Slashdot Mirror
Legislator Wants Cancer Warnings For Cell Phones
Cytalk writes "A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders dispute the claim. The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though no US states require them, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom wants his city to be the nation’s first to require the warnings."
Just a lameass politician trying to make a name for himself.
Next will be the "Vaccines cause Autism" warnings, the "Aspartame makes you Fat" warnings and the "Fluoride in the water is a Mind Control Drug" warnings.
They really should have a "Politics makes you a fuckhead" warning.
.
Trolling is a art,
Scientists don't agree, no real studies confirm the notion, and the biggest reason in favor of this is 'they get warm'. Of course they get warm - the battery is discharging.
Reboot macht Frei.
If you want proof that cell phones cause brain damage, just listen to someone talking on one.
How about, a warning message before and after the call
All over the place they have signs saying "This facility may or may not contain cancer causing chemicals".
May or May not. I'll tell ya, I HATE checking into a hotel and the first thing I see is one of those.
Where's the Science to support this claim? Everything I've read, including a more than 20 year study of cell-phone users, concludes that it is not the case. Without the science, he should SHUT THE FUCK UP! I am so sick and tired of everything being ruled my malicious ignorance and stupidity. All the people who refuse to use science (i.e. Obser-fucking-vation) to form policy, guide their actions, and make decisions, and would rather use tea leaves, bones, or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass, need to FUCKING DIE!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Fried foodstuffs contain known carcinogens. We should add this informative label to potato chips as well.
I prefer a warning message before and after the call
"Use of this device while travelling on public transit may cause people to hate you"
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
Who gives a flying leap? We're inundated with all sorts of things as we wander around this planet, and I for one think its a bunch of bollocks.
And really --
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16059841
If 420k danes dont have cancer from cell phone use, then nobody will.
GWB to President of Brazil - "You have blacks, too?"
So does the slightly burnt toast you ate this morning, so does the air you breathe, perhaps the fish you eat or tap water you drink. Lame.
So does this mean that since my job requires me to carry a cell phone that my insurance rates will be going up? If I leave my job, will I be ineligible for future insurance coverage?
On another topic, I notice in TFA that they reference using a headset instead of talking on the phone. So does this mean that Blue Tooth (which is in the 2.4 GHz range) has less of a health impact than the cellular radio? Here's a hint, Microwaves are in that magical 2.4 GHz range that is shared by WiFi and Blue Tooth. If I had to pick which antenna I'd rather have next to my head, it's probably not the same one that I use to warm my coffee and make popcorn.
Instead of the headlines from the congress types and the opaque denials from the telecomm industry, is there any actual independent science on this? (There probably, is but I am far too lazy to Google).
And you know how quick cities and states are to follow law fads. By next year, you'll see people using ear-buds and holding their phones two meters away with a grabber-arm.
I looked at various articles on this subject yesterday, and their are indeed two camps, the first who say that there are no statistically significant studies on this subject, and the second who claim otherwise.
I am all for safety, but lets get real here. How long have cell phones been around? Not that long, In the past I've worked in the vicinity of high powered RADAR units. If I were to place paper clips on the cabinet where I used to sit for hours at a time, they would dance. I think the potential for cancer causing agents in our world is significant, but to be able to narrow it down will take a really well designed study.
Personally, I don't trust the motives of any of the current scientists. The industry wants to downplay any threat, and there is a growing group of folks who just see danger around every corner. If we listened to this second set we would end up back in the 1800s in terms of technology. If we listen exclusively to the first, well, then we may be in trouble.
There has to be some middle ground somewhere, where reasonable folks are just looking for the truth.
Seriously, there isn't anything on this world that will not cause damage when used in excess. We as a society have become so addicted to everything that we've completely lost the meaning of "Moderation".
We all have to go sometime, son. And you've used all your rollover minutes anyway.
UN should set up a body to study the issue and reach a consensus. We must save the brains.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
So, what supposedly makes cell phones more dangerous than a standard cordless phone that we've used for years without panic or the giant fucking TVs most of us have in our houses, computes and monitors that we sit very close to most of the day at work, etc?
Of course, I think perhaps the biggest clue that this is a load of shit is that it's nearly impossible to find a source that isn't clearly some fear mongering asshole (who may not believe what they are saying themselves) or some uneducated jackass just repeating what they have read on the websites run by fear mongering assholes.
