IIRC he also smacked San Fransisco for their absurd cellphones/cancer ordinance thing. Hearing that he is involved is reassuring.
I don't see anything absurd here. It's still not clear that cellphones are "safe".
>>Mobile phones are tested to ensure their emissions fall within FCC limits considered safe. The limits, however, fail to reflect the latest research or actual conditions under which mobile phones are used, liked being held in a pocket directly against the body while talking through an earpiece, according to a Government Accountability Office report. The FCC last month agreed to consider revising its 17-year-old guidelines.
I'm glad the FCC at least were open to thinking about it. I treat my cellphone as a possible biohazard and keep it away from my body. It's almost always in my backpack; about a foot away from my body and I almost never make voice-calls; I'm all SMS. I put in less than 45mins/month on voice-calls.
Let me remind you of a similar situation - 50 years ago, it wasn't common knowledge that smoking was harmful. Many people smoked. Then, overwhelming evidence showed that it was harmful. Then, there were widespread campaigns telling people just that. Today, not as many people smoke, and not to the same degree. Success! Should we have given up on teaching people sense?
Second, what makes you think - assuming that cell phone emissions are indeed significant enough to be harmful - we can't have tech that works as it does now, but is less harmful?
Your point doesn't stand. You implied that society needs cellphones, therefore there can be no ban on them. No one's calling to ban all cellphones. The suggestion is to reevaluate safety criteria, and disallow phones above that threshold.
Seems maybe you're right on one point, it seems plain education seems to be less successful. It's only a contributing factor whereas taxing and banning are the main factors in getting adults to stop smoking: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-smoking-rates-a...
This is even funnier though, since it suggests that the approach of taxing and banning nonconforming cell phones would work, which is the opposite of what you're suggesting.
Why would you argue that to be a number of any significant size?
There seems to be three possibilities here: A:you believe that killing randomly selected people will prevent more deaths than it causes.
B:you believe that killing a people does.
C:You believe that more people have died of brain cancer from cell phones than have been saved by them (in which case, statistics would be nice maybe? I might not look at your responce, so maybe not worth it to you.)
D: Some other interpretation of what you said that I haven't thought of.
A seems absurd, B seems absurd and possibly problematic, C seems false, but less obviously, D is essentially "other".
Is your claim that em radiation from cell phones (for signal purposes) can alter DNA molecules, Or is your claim that it can e.g. Allow mutant cells to grow or some such ( make it more likely for the cancer to spread and such, instead of being destroyed by the immune system (accuracy?))?
Go read what he had to say about the ordinance. It is more than reasonable.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042323_brain_cancer_risk_cell_pho...
EDIT: ouch, those downvotes...
Regardless, Alsup's decision in this case did not assume that there is no chance that cellphones cause cancer. He left himself open to that possibility. Hence more than reasonable.
Above that, infra-red light, which starts at around 300 Ghz, is again used for cooking, and it also is used for changing channels on your TV.
What do you think is special about mobile phone, wi-fi and microwave oven frequency ranges?
(edited for clarity and stuff)
Taken further, there's no need for anyone to be alarmed until concrete evidence is brought to light.
>Since falling prey to a violent reaction to his cell phone in 2002 he has spent the last 10 years researching the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on health. He now offers a complete solution on how to live a healthy life in our increasingly electromagnetic world.
dubfan, what you said might just be the biggest understatement I've heard all year.
"Electrical sensitivity" is the realm of quacks and the mentally ill, so I'm pretty unconvinced when someone who believes in that starts talking about the EM risks of cell phones.
Of course, that takes decades, and can't be proved before X is widely used - but it allows us to reason about the [lack of] deadliness of various wierd cultural habits, diets, etc.