In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Fred Atkinson <email@example.com> wrote:
[[.. snip a whole bunch of unsupported FUD-mongering ..]]
> The only argument I'm making here is that we just don't know and it
> will be a long time before we know for sure. And I'm not going to put
> any stock in what those who may be protecting their bread and butter
> say. I want to hear from a more neutral source based upon statistical
> data and other solid types of evidence.
> I guess I'm the eternal skeptic here.
I hate to spoil a good argument with facts, but ...
Fact: There has been _considerable_ independent academic research done
on the effects of electromagnetic radiation in cell-phone
frequencies on human tissue. Some of it *decades* before
cell-phones came into existence. A fair bit funded by
_insurance_companies_ -- to establish _if_ they should charge
higher premiums for persons in certain vocations. (They
didn't. They aren't. Think maybe they know something?)
Fact: There has not been a _single_ *confirmed* case of a tumor, let
alone a death, where cell-phone use was the causative factor.
There _have_ been several (possibly as many as four) _alleged_
instances that various 'offended'/'injured' people have taken to
court. Every one of those cases was dismissed when plaintiff
could not produce a single piece of "hard evidence" to support a
claim of an actual problem/risk.
Fact: "Best available", accepted, evidence puts the danger threshold
at a level that is orders of magnitude greater than what is
_allowed_ to be emitted by a cell-phone. There is, admittedly,
a substantial degree of uncertainty as to _exactly_ where the
'danger level', for long-term exposure is -- which is why the
'danger threshold' established by the *medical*community* --
_not_ any telecom folks -- was specified at a point that was far
lower (several orders of magnitude, literally), than
extrapolation from the research data justified.
On a mathematical, statistical, basis -- and postulating that
the original research (which included multiple projects, all in
general, albeit not 'exact', agreement) was valid -- the
statistical probability that the 'actual' danger point is
_below_ the declared one is about 1 in 10**8. With maximum
"allowed" emissions set several orders of magnitude lower, the
chances of the 'actual' danger point being below the 'allowed'
level are virtually nill.
Fact: The level of 'allowable' emission from a cell-phone is a full
order of magnitude higher than the _maximum_ output of
current-generation cell phones, which is 4-5 times higher than
the 'typical' output of a modern cell-phone.
Fact: Nobody can say that there _is_ a quantifiable danger associated
with the emission-levels of cell phones. The strongest
statement from _any_ reputable researcher is that there "may" be
a risk -- that we "don't know enough" to say precisely where the
danger level is. *NOT*ONE* of those who claim the risk is there
is willing to quantify what they believe that risk to be -- how
much use over what period of time, to have, say a 1:1,000,000
chance of developing a cell-phone induced tumor. Or,
alternatively, what kind of an increase in the numbers of what
types of brain tumors would occur, from what usage levels. With
the present numbers of cell-phone users _world-wide_, such a
'hypothesis' would be fairly easy to put to rigorous "test".
With the first-generation cell-phones generating TEN TIMES or
more the emissions of current phones, and with the 'risk'
increasing _faster_ than the emission levels, and those 1st
generation phones being expensive enough that only those who (a)
needed them, and (b) needed to use them a _lot_, could really
justify the costs, there is "good" long-term historical data
available for analysis. Unfortunately for the scare-mongers,
the upsurge in brain tumors, and related deaths, that should
have accompanied such use simply *isn't* there. All the more
'unfortunate', considering that one year of use of one of those
high-power cell phones gave an exposure equivalent to somewhere
around 15 years of use of a 'modern' one.