Mobile phone child safety guidelines 'to be dropped'

Run_to_da_hills

Just like very serious health risks are being officially suppressed from the public in certain medical vaccines the UK authorities have now decided to "drop" mobile phone child safety guidelines.

Using a mobile phone is no more harmful for children than taking a hot bath or exercising, according to a new government health leaflet

Current advice from the Department of Health had said that research showed mobile phone use "affects brain activity", although it conceded there were "significant gaps in our scientific knowledge".

But a draft of a new advisory leaflet for parents now makes clear that precautions need not be taken when it comes to children

This is scary when you see kids as young as six with mobile phones for hours on end, more so that they can avail of special offers from service providers offering them with unlimited free calls when they avail of certain packages.

Who is behind all this?

Is there some big back hander being offered to Government officials from the major service providers and phone manufacturers real to suppress the dangers of mobile phones to children?

Remember. NFC technology is on the horizon, the authorities couldn't have this medium of cashless transaction a health hazard to anyone. :rolleyes:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6096562/Mobile-phone-child-safety-guidelines-to-be-dropped.html

thecommander

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This is scary when you see kids as young as six with mobile phones for hours on end, more so that they can avail of special offers from service providers offering them with unlimited free calls when they avail of certain packages.

so nothings really going to change then is it?

biko

Get them something like this, at least it'll keep the phone away from the immediate area.

Penn

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Just like very serious health risks are being officially suppressed from the public in certain medical vaccines the UK authorities have now decided to "drop" mobile phone child safety guidelines.

Using a mobile phone is no more harmful for children than taking a hot bath or exercising, according to a new government health leaflet

Current advice from the Department of Health had said that research showed mobile phone use "affects brain activity", although it conceded there were "significant gaps in our scientific knowledge".

But a draft of a new advisory leaflet for parents now makes clear that precautions need not be taken when it comes to children

This is scary when you see kids as young as six with mobile phones for hours on end, more so that they can avail of special offers from service providers offering them with unlimited free calls when they avail of certain packages.

Who is behind all this?

Is there some big back hander being offered to Government officials from the major service providers and phone manufacturers real to suppress the dangers of mobile phones to children?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6096562/Mobile-phone-child-safety-guidelines-to-be-dropped.html

Surely no parent in their right mind would allow their 6 year old to be on a mobile phone for 'hours on end'? It would be rare for any child under the age of 10 to have a mobile phone anyway, and even if they did, it would be in the parents name so these guidelines make no difference anyway. I see what you're saying RTDH, but this all seems to be scaremongering. Would the government even benefit financially from kids being on phones? I mean, you talk about backhanders, but do they get any tax or anything from it?

Besides, young children are generally surrounded by adults using mobiles around them anyway.

King Mob

Seriously where do you get these pictures.


And mobiles aren't dangerous in the slightest.
It's a stupid myth.

Run_to_da_hills

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Surely no parent in their right mind would allow their 6 year old to be on a mobile phone for 'hours on end'? It would be rare for any child under the age of 10 to have a mobile phone anyway, and even if they did, it would be in the parents name so these guidelines make no difference anyway. I see what you're saying RTDH, but this all seems to be scaremongering. Would the government even benefit financially from kids being on phones? I mean, you talk about backhanders, but do they get any tax or anything from it?

Besides, young children are generally surrounded by adults using mobiles around them anyway.

I know quite a few parents that have given their kids, some as young as six mobiles. They are loaded with the latest games, one nephew of mine boasts of 400 games on his phone.

Mobiles are no longer a luxury, in fact they are now being marketed as a "necessity" with certain online tracking packages that can monitor your child movements if he / she goes AWAL. Phones are integrating more and more devices such as digital cameras, video / MP3 players, and game consuls. So every kid at an early age would want one.

King Mob wrote: »

And mobiles aren't dangerous in the slightest.
It's a stupid myth.

Thats a very serious statement and is no different than stating that the H1N1 Vaccine has no effect on ones heath.

There are plenty of studies highlighting the dangers of mobile phone radiation with certain people.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,23721404-36398,00.html

Captain Furball

Magnus wrote: »

Get them something like this, at least it'll keep the phone away from the immediate area.

