Cell Phone Safety - Find your cell phone here!

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777


well i guess you draw the line where you want to 😉

Actually IIRC there was a recent study that showed a considerable impact on male fertility caused by mobile phones...was in quite a few papers i think?

I draw the line at verifiable facts and logic.

Not myths and irrational, unfounded fears.

As for the fertility study, it is HIGHLY questionable, and has not been repeated. In fact, it contradicted a number of similar studies.

http://www.mobilepipeline.com/news/22102474

The press reports it because it is sensational, not because it is valid.

all that says is what i concluded, people appear to think more work needs to be done in that area...and come on, a line in a news article which says 'contradicts other studies', without giving specific examples is not exactly what i'd expect from someone who only uses 'verifiable facts and logic' 😉

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777


well i guess you draw the line where you want to 😉

Actually IIRC there was a recent study that showed a considerable impact on male fertility caused by mobile phones...was in quite a few papers i think?

I draw the line at verifiable facts and logic.

Not myths and irrational, unfounded fears.

As for the fertility study, it is HIGHLY questionable, and has not been repeated. In fact, it contradicted a number of similar studies.

http://www.mobilepipeline.com/news/22102474

The press reports it because it is sensational, not because it is valid.

all that says is what i concluded, people appear to think more work needs to be done in that area...and come on, a line in a news article which says 'contradicts other studies', without giving specific examples is not exactly what i'd expect from someone who only uses 'verifiable facts and logic' 😉

Let's use logic, shall we?

ONE study shows harm, contradicting all previous studies.

Now think REAL hard and tell me which position is more tenable?

Also note you NEVER read about the other studies in the press. Only the sensational one claiming to show harm. Why is that?

Fear sells. And you're buying.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777


well i guess you draw the line where you want to 😉

Actually IIRC there was a recent study that showed a considerable impact on male fertility caused by mobile phones...was in quite a few papers i think?

I draw the line at verifiable facts and logic.

Not myths and irrational, unfounded fears.

As for the fertility study, it is HIGHLY questionable, and has not been repeated. In fact, it contradicted a number of similar studies.

http://www.mobilepipeline.com/news/22102474

The press reports it because it is sensational, not because it is valid.

all that says is what i concluded, people appear to think more work needs to be done in that area...and come on, a line in a news article which says 'contradicts other studies', without giving specific examples is not exactly what i'd expect from someone who only uses 'verifiable facts and logic' 😉

Let's use logic, shall we?

ONE study shows harm, contradicting all previous studies.

Now think REAL hard and tell me which position is more tenable?

Also note you NEVER read about the other studies in the press. Only the sensational one claiming to show harm. Why is that?

Fear sells. And you're buying.

thats stupid. Just cos one study (and i'd love to see specifics of the others, glad to see you unquestioningly believe a random line on the intarweb simply because it backs you up, so verifiable 😉) shows the results you don't like, ignore it?

That's closed minded to say the least....i'd honestly have expected more of you.

EDIT: and in a google i didn't see anyone actually questioning the methodology, and the bloke who did it said himself that further work needed to be done...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777


well i guess you draw the line where you want to 😉

Actually IIRC there was a recent study that showed a considerable impact on male fertility caused by mobile phones...was in quite a few papers i think?

I draw the line at verifiable facts and logic.

Not myths and irrational, unfounded fears.

As for the fertility study, it is HIGHLY questionable, and has not been repeated. In fact, it contradicted a number of similar studies.

http://www.mobilepipeline.com/news/22102474

The press reports it because it is sensational, not because it is valid.

all that says is what i concluded, people appear to think more work needs to be done in that area...and come on, a line in a news article which says 'contradicts other studies', without giving specific examples is not exactly what i'd expect from someone who only uses 'verifiable facts and logic' 😉

Let's use logic, shall we?

ONE study shows harm, contradicting all previous studies.

Now think REAL hard and tell me which position is more tenable?

Also note you NEVER read about the other studies in the press. Only the sensational one claiming to show harm. Why is that?

Fear sells. And you're buying.

thats stupid. Just cos one study (and i'd love to see specifics of the others, glad to see you unquestioningly believe a random line on the intarweb simply because it backs you up, so verifiable 😉) shows the results you don't like, ignore it?

That's closed minded to say the least....i'd honestly have expected more of you.

The basis of science is confirmation and being able to repeat one's results.

You have numerous previous studies that all repeat the same results, and ONE study that shows the opposite results.

Maybe the problem here is you just don't understand how science works?

