker!
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
PRO Cell-Phone: If the health figures were bad, they wouldn't release them, so they must be good.
CON Cell-Phone: Usually I'm talking to people from work on my cell phone, so usually I get a headache when I'm using my cell phone.
rb
Most things don't get made illegal until there's a noticeable problem with them. Since the amount of people who use CBs is a tiny fraction of the population the number of accidents because of them would be correspondingly low. If 30+ percent of the population was using CBs the same studies would be occurring and the same legislation would be enacted.
Try Viewing "Threaded" or "nested" then ;)
:) Oh well.
Helps to follow the "threads" on the article.
massively off-topic compared to the cell-phone article of course
Look, I know a lot of you may disagree with me, but that IS seriously how I feel about cel phones. I'm not trying to be cute or funny or rude, but just because my opinion differs from yours is not a reason to call me a 'TROLL.' I don't know where you get off on trying to moderate me down just because I don't agree with everyone else here. My opinion may be drastically different, but it's a valid one and I give proof on my behalf too! Last time I checked this was a place for intelligent discussion, not a place where you mark up stuff you agree with and censor stuff you dont :P
I can see one of two things happening when the data is revealed.
a) Results say "It's pretty bad" - people immediately buy earpieces and little rubber 'radiation stoppers' and carry on as before. 20 years later, people sue mobile phone companies for allowing them to buy these terrible dangerous devices.
b) Results say "It's pretty safe" - people immediately think that they're falsifying results, and things must be terrible indeed. Then do exactly the same as in case 'a'.
Yeah, so I'm a cynical bastard.
Wasting your time since 1997.
If you're really worried about 900MHz/1800MHz signals bouncing around your head, keep the phone on your belt and use an earpiece. Not only does it free up a hand, but there's a LOT more tissue in your torso to disperse heat through than your head.
...then this is not a secret.
In France we have an expression to describe all these hoaxes: "Secret de Polichinelle".
This basically mean that we know the thing and we got so used to it than even making it official doesn't make us care.
I have heard about cellular phones emissions for years. I am sure of one thing that is important and that the study won't even mention: Cellular phones' radiation make people associal.
Don't believe me?
Ever sat next to a gossiper in the sub/train/plane/bus? Ever been interrupted while (c*e*n*s*o*r*e*d)? (and always the same excuse: "oups, my handy, this could be important").
The only positive thing about demonstrating some handy related cancer hazards could be to make people use these phones less spontaneously.... Like "thinking first"
It would be that fantastic if we could finally get actual information on others things that we are not used to be suspicious about.
BTW, making a story about future announces from somebody just sounds like one of Bill's inventions (according to its "secret diary" : the pre-announce.)
Is Slashdot looking forward to be part of the sensation press?
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
a portable handsfree kit that's actually COMFORTABLE. Most of the ones I've tried so far are horrible. A cordless BlueTooth handsfree kit will be even better. No, I am not worried about the BlueTooth RF - it's several orders of magnitude weaker than the signal the cellular phone is transmitting.
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Please quote one single sentence of Mr (Sr.) Martinez's posts which could be fairly interpreted as "hating white people". He merely pointed out that corporations do not care so much about the effects of their behaviour when the victims are not white.
To say that white-owned corporations are often racist is not to "hate white people"; it's more or less a simple statement of fact.
Me, I'm pretty damned white, but I have enough Cherokee blood that I could legally apply for membership in the tribe if I wanted to
I'm sure that the Cherokee would just love to have a whiny white guy hanging around the rez, telling them that they shouldn't complain about having their ancestral lands stolen, or they will be "ugly racists". By the way, the phony Lysenkoist racial biology that leads to phrases like "Cherokee blood" is repugnant too.
You appear to have appropriated the name of a war hero for your mindless racial tracts. Please change your fucking nickname.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Are there any tissue's in the head which could potentially focus some of that energy?
I don't remember lynching anybody. And I don't drink, or take drugs, so I guess I should remember if it has happened.
You hate white people, so you are a racist.
Bullshit. I just said that Western cultures are powerful, and that this power is causing the assimilation of people from other cultures. This is a fact.
And this is extremely unfair, especially since race is eroding slowly but surely as a cultural divide, thanks in part to intermarriage and thanks to the global culture being created by the Information Age.
Still, ethnicity barriers are not breaking down much. So your point is?
What a load of bullshit. You just spouted a bunch of crap about ethnicity != race (which *I* said in the post you were replying to), and a bunch of unsubstantiated statements about me hating whites.
All this because I dared to say that more powerful ethnic groups assimilate other groups they encounter, which is a historical fact. And you consider this "racism"? Clearly you are the bigoted fool who can't recognize the effects of your society on others, even when others put them right in front of your nose.
