|
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
 Posted - 06/16/2010 : 16:18:16
|
We all know by now that cell phones don't cause cancer, but San Francisco is about to cement the lie in the public mind by requiring that all cell phone retailers to post the amount of radiation they emit.
"But if it isn't dangerous then why would they do it?" 
|
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2010 : 17:04:21 [Permalink]
|
Here is a look at what we know...
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/cellphonecancer.php
| EHSO has seen no credible evidence to date that cell phones cause cancer or brain tumors. It is illogical to believe that evidence of unusual brain tumors is covered up when there are hundred's of millions of people using cell phones worldwide. There is a TREMENDOUS amount of junk science and thoroughly ignorant (as in untrained, uneducated) people running around naming themselves as experts and publishing their opinions on the internet. This hype and fear-mongering has only one goal: to puff up the egos and wallets of those propagating nonsense.And the supposed link between mobile-phone use and cancer is even listed among the American Cancer Society's "Top 10 Cancer Myths," |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2010 : 17:17:58 [Permalink]
|
San Francisco embarrasses me on this.
Anyway, if anyone is concerned about getting brain cancer from their cell phone, all they need do is wear a aluminum foil hat. Oh, never mind, they already are. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2010 : 20:10:02 [Permalink]
|
That BBC article is also faulty in the way it blandly speaks of cell phones emitting "radiation".
Okay, anyone who has rudimentary scientific literacy knows that not all electromagnetic radiation is harmful and that one can properly speak of an ordinary lightbulb emitting EM radiation, but I strongly suspect that for the average American "radiation" is a buzzword meaning "Eek! deadly nuclear somehing-or-other! I'm either gonna die or turn into a mutant!".
What's funny is that the Specific Absorption Rate figure for any cell phone is published in the phone's owner's manual, along with an explanation of what an SAR is. If SF wants to mandate that the SAR for each phone on display be posted, it should also mandate that the explanation also be posted.
Of course, the idea that anything could discourage Californians from walking and driving (especially driving) around with a cell phone glued to the side of their head seems to me, an L.A. resident, to be positively laughable. |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2010 : 02:02:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by ktesibios
That BBC article is also faulty in the way it blandly speaks of cell phones emitting "radiation".
Okay, anyone who has rudimentary scientific literacy knows that not all electromagnetic radiation is harmful and that one can properly speak of an ordinary lightbulb emitting EM radiation, but I strongly suspect that for the average American "radiation" is a buzzword meaning "Eek! deadly nuclear somehing-or-other! I'm either gonna die or turn into a mutant!". |
But it's not, in fact, faulty  . As you say, it is probably better to speak of electromagnetic fields or something in that order given the connection the public makes, but technically the term is correct. In this case, the term used will very much depend on who the journalist has talked to. Physicist, probably radiation. Mobile phone activist, radiation. Public communications expert, probably fields.
| What's funny is that the Specific Absorption Rate figure for any cell phone is published in the phone's owner's manual, along with an explanation of what an SAR is. If SF wants to mandate that the SAR for each phone on display be posted, it should also mandate that the explanation also be posted. |
I don't think posting the explanation would help. My experience is that in these kind of cases, people will just use them to confirm their biases. People not liking cell phones will not trust the limits set anyway.
Of course, the idea that anything could discourage Californians from walking and driving (especially driving) around with a cell phone glued to the side of their head seems to me, an L.A. resident, to be positively laughable.
|
This is how it goes, right? People will accept possible risks to keep on doing the things that make life easier. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2010 : 02:34:13 [Permalink]
|
The EHSO article is a bit out of date, by the way. It doesn't include the latest INTERPHONE results. For those interested: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835.
Doesn't really change anything to the article. Main result: no relationship between cell phone use and brain tumours. Points of contention: use for long periods of time and higher risk for tumors on the same side of head.
Long periods of time / heavy usage: There was bias as well as strange values in the people reporting heavy use of mobile phones (for example, people who reported having used a mobile phone for more than 16 hours a day), which makes the analysis of this group unreliable.
Side of head: The main analysis is on brain tumors (gliomas and meningiomas) in any side of the head versus controls (no tumors). However, people who call left would be highly exposed on the left side of the head and hardly on the right side. So probably people using a cell phone on the left side of the head and having a tumor on the left should count as cases, while people using it on the right but having a tumor on the left should count as controls. Same for the right side. There is disagreement on how to analyze this and there is disagreement on how to handle people who use the mobile phone on both sides of the head instead of predominantly left or right.
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2010 : 05:08:25 [Permalink]
|
| Why do people believe the stupidest shit. Makes me want to go to a mosque and pay for protection against a tumor, again. I hedge my health with my kosher cell phone that has been blessed by a priest. It must be working, no tumors here. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2010 : 05:18:25 [Permalink]
|
Skeptic magazine did a article on this in their most recent edition. Here is a summary of that article. Bottom line on whether cell phone usage causes cancer "Fuggedaboudit! No way! When pigs fly! When I’m the Pope! In short, No!"
Anyone who puts forward a potential mechanism by which this energy flow, less than 1 Watt, might cause any cancer should notice that he has thereby explained too much. One watt is much smaller than many other natural energy flows that no one suspects might cause cancer. In my Skeptic paper, I show that the average energy production in my body as I go about my life is about 100 Watts. I also show that while I jog on my local gym’s treadmill for half an hour, I produce 1100 or 1200 Watts. This energy, produced in my leg muscles, travels throughout my body including my brain, and I sweat a lot. My body’s temperature does not change much. No one believes that my frequent treadmill sessions cause cancer. If the cell phone’s less than 1 Watt causes cancers, then why doesn’t my exercise session’s more than 1000 Watts cause cancer?
|
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2010 : 06:22:48 [Permalink]
|
When you think about it, these sorts of nonsense can be dated back to the days of the shamen. Something would occur that no one understood, so the shaman might declare it evil -- the fact that he himself, didn't know any more about it than the rest of the poor, ignorant schmucks listening to him not withstanding. Thus, our latter day, would-be shamen, in office and out, get their pictures in the fishwraps as they tout the evils of the mysterious cell phone.
I have recently gotten my very first cell phone and told the greedy telephone company to piss off -- one of the reasons for my extended absence; no on-line connection. I don't use it very much (there's not all that many people I want to talk to) but it's handy to have. I don't think I'd have to worry a lot about untoward radiation even if it were stuck in my ear 24/7.
The times, they change only in degree, eh?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 06/17/2010 : 10:06:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
... one of the reasons for my extended absence; no on-line connection.
|
Welcome back! We missed you!!! |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2010 : 10:27:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by ktesibios
...but I strongly suspect that for the average American "radiation" is a buzzword meaning "Eek! deadly nuclear somehing-or-other! I'm either gonna die or turn into a mutant!". |
I remember the same thing happening in Sweden back when microwave ovens were brought into common use. People relly didn't want to eat food that had been radiated. Sigh... |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Bad science given legitimacy
