Re: Decent rebuttal to my guesstimate. So far.

Post #376,910 by pwhysall 6/25/13 3:27:47 AM Reply	Re: Decent rebuttal to my guesstimate. So far. Non-ionising radiation is non-ionising radiation; new phones are no different to old ones in that respect. GSM has been around for decades. You would have to demonstrate some significant physical difference in the radiating characteristics between new phones and older ones before anyone would even give the idea of basing a study on new phones only houseroom. Given that old phones and new phones all work on the same networks with the same masts on the same frequencies and at the same power levels, it's hard to see how this would be the case. There's just no plausible mechanism for how such low levels of non-ionising radiation would interact with cell structures in a way that would cause DNA damage and thus cancer. The "we need more research" mantra is oft trotted-out by people who do not like the answer that lots of research has already supplied.
Post #376,962 by Ashton 6/25/13 5:49:17 PM Reply	The difference between us is that you think that questions of effects of such stimulation--over long intervals--is 'settled science' proving a negative. Already. What is established, thus far--is an absence of any correlations with brain-or-other 'cancers'. 'Non -ionizing' is a bit too digital in the concept: energy levels at ear may not 'strip' electrons from the say, outer/valence (pseudo-'layer')--the textbook definition. But any energy source, now applied for the first time to billions of the species, on a regular schedule: is New to the organism (us) in any Darwinian sense. Messing slightly with the ongoing overall energy levels of bio-complex materials is a topic few have thrown any $$ at studying, to my knowledge. Reaction rates (for just one) Are affected by any elevated 'temperature'--which is what that-all reduces to, when it's random==like heat. [I presume you're not lumping together the Σ-μwatts/cm² of the fantastic soup of all the radiation in the ether/air--as from all the towers. That always bears long-term, reliable attention, but my concern is solely with the transmitter on the ear, here.] No, I anticipate-Not some epidemic of cel-fone created Zombies arising to trump the best/worst sci-fi potboilers: I do recall What-exactly caused Thalidomide's effects on pregnant women/Missed by all, until the damage happened. One of the chemicals used in synthesizing that drug, had both dextro- / laevo-rotary forms; the culprit was the Fact that, in production the Wrong/Untested form of this substance was used. Etc.) And yes, we have plenty-else to try to parse, re exploding techno, running well-beyond our financial willingness to follow-effects post-production. Unless people are dropping like flies. (And the certainty that profit / also not being successfully-sued: are the major concerns of all Corporations. Not subtleties of any sort.) Oh/and: new phones are Different: they are thinner; delivered 'heating' goes as inverse-cube from antenna-->ear. (Hell, the thickness/prominence of the ear may prove to be enough attenuation that.. any anomalies will appear there, rather than through a thick skull. May..) What, me worry? --Alfred E. Neuman
Post #376,963 by pwhysall 6/25/13 6:44:18 PM Reply	There are far, far bigger fish to fry Searching for evidence of effects that are so far statistically invisible in datasets containing hundreds of thousands of points (the formal studies) and billions (the population at large) is pointless and of little benefit to society at large. In a world where we eat too much, drink too much, breathe too many actually definitely carcinogenic compounds from vehicle and other emissions, exercise too little, and so on and so forth - why concentrate on something that has, for thirty years and a boatload of proper serious research, resisted any and all attempts to frame it as a problem? It's all a bit Daily Mail.
Post #376,968 by Ashton 6/25/13 7:31:54 PM Reply	all good examples, those. Just don't mark that file: Closed--there's nothing there. A few people out of the billions need to check-in: as forensics become even more revealing. Not simply erase the topic. Why?? Because: Thalidomide-grade oversights are the canaries. V.small lapses can be disastrous (for a few) or at least serious for many others. Ex: The entire panoply of 'fracking-related' threats to environment + a generally science-illiterate group allowing the entrepreneurs: virtually carte blanche. It is Because So-Much-Else is going on: that I aver that we shall see more/not fewer oversights of vital details. We cannot afford Not-to delve, IMO. (Have seen too many smart people do dumb things around 'radiation sources' etc. to equate IQ/academic status with: actual vigilance.) It's the COST of making-up jillions of New Stuff--mainly/solely? for profit; the fun-later is optional. Ya wants Vast-complexity sans Vast-Attention? Then you are the lawful prey of the schlockmeisters. Now if you want ROI.. that's a start on how we might do lots of stuff better. But not today; gotta file those patent things. Ford Pinto+gas-tank+location
Post #376,987 by pwhysall 6/26/13 1:46:54 AM Reply	We cannot foresee everything We haven't the time, nor the money, nor the people to analyse every potential threat. The thalidomide case is a false equivalence; the outcomes of that particular cock-up were severe, obvious and turned up within nine months. Ditto for the Pinto case. It's not as if there isn't an entire universe of pseudoscientific nutters out there actively looking for a link between phones and cancer - hell, playing on these fears is a business model: http://www.pongresearch.com/
Post #377,031 by Ashton 6/26/13 5:35:58 PM Reply	As to time/money/people Make more jobs. Paying more people to have a vote on certain techno 'innovations' -VS- the entrepreneurial $amorality: which we seem to both expect and allow --is a legitimate expenditure.. want a slogan? Because The Planet Needs a Good Lawyer Rest case.

Welcome to IWETHEY!