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

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

Linc Madison (
Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:21:44 -0800

In article <>, Fred Atkinson
<> wrote:

>>> Nor was mine. I didn't imply any conclusion. But, who's to say
>>> what is impossible in this case?

Hard scientific data. A foot-long wavelength simply doesn't even
interact with a sub-millimeter piece of DNA.

>>> 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.

There are plenty of non-scientists who believe that it could possibly
somehow be a problem. There are also plenty of people who believe that
astrology is a real science.

>> 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.

One man's opinion. Specifically, one man's INCORRECT opinion ;^P

>> 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?

Fundamental difference: there is solid physics that says man can fly
(after solving a few engineering challenges); there is also solid
physics and biochemistry that says that a wavelength on the order of
ONE FOOT cannot possibly affect DNA. You may as well worry about
neutrinos causing cancer -- they pass through the entire earth as
though it wasn't there. But you're being continually bombarded with
neutrinos from the entire galaxy, even when you're not using your

>> 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.

But you refuse to examine the scientific data that *IS* available.

>> 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?

That's hitting below the belt. You said that you don't trust anyone in
telecom to tell you honestly if cellphones really do pose a risk. I
pointed out that I have no ulterior motives here. I've explained the
very real science behind my statements, but all you can say is "wait
and see."

> 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.

So the DECADES AND DECADES of data we already have means nothing, but
the next 5 to 10 years will provide the answer? It takes more than 5 to
10 years for any but the most aggressive carcinogens to cause a
noticeable number of cases. Maybe we should wait another 100 to 200
years to get REALLY solid data.

>> 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.

Why wait? The statistical data ALREADY bears me out.

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

As has already been pointed out, there is a difference between
skepticism and stubborn dismissal of real science. I don't mean
anything personal by saying this, but you're burying your head in the
sand and refusing to look at the ample data that already is available,
refusing to even consider that some of it might be reasonably
unbiased, and refusing to even address the basic scientific issues.

Explain to me how a 6- to 15-inch wavelength (at a fraction of one
watt, to boot) could possibly cause cancer. Then I'll accept your

Linc Madison * San Francisco, California *
<> * primary e-mail: Telecom at LincMad dot com
All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c)
This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3).

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Fred Atkinson: "Re: Do Allow Under-9s to Use a Mobile"
Go to Previous message: Brian Inglis: "Re: iPod Shuffle = New Radio ?"
May be in reply to: Marcus Didius Falco: "Don't Allow Under-9s to Use a Mobile"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page