bascule Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 An expert is warning that there's a link between cell phones and cancer, even though numerous peer reviewed research papers contradict his opinion: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/07/23/cancer.cell.phones.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories He's basing his concerns on "unpublished data." I consider this irresponsible, and wonder why the moniker "expert" would ever be applied to individuals of this nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I think he just considers the risk of doing nothing outweighs the inconvenience of people using phones less. If he is wrong, his reputation is tarnished. If he is right, he potentially saves lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 You forgot the third option which relates to the first... He causes unecessary panic based on unfounded comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 He has fallen prey to the same forces that drive belief in astrology and a whole host of other irrational beliefs: We humans see patterns in *everything*. That does not mean the pattern is real or causative. Our pattern recognizing abilities are very powerful and very old. Misplaced perception is one of the drivers in the belief in cell phones causing cancer, power transmission lines causing who-knows-what, and vaccines causing autism. We perceive making type II errors as relatively harmless but making type I errors as potentially fatal. This is another very deep and very old pre-rational belief. Ignoring a shadow moving about in the savannah might well have meant death to prehistoric man. Taking precautionary actions against false lions caused little harm. Fear of the unknown is another very deep and very old phenomenon; it is far, far older than humanity. The hero gets the first choice of the next kill and gets the first choice of the babes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) Albeit mobile phone use precautions, have been floating around for some time now. But the OP does remind me of the wifi scares, of a so-called (self proclaimed) expert. The difference being it was promotion for his electrosensitivity insulators. Rather underhanded, or plain lack of knowledge...I'm guessing a mix of both. BBC article on the programme... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6674675.stm Slamming of the claims, and scaremongering tactics here... http://www.badscience.net/?p=414 Edited July 25, 2008 by Snail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 You forgot the third option which relates to the first... He causes unecessary panic based on unfounded comments. Teenagers not having a phone stuck in their ears all the time? The humanity!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) If his fears are justified, do you see cell phones being eliminated, or would they just put a warning label on them like cigarette packs? Or possibly a new anti-brain cancer accessory could be sold, or better yet, a monthly subscription service.... For an extra $6.95 a month, you can upgrade to our BrainStain service! A special dye is injected from the phone through your ear so your doctor can map changes in your CAT scans! Edited July 25, 2008 by Phi for All added bubble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 this is the perfect time to be perfecting the 'two tins and a bit of string' communication method of old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 this is the perfect time to be perfecting the 'two tins and a bit of string' communication method of old. but dous it beat the smoke signal technology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 but dous it beat the smoke signal technology? It's less damaging to the environment...plus smoke signals are very limited when it comes to vocabulary. But they win when it comes to long distance communication Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 this is the perfect time to be perfecting the 'two tins and a bit of string' communication method of old. No can do. Heavy-metal poisoning from the cans and string is a choking hazard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Plus the string might have been made with hemp. (Or would that be more of a plus?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 People should simply start wearing tin-foil hats while they use their cellphones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Lol, with my service that would probably improve my reception! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Plus the string might have been made with hemp. Great idea. You can then, like.... burn it man, for the long distance calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now