7 ms·

But our economy is already dependent on mobile data. So cancer or not, there's no stopping it. The economy decides what's safe.

smtddr 13y ago
So we should all just give up? Economy is pretty dependent on gasoline/oil too; but I'm glad people are looking into finding better sources of energy. We know gasoline burning & the process of obtaining oil is not good for humanity for a big list of reasons. _If_ it's found cellphones can be harmful, hopefully we begin researching how to make safer versions. Personally, I think there's been enough studies on it to make it at least plausible and I choose to error on the side of caution.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Say, have you heard about the microwave background radiation? You are being exposed to radiation in all microwave frequencies from all directions right now from the fusion of nuclear isotopes at the start of time, also, would you like to buy this giant Faraday cage.
sanskritabelt 13y ago
Used to be, the economy decided tobacco was safe.
- nickff 13y ago
  "[T]he economy" does not 'decide' anything; individuals act in their own self-interest (, though not necessarily their long-term self interest).
makmanalp 13y ago
Huh? No. First of all, most of "the economy" doesn't know anything about anything unless they're informed. So they're implementing a new testing process to better inform them. Let me remind you of a similar situation - 50 years ago, it wasn't common knowledge that smoking was harmful. Many people smoked. Then, overwhelming evidence showed that it was harmful. Then, there were widespread campaigns telling people just that. Today, not as many people smoke, and not to the same degree. Success! Should we have given up on teaching people sense? Second, what makes you think - assuming that cell phone emissions are indeed significant enough to be harmful - we can't have tech that works as it does now, but is less harmful?
- jotm 13y ago
  I believe the comparison you're looking for is radium - people used it for quite a long time, not knowing the long term effects. Heroin works, too - smoking doesn't because people have been smoking stuff for thousands of years...
  - mburns 13y ago
    Lead-based paint is another example.
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  I'm not certain your example of Tobacco is a success. My point stands, that Cell phones are needed by the economy so we'll have cellphones. Tobacco sales were needed by the economy and now they're not. Also, your idea that Tobacco fell out of market acceptance because of the health risks, widespread campaigns is wrong.
  - makmanalp 13y ago
    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig... -> If that's not a success, I don't know what is. Your point doesn't stand. You implied that society needs cellphones, therefore there can be no ban on them. No one's calling to ban all cellphones. The suggestion is to reevaluate safety criteria, and disallow phones above that threshold. Seems maybe you're right on one point, it seems plain education seems to be less successful. It's only a contributing factor whereas taxing and banning are the main factors in getting adults to stop smoking: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-smoking-rates-are-at-new-lows/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-smoking-rates-a... This is even funnier though, since it suggests that the approach of taxing and banning nonconforming cell phones would work, which is the opposite of what you're suggesting.
    - AsymetricCom 13y ago
      I never said taxing and banning wouldn't work. What I said is that taxing and banning will never happen because of health impact. It won't change until the health impact has a significant economic impact.
mayneack 13y ago
Number of people saved by calling for ambulances via cell phone > Cancer deaths from radiation?
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  Imagine all the lives saved from killing off millions of Jews.
  - drdeca 13y ago
    I don't understand your argument? Why would you argue that to be a number of any significant size? There seems to be three possibilities here: A:you believe that killing randomly selected people will prevent more deaths than it causes. B:you believe that killing a people does. C:You believe that more people have died of brain cancer from cell phones than have been saved by them (in which case, statistics would be nice maybe? I might not look at your responce, so maybe not worth it to you.) D: Some other interpretation of what you said that I haven't thought of. A seems absurd, B seems absurd and possibly problematic, C seems false, but less obviously, D is essentially "other". Is your claim that em radiation from cell phones (for signal purposes) can alter DNA molecules, Or is your claim that it can e.g. Allow mutant cells to grow or some such ( make it more likely for the cancer to spread and such, instead of being destroyed by the immune system (accuracy?))?

smtddr 13y ago

So we should all just give up? Economy is pretty dependent on gasoline/oil too; but I'm glad people are looking into finding better sources of energy. We know gasoline burning & the process of obtaining oil is not good for humanity for a big list of reasons. _If_ it's found cellphones can be harmful, hopefully we begin researching how to make safer versions. Personally, I think there's been enough studies on it to make it at least plausible and I choose to error on the side of caution.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
Say, have you heard about the microwave background radiation? You are being exposed to radiation in all microwave frequencies from all directions right now from the fusion of nuclear isotopes at the start of time, also, would you like to buy this giant Faraday cage.

sanskritabelt 13y ago

Used to be, the economy decided tobacco was safe.

nickff 13y ago
"[T]he economy" does not 'decide' anything; individuals act in their own self-interest (, though not necessarily their long-term self interest).

makmanalp 13y ago

Huh? No. First of all, most of "the economy" doesn't know anything about anything unless they're informed. So they're implementing a new testing process to better inform them. Let me remind you of a similar situation - 50 years ago, it wasn't common knowledge that smoking was harmful. Many people smoked. Then, overwhelming evidence showed that it was harmful. Then, there were widespread campaigns telling people just that. Today, not as many people smoke, and not to the same degree. Success! Should we have given up on teaching people sense? Second, what makes you think - assuming that cell phone emissions are indeed significant enough to be harmful - we can't have tech that works as it does now, but is less harmful?

jotm 13y ago
I believe the comparison you're looking for is radium - people used it for quite a long time, not knowing the long term effects. Heroin works, too - smoking doesn't because people have been smoking stuff for thousands of years...
- mburns 13y ago
  Lead-based paint is another example.
AsymetricCom 13y ago
I'm not certain your example of Tobacco is a success. My point stands, that Cell phones are needed by the economy so we'll have cellphones. Tobacco sales were needed by the economy and now they're not. Also, your idea that Tobacco fell out of market acceptance because of the health risks, widespread campaigns is wrong.
- makmanalp 13y ago
  http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig... -> If that's not a success, I don't know what is. Your point doesn't stand. You implied that society needs cellphones, therefore there can be no ban on them. No one's calling to ban all cellphones. The suggestion is to reevaluate safety criteria, and disallow phones above that threshold. Seems maybe you're right on one point, it seems plain education seems to be less successful. It's only a contributing factor whereas taxing and banning are the main factors in getting adults to stop smoking: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-smoking-rates-are-at-new-lows/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-smoking-rates-a... This is even funnier though, since it suggests that the approach of taxing and banning nonconforming cell phones would work, which is the opposite of what you're suggesting.
  - AsymetricCom 13y ago
    I never said taxing and banning wouldn't work. What I said is that taxing and banning will never happen because of health impact. It won't change until the health impact has a significant economic impact.

mayneack 13y ago

Number of people saved by calling for ambulances via cell phone > Cancer deaths from radiation?

AsymetricCom 13y ago
Imagine all the lives saved from killing off millions of Jews.
- drdeca 13y ago
  I don't understand your argument? Why would you argue that to be a number of any significant size? There seems to be three possibilities here: A:you believe that killing randomly selected people will prevent more deaths than it causes. B:you believe that killing a people does. C:You believe that more people have died of brain cancer from cell phones than have been saved by them (in which case, statistics would be nice maybe? I might not look at your responce, so maybe not worth it to you.) D: Some other interpretation of what you said that I haven't thought of. A seems absurd, B seems absurd and possibly problematic, C seems false, but less obviously, D is essentially "other". Is your claim that em radiation from cell phones (for signal purposes) can alter DNA molecules, Or is your claim that it can e.g. Allow mutant cells to grow or some such ( make it more likely for the cancer to spread and such, instead of being destroyed by the immune system (accuracy?))?