It's a lovely place to visit, but I am glad I don't have to pay taxes there.
So what do they want the warnings to say? "Warning, this cell phone may or may not cause cancer?" Didn't they already pass prop 65 to say that damn near everything may or may not cause cancer? Honesty - the last time I went the movies there was a prop 65 warning on the door.
They seriously need to stop crying wolf^wcancer.
May be a legitimate concern. LN2 (liquid nitrogen) tanks might leak, causing an asphyxiation hazard.
Same with helium tanks. Break the valve, and you might suffocate an entire room filled with balloon-twisting clowns and the children they were entertaining ....
-kgj
I hear vibrating cell phones can also cause constipation if they end up in someone's butt. Where is the warning for that??
It's a million to one shot, Doc. A million to one!
I can see it now, "According to the State of Maine, this device may cause cancer. " We're all going to die one day. Whether it is by cancer, car accident, or natural causes I don't care.
You know, now that you mention it, that's not a bad plan if you're a tobacco company. I can't tell you how many times when I try to get friends to stop smoking, they fall back on excuses like, "Well, eventually something is going to kill me..." or "Everything causes cancer..."
Talk about lame rationalization. Still, if they start slapping "This may cause cancer!" labels on stuff that has been proven, in fact, not to cause cancer, it's just more ammunition. If you're a tobacco company, that might be a viable strategy. Get cancer labels on everything so that no one will believe the labels on anything.
Here in California we passed a law that requires any business or establishment to post signs if anything on the premises is a carcinogen. What happened was every single business in the state posted a sign. Legitimately, too, since lots of things we use on a daily basis are slightly carcinogenic, like gasoline and paint. Now everyone just ignores the signs because they're everywhere.
If you actually had something dangerous people would ignore your sign unless you put something like "On these premises there's something really, really carcinogenic. We're not kidding, either. Don't push your luck."
Subject says it all, really.
P.S. I eat babies.
Yours In Novosibirsk,
Kilgore Trout
There probably ought to be a warning. The evidence is inconclusive at this point, but there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing, at the very least, changes in levels of certain proteins in cells, but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer.
I thought these were crazy ideas when they were first raised. I worked in the engineering side of the cell phone industry for a few years and I'm very aware of how little power they radiate. It just didn't seem possible that it could affect cells, since it couldn't even change their temperature measurably. But the sheer number of studies that are coming out showing an apparent cause and effect between cell phones and a number of cellular mechanisms, is leading me to believe that there is something very real there.
Please stop crying wolf and making warnings meaningless!
Anyone here he says this is a stupid idea, and that global warming is CAUSED by man is a hypocrite.
Of course global warming is effected by man. And every other damn thing on the planet, both in positive and negative ways. To the point that chaos theory says that every time a butterfly farts the world warms a little. But it works the other way to.
And, considering that plants LIKE CO2 and the world is overall GREENER than it was 50 year ago, who's to say warming wouldn't be a good thing? Oh yeah, people who stand to get rich selling carbon credits (gore) and idiots who built their homes .3ft above sea level.
So, think about it, what's the REAL reason someone's trying to push a cell phone label? Is there a huge LABEL MAKING industry in Maine? Is there a company there trying to come out with a EM FREE cell phone? Or is this guy about to start selling EM credits to offset your cell phone?
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
This is true, and I should have stated as much.
Gas tank leakage (nitrogen, helium, etc.) in a confined space can cause rapid oxygen displacement. Lack of oxygen causes suffocation.
-kgj
"There probably ought to be a warning"
No there shouldn't and the California debacle you've ignored the discussion of in this thread proves why.
"The evidence is inconclusive at this point, but there are a number of studies that do seem to show that cell phones are capable of causing, at the very least, changes in levels of certain proteins in cells, but potentially damaging neurons and causing cancer."
CITE THEM.
RIGHT NOW. Unless you do so, you will be added to the rolls of those who try to make shit up and presume no on will call themon it.
You've bee called, defend your already debunked assertions or admit you can't.
"I thought these were crazy ideas when they were first raised. "
They are.
"But the sheer number of studies that are coming out "
THAT YOU COMPLETELY FAIL TO CITE OR EVEN DISCUSS BEYOND VAGARIES.
