|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:|
>>> With all due respect, what other mechanism do you think could cause
>> 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
> Assuming that cellphone use is safe is quite entirely rational, until
> True or false?
> 1. We have no evidence whatsoever as to whether or not cellphones are
> 2. We have no evidence whatsoever that cellphones cause harm.
> 1. False.
> 2. True.
The whole point is that it is all relative, and as research progresses
As far as the "We have no evidence whatsoever that cellphones cause
> Children have been exposed to lots of RF for decades now. If a
The use of cellphones by children is only a recent occurrence, and the
Perhaps you could enlighten us to the relative field strengths of an
As well, making a "why isn't the sky falling already" argument doesn't
By crikey you must by young Linc, I can still remember when I was that
These days I know that there is a lot that I don't know ...
David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com
Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I recall a friend of mine being out in
|Post Followup Article||Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply|
|Go to Next message: email@example.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|