Important

Post Reply New Topic

Mobile phone towers are often sited in heavily built up, urban areas, next to roads, and in areas that would be likely to have "cancer clusters" anyway.

This isn't to say I don't believe people should be more careful with mobile phones, and I certainly don't think children should be talking on them every day (Or even every week, for that matter), but as responsible adults, we have the ability to make an informed decision about mobile phone use - does their usefulness outweigh their risk?

We do not need to be certain the public is being put at risk to take action. We need to have a probability, and we do, but as authorities noted, unlike other public safety concerns, cell phone laws say a city may not consider health effects when deciding whether or not to approve a cell tower. Their hands are directly tied.

Ultimatly the question isn't "Should you be able to make an informed decision?"

Instead, it is "Should the general public be exposed to health risks without their consent?"

You can fry your brain if you want, but your cell tower shouldn't put others at risk against their will.

I don't own a cellular phone. This is largely for economic reasons, though. I can't think of many situations where I'd actually need one, and the few situations where it would come in handy don't merit a hefty monthly fee.

I think that the article you referred to is propaganda. Don't reply to this. I don't want to play the 'You're wrong'...'No you're wrong' game. I'm just trying to show you that I think the evidence you are using is false.

Propaganda:
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

Since this isn't animal farm, and I don't get to change the meaning of words, I conceed that the definition of propaganda is too broad to say that what I posted isn't propaganda.

However, it is still logical in my opinion, being technically propaganda or not, it should concern those who read.


Well.. Bec, I don't know what to say.

But I do think it is fair that I should have the opportunity to respond.


Okay.


How did you do that with your post?

Scientists' opinions are divided. Some say cell phones increase a person's possibility of getting cancer and other's say they don't. You just have to take the evidence for what it is worth. This is all I am saying. I believe that the people who get cancer and use cell phones, were probably going to get cancer anyways.

Evidence that doesn't agree with someone's personal beliefs is always propaganda.

I think you took what I said the wrong way. I absolutely think that everyone should get the opportunity to say what they want. We are never going to agree about this, so I just meant that we shouldn't waste our time arguing.

Well, I posted my propaganda of the definition of propaganda on the last post.



I don't understand why we can't agree, if sufficient evidence is presented, because if you really desire the truth, and I do, too, and the truth is then presented, then we should be able to agree. Am I missing something?

It is important to note that I am not saying that we must have undesputable evidence cellphones contribute to the rise in cancer, but I am saying that if there is a reasonable percentage of probability, then we shouldn't be endangering the people who live near cell towers, and can't (or shouldn't have to) get away to be free of the danger, or health risks.

Think about it this way;

If a cell tower was going to be erected just 1/4 of a mile away from your house, and every time you got near cell towers you got a headache and had trouble sleeping, would it be right for you to have no say in whether or not that cell tower goes up? (It is a fact that cell towers do this to certain people.)

Or, should you have no say in whether the tower went up, even if there was a 35% chance that the cell tower would increase your risk of prostate cancer, breast cancer, and lukemia by 500-700%?

Should you even be put in a position to have to fight this potential threat to your health?

Do you and I have any moral responsibility towards those that big businesses have lobbied succesfully to put at risk?

I feel that a boycott is in order.

I never said that cell phones don't contribute to cancer. There just isn't enough clear evidence either way. Have you read reports that say cell phones don't cause cancer? You might want to, because there is evidence that they don't.

What I mean by propaganda is this: When reporting evidence and results of tests, scientists 9or anyone) have a tendency to omit that evidence that does not support their argument. You have to read all different views on the matter before calling an opinion fact.

Bec, it seems that you are starting to understand where I am coming from. Do you see what I am saying about the risks and public health? As long as there is a chance that there are ANY health risks, cancer or otherwise, measures should be taken to ensure public safety.

I don't have to prove against all doubt that cell phones are dangerous.

Again, the dangers are real enough that the general public should not have forced exposure.



And did you notice who funded and manipulated those studies? The industry makes it's own studies, and do you think those would be in any way biased?



Bec, that is the beggining of understanding, but you have neglected to note that some studies are junk... Are you aware of industry's inclination to hire scientists to construe reality? Sad, but true.

That's why "independent studies" are so important.

But, none of this is relevent to my main point. See my last post for more clarity.

I always understood where you were coming from. I just don't agree. There isn't enough evidence either way! There is risk in everything. Getting rid of something just because there may be risk involved (and there is no solid proof) seems to be extremely paranoid.

There is no evidence that cell phones actually cause cancer so why do you have such a problem with them?

Here, I will use your argument on another topic: On average, 114 people die in car crashes every day in the US. Should we get rid of cars just because there is risk involved? According to your argument about cell phones, driving a car should be illegal.