You mean THOSE studies? They don't exist. Prove me wrong.
Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
Its the rollover minutes that cause cancer, the other kind of minutes does not. Like in Sweden.
Indeed. Wikipedia states:
"Since the liquid to gas expansion ratio of [nitrogen] is 1:694, a tremendous amount of force can be generated if liquid nitrogen is rapidly vaporized. In an incident in 2006 at Texas A&M University, the pressure-relief devices of a tank of liquid nitrogen were sealed with brass plugs. As a result, the tank failed catastrophically, and exploded. The force of the explosion was sufficient to propel the tank through the ceiling immediately above it."
Link
-kgj
If you drink too much water too quickly it can kill you. I think all bottled water needs warning labels.
Microwaves heat things by depositing kinetic RF energy into the molecules of your food. Microwave is higher wavelength than visible light (i.e. lower energy per photon). Cell phones use microwave bandwidth. Anyone who gets an MRI might feel a slight warming sensation due to RF energy deposited, but this is known without dispute to NOT cause cancer. You can get multiple MRIs without any radiation exposure, because RF energy is lower energy per photon than visible light.
UV, x-rays and gamma rays deposit more energy per photon (they are shorter wavelength than visible light) and instead of just depositing energy elastically into the molecules of your cells, they can physically break molecules that bond your DNA. That is what leads to cancer from radiation exposure.
Cell phones don't do that.
-Medical Physicist / Biomedical engineer
More warnings for everything, It won't be a truly safe place to live until everything in existence has yellow warning labels....
Warning, walking may lead to falling.
Warning, eating may lead to obesity.
Warning, living may lead to death.
Warning, thinking happy thoughts now may lead to bad thoughts later.
Warning, life is dangerous, not worth living, please report to you government sponsored "permanent relaxation center" for treatment....
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Agreed. Vague warnings are absurd or worse. The warning should be more descriptive, e.g. "dangerous volume of nitrogen may be present if gas tanks leak."
Come to think of it ... "may be nitrogen present in the air" is doubly absurd. Nitrogen normally makes up 78% of the Earth's atmosphere by volume. "May be nitrogen" implies the possibility that there may not be nitrogen in the air -- and if there is no nitrogen in the air, what the hell is taking its place, and why?
-kgj
Try going here. Next, type the words, "mobile phone" (without the quotes) into the box and click where it says "search". Among the 2200 results are a number of studies on the influence of mobile phones on cells and EEG rhythms.
No sir, YOU made the assertions, now you're trying to avoid supporting them because you know you can't.
Show us these "sheernumbers" of studies, and stop assuming I haven't already done exactly the search you're talking about.
I want youto support your assertions. YOU MADE THEM after all, so pointing at a search engine and running away is a real cop put.
Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
if radio waves caused cancer, we would all have been dead a long time ago. what exactly is supposed to be unique about cell phones? that you hold them to your head? anyone ever heard of a chemical bond that a 1900 mhz wave could break?
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 13 Nov 09 Washington, DC
BRAIN CANCER: OF COURSE CELL PHONES ARE DANGEROUS!
Cell phones may lead to neural atrophy as mindless chatter is substituted
for coherent information, but they don't cause brain cancer. This week,
however, a doctoral thesis at a university in Sweden suggested that cell
phones are linked to some brain cancers. It went around the world in
Science Daily on Wednesday. This imaginary link is "discovered" about every
five years or so. Photons induce cancer by the photoelectric effect,
breaking chemical bonds and creating mutant strands of DNA. In 2001, I was
invited to write an editorial on cell phone hazards for the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute (JNCI, Vol. 93, Feb 7, 2001, p. 166). I pointed
out that the photoelectric effect would require photon energies at the
extreme blue end of the visible spectrum, which is why it's the ultraviolet
rays in sunlight that cause skin cancer. Microwave photons are about
10,000 times less energetic. In a classic 2001 op-ed, LBL physicist Robert
Cahn observed that Albert Einstein discovered in 1905 that microwaves
couldn't cause cancer. The cell phone scare was launched in 1993 on the
Larry King Live Show, which is not peer reviewed. It almost strangled the
infant cell-phone industry in its crib, but researchers found nothing.
No, cite your claims, stop that intellectually dishonest crap.