Are you adequate?
First, let me point out that when it comes to EM, you're basically talking about a 1/(distance^2) relationship. Thus, although the EM power output of the transmitter is low, the fact that you're pressing it directly against your skull puts a lot of that power into your head.
And it's not inconceivable that the EM could tweak a molecule of DNA. Honestly, we don't have enough data--it's a probablistic effect, that would only show up over time, in different rates in different people. I doubt it causes much harm, but then again, ask Madam Curie about being a pioneer. (Yeah, yeah, differnt kind of radiation, but it's still tweaked DNA.)
What I do wonder is how much investigation is being done about these 900Mhz and 2.4Ghz phones. Some of these seem to put out a lot of power, and you're holding them to your head the same way. Does anybody have any links on this?
What about the old cell phones? What about pagers? What about those new Palm VII (which ever one buildin a phone)? What about those 900 MHz home use cordless phone?
Here are some links to related materials found on the web...
Cellular Phone Antennas and Human Health by Medical Collage of Wisconsin
How a Cell Phone Works by How Stuff Works.
How a Digital Cell Phone Works by How Stuff Works.
Is your cell phone killing you? from ZDNet November 30, 1999.
Cell Phone Antennas & Health FAQs from Institute of Information and Computing Sciences.
============
Mathematics will always come back to hunt you down, in so many ways
Face it: life causes cancer.
That to me seems the key - it's kind of a Uncertainty Principle of life. You can't live without being affected by the world. If you are affected by the world, your chances of getting cancer increase, because there is some probabiliy, however slight, that just about anything can disrupt a little genetic code here or there.
The real question is, what ARE the probabilities, and who's lying to who about it?
sig fault
An epidemiological study on mobile phone use and cancer is underway in nine countries, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Here is a press release (from September 1998). Results are not expected until 2004.
The FAQ has some interesting information about how the writers of most of those "cellphones cause cancer" papers, which get picked up by the media in no time, have actually no tenure at any universtity and how their papers haven't undergone peer-review.
I work at a research institute of the University of Helsinki and ever so often we get long letters and research "papers" by people certain of having found ways to explain quantum gravity / the universe / theory of everything. These papers are nothing more than comic entertainment for us and a freetime hobby for whoever is sending them. As long as it's theoretical physics no-one cares. However, write a paper about cancer and cellphones and you may actually get some attention and perhaps even money. As long as your name has a PhD. in front of it the media wont bother to mention that you're actually unemployed or that your paper hasn't actually been published.
You are such a racist bastard. I always find it supremely ironic when non-whites are racist. And, don't give me any of this neo-feminazi-ethnonazi bs about how only those in power can be racists: racism has to do with the irrational hatred of particular races or ethnicities, and you sir are just as bad as any KKK member. Worse, because you as a non-white should know better than to be a racist, considering the racism which whites have used against non-whites for a couple of centuries. You hate white people, so you are a racist.
And this is extremely unfair, especially since race is eroding slowly but surely as a cultural divide, thanks in part to intermarriage and thanks to the global culture being created by the Information Age. In America, you can never be sure who's white or black or American Indian. I've known several people as white as any Aryan Brother, but half of whose ancestors in recent memory were black--skin can lighten to the point that some blacks could easy pass as white, and decades ago "passing" was a common thing for such people due to racism. Likewise, someone who had one black grandfather back down the line can be dark-skinned. Me, I'm pretty damned white, but I have enough Cherokee blood that I could legally apply for membership in the tribe if I wanted to. People like you hold us back. people like you are living in the past. You are a worthless racist bastard who causes more harm than stupid redneck KKK racists, because most people just ignore their wacky ideas and treat them like outcasts. But black and Hispanic racists get listened to, and it's people like you who renew the racial divide, who breed hatred and dissension instead of unity and brotherhood. You are the ultimate in harmful attitudes. Stop living in the past and start trying to work in the present to create the future. We're living in times when physical commodities are going to become less valuable than information and tech skills; there's a huge opportunity for non-whites to jump quickly to economic parity, but only if they discard outdated animus like yours. Your hatred has no place here.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
I have an old GSM cellphone (bought 3 years ago).
I have also a Fiat Panda car (http://www.fiat.com/eng/vorrei/showroom/panda/).
On the cellphone user manual is clearly written
that is not advisable to take long calls on cellphone because it could increase the eye's temperature, do not use in hospitals or nearby
people with pace-makers. It is also written
that if you use the cellphone in the car, is
better to stop if you don not have installed
the hands free/RF linear amplifier/external
aerial system.
On the Panda's user manual (that is a 20-year old
project of a low cost car) is clearly written
that you must not use a cellphone inside while
driving, if is not hands free and has an external aerial.
