Mobiles 'may cause brain cancer' - Page 1 - News, Politics & Economics

giggity

Original Poster

942 posts

191 months

[report]

[news]

Tuesday 31st May 2011

So this seems to have come up again,

What are peoples thoughts on this?

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13608444

Daily Fail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1392810/...

I hammer the useage on my phone - should I be worried? confused

EDLT

15,421 posts

236 months

[report]

[news]

Tuesday 31st May 2011

"What else is labelled possibly carcinogenic?

Car exhausts
Lead
Coffee
Dry cleaning"

Time to panic. rolleyes

giggity

Original Poster

942 posts

191 months

[report]

[news]

Tuesday 31st May 2011

I dont understand this: (Daily Fail - suprise suprise)

Mobile Phone Dont's

DONT Use a regular wired headset, like the one that came with your phone. The regular wired headset has been found to intensify radiation into the ear canal.

How?

From what I know its just a normal 3.5mm headphones and the radiation stays at the antenna / phone and the only thing that travels down the wired headset is the voice like a normal headset confused

eldar

25,305 posts

226 months

[report]

[news]

Tuesday 31st May 2011

Driving cars 'may make your reproductive smell like elderberries, and give you cancer of the gearknob.'

Bin your phone, wifi, computer and the sun. Wrap yourself in tinfoil and wire mesh. That 'may make you safe' smile

HarryW

16,051 posts

299 months

[report]

[news]

Tuesday 31st May 2011

I have guys that do the initial concept and layout modelling followed by the field EM measurements of installed Radars, Satcoms and Radios on our platforms with some pretty sophisticated and sensitive gear. When bored of meetings, placating the ignorant, fielding phone calls and emails I have sat with their measuring equipment on top of my mobile to see what all the fuss is about, from recollection it's orders of magnitude lower than is considered safe and that safe level is 100 fold lower than was permitted a few years ago.
Don't get me wrong, nothing can ever be 100% safe but I'm comfortable I'm just as likely to suffer ill effects from power lines all around us (take a florescent tube out in the dark near anything remotely high power and watch it glow).

Mr Will

13,719 posts

236 months

[report]

[news]

Tuesday 31st May 2011

Here is your answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTu7GLfrmUI

giggity

Original Poster

942 posts

191 months

[report]

[news]

Tuesday 31st May 2011

Will I think that says it all.

Funk

27,744 posts

239 months

[report]

[news]

Tuesday 31st May 2011

Actually, I think THIS sums it up for me..!!

stellacheersmate said:

FFS

I suspect that reading the Daily Mail gives you cancer.

giggity

Original Poster

942 posts

191 months

[report]

[news]

Tuesday 31st May 2011

f

k ME,

that was hilarious, have not read the articles, just reading the titles/headings.

pissing myself in fits of laughter. laugh

I mean WTF why would you read the daily f

king wail / fail etc.

what a load of f

king s

t. I think we should all go back to the dark ages. Life is too risky.

PigFilth

3,640 posts

231 months

[report]

[news]

Tuesday 31st May 2011

HarryW said:

I have guys that do the initial concept and layout modelling followed by the field EM measurements of installed Radars, Satcoms and Radios on our platforms with some pretty sophisticated and sensitive gear. When bored of meetings, placating the ignorant, fielding phone calls and emails I have sat with their measuring equipment on top of my mobile to see what all the fuss is about, from recollection it's orders of magnitude lower than is considered safe and that safe level is 100 fold lower than was permitted a few years ago.
Don't get me wrong, nothing can ever be 100% safe but I'm comfortable I'm just as likely to suffer ill effects from power lines all around us (take a florescent tube out in the dark near anything remotely high power and watch it glow).

You're just some bloke on the internet and could be coming out with any old s

t. But it sounds good enough for me. I'll carry on using my mobile. Thanks.

Digga

48,445 posts

313 months

[report]

[news]

Wednesday 1st June 2011

I did a bit of 'accidental research' I did with my CrackBerry last year.

Were were in the arctic circle and, as we were keen to see the Northern lights, I was carrying a small pocket compass with me - just so we knew which way was what. Getting back into the room one evening and dumping the contents of my pockets onto the bedside table, as one does, I was amazed at the effect of placing a mible near to the compass.

Didn't investiage further, with other electronic devices - toothbrushes, cameras etc. - to see whether they had the same field effect, but it did surprise me a bit.

elster

17,517 posts

240 months

[report]

[news]

Wednesday 1st June 2011

PigFilth said:

HarryW said:

I have guys that do the initial concept and layout modelling followed by the field EM measurements of installed Radars, Satcoms and Radios on our platforms with some pretty sophisticated and sensitive gear. When bored of meetings, placating the ignorant, fielding phone calls and emails I have sat with their measuring equipment on top of my mobile to see what all the fuss is about, from recollection it's orders of magnitude lower than is considered safe and that safe level is 100 fold lower than was permitted a few years ago.
Don't get me wrong, nothing can ever be 100% safe but I'm comfortable I'm just as likely to suffer ill effects from power lines all around us (take a florescent tube out in the dark near anything remotely high power and watch it glow).

You're just some bloke on the internet and could be coming out with any old s

t. But it sounds good enough for me. I'll carry on using my mobile. Thanks.

You say that as if a journo has to qualify what they write.

At least the answer above sounds logical.

They will just print the tiniest retraction when someone takes them to court.

glazbagun

15,376 posts

227 months

[report]

[news]

Wednesday 1st June 2011

Digga said:

I did a bit of 'accidental research' I did with my CrackBerry last year.

