Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23
  1. #16
    R. Mark Clayton
    Guest

    Re: say no to wifi and mobi's


    "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "R. Mark Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > message news:[email protected]
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >> Oh you again.
    >>
    >> Do you remember the reply last time: -
    >>
    >> Literally a handful died of brain neoplasms in the UK in
    >> 1992 (essentially before mobiles became widespread) and
    >> most of them were over 80.
    >> Even a doubling would not be statistically significant,
    >> any more than the numbers killed by lightening.
    >>
    >> OTOH the circumstantial evidence was that you actually
    >> have one of these tumours and it is seriously impairing
    >> your thought processes.

    >
    > When I was studying for the Radio Amateur Exam back in the early 80's a
    > bloke in our class jumped the gun a bit (he was a more money than sense
    > sort of guy) and put up a 60ft tower and a 3 element HF beam. It wasn't
    > connected to a transmitter as of course he wasn't yet licensed, but no
    > sooner had it appeared on the skyline than he got all the neighbours
    > banging on the door complaining of interference to their TV's.


    Well a grounded tower might do this.

    >
    > "Ooh, a phone mast, we'll all get cancer..!"
    >
    > I think "bollocks" is the polite term.
    >


    Supersticious Science

    >
    > Ivor
    >
    >






    See More: say no to wifi and mobi's




  2. #17
    Mark McIntyre
    Guest

    Re: say no to wifi and mobi's

    On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:45:26 +0100, in uk.telecom.broadband ,
    "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >
    >>
    >> "Ooh, a phone mast, we'll all get cancer..!"
    >>
    >> I think "bollocks" is the polite term.
    >>

    >
    >As the bloke on the BBC said..
    >
    >their are two ways mobiles can effect your health..


    three...

    >you can worry yourself to death about the effects.
    >
    >you can crash your car while using a mobile.


    and...
    You can choke to death when forced to eat it for shouting loudly "Yah,
    I'm in a train.... no a TRAIN.... I'll be home in ten mins... was
    there any post?"
    --
    Mark McIntyre



  3. #18
    Tim Dunne
    Guest

    Re: say no to wifi and mobi's

    "Mark McIntyre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > and...
    > You can choke to death when forced to eat it for shouting loudly "Yah,
    > I'm in a train.... no a TRAIN.... I'll be home in ten mins... was
    > there any post?"


    Not choke, rather suffer acute anal beleding.

    Tim
    --
    Sent from Birmingham, UK... Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
    'I find sometimes it's easy to be myself, but sometimes I find it's
    better to be somebody else.' - Dave Matthews 'So Much To Say'
    My 'reply to' address is valid, mail to the posting address is dumped





  4. #19
    Lenny
    Guest

    Re: say no to wifi and mobi's

    On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:25:10 +0100, Gordon Hudson wrote:

    >
    > "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472140.ece <<
    >> A recent authoritative Finnish study has found that people who have used
    >> mobiles for more than ten years are 40 per cent more likely to get a
    >> brain tumour on the same side of the head as they hold their handset;
    >> Swedish research suggests that the risk is almost four times as great.
    >> And further research from Sweden claims that the radiation kills off
    >> brain cells, which could lead to today's younger generation going senile
    >> in their forties and fifties.
    >>>>
    >>>>

    > If that was the case then police officers from the late 60's onwards would
    > already have shown these symptoms having been exposed to much more RF from
    > handheld UHF radios over the years.


    Is it a case of 2 apples + 3 oranges= 7 bananas?

    > I am sure someone would have tried sueing for damages if they had
    > contracted an illness from such exposure.


    I can't believe anyone hasn't.

    > I do not know of any cases like that.


    Do you know everything.

    > I do know of one in the US
    > resulting from exposure to police radar guns in the 70's but thats a
    > different ball game completely.


    So you are saying that 2 apples + 3 oranges <> 7 bananas

    Make your mind up.




