There is so much info on the net about cell phones causing/not causing cancer

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by jefhatfield, Feb 19, 2006.

  1. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #1
    The most reliable medical references I hear in the media are people like Dean
    Edell and Deepak Chopra and the consensus about radiation from cell phones and wireless devices is that the levels are so low, the cancer factor is minimal. People should be more concerned about smoking and cancer and everyday a new young generation of smokers light up for the first time.

    From the perspective of techies, network engineers, and college/grad students I know concerning wireless and cell phones, security and privacy are the main issue where hard wired technology still offers better privacy. It's a technology that has grown faster than the technology in securing the information that passes through the air and faster than any political movement to stop abuses by our own government.

    So there's a wealth of info on the net concerning the dangers of wireless and cell phones...but what are your thoughts?
     
  2. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #2
    My thoughts are simply uninformed opinions that are completely un-researched, unqualified and medically baseless, so there is nothing you can learn from them.
     
  3. cslewis macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #3
    After doing research for a school debate, I feel as though there are health effects, some of which we won't fully understand for decades. I had a graphic I found on the net that showed the radiation from a cell phone light up the whole left side of a little kid's head.

    Then again, that kid would probably be exposed to more radiation from a coal power plant 10 miles upwind than if he used his cellphone now and then. :p
     
  4. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #4
    And I have a graphic of George Bush shaking hands with Osama Bin Laden.
    Proves nothing, is representative of nothing.

    My point is that un-researched articles on the Web, conjectures, graphics devoid of empirical data, are all opinions at best and attempts to deceive at worst, but are not facts.

    You could look for studies showing or disproving an increased incidence of cancer among radio transmitter employees, who are exposed all day to radio signals up to 100,000 Watts (at a farther distance, obviously, but you can apply the inverse-square rule to make a comparison.)
     
  5. jefhatfield thread starter Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #5
    I trust scientific research, but I am not a PhD in some science(s) so I cannot fully understand the statistics I see from our own government siding with one issue or the other. And there is a lot of conflicting, well researched information out there as I have learned from my wife being treated for breast cancer at Stanford Hospital and Clinics.

    There is no doubt in my mind, for instance, that we have an issue with pollution and global warming but some educated scientists who happen to support our president downplay those dangers like former weapons scientist and national talk show host Dr. Bill Wattenburg. In the 1950s, there were adds that expoused the health benefits of smoking cigarettes from so-called experts.

    So just go out there and you will see science but spins on the mountains of data that often mold to a political point of view...btw I am a Democrat and I drive an old, non-hybrid car and I don't consider myself this huge villain :)...but I will have my eyes set on such a vehicle one day.
     
  6. cslewis macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #6
    That does make sense, CanadaRAM. I need to be a bit more professional and back up what i'm saying with credible sources. For this one, i'm afraid I can't. Therefore, it's bunk.


    Back on topic, I think cell phones are a far bigger danger when people use them irresponsibly while driving. I think deaths from car accidents caused by cell phones are far more prevalent than any cancer attributed to mobile phone radiation.
     
  7. jefhatfield thread starter Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #7
    The overwhelming amount of MDs out there are closer to the point of view that it would take five hours a day, give or take, of cell phone usage to quantify a statistically significant number.

    What do I mean by statistically significant? Well it's not the under one percent thing with a certain weight loss medication like pen-fen (sp?) which was pulled off of the market because fewer than one percent had any hint of bad side effects, but it may have led to a landslide of money for lawyers ;)

    If a certain amount of radiation attacks the user of the cell phone over a year of usage, and let's say for argument that the level is 1000 times less than the dangerous level of radiation acceptable, and the cell phone user uses the phone, or ones very similar to it with similar technology, for the remaining 30-50 years of his life, then how would decades of time really make any significant numerical difference in the person's health?

    We get radiation from the sun and people have died from skin cancer and as a fact there is no dispute, but that doesn't mean that we have to be indoors all the time. The factor that I have very dark skin makes more of a difference in my case than me using or not using sun screen in equal amounts compared to someone of northern European descent, for instance.
     
  8. jefhatfield thread starter Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #8
    Oh my God, I can rant about that one...I have seen more bad drivers on the cell phone not paying attention to the road, and for some reason a lot of them are yuppies in huge SUVs, but the incredible and recent popularity of mini-coopers among that set (who have turned in their SUVs) has eased my mind some :)
     
  9. cslewis macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #9
    Yeah, my cousin had a friend who's car was hit by a woman talking on her cell phone... $2000 in car repairs later, the woman vowed to stop talking and driving at the same time. :D
     
  10. jefhatfield thread starter Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #10
    with sensitive enough instruments, yes, the head gets about 40% percent lit up as well as heating up nearly 1 degree fahrenheit...but it's still with a very small amount of microwave electromagnetic radiation

    on wikipedia.org, i saw some scary, but yet unproved, speculation on cell phones...modern cell phones do use less radiation than ones just a few years ago for just that reason
     

Share This Page