Skip to comments.Cell Phones more deadly than Cigarettes? Will higher taxes, insurance premiums and ban be in order?
Posted on 03/31/2008 9:06:53 AM PDT by stillafreemind
Dr. Khurana says there may be broader health ramifications than asbestos or smoking. What? Now just think about that. Again, I foresee a huge higher tax on cell phone use and a higher health and life insurance premium. And maybe people (like me) that don't use cell phones unless its an emergency, would rather not be seated in bars and restaurants where cell phones are in use. Ah, can you say ban?
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
Maybe if the greedy bastiges allowed for a bit more bandwidth we could reduce our time on the phone because we could actually understand what was said instead of say “what”, “say that again”, etc.
Can you hear me now?......
Not only are they more dangerous to cigarettes, they are tougher to light.
LOL...you have a point there!
The doc has won awards in 14 of the last 16 years. He knows how to play the system politically, IMHO, and he might just do anything to stay in front of a camera. I suspect the whole thing, starting with the grand statements and no backup in the article.
Time for the trial lawyers and their Dem friends to start attacking BIG CELL PHONE.
>>Dr. Khurana says there may be broader health ramifications than asbestos or smoking. What? Now just think about that. Again, I foresee a huge higher tax on cell phone use and a higher health and life insurance premium. And maybe people (like me) that don’t use cell phones unless its an emergency, would rather not be seated in bars and restaurants where cell phones are in use. Ah, can you say ban?<<
The danger is in holder the transmitter so close to the head. I can see a requirement for speaker phones or headsets being bundled.
But the risk can’t be as high as this guy says because we’d see much higher death rates with most of the population using cell pones.
New tax? No good. But if it turns out that cell phones do cause cancer and insurance companies want to charge higher premiums to those who use them, so be it. Also, no public funding for treatment for people who choose to use them and get sick. (Just like there should be no subsidization for treatment for lung cancer, fatties, etc., etc.)
I wonder if cordless home phones have any effect?
I’ll tell you what, being subjected to “secondhand conversations” of unlimited inanity really does tend to get my blood pressure up. :) I don’t know what it is about three hundred pound women in supermarkets, but seemingly every one of them is glued to their cell phone.
Um, in the comments, Bobby Tall Horse has two links to hit in the article. I hit them both. One took me to a foreign paper and this story. One took me to Dr. Khurana’s website.
I believe the paper is being reviewed by his peers, so it is not published yet. Or that’s my take from reading all three articles.
Oh, I hate that!! I almost never talk on the phone because I can't hear a dang thing. I've got about 2,000 roll over minutes because I spend probably 5 minutes a week on the cell. Just enough to call my two best friends and say "Let's meet up in 20 minutes at such-n-such place!" Anything else can wait till we're seated over a nice cold glass of white wine, and can talk like civilized human beings.
I very infrequently usemy cell, but I plan to sue for secondhand cell transmissions.
See..that’s where I think this slant is interesting.
WILL the Dems go after something that is more harmful than the dreaded cigarette? I’m pretty jaded...I am a smoker. But it would make me laugh my britches off to see cell phone users get treated with the same disrespect as smokers. Just my 2.
I heard someone on FOX talking about that. Yes, they said land line or speaker phone was the safest phone to use.
Hoping someone else heard that and can add more to it!
Personally I find it interesting. A former sister in law died of a brain cancer. The only thing that was different in her life style was that she started doing a nighttime newspaper delivery route. While she was doing the route she was on her cell phone at least 50% of the time. Man that woman could talk and talk.....
Pure anecdotal evidence mind you, so I must say that I find this article interesting.
As for myself I prefer to use a headset connected to the cell phone when I have to use one.
I can't stand the things. The bandwidth comment is so true!
When they were talking about this on FOX, they also brought up the question of whether or not it was harmful just to have your cell phone on all of the time..even when you are not using it.
Anyone know the answer to that?
I almost always use the speaker phone facility.
My kids are into text messaging instead of talking.
I think we’re probably OK.
Secondhand cell phone?
. METHODS: The Methods outlines the approach used by the author in researching and writing this e-paper. Between December 2006 and March 2008, the author personally reviewed over 100 sources of information extracted from the medical literature (PubMed and Medline searches using keywords and combinations such as "Brain tumour", "Cell Phone", "Mobile Phone", "Base Station", "Electromagnetic Field", "Electromagnetic Radiation", and "Radiofrequency Radiation") and the Internet and popular Press (Google and MSN searches using the same keywords and combinations). Important references are italicised throughout this e-paper.
