5 ms·

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/08/us-usa-sanfrancisco-cellphones-idUSBRE9470I720130508 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/08/us-usa-sanfrancisc...

by smtddr 13y ago

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/08/us-usa-sanfrancisco-cellphones-idUSBRE9470I720130508 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/08/us-usa-sanfrancisc... I don't see anything absurd here. It's still not clear that cellphones are "safe". >>Mobile phones are tested to ensure their emissions fall within FCC limits considered safe. The limits, however, fail to reflect the latest research or actual conditions under which mobile phones are used, liked being held in a pocket directly against the body while talking through an earpiece, according to a Government Accountability Office report. The FCC last month agreed to consider revising its 17-year-old guidelines. I'm glad the FCC at least were open to thinking about it. I treat my cellphone as a possible biohazard and keep it away from my body. It's almost always in my backpack; about a foot away from my body and I almost never make voice-calls; I'm all SMS. I put in less than 45mins/month on voice-calls.

AsymetricCom 13y ago
But our economy is already dependent on mobile data. So cancer or not, there's no stopping it. The economy decides what's safe.
- smtddr 13y ago
  So we should all just give up? Economy is pretty dependent on gasoline/oil too; but I'm glad people are looking into finding better sources of energy. We know gasoline burning & the process of obtaining oil is not good for humanity for a big list of reasons. _If_ it's found cellphones can be harmful, hopefully we begin researching how to make safer versions. Personally, I think there's been enough studies on it to make it at least plausible and I choose to error on the side of caution.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Say, have you heard about the microwave background radiation? You are being exposed to radiation in all microwave frequencies from all directions right now from the fusion of nuclear isotopes at the start of time, also, would you like to buy this giant Faraday cage.
- sanskritabelt 13y ago
  Used to be, the economy decided tobacco was safe.
  - nickff 13y ago
    "[T]he economy" does not 'decide' anything; individuals act in their own self-interest (, though not necessarily their long-term self interest).
- makmanalp 13y ago
  Huh? No. First of all, most of "the economy" doesn't know anything about anything unless they're informed. So they're implementing a new testing process to better inform them. Let me remind you of a similar situation - 50 years ago, it wasn't common knowledge that smoking was harmful. Many people smoked. Then, overwhelming evidence showed that it was harmful. Then, there were widespread campaigns telling people just that. Today, not as many people smoke, and not to the same degree. Success! Should we have given up on teaching people sense? Second, what makes you think - assuming that cell phone emissions are indeed significant enough to be harmful - we can't have tech that works as it does now, but is less harmful?
  - jotm 13y ago
    I believe the comparison you're looking for is radium - people used it for quite a long time, not knowing the long term effects. Heroin works, too - smoking doesn't because people have been smoking stuff for thousands of years...
    - mburns 13y ago
      Lead-based paint is another example.
  - AsymetricCom 13y ago
    I'm not certain your example of Tobacco is a success. My point stands, that Cell phones are needed by the economy so we'll have cellphones. Tobacco sales were needed by the economy and now they're not. Also, your idea that Tobacco fell out of market acceptance because of the health risks, widespread campaigns is wrong.
    - makmanalp 13y ago
