TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Don't Allow Under-9s to Use a Mobile

Re: Don't Allow Under-9s to Use a Mobile

Fred Atkinson (
Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:56:16 -0500

>> Nor was mine. I didn't imply any conclusion. But, who's to say what
>> is impossible in this case? I'm simply saying that based upon what I
>> have read, I believe there is some sort of a problem here. As I
>> stated, the jury is still out on just how big of a problem this is.

> NO, IT ISN'T. The jury is absolutely back in, and it is NOT a problem.

The jury won't be back in for years to come.

>> What reliable research has been done to determine whether or not
>> radiation from cell phones are the cause of any percentage of them?
>> Even so, there's not nearly enough data (and there won't be for years
>> to come) to draw any solid conclusions in either direction.

> Wrong. It is CATEGORICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for radiation from a cellphone
> to cause cellular mutation. The radio waves are simply too "fat" to
> ever, in a billion years, cause one single cellular mutation. The
> wavelength used by cellphones is on the order of 6 to 15 INCHES
> (roughly 15 to 40 centimeters). That covers the range from 1900 to 800
> MHz. You'd need to be well up into the Terahertz to get a short enough
> wavelength to cause cellular mutation.

Impossible? They said it was impossible for man to fly, didn't they?
And for how many thousands of years?

>> When I hear a cell phone salesperson say there's no danger, he has no
>> real basis for saying that.

> No, in fact there is a substantial basis for saying that, because there
> is no danger. Cellphones CANNOT cause cancer.

I can't say you're wrong but I can't say you're right, either.

>> So when you hear telecommunications people saying there's nothing
>> wrong, you know that opinion is tainted whether it is true or not.

> That's only true if the person speaking has a financial interest. I
> don't happen to have any financial interest in cellphones. I own one,
> but I don't even own stock in any companies that make or sell
> cellphones, much less work for one.

And one person's opinion makes it so?

> The only effect that microwaves (the wavelength used by cellphones)
> have on living tissue is to heat it. Your microwave oven probably puts
> out about 600 watts. Your cellphone probably puts out maybe a couple
> of watts at maximum power, and probably less than one watt in normal
> use. True, you're not sticking your skull into the microwave while
> it's operating, but still, it's a bit out of perspective to be so
> worried about the radiation from cellphones. More to the point, you
> will feel warmth from the microwaves if they are heating the tissue
> inside your skull.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe five to ten years from now we'll have enough
statistical data to see for sure, if an independent party takes the
time and goes to the expense of collecting the data.

> I am also always amazed by people who are concerned about cellphones
> but don't bat an eye about using a cordless phone at home.


> The radiation from a cellphone CANNOT cause cancer. It's not extremely
> unlikely, it is literally impossible.

Let's discuss this again in five to ten years. If the statistical
data bears out, I'll concede that you were right.

By the way, Linc. I don't mean this to be anything personal here. I
just take a more skeptical view.



Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Tony P.: "Re: Radar Detectors"
Go to Previous message: Solario: "Re: Phone Number? (200) 222 0000"
May be in reply to: Marcus Didius Falco: "Don't Allow Under-9s to Use a Mobile"
Next in thread: Linc Madison: "Re: Don't Allow Under-9s to Use a Mobile"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page