"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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

------------

How many people have developed the brain tumors associated with cellphone
use versus the number of people whose lives have been saved because of the
use of a cellphone?

Think of all of the 911 calls that have saved folks' lives over the years
that the cellphone has been available to the public.

I am NOT saying that cellphone use is entirely safe. I truly do not know,
one way or the other, but, if immediate tumors or other cancers had been
developed during the all to brief preliminary testing of devices operating
at such high frequencies in close approximation to the human body, I feel
certain that said developers would not have rushed their devices into mass
production so quickly.

Risk versus benefit must be taken into consideration too.

Ed, NM2K