 

[Pepsi90919]

LG???LX5550???1.21???n/a

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: dug777
Just cos one study (and i'd love to see specifics of the others, glad to see you unquestioningly believe a random line on the intarweb simply because it backs you up, so verifiable 😉) shows the results you don't like, ignore it?

That's closed minded to say the least....i'd honestly have expected more of you.

That's not closed minded, it's sensible. This week a study shows eggs are really bad for you. Next week a study shows eggs are really good for you. The following week, eggs are really bad. A week later eggs are really good.

The overall result is that eating eggs in moderation is best. Eggs are a great source of valuable nutrition, but eating 3 eggs a day is not a good decision.

A single study is statistically insignificant and SHOULD be ignored when taken outside the context of an overall body of knowledge and evidence.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777


well i guess you draw the line where you want to 😉

Actually IIRC there was a recent study that showed a considerable impact on male fertility caused by mobile phones...was in quite a few papers i think?

I draw the line at verifiable facts and logic.

Not myths and irrational, unfounded fears.

As for the fertility study, it is HIGHLY questionable, and has not been repeated. In fact, it contradicted a number of similar studies.

http://www.mobilepipeline.com/news/22102474

The press reports it because it is sensational, not because it is valid.

all that says is what i concluded, people appear to think more work needs to be done in that area...and come on, a line in a news article which says 'contradicts other studies', without giving specific examples is not exactly what i'd expect from someone who only uses 'verifiable facts and logic' 😉

Let's use logic, shall we?

ONE study shows harm, contradicting all previous studies.

Now think REAL hard and tell me which position is more tenable?

Also note you NEVER read about the other studies in the press. Only the sensational one claiming to show harm. Why is that?

Fear sells. And you're buying.

thats stupid. Just cos one study (and i'd love to see specifics of the others, glad to see you unquestioningly believe a random line on the intarweb simply because it backs you up, so verifiable 😉) shows the results you don't like, ignore it?

That's closed minded to say the least....i'd honestly have expected more of you.

The basis of science is confirmation and being able to repeat one's results.

You have numerous previous studies that all repeat the same results, and ONE study that shows the opposite results.

Maybe the problem here is you just don't understand how science works?

What other studies i ask you? Name me a couple, or are you still relying on that one line from an intarweb news article? 😉 I'm a sceptic about those other studies, since i've certainly never heard them mentioned before that, or read about them in mobile phone safety debates...have you?

It would seem to me that this is a relatively new area of testing, and as many in the field have said as far as i can see from most of those web articles, further work needs to be done to be sure either way...and i personally hope it is wrong 🙂

EDIT: science certainly isn't about relying on an unsubstantiated comment as the basis for you're entire argument, i know that much at least 😛

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: dug777
All i'm saying is that there's no harm in being cautious wrt mobile phone usage, i mean common sense suggests that holding a powerful microwave emitting device against your head for hours a day doesnt SOUND like a good idea does it?

This is a problem I see way too often. Common sense is not a valid replacement for scientific observation. We simply can not intuit the effects of such complicated systems as microwave/biological interaction.
Science tells us that, based on observation, there seems to be little to no effect of microwaves on cell structure. Mathematical theory tells us microwaves at the levels we are talking about are not energetic enough to have a lasting effect on cellular structure.
Common sense tells us that since cell phones emit microwave radiation and we have been told radiation is bad, therefore cells phones must be bad. This type of common sense thinking is flawed because it is too simplistic, we don?t consider other mitigating factors. Radiation does not always equal bad.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777


well i guess you draw the line where you want to 😉

Actually IIRC there was a recent study that showed a considerable impact on male fertility caused by mobile phones...was in quite a few papers i think?

I draw the line at verifiable facts and logic.

Not myths and irrational, unfounded fears.

As for the fertility study, it is HIGHLY questionable, and has not been repeated. In fact, it contradicted a number of similar studies.

http://www.mobilepipeline.com/news/22102474

The press reports it because it is sensational, not because it is valid.

all that says is what i concluded, people appear to think more work needs to be done in that area...and come on, a line in a news article which says 'contradicts other studies', without giving specific examples is not exactly what i'd expect from someone who only uses 'verifiable facts and logic' 😉

Let's use logic, shall we?

ONE study shows harm, contradicting all previous studies.

Now think REAL hard and tell me which position is more tenable?

Also note you NEVER read about the other studies in the press. Only the sensational one claiming to show harm. Why is that?

Fear sells. And you're buying.

thats stupid. Just cos one study (and i'd love to see specifics of the others, glad to see you unquestioningly believe a random line on the intarweb simply because it backs you up, so verifiable 😉) shows the results you don't like, ignore it?

That's closed minded to say the least....i'd honestly have expected more of you.

