aww
Reading the title I honestly thought an 11 year old kid had done a study on the effectiveness of tinfoil hats for a science fair or something.
A long-term longitudinal study in the UK has concluded that mobile phones are safe, with the publication of a report finding “no evidence of biological or adverse health effects” from using mobiles. The second MTHR (Mobile Telecommunications and Health Report) study is a follow-up to a prior report published in 2007. The …
Wel, they would say that wouldn't THEY?
It's all part of the GLOBAL CONSPIRACY (obligatory use of caps) by (insert name of favourite global conspirators here) as part of thier centuries-long grip on the planet's wealth.
No-one needed mobile phones or Wi-fi until they started beaming it in to our brains to ensure we all went out to buy devices. Dolphins have always communicated using brain-waves and the (insert name of favourite global conspirators here) have been drowning out the message of peace and harmony.
This has been verified by my Angel Guardian
The TRUTH is finally out!!!
I thought the efficacy of tinfoil hats had already been demonstrated by those students at MIT?
"Do they still work for the original purpose?"
I'm not sure if they do -- there are more and more of those things we are told are 'mobile phone masts' appearing. They are always where there are lots of people and there is the use of 'free wirlesss' that monitors thoughts while you are drinking coffee at one of the many different types of government outlets.
It's only a matter of time before Romanian crooks use the same tech to read our bank details!!!!!
The wifi there doesn't monitor your thoughts, it adds new ones, like "drink another overpriced cup of brown mud" and "mmm, you are enjoying this brown mud" or "a 5 euro muffin would be nice about now..."
The wifi signal strength is always suspiciously high... possibly to overpower the tinfoil hats.
I recently read Waldo by Heinlein where the whole world was suffering from increased lethargy due to the number of rays floating around. Perhaps the modern popularity of computers is caused by this lethargy rather than the other way round? I think we should be told.
Mine is the one with a lead lining
Well that's one to show to the missus in the vain hope that she'll stop cranking up my phone bill instead of using the "free" (i.e. prepaid but cheap) minutes on her mobile that I go to some efforts to make sure she's got... but if it is perfectly obvious to someone that holding a small radio transmitter next to your head must surely be bad for you, then no amount of peer-reviewed research is going to convince you otherwise.
Well, I much prefer the clarity of fixed lines, but for calling mobile phones I am not prepared to piss money away using Virgin Media who charge something like 20p just to get put through to someone's voicemail. And it's not about the money, it's about the over-charging. The same call through my VOIP phone costs 1p.
I also have "free" i.e. pre-paid calls to landlines on VM. Although they scored a spectacular own goal the other day by sending me a card telling me that my monthly average usage of these free calls is about 240 minutes and therefore I "saved" X many pounds by spending 8 quid a month for this. Which made me realise I could save a further fiver by *not* using VM at all but switching to a reliable VOIP service. If I CBA.
@Terry 6 - ...... the ones who want to believe that Wifi/mobile phones/MMR/Fluoride etc. are somehow unnatural and dangerous. And anything "natural" is good.
Depressing isn't it? And the most annoying thing is their definition of 'natural', not the same as a physicist's definition I'm sure.
Friend of mine recently posted a story on Facebook about people having problems with vaccinations, it had senior medical leaders (many immunology Profs), being quoted as saying "vaccine x has y problems". They were clearly having concerns with particular aspects of specific vaccinations or aspects of a particular country's vaccination policy. None were saying "vaccination is wrong".
Nonetheless my friend (who naturally administers homeopathic medicine) considered this justification to give the comment "vaccination - seems to be you either believe in it or don't". Of course, the truth was that he doesn't believe in it and was hoping to turn it into a 'religious' debate rather than that admit that there isn't any doubt about vaccination working.
As Prof Brian Cox says, the danger of apparently 'harmless' beliefs like astrology or homeopathy are that they drive people to doubt science and to spurn proper medical advice.
Many years ago (back in the early '90s) I was involved in a joint industry/academic study on developing mobile phone technologies, sponsored by the UK government. There were several teams, each working on different problems and each based at a university. My team was at Southampton, (my "alma mater"), studying call handover requirements for very small cell sizes. We all went up to London once a year for a joint conference to see what the other teams were up to.
One of the teams was studying the effects of mobile phone radiation on the human head. To do this, they constructed a (rather ghoulish) model of a head, using materials with similar dimensions and dielectric properties to real brain, bone and muscle tissue.
The results they reported at the first joint conference were interesting. In the 900MHz band there was little absorption of energy. However, at 1800MHz, their model formed a resonant cavity. Effectively, a standing wave was formed betwen the ears, with current peaks around the ears and a voltage peak around the centre of the skull. They stressed that their results were very "preliminary" and needed further work.
At the next conference, a year later, we eagerly awaited the results of their further research. That team didn't turn up - their funding had been terminated. Now, I'm not saying that they found something nasty which was being deliberately hidden. It may be they had made serious mistakes and were closed down because they weren't up to the job, or any of several other innocent causes, but it's left me worried ever since.
Definitely.
I expect the methodology of the research mentioned in the article was flawed and probably too short to measure the effects, which are apparently cumulative.
There was a lecture by research staff in a part of the US government which went into a lot more detail and showed that the children are /much/ more vulnerable and that /pulsed/ microwaves did have harmful measurable effects from several studies from countries outside the US e.g. cells were damaged or killed by exposure to real mobile phones polling a cell station.
There have been several cancer cases all linked to proximity of a mobile phone for long periods e.g.
A women who kept a mobile phone in her breast cleavage and had cancer located by the phone antenna RF lobes. A man who used a mobile for hours for business calls in a poor reception area who had auditory cancer. etc.
Basically no f'ing way will I carry an active pulsed microwave transceiver with me, especially not close to my body; power square law, and all that! When I occasionally carry an Android tablet to read books, it is kept in Airplane mode while in a back pack, and most of the time while I'm using it.
My WiFi router is sited and configured to use reduced transmission power to adequate service my WiFi devices, because WiFi could also be damaging. I have junked a DECT phone set, because I discovered that DECT phones can be even worse than cell phones for transmission power; in fact I could feel it!!!
@AC - There have been several cancer cases all linked to proximity of a mobile phone for long periods e.g. A women who kept a mobile phone in her breast cleavage and had cancer located by the phone antenna RF lobes.
Oh For Fuck's Sake - Yes, because no woman ever had breast cancer in the breast cleavage before the mobile phone came along. The incident rate for breast cancer in the UK is 1 in 8 during a female's lifetime. I'm suprised there's only been one case of absolutely coincidental cancer. Your anecdote is almost evidence that modible phones reduce cancer risk as you have only one example.
Your comment is proof that no matter how much something is studied, science is still no match for anecdotal evidence. Coincident is expected when dealing with things as prevalent as mobile phones and cancer. That's why you have to do studies with large sample sizes.
My grandfather took an anecdote every day for 60 years and he lived till his late 80s.
Hmm, I thought to was the power of a quantum of energy that determined whether damage was caused, and that there were no cumulative effects sine the maximum damage caused by a quantum is the maximum (or not) damage. Frequency*plancks constant or some such.
Who knows, I don't have cancer and I am not dead yet. Mobile phone usage moderate and a user for decades. I'll take my chances. As for the "electro sentitives", they're full of shite.