What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
206 Comments
- inactive, on 08/09/2008, -5/+118If anything, soft drinks are the next cigarettes. It's a cheap, quick buzz from the cafeine and sugar, it has no nutrional values what so ever and so many people are addicted to it, in its many forms.
- ErrorLoading, on 08/09/2008, -3/+96That's why I don't inhale when I smoke cell phones.
- RedSkies, on 08/09/2008, -10/+85No.
- HottisHiatus, on 08/09/2008, -5/+60The difference is if they find something cancerous with cellphones they can change the technology.
- zelig, on 08/09/2008, -1/+36What amuses me are people who demand that cell phone towers be removed from their neighborhood as a health hazard, but talk all day on a cell that is practically affixed to their ear.
- restlessmouse, on 08/09/2008, -0/+31Yeah, take your cellphone outside buddy, I don't want to hear things second hand...
- Jett3, on 08/09/2008, -2/+28what if i smoke while talking on my cell phone
....*****. - Iwantbatteries, on 08/09/2008, -2/+26I would say that we have seen a lot of study of the safety of EM radiation, which is really all that cell phones are. The studies of EM radiation have come to a fairly solid consensus that exposure, even long term exposure to moderate levels of EM radiation is not harmful. These studies predated cellphones so you can't say that big cellphone had they hand in them, so either it was "Big EM" or you take the studies at their face value and shut up about this stupid unfounded scare tactic.
- 44Bigs, on 08/09/2008, -2/+21Dugg for the picture of the cute busty chick.
- inactive, on 08/08/2008, -12/+31I think cell phones are like cigarettes from an addiction standpoint. Blackberry's are worse. However, come on. We're not inhaling smoke here. There hasn't been much proof because I would imagine that there really aren't too many harmful effects with the exception of morons that talk in the car and get into accidents.
- jerryudigg, on 08/09/2008, -3/+22"It took years for the hazards of smoking to come to light"
No it didn't! It took year for the government to release a study on the subject.
Cigarettes were called coffin nails decades before they were "officially" bad.
Do you really believe that people thought that inhaling smoke into your lungs all day every day had no health risks? How dumb do you think people are?
Cell phones spend more time closer to my balls than my head.
Does this mean that everyone who calls me is really trying to kill me? Instead of answering with a friendly "hello" I will now be saying "you bastard!" - junkwheel, on 08/09/2008, -3/+21Nice breasts, good to know she is keeping them safe.
- dxgg, on 08/09/2008, -1/+17Is that worse than smoking your cell phone while talking to your cigarette?
- sinkhead, on 08/09/2008, -1/+15I'd say that you just made that statistic up.
- remakeru, on 08/09/2008, -3/+15I don't use a cell phone because cocaine kills.
- sstidman, on 08/09/2008, -0/+11"Now there's debate over the safety of mobile phones..."
What do the mean "now"? There's been debate over the saftety of cell phones as long as there have been cell phones. - jxfallout, on 08/09/2008, -0/+11I would say that energy drinks are more likely to be "the next cigarettes" than soft drinks.
Soft drinks have diet and/or caffeine-free versions, while energy drinks will sometimes have sugar free versions (which still doesn't matter from a health standpoint, when there's a load of caffeine and other stimulants mixed into said drink). - Grogtron, on 08/09/2008, -1/+12These are precisely the people this article was written for. People who know physics and/or electromagnetism do not care much about cell phone radiation. People who care about scientific studies and or listen to people who know physics and/or electromagnetism do not worry much about cell phone radiation. They have already seen the evidence and know better.
People who think about their chi, never read bibliographies (or look for them for that matter), become hysterical because someone challenges their point of view, think that any point of view is as valid as any other
People who "think" without really thinking... Those people care a lot about cell phone radiation. - secrity, on 08/09/2008, -0/+11The worst part is that Coke and Pepsi in the US don't even use real sugar anymore, they are using HFCS, which is believed by many to be worse than sugar.
- reddikilowatt, on 08/09/2008, -2/+13Actually, smoking has been around for centuries. For most of that time, smoking was considered a good thing, because no one knew anything about addiction, and they made you feel better.
