[ RadSafe ] Re: More on cell phones
garyi at trinityphysics.com
garyi at trinityphysics.com
Thu Dec 31 18:30:05 CST 2009
Hi Mike,
I reread your post below and found almost nothing that I disagree with. I must still be mulling
over the global warming thread from a few days back, which I dropped to enjoy Christmas but
still had strong disagreement with you on some of your posted points. That plus headlines
like this:
"Maine to consider cancer warnings on cell phones"
have made me a litle touchy on bogus science turned into legislation. Sorry I got my wires
crossed.
-Gary
On 31 Dec 2009 at 11:24, Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:
Hi, Roy.
I have no problem with your contention that the problem is not cell
phones, but people multitasking beyond their abilities to do so safely.
If people want to sit on a park bench and yak on their cell phones all
day every day, I care not at all. I believe that the clear risk with
cell phones is in the multitasking, and that because of the nature of
the human mind and communications, the cell phone conversation is often
given more attention than is safe. As to quantifying the risk; that
would be hard, and not precise, but the risk is, I contend, large
compared to most other things people worry about (it is, for example a
great many orders of magnitude greater than the risk from depleted
uranium).
There is a clear public health benefit from cell phones being common,
and that is the ability to summon emergency aid, almost anywhere, almost
instantly. I have several members of my extended family whose lives
were saved or life-altering damage prevented because of cell phones and
top quality emergency services. I also know many people who use
wireless communications to make their lives easier and more productive
(though I know more who simply waste a lot of time and/or money).
Again, quantifying the benefits would be hard and imprecise.
And I can live with that. My formative years were spent in the
Submarine Community, in weapons in particular, and one of our saying was
"A good enough answer now is better than a perfect answer too late." If
the data that is available in a reasonable amount of time and at a
reasonable price has big error bars; oh, well. You go with what you've
got. For me, with cell phones, that leads me to believe that whether or
not the electro-magnetic energy can harm you, the real danger is kinetic
energy in general, rapid deceleration in particular.
From: ROY HERREN [mailto:royherren2005 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:34 AM
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); RADSAFE
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: More on cell phones
Mike,
It seems that you are espousing the philosophy of Risk vs Benefit in
regards to cell phone usage. Which implies that there is a known Risk
associated with usage of the cell phones (of which I am convinced,
although not necessarily because of non-ionizing radiation exposure...I
am more concerned about our over estimation of our ability to
multitask). Given what we currently know, can the health Risk from
non-ionizing radiation cell phone exposure be quantified? Other than by
the process of "gut check", how would one numerically quantify the
Benefits of cell phone usage? If as of today we can't quantify either
the Risk or the Benefit, what can we say scientifically speaking about
cell phone usage? Err on the side of caution?
My apologies, but today I have more questions than answers.
Roy Herren
________________________________
From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
To: RADSAFE <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 8:48:10 AM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: More on cell phones
Heating from electromagnetic is clearly demonstrated, such as every time
someone uses a microwave. Heat, in turn, can break chemical bonds,
which is the whole point of cooking. HOWEVER, there is a rather
important quantity factor that must be considered. If one drops ten
tons of sand ten feet onto a pane of glass, it will break. This does
not imply that if one drop a grain of sand per minute, with the wind
blowing some or all of the sand off of the glass, that there is a good
reason to think the glass is in danger.
My brother-in-law was asking me about this topic at Christmas. I told
him what I tell the public, and what I practice myself: If you want to
decrease your risk associated with cell phones, only use them when you
actually have something worthwhile to communicate, and never when you
are doing something that needs your attention.
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Mike Quastel
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 7:47 AM
To: Steven Dapra
Cc: RADSAFE; Susan Gawarecki
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: More on cell phones
I agree that no significant clinical effects have yet been found with
microwaves and with cell phones, and I certainly am against the hype
on the subject. To be the devil's advocate, however, there appears to
be some local heating to the part of the brain adjacent to the cell
phone, the biomedical significance of which is not clear. As is well
known, manifestation of the carcinogenic effects of ionizing
radiation can be delayed many years, even as many as 25 years after
the initial exposure. How long have cell phones been around - maybe
10? It would therefore be wise to reserve judgement on the long term
consequences of cell phone use and to encourage the use of earphones
for those who use cellphones intensely.
Mike Quastel MD PhD (Nuc Med)
On Dec 31, 2009, at 4:12 AM, Steven Dapra wrote:
> Dec. 30
>
> Thank you for posting this, Susan.
>
> Here is a link to an article by Prof. Park in Forbes about
> Brodeur and his claim that EMFs cause leukemia, etc., etc. http://
> www.electrowarmth.com/emf.php
>
> Steven Dapra
>
>
> At 04:25 PM 12/30/2009, Susan Gawarecki wrote:
>> Below is a physicist's take on the issue. Bob Park takes no
>> prisoners!
>>
>> --Susan Gawarecki
>>
>> >From Bob Park's "What's New" 25 Dec 09:
>>
>> 2. WARNING! CELL PHONES ARE FOUND TO EMIT BULLSH*T.
>> >From San Francisco to Maine there is a campaign to require cancer
>> warning
>> labels on cell phones. Fact: cell phone radiation doesn't cause
>> cancer.
>> Cancer agents break chemical bonds, creating mutant strands of DNA.
>> Microwave photons cannot break chemical bonds. This is not
>> debatable. In
>> 1989, Paul Brodeur, a staff writer for the New Yorker, claimed in
>> a series
>> of sensational articles that electromagnetic fields from power
>> lines cause
>> childhood leukemia http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN89/
>> wn082589.html .
>> Brodeur, however, understood none of this and when virtually every
>> scientist agreed that it was impossible, Brodeur took their
>> unanimity as
>> proof of a massive cover-up. Other anti-science know-nothings
>> followed
>> Brodeur's lead, shifting their attack to cell phone radiation.
>> Cell phones
>> have since spread to almost the entire population, but with no
>> corresponding increase in brain cancer. Case closed.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://
> radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other
> settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe
rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list