Protecting the public from their cell phones

[Robert]

This article http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/135974/Mobile-use-is-linked-to-brain-tumours reports a linkage between cell phone use and brain tumors. Assuming it to be true (how can it not be?), can we agree that manufacturers of the devices, in coordination with owners of cell phone towers and related infrastructure, should be coerced into doing everything possible to reduce the risk?

Two obvious things that come to the mind of a radio tech are:
1) lowering the permissible wattage (phones are duplex radio transmitter/receivers); 2) installing a small directional antenna in all devices that focuses the radio energy away from the user. It wouldn't be stylish, but it would work.

Now ... If this is a genuine public health concern, then no remedies I can think of are realistic absent the coercive power of a state of one stripe or another.

The same problem holds for the control of every other hazardous product, such as leaded paint, lead toys, 3-wheelers, cheap baby carriages, etc.

[Havet]

We should ban fists. People never need them, except to attack someone.

[revolution inaction]

This article http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/135974/Mobile-use-is-linked-to-brain-tumours reports a linkage between cell phone use and brain tumors. Assuming it to be true (how can it not be?),

your source is the express

[Havet]

Ok Robert, seems like you need a bit of teaching regarding careful analysis of internet information.

Let's look at the article you provided carefully:

"according to a decade-long study"

What study?

Who performed it?

During what decade was it performed?

What was the criteria, method applied and the data collected?

"The report, to be published later this year"

So it hasn't even been published. We should await conclusions until we actually get a chance to analyze the report.

"The survey of 12,800 people in 13 countries has been overseen by the World Health Organisation."

Which countries?

Who, in the WHO oversaw this? Can they confirm this? Are they a trustworthy reference?

How were the people surveyed? Where they brain scanned? Or just interviewed? Or both?

"Preliminary results of the inquiry, which is looking at whether mobile phone exposure is linked to three types of brain tumour and a tumour of the salivary gland, have been sent to a scientific journal."

Which scientific journal had the privilege to receive these preliminary results?

...

These are all important questions one should find answers for before believing the media. Usually articles which start with "scientists say" and leave the discoverers anonymous should be regarded with extreme caution.

[IcarusAngel]

The electromagnetic waves from cell phones is not more dangerous from many other common devices I've heard. If there are new studies, I'll look into them.

Anyway, assume that they are dangerous - it should indeed be a 'public matter' at that point, and the public should vote to tell the manufacturers how to modify their devices. This stuff is a public service, and the telecommunications industry is part public anyway.

Cell phones themselves are really a horror story anway:

http://shoeboxclock.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/kingcelltp.jpg

[Robert]

Cell phones aren't the point.

The point is, you can't remove dangerous products from the market without controls.

[Havet]

Cell phones aren't the point.

The point is, you can't remove dangerous products from the market without controls.

Funny, because if I remmember story correctly, the "market" removed "dangerous" cars without seatbelts before any government made them mandatory.


Seat belts were invented by George Cayley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cayley) in the late 1800s, though Edward J. Claghorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_J._Claghorn) was granted the first patent (U.S. Patent 312,085 (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=312085), on February 10, 1885 for a safety belt).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-13)

American car manufacturers Nash (in 1949) and Ford (in 1955) offered seatbelts as options, while Swedish Saab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab) first introduced seat belts as standard in 1958.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-independent.co.uk-14)

After the Saab GT 750 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_GT750) was introduced at the New York motor show in 1958 with safety belts fitted as standard, the practice became commonplace.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-15)

The first three point seat belt (the so-called CIR-Griswold restraint) was patented in 1951 by the Americans Roger W. Griswold and Hugh De Haven[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-16), and developed to its modern form by Nils Bohlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Bohlin) for Swedish manufacturer Volvo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo) - who introduced it in 1959 as standard equipment. Bohlin was granted U.S. Patent 3,043,625 (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=3043625) for the device.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-independent.co.uk-14)

In 1970, the state of Victoria, Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_Australia), passed the first law worldwide making seat belt wearing compulsory for drivers and front-seat passengers.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-driverstech-17)

[Robert]

There is something specious about that argument. The question isn't whether the market has ever invented a safety feature. The question is whether there is a place and need for coercion where manufacturers are releasing dangerous products into the market before the need for the control is recognized (by either the producer or the consumer).

Staying on cars, airbags in the USA were no doubt developed privately, but
they were mandated in '84, to take effect in '89. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag. I am sure we can agree that airbags have saved lives and, more to the point, that they wouldn't be in every American car without regulation and coercion by the state. We can argue about whether that is on balance a bad thing.

Besides, you grasp on to the seat belt argument as though that settles the whole question. It doesn't. Some producers of course incorporate safety features as a selling point. And there are marketers on the other extreme who will go out of business if they sell enough exploding batteries, defective tires, tainted milk or lead-paint toys to (now sick or dead) babies, but most agree that some monitoring and control on the front end is a better approach. Unless they've been using their cell phone too much.

Get one of those bluetooth gadgets that you hook in your ear. You'll look cooler than Uhura and fight cancer. Spock out.http://www.sherylfranklin.com/images/trek/women/classic/uhura2.jpg:

[Havet]

...but most agree that some monitoring and control on the front end is a better approach. Unless they've been using their cell phone too much.

I agree as well. I just don't think that monitoring and control should be done forcefully by either a State or a private institution.

There are already many (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratory) examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports) of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_site) (voluntary institutions who review and monitor products) in real life. And there's potential to exist many more.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Walking outside today? Is the sun out? Cancer
Eat any M&Ms lately? Cancer
Wear a black t-shirt? Cancer
Drink milk? Cancer
Live in a city with more than 4 automobiles? Cancer
Go to the movies? Cancer
Staring at a computer screen? Cancer

[Pierson's]

yeah lots of thigns can cause cancer. you don't see anyone supporting the government to reduce how alcohol to make a person less drunk do you?

sure, mobiles can cause cancer, however, we don't need the fuckign government telling us we can't use them!