You obviously don't understand children very well.
No child will wear that.
:rolleyes:

gline

If the ruling classes are telling us this is ok it MUST be ok :rolleyes:


"It would be rare for any child under the age of 10 to have a mobile phone anyway"

Kids under the age of 10 with mobile phones is normal these days, in fact its probably more uncommon for a kid to not have one. you have to have one now to be "in"

Penn

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I know quite a few parents that have given their kids, some as young as six mobiles. They are loaded with the latest games, one nephew of mine boasts of 400 games on his phone.

Mobiles are no longer a luxury, in fact they are now being marketed as a "necessity" with certain online tracking packages that can monitor your child movements if he / she goes AWAL. Phones are integrating more and more devices such as digital cameras, video / MP3 players, and game consuls. So every kid at an early age would want one.

But this is my point, any parent worried about the effects of mobiles on their children won't give them one regardless of these new guidelines. And any parent that doesn't care, their kids probably already have mobiles.

So a few more kids might get mobiles, but I doubt it would be enough to assume that telecommunication companies have banded together to slip the government something under the table to bring these guidelines in. After all, hasn't the government reduced roaming charges and stuff, thereby already cutting their revenue. Surely that would have been the ideal time for a backhander?

Penn

gline wrote: »

If the ruling classes are telling us this is ok it MUST be ok :rolleyes:


"It would be rare for any child under the age of 10 to have a mobile phone anyway"

Kids under the age of 10 with mobile phones is normal these days, in fact its probably more uncommon for a kid to not have one. you have to have one now to be "in"

I can't think of any of my young cousins or neighbours who have mobile phones and are under the age of 15, let alone 10.

Then again, we be just simple country folk round ere

gline

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I can't think of any of my young cousins or neighbours who have mobile phones and are under the age of 15, let alone 10.

Then again, we be just simple country folk round ere

I see them walking on the streets after school hours and a lot of them do have mobiles around here, personally I dont think a child should have a mobile anyway, isnt it better to talk to ppl face to face at that age then send them a txt ? :-p

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Thats a very serious statement and is no different than stating that the H1N1 Vaccine has no effect on ones heath.

There are plenty of studies highlighting the dangers of mobile phone radiation with certain people.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,23721404-36398,00.html

By what mechanism do mobile phones become dangerous exactly?

Penn

gline wrote: »

I see them walking on the streets after school hours and a lot of them do have mobiles around here, personally I dont think a child should have a mobile anyway, isnt it better to talk to ppl face to face at that age then send them a txt ? :-p

I don't think a child should have one either. But not for health and safety reasons. But if there are a lot of them with phones already, then what will these new guidelines really change?

gline

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I don't think a child should have one either. But not for health and safety reasons. But if there are a lot of them with phones already, then what will these new guidelines really change?

I suppose for parents who are buying things for their children and actually read warning labels.

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

Seriously where do you get these pictures.


And mobiles aren't dangerous in the slightest.
It's a stupid myth.

Are you for real?
There hasn't been enough research into the subject to conclude it is indeed a myth or a fact.
When you can back up your wild statements please proceed to be as smug as you like.

I'm sure plenty of people though asbestos was perfectly safe back in the day; "Asbestos dangerous? Pah thats a myth, just like saying coughing up blood is bad for you".

King Mob

nullzero wrote: »

Are you for real?
There hasn't been enough research into the subject to conclude it is indeed a myth or a fact.
When you can back up your wild statements please proceed to be as smug as you like.

I'm sure plenty of people though asbestos was perfectly safe back in the day; "Asbestos dangerous? Pah thats a myth, just like saying coughing up blood is bad for you".

What exactly makes mobile phones dangerous then?

Kernel

nullzero wrote: »

I'm sure plenty of people though asbestos was perfectly safe back in the day; "Asbestos dangerous? Pah thats a myth, just like saying coughing up blood is bad for you".

lol, yeah, or lead in petrol, or cigarettes etc!

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

What exactly makes mobile phones dangerous then?

Which part of "there hasn't been enough research" did you not understand?

Me...I'm somewhat bemused by the whole thing. When a government issues these cautions, we're told that its the nanny state trying to control us. When they remove the cautions, we're told that its a cruel, evil, manipulative government, putting ulterior motives before our wellbeing.

Meanwhile, we hear examples of kids using the phones hours on end, and pricing plans targetted at same showing that the cautions are by-and-large ineffective either which way.