The basis of science is confirmation and being able to repeat one's results.

You have numerous previous studies that all repeat the same results, and ONE study that shows the opposite results.

Maybe the problem here is you just don't understand how science works?

What other studies i ask you? Name me a couple, or are you still relying on that one line from an intarweb news article? 😉 I'm a sceptic about those other studies, since i've certainly never heard them mentioned before that, or read about them in mobile phone safety debates...have you?

It would seem to me that this is a relatively new area of testing, and as many in the field have said as far as i can see from most of those web articles, further work needs to be done to be sure either way...and i personally hope it is wrong 🙂

EDIT: science certainly isn't about relying on an unsubstantiated comment as the basis for you're entire argument, i know that much at least 😛

You've never heard of them because fear sells.

And like I said, you're buying.

You can continue to buy the sensational BS, or listen to reason.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: dug777
All i'm saying is that there's no harm in being cautious wrt mobile phone usage, i mean common sense suggests that holding a powerful microwave emitting device against your head for hours a day doesnt SOUND like a good idea does it?

This is a problem I see way too often. Common sense is not a valid replacement for scientific observation. We simply can not intuit the effects of such complicated systems as microwave/biological interaction.
Science tells us that, based on observation, there seems to be little to no effect of microwaves on cell structure. Mathematical theory tells us microwaves at the levels we are talking about are not energetic enough to have a lasting effect on cellular structure.
Common sense tells us that since cell phones emit microwave radiation and we have been told radiation is bad, therefore cells phones must be bad. This type of common sense thinking is flawed because it is too simplistic, we don?t consider other mitigating factors. Radiation does not always equal bad.

Good point.

point taken.

Now go back up and get with the thread, i hope someone can see i'm making some sense at some stage 😉

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: dug777
All i'm saying is that there's no harm in being cautious wrt mobile phone usage, i mean common sense suggests that holding a powerful microwave emitting device against your head for hours a day doesnt SOUND like a good idea does it?

This is a problem I see way too often. Common sense is not a valid replacement for scientific observation. We simply can not intuit the effects of such complicated systems as microwave/biological interaction.
Science tells us that, based on observation, there seems to be little to no effect of microwaves on cell structure. Mathematical theory tells us microwaves at the levels we are talking about are not energetic enough to have a lasting effect on cellular structure.
Common sense tells us that since cell phones emit microwave radiation and we have been told radiation is bad, therefore cells phones must be bad. This type of common sense thinking is flawed because it is too simplistic, we don?t consider other mitigating factors. Radiation does not always equal bad.

Good point.

point taken.

Now go back up and get with the thread, i hope someone can see i'm making some sense at some stage 😉

Where? You haven't made sense yet.

You seem to WANT there to be harm from cell phones.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777


well i guess you draw the line where you want to 😉

Actually IIRC there was a recent study that showed a considerable impact on male fertility caused by mobile phones...was in quite a few papers i think?

I draw the line at verifiable facts and logic.

Not myths and irrational, unfounded fears.

As for the fertility study, it is HIGHLY questionable, and has not been repeated. In fact, it contradicted a number of similar studies.

http://www.mobilepipeline.com/news/22102474

The press reports it because it is sensational, not because it is valid.

all that says is what i concluded, people appear to think more work needs to be done in that area...and come on, a line in a news article which says 'contradicts other studies', without giving specific examples is not exactly what i'd expect from someone who only uses 'verifiable facts and logic' 😉

Let's use logic, shall we?

ONE study shows harm, contradicting all previous studies.

Now think REAL hard and tell me which position is more tenable?

Also note you NEVER read about the other studies in the press. Only the sensational one claiming to show harm. Why is that?

Fear sells. And you're buying.

thats stupid. Just cos one study (and i'd love to see specifics of the others, glad to see you unquestioningly believe a random line on the intarweb simply because it backs you up, so verifiable 😉) shows the results you don't like, ignore it?

That's closed minded to say the least....i'd honestly have expected more of you.

The basis of science is confirmation and being able to repeat one's results.

You have numerous previous studies that all repeat the same results, and ONE study that shows the opposite results.

Maybe the problem here is you just don't understand how science works?

What other studies i ask you? Name me a couple, or are you still relying on that one line from an intarweb news article? 😉 I'm a sceptic about those other studies, since i've certainly never heard them mentioned before that, or read about them in mobile phone safety debates...have you?

It would seem to me that this is a relatively new area of testing, and as many in the field have said as far as i can see from most of those web articles, further work needs to be done to be sure either way...and i personally hope it is wrong 🙂

EDIT: science certainly isn't about relying on an unsubstantiated comment as the basis for you're entire argument, i know that much at least 😛

You've never heard of them because fear sells.

