What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
108 Comments
- theLEGENDisBACK, on 10/18/2007, -13/+75Hello...he-hello... hold on i cant hear you my brain is frying
- bscott86, on 10/12/2007, -37/+67Cell phones operate at 2.4ghz. Visible light is much more dangerous at over 5ghz.
Claiming that cell phones cause cancer is absolute nonsense. These so-called "scientific" surveys and SAR numbers mean absolutely nothing and just aim at scaring people.
Scientifically, there is no way cell phones can damage cells, much less cause cancer. The only possible side effects come from microwave radiation warming the water in your cells, but when was the last time you heard of somebody saying a heating pad or a jacuzzi causes cancer?
If we are afraid of cell phones giving us cancer, we better turn off all visible light too and wear sunscreen indoors. - griz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27This is your brain....Thi id yur brane lidenig tu yur celpone...any questions?
- Diganta, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28@ bscott86
Comparing microwave radiation versus visible light in terms of frequency makes absolutely no sense, it shows you don't understad how microwave radiation works. Microwave
radiation is absorbed by the tissue which causes heating (i.e. spinning water molecules thanks to the molecular dipole moments). A blue beam of visible light shing on tissue will not cause that kind of heating. The same thing would happen if you where to shine a blue laser on to a sheet metal versus a CO2 laser which has IR radiation. The 10 Watt CO2 laser can be used in industry to cut through metal, you can pump a 1 Megawatt blue laser on the same piece of metal, without the blue wavelengths being able to cut through the laser.
I was quite the skeptic of microwave radiation from phones at first. I've had a Treo 180 at first and never had a problem talking with it for extended periods, however with my new Treo 650 I can feel that side of my head pressed against the phone feeling warmer and I start to feel quizzy after talking on it for more than 10 minutes. Anecdotal experience...perhaps? But I do need to use the corded earpiece if I am talking on the phone for long. Otherwise I have this odd feeling of my face getting warm and a tad nauseous. I know its my phone and CNet just confirmed what I always suspected for the last few months. - Eliminator, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Cell phones in the US operate at 850 MHz and 1900 MHz.
- SystemsGuy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16It's important to note that in publishing this list are we in no way implying that cell phone use is or isn't harmful to your health. While research abounds and some tests have shown that cell phone radiofrequency (RF) could accelerate cancer in laboratory animals, the studies have not been replicated. Cell phones can affect internal pacemakers, but there is not conclusive or demonstrated evidence that they cause adverse health affects in humans. So in short, the jury is still out, research is ongoing, and we will continue to monitor its results.
Maybe reading the whole report is worthwhile...... - Terc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Last time I picked up a call on my SLVR my skin started boiling and someone standing next to me had his eyes melt out of their sockets...
Come on. "radiation" does not automatically mean atomic bomb, skin melting, cancer causing rays of death. All heat, light, and radio waves (yes, even the heat from a campfire) is a type of radiation. They're not all dangerous. It's crazy how fearful people can be of what they don't understand. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Yeah. I guess CNET doesn't like Motorola very much :)
Pretty crummy guide though. Let me elaborate - There is a list of the phones, and besides them to the right a list of "SAR numbers (digital)", whatever the hell that means. Yes, I could find it on google/wikipedia etc, hell, I might already know this - unfortunately I'm not Joe Consumer.
There is a two, three, and four way tie on the list because they decided to truncate at the second decimal place. Way to go. - titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Then we would all be dead from sex.
- Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15I think the fact that mobile phones make people stupid is far more dangerous.
Although, people in the US usually manage stupidity all on their own, especially in the Bible Belt. - Sonizel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9it looks like motorola also has a couple low radiation cellphones. http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6602_7-5020356-1.html?tag=lnav
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I don't know much about radiation, but I do know that my motorola razr disrupts every form of electronics in my house. When I set it on top of a laptop the laptop shuts down. I'm sure that's not a good thing.
- dstart, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Anything can kill you if you have too much of it.. :rollseyes:
- DaMacGamer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11if it was they would have re-called it.
- colinmhayes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I think you y had a cell phone up against your sarcasm detector too long.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Even if they did cause cancer at the rates they are alleged to, cell phones are going to cause far more deaths from usage during driving than they ever could from cancer.
- analdisco, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9This is almost as scary as the microwave which I operate from ten feet away with a pole, and TWICE as scary as the television, which I never get within 15 feet of or watch with the lights off, because my eyes will catch fire and fry!
=^O - sahaskatta, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8the list of lowest radiation phone rates another moto (MPx200) phone as the 2nd least radiation.
therefore all moto phones are not bad. http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6602_7-5020356-1.html?tag=arw - oceanplexian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Well, cell radiation is non-ionizing unless under extremely special circumstances. The worst your phone could do is cook your brain (....but hey, at least it won't give you cancer.......)
To me, that seems a list of which phones are gonna get the best reception :-) - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What about the old 3 watt bag phones? Those puppies were AWESOME! Never a dropped call! When I had it hooked to my cigarette lighter in my car, the headlights would dim when I made a call.
Not really, but, you know. - Dotnetsky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4My SO claims that when people's cell phones ring in her proximity, she gets sharp shooting pains in her legs. Once when I was sitting across the room with my Audiovox SMT5600 (one of the lowest "SAR" there is) and it buzzed silently from an inbound email, she jumped and screamed in pain. Who's nuts? Beats me, pal.
- evangelion01, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8i love radiation.
