Is anyone else starting to suspect that this is all just a clever ruse?
I would, if it wasn't for the fact that pretending you had cancer is fucked up on levels that even I (having a pretty twisted sense of humor) can't explain.
Ok! Whoa! This is not just a "clever ruse." Just wanted to clarify that. I have cancer, for real. Do you want to see my bald head?
Is anyone else starting to suspect that this is all just a clever ruse?
I would, if it wasn't for the fact that pretending you had cancer is fucked up on levels that even I (having a pretty twisted sense of humor) can't explain.
Ok! Whoa! This is not just a "clever ruse." Just wanted to clarify that. I have cancer, for real. Do you want to see my bald head?
Ok! Whoa! This is not just a "clever ruse." Just wanted to clarify that. I have cancer, for real. Do you want to see my bald head?
Well, I'm sorry if I've offended you, I tend to keep my troll-o-meter set to 11. While your hairstyle - or lack thereof - holds no fascination for me, pardon me in being slightly skeptical of things. It's just my way, I don't mean anything by it. My points still stand, However, despite my hopes to not offend you, and my apologies if I have.
The only other piece I have on this topic is that my aunt has a iPhone, the original and upgraded to a 3G. She's a real estate agent so she uses it constantly and she has no cancer. Oh and she lives out in the booneys. That study of 1400 is very small in the grand scheme of cell phone uses. I remember analyzing the result of a study of 120,000 people in stat in college and the conclusion was the cancer rate of the sample population of cell phone users was no higher than the general population.
Dr. Gorski is right. Also, suppose your phone is operating in the 1900 MHz band, the higher one. This is about 5 orders of magnitude lower energy than visible light. The radiation you see by has ten thousand times more energy than your phone's radiation.
Too much anecdotal evidence being used for both sides in this thread. Andrew's link is the only substatial piece of evidence here.
True, and Andrew's link is a synthesis of tons of other studies and scholarly debates, so I'd say that the "smartphones don't have cancer" side still has more real evidence in its favor.
You have cancer, and I hate that, but just because you have it doesn't give you an excuse to blame your phone.
You act as if there are two options here, that you either got cancer from your phone or from family history, but it's very possible it was neither of those. There's no reason to go blaming your phone. Also, I think it's blatantly obvious that evidence shows no link between cell phones and cancer.
Yeah, there really isn't much else to say. Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation that penetrates up to a centimeter into the body, and no properly conducted research indicates that this radiation causes cancer. Even if it does, Glimp, there's no way that radiation could reach your testicles. I think I'll go with the science on this one.
Yeah, there really isn't much else to say. Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation that penetrates up to a centimeter into the body, and no properly conducted research indicates that this radiation causes cancer. Even if it does, Glimp, there's no way that radiation could reach your testicles.I think I'll go with the science on this one.
INB4 Glimpster ignores everything we post that doesn't agree with his position.
Whoope Goldberg's gonna get it.
First, you advocate animal cruelty, and now you're putting happy smilies after you state that Whoopi Goldberg, Another sentient being who the has done nothing worse than be in "Sister act 2", is going to get cancer? If this sort of thing is how you normally behave, have you considered other causes, such as Karma? I'm not usually into the supernatural crap, but Let's face it, it's as likely as it being caused by your phone.
EDIT - Hey, I just had a thought - Why do we continue this? Glimpster has drunk the Kool-aid, and he obviously won't be convinced that his position is untenable nonsense. I doubt he's even paying one iota of attention to what we have to say, all he does is go "Look at this, I told you so!" He's so high on his "I'm saving you all, if you just listen to me!" horse that he's not going to come around on this, no matter how many facts we give him, or how many times we point him to the science. He's either a True Believer, or a Troll, and either way, nothing we say will be helpful in any fashion - If he wants to prattle about useless bollocks he won't be convinced out of, rather than, say, tell people to do regular self-examinations, get regular checkups, I say let him prattle himself into a stupor, rather than waste effort trying to be helpful and point him in the right direction. We're looking at a textbook example of a lost cause, here.
I actually like the Sun, for both the warmth and the light. Who doesn't like a nice picnic on a sunny day or seeing their lover's hair glisten in a pool of sunlight?
Absolute tits? Are you saying it's made of complete awesome or is absolutely horrendous?
Apart from how it makes my trenchcoat flutter dramatically, and provides me the opportunity to zoom about going "Trenchcoat wings!", absolutely horrendous.
