Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41
  1. #21  
    Good Point NTaylor,
    The Irrelevant Police aught to move this to Treo General Chat
  2. #22  
    Nothing to do with the OS at all.
  3. sledgie's Avatar
    Posts
    497 Posts
    Global Posts
    501 Global Posts
    #23  
    but, a point to add: i just looked up a few bluetooth headsets and most of them are around the 0.02 range
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by ntaylor
    This is an interesting conversation--really--and having had a number of friends of family who are either dead due to cancer or cancer survivors, I don't mean to make light of Monk's disease or recovery, but all the same, what does this have to do with a Windows Mobile Treo as opposed to any other cell phone?
    I don't think anyone said it did affect the Windows Mobile Treo as opposed to any other. They probably posted here because this is the most active of the treocentral forums. Can't see why there is a need for 'forum police'. Surely people can skip posts they aren't interested in.
  5. #25  
    Bluetooth is your friend (or a long headset cord). Who knows, perhaps an OS can be used to reduce risk by managing the radio differently. (figured I'd take a stab at making the thread more on topic for the forum ).

    If the phone is ever carried on my body, it's turned off now. Is everybody going to get cancer? No. But every environmental factor adds some risk. Smoking, living near high-power electric lines, sitting in the sun too long, too many xrays, can all increase our risk. I still use my treo all the time. When I was first diagnosed, I was ready to get rid of the treo for a one-way beeper (without transmitter).

    I think that studies will eventually show that certain cells are more susceptible to environment than others and that if you are higher risk, these environmental factors should be reduced.

    PS: I consider myself fortunate -- testicular cancer now has about a 99% overall cure rate. In the 1970s, the cure rate was less than 10%. Anybody who thinks there has been no progress in the fight against cancer need only look at the cancers where tremendous gains have been made.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by bilbo__baggins
    I don't think anyone said it did affect the Windows Mobile Treo as opposed to any other. They probably posted here because this is the most active of the treocentral forums. Can't see why there is a need for 'forum police'. Surely people can skip posts they aren't interested in.
    I thought so too, but...
    I was recently enjoying a thread that was mostly banter and the forum police thought that it might hurt the feelings of a newbie and killed it under the premise that is was not relevant. I was just taking a jab at them and the prejudicial enforcement of policy.
    Oh yah, I will also say that I like this thread and don't mind that it is in the wrong forum.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by Dafydd
    Good Point NTaylor,
    The Irrelevant Police aught to move this to Treo General Chat
    <moved>
  8. #28  
    Going by this, I should either be dead or a Lizard by now. I have had a cell phone for over half my life (wow I am getting old) and I estimate I have used around 1,000,000 minutes of airtime. My kids turned out OK. The doc has noticed nothing. I am not sick very much.

    More people die from smoking, drunk driving, handguns, and landmines then could ever be connected to radio waves. The human race has been getting bombarded by different types of radiation since the beginning of time. A cell phone in the pocket is not very much different than an antenna on a bulding. The antenna has more power than the phone by a magnitude of 20.

    I will agree with you that cell phones are dangerous. They are the number one componet in traffic accidents aside from the cars themselves. Maybe a little cancer will help us from killing eachother with our cars because we are not paying enough attention when were driving!

    Derek
  9. #29  
    I wonder…
    If it is ever proven unequivocally that radio waves from cell phone do increase the chance of gene damage or cancer, then they might be able to continue business as usual providing cell phone get a Surgeon General warning. The problem would be the cell tower transceivers.
    Computerfixitguy pointed out that cell transceivers have a power magnitude of 20 compared to phones. This of course is diminished by the inverse square law. So the magnitude 20 is relative to the distance at which it was measured. But even so, if it is even equal to a cell phone at the average metropolitan distance then they have a huge liability problem. A single law suite lost would bring the entire industry down.
    Perhaps this is why they are moving towards ultra high, ultra light, robot plane transceivers. At 100K/ft the radio bombardment would be even and tiny. It might be the same as electric appliances. And it would be very hard to establish a causal relationship.
    Any how I’m just wondering out loud. Well not actually out loud, unless the noise of the keyboard counts.

    PS
    Glad I pointed out that this needed to be moved before any real damage was done.
  10. mgauss's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    745 Global Posts
       #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by computerfixitguy
    Going by this, I should either be dead or a Lizard by now. I have had a cell phone for over half my life (wow I am getting old) and I estimate I have used around 1,000,000 minutes of airtime. My kids turned out OK. The doc has noticed nothing. I am not sick very much.

    Derek
    This is the kind of irrelevant thinking that mimicks "half of all gun shots to the head result in no permanent damage...meaning guns are not dangerous, from a conclusive standpoint."

    Population studies over time is what matters. They are the realm of the epidemiologist. The problem is that the Cellular Industry is so busy not funding independent studies and defending lawsuits...even marketing cell phones to children now. When the study comes out, heck there are already over a billion cell phones out there.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by computerfixitguy
    Going by this, I should either be dead or a Lizard by now. I have had a cell phone for over half my life (wow I am getting old) and I estimate I have used around 1,000,000 minutes of airtime. My kids turned out OK. The doc has noticed nothing. I am not sick very much.
    My grandfather smoked his whole life, was an alcoholic too, and yet lived until he was in his late 80's.

    These risk factors are more about increasing the odds of developing cancer. I suspect that if there is a risk from mobile phones it's probably a heck of a lot lower than the risk from smoking. On the other hand, it's worth being aware of potential risks and minimising them where possible.
  12. mgauss's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    745 Global Posts
       #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by bilbo__baggins
    My grandfather smoked his whole life, was an alcoholic too, and yet lived until he was in his late 80's.
    If there is a 10% increase in cancer risk to children say to Leukemia, (which kills 1/3 of victims), in the USA you'd be looking at an extra 1,000 dead children per year. 1,000 deaths that could have been avoided. If the risk is triple (as reported by Time Magazine on power lines in 1991), visualize 30,000 dead children in a morgue.