Penn

bonkey wrote: »

Meanwhile, we hear examples of kids using the phones hours on end, and pricing plans targetted at same showing that the cautions are by-and-large ineffective either which way.

Exactly. Like I said, if most kids already have phones and are doing this, then nothing changes. And any parents who didn't let their kids have a phone at such a young age probably still wont regardless of these new guidelines due to cost etc. So nothing really changes at all

6th

Have to agree that kids under 10 with mobiles is pretty rare, at least out where i live. Tallaght aint small and as a parent I can tell you now my kids wont get one until they start secondary school.

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

What exactly makes mobile phones dangerous then?

They are actually small microwave ovens, work on 2.4GHz frequency, same as wireless and bluetooth.
They have been linked to tumors.
Another case of your post not making any sense again. And childrens brains are still maturing, so you reckon it's perfectly safe to microwave a childs head, be it at low voltage, tests have shown them to heat the users ear and brain, same way they do your dinner.
Stick your head in the microwave (use 2 forks to make it think the door is closed)for 10 minutes and see what happens.

Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'

</EM>
Brain expert warns of huge rise in tumours and calls on industry to take immediate steps to reduce radiation.
Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-802602.html

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

Seriously where do you get these pictures.


And mobiles aren't dangerous in the slightest.
It's a stupid myth.

Another STUPID post

Children's heads most at danger from mobile
phone radiation

Children's heads are most at danger from mobile phone radiation:

<LI class=ListGHW>Children’s heads absorb up to 50% more mobile phone radiation than adults’ heads because their ears and skulls are smaller and thinner
• When a five year old uses a mobile, the radiation permeates 50% of the brain (on the side to which the phone is being held). This figure reduces to 30% for ten year olds. In adults only a small area around the ear is penetrated

http://www.greenhealthwatch.com/newsstories/newsmobilephones/childrens-heads-more-radiation.html

6th

R2tH, you're sig is in breach of Boards.ie sig rules. Its also a pain in the ass and distracting in this forum. Please replace it with someone within the sig specs please.

King Mob

bonkey wrote: »

Which part of "there hasn't been enough research" did you not understand?
.

The thing is bonkey there has been quite a bit of research.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/3/203?ijkey=fe4d6f43f440f51426ab0fba45f17afc8d353c06&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
You don't really get bigger studies.

Conclusions: The results of this investigation, the first nationwide cancer incidence study of cellular phone users, do not support the hypothesis of an association between use of these telephones and tumors of the brain or salivary gland, leukemia, or other cancers.

uprising wrote: »

They are actually small microwave ovens, work on 2.4GHz frequency, same as wireless and bluetooth.

But the frequency of the mircowaves is a good bit higher than the fequency of cell phones.
And cell phones just have less power in their signals than mircowave ovens.

uprising wrote: »

They have been linked to tumors.

Which studies are these exactly?

uprising wrote: »

Another case of your post not making any sense again. And childrens brains are still maturing, so you reckon it's perfectly safe to microwave a childs head, be it at low voltage, tests have shown them to heat the users ear and brain, same way they do your dinner.

What tests?

uprising wrote: »

Stick your head in the microwave (use 2 forks to make it think the door is closed)for 10 minutes and see what happens.

But that's not the same thing as mobile phones.
That's like dipping your hand into a furnace and saying that a birthday candle would do the same thing.

uprising wrote: »

Another STUPID post

Oh stop you'll make me cry.

uprising wrote: »

Children's heads most at danger from mobile
phone radiation

Children's heads are most at danger from mobile phone radiation:

<LI class=ListGHW>Children’s heads absorb up to 50% more mobile phone radiation than adults’ heads because their ears and skulls are smaller and thinner
• When a five year old uses a mobile, the radiation permeates 50% of the brain (on the side to which the phone is being held). This figure reduces to 30% for ten year olds. In adults only a small area around the ear is penetrated

http://www.greenhealthwatch.com/newsstories/newsmobilephones/childrens-heads-more-radiation.html

But mobile phones don't emit radiation that is absorbed.
It's a non-ionizing radiation.

Mircowaves work by oscillating water in the thing it's aimed at.
However mobile phones just aren't powerful enough to actually do that.

My point has been that there simply is not plausible mechanism for mobile phones to do damage.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4117

Run_to_da_hills

Just like a faulty cracked microwave door can fry your stomach if you stand too close, Damaged kids phones can also be lethal particularly when the get dropped and shattered internally.