So, please, before use a cellphone on the left lane at 120 mph, please, RTFM!
Mike
My gf actually wrote a thesis on this stuff (she's an environmental health major). Although she specifically looked at GSM phones (maximum output power 2 Watts) this might still be a good reference.
She generally found that the radiation caused several effects. First and most important are the effects of heating induced by the radiation. Tests show that this effect is measurable in tenths of degrees at most, and this is not to be regarded as a health risk. There are some other effects (electrical, and several others I don't recall right now) which are either not measurable or are not known to have any adverse health effects. Bottom line is, there's minimal risk if (as with anything else) you don't overdo it.
Message on our company Intranet:
"You have a sticker in your private area"
beauty is only a light switch away
Yeah, that's right. I'm a bad ass. I smoke, drink, and use my cell phone at the same time. I guess I'm probably going to die of cancer of the brain, cirosis, and lung cancer all at the same time. Oh well and I'm such an insightful slashdot poster!!
kate
_________________________ Visit me at http://pornforcomputers.com
> when will they address the problem of the
... ie: *everywhere*.
> damage by radiation caused by cell phone
> antennas, which are overwhelmingly placed in
> poor communities?
Last time I checked, cell towers were placed anywhere people want cell phone service,
If there IS a large amount of radiation comming from the cell phones, then why put good radiation to waste? What we need is not so much a way of blocking it, but of putting it to constructive uses. For example, if you focused it a bit, maybe you could make a servicable microwave attachment to your phone! Think about it... Save yourself from getting brain tumors, all while preparing a warm and tasty buisness lunch! Neat! Or if culinary exploits arn't your style, why not focus it into a tight beam, to be used as a leathal, cancer causing, death ray!!! Take that, Mr slow driver in the fast lane! Eat brain cancer beam! How about it, science?
The so called ``French paradox'' (French people drinking lots of wine, eating lots of fat) seems to have something to do with the kind of fat they consume.
The French eat olive oil and fish, instead of `greasy pork products' and burgers. (Allthough they might overreact a bit on McDonalds restaurants, burning them down is a bit rude.)
By the way, scientists discovered that two glasses of wine a day is indead healthy.
I don't really care what that study says. Actually I want my cell phone implanted in my head. And I want a targeting cross in my vision. And a Nerf Gun inside my right arm, so I can Nerf-shoot my lusers, when they did something stupid again. And I want a holographic projection unit to let me appear as Tyrael with a vengeance, when they were really stupid (see DiabloII Act 3 intro movie). Gosh, I'm born too early.
Geiger counters measure ionizing radiation. That is, radiation that ionizes the gas (argon mix?) in the sensor chamber. Alpha particles would do it if you had the proper window material for the chamber (beryllium?). Heavier window materials might block alphas. Since I have ionized various gases (fluorescent bulbs) in my microwave I would suspect that a geiger counter could detect sufficiently strong microwaves.
Also, alphas are helium nuclie (2 protons + 2 neutrons). Betas are either electrons (B-) or positrons (B+). Gammas are photons. Microwaves are (low energy) photons.
Ryan
The "French Paradox" has been long been debunked. The French are almsot as likely to get heart disease as us Americans because they almost eat as much fat. I don't have an online reference but I recall reading it in a chapter on alcoholism in psychology.
They are being installed on appartments where people live and even very close to kindergardens etc.
It's a fact that people installing them get sick when working too long on them.
I don't know about the USA but with the GSM-system here in Belgium we have antenna's everywhere. GSM has an antenna every 3km (2 miles)maximum (much more in cities), and as we have 3 operators each using their own antennas, our cities are crowded with them.
Last week in Belgium a judge has (finally) ruled that 4 antenna's on top of an appartment have to be removed because 'as long as it isn't proven they're save we must consider them harmful'.
When telco companies started years ago installing them most antennas were placed illegally btw, without building permits, they needed to be installed right away so the permit was demanded later; or they are being placed on top of a metal container, didn't need a permission for that. People living next to those aren't always notified about antennas being installed (there's one installed on top of a 4-floor building across the street where I lived, only 3 houses left and right of the building were notified, no-one across the street. It was a very nice sight looking out of your livingroom :-(
Learn about pinball machines on www.flippers.be
I was just as skeptic as most of the posters here about how a tiny oval patch could possibly act as a shield against radiation. So I looked a little more deeply into it I am not so sure it's a total scam, there might actually be something there.
First of all, they don't claim to block radiation. It would be impossible for a one inch patch to block a signal with a wavelength of about 1ft. What this device claims to do is generate low frequency magnetic fields that somehow reduce the damage to biological systems. They have some research done on chicken embryos to back this up.