And like I said, you're buying.

You can continue to buy the sensational BS, or listen to reason.

you got pwned mate 😉

As i said, actually provide me with some proof that doesn't come from your one little article line, and i'm more than happy to agree with you. But it seems at the moment that you are simply relying on that one 'verifiable' 😉 line for your whole argument here...

I have one study that says one thing (that's well known and seems not to have been directly challenged or questioned as far as i can see from a quick google) and you have what? Hearsay at best 😛

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777


well i guess you draw the line where you want to 😉

Actually IIRC there was a recent study that showed a considerable impact on male fertility caused by mobile phones...was in quite a few papers i think?

I draw the line at verifiable facts and logic.

Not myths and irrational, unfounded fears.

As for the fertility study, it is HIGHLY questionable, and has not been repeated. In fact, it contradicted a number of similar studies.

http://www.mobilepipeline.com/news/22102474

The press reports it because it is sensational, not because it is valid.

all that says is what i concluded, people appear to think more work needs to be done in that area...and come on, a line in a news article which says 'contradicts other studies', without giving specific examples is not exactly what i'd expect from someone who only uses 'verifiable facts and logic' 😉

Let's use logic, shall we?

ONE study shows harm, contradicting all previous studies.

Now think REAL hard and tell me which position is more tenable?

Also note you NEVER read about the other studies in the press. Only the sensational one claiming to show harm. Why is that?

Fear sells. And you're buying.

thats stupid. Just cos one study (and i'd love to see specifics of the others, glad to see you unquestioningly believe a random line on the intarweb simply because it backs you up, so verifiable 😉) shows the results you don't like, ignore it?

That's closed minded to say the least....i'd honestly have expected more of you.

The basis of science is confirmation and being able to repeat one's results.

You have numerous previous studies that all repeat the same results, and ONE study that shows the opposite results.

Maybe the problem here is you just don't understand how science works?

What other studies i ask you? Name me a couple, or are you still relying on that one line from an intarweb news article? 😉 I'm a sceptic about those other studies, since i've certainly never heard them mentioned before that, or read about them in mobile phone safety debates...have you?

It would seem to me that this is a relatively new area of testing, and as many in the field have said as far as i can see from most of those web articles, further work needs to be done to be sure either way...and i personally hope it is wrong 🙂

EDIT: science certainly isn't about relying on an unsubstantiated comment as the basis for you're entire argument, i know that much at least 😛

You've never heard of them because fear sells.

And like I said, you're buying.

You can continue to buy the sensational BS, or listen to reason.

you got pwned mate 😉

As i said, actually provide me with some proof that doesn't come from your one little article line, and i'm more than happy to agree with you. But it seems at the moment that you are simply relying on that one 'verifiable' 😉 line for your whole argument here...

I have one study that says one thing (that's well known and seems not to have been directly challenged or questioned as far as i can see from a quick google) and you have what? Hearsay at best 😛

WTF? If you think I'm owned, you're more delusional than I thought.

I don't HAVE to do your research for you. If YOU want to see those studies, go find them.

*I* understand the scientific method. I undertsand that one unrepeated study means diddly squat. Especially when it contradicts previous studies.

That one little article paragraph is all the proof *I* need to know to see that this one study is HIGHLY questionable. If you need more, YOU waste your time googling them up. I'm not doing your fscking homework for you.

 

[oznerol]

I'm going to chime in here. Take what you will from my perspective.

Some background. I'm an EE student, particular fondness of electrodynamics - electromagnetics in general. I do research with antennas, radio waves, high-level radiation, etc. I do a lot of work on cell phones.

Normally, cell phones aren't incredibly dangerous. That is, less than 1-2 hours/day of use is not really putting you in any real danger, as a cell phone doesn't emit that much radiation.

Over-exposure, however, can be harmful. The big problem is, many people's bodies react differently to different levels of radiation exposure.

Many of the people who blatantly disregard the harmful effects of cell phone use are the same individuals who deem microwaves as perfectly safe.

I personally use the cell phone as little as possible. Having 1.2W/Kg radiating about an inch from my brain isn't the smartest thing. However, I'd much rather use my cell phone for 3 hours than stand right in front of my microwave for 2 minutes. 😉

Edit: Edit to summarize that "cell phones" in general are not the dangerous thing here - it's having a radiating antenna roughly an inch from your brain for extended periods of time. Use a corded earpiece and you will be perfectly safe.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777


well i guess you draw the line where you want to 😉

Actually IIRC there was a recent study that showed a considerable impact on male fertility caused by mobile phones...was in quite a few papers i think?