YOU made assertions, provide facts that support them.
A link to NIH is nothing, stop trying that crap.
Why don't we save ourselves a lot of work, and start labeling the things that DON'T cause cancer, instead? The savings in natural resources alone would be drastic.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
Not stopping there, there is at least one major study that shows no significant link between cellphones and cancer -- not just a lack of any confirmation.
Science can't prove a negative. Science can only conclusive disprove hypothesis, never conclusively prove them. We cannot ever really prove that cell phones do not cause cancer, we can only find that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the theory that they do cause cancer. Furthermore when we say "no significant link" we are usually talking about correlation, not causation - and the distinction is important. To my knowledge there has been no "smoking gun" proof that there is any link between cell phone use and cancer. There have been some correlation studies hinting at a link but the problem has so many factors it is really hard to isolate all the variables. This is not to say that testing to see if there is a link is a bad idea, but big studies like the one you mention seem to indicate no connection which is about the best we really can hope for. Ideally we would have some physics/biochemistry model that could corroborate the (lack of) findings but I don't know if such a model exists. What little I do know about the physics involved seems to indicate at most a minimal risk but others would know better than me.
While we cannot prove a scientific theory we can be highly confident of a hypothesis based on collected evidence. For example we cannot ever conclusively prove that the theory of quantum mechanics is correct but we have a huge amount of evidence supporting the theory and nothing yet to contradict those findings within the limitations of the mathematical model. Conversely in this case some have proposed that cell phones might cause cancer but there so far is little evidence to support the theory despite numerous studies and no theoretical model I'm aware of either that would indicate a serious danger. Hence the rational view is that there cell phone usage is unlikely to be a risk factor for cancer.
non-ionozing radiation.
I know that's probably a concept that's way over your head, but before you fuckheads start running your mouths, perhaps some basic understanding of electromagnetic radiation is in order? Or would that diffuse your sensationalistic cause?
Stupid shits
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
She also said during a radio interview this morning that "laptops should not be used on your lap" because the wifi signals can cause cancer.
We don’t need another batshit-insane bill to do that. Just use the universal healthcare legislation.
Let's assume for a minute that there is some incredibly small increase in your cancer risk from using a cell phone. If it's small enough, I dare say we should have no warnings anyways. Constant warnings all the time about everything will just drown out the actually significant risks.
"So what if this pack of cigarettes warns me? It's just another pointless government thing, like with cell phones."
Hypothesis: Cellphones give you the brain cancers.
Test of hypothesis: There would be a world wide pandemic of unexplained tumours, that would stand out strongly in heavy cellphone using developing nations. This, thanks to the billions of cellphones out there and ubiqutous bath of cellphone radiation we're bathed in worldwide. We'd see a overall increase in cancers maybe, but a marked increase in a specific type of cancer, as a result of the characteristics here, such as specific brain tumours in the side of the head.
Results: There isn't any. Or if there is an effect, it's very very small, such that 'there isn't any' is still valid for all practical purposes. Any claimed correlation is tenuous at best, what few studies their are haven't showed anything worth more study, and we're a long way from any causal proof. Orders of magnitude smaller than gee, I don't know, exposure to actual chemical carcinogens, sunlight and bad lifestyle?
(EMF could be carinogenic, I would believe high-voltage powerlines cause cancer, due to the sheer energies involved, and the fact the people with cancer have probably lived under them for decades.)
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
They used a rig that would cleanly sever the valve from a compressed air tank that was laying on the ground, simulating the frequent stories of a welding tank that gets knocked over, snapping the valve off in the fall.
The tanks performed EXACTLY as claimed, shooting across the floor at high speed, and punching cleanly through a cement block wall.
There is a metric buttload of stored energy in a high pressure gas cylinder...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
"Be careful with that phone lieutenant! ...Over time, you could develop a tumor!"
Bow-ties are cool.
Where's Nick Taylor when you need him?
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/)
Computer Science is all about trying to find the right wrench to bang in the right screw. -T.Cumbo?
its almost as if they need an objective way of quantifying just how much a substance causes cancer. to do so in a standardised way would get interesting but hey why not. could require a few codes, but still a number might be possible given some reasonable assumptions?
what do you think /.
Yes, there is.
