-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
How do you guys feel about cell phone radiation?
- Thread starter SpartanII
- Start date
Glad to hear of your health Ice House. word proof however, was one you brought up in regards to my use of the word "harmful". I never set out to proove anything about the radiation/brain cancer thing. With how sciencee you fellows get around here, I'd be intimidated to try and proove much of anything. The word "harmful" however, has *possibly* been demonstrated. There's the congo and there's the bees.
Personally, since noone is getting in a scientifical uproar about prooving the thing about the bees.....I just may do so myself. Those bees are pollinators. The pollen of most comercially produced food is tainted with fertilizers and pesticides. Vanishing of the bees is a documentary about this stuff. http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Vanishing-of-the-Bees/70166291 Colony Collapse Disorder is the name of the problem these bees are having. CCD's cause is still somewhat mysterious, but it sure as heck seems that comercial agriculture is to blame somehow. If cell phones are also killing the bees, well, I'll need to read more or be shown a more convincing article.
:roll: Uhm, shall we leave that kind of nonsense statements out of the DMT-Nexus please?SpartanII said:
There is a good reason why we at the DMT-Nexus like to have proof for the things that are claimed. Without it we could just as well make any outrageous statement or make absurd claims and none would question it. Without science we would not have the extraction teks that YOU can use to extract DMT. So what you are stating here is pretty insulting to many members of the DMT-Nexus who worked hard to provide you with all the information we have here, including me. If you don't like this science minded attitude in the overall forum then please stay away, you are cluttering up our reliable information.
The Traveler
I was just making a joke to lighten things up. I'm sorry you took offense but I wasn't being hurtful or anything.
How exactly am I cluttering up your reliable information? I haven't posted any false information, nor am I making any claims. :?:
How exactly am I cluttering up your reliable information? I haven't posted any false information, nor am I making any claims. :?:
Mocking the scientific attitude we have here on the DMT-Nexus.SpartanII said:
It has been explained several times that we need to have reliable information on the DMT-Nexus. When people make false claims here and none will question it then we will have a big problem. One of the problems that many people seem to have is that they only take a look at the overall information and don't take the time to check facts, follow ups and the context of certain experiments.
Just took a look at the World's most powerful laser to tear apart the vacuum of space thread to see a perfect example how people can be scared by the outlooks of a 200 PETAWATT LASER. However, by just doing some fact checking one could find out that it will only have this power in extremely short burst resulting in the output power of only the equal amount of exploding just 1.4 grams of TNT per burst.
So when people make statements like "It's like if you can't back up your claims with peer reviewed journals, it's not true" and "Peer-reviewed Journals: The Science Gods that settle all debates!" it makes me a little sad inside that people do not have the willpower to delve a bit deeper instead of baseless bashing a method.
Kind regards,
The Traveler
I don´t know about the radiation part. But i do know that i find cell phone´s annoying things. I try to use mine as little as possible. When i´m going out with friends, i don´t even take it with me.
To most people they´re basically just toys to play with, instead of a communication device.
In the colonial days, settlers bought land and other things of real value from the native´s with beads and mirrors.
Basically, people tend to believe that all flashy, shiny things are valuable.
Having these things and showing them to everybody makes people feel rich and succesfull8) . Just like watches and other blingbling stuff.
But it´s just marbles:wink: .
To most people they´re basically just toys to play with, instead of a communication device.
In the colonial days, settlers bought land and other things of real value from the native´s with beads and mirrors.
Basically, people tend to believe that all flashy, shiny things are valuable.
Having these things and showing them to everybody makes people feel rich and succesfull8) . Just like watches and other blingbling stuff.
But it´s just marbles:wink: .
The Traveler said:
I see your point, I really do, but I still don't think I'm cluttering up reliable information with a few jokes about some people's over-reliance on science/studies to settle the debates. Members shouldn't need to feel like they have to provide proof for everything they say. We all have our opinions.
I've never said science isn't useful, I just find it funny how some people place all their faith in it, sometimes exhibiting dogma, which is why I joke about science Gods.