I have seen kids using phones that were held together with sellotape and you will see more of these makeshift repairs with family cutbacks. :eek:

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Just like a faulty cracked microwave door can fry your stomach if you stand too close,

No you won't.
You'd get a slight burn if anything. Your stomach will not fry.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Damaged kids phones can also be lethal particularly when the get dropped and shattered internally.

And where are you getting this from?
No-one has ever been shown to have died from radiation from a mobile phone.

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

The thing is bonkey there has been quite a bit of research.

Tou were presented with the claim that there weasn't enough research.
Your response was to ask for the evidence of harm.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with teh claim that there isn't sufficient research, I fail to see the logic in asking someone to show the research supporting one of the points of view, in response to their claim that there isn't sufficient research on the topic in the first place to support either point of view.

King Mob

bonkey wrote: »

Tou were presented with the claim that there weasn't enough research.
Your response was to ask for the evidence of harm.


Regardless of whether or not you agree with teh claim that there isn't sufficient research, I fail to see the logic in asking someone to show the research supporting a point of view, in response to their claim that there isn't sufficient research on the topic in the first place.

Well no, I was asking for the possible mechanism by which mobile phones do damage, not the research showing that they do.

Uprising offered a possible mechanism that doesn't really work, and apparently claims that there is research.

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

What tests?

Lennart Hardell has done some. One of the papers he co-authored revived the debate not too long ago.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

No you won't.
You'd get a slight burn if anything. Your stomach will not fry.
.

I dare you try it. :rolleyes:

King Mob wrote: »

And where are you getting this from?
No-one has ever been shown to have died from radiation from a mobile phone.

Did I mention death?

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I dare you try it. :rolleyes:

Or you could back up your claim.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Did I mention death?

Yes:

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Damaged kids phones can also be lethal particularly when the get dropped and shattered internally.

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

Well no, I was asking for the possible mechanism by which mobile phones do damage, not the research showing that they do.

Your exact response to the claim of there being inusfficient evidence to say either way was to ask "What exactly makes mobile phones dangerous then"

Unless mobile phones are dangerous, there can be no answer to that question. Saying that there is insufficient data to say for definite either way excludes the ability to say that there is something that makes them dangerous.

Given that you can point to studies which examined potential risks, then I would suggest that you know exactly what those potential risks are. If they didn't exist, there would have been no need for research, would there?

So where does that leave us?

You know what potential risks have been studied, and you asked for exactly what makes them dangerous from someone who said that there wasn't sufficient info to say that they were or were not so.

Perhaps you intended to ask about the suggested risks...in which case I'm sure we can agree that the question was simply phrased badly.

THe question as to whether or not the studies are sufficient to draw a conclusion is not one I'm informed enough to comment on. As with any contentious issue, there is no shortage of claims of vested interests muddying the waters, of the inadequacy of most studies for not looking over a long-enough period of usage, and so on and so forth. I know there is a constant trickle of studies and meta-analysis claiming harm or increased risk...but I honestly can't say whether or not they're credible.

King Mob

bonkey wrote: »

Perhaps you intended to ask about the suggested risks...in which case I'm sure we can agree that the question was simply phrased badly.

That's probably it yes.

From what I've seen there is nothing emitted from mobiles that could potentially cause the damage being claimed.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Or you could back up your claim.:

Your claim, your the one that said that a microwave wouldn't harm you with a faulty door if you stood in front of it.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes:

Lethal although means "fatal" can often used in the context of been "dangerous" .

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

The thing is bonkey there has been quite a bit of research.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/3/203?ijkey=fe4d6f43f440f51426ab0fba45f17afc8d353c06&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
You don't really get bigger studies.




But the frequency of the mircowaves is a good bit higher than the fequency of cell phones.
NO it's not, microwave ovens work at 2.45GHz
And cell phones just have less power in their signals than mircowave ovens.
So they will kill you slower

Which studies are these exactly?

What tests?


But that's not the same thing as mobile phones.
That's like dipping your hand into a furnace and saying that a birthday candle would do the same thing.
Yes a birthday candle could kill lots of people, actually most fire's are started with a small spark initially, just look at California.

Oh stop you'll make me cry.


But mobile phones don't emit radiation that is absorbed.
It's a non-ionizing radiation.