      http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig... -> If that's not a success, I don't know what is. Your point doesn't stand. You implied that society needs cellphones, therefore there can be no ban on them. No one's calling to ban all cellphones. The suggestion is to reevaluate safety criteria, and disallow phones above that threshold. Seems maybe you're right on one point, it seems plain education seems to be less successful. It's only a contributing factor whereas taxing and banning are the main factors in getting adults to stop smoking: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-smoking-rates-are-at-new-lows/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-smoking-rates-a... This is even funnier though, since it suggests that the approach of taxing and banning nonconforming cell phones would work, which is the opposite of what you're suggesting.
- mayneack 13y ago
  Number of people saved by calling for ambulances via cell phone > Cancer deaths from radiation?
  - AsymetricCom 13y ago
    Imagine all the lives saved from killing off millions of Jews.
    - drdeca 13y ago
      I don't understand your argument? Why would you argue that to be a number of any significant size? There seems to be three possibilities here: A:you believe that killing randomly selected people will prevent more deaths than it causes. B:you believe that killing a people does. C:You believe that more people have died of brain cancer from cell phones than have been saved by them (in which case, statistics would be nice maybe? I might not look at your responce, so maybe not worth it to you.) D: Some other interpretation of what you said that I haven't thought of. A seems absurd, B seems absurd and possibly problematic, C seems false, but less obviously, D is essentially "other". Is your claim that em radiation from cell phones (for signal purposes) can alter DNA molecules, Or is your claim that it can e.g. Allow mutant cells to grow or some such ( make it more likely for the cancer to spread and such, instead of being destroyed by the immune system (accuracy?))?
dubfan 13y ago
Cell phones don't emit ionizing radiation (the kind that causes damage to DNA).
Crito 13y ago
This is offtopic, but I think this comment is exactly what I mean... Go read what he had to say about the ordinance. It is more than reasonable.
- smtddr 13y ago
  So this[1] is absurd to you? 0% chance of being true? http://www.naturalnews.com/042323_brain_cancer_risk_cell_phones_mobile_devices.html http://www.naturalnews.com/042323_brain_cancer_risk_cell_pho... EDIT: ouch, those downvotes...
  - Crito 13y ago
    Obviously this is a point of obsession for you and nothing I am going to say is going to change your mind, but here you go, have fun: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones Regardless, Alsup's decision in this case did not assume that there is no chance that cellphones cause cancer. He left himself open to that possibility. Hence more than reasonable.
    - dubfan 13y ago
      Trying to argue with an alt-medicine fanatic using a .gov source is like citing Dawkins in a debate with a Bible thumper. They won't take the source seriously.
    - smtddr 13y ago
      Ah, okay then. So then he left himself open to that possibility but he believes the possibility is still too small for SF to make a law over. That's a fair conclusion. I can understand that there's no need to alarm the general public until concrete evidence is brought to light.
      - moocowduckquack 13y ago
        Below mobile phone, wi-fi and microwave oven frequency ranges (0.9Ghz - 2.4Ghz), the 40Mhz band can still be used for cooking http://www.ctechinnovation.com/#sthash.wZafGNLl.dpbs http://www.ctechinnovation.com/#sthash.wZafGNLl.dpbs and is also used for radio controlled cars http://www.ukrcc.org/40mhz.html http://www.ukrcc.org/40mhz.html Above that, infra-red light, which starts at around 300 Ghz, is again used for cooking, and it also is used for changing channels on your TV. What do you think is special about mobile phone, wi-fi and microwave oven frequency ranges? (edited for clarity and stuff)
viggity 13y ago
it is impossible to prove that something is safe, you can only prove that something is harmful and thus far there isn't any credible evidence that cell phones are harmful.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  If a large enough population is using X for a long time and it's mortality is not distinguishable from those not using X, then that is proof that using X doesn't kill you. Of course, that takes decades, and can't be proved before X is widely used - but it allows us to reason about the [lack of] deadliness of various wierd cultural habits, diets, etc.