    There are 70 million children in the USA, so its not like all will die. Small consolation.

    That is why studies are important. Studies for cigarettes took 50 years to acknowledge...to get out conclusively. The non-ionizing EMF industry (power lines, cell phones) is 500 times larger than the cigarette industries. Imagine their power.

    Personally I know that 50 years from now we will all be amazed at how we had EMFs in 5,000 frequencies (500 TV channels, etc.) all over the place. Like shoe salesmen who used X ray machines to measure children's feet at stores 40 years ago.

    Probably all those signals will be replaced by infrared light or ultra low radiation signals (the Russian safety standards are 100 times lower than ours.)
  13. #33  
    I was always under the impression that the newer phones on the market couldn't lay a finger to the "pre-digital" phones of the 80's and 90's, in terms of levels of radiations....
    Somebody....anybody........................Don't let Dr. Doom spill his Kool-Aid on his brand new "perrywinkle" sweater vest!!!
  14. #34  
    Agreed! It took 50 years to quantify the risks related to smoking, albeit people were hacking up thier lungs long before that; their lungs were black, and it was a bit more obvious that smoking was not a good thing.

    The electrical industry certainly has more ability to not get focused on by studies because of their size. EMF from powerlines I don't want near schools either, but I have no evidence to confirm anything. Eventually there will be enough statistics that may clearly point out cell phones have some negative affect on humanity, but I would wager something.

    There are more than 1 billion cell phones and we still cannot connect them to anything harmful in a reliable or predictable way. There are however more than 2 billion smokers and we can say that hundreds of thousands, more than 10%, are going to suffer in some form or another without argument. If there were only 10,000 phones it would be more difficult to decipher, but there are so many phones, not including celluar devices that are not phones. Tens of thousands of people should be ailing, not the 2 or 3 that claim brain tumors near their ear. This does not take any bearing from the hugely important scientific fact that since I am not sick nobody else will be. Mgauss, I was just saying earlier that I am a good candidate for radiation damage because I use my phone so much, nearly 80,000 minutes this year alone. The liklihood of myself getting a condition is considerably higher than people who find their cell battery big enough.

    I am going to get flamed for this. The leading cause of illness and death is Oxygen, we all breathe it and we all get sick and die someday. I predict we will lose more to war than to cell phone radiation over the next 50 years unless a nuke is used.

    Derek
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by computerfixitguy
    There are more than 1 billion cell phones and we still cannot connect them to anything harmful in a reliable or predictable way.
    No flames. I hope that with modern science we are in a better position to prove if it was harmful now than people were when they started researching the dangers of smoking. The fact that most research into mobile phones has found nothing too serious so far is a promising sign. However, I'm always keeping half an eye on the news just in case...
  16. #36  
    As a RF designer working with engineers at Intel and Broadcom, I can definitely say that keeping the phone away from highly sensitive regions of the body is best - especially 'private areas' that don't have a lot of muscle mass.

    I carry my Treo in side-leg pockets on pants/shorts, and NEVER keep it any closer than 3 ft. away from my person while at work or home just to be safe.

    Nowadays RF engineers do a lot to add RF isolation and grounding schemes to minimize leakage. It's MUCH better nowadays than it was even 10 years ago.

    Bluetooth is ok as an safety approach, but also know that even low levels of extended exposure to RF at the head is still exposure, so take the headset off when you're not using it.

    Greg

    unlocked/unbranded GSM / T-Mobile.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by siriusbliss
    As a RF designer working with engineers at Intel and Broadcom, I can definitely say that keeping the phone away from highly sensitive regions of the body is best - especially 'private areas' that don't have a lot of muscle mass.

    I carry my Treo in side-leg pockets on pants/shorts, and NEVER keep it any closer than 3 ft. away from my person while at work or home just to be safe.

    Nowadays RF engineers do a lot to add RF isolation and grounding schemes to minimize leakage. It's MUCH better nowadays than it was even 10 years ago.

    Bluetooth is ok as an safety approach, but also know that even low levels of extended exposure to RF at the head is still exposure, so take the headset off when you're not using it.

    Greg

    unlocked/unbranded GSM / T-Mobile.
    Interesting. Do your colleagues have a similar attitude? This reminds me of when I was looking into laser eye correction, and discovered the web site called 'i know why refractive surgeons wear glasses'...
  18. mgauss's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    745 Global Posts
       #38  
    The radiation that comes from the tip of the antenna is a cousin of the microwave radiation we cook pasta with. In fact, SAR is a measure of the temperature rise inside a bowling size ball full of jelly that simulates a cranium.

    So there. That should bring comfort. I have no doubt in 50 years a statement like that will be followed by "the cancers of the early 21st century, when brain cancer became an epidemic (started already) were caused by 2 billion RF emitters marketed in the early part of the century."
  19. #39  
    eh. Cell phone companies are too big and powerful. IF there is a link, we'll never "officially" hear about it, and nothing will ever be done about it.

    We're still using gasoline.
  20. sledgie's Avatar
    Posts
    497 Posts
    Global Posts
    501 Global Posts
    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by siriusbliss
    I carry my Treo in side-leg pockets on pants/shorts, and NEVER keep it any closer than 3 ft. away from my person while at work or home just to be safe.
    Greg
    3 feet! that's like, halfway across the room ! i'm going to have to remember this... seems like very few things are > 3 ft from my reach. in a car that's almost on the passenger window!
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions