You might well be right, Charlie. However, there is bound to be a range of
results based purely on the different handsets that there are. There again I
should expect a sparsely served population like that in the USA to see more
results than in the UK where there are more masts per square mile (I should
guess) and therefore less power required from each handset.
But, this is a review instituted by the British Government rather than a report
from a long-term analysis, as I understand it, and I’ll wait to see what they
come up with — just hoping that there is no bias caused by commercial interests
. . .
Chris
p.s. good luck to your daughter :-)
On 5 Jun 2014, at 16:29, Charles Geilfuss <charles.geilfuss@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well there are lot of things that cause me to lose sleep at night (the
> diagnosis I made yesterday that will cause someone to lose a limb, my
> teenage daughter starting to drive, etc.), but dying from cell phone
> induced cancer is not one of them. For a number of reasons:
>
> 1. the lowest energy ionizing radiation (ultraviolet light) known to
> cause DNA damage is about one and a half orders of magnitude more energetic
> than cell phone emanations.
>
> 2. the very fact that they have had to look so hard for so long and
> have still found no increased risk tells me that if there is an increased
> risk it is so small as to be negligible; i.e. the increased risk is likely
> multiple orders of magnitude below your risk of dying every time you take
> your car out into traffic.
>
> 3. if there is a risk, you would think that after 20 some odd years of
> widespread cell phone usage we would be seeing an increase in the rate of
> brain tumors, salivary gland tumors, etc. There has been no increase.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|