"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
Mobilephones (Proud owner of a Nokia 3310.)
Depends if you NEED more than speech.

Hmm... I don't know that we NEED much of any modern technology... but I'm
certainly willing to pay for it! (And it is interesting how the Internet
has gone from being 'a cool toy' to something many would argue is NEEDed for
'modern jobs' in under a decade... I wonder how long telephones took to
reach the same level of 'NEED'?)

My analogue quarts is more rugged and accurate but I do have to change the
battery every three years so I do have some sympathy for a mechanical
automatic.

Casio has some nice 10 year (battery life) models, although they're plastic
so generally the case will die years before the battery...

There are also solar powered and kinetically powered quartz (electric)
watches out there...

I take an engineering approach and select equipment to be effective rather
than simply rejecting anything that is not traditional (otherwise you
would have to reject all phones and use runners).

I thought it was smoke signals? :-)

Brian Reay wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote:
Few people have used cell phones
for ten years already.

Not sure about that.

Few compared to an estimated 200,000,000 by 2017.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Prometheus wrote:
I smell some faulty logic, just because "No tumors were associated with
less than 10 years of cellphone use" you can not infer that tumours
should be associated with more than ten years use.

People with less than 10 years of cellphone use suffered the same
rate of tumors as non-cellphone users. People with more than 10 years
of cellphone use suffered twice as many tumors as non-cellphone users
and tumors among cellphone users was four times more likely to occur
on the side of the head normally used for the cellphone. Where's the
faulty logic?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Roy Lewallen wrote:
So when you compacted this into the statement that "cell phone use for
ten years results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss", was it an
emulation of today's journalistic technique, or just the effect of years
spent working with binary circuits?

That was the gist of what I got out of reading the article the
title and header of which is:

"CELLPHONES LINKED TO BRAIN TUMORS, THE GOOD NEWS IS THEY'RE
BENIGN; THE BAD NEWS IS THAT THEY'RE THERE."

Your gist may vary. I assume one argument from the "no energy
in RF waves" guys will be "no energy = no tumor".
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Dave wrote:
I see no signs of ill health in either myself, or my daughter already.

That's nice and fits right in with one in 100,000 non-cellphone
users getting it Vs two in 100,000 10-year cellphone users getting
it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Brian Reay wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote:
Few people have used cell phones
for ten years already.

Not sure about that.

Few compared to an estimated 200,000,000 by 2017.

In which case, it could well be the end of the world! With all that RF
flying about, chances are, by 2017 every male in the world will be sterile.

If there's a moral here, it must be, don't keep your phone in your trouser
pocket!

Regards
tox

tox wrote:
If there's a moral here, it must be, don't keep your phone in your trouser
pocket!

More on the subject from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...436543,00.html

"CHILDREN under the age of eight should not use mobile phones, parents
were advised last night after an authoritative report linked heavy use
to ear and brain tumours and concluded that the risks had been
underestimated by most scientists.

Professor Sir William Stewart, chairman of the National Radiological
Protection Board (NRPB), said that evidence of potentially harmful
effects had become more persuasive over the past five years.

The news prompted calls for phones to carry health warnings and panic in
parts of the industry. One British manufacturer immediately suspended a
model aimed at four to eight-year-olds.

The number of mobiles in Britain has doubled to 50 million since the
first government-sponsored report in 2000. The number of children aged
between five and nine using mobiles has increased fivefold in the same
period.

In his report, Mobile Phones and Health, Sir William said that four
studies have caused concern. One ten-year study in Sweden suggests that
heavy mobile users are more prone to non-malignant tumours in the ear
and brain while a Dutch study had suggested changes in cognitive
function. A German study has hinted at an increase in cancer around base
stations, while a project supported by the EU had shown evidence of cell
damage from fields typical of those of mobile phones."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Roy Lewallen wrote:
So when you compacted this into the statement that "cell phone use for
ten years results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss", was it an
emulation of today's journalistic technique, or just the effect of years
spent working with binary circuits?

That was the gist of what I got out of reading the article the
title and header of which is:

"CELLPHONES LINKED TO BRAIN TUMORS, THE GOOD NEWS IS THEY'RE
BENIGN; THE BAD NEWS IS THAT THEY'RE THERE."

Your gist may vary. I assume one argument from the "no energy
in RF waves" guys will be "no energy = no tumor".

Have other factors in the 'life style' of phone users been ruled out?

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

If there's a moral here, it must be, don't keep your phone in your trouser
pocket!

Less painful than the snip! :0

Rv!

Unlike heavy mobile phone use it has been proven that increasing
Oxydisation of cell structures causes, cancer, aging and ultimately
death. Doesn't stop anyone breathing though does it? If we al stopped
breathing there would be no cancer, no aging.

Seriously though, as an illustration, say that in 20 years time we find
that the heating effect of RF from mobile phones provides a catalyst
for increased oxydisation in the brain when combined with the
inhilation of plastics vapour from the material used in cellphone keypd
membranes to cause cancer of the nose (it could happen!!). This would
be a totally unforseen risk to our health. What this report says that
is as a precaution to unforseen health risks it is better not to let
childern use mobile phones and audults only when absolutly necessary
and to limit use. This is an example of the "precautionary principle",
specifically used to limit or halt future crisis.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DE2F.htm
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/newspeak.pdf
http://www.chstm.man.ac.uk/outreach/mobile-phones.htm
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~kfoster/p...ary_foster.PDF