Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813

2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270

Cecil:

I simply find it "strange", that the presumption that exposure to forms
of radiation (RF in this case) is always considered safe until
proved/proven harmful. The same goes for chemicals not existing in
nature and to which the human body (or any biological organisms for that
matter) has never been exposed. It seems all which is needed is to
chant a "paranoid/wacko" mantra and such forms of thought are naturally
generated in the human mind. The presumption, so generated, seems to
be, "If we have never seen it before, if we have never been exposed to
it before, maybe it is actually good for us!"

I mean, is this prudent thinking/behavior? Am I the only one to think
the proof should rest with those introducing the potential harmful
exposure/materials and their SAFETY--rather than those being exposed
having to prove its' harm in order to effect their own safety?

If you look at the parallels between how tobacco was allowed to
continue, without even a warning and for such a lengthy period, it all
revolved over disputing studies/good-science which kept pointing to the
dangers ... indeed, into the 70' and well beyond, the warning that
"smoking was bad" was met with those chanting the myths of flawed
studies ...

What truly amazes me is the fact that simple "safeguards" are available
to vastly reduce risk (at least with cell phones.) What has become so
ingrained into our thinking/media which can make otherwise responsible
men and women so irresponsible ... money, greed, corruption, insanity?

Someone here has thinking that is "a bit off", if it is me--I only pray
rationality will come home ... I will continue to "re-think my
thinking", maybe I will eventually see it ... until then, I do keep
abreast of the "Rush Limbaugh Manta"--"Things are Good and Getting
Better, don't trust your eyes, mind and thinking--they lie!" It simply
does NOT motivate me "To Believe!"

I am willing to listen to any studies which find that cell phone
radiation is making me smarter, handsomer, wittier, richer and more
sexually attractive to the ladies, etc. ;-) Just show me some honest,
unbiased studies which deal on REAL SCIENCE ... look at Love Canal in
New York and the battle to prove, legally, that these chemicals being
dumped into the environment were harming/killing people! ... how many
examples before one chooses to error on the side of caution?

Let me give you a "hard case example", perhaps 99%+ of the snakes in the
world are NOT POISONOUS--would I be prudent to consider the next snake I
see non-poisonous and of NO danger? I think not ... heck, just a
relatively "harmless bite" will get my attention! (not to mention the
danger of infection.)

Regards,
JS