  5. #20
    Lenny
    Guest

    Re: say no to wifi and mobi's

    On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:19:20 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:

    > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:19:11 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > |!http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472140.ece !<<
    > |!A recent authoritative Finnish study has found that people who have used
    > |!mobiles for more than ten years are 40 per cent more likely to get a
    > |brain !tumour on the same side of the head as they hold their handset;
    > |Swedish !research suggests that the risk is almost four times as great.
    > |And further !research from Sweden claims that the radiation kills off
    > |brain cells, !which could lead to today's younger generation going senile
    > |in their !forties and fifties.
    > |!>>
    >
    > Yet another example of misreported science by scientifically illiterate
    > reporters.
    >
    > If the basic incidence of brain tumours is 1:1000, as it probably is, then
    > your increased risk is 0.4 in 1000, which is probably quite acceptable to
    > some after doing a cost benefit analysis.


    No, the above is about a correlation with which side of your head you hold
    the phone on.

    > If the damn reporter were able to understand the original research paper
    > it would all be there.


    Yeah, right.



  6. #21
    Lenny
    Guest

    Re: say no to wifi and mobi's

    On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:02:50 +0100, Harry wrote:

    >
    > "Dave Fawthrop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:19:11 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> |!http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472140.ece !<<
    >> |!A recent authoritative Finnish study has found that people who have
    >> |used !mobiles for more than ten years are 40 per cent more likely to
    >> |get a
    >> brain
    >> |!tumour on the same side of the head as they hold their handset;
    >> |Swedish !research suggests that the risk is almost four times as great.
    >> |And
    >> further
    >> |!research from Sweden claims that the radiation kills off brain cells,
    >> |!which could lead to today's younger generation going senile in their
    >> |!forties and fifties.
    >> |!>>
    >>
    >> Yet another example of misreported science by scientifically illiterate
    >> reporters.
    >>
    >> If the basic incidence of brain tumours is 1:1000, as it probably is,
    >> then your increased risk is 0.4 in 1000, which is probably quite
    >> acceptable to some after doing a cost benefit analysis.
    >>
    >> If the damn reporter were able to understand the original research paper
    >> it
    >> would all be there.

    >
    > I wonder how many people tripped and died on the two cups and a string


    You misunderstand also.





  7. #22
    Lenny
    Guest

    Re: say no to wifi and mobi's

    On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:02:47 +0100, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

    >
    > "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472140.ece <<
    >> A recent authoritative Finnish study has found that people who have used
    >> mobiles for more than ten years are 40 per cent more likely to get a
    >> brain tumour on the same side of the head as they hold their handset;
    >> Swedish research suggests that the risk is almost four times as great.
    >> And further research from Sweden claims that the radiation kills off
    >> brain cells, which could lead to today's younger generation going senile
    >> in their forties and fifties.
    >>>>
    >>>>

    >>

    > Oh you again.
    >
    > Do you remember the reply last time: -
    >
    > Literally a handful died of brain neoplasms in the UK in 1992 (essentially
    > before mobiles became widespread) and most of them were over 80.
    >
    > Even a doubling would not be statistically significant, any more than the
    > numbers killed by lightening.
    >
    > OTOH the circumstantial evidence was that you actually have one of these
    > tumours and it is seriously impairing your thought processes.


    Ignorant people like resort to adhominem attacks.





  8. #23

    Re: say no to wifi and mobi's

    On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:19:48 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >No, the above is about a correlation with which side of your head you hold
    >the phone on.


    No, it isn't. It was a correlation with people reporting which side
    they held the phone on. The actual figures showed that the side you
    hold the phone on gets a higher than normal rate, and the other side
    gets a lower than normal rate. Add the figures together and you get
    the normal rate.

    Whilst it is just possible that a phone on the other side of a head
    could prevent tumours, it is vastly more likely that people
    (mis)reported using a phone on the side that got the growth.

    But you have an irrational bee in your bonnet about this, and will not
    listen or think about it. As ever.


    --

    Iain
    the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
    http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
    Browse now while stocks last!



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12