Were were in the arctic circle and, as we were keen to see the Northern lights, I was carrying a small pocket compass with me - just so we knew which way was what. Getting back into the room one evening and dumping the contents of my pockets onto the bedside table, as one does, I was amazed at the effect of placing a mible near to the compass.

Didn't investiage further, with other electronic devices - toothbrushes, cameras etc. - to see whether they had the same field effect, but it did surprise me a bit.

You didn't know that magnets affect compasses? confused

Le TVR

3,097 posts

281 months

[report]

[news]

Wednesday 1st June 2011

There was a director of the WHO interviewed on the radio here yesterday. He said something along the lines of:

There is a slight possibility that we should not rule out the probability that some correlation may exist between particular carcinogeric cells and prolonged exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

Sounds a lot like the odds on my winning Euromillions.

PigFilth

3,640 posts

231 months

[report]

[news]

Wednesday 1st June 2011

elster said:

PigFilth said:

HarryW said:

I have guys that do the initial concept and layout modelling followed by the field EM measurements of installed Radars, Satcoms and Radios on our platforms with some pretty sophisticated and sensitive gear. When bored of meetings, placating the ignorant, fielding phone calls and emails I have sat with their measuring equipment on top of my mobile to see what all the fuss is about, from recollection it's orders of magnitude lower than is considered safe and that safe level is 100 fold lower than was permitted a few years ago.
Don't get me wrong, nothing can ever be 100% safe but I'm comfortable I'm just as likely to suffer ill effects from power lines all around us (take a florescent tube out in the dark near anything remotely high power and watch it glow).

You're just some bloke on the internet and could be coming out with any old s

t. But it sounds good enough for me. I'll carry on using my mobile. Thanks.

You say that as if a journo has to qualify what they write.

At least the answer above sounds logical.

They will just print the tiniest retraction when someone takes them to court.

Oh dear. It was tongue-in-cheek. i.e. yes, it does sound logical, so that's good enough for me.

elster

17,517 posts

240 months

[report]

[news]

Wednesday 1st June 2011

PigFilth said:

elster said:

PigFilth said:

HarryW said:

I have guys that do the initial concept and layout modelling followed by the field EM measurements of installed Radars, Satcoms and Radios on our platforms with some pretty sophisticated and sensitive gear. When bored of meetings, placating the ignorant, fielding phone calls and emails I have sat with their measuring equipment on top of my mobile to see what all the fuss is about, from recollection it's orders of magnitude lower than is considered safe and that safe level is 100 fold lower than was permitted a few years ago.
Don't get me wrong, nothing can ever be 100% safe but I'm comfortable I'm just as likely to suffer ill effects from power lines all around us (take a florescent tube out in the dark near anything remotely high power and watch it glow).

You're just some bloke on the internet and could be coming out with any old s

t. But it sounds good enough for me. I'll carry on using my mobile. Thanks.

You say that as if a journo has to qualify what they write.

At least the answer above sounds logical.

They will just print the tiniest retraction when someone takes them to court.

FFS, it was tongue-in-cheek.

I don't know if you have read what I wrote.

shakotan

10,862 posts

226 months

[report]

[news]

Wednesday 1st June 2011

Digga said:

I did a bit of 'accidental research' I did with my CrackBerry last year.

Were were in the arctic circle and, as we were keen to see the Northern lights, I was carrying a small pocket compass with me - just so we knew which way was what. Getting back into the room one evening and dumping the contents of my pockets onto the bedside table, as one does, I was amazed at the effect of placing a mible near to the compass.

Didn't investiage further, with other electronic devices - toothbrushes, cameras etc. - to see whether they had the same field effect, but it did surprise me a bit.

Facepalm...

RemainAllHoof

80,138 posts

312 months

[report]

[news]

Wednesday 1st June 2011

giggity said:

I dont understand this: (Daily Fail - suprise suprise)

Mobile Phone Dont's

DONT Use a regular wired headset, like the one that came with your phone. The regular wired headset has been found to intensify radiation into the ear canal.

How?

From what I know its just a normal 3.5mm headphones and the radiation stays at the antenna / phone and the only thing that travels down the wired headset is the voice like a normal headset confused

Doesn't the phone use the headphone cable as an antenna (either intentionally or as a side-effect of metal being close to the unit, much like you can touch a radio aerial and improve the reception)?

V88Dicky

7,373 posts

213 months

[report]

[news]

Wednesday 1st June 2011

Le TVR said:

There was a director of the WHO interviewed on the radio here yesterday. He said something along the lines of:

There is a slight possibility that we should not rule out the probability that some correlation may exist between particular carcinogeric cells and prolonged exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

Sounds a lot like the odds on my winning Euromillions.

Exactly.

There is more than a passing similarity with all the hoo-ha surrounding mobile phones and cancer, and CO2 and Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Chaos/Floods/Heatwaves/Bad Winters.

There are more and more mobiles in use each year, yet there is no visible rise in brain cancer.

There is a (slight) increase in atmospheric CO2 each year, yet there has been no warming for at least 15 years.

Correlation does not = Cause.

giggity

Original Poster

942 posts

191 months

[report]

[news]

Wednesday 1st June 2011

RemainAllHoof said:

Doesn't the phone use the headphone cable as an antenna (either intentionally or as a side-effect of metal being close to the unit, much like you can touch a radio aerial and improve the reception)?

Hmmm I guess that makes sense someone will need to test it and find out! phone