Now I am more convinced that the doc is a blarney artist. He read 100 articles. He googled words like tumor and cell phone and got what he got. I assert that he's cherry picking the facts and running to the microphones.
I remember rumors that television would cause cancer. Anyone else remember this?
only if it rings and you’re less than a foot away from it. That’s the “safe” distance I find it has to be from the monitor or desktop tower to keep it from what sounds or looks like doing what will damage the pc. It makes your PC’s circuitry make the awful crackling and popping noise, and if close to the monitor- distorts it
Just tried that and no static or anything else happened.
Nanny State PING....................
From the Dr’s study report linked:
“It draws on growing evidence exclusively reported in the IoS in October that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.”
Notice a similarity here to the AGW scares?
Deniers have to wait until these effects appear (or not) before a new crisis idea can be discarded.
Here, the good doctor sets himself a deadline that will grow or not as the decades advance in the same manner, one would presume, that acceptance and use of mobiles grew.
This concept, too, started with the assumption that inhaling smoke intentionally would harm someone; right now, most lung-cancer victims are in their later years of life and getting sicker with each passing day; most of the older patients were smokers (after all, in the 50s, 50% of the adult population were smokers) during their younger years and slaves to fashion as our young people are today.
We all know that deadly toxins demonstrate immediate harm to the bodily system and slow poisons manifest much later.
At least most people dying of smoking are too sick to have an antenna growing out of their ears.
My brothers business card calls him a “Senior Test engineer”
At work he has a lab that is set up with not only frequency generators but also one of every cell phone, router or anything else he can think of that will generate a signal.That’s so he can make sure that the product his company makes isn’t interfered with by anything else.
He swore to me that he can bring in a hot cup of coffee in the morning leave it untouched all day and it’ll still be hot at the end of eight hours
>> I assert that he’s cherry picking the facts and running to the microphones.
Three words: Tort. Lawyer. Bull$hit.
If anyone knew the definitive answer, this jerk wouldn’t get the opportunity to showboat.
>> they also brought up the question of whether or not it was harmful just to have your cell phone on all of the time..even when you are not using it... Anyone know the answer to that?
Sounds like more pseudoscience BS, but tell you what... keep yours off for a couple of years and get back to us about whether or not you feel better. :-)
Any smokers for some popcorn?
Whoa, $10 a month??? Pay as you go??? Can you tell me more about this??
Oh great- yet another “curse on society” that we must be rescued from.
New study finds living is the leading cause of dying.
The study has not been peer reviewed
"Of course, the Mobile Operators Association more or less dismissed the study of Khurana's. They referred to it as selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual."
"Big Mobile Phone" dismisses science.
I wonder when Henry Waxman will call the Directors of "Big Mobile Phone" to a committee meeting and lecture them on the evils of using mobile phones.
LOL..I’m with you! I don’t think cell phone users are taking to this news. Dr. Khurana will be taken through the knot hole frontwards and backwards, cause no one wants to hear that their pet baby is a trouble maker.
What is curious about cell phone microwave technology is that this massive incorporation of it into society was permitted by governments without any definitive study about the impact of microwaves upon human bodies. Typical human stupidity, arrogance and love affair with its inventions. The “STUDY” we are carrying out with microwaves and magnatrons is on live human beings for the next 25 years. I watch the old I’ve Got a Secret Show - Gary Moore and the guests are smoking up a storm. Back in the 50’s and 60’s and before smoking was considered safe especially with filters and the industry squashed all the studies saying otherwise. But humans liked the nicotine impact on their emotions and so they ignored it all. Same with the cell phone - humans like being able to talk wherever they are whenever they want - some sort of verbal addiction. So no amount of science will stop this until millions and millions start dying from brain tumors.
It was recommended that you not get too close to the screen.
Maybe when everything is deemed to be more dangerous than cigarettes, we can have our cigarettes back.
Go back to his website and you will find that you can get a manual on brain surgery. The doc is way too much into self promotion., IMHO.
This is what science has become?
This isn’t science, it’s self promotion.
Two reasons that can’t happen.
1. The money we have to pour out for our “habit”. How would the government continue to run so smoothly?(!)
2. Who would non smokers degrade?
I would assert you are correct.
Reminds of all the nonsense about banning smoking in bars and restaurants........this is exactly how they got away with all that cherry picking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.