When the average lifespan is under 60 years and you might die in a war or from an infection, cancer isn't as much of an issue. - jxfallout, on 08/09/2008, -1/+12It really is quite aDIGGtive!
I'm sorry.... - reddikilowatt, on 08/09/2008, -0/+10You are mixing ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Please don't spread panic amongst the uninformed.
- inactive, on 08/09/2008, -5/+15Hopefully. Frickin hate cell phones.
- mohsenxp, on 08/09/2008, -0/+10I've been soft drink free for about 2yrs. I've just learnt to become a water junkie.
I have 2 friends that are actually addicted to coca cola.
One of them is so extreme, that he only enjoys the first 2 sips of a freshly opened can. He throws the rest away and buys a new one. It's borderline idiocy but he says he can't drink a can once the fresh fizzyness has disappeared. - jitjit, on 08/09/2008, -0/+10He should only drink cold refrigerated coke then. It should have more dissolved CO2 if im not mistaken (By Le Chatliers principle and all)
- Iwantbatteries, on 08/09/2008, -1/+10Just so I don't get poked for not providing references here is one from 1980
Electromagnetic radiation from selected telecommunications systems
Petersen, R.C.
Proceedings of the IEEE
Volume 68, Issue 1, Jan. 1980 Page(s): 21 - 24
In response to Sinkhead, some of that is true, but it is critical to understand the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum we are talking about. The portion of the spectrum that we set aside for communication is safe. It is true, that other portions of the spectrum can cause damage to our bodies, Microwaves are on a scale roughly the size of things we see in our everyday lives, and as such has little interaction with things as small as cells, unlike say, X-rays and Gamma rays which can have effects at the molecular level because of their size. - Jus2Gud, on 08/09/2008, -1/+10You missed out modesty on your list of qualities...
- smacksaw, on 08/09/2008, -1/+10Well, you get +1 for citing your source, but -1 for it being Alex Jones. It's a wash. I neither Digg nor bury you.
- reddikilowatt, on 08/09/2008, -2/+11A surprising amount of research has gone into the effects of non-ionizing radiation (radio waves) and the effect it has on the human body. In levels less than 50 Watts there is almost no effect at any frequency. At 2.4GHz, the water in cells will vibrate, causing heat, but it is proportional to the amount of energy put in (in other words, 50 Watts of radio waves is about the same as 50 watts of hot air. The radio waves do tend to penetrate further, which is why they are so good at heating leftovers). A microwave oven concentrates a high powered radio wave (1500 Watts or more in most cases) in a very confined space to heat food. A 300mW cell phone transmitter @ 1.2GHz is not going to penetrate past your epidermis, and I doubt the heating that may take place would even register.
That's not to say that people haven't received RF burns from grabbing antennas that were transmitting hundreds of Watts, not cell phone levels. - tinybubs, on 08/09/2008, -0/+9Cell phone users are a health hazard to others when they are driving.
- mrgreenjeans, on 08/09/2008, -0/+8Here in Houston (and I'm sure many other places close to Mexico) you can buy bottles of Coca-Cola from Mexico made with real sugar. It tastes a lot better.
- MarsSentinel, on 08/09/2008, -2/+10Try this:
University studies find that talking on the phone while driving distracts drivers and increases the risk of accidents.
There is a risk of brain cancer from cellphone use (relatively high power RF transmitter held against the brain for hours a day).
Cellphone companies have infinite money to "influence" lawmakers.
Lawmakers say "Hey, what about Bluetooth(tm)?" Lets have a law. Lets give some tickets.
University studiers say, "No, it is the conversation and not the handset that distracts drivers"/
CellCos say "Yes, that's a good idea."
Citizen/consumers say "No, that's stupid, costly, inconvenient and won't do anything except cost us money and make us look dorky".
Politicians think (but don't say) We can reduce the cancer risk of cellphones without dinking the CellCos profits and blame it all on safety. Perfect. - smacksaw, on 08/09/2008, -0/+8Why? To tell the ASPCA where their dogs are?
