Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: San Francisco set to pass cell phone radiation law

  1. #21
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: San Francisco set to pass cell phone radiation law

    Quote Originally Posted by pro-bipartisan View Post
    Learn to read sentences in context.
    Me: Good to see that it's not just conservatives that are "anti-science."
    You: No, they are.

    I'm not the one demonstrating grammatical difficulties.

    Based on the complexity and cordiality of your response, I'll assume that you were trying to say "No, it is," in which case there's no point in trying to reason with you any further.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #22
    User
    Chappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    04-07-15 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,443
    Blog Entries
    26

    Re: San Francisco set to pass cell phone radiation law

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Good to see that it's not just conservatives that are "anti-science."
    Quote Originally Posted by pro-bipartisan View Post
    No, they are.
    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Me: Good to see that it's not just conservatives that are "anti-science."
    You: No, they are.

    I'm not the one demonstrating grammatical difficulties.

    Based on the complexity and cordiality of your response, I'll assume that you were trying to say "No, it is," in which case there's no point in trying to reason with you any further.
    I think it was pretty clear that pro-bipartisan was not commenting on your good feeling but on the part where you posted, “it's not just conservatives that are "anti-science."” The point being, “no, conservatives are the only ones that are anti-science.”

    That's not too difficult to comprehend, right?
    “Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001

  3. #23
    User
    Chappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    04-07-15 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,443
    Blog Entries
    26

    Re: San Francisco set to pass cell phone radiation law

    In the interest of posting some reasonable source information, I offer: Cell Phones and Cancer Risk - National Cancer Institute

    “… [S]cientists caution that further surveillance, especially of heavy users and children and adolescents, is needed before definite conclusions can be drawn.” — National Cancer Institute¹
    “Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001

  4. #24
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: San Francisco set to pass cell phone radiation law

    Quote Originally Posted by Chappy View Post
    I think it was pretty clear that pro-bipartisan was not commenting on your good feeling but on the part where you posted, “it's not just conservatives that are "anti-science."” The point being, “no, conservatives are the only ones that are anti-science.”

    That's not too difficult to comprehend, right?
    I assumed that that's what he was getting at, but gave him the benefit of the doubt and asked for clarification, due to the fact that a) it wasn't english, and b) stupid generalizations about entire political groups aren't very "pro-bipartisan."

    In the interest of posting some reasonable source information, I offer: Cell Phones and Cancer Risk - National Cancer Institute

    “… [S]cientists caution that further surveillance, especially of heavy users and children and adolescents, is needed before definite conclusions can be drawn.” — National Cancer Institute¹
    And I'm sure that these warning labels will have a substantial impact on cell phone use, on the off chance that the overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #25
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: San Francisco set to pass cell phone radiation law

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Radio waves are not a form of ionizing radiation. They don't cause any other effects.
    Of the frequencies being used today for mobile phones --- I checked and you're correct that there's nothing conclusive either short term or long term.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  6. #26
    User
    Chappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    04-07-15 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,443
    Blog Entries
    26

    Re: San Francisco set to pass cell phone radiation law

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    … And I'm sure that these warning labels will have a substantial impact on cell phone use, on the off chance that the overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong.
    First off, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that further study is required.

    Second, you refer to the Board's action as requiring warning labels. That's wrong, too. You're batting 0 (zero) [nada] in this thread. The Board has required that the radiation levels be displayed next to the phones offered for sale. Posting radiation emission levels might be considered a public service by some or as an irrelevancy by others; either way, I suspect that the cell phone industry will manage to survive.
    “Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001

  7. #27
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

    Re: San Francisco set to pass cell phone radiation law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Of the frequencies being used today for mobile phones --- I checked and you're correct that there's nothing conclusive either short term or long term.
    They're actually researching the use of radio waves as a cure for cancer. (via some sort of nanoparticle coating of the tumor. zap it with radio waves and it cooks the tumor, or something) Radio waves simply don't interact with organic tissue in a manner that causes ionization damage. As far as we can tell, heat is the only way the waves can be absorbed, and minute amounts of heat simply aren't going to cause trouble. We're bombarded with radio waves 24/7 from numerous sources, and a cell phone's power output is less than one watt, typically. Meanwhile, if you live in a decent sized city you're probably living within a few miles of a 100,000 watt television station.

    If it caused cancer, we'd all be freaking dead.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #28
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: San Francisco set to pass cell phone radiation law

    Quote Originally Posted by Chappy View Post
    First off, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that further study is required.
    Translation: "Absolutely NO evidence currently exists that cell phones cause cancer."

    Quote Originally Posted by Chappy
    Second, you refer to the Board's action as requiring warning labels. That's wrong, too. You're batting 0 (zero) [nada] in this thread. The Board has required that the radiation levels be displayed next to the phones offered for sale. Posting radiation emission levels might be considered a public service by some or as an irrelevancy by others; either way, I suspect that the cell phone industry will manage to survive.
    And maybe 50 years of using the world wide web causes your eyes to fall out. Since no one has used it for 50 years, further study is required. I guess we should mandate that all internet browsers display a disclaimer on the screen, just in case.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: San Francisco set to pass cell phone radiation law

    I usually get a headache when I talk on a cell phone for more than an hour, and that never happens to me with land line phones. I'm not saying cell phones cause cancer but something about electronics definitely affects me. I usually have to switch to speaker phone if I'm talking for a long time otherwise my head gets very warm and I have a headache. Call it anecdotal but it's the truth.

    I do think on an energy level cell phones have to be doing something, but the same is true of all electronics so I don't see why cell phones deserve to be singled out.

  10. #30
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: San Francisco set to pass cell phone radiation law

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    I usually get a headache when I talk on a cell phone for more than an hour, and that never happens to me with land line phones. I'm not saying cell phones cause cancer but something about electronics definitely affects me. I usually have to switch to speaker phone if I'm talking for a long time otherwise my head gets very warm and I have a headache. Call it anecdotal but it's the truth.
    Could be the ergonomics of the phone. With landlines (do those still exist?), you typically don't have a glass/plastic screen pressed up against your face. My doctor told me that cell phone use can cause acne (due to that nasty, sweaty, greasy screen), so I wouldn't be surprised if they can cause some other ergonomics-related health issues.

    Radiation, however, isn't one of them.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 06-17-10 at 08:05 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •