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.
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.
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