Initial Endorsers (from 14 countries):
USA Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University
USA David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany
USA Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Director Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute
USA Elizabeth A. Kelley, MA, Environmental and Public Policy Consultant
USA Henry Lai, PhD, Research Professor, Dept. of Bioengineering, University of Washington
USA Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Director, Science Learning Center, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
USA Lawrence A. Plumlee, MD, Editor, The Environmental Physician, American Academy of Environmental Medicine
USA Paul J. Rosch, MD, FACP, Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, New
York Medical College; President, The American Institute of Stress; Emeritus Member, The Bioelectromagnetics Society
USA Bert Schou, PhD, CEO, ACRES Research
USA Narendra P. Singh, Research Associate Professor, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington
USA Morton M. Teich, MD, Physician, New York, NY, Past President, American Academy of Environmental Medicine
And:
Australia Vini G. Khurana, MBBS, BSc (Med), PhD, FRACS, Associate Professor of Neurosurgery, Australian Capital Territory
Australia Don Maisch, PhD (Cand.), Researcher, EMF Facts Consultancy
Australia Dr Charles Teo, MBBS, FRACS, Neurosurgeon, Director of The Centre for
Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery, New South Wales.
Austria Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, State Government Salzburg and
Speaker for Environmental Medicine for the Austrian Medical Association, Vienna
Brazil Alvaro Augusto A. de Salles, PhD, Professor, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul- UFRGS
Canada Jennifer Armstrong, MD, Member, American Academy of Environmental
Medicine; CEO, Ottawa Environmental Health Clinic
Canada Joe Foster, 29 year member of the International Association of Fire Fighters
Finland Mikko Ahonen, MSc, Researcher, University of Tampere
Finland Osmo Hänninen, PhD, Professor in Physiology (Emer.), University of Kuopio
France Daniel Oberhausen, Physicist, Association PRIARTÉM
Germany Prof. Franz Adlkofer, Dr.med., Executive Director and Member of the Board of the VerUm Foundation, Foundation for Behaviour and Environment; Germany
Germany Christine Aschermann, Dr. med., Psychiatry, Psychotherapy. Originator of Doctors’ Appeal (2002 Freiburg Appeal)
Germany Horst Eger, Dr med., Bavarian Ärztekammer Medical Quality No. 65143:
"Elektromagnetische Felder in der Medizin - Diagnostik, Therapie, Umwelt"
Germany Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, Dr.med, General Practitioner; Initiator of the Bamberg Appeal (2005)
Germany Ulrich Warnke, Dr. rer. nat., Academic High Councilor, Biosciences, University of Saarland
Greece Adamantia Fragopoulou, MSc, Medical Biology, PhD (cand.), Electromagnetic Biology Research Group, Athens University
Greece Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD, Professor of Cell Biology and Radiobiology, Dept. of
Cell Biology and Biophysics Faculty of Biology, University of Athens
Greece Stelios A Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society
Ireland Con Colbert, Association Secretary, Irish Doctors Environmental Association
Ireland Senator Mark Daly, National Parliament, Republic of Ireland
Russia Professor Yury Grigoriev, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-
Ionizing Radiation Protection, a member of WHO International Advisory Committee on "EMF and Health"
Spain Alfonso Balmori, PhD, Biologist, Researcher on effects of electromagnetic fields on wildlife
Sweden Örjan Hallberg, MSEE, Hallberg Independent Research
UK Mike Bell, Lawyer, Trustee, Radiation Research Trust (RRT)
UK Ian Dring, PhD, Independent Consultant Scientist
UK Gill Evans, M.Phil, Member of European Parliament for Wales Plaid Cymru
UK Ian Gibson, PhD, biologist and geneticist, cancer researcher, ex-senior M.P. and
Chair of Sci
there is no consensus among scientists that they [cause cancer]
That's a trollish statement if I've ever heard one. There's no consensus among scientists that the moon is made of cheese. There's also no consensus amongst scientists that playing video games causes cancer. And there's no consensus that socks are stolen by gnomes during the night.
There's no consensus, because it is false.
This is retarded. They don't cause cancer. That's been proven. Can I get a sticker that says "Stickers may cause lung parasites?" No, why? Because it's stupid. These fucking idiots want to swim with the scientists but they aren't even qualified to get out of the kiddie pool with their floater-level intellect.