I draw the line at verifiable facts and logic.

Not myths and irrational, unfounded fears.

As for the fertility study, it is HIGHLY questionable, and has not been repeated. In fact, it contradicted a number of similar studies.

http://www.mobilepipeline.com/news/22102474

The press reports it because it is sensational, not because it is valid.

all that says is what i concluded, people appear to think more work needs to be done in that area...and come on, a line in a news article which says 'contradicts other studies', without giving specific examples is not exactly what i'd expect from someone who only uses 'verifiable facts and logic' 😉

Let's use logic, shall we?

ONE study shows harm, contradicting all previous studies.

Now think REAL hard and tell me which position is more tenable?

Also note you NEVER read about the other studies in the press. Only the sensational one claiming to show harm. Why is that?

Fear sells. And you're buying.

thats stupid. Just cos one study (and i'd love to see specifics of the others, glad to see you unquestioningly believe a random line on the intarweb simply because it backs you up, so verifiable 😉) shows the results you don't like, ignore it?

That's closed minded to say the least....i'd honestly have expected more of you.

The basis of science is confirmation and being able to repeat one's results.

You have numerous previous studies that all repeat the same results, and ONE study that shows the opposite results.

Maybe the problem here is you just don't understand how science works?

What other studies i ask you? Name me a couple, or are you still relying on that one line from an intarweb news article? 😉 I'm a sceptic about those other studies, since i've certainly never heard them mentioned before that, or read about them in mobile phone safety debates...have you?

It would seem to me that this is a relatively new area of testing, and as many in the field have said as far as i can see from most of those web articles, further work needs to be done to be sure either way...and i personally hope it is wrong 🙂

EDIT: science certainly isn't about relying on an unsubstantiated comment as the basis for you're entire argument, i know that much at least 😛

You've never heard of them because fear sells.

And like I said, you're buying.

You can continue to buy the sensational BS, or listen to reason.

you got pwned mate 😉

As i said, actually provide me with some proof that doesn't come from your one little article line, and i'm more than happy to agree with you. But it seems at the moment that you are simply relying on that one 'verifiable' 😉 line for your whole argument here...

I have one study that says one thing (that's well known and seems not to have been directly challenged or questioned as far as i can see from a quick google) and you have what? Hearsay at best 😛

WTF? If you think I'm owned, you're more delusional than I thought.

I don't HAVE to do your research for you. If YOU want to see those studies, go find them.

*I* understand the scientific method. I undertsand that one unrepeated study means diddly squat. Especially when it contradicts previous studies.

That one little article paragraph is all the proof *I* need to know to see that this one study is HIGHLY questionable. If you need more, YOU waste your time googling them up. I'm not doing your fscking homework for you.

Looks like you got double pwned 😉

If you are prepared to believe one little intarweb article line, without bothering to check it's veracity, then you are a fool, plain and simple, especially since you then proceed to wave it around like it's the gospel truth. It's this simple, you can't say that it contradicts previous studies, and question it's veracity, unless you have something 'verifiable' as you said, to back you up...

As i said many times, it simply looks like an area that needs to be looked into further, how can you (i'm certain you aren't a research scientist in the area 😉) disregard it in such as blase and arrogant fashion without having a grain of anything that looks like evidence to support you?

If by scientific method you mean googling until you find a shred of a news article that supports your case, then you're right, i don't understand it 😛

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ducci
I'm going to chime in here. Take what you will from my perspective.

Some background. I'm an EE student, particular fondness of electrodynamics - electromagnetics in general. I do research with antennas, radio waves, high-level radiation, etc. I do a lot of work on cell phones.

Normally, cell phones aren't incredibly dangerous. That is, less than 1-2 hours/day of use is not really putting you in any real danger, as a cell phone doesn't emit that much radiation.

Over-exposure, however, can be harmful. The big problem is, many people's bodies react differently to different levels of radiation exposure.

Many of the people who blatantly disregard the harmful effects of cell phone use are the same individuals who deem microwaves as perfectly safe.

I personally use the cell phone as little as possible. Having 1.2W/Kg radiating about an inch from my brain isn't the smartest thing. However, I'd much rather use my cell phone for 3 hours than stand right in front of my microwave for 2 minutes. 😉

Um have valid, peer reviewed and repreated studies to back that claim up?

Nope.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ducci
I'm going to chime in here. Take what you will from my perspective.

Some background. I'm an EE student, particular fondness of electrodynamics - electromagnetics in general. I do research with antennas, radio waves, high-level radiation, etc. I do a lot of work on cell phones.