The problem I take with most of these graphs is that there really is absolutely no scale. They're all like, "zomg, look at how high the SAR of this phone is!" yet not a single one provides any other electronic item to compare that SAR to. Yeah, 1.49 SAR SOUNDS terrifying...unless we find that it takes 100 SAR to actually fuck up our cells.
I'm glad I live in New York, where we have a full four seasons: winter, more winter, still winter, and construction.
Alas, in Chicago we only have three: Summer (where degrees Fahrenheit often are equal to percent humidity: 95-100), Arctic winter, and yes, Construction.
I'm in complete understanding. I hate fear mongering and mongers as well, and it might be that even 100 SAR is not dangerous. However, we still need to know for sure. There is a raise in concern among some countries in North America and Europe, because of the studies they've done.
All the contradicting studies being presented in this thread are from the 90's or the early 00's. These do not count in 3G devices that are around today that put out much more radiation than previous generation phones. Also, how long have we had devices that constantly update emails, applications, SMS, and MMS, in your pocket, all day. Oh, and sometimes we hold them up to our skulls for extended periods of time.
The iPhone is technically in "talk-mode" all the time. It always has a connection to the cell phone tower(s). If there's any chance this could have adverse effects on our reproductive organs, brain, or any other part of the body, a study has to be done.
In a democratic society, we should be able to have a study done quickly and cheaply. Whether it requires raising money or accruing scientists, it needs to be possible. A senator should not have to go to Washington and get permission for the funds. If they're worried about losing money over this, citizens who have interest like me would gladly pay to have it done.
One historical fact I think we can all agree with, is that the Bush administration really fucked us over. They were so focused on combating terrorism and imposing democracy in the Middle East. Here's what I'd say. Worry about the health and safety of your own people, and then you can go make money for your dad's oil friends.
Basically, I think we need a scientist for a president. Don't you agree? Just not a mad one.
Comments
This was posted Sunday.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/27/website-rates-best-and-worst-cellphones-by-radiation-output-leve/
This is the commercial for the phone they said had the highest radiation, the MyTouch 3G.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obBIbS1lwck
Whoope Goldberg's gonna get it.
You act as if there are two options here, that you either got cancer from your phone or from family history, but it's very possible it was neither of those. There's no reason to go blaming your phone. Also, I think it's blatantly obvious that evidence shows no link between cell phones and cancer.
EDIT - Hey, I just had a thought - Why do we continue this? Glimpster has drunk the Kool-aid, and he obviously won't be convinced that his position is untenable nonsense. I doubt he's even paying one iota of attention to what we have to say, all he does is go "Look at this, I told you so!"
He's so high on his "I'm saving you all, if you just listen to me!" horse that he's not going to come around on this, no matter how many facts we give him, or how many times we point him to the science.
He's either a True Believer, or a Troll, and either way, nothing we say will be helpful in any fashion - If he wants to prattle about useless bollocks he won't be convinced out of, rather than, say, tell people to do regular self-examinations, get regular checkups, I say let him prattle himself into a stupor, rather than waste effort trying to be helpful and point him in the right direction. We're looking at a textbook example of a lost cause, here.
There are such things as coincidences. Testicular cancer is the most common type of cancer for men aged 15-34. However, it has a 95% survival rate after 5 years.
So good luck, get better, and get a holster for your iPhone. :P
All the contradicting studies being presented in this thread are from the 90's or the early 00's. These do not count in 3G devices that are around today that put out much more radiation than previous generation phones. Also, how long have we had devices that constantly update emails, applications, SMS, and MMS, in your pocket, all day. Oh, and sometimes we hold them up to our skulls for extended periods of time.
The iPhone is technically in "talk-mode" all the time. It always has a connection to the cell phone tower(s). If there's any chance this could have adverse effects on our reproductive organs, brain, or any other part of the body, a study has to be done.
In a democratic society, we should be able to have a study done quickly and cheaply. Whether it requires raising money or accruing scientists, it needs to be possible. A senator should not have to go to Washington and get permission for the funds. If they're worried about losing money over this, citizens who have interest like me would gladly pay to have it done.
One historical fact I think we can all agree with, is that the Bush administration really fucked us over. They were so focused on combating terrorism and imposing democracy in the Middle East. Here's what I'd say. Worry about the health and safety of your own people, and then you can go make money for your dad's oil friends.
Basically, I think we need a scientist for a president. Don't you agree? Just not a mad one.