As a Bay Area resident who's seen Newsom's "management" of San Francisco, I don't know that I'd be so quick to follow Newsom's lead. Not to mention that he has a history of making big annoucements... and failing to follow through.
This isn't even a policy agenda that can be argued from a moral or social perspective -- it's based on erroneous beliefs with no scientific backing whatsoever. Not to mention that there are already agencies who test every damn cell phone when it comes out. Sounds to me like there's already legislation (albeit at the federal level) to handle this should cell phones prove to be brain cookers.
In other news, Microsoft Windows users are now covered under the Americans with Disabilties Act...
Not cell phones causing the cancer.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
I mean US courts have already said that if you merely think something is making you sick that's a good enough standard to sue for losses. (Scientific evidence be damned.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
So what. They can put all the warnings they want, who cares...
I can't imagine any warning would end the love affair people have with their cell phones. On the train. On the plane. Sitting on the can. People are obsessed.
... but didn't the tobacco industry tell us for years that smoking poses no cancer risk?
For this reason, I'll remain skeptical about a position of denial taken by an industry that stands to lose billions should a link between their product and harm caused to the general public be found.
For the record, I don't support either stance yet, but I do remember the old-school phones from the late 80's to early 90's being differentiated by power and proximity to a person for safety reasons (I sold phones from 1990 to 1996 in a car audio shop). IIRC, ratings were .6W for hand-held phones, 1.3W for transportables (bag phones), and a full 3W for phones mounted in-car, with the tranciever, ideally, located in the trunk of the car.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
If they get this one without proof, how long until they start forcing others without proof.
Before long, every male will be labeled as a sex offender, every food will warn of cancer or other health issues, every politician will have a scarlet letter, etc...
Stop the insanity now by stopping this grandstanding moron on a soap box.
Then get him and his cronies kicked out of office.
Don't DRIVE A CAR and text/play with your cellphone!!! PLEAZZZE! My wife and I have a new game, we count the number of cars we pass or observe toying with their cellphones. Some days it's EVERY OTHER CAR!? Car accidents do kill people. Getting in an accident due to this would ruin your life. Turns out, every accident that occurs... is... accidental--meaning no one planned on doing it. Why take the risk? At least pull over somewhere. Sigh... I know, I know... offtopic whining. :)
http://www.beanleafpress.com
If you haven't heard the Skeptoid episode on the topic of cell phones and cancer its worth a listen.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4117
Ascii artist &
You mock them now, but for how long?
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
Not that I would suggest cell phones are dangerous, but Bluetooth field strength is 1000 times weaker.
Cell phones don’t produce dangerous radiation and they produce extremely small amounts of heat energy in the form of radio waves that might heat up a 154 pound person 1/100th of a degrees Celsius after an hour of absorbing 1 watt (which is unlikely to be that high) of radio wave energy from a cell phone.
we got a legislator (dutch) that wants a label on champagne bottles, because the popping cork may cause eye damage.
-- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
The big one needs to hit and make San Francisco fall into the Pacific, that city does more harm to this nation than one can imagine.
...they bust down your door to take out your pot grow, only to discover that it's WHEAT.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
do cellphones cause cancer
Alternative placement is just above and to the rear of the thighs (left or right cheek - or both) - since we need to kiss this area to get any recognition - we'll be sure to see the warning.
Anyone dealing with politicians should be aware that such dealing can lead to high blood pressure and potential stroke or other medical condition.
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
The problem with putting a health warning on cell phones is the lack of scientific consensus on whether there is actually a hazard. This is very different from the situation with cigarettes, where there's a solid consensus in the medical field that says cigarettes cause cancer, heart disease, etc..
What we really need is a test that can distinguish lizard people from humans.
The lizards are already gathering votes...
Marriage has little to do with religion historically, and everything to do with wealth/property rights.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
It has much to do with both, because civil and religious authorities have historically been one and the same.
The United States was founded on the notion of separating the religious rules and authorities from the civil ones. Why then should marriage not receive the same treatment?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Most people's brains aren't worth saving.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
There are a lot more warnings they should be working on before they should be putting warnings of stuff that isn't proven. They should warn not to drive using a cell phone. I'm sure there are people who actually are killed from than.
Inventor, Artist http://www.Rubber-Power.com
Thank You For Smoking becomes reality.