Have you ever thought that there are also scientists out there who would just like to screw over the cell phone companies? Therefore they also construe reality.



Umm...did you read my original post. I actually referenced where I got my evidence from. Let me post this again: The INDEPENDENT Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers has found that mobile phone radiation levels are well within the acceptable minimums for exposure.

I got this information at http://www.cancer.org:

Cell phones DO NOT emit ionizing radiation, the type that damages DNA and is known to have the ability to cause cancer.

These are the results (also found at http://www.cancer.org) of experiments done to link cell phone use to brain cancer:

First, the patients with brain cancer did not report more cellular phone use overall than the controls. This finding was true when all brain cancers were considered as a group, when individual types of brain cancer were considered, and when specific locations within the brain were considered. In fact, most of the studies showed a tendency toward lower risk of brain cancer among cellular phone uses, for unclear reasons.

Second, none of the studies showed a "dose-response relationship" - a tendency for the risk of brain cancer to increase with increasing cellular phone use, which would be expected if cellular phone use caused brain cancer.

Third, the studies did not show a clear link between the side of the head on which the brain cancer occurred and the side on which the cellular phone was used (with the possible exception of the Swedish study).

These are also the results found at http://www.cancer.org:

The FCC issued a statement in October 1999 in response to media assertions that some mobile phones exceed the maximum level of emitted radiation permitted. Claiming support from the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the FCC stated that its guidelines "already incorporate a large margin of safety between allowed levels of exposure and exposure thresholds that have been identified with known adverse health effects." The excess levels of exposure reported by the media were "well within that safety margin, and, therefore, there is no indication of any immediate threat to human health from these phones." The FCC is currently undertaking new research to verify the safety of RF levels emitted from mobile phones (FCC, 1999).

A recent consumer information document issued jointly by the FDA and FCC reaches the same conclusions:

"The available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones. There is no proof, however, that wireless phones are absolutely safe. Wireless phones emit low levels of radiofrequency energy (RF) in the microwave range while being used. They also emit very low levels of RF when in the stand-by mode. Whereas high levels of RF can produce health effects (by heating tissue), exposure to low level RF that does not produce heating effects causes no known adverse health effects. Many studies of low level RF exposures have not found any biological effects. Some studies have suggested that some biological effects may occur, but such findings have not been confirmed by additional research. In some cases, other researchers have had difficulty in reproducing those studies, or in determining the reasons for inconsistent results." (FDA, 2003)

Actually there hasn't been any link between cell phones and any health problem:

To date, no claims have been made that cell phones are responsible for any other health problems (FCC, 1999). A small epidemiologic study from Germany found an association between uveal melanoma (a rare form of eye cancer) and exposure to mobile phones and other RF-transmitting devices, but this has not yet been examined in other studies (Stang, 2001). However, evidence has shown that the use of cell phones while driving increases the risk of automobile crashes (Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997; NHTSA, 1998). Another concern, without much evidence one way or the other, is that cellular phones may interfere with medical electronic devices such as pacemakers and insulin pumps.

I'm sorry, 1PeaceMaker, but I got all of this information at the webiste of the American Cancer Society. This is not cell phone companies trying to save their own butts. I assume that a cancer website would have the correct information.

Bec, you are talking about cell phone use. I am not. Use your darn cell phone if ya like. It's your choice.

I've been talking about the TOWERS.

They also have other effects besides cancer. Those other effects are a proven disruption to human health.

If you have any questions about the phones themselves, put a sheild on 'em. But it's the towers, Bec, the TOWERS.

You know, those big things beaming crap through your window?

Did you know that there are a billion things that could harm you more than cell phone towers? There are more things you could (and probably should) be worrying about. Today, you are more likely to get cancer from breathing. I am not exaggerating. You are more likely to get lung cancer from air pollution, than getting cancer from a cell phone tower.

Cell phones are evil. Just trap them all within a concrete building and release and EMP to disable them all or instead just set them alight.

You think those things are more harmful than cell phones, and you say so, in the absence of supporting research. Whatever.

So lets just put more garbadge into our bodies. If we can handle some, we can handle a lot more.

Fortunetly for me, I live in the country. There are few emmissions from towers in my area now, but what about if others in the area want cell phone reception in my area? We came to the country to get away from that stuff, already!

I am not going to get cancer from anything, because I will do whatever it takes to stay healthy. Just try to think about other people and carpool, etc. I try to think of your health, after all.

BTW, You are still hung up on cancer, like there is nothing else to consider! Some people have allergic reactions to EM frequencies!

I hear ya. I hope people wake up, and soon.