Normally, cell phones aren't incredibly dangerous. That is, less than 1-2 hours/day of use is not really putting you in any real danger, as a cell phone doesn't emit that much radiation.

Over-exposure, however, can be harmful. The big problem is, many people's bodies react differently to different levels of radiation exposure.

Many of the people who blatantly disregard the harmful effects of cell phone use are the same individuals who deem microwaves as perfectly safe.

I personally use the cell phone as little as possible. Having 1.2W/Kg radiating about an inch from my brain isn't the smartest thing. However, I'd much rather use my cell phone for 3 hours than stand right in front of my microwave for 2 minutes. 😉

Um have valid, peer reviewed and repreated studies to back that claim up?

Nope.

It's ok, i'm sure he can find a random line on the web that backs him, since that's enough for you isn't it? :roll:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dug777


well i guess you draw the line where you want to 😉

Actually IIRC there was a recent study that showed a considerable impact on male fertility caused by mobile phones...was in quite a few papers i think?

I draw the line at verifiable facts and logic.

Not myths and irrational, unfounded fears.

As for the fertility study, it is HIGHLY questionable, and has not been repeated. In fact, it contradicted a number of similar studies.

http://www.mobilepipeline.com/news/22102474

The press reports it because it is sensational, not because it is valid.

all that says is what i concluded, people appear to think more work needs to be done in that area...and come on, a line in a news article which says 'contradicts other studies', without giving specific examples is not exactly what i'd expect from someone who only uses 'verifiable facts and logic' 😉

Let's use logic, shall we?

ONE study shows harm, contradicting all previous studies.

Now think REAL hard and tell me which position is more tenable?

Also note you NEVER read about the other studies in the press. Only the sensational one claiming to show harm. Why is that?

Fear sells. And you're buying.

thats stupid. Just cos one study (and i'd love to see specifics of the others, glad to see you unquestioningly believe a random line on the intarweb simply because it backs you up, so verifiable 😉) shows the results you don't like, ignore it?

That's closed minded to say the least....i'd honestly have expected more of you.

The basis of science is confirmation and being able to repeat one's results.

You have numerous previous studies that all repeat the same results, and ONE study that shows the opposite results.

Maybe the problem here is you just don't understand how science works?

What other studies i ask you? Name me a couple, or are you still relying on that one line from an intarweb news article? 😉 I'm a sceptic about those other studies, since i've certainly never heard them mentioned before that, or read about them in mobile phone safety debates...have you?

It would seem to me that this is a relatively new area of testing, and as many in the field have said as far as i can see from most of those web articles, further work needs to be done to be sure either way...and i personally hope it is wrong 🙂

EDIT: science certainly isn't about relying on an unsubstantiated comment as the basis for you're entire argument, i know that much at least 😛

You've never heard of them because fear sells.

And like I said, you're buying.

You can continue to buy the sensational BS, or listen to reason.

you got pwned mate 😉

As i said, actually provide me with some proof that doesn't come from your one little article line, and i'm more than happy to agree with you. But it seems at the moment that you are simply relying on that one 'verifiable' 😉 line for your whole argument here...

I have one study that says one thing (that's well known and seems not to have been directly challenged or questioned as far as i can see from a quick google) and you have what? Hearsay at best 😛

WTF? If you think I'm owned, you're more delusional than I thought.

I don't HAVE to do your research for you. If YOU want to see those studies, go find them.

*I* understand the scientific method. I undertsand that one unrepeated study means diddly squat. Especially when it contradicts previous studies.

That one little article paragraph is all the proof *I* need to know to see that this one study is HIGHLY questionable. If you need more, YOU waste your time googling them up. I'm not doing your fscking homework for you.

Looks like you got double pwned 😉

If you are prepared to believe one little intarweb article line, without bothering to check it's veracity, then you are a fool, plain and simple, especially since you then proceed to wave it around like it's the gospel truth. It's this simple, you can't say that it contradicts previous studies, and question it's veracity, unless you have something 'verifiable' as you said, to back you up...

As i said many times, it simply looks like an area that needs to be looked into further, how can you (i'm certain you aren't a research scientist in the area 😉) disregard it in such as blase and arrogant fashion without having a grain of anything that looks like evidence to support you?

If by scientific method you mean googling until you find a shred of a news article that supports your case, then you're right, i don't understand it 😛

And you're double delusional.

I am not "owned." I do not have to prove ANYTHING. You are the one making claims of harm. Prove it.

One study proves nothing. Especially when it flies in the face of previous studies. That is all I need. Your attempts to send me on google searches to do your work for you are silly.