by smtddr 13y ago

AsymetricCom 13y ago

But our economy is already dependent on mobile data. So cancer or not, there's no stopping it. The economy decides what's safe.

smtddr 13y ago
So we should all just give up? Economy is pretty dependent on gasoline/oil too; but I'm glad people are looking into finding better sources of energy. We know gasoline burning & the process of obtaining oil is not good for humanity for a big list of reasons. _If_ it's found cellphones can be harmful, hopefully we begin researching how to make safer versions. Personally, I think there's been enough studies on it to make it at least plausible and I choose to error on the side of caution.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Say, have you heard about the microwave background radiation? You are being exposed to radiation in all microwave frequencies from all directions right now from the fusion of nuclear isotopes at the start of time, also, would you like to buy this giant Faraday cage.
sanskritabelt 13y ago
Used to be, the economy decided tobacco was safe.
- nickff 13y ago
  "[T]he economy" does not 'decide' anything; individuals act in their own self-interest (, though not necessarily their long-term self interest).
makmanalp 13y ago
Huh? No. First of all, most of "the economy" doesn't know anything about anything unless they're informed. So they're implementing a new testing process to better inform them. Let me remind you of a similar situation - 50 years ago, it wasn't common knowledge that smoking was harmful. Many people smoked. Then, overwhelming evidence showed that it was harmful. Then, there were widespread campaigns telling people just that. Today, not as many people smoke, and not to the same degree. Success! Should we have given up on teaching people sense? Second, what makes you think - assuming that cell phone emissions are indeed significant enough to be harmful - we can't have tech that works as it does now, but is less harmful?
- jotm 13y ago
  I believe the comparison you're looking for is radium - people used it for quite a long time, not knowing the long term effects. Heroin works, too - smoking doesn't because people have been smoking stuff for thousands of years...
  - mburns 13y ago
    Lead-based paint is another example.
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  I'm not certain your example of Tobacco is a success. My point stands, that Cell phones are needed by the economy so we'll have cellphones. Tobacco sales were needed by the economy and now they're not. Also, your idea that Tobacco fell out of market acceptance because of the health risks, widespread campaigns is wrong.
  - makmanalp 13y ago
    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig... -> If that's not a success, I don't know what is. Your point doesn't stand. You implied that society needs cellphones, therefore there can be no ban on them. No one's calling to ban all cellphones. The suggestion is to reevaluate safety criteria, and disallow phones above that threshold. Seems maybe you're right on one point, it seems plain education seems to be less successful. It's only a contributing factor whereas taxing and banning are the main factors in getting adults to stop smoking: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-smoking-rates-are-at-new-lows/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-smoking-rates-a... This is even funnier though, since it suggests that the approach of taxing and banning nonconforming cell phones would work, which is the opposite of what you're suggesting.
mayneack 13y ago
Number of people saved by calling for ambulances via cell phone > Cancer deaths from radiation?
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  Imagine all the lives saved from killing off millions of Jews.
  - drdeca 13y ago
    I don't understand your argument? Why would you argue that to be a number of any significant size? There seems to be three possibilities here: A:you believe that killing randomly selected people will prevent more deaths than it causes. B:you believe that killing a people does. C:You believe that more people have died of brain cancer from cell phones than have been saved by them (in which case, statistics would be nice maybe? I might not look at your responce, so maybe not worth it to you.) D: Some other interpretation of what you said that I haven't thought of. A seems absurd, B seems absurd and possibly problematic, C seems false, but less obviously, D is essentially "other". Is your claim that em radiation from cell phones (for signal purposes) can alter DNA molecules, Or is your claim that it can e.g. Allow mutant cells to grow or some such ( make it more likely for the cancer to spread and such, instead of being destroyed by the immune system (accuracy?))?

dubfan 13y ago

Cell phones don't emit ionizing radiation (the kind that causes damage to DNA).

Crito 13y ago

This is offtopic, but I think this comment is exactly what I mean... Go read what he had to say about the ordinance. It is more than reasonable.

smtddr 13y ago
So this[1] is absurd to you? 0% chance of being true? http://www.naturalnews.com/042323_brain_cancer_risk_cell_phones_mobile_devices.html http://www.naturalnews.com/042323_brain_cancer_risk_cell_pho... EDIT: ouch, those downvotes...
- Crito 13y ago
  Obviously this is a point of obsession for you and nothing I am going to say is going to change your mind, but here you go, have fun: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones Regardless, Alsup's decision in this case did not assume that there is no chance that cellphones cause cancer. He left himself open to that possibility. Hence more than reasonable.
  - dubfan 13y ago
    Trying to argue with an alt-medicine fanatic using a .gov source is like citing Dawkins in a debate with a Bible thumper. They won't take the source seriously.
  - smtddr 13y ago
    Ah, okay then. So then he left himself open to that possibility but he believes the possibility is still too small for SF to make a law over. That's a fair conclusion. I can understand that there's no need to alarm the general public until concrete evidence is brought to light.
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      Below mobile phone, wi-fi and microwave oven frequency ranges (0.9Ghz - 2.4Ghz), the 40Mhz band can still be used for cooking http://www.ctechinnovation.com/#sthash.wZafGNLl.dpbs http://www.ctechinnovation.com/#sthash.wZafGNLl.dpbs and is also used for radio controlled cars http://www.ukrcc.org/40mhz.html http://www.ukrcc.org/40mhz.html Above that, infra-red light, which starts at around 300 Ghz, is again used for cooking, and it also is used for changing channels on your TV. What do you think is special about mobile phone, wi-fi and microwave oven frequency ranges? (edited for clarity and stuff)

viggity 13y ago

it is impossible to prove that something is safe, you can only prove that something is harmful and thus far there isn't any credible evidence that cell phones are harmful.

PeterisP 13y ago
If a large enough population is using X for a long time and it's mortality is not distinguishable from those not using X, then that is proof that using X doesn't kill you. Of course, that takes decades, and can't be proved before X is widely used - but it allows us to reason about the [lack of] deadliness of various wierd cultural habits, diets, etc.