- inactive, on 08/09/2008, -1/+9Bill Clinton has a digg account?
- inactive, on 08/09/2008, -2/+9In other news, it's just been discovered that 99% of the population has an addiction to oxygen. Oxygen, as many know, is a very flammable gas. Please take efforts to reduce your oxygen usage, for your own health!
- CoreyHalliwell, on 08/09/2008, -4/+11Digg: A pile of Speculative horse *****. I like digg but ***** like this needs to stop...Can we get some ACTUAL articles?
- Hodor, on 08/09/2008, -2/+9unless cellular phones hurt others around you (and not simply annoy them), no.
- R2Bacca, on 08/09/2008, -1/+7Let's not forget Digg...
- jamesmcginnis, on 08/09/2008, -0/+6"Not to mention cell phones aren't consumable in any way"
and yet I'm on my 15th - inactive, on 08/09/2008, -0/+5FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS
- NealV, on 08/09/2008, -0/+5If you feel any heat at all, it's waste heat from the electronics of your phone, NOT water molecules being excited by microwaves. Same way the bottom of laptops are hot after use, and the reason computers need cooling systems.
- JoeVet, on 08/09/2008, -1/+6All those young diggers are smart enough to know there isn't one shred of scientific data to backup the notion that cell phones cause cancer despite numerous controlled studies. The link between tobacco and cancer however goes back hundreds of years.
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/cancerstats1925.htm
" as early as in 1761, Dr. John Hill, a London physician, had recorded an early observation linking tobacco (specifically, snuff) and cancer. In his analysis, “Cautions Against the Immoderate Use of Snuff,” he said “snuff is able to produce . . . swellings and excrescences” in the nose.
By 1836, it was well-established “that thousands and tens of thousands die of diseases of the lungs generally brought on by tobacco smoking. . . . How is it possible to be otherwise? Tobacco is a poison. A man will die of an infusion of tobacco as of a shot through the head.”—Samuel Green, New England Almanack and Farmer's Friend (1836). " - emailingRob, on 08/09/2008, -0/+5I can't believe I had to scroll down this far to find a comment on the girl in the pic. Digg, you have disappointed me.
- GofG, on 08/09/2008, -0/+5I don't think that the physics behind EM radiation has changed in 28 years. Or 6 billion years.
- sega01, on 08/09/2008, -2/+7U.K., Belgium, Germany, France Russia, and now Canada advise minimal usage of cell phones ( http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/12/cellphon ... ). I love wireless, but unfortunately the evidence is stacking up against its safety. How much could the cell phone companies loose if wireless is deemed unsafe? I feel that this is why many studies are contradictory. The most through and unbiased evaluation of RF and ELF safety I have seen is the 610 page Biotinitiative report ( http://www.bioinitiative.org/ ). Please do your research and don't immediately assume this is just a false old wives tale.
- JimPuchai, on 08/09/2008, -2/+6There WILL be a long term back-lash with cell phones. Brain cancer is not the big risk but Acoustic neuroma is.
Slow growing benign tumours on the acoustic nerve, they can take 20 years to fully develop. Symptoms include dizzyness, loss of hearing one side, ringing in the ears and ultimately death by squeezing the spinal nerves. Treatment is always radical surgery. The surgery can cause serious and debilitating symptoms for life, but deafness on the affected side and loss of balance is practically universal.
Chuck your mobile phones where you chucked the last cigarettes you bought. They both have serious long-term risks.
No. I am not kidding! - linuxpenguin, on 08/09/2008, -0/+4I don't hate cell phones, but I know what you mean. . . I hate people who are on them all the time.
- libertao, on 08/09/2008, -1/+5Hearing a smoker's cough, it didn't take a rocket scientist to work out that it was bad for you.
- imightbewrong, on 08/09/2008, -0/+4what a great title!
- ammundsen, on 08/09/2008, -0/+4They have tried to do that with cigarettes. This includes different tobacco varieties, different processing methods, and different ways of smoking the tobacco. And, if you look at it as simply tobacco use and not just smoking it then some folks are advocating switching to American snuff or Swedish snus.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 211 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is