The end.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: dug777
Just cos one study (and i'd love to see specifics of the others, glad to see you unquestioningly believe a random line on the intarweb simply because it backs you up, so verifiable 😉) shows the results you don't like, ignore it?

That's closed minded to say the least....i'd honestly have expected more of you.

That's not closed minded, it's sensible. This week a study shows eggs are really bad for you. Next week a study shows eggs are really good for you. The following week, eggs are really bad. A week later eggs are really good.

If we can not use common sence aginst science, we certianly can not use it in defence of science.

A single study is statistically insignificant and SHOULD be ignored when taken outside the context of an overall body of knowledge and evidence.

For science to be valid we must not ignore ANY evidence, we must investigate all opposing findings. For a theory to be valid the observations must be repeatable, not just most of the time, but ALL of the time. If we can find just one case in which our theory is falsifiable, then the theory must be revised until it can account for that observation.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ducci
I'm going to chime in here. Take what you will from my perspective.

Some background. I'm an EE student, particular fondness of electrodynamics - electromagnetics in general. I do research with antennas, radio waves, high-level radiation, etc. I do a lot of work on cell phones.

Normally, cell phones aren't incredibly dangerous. That is, less than 1-2 hours/day of use is not really putting you in any real danger, as a cell phone doesn't emit that much radiation.

Over-exposure, however, can be harmful. The big problem is, many people's bodies react differently to different levels of radiation exposure.

Many of the people who blatantly disregard the harmful effects of cell phone use are the same individuals who deem microwaves as perfectly safe.

I personally use the cell phone as little as possible. Having 1.2W/Kg radiating about an inch from my brain isn't the smartest thing. However, I'd much rather use my cell phone for 3 hours than stand right in front of my microwave for 2 minutes. 😉

Um have valid, peer reviewed and repreated studies to back that claim up?

Nope.

Well aren't we pompous? Chill out and have a discussion, not an argument.

I haven't done much research in terms of "cell phones linked to cancer." I don't think many people will, but that isn't the real issue.

There is quite a bit of research done which merely suggests (as most research nowadays does), that there is a link between radiation exposure to some types of cancer. The Cell phone - cancer link you're searching for isn't the only path.

Cell phones emit radiation. Radiation is suggested to cause cancer (in some people, varying with different individuals). In turn, cell phones could cause cancer. No? I'm not saying they do, nor am I saying radiation does, as no one has yet to prove (or disprove) anything. I'm simply saying it has potential, which is enough to be cautious of.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

That's not closed minded, it's sensible. This week a study shows eggs are really bad for you. Next week a study shows eggs are really good for you. The following week, eggs are really bad. A week later eggs are really good.

If we can not use common sence aginst science, we certianly can not use it in defence of science.

I never mentioned common sense being used to defend or attack science, I simply pointed out that it is sensible to be sceptical of a conclusion based upon a single study.

A single study is statistically insignificant and SHOULD be ignored when taken outside the context of an overall body of knowledge and evidence.

For science to be valid we must not ignore ANY evidence, we must investigate all opposing findings. For a theory to be valid the observations must be repeatable, not just most of the time, but ALL of the time. If we can find just one case in which our theory is falsifiable, then the theory must be revised until it can account for that observation.

As I said, when taken outside the context of an overall body of knowledge and evidence a study should be ignored. I never said to ignore evidence, but to not jump to conclusions based on a single piece of evidence.

A 1964 Surgeon General's Study actually concluded that pipe smokers lived LONGER than NON-SMOKERS.

Taken alone, one can conclude that pipe smoking makes you live longer, but compared to the rest of the body of research surrounding tobacco use, it is not true and this conclusion is an anomaly.

 

[Siva]

Originally posted by: dug777


Looks like you got double pwned 😉

If you are prepared to believe one little intarweb article line, without bothering to check it's veracity, then you are a fool, plain and simple, especially since you then proceed to wave it around like it's the gospel truth. It's this simple, you can't say that it contradicts previous studies, and question it's veracity, unless you have something 'verifiable' as you said, to back you up...

As i said many times, it simply looks like an area that needs to be looked into further, how can you (i'm certain you aren't a research scientist in the area 😉) disregard it in such as blase and arrogant fashion without having a grain of anything that looks like evidence to support you?