- TwwIX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3*crosses fingers and hopes that the verizon douche gets a brain tumor
- Wiggles2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@phreakout, that was just about the most elegant, thorough and informative comment I've ever read here on digg. I salute you! :Bowing down
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Anyone know if BlueTooth gives off radiation?
- Genghis1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4bscott86 is full of BE (bull excrement)
- Wiggles2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For me it's more like dizziness and difficulty concentrating.
- Wiggles2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2thanks alspar for silencing the bitter sounding damn-you-cell-phone-hating-hippies-who-don't-understand-science-like-I-do asshat . +digg
- Wiggles2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wait! "khorbin" just ended the controversy. All of the concerned scientists may stop researching this issue now. Thanks, khorbin.
khorbin, just kill yourself. - cameron074, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4continue to smoke and drink? You got it voice in my head!
- phreakout, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The sarshield looks like total hokum i much prefer a tinfoil hat ;-)
Yes some cable lengths of hands free act like arials and are worse then without them.
The solution is sime use a ferite ring to 'choke' teh frequencies travelling up the wire. Similar chokes can be found on laptop power supplies and computer monitor cables to stop broadcasting radio interference.
As radiation from point sources falls off with the square of distance even a small distance from your head results in much less radiation.
There is evidence both for and against 2.4GHz radiation from phones and cancers - scientists stay away from this contraversial area for career reasons so suprisingly few studies have been done.
It is well accepted that mobile phones cause temporary brain excitation and so to say that mobile phones can't affect the brain is disingenuous.
It is for this reason the British Government still warns about against excessive phone use for children. - alspar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Whilst I agree with you that there is currently no evidence mobile phones are harmful to your health, your science is way off.
Firstly, it makes a big deal of difference if you are closer to a transmitter than further away, since the intensity falls with the square of the distance (assuming its emitted equally in all directions). Secondly, alpha and beta particles are totally absorbed by an aluminium plate thus they are not escaping from nuclear power stations. Finally, any comparison with visible light is stupid because microwaves are able to penetrate solids far further than visible light (hence your wireless works through walls but your camera doesn't). I hate to be a smart arse, but I really expected a few more scientific comments on digg. - Wiggles2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How can you say something so stupid. Each study does not constitute "proof", you schmuck. Proof is final. That's like me posting a link to the opposite claim and saying "oh look how many times it's been proven that cell phones cause cancer."
And, of course, we all know the FDA is a neutral source! They've got they're heads so far up industries asses and they're enjoying the smell! - redneckblues, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I've got one too. Held it up to my balls, and now they're gone. Should have listened...
- Wiggles2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't
- brandizzle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I love my Motorola phone. I've never once had a problem with it and I don't see any problem with the UI.
- bscott86, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12Then that proves my point even more. 1.8ghz would be even less dangerous than 2.4ghz.
The lower the frequency, the lower power disbursment, the lower risk for ionizing energy to be reached, and the lower the risk for cancer. - SuprCzr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8whoosh.... did you see that one when it flew over your head?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2don't put your phone near your penis or vagina, because the radiation would kill the sex cells...
hmm...
i wonder how many people are gonna be running for their phone, testing it out...
'are my sex cells dead yet?' - RadiatedAnt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3this would explain why my buddy who used to work for motorola contracted a brain tumor, long with 6 other co-workeres well sadly he past away and never won the class action law suit because of proof.
- xtr3m, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4North American Standard. The SAR limit for mobile phones used by the public is 1.6 watts/kilogram (W/kg) averaged over one gram of body tissue.
European Standard. The SAR limit for mobile phones used by the public is 2.0 watts/kilogram (W/kg) averaged over ten grams of body tissue.
Taken from sarshield.com. They also have a complete chart of most cellphones: http://www.sarshield.com/english/radiationchart.htm - jblithe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The little holes in the Microwave Window block Microwaves."
really? the holes block the microwaves? if that were the case, it would be thousands of times safer if you just took the door off!
idiot. - FireStrife, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Im pretty sure this would eventually get them if they didnt crash their cars beforehand.
- lj535i, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who are you talking to on the cell? Maybe that has something to do with it.
- heinousjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That's the stupidest possible reaction, which is probably why the fatalities are so high (and I'm willing to bet you're exaggerating.)
When you notice someone isn't paying full attention, getting extra agressive towards them is about the worst thing a person can do.
I really wish drivers were forced to learn how to actually operate a vehicle before being given a license, so stupidity like this wouldn't be propagated. - lj535i, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Very true... more people should have such a clear view of the role of science.
- nitroskanker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I carry my cellphone on my headband when I'm not using it, so I make sure not to waste ANY radiation!
- Wiggles2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Same here, I don't own one either :High five:
- colinmhayes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3now that you bring out the point that it's everywhere, I better go buy a full-body tin foil suit.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"As many others point out there are infinitely many more things to be significantly concerned about than this ?!"
"...but, but, you should worry more about people doing stupid things while driving on a cellphone lol..."
WTF is the point of so many people who obviously are naysayers in the cell-phone-causes cancer debate, pointing out that there are other things to worry about?? Yeah, we know you don't believe there's a link, but do you have to add these stupid comments always about how cell-phone related car accidents will kill more people? How does that contribute anything to this f-ing debate? We all know cell-phones have car accidents.
You're just reinforcing (hardly inconspicuously) that you don't believe there's a cancer or health link. Thanks *****, we got it! -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is