cell phone pop corn

[will641]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=V94shl...sage559145/pg1

[bigred]

wowzerz

[will641]

i used to be skeptical of the whole cell phone radiation hysteria, but im starting to have second thoughts, based on new evidence.

[a500lbgorilla]

but it's fake

[Pythonic]

Fake!!!

[wufwugy]

i used to be skeptical of the whole cell phone radiation hysteria, but im starting to have second thoughts, based on new evidence.

what new evidence?

[will641]

i used to be skeptical of the whole cell phone radiation hysteria, but im starting to have second thoughts, based on new evidence.

what new evidence?

i just read an article a while back from skeptic magazine that new shit has come to light. honestly i dont remember the details of it, but the jist of it was originally we thought that it was just hype, but now we are seeing more evidence that it really is a health hazard.

[wufwugy]

i used to be skeptical of the whole cell phone radiation hysteria, but im starting to have second thoughts, based on new evidence.

what new evidence?

i just read an article a while back from skeptic magazine that new shit has come to light. honestly i dont remember the details of it, but the jist of it was originally we thought that it was just hype, but now we are seeing more evidence that it really is a health hazard.

ive been looking for this article, but cannot find it. if you can id like to see it.

fwiw, the body of research done on this topic by science has been very large, and they've found no link between mobile phone radiation and any health symptoms other than a possible alteration in sleep patterns. the studies done on sleep were ambiguous and had some flaws, however. they are close to nullified.

this type of thing is interesting. most of what we hear about 'omg new health risk' is wrong. however, not all. for example: a large body of evidence supporting negative health effects caused by consumption of foods and beverages associated in certain ways with plastics (like bottled water and microved food in plastic container) have been produced.

[will641]

im not saying that for a fact its a health risk, but i think you have to apply some common sense. if there is a 10% chance that there is a health risk, dont you think it would be smart to buy an ear piece, or just not use it? fwiw, i dont have one, but ill probably buy one. ill be using cell phones a long time, so it certainly wont hurt to take some preventive steps in case there actually is a problem.

[wufwugy]

im not saying that for a fact its a health risk, but i think you have to apply some common sense. if there is a 10% chance that there is a health risk, dont you think it would be smart to buy an ear piece, or just not use it? fwiw, i dont have one, but ill probably buy one. ill be using cell phones a long time, so it certainly wont hurt to take some preventive steps in case there actually is a problem.

dont stop there. apply reason to the entire scenario. address likelyhood that there is a risk, what risk, if this risk is worth fixing, and how its fixed. 10% is just a number you pulled out, not based in any documentation. 'health risk' is too broad a meaning. health risk can mean a .0001% increase in likelyhood of developing brain cancer, yet this is non-significant risk and is absurd to address (we actually wouldn't be able to tell if there was risk this minute due to its insignificance).

there is false documentation for everything. if you look for it you can find data that claims the earth is flat, but the real scientific documentation refutes this beyond any reasonable doubt. thus far, mobile phone radiation inducing any noticeable health risk documentation is nill. just because you find one article that suggests otherwise doesn't mean its true. there is more merit in pursuing facts and unveiling misunderstandings therein instead of blindly assuming.

and then we need to address if we can actually alleviate this risk, and if its cost/worth effective. pretty much the only entities that have addressed this issue are pseudo-scientific ones (pseudo-science = non-science), and this is because the scientific community has no need to go further since they've found no justification for it. pseudo-scientific opinions are about as reliable as my grandmother's.

if there is truth that mobile phone radiation causes a significant increase in deletion of health then this truth will not be that hard to penetrate. the scientific community relies on facts, the unadulteration of facts, and the pursuit of new facts. without this all scientists would be broke and outcast. if this article you read is a breakthrough then if you further research the subject you will see substantial amounts of follow up and building of this understanding. in science, truth does not get thrown under the bus. it used to, but now it is by far the most truthful and knowledgeable entity in the known existence.

i really would like to read this article since it sounds like its from a more reputable source. the source doesn't make the science, however.

[will641]

shit man, i dont know what to tell you. i know i read an article about it from drudge, and i know it was emailed to me from my dad. i save most the interesting/useful stuff he sends me as a reference for situations like this, but i just cant find it. ill see if he can find it again.

[swiggidy]

i just read an article a while back from skeptic magazine that new shit has come to light. honestly i dont remember the details of it, but the jist of it was originally we thought that it was just hype, but now we are seeing more evidence that it really is a health hazard.

This reminds me of the Dude.

FWIW, I'm EE with a focus in communication systems in undergrad and I'm <1% worried about damage from cell phone radiation. Typically output is extremely low level. I'm amazed they can transmit back to the towers.

Should also add that I don't understand the meaning of W/kg radiation absorption at all.

[BankItDrew]

I sent an e-mail to skeptic magazine and they said that it wasn't them that published the article.

[wufwugy]

excellent example of why anecdotal evidence is not empirical evidence

[will641]

I sent an e-mail to skeptic magazine and they said that it wasn't them that published the article.

i dont know why i said skeptic magazine. it was from 9+ months ago, so i dont remember. i asked my dad where it was from, and he just said it was an article off of probably instapundit or drudge report. i feel like a total idiot for saying i saw an article that i cant produce, but w/e, im not lying that i read an article. and it wasnt from some hippy propaganda site.

[Warpe]

im not lying that i read an article. and it wasnt from some hippy propaganda site.

...so it must be true.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...ep-771262.html

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/65142.html

[will641]

im not lying that i read an article. and it wasnt from some hippy propaganda site.

...so it must be true.

im not saying it is! all im saying is that if theres a relative chance that its true, that its probably worth it to get a head set or something! all i was saying was that before i was pretty sure it was crap, but now i am less sure, based on an article i read. my choice of words was poor. happy?