If by scientific method you mean googling until you find a shred of a news article that supports your case, then you're right, i don't understand it 😛

First of all, the people who did the study says it raises more questions than answers, meaning that it proves absolutely nothing. Secondly, more than one line in the article itself contradicts the study, saying,

"Lawrence Challis, emeritus professor of physics at Nottingham University, who chairs the British government's Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Group, reportedly suggested that many other studies on the health effects of mobile phones, including the impact on fertility, were too theoretical and contradictory to draw firm conclusions. "

Again, it means that this study proves nothing. Amused is right in that scientific method has to be applied in order to really find anything out. More studies should follow that develop a better technique in comparing cell phone use to infertility in order to draw a firm conclusion. Those studies should then be repeated if they do show a correlation. Nobody has been pwned. One article on the internet neither proves nor disproves anything. Was it even published in any scientific or medical journal?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: ducci
There is quite a bit of research done which merely suggests (as most research nowadays does), that there is a link between radiation exposure to some types of cancer. The Cell phone - cancer link you're searching for isn't the only path.

Cell phones emit radiation. Radiation is suggested to cause cancer (in some people, varying with different individuals). In turn, cell phones could cause cancer. No? I'm not saying they do, nor am I saying radiation does, as no one has yet to prove (or disprove) anything. I'm simply saying it has potential, which is enough to be cautious of.

This is the type of ridiculous statements I was saying that common sense leads us to.
My wristwatch emits radiation. The lights above my head emit radiation. My car emits radiation. My testes emit radiation, should I be cautious of those as well?
All known matter emits radiation. Radiation simply means transfer of energy. Most forms of radiation are not harmful. They types of radiation that has strong links to cancer are the extremely energetic X-ray and above range, and then only in large doses. Microwaves fall considerably short of this range, and have shown no lasting effects on cellular structure.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Siva

Originally posted by: dug777


Looks like you got double pwned 😉

If you are prepared to believe one little intarweb article line, without bothering to check it's veracity, then you are a fool, plain and simple, especially since you then proceed to wave it around like it's the gospel truth. It's this simple, you can't say that it contradicts previous studies, and question it's veracity, unless you have something 'verifiable' as you said, to back you up...

As i said many times, it simply looks like an area that needs to be looked into further, how can you (i'm certain you aren't a research scientist in the area 😉) disregard it in such as blase and arrogant fashion without having a grain of anything that looks like evidence to support you?

If by scientific method you mean googling until you find a shred of a news article that supports your case, then you're right, i don't understand it 😛

First of all, the people who did the study says it raises more questions than answers, meaning that it proves absolutely nothing. Secondly, more than one line in the article itself contradicts the study, saying,

"Lawrence Challis, emeritus professor of physics at Nottingham University, who chairs the British government's Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Group, reportedly suggested that many other studies on the health effects of mobile phones, including the impact on fertility, were too theoretical and contradictory to draw firm conclusions. "

Again, it means that this study proves nothing. Amused is right in that scientific method has to be applied in order to really find anything out. More studies should follow that develop a better technique in comparing cell phone use to infertility in order to draw a firm conclusion. Those studies should then be repeated if they do show a correlation. Nobody has been pwned. One article on the internet neither proves nor disproves anything. Was it even published in any scientific or medical journal?

Looked to me like he was saying there's no risk, whatsoever, from mobile phones, in any way, and that this study was completly discountable, based on a random line he read in an article. I never said anything about not using scientific method, only that it seems clear more research needs to be done in the area to confirm or kill this study, which seems to be what you are saying?...if you bother to read my posts...

As has been said, a scientific rule is only a rule if it has no exceptions, and clearly this study would SUGGEST the POSSIBILITY of an exception. Thus it must be reconsidered until either the study is conclusively disproved, or the rule must either be altered to take account of this, or scrapped altogether.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: ducci
There is quite a bit of research done which merely suggests (as most research nowadays does), that there is a link between radiation exposure to some types of cancer. The Cell phone - cancer link you're searching for isn't the only path.

Cell phones emit radiation. Radiation is suggested to cause cancer (in some people, varying with different individuals). In turn, cell phones could cause cancer. No? I'm not saying they do, nor am I saying radiation does, as no one has yet to prove (or disprove) anything. I'm simply saying it has potential, which is enough to be cautious of.

This is the type of ridiculous statements I was saying that common sense leads us to.
My wristwatch emits radiation. The lights above my head emit radiation. My car emits radiation. My testes emit radiation, should I be cautious of those as well?
All known matter emits radiation. Radiation simply means transfer of energy. Most forms of radiation are not harmful. They types of radiation that has strong links to cancer are the extremely energetic X-ray and above range, and then only in large doses. Microwaves fall considerably short of this range, and have shown no lasting effects on cellular structure.

Not too ridiculous. "Radiation" is thrown around a lot, I agree, but for common dialogue it is generally thought of as harmful. Sure, light is also radiation, but that's just semantics. If you want to talk about alpha particles, gamma rays and other boring specifics of radiation, fine. I was merely making it simple.