How unsafe is cellular radiation really?

jannievanzyl said:
The 'speculation' continues because most people don't bother to read the studies and get taken in by alarmists who well know they can make any arbitrary claim and no-one is actually going to read the studies to check their claims.

All the studies are on-line, so there's no excuse other than not bothering.
Click to expand...

really? tell us seeing as you have read all the studies who funded most of those studies? :rolleyes:
 
Jannie we all know you are on the cell phone side which is natural
i have read a few but i am still not convinced of the safety of cell phones
Time will tell who is right and who is wrong
 
Allin said:
Living in itself is a dangerous exercise!

In any case, in SA your chances of being killed in a traffic accident or at the hand of a murderer are much higher than being killed by your cell phone.

Sending text messages or browsing while driving are likelier to kill you than driving by the towers while you're holding it to your ear yapping away.
Click to expand...
I've heard such arguments before, but that doesn't make them any more valid.
 
This is 911 do you have an emergency ? . . . . or do most still run to a non working vandalized phone booth ? ? ?

Just phoning persons to where he/she is so that I can pick him/she up already saved me several visits to the heart doctor !
 
FNfal said:
Jannie we all know you are on the cell phone side which is natural
i have read a few but i am still not convinced of the safety of cell phones
Time will tell who is right and who is wrong
Click to expand...

You're completely mistaken. It's not about which SIDE you're on. And it should never be.

Science don't take sides. The scientific method is exactly there to ensure emotion and personal agendas are removed from the process.

So, read the papers. Read the peer-reviews on the papers. Read the studies that study the studies. There are thousands published over decades.

And then make up your own mind. But please don't get taken in by people that make up their own causal relationships without employing any scientific process whatsoever.

"My trees are black. MTN is testing LTE. They must be related somehow."

This gets turned into a headline that reads "Scorched tree poser for cellphone giant".

See the problem? Sensationalism without any science to back it up. Just a number of people who decided the one must somehow be related to the other. And none of them are actual scientists.
 
jannievanzyl said:
You're completely mistaken. It's not about which SIDE you're on. And it should never be.

Science don't take sides. The scientific method is exactly there to ensure emotion and personal agendas are removed from the process.

So, read the papers. Read the peer-reviews on the papers. Read the studies that study the studies. There are thousands published over decades.

And then make up your own mind. But please don't get taken in by people that make up their own causal relationships without employing any scientific process whatsoever.

"My trees are black. MTN is testing LTE. They must be related somehow."

This gets turned into a headline that reads "Scorched tree poser for cellphone giant".

See the problem? Sensationalism without any science to back it up. Just a number of people who decided the one must somehow be related to the other. And none of them are actual scientists.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are still a bit unhappy that the Dorny crowd removed your iBurst tower.(lol)

Nevertheless, most scientific studies cost a bomb, so we're back to money again. Where does the money come from? Companies and lobbyists for those companies and those with vested interest in finding a particular result. Sometimes the lack of a study is also beneficial when they want to claim there is no scientific evidence for a negative result.
 
Mr Feynman on pseudoscience [video=youtube;HtMX_0jDsrw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMX_0jDsrw[/video]
 
Lounger said:
It sounds like you are still a bit unhappy that the Dorny crowd removed your iBurst tower.(lol)

Nevertheless, most scientific studies cost a bomb, so we're back to money again. Where does the money come from? Companies and lobbyists for those companies and those with vested interest in finding a particular result. Sometimes the lack of a study is also beneficial when they want to claim there is no scientific evidence for a negative result.
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter who funded it. Scientific study provides facts. The truth. Regardless of who funds the study.
 
Lounger said:
Like they did with global warming? Eh?
Click to expand...

Hal, you do realise you just highlighted your ignorance with that statement and proved that urban lengends and/or conspiracy theories are seemingly sexier to some than to do the actual reading yourself?
 
jannievanzyl said:
Hal, you do realise you just highlighted your ignorance with that statement and proved that urban lengends and/or conspiracy theories are seemingly sexier to some than to do the actual reading yourself?
Click to expand...

You can read as well as I can:

Both sides of the controversy have argued that access to funding has played a role in the willingness of credentialed experts to speak out.

Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Foundation gave Willie Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon, acknowledging that he received this money, stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research."[184]
Click to expand...
Wiki

There's a whole lot about Dr. Willie Soon.
 
Lounger said:
You can read as well as I can:

Wiki

There's a whole lot about Dr. Willie Soon.
Click to expand...

I see you fell into the same trap as so many others trying to fit the evidence to their specific viewpoints.

If you read the rest of the Wikipedia piece you quoted, and not just the paragraph that supports your views that industry controls the studies, you would've noticed how well the peer-review process worked.

Soon published a flawed paper and his peers took him to task. In others words, the process works fine. He did not get away with it, even if it was unintentional.

And just like with some nutters trying to use a single, flawed report to prove their own views but ignoring the countless other studies showing the opposite, you hang onto this one example but shoot all the others down as "industry funded" and therefore somehow exempt from peer review?

Rather flawed login you exhibit there, you'll agree.
 
jannievanzyl said:
I see you fell into the same trap as so many others trying to fit the evidence to their specific viewpoints.

If you read the rest of the Wikipedia piece you quoted, and not just the paragraph that supports your views that industry controls the studies, you would've noticed how well the peer-review process worked.

Soon published a flawed paper and his peers took him to task. In others words, the process works fine. He did not get away with it, even if it was unintentional.

And just like with some nutters trying to use a single, flawed report to prove their own views but ignoring the countless other studies showing the opposite, you hang onto this one example but shoot all the others down as "industry funded" and therefore somehow exempt from peer review?

Rather flawed login you exhibit there, you'll agree.
Click to expand...


Jannie, it's called confirmation bias and it usually rears it's ugly head when emotion and / or faith is involved.
 
jannievanzyl said:
I see you fell into the same trap as so many others trying to fit the evidence to their specific viewpoints.

If you read the rest of the Wikipedia piece you quoted, and not just the paragraph that supports your views that industry controls the studies, you would've noticed how well the peer-review process worked.

Soon published a flawed paper and his peers took him to task. In others words, the process works fine. He did not get away with it, even if it was unintentional.

And just like with some nutters trying to use a single, flawed report to prove their own views but ignoring the countless other studies showing the opposite, you hang onto this one example but shoot all the others down as "industry funded" and therefore somehow exempt from peer review?

Rather flawed login you exhibit there, you'll agree.
Click to expand...
The peer review worked so well, they had to resign to prove their point - which actually disproves yours :D

As I've demonstrated, companies will spend a fortune on research to get their own viewpoint accepted. The smoking lobby is another. They even co opted a British peer to lobby for them (in secret). He's now under investigation. It's a murky world, is science.
 
boerseun said:
Jannie, it's called confirmation bias and it usually rears it's ugly head when emotion and / or faith is involved.
Click to expand...
Actually it's better known as the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and it doesn't apply here.

Using experts to demolish the opposition's evidence is well known. Look at the legal system. My lawyer gets a scientist to disprove your scientist. The one who can afford the most eminent wins the case. Again, money talking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X