Yeah.. but who knows re that job

Post #376,446 by Ashton 6/14/13 10:10:05 PM Reply	Yeah.. but who knows re that job how far along he got ... in enough basic science to even have an idea of what 'radiation' is? Think all of us Nortes assume.. the rampant meeja is everywhere like ours, to the point of TMI. Not necessarily.
Post #376,450 by a6l6e6x 6/15/13 8:36:11 AM Reply	Re: all of us Nortes assume that having a cell phone next to the ears for hours every day is OK. And then nuke their dinner using a microwave oven that uses radiation of similar wavelength. Alex
Post #376,469 by Ashton 6/15/13 7:08:08 PM Reply	I no cel :-)
Post #376,532 by pwhysall 6/18/13 9:44:00 AM Reply	Re: all of us Nortes assume If there were any decent evidence that mobile phones give you brain cancer (or have other untoward physical effects) we'd know by now. There are billions and billions of data points. The worst thing that a mobile phone can give you is a hot ear and bad manners.
Post #376,539 by mmoffitt 6/18/13 10:41:14 AM Reply	And diminished communicative skills.
Post #376,540 by pwhysall 6/18/13 10:44:39 AM Reply	What? Me have diminished commmmmmmmunication skills? Unpossible!
Post #376,541 by mmoffitt 6/18/13 11:03:38 AM 6/18/13 11:03:58 AM Reply	IJWTK IYT TIE? ;0) Edited by mmoffitt June 18, 2013, 11:03:58 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #376,837 by Ashton 6/24/13 5:40:15 AM Reply	Ummm.. 'taint necessarily so Billions of examples does not translate to n-years (whatever n could.. prove to be) per customer. Look up 'Wald' re early warnings on low radiation dosages. (And also the Denial-responses to his work, as is expected: we're homo-saps.) I've no idea how this-all Shall turn out--merely state: too-early-to Tell, y'know?
Post #376,838 by pwhysall 6/24/13 6:11:32 AM Reply	It's been 20+ years How long do we need? It is obvious that mobile phone use has not elevated the incidence of brain tumours or other physical ill-effects (other than crashing whilst talking whilst driving, and that sort of thing, but you can only legislate so far against stupidity) by any statistically significant account. http://www.cancerres...phones-and-cancer Looking at all the evidence together suggests that mobile phones do not increase the risk of brain tumours, or any other type of cancer. The largest study so far on mobile phones and cancer is part of the Million Women Study and included around 790,000 women. It found no link between use of mobile phones and brain cancer in general or 18 other types of cancer. The researchers found no link between mobile phone use and risk of the two most common types of brain tumour (glioma and meningioma), but did see a raised risk of one rare type of brain tumour (acoustic neuroma) for women who had used mobile phones for at least five years. The scientists who ran this study think this result could be down to chance, because they investigated many different types of cancer. They also think that if there truly was an increased risk of acoustic neuroma with mobile phone use, this would cause a rise in rates of the disease in the general population. There has been no such rise over the last decade, when long-term use of mobile phones increased substantially. So for now there is some uncertainty over whether mobile phones might increase the risk of this rare type of tumour. A Danish study, which looked at over 420,000 people, found no link between mobile phones and any type of cancer including acoustic neuroma, other brain tumours and leukaemia. Reports from the Interphone study, which included over 6,000 people with brain cancer from 13 countries, have also found that brain cancer is not more common among mobile phone users. Some studies have suggested that people with brain cancer are more likely to have tumours on the side of their head that they say they hold their phone to. But in these studies, their overall risk of brain cancer is usually not any higher. And in some cases, they were less likely to develop a tumour on the opposite side of their head. This strange Âside-of-head effectÂ is probably due to problems with the way the research studies were designed. These studies ask people with cancer to remember how they used their phones, often many years ago. (I don't like the weasel words "But we do not know enough to completely rule out a risk.", because that's true of absolutely everything)
Post #376,893 by Ashton 6/24/13 8:58:31 PM Reply	Decent rebuttal to my guesstimate. So far. Well, the weaseling was an honest assessment--acknowledging that no 'stats' "guarantee results of some future set". Presuming that legislation does not allow an increase in transmitter power (from the mobile, of course) this is encouraging--medium term. (I don't buy the "20 year" starting point: accelerating usage/exponential growth rate says to me: start the next survey with clients who regularly used the new/thin cels, from say 2005 or 7? That survey might nail it as ... case closed. Or not.)
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.
Post #377,096 by crazy 6/27/13 3:59:30 PM Reply	And now it decided to reveal itself http://www.theregist...hnology_dementia/ Not saying this is proven, just that it can take a couple of generations time of exposure (from birth, childbearing years, let's see what happened to the next group, etc) before you can be sure.
