Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

The IEEE Spectrum reports that cell phone use for ten years
results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss.


Which issue was that? I'd like to read the article.


December 2004, page 20: "Cellphones Linked To Brain Tumors"
"No tumors were associated with less than 10 years of
cellphone use." There will be about 50 million people with
10 years of cellphone use in 1907. I won't be one of them.

Thanks. Here's what the article really said:

"Researchers at the Karolinska Institute of Environmental Medicine, in
Stockholm, Sweden, have found an association between long-term cellphone
use and a rare, benign tumor, causing concern among radiation
specialists and epidemiologists, though they emphasize that the results
haven't been replicated yet. Scientists now eagerly await results from
other studies under way around the world.

Published in the November issue of the journal _Epidemiology_, the
Swedish study, led by Stefan Lönn of the Karolinska Institute, looked at
148 people who had acoustic neuroma and compared them with 604 healthy
people. It found that people who used cellphones for more than 10 years
doubled their risk of developing the tumor, a benign condition affecting
one in 100 000 people. . ."

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?

Looks to me like it said that a single study, yet to be replicated, of a
small group of people indicated that long-term cell phone use caused a
doubling of the risk of a rare benign tumor, raising the odds of getting
one from about 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 50,000.

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?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:46:17 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

The IEEE Spectrum reports that cell phone use for ten years
results in a benign tumor that causes hearing loss.


Which issue was that? I'd like to read the article.


December 2004, page 20: "Cellphones Linked To Brain Tumors"
"No tumors were associated with less than 10 years of
cellphone use." There will be about 50 million people with
10 years of cellphone use in 1907. I won't be one of them.

Thanks. Here's what the article really said:

"Researchers at the Karolinska Institute of Environmental Medicine, in
Stockholm, Sweden, have found an association between long-term cellphone
use and a rare, benign tumor, causing concern among radiation
specialists and epidemiologists, though they emphasize that the results
haven't been replicated yet. Scientists now eagerly await results from
other studies under way around the world.

*Snip*
Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Just curious, did the study take into account putting vinyl phone
cases against skin, being warmed up & subsequently out-gassing
carcinogens that were then absorbed through the skin & into the blood
stream???

Enquiring Minds Want to Know-

Howard.


p.s.- Just what are "double the odds" for this "rare" cancer? Any
chance they're within the statistical noise floor?? EMWtK.

H.E.

"Howard Eisenhauer" wrote in message
...
Just curious, did the study take into account putting vinyl phone
cases against skin, being warmed up & subsequently out-gassing
carcinogens that were then absorbed through the skin & into the blood
stream???

Enquiring Minds Want to Know-


Not to mention using the MP3 or Radio features with the volume too high. Or
RSI in the thumbs due to over texting.

Even worse, terminal boredom watching phone geeks comparing features. What
is wrong with a basic phone?
Some things are best simple:

Mobilephones (Proud owner of a Nokia 3310.)
Watches ( I don't even like quartz watches, give me a mechanical automatic
any day.)
Razors (why do people like electric razors?)
Toothbrushes (electric toothes, I ask you).

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

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Some things are best simple:

Mobilephones (Proud owner of a Nokia 3310.)

I'm sold on wireless Internet connectivity, sorry. WiFi/WiMax's coverage is
still a drop in the bucket compared to WCDMA/GPRS/EDGE coverage.

Watches ( I don't even like quartz watches, give me a mechanical automatic
any day.)

I like mechnical watches, but there's something to be said for dual time
zones, chronographs, count down alarms, etc. too!

Razors (why do people like electric razors?)

Mainly laziness; the last thing I want to do when I'm still groggy in the
morning is deal with changing a double-edged razor blade.

Toothbrushes (electric toothes, I ask you).

I'd speculate that _most_ people do a better job of cleaning with an
electric toothbrush than with a 'manual...'

"Joel Kolstad" wrote in message
...
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Some things are best simple:

Mobilephones (Proud owner of a Nokia 3310.)

I'm sold on wireless Internet connectivity, sorry. WiFi/WiMax's coverage
is
still a drop in the bucket compared to WCDMA/GPRS/EDGE coverage.

Must be a big phone just to get the label on it ;-)

Watches ( I don't even like quartz watches, give me a mechanical
automatic
any day.)

I like mechnical watches, but there's something to be said for dual time
zones, chronographs, count down alarms, etc. too!

I can't imagine how I live without then. Nice mechanical hands that move, a
nice tick, and not having to wind it up. If cars were as reliable as a
Rolex, garages would be out of business.


Razors (why do people like electric razors?)

Mainly laziness; the last thing I want to do when I'm still groggy in the
morning is deal with changing a double-edged razor blade.

Don't you have those snazzy clip in dual (or even triple) bladed beasts. Do
them in the dark.

Plus, a proper wet shave lasts all day. An electric tickle about 4 hours.

Toothbrushes (electric toothes, I ask you).

I'd speculate that _most_ people do a better job of cleaning with an
electric toothbrush than with a 'manual...'

I've heard that before. However, there is also the case for 'up and down'
motion (no innuendo intended) and electric toothbrushes are rotary.
--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

In article , Brian Reay
writes
Even worse, terminal boredom watching phone geeks comparing features.

An anthropomorphic study of the lesser witted geek should be
interesting, one must ask is the species viable?

What
is wrong with a basic phone?

Unless you need the extra features, nothing. I have a digital camera
which is much better than any in a phone, my pocket radio is better than
any phone, my handheld computer is better than any phone. My mobile
phone is smaller than any phone containing "feature" I seldom want to
carry around.

Some things are best simple:

However not automatically so.

Mobilephones (Proud owner of a Nokia 3310.)

Depends if you NEED more than speech.

Watches ( I don't even like quartz watches, give me a mechanical
automatic
any day.)

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.

Razors (why do people like electric razors?)

Perhaps they find the vibration of an electric shaver to be auto-erotic,
I prefer the closer shave obtained with a real razor.

Toothbrushes (electric toothes, I ask you).

Depends on the type; the reciprocating rotary head are more effective
than an ordinary brush, the vibrating etc. are a waste of time.

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).

--
Ian G8ILZ

"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? :-)

It found that people who used cellphones for more than 10 years doubled
their risk of developing the tumor, a benign condition affecting one in
100 000 people. . ."

I bet that driving a car to work every day raises the likelihood of a
multiude of serious health illnesses by an order of magnitude, and those
risks are a lot greater than 1 in 100,000 to begin with!

A lot people don't seem to reailze that lifestyle choices (where you live,
what you eat, etc.) have a vastly greater influence on their likelihood of
coming down with some dreaded disease than most forms of new technology
do...

(Although I am all for continuing research so that appropriate levels for
polluting gases, EM radiation emissions, etc. can be set... but of course
'the appropriate level' is at least as much if not more a political problem
than a technical problem.)

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 =---

"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