Posted on 03/31/2008 9:06:53 AM PDT by stillafreemind
Dr. Khurana says there may be broader health ramifications than asbestos or smoking. What? Now just think about that. Again, I foresee a huge higher tax on cell phone use and a higher health and life insurance premium. And maybe people (like me) that don't use cell phones unless its an emergency, would rather not be seated in bars and restaurants where cell phones are in use. Ah, can you say ban?
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
I like the idea of banning them things in bars and restaurants.
Might be bad for their employees and my health being exposed to second hand cell phone calls.
If second hand smoke is so bad, these things might well be worse.
I like the idea of banning them things in bars and restaurants.
Might be bad for their employees and my health being exposed to second hand cell phone calls.
If second hand smoke is so bad, these things might well be worse.
Thanks for the ping!
We’ve been using TracFones for years now, but it looks like we’re going to have to go to regular cell phones as our second one is going off to college. In general, we’ve had good luck with Tracfones, except my daughter. Her phones have given her no end to trouble, but then again, she also goes through watches at a fair rate.
With TracFones, you just have to make sure you get more units before the day on the phone says because otherwise you lose the number. If you run out of minutes, you just can’t call until you buy more. If your time expires, that’s when you have problems.
Whatchu talkin' 'bout?
As far as I know the death rate is still at 100%.
;^P
Yes, and with music coming out of them.
thanks, bfl
Hmmm.
Maybe your phone is more shielded than mine.
So because there are three times as many cell phone users as smokers, using cell phones is three times as dangerous?
I replaced my land line with a cell phone years ago, but I've yet to see any studies that showed a real relationship between normal cell phone usage and cancer. I've heard a lot of hype that has little to do with science, but I'm still waiting for evidence.
I do at times use my cell phone for extended periods of time. However, since holding a cell phone to my ear isn't all that comfortable, I usually use my bluetooth headset for longer calls or when driving. The bluetooth headset has a lot lower transmit power than the phone itself so it emits a lot less radiation, and I'm able to set my phone on the table and walk 20 feet or more from it without noticeable loss in sound quality. If I go 30 feet away I get to be hard to understand.
That means that my cell phone antenna is rarely next to my brain for extended periods of time, and as you get farther away from the source, you rapidly decrease the amount of radiation to which you are exposed.
And maybe people (like me) that don't use cell phones unless its an emergency, would rather not be seated in bars and restaurants where cell phones are in use. Ah, can you say ban?
That idiotic comment tells me that this moron didn't bother doing any research whatsoever before writing this column. Unless they are holding the phone up against your ear for hours on end you are getting a minuscule fraction of the radiation you get from using the phone yourself, which isn't much.
If you want to avoid all radiation related to cell phones you need to hide yourself in a Faraday cage, because we are all constantly receiving radiation emitted from cell towers unless you're somewhere that has no cell coverage.
The levels are extremely low, and not harmful, but such idiots as this author can't seem to grasp that it takes pretty high levels of radiation before they become harmful.
Dr. Vini Khurana not only said that cell phones double the risk of brain cancer after 10 years...
At what level of exposure? How strong of a signal, how close to the ear, for how long?
How was this determined? If based on actual case studies, the study size would have to be huge for a doubling of the extremely low rate to be statistically significant. It seems impossible for this to be a solidly measured figure.
I have very little faith in someone who makes sensationalize and vague claims about something that doubles an extremely low risk after ten years of sustained use, yet feels that it is so urgent that he demands something be done about it even before he publishes his study and it has been exposed to peer review.
Of course, that same amount of radiation will go through walls, buildings, autos etc and travel miles through inclement weax to get to the cell tower.
Actually the writer of the column is pointing out just how absurd the claims of this "study" really are.
The "study" claims that cell phone use is so much worse than smoking, so this columnist is using the same logic as the anti-smoker industry if it is bad for the user it must also be bad for those around them...........thus showing ridiculousness of BOTH claims.
I bet more people use cotton balls than drink sulfuric acid. Therefore, cotton balls are evidently more dangerous than ingesting H2SO4.
Jeepers...ever read something and passed it on? LOL..kinda letting the old cell phone story take you on a bit of a rant? I find this very amusing in so many ways.
But hey..cell phones don’t hurt anything. Let your kids use them from cradle to grave..right? ‘Cause at least it ain’t smokin’!
Get a grip...keep the old phone glued to the side of your head..anyone ever notice how “unattractive” a cell phone user is? lol
Yea, I'm pretty sick of the anti-smoking advertising that is paid for with tax payer money here in Ohio. I think smoking is a dirty, disgusting habit. I however am disgusted by the outright lies about smoking that are being told with taxpayer funds. Not because I'm sympathetic to smokers in general, but because I believe that anyone intentionally using taxpayer dollars to lie to taxpayers should be tossed in jail and have their assets confiscated to repay those funds.
There are lots of good and truthful reasons to not smoke.
Second hand smoke has never been proved to be a serious health hazard. It is however smelly and disgusting, which I believe is why the majority has voted to ban it in restaurants in most states.
I highly suspect that most people would have voted for the smoking bands without the outrageous claims by the anti-smoking lobby, and I doubt most people even believe those claims since they are so outrageous. However, liberals just seem to think that they have to lie to people because they know what is best for them, and getting people to agree with them is far more important to them than honesty.
Thanks for the ping.
No you aren’t. I refuse to get one myself. I want my quiet time (when I leave the house) without being bothered.
I think agreeing with the concept that anyone can vote away another's property rights is dirty and disgusting, regardless of the conditions under which it's done.
I'm unsympathetic to its adherents.
You have a gift of expression. I especially dig “electronic binkies,” LOL.
And welcome to FR!
Sorry for the late response - I have a new Motorola i580 thru Nextel/Sprint. Coverage sucks but the push-to-talk is really helpful in my business. This unit also has an off-network walkie-talkie feature - up to 10 miles line of site.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.