Proceedings of first World Congress on the Bioeffects of Electricity and Magnetism. (note that it's sponsored by Tecno-AO)
Tecno-AO "science"
See also here and here.
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Here I am sitting on the couch reading slashdot and I find out that my laptop could be a health hazard. I'll give my cellphone before my laptop. That is until I can read slashdot from my cell.
Kate
_________________________ Visit me at http://pornforcomputers.com
Didn't mobile phones used to be about 10 times as powerful as they are now? Considering I know a lot of people who were using those for a couple of years, I feel safe for about 20 years or so.
My major complaint with the line of work I've selected is that I'm pretty much guaranteed to have either a pager stuck to my hip, or a cell phone stuck to my ear. Worst case, I'll have both.
I HATE, cell phones. When I leave my house, I want to be away from the world. If I'm in the car, I want to concentrate on driving. If I'm relaxing somewhere, I don't want a phone shrieking at me to answer it.
Thus, if I could use the logic that "cell phones cause brain damage" with my employer, I've have a very valid reason to avoid the things. I know of no company out there that is openly willing to face those kinds of risks, and my employer is going to force me to carry a cell phone unless they stand the chance to lose anything (money, mostly) from it.
Is it a deception? Potentially. But being constantly wired to the world is one thing I really detest about modern technology. When the clock hits 5pm, my work day is over, and anything job-related that happens after that serves as an irritant.
In summary, I'll use any excuse available to ditch that worthless pile of plastic. :)
Who cares about the danger caused by radiation. These people are going to be dead a lot sooner by another cause: Using the damn things while they're driving, swerving all over the road, going either 30 under or 30 over... argh.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
A fourfold increase acording to this article .
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Please don't let facts get in the way of his 'evil rich white oppressors of the ethnic poor' mythology.
Well, yes, if they want to be seen as a professional scientist and not a greedy bastard.
I mail free copies of my publications to anyone who asks (and people ask) and wouldn't even consider charging anything for it. A few times I've also asked for a copy and every time people have been happy to oblige.
Personally, I'd consider charging money for a copy of your article extremely rude and unprofessional.
Not wanting to be _too_ imflammatory, but:
You are talking utter crap.
If you check out the following link: Olive Oil and the Mediterranean Diet at the International Taskforce for Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease, then you might learn something. Consensus of opinion is now
"that there is strong evidence that a Mediterranean-style diet, in which olive oil is the principal source of fat, contributes to the prevention of cardio-vascular risk factors"
Try doing some googling before spouting off.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/7727. html
--
Peter
I'm not afraid of the radiation that goes through my head. It's the part that gets absorbed that gives me the willies.
What stops you from getting a hands-free set? Even if the radiation would be harmless at close range, I don't think anyone will get brain cancer from a phone kept in your pocket. (There are other organs which might get bit by the photons though...)
I'm really afraid of Bluetooth devices. A light MP3 or MD player with wireless BT-earphones would be an amazing combination; it's the stuff dreams are made of, something I could consider Adopting Early.
But at least for now, having a working brain outweighs all trendiness factors...
[ Antti Rasinen ]
But there must be much more sophisticated ways of figuring this out. And someone here must know all about it.
BTW, I believe my lab was once offered funding by a mobile phone company to look at the effects of the radiation on rats' brains. It was turned down because there wasn't freedom to publish the data. This is a big, related problem in science; we allow companies with vested interests to publish in our hallowed journals, but they can do ten experiments and only choose the ones that suit their accountants. Thus they can bias the canon of scientific knowledge in an area. I'm not saying it wouldn't already be biased, but it's something to be aware of when looking at data like this.
My 14" monitor. :)
My microwave.
My gf's cheap computer speakers.
Smacking the table. (they wouldn't have done something as disreputable as that in an add would they?
Seems like my cell is one of the things that doesn't shake my monitor...
Most of the posters here seem to believe the general public will keep using them even if they're shown to be dangerous, but few people have mentioned whether they themselves will stop. Either you all won't either, in which case you shouldn't criticize the "general public", or you all will, in which case it's a little arrogant to presume that the vast majority of non-slashdot readers have the IQ of marinated eggplant. Personally I think most people will give them up if they're proven dangerous.
People bring up a whole smoking argument. When the health risks of smoking were announced by the Surgeon General, did the number of smokers in this country go down? Yes, substantially.
Seriously, to me all this fuss looks like what every new technology has to go through. People are afraid of the new and as a result all kind of horror stories, modern urban legends are popping up everywhere.
> does anyone think that people would stop using them?
:D
I sure hope not: what a fun way to thin the herd.
-- www.bteg.com | bleh.n3.net | hac47.dhs.org