Mircowaves work by oscillating water in the thing it's aimed at.
However mobile phones just aren't powerful enough to actually do that.

My point has been that there simply is not plausible mechanism for mobile phones to do damage.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4117

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GD_BKTWyTY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfAzxRcZBEo

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Your claim, your the one that said that a microwave wouldn't harm you with a faulty door if you stood in front of it.

So you don't feel there is any onus on you to first establish that your claim is valid enough to need someone to challenge it?

If that's the stanve you're taking, you're basically saying that anyone can make whatever claim they want, and that shouold be taken as true and correct until shown to be wrong.

By this logic....you need to show the British government are wrong in their claims that the phones are safe. They don't need to provide evidence to support their claim at all...

Lethal although means "fatal" can often used in the context of been "dangerous" .

Only when abusing the english language.

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Your claim, your the one that said that a microwave wouldn't harm you with a faulty door if you stood in front of it.

No I didn't say it wouldn't harm you, I said it wouldn't fry your stomach like you claim.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Lethal although means "fatal" can often used in the context of been "dangerous" .

So when you said "Damaged kids phones can also be lethal particularly when the get dropped and shattered internally" you didn't mean lethal?

Surely you can understand why someone might think the word lethal means "causes death."

Then maybe you can explain how a broken phone is dnagerous?

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

.
NO it's not, microwave ovens work at 2.45GHz

And mobile phones work between about 380 MHz and about 1900 MHz.

uprising wrote: »

.
So they will kill you slower

No they lack the power to do any damage by microwaves.

uprising wrote: »

.
Yes a birthday candle could kill lots of people, actually most fire's are started with a small spark initially, just look at California.

So a birthday candle can melt steel?
Or is the power too low?

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

Seriously where do you get these pictures.


And mobiles aren't dangerous in the slightest.
It's a stupid myth.

Mobile phones have been around a little over 10 years to the mainstream, already there have been numerous health warnings.
Yet you think you are qualified to say "mobiles aren't dangerous in the slightest", do you know we used to be told cigarette's weren't dangerous, all the big tobacco companies did test's to show they were completely safe, yet they aren't.
Cigarettes can kill people at different times, some people can smoke for years and years, some for a much shorter time, but the damage is done.
Same with asbestos, my point being that dangers are not always seen quickly, usually it takes years before a definate link can be made, sometimes links and patterns are found much sooner that show health risks but are swept under the carpet for the sake of money.

To simply say in a matter of fact way "they are not dangerous in the slightest" is just plain ignorant and stupid.

My last post I added 30mins of video's that say they are dangerous, yet 11 mins later you reply, obviosly not having watched them you continue with you ignorant posts.
You said radiation isn't absorbed, yet it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health

Maybe you should think before you post ridiculous BS.
Seems to me that if certain people said "you can't eat a piece of the sun", you would respond "yes you can, prove it scientifically that you can't".

bonkey

uprising wrote: »

To simply say in a matter of fact way "they are not dangerous in the slightest" is just plain ignorant and stupid.

It is no more or less ignorant or stupid then saying they are dangerous.

You can point to your videos and argue that this shows your stance is not ignorant and stupid. KM can equally point to studies that support his position and argue that his stance his neither ignorant nor stupid.

The reality is that there are studies on both sides of the fence. Calling a perspective ignorant and stupid because it has sided with one set of those studies and disregards the others is a bit self-defeating if your own stance is also siding with one set of those studies and disregards the others.

The current favoured stance is that they carry no significant dangers, but that stance can and should be understood in terms of the relatively short length of time they have been in common use and the relatively slow emergence of any side-effects they could have (i.e. cancer).

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

Mobile phones have been around a little over 10 years to the mainstream, already there have been numerous health warnings.
Yet you think you are qualified to say "mobiles aren't dangerous in the slightest", do you know we used to be told cigarette's weren't dangerous, all the big tobacco companies did test's to show they were completely safe, yet they aren't.
Cigarettes can kill people at different times, some people can smoke for years and years, some for a much shorter time, but the damage is done.
Same with asbestos, my point being that dangers are not always seen quickly, usually it takes years before a definate link can be made, sometimes links and patterns are found much sooner that show health risks but are swept under the carpet for the sake of money.

Except you can show that certain ingredients of cigarettes and asbestos can be shown to be carcinogenic or at the very least how they might be carcinogenic.
You however despite all your bitching about me have not be able to show how mobiles could be dangerous.

