Prev: Lefty you were told to stay off my threads
Next: Vitamins D & E Maybe Not as Safe as They Think?
From: Robert Cohen on 23 Jul 2008 21:40
Easy to say, though most people won't change until it becomes a
popular fad or rule/law and/or a health insurance suggestion or
requirement.

That's what I get from this "maverick" oncologist and in several other
such articles/reports.

The scientific resarch is not considered certain.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08205/898803-114.stm
From: Steph on 24 Jul 2008 02:45

"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen(a)msn.com> wrote in message
news:6eaa8996-6e5b-47fb-9f61-8697a1e98782(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Easy to say, though most people won't change until it becomes a
> popular fad or rule/law and/or a health insurance suggestion or
> requirement.
>
> That's what I get from this "maverick" oncologist and in several other
> such articles/reports.
>
> The scientific resarch is not considered certain.
>
> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08205/898803-114.stm

Common sense isn't common. There is no evidence that normal cellphone use is
harmful. There is no evidence that a glass of wine is harmful. But a litre a
day? Or 6 hours cellphone use a day?
The inverse square law is your friend. If you are concerned about the
(non-ionising) radiation from your phone, get an earpiec or a bluetooth
headset.
And by the way, for all those who campaign against cell phone towers near
schools - modern phones are very clever. If the signal from the tower is
weak, they boost the signal from the phone. If you are a heavy cellphone
user, living near or underneath a tower will lead to less, not more,
exposure to emf, because the exposure due to your phone stuck up against
your ear is way higher than the exposure form a cell tower 30 metres away.

From: Robert Cohen on 24 Jul 2008 07:53
On Jul 24, 2:45 am, "Steph" <st...(a)vancouvers.island> wrote:
> "Robert Cohen" <robtco...(a)msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6eaa8996-6e5b-47fb-9f61-8697a1e98782(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Easy to say, though most people won't change until it becomes a
> > popular fad or rule/law and/or a health insurance suggestion or
> > requirement.
>
> > That's what I get from this "maverick" oncologist and in several other
> > such articles/reports.
>
> > The scientific resarch is not considered certain.
>
> >http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08205/898803-114.stm
>
> Common sense isn't common. There is no evidence that normal cellphone use is
> harmful. There is no evidence that a glass of wine is harmful. But a litre a
> day? Or 6 hours cellphone use a day?
> The inverse square law is your friend. If you are concerned about the
> (non-ionising) radiation from your phone, get an earpiec or a bluetooth
> headset.
> And by the way, for all those who campaign against cell phone towers near
> schools - modern phones are very clever. If the signal from the tower is
> weak, they boost the signal from the phone. If you are a heavy cellphone
> user, living near or underneath a tower will lead to less, not more,
> exposure to emf, because the exposure due to your phone stuck up against
> your ear is way higher than the exposure form a cell tower 30 metres away..

Ted Kennedy's cellphone use is reported as having been abnormal, and
is a red flag warning.

From: deT notsuH on 24 Jul 2008 16:42
Steph wrote:
> "Robert Cohen" wrote in message ...
>> Easy to say, though most people won't change until it becomes a
>> popular fad or rule/law and/or a health insurance suggestion or
>> requirement.
>>
>> That's what I get from this "maverick" oncologist and in several other
>> such articles/reports.
>>
>> The scientific resarch is not considered certain.
>>
>> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08205/898803-114.stm
>
> Common sense isn't common. There is no evidence that normal cellphone
> use is harmful. There is no evidence that a glass of wine is harmful.
> But a litre a day? Or 6 hours cellphone use a day?
> The inverse square law is your friend. If you are concerned about the
> (non-ionising) radiation from your phone, get an earpiec or a bluetooth
> headset.
> And by the way, for all those who campaign against cell phone towers
> near schools - modern phones are very clever. If the signal from the
> tower is weak, they boost the signal from the phone. If you are a heavy
> cellphone user, living near or underneath a tower will lead to less, not
> more, exposure to emf, because the exposure due to your phone stuck up
> against your ear is way higher than the exposure form a cell tower 30
> metres away.

Let's see....The person has a bluetooth headset, and the phone itself
is, um, where? in the pocket, perhaps? Could we have fried 'nads, now,
too? So, common sense should include a clause about putting the phone
on the table across the room, or in a trolley 10ft behind us? ;o)
--
deT notsuH bass-ackwards ude.hcimu(a)pcird
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, I guess that explains
why some of us died of tuberculosis." -- Emo Phillips
From: Dan on 24 Jul 2008 23:34
on 7/23/08 8:40 PM Robert Cohen said the following:
> Easy to say, though most people won't change until it becomes a
> popular fad or rule/law and/or a health insurance suggestion or
> requirement.
>
> That's what I get from this "maverick" oncologist and in several other
> such articles/reports.
>
> The scientific resarch is not considered certain.
>
> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08205/898803-114.stm

How can radio EM at 5.4 watts cause cancer? The study was flawed
because it only looked at cancer patients: selection bias. If cell
phones caused cancer, wouldn't cordless phones and Wi-Fi networks cause
cancer too then? I think this doctor needs to learn about statistics
and how to set up an experiment to prove a hypothesis.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Lefty you were told to stay off my threads
Next: Vitamins D & E Maybe Not as Safe as They Think?