Post #377,097 by drook 6/27/13 4:17:03 PM Reply	Sounds like that's talking about behavior, not radiation -- Drew
Post #377,101 by Ashton 6/27/13 5:07:30 PM Reply	Â¡PrecÃsamente! While we automatically look for the 'tangible'/physical: microscope-visible alterations in the wetware; seeing none we say, nope, it's Okee Dokey ... this week. My crystal ball sez: There may indeed be some such visible alterations, in.. time.. or 'measurable' psych effects [some. day.] And, surely many other factors (since the 8-Wasted/destructive-Years of the Shogunate) shall have altered lots of mental states lately, in the 300M-local hive. But we have near-zero expertise-yet, relating mental aberrations of the masses (say) to: effects of some particular assortment of Techno-machines. And for all obvious reasons re that correlation/causality enigma: maybe 20 years from now, hindsight will pin down cel-fones and similar. An absence of data.. is not, prima facie--any proof of No Effect [ie: seen at that Time.] I rely on experience of "experimentalists" (in science/physics) and also: the social/political factors whereby: the particular experiment/(in-depth survey?) Shall be Funded. Have noted many PSPs [Pretty Smart People] and the smarter-With-Epaulets ... who are the Deciders, in concert. Let's not even start on Super-String-'Theory'/all-unTestable.. If credentialed theoretical physicists can get all meta- on us ... then Hmmm, our collective psyches would seem to have hit a Bad Patch, lately. (Right now, I doubt there is much funding in this area. Few would Want to 'See' a real Problem here, either, for all commercial and other reasons.) But post-the MadMaxWorld now appearing on horizon: there may be lots of necropsies. Well, unless it's back to stone knives and bearskins, in which case: Roseanne Rosannadana says, Never Mind..
Post #377,112 by pwhysall 6/28/13 3:23:44 AM Reply	People are idiots Film at 11. Eight hundred years ago, it was completely acceptable and indeed legal to beat your wife as often and as hard as you liked. And your children, and your dog. It was good for them. These things have fundamentally changed the way we interact with each other. Time was, you used to go away from someone (spatially), and if you wanted to talk to someone who wasn't physically present, you found a landline or wrote them a letter. If they weren't also next to a landline, you didn't talk. Now, everyone's accessible, just about all the time, just about wherever they are. Like many people, I have three phones on my desk - landline, work mobile, personal mobile. Like many people, I have Facebook (and other) messaging built into my personal phone; I have BBM (which no-one in our company uses for work, hurrah!) built into my work phone. I have daily casual on-line interacts with people who, even ten years ago, I would have only spoken to a couple of times a year, tops. My social graph has changed from being a relatively small number of people with whom I interact a lot and then a larger number of people with whom I interact a little, to a relatively small number of people with whom I interact a lot and then a fucking boatload of people with whom I also interact a lot, but in a different way. The problem with your hypothesis - that mobile phones cause physical harm but we just haven't seen any yet - is that when you have something that a large percentage of the population engage in, because a large percentage population engages in it, you are at extreme risk of identifying things that are there simply because you're looking at a large percentage of the population. In short, study design has to be brutally rigorous and pretty bloody clever to account for the fact that in any substantial cohort, people are going to die of some bizarre things. The study referenced by Bazza seems to emanate from an "institute" that is a for-pay organisation, and I can't even find their website. Awooga, captain! The cynic in me says that it's an advert with bells on aimed at a section of society that would like to blame the outcomes of its piss-poor parenting on something, and by jingo, mobile phones are the answer! Great comment on that story at El Reg: Awesome Does this mean that if i make up some random doom-mongering bollocks with no more supporting evidence than "I asked my cat if it was true and he didn't say no" I can get an article front page of the reg??? That would be fantastic :) I think the correct response for story's like these is "piss off and come back with some actual evidence" Everything changes all the time and everything stays the same.
Post #377,160 by Ashton 6/28/13 3:47:15 PM Reply	Second on idiots; saw that quip, too.. The "Angles and the _____s" are evidence that the Intarweb guarantees there shall be nutters arguing that my-kid's-celfone-ate-his-brain. Already. (As to where I fit within some demonology: I'd get a cel tomorrow, had I the need for instant-accessibility. And there was ROI.) Also, my direct experience w/ Murican MDs (re radiation dosages on humans--and related matters) causes me to expect little in the way of clear/incisive thinking from such technicians: on any topic. We'd need lots more than the cited opinion piece, and your statistical point is unarguable re the humongous range of possible matters affecting, well.. Any humongous number of sampled bipeds. Obviously there shall Be many efforts to somehow tie the [apparent spread of dumbth. Is it now worldwide?] to this or that handy new Thing. Let's just call that, noise. 'K? I know-not what effects might result/also might matter(?) from the amounts of energy--manifest as heat--in the jelloware of developing brains/or already developed ones. And nobody has a model for linking psychological changes via such non-traumatic 'factors'. Yet. But Darwin's various theses make a few things clear, one of which is: TTT. Things [like evolved protection] take time. The ubiquity of cel-fones is New to this organism. IF there are subtle/or, eventually not-so-subtle alterations to our CPUs: I think it behooves us to periodically check-in on this or any new gadget which rapidly spawns to the extent of these devices. Make real Work==jobs for not-Robots ... not just more machine-spawned Stuff. We may well expect to find Nothing (significant) even after long-term perusal. But to imagine that the case is closed (already) is an act of faith. Insufficient data/insufficient Time. We can drop a $M or so/year to ... keep the faith, Baby. (Besides, the dumbth epidemic seems to predate this exponential rise in cel usage) leaving only the question: Does cel-use exacerbate this little spurt of devolution? I don't expect to see any answers in my lifetime, but lots of bloviations to fill the void. Now, speaking of cats.. it's 95°F out there--no need to ask one about cels, just water-down their shady spot.

Welcome to IWETHEY!