And correct me if I'm wrong don't the government err on the side of caution on this one rather than "cover up the dangers"?

uprising wrote: »

To simply say in a matter of fact way "they are not dangerous in the slightest" is just plain ignorant and stupid.

So when you claim vaccines are going to kill us all it's ok?
But you're right I should have say "there is no evidence that mobile phones are harmful and there is no plausible reason they might be."

uprising wrote: »

My last post I added 30mins of video's that say they are dangerous, yet 11 mins later you reply, obviosly not having watched them you continue with you ignorant posts.

Did you read the link I posted I wonder?
And no I didn't watch your videos because news channels aren't very good at science. Especially Fox.
So unless they quote some scientific papers I doubt I will bother.

uprising wrote: »

You said radiation isn't absorbed, yet it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health

My mistake I should have clarified: No ionizing radiation is absorbed.
What's being absorbed here is very low power non ionizing radio waves.

You should of read this before you posted it because there's nothing in here that supports your position. Quite the opposite in fact.

Some choice bits:

In the case of a person using a cell phone, most of the heating effect will occur at the surface of the head, causing its temperature to increase by a fraction of a degree. In this case, the level of temperature increase is an order of magnitude less than that obtained during the exposure of the head to direct sunlight.

In order to investigate the risk of cancer for the mobile phone user, a cooperative project between 13 countries has been launched called INTERPHONE. The idea is that cancers need time to develop so only studies over 10 years are of interest.[24]

The following studies of long time exposure have been published:

* A Danish study (2004) that took place over 10 years and found no evidence to support a link.[22]

* A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of glioma or meningioma."[25]

* A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."[26]

* A German study (2006) that states "In conclusion, no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users; however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed before firm conclusions can be drawn."[27]

* A joint study conducted in northern Europe that draws the conclusion that "Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn."[28]

uprising wrote: »

Maybe you should think before you post ridiculous BS.

Still waiting to hear a plausible mechanism by which phone cause damage.

uprising wrote: »

Seems to me that if certain people said "you can't eat a piece of the sun", you would respond "yes you can, prove it scientifically that you can't".

You really have a poor grasp of the scientific method.
First you can't prove a negative, so logical "prove it scientifically that you can't" is nonsense.
Second the burden of proof is on the claimant, so if someone says they can eat a piece of the Sun, they have to show how they can do it.

Now I'm claiming that there is no evidence that mobile phones cause damage, you are claiming that they do.
You have not provided any scientific evidence to support your position or provided any reasoning that your position is sound.

ilivetolearn

king mob @uprising:
You however despite all your bitching about me have not be able to show how mobiles could be dangerous.

This recent thread might be what you're looking for. I trust you'll be offering a rebuttal in light of your exhibited stance in this thread.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

You really have a poor grasp of the scientific method.
First you can't prove a negative, so logical "prove it scientifically that you can't" is nonsense.

Actually, I have a feeling that you are confusing scientific method with the whole "negative evidence != proof". Science can prove that certain things are not possible, or can't be done. The law of thermodynamics is one that if often lauded.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Actually, I have a feeling that you are confusing scientific method with the whole "negative evidence != proof". Science can prove that certain things are not possible, or can't be done.

Without trying to turn this into a science thread...I'm not sure that science can prove that things are not possible, nor that they cannot be done.

Science can "disprove" things, in that an accepted truth can be shown to be false by finding a counter-example. In this sense, you can "prove a negative", in the sense that you can prove that something is not true.

The law of thermodynamics is one that if often lauded.

An apt choice...because quantum theory allows that it doesn't always hold true (regardless of which of the Laws of Thermodynamics you're referring to).

rmacm

uprising wrote: »

They are actually small microwave ovens, work on 2.4GHz frequency, same as wireless and bluetooth.

No they don't, 2G networks operate (mostly) in the 900 or 1800MHz band some use 850 or 1900MHz. 3G networks operate in the 2100MHz band so it's not the same frequency as wireless or bluetooth.

Wireless and bluetooth are in one of the ISM (Industrial, Scientific and Medical) bands i.e. 2.4GHz

You don't run a telecoms network that you want to make money out of in one of these bands hence the reason operators fork out large sums of money to purchase sets of frequencies from national regulators.