TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Do Allow Under-9s to Use a Mobile

Re: Do Allow Under-9s to Use a Mobile

David Clayton (dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com)
Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:35:11 +1100

On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 17:40 -0800, Linc Madison wrote:

> In article <telecom24.42.10@telecom-digest.org>, David Clayton
> <dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com> wrote:

>>> With all due respect, what other mechanism do you think could cause
>>> cellphones to harm human tissue?

>> Isn't that what the medical experts are now studying?

> Yes, but all indications so far are that there is no significant danger.

Interesting that you use a relative term here, "significant", but
essentially base your entire final argument on absolutes:

> Assuming that cellphone use is safe is quite entirely rational, until
> such time as someone can show a shred of evidence otherwise.

> True or false?

> 1. We have no evidence whatsoever as to whether or not cellphones are
> safe.

> 2. We have no evidence whatsoever that cellphones cause harm.

> Answers:

> 1. False.

> 2. True.

The whole point is that it is all relative, and as research progresses
there is a chance that the relative "safety" of cellphone use -- as we
now understand it -- may change.

As far as the "We have no evidence whatsoever that cellphones cause
harm." blanket statement goes, I'd say there are a few people in other
fields that would disagree ...

> Children have been exposed to lots of RF for decades now. If a
> fraction of a watt from a cellphone can fry your brain, why don't we
> see killing fields underneath all those commercial radio transmitter
> towers? There certainly shouldn't be so much as a field mouse left
> alive if it were that dangerous.

.....

The use of cellphones by children is only a recent occurrence, and the
whole message of the study that started this thread is that there
needs to be further research in this area.

Perhaps you could enlighten us to the relative field strengths of an
antenna (usually) a few centimetres away from brain tissue compared to
one hundreds of metres away?

As well, making a "why isn't the sky falling already" argument doesn't
add a lot of credence to your cause when any possible effect may be
subtle and take years to emerge.

By crikey you must by young Linc, I can still remember when I was that
young that I just about knew everything with 100% certainty.... ;-)

These days I know that there is a lot that I don't know ...

Regards,

David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
(Remove the "XYZ." to reply)

Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you
down to their level then beat you with experience.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I recall a friend of mine being out in
the Los Angeles area, in the vicinity of (is it?) Griffith Park where
all the commercial radio antennas are on top of a high place. He
commented that when he would take his two dogs out there for their
morning run he would always walk past those antennas, and he said when
the sky was clear and the air was crisp in the early morning you could
almost see the ozone and hear 'crackling' from those antennas. True or
his imagination? PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: jmeissen@aracnet.com: "Re: Do Allow Under-9s to Use a Mobile"
Go to Previous message: Alan Burkitt-Gray: "RE: British TV License (was America the Worst For Cell Rates and"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page