*sighs*
faith is something observed by people who have no evidence to support a theory.
in science, that gets tossed out as anecdotes. you need to have consistent evidence
to substantiate a claim. *edit* to have personal "faith" in something, is a subjective experience. science is a methodology based on objectivity.
albeit, their are limitations of language and math to describe certain phenomena, but the methods used to observe are fairly universal and straight-forward. A lot of nonscientists and businessmen like to say "__ is proven to do ___". scientists say "___ evidence shows a correlation which suggests ___". the latter leaves room for interpretation, because like I said, theories are not laws.
faith is something observed by people who have no evidence to support a theory.
in science, that gets tossed out as anecdotes. you need to have consistent evidence
to substantiate a claim. *edit* to have personal "faith" in something, is a subjective experience. science is a methodology based on objectivity.
albeit, their are limitations of language and math to describe certain phenomena, but the methods used to observe are fairly universal and straight-forward. A lot of nonscientists and businessmen like to say "__ is proven to do ___". scientists say "___ evidence shows a correlation which suggests ___". the latter leaves room for interpretation, because like I said, theories are not laws.
universecannon said:Ice House said:
Studies never really conclusively "prove" anything though. But they can give strong hints and evidence. After seeing how amazingly sensitive we can be to things ( like minute dosages of molecules) It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to be at least a bit concerned with them, especially after reading that study that found
"Those who used a cell phone heavily on the side of the head where the tumor developed were found to have an increased risk of about 50% for developing a tumor of the main salivary gland (parotid), compared to those who did not use cell phones."
^ I dont get how randomly suggesting "anything I want" is comparable to what I posted. That quote from the article I posted cearly states that a 50% increased risk of salivary gland tumors was found in cell phone users compared to non users. If people want to egotistically pick apart something like that like vultures just so you can feel better about your cell phone have at it. All I did was post an article from science daily which is a respected site and if you want to complain about it maybe come up with somethign better than a comparison that really is not comparable.
From now on I will most likely just not post at all when it comes to this stuff.
I think we are at a point where theres certainly some anecdotal evidence of problems related to such phones and the issue does merit further prospective studies to observe the effects over a longer period, as the latent period between exposure to a carcinogenic factor and the onset of frank neoplasia can take decades.Think asbestos.The case is far from proven currently but it would take a brave soul to conclude that the potential for health problems definitely doesnt exist.
Hyperspace Fool said:
Good post. Im kinda confused though, about the direction of this topic.. Are we talking about cellphone radiation and potential cancer/other health issues, are we talking about sustainability, are we talking about the cellphone industry, or what?
Regarding long term health effects of cellphone radiation, I have no clue, I haven't researched into it deeper to really have formed a strong opinion. Regardless, I know that the peak of radiation from a cellphone is released when it is trying to make a connection, the first seconds when you press "call", so at least a simple thing people can do is keep the cellphone far from the head when dialing, till it connects. I do this just for being prudent, appart from avoiding talking in general (also for economic/energetic reasons, and I feel no need to just keep talking on the phone, I talk only the essential)
I agree with HyperspaceFool that we should definitely consider the damages done by the cellphone/electronic industry. I remember when I took a class on sustainability, and was reading about how for a single smartphone, there are about 70kg of waste products generated. Not to mention all the energetic costs and the general pollution that isn't just about weight of waste. And people are changing their cellphones every couple of months, I think that is so absurd, from a sustainability point of view.
Regarding coltan, that is indeed absurd situation in congo, but I dont think coltan is only used in cellphones though, it's in most electronic equipment, isnt it? So if you take your argument through, then we would throw away computers and all electronic equipment, right? Personally my solution is not to throw away my electronic equipment but just to avoid buying in general, only have second-hand equipment, use until it breaks instead of replacing unnecessarily, etc. I have a very old nokia phone that I have for years, which I had already gotten from a friend when he got a new one for himself. I will keep using it till it breaks, it has no extra functions, it just works to call (and it falls down without breaking, which is a great plus for me). Same with computers, I have the same second hand laptop for years, and I would advice others to do the same, but of course not everybody is in the same situation, for example graphic designers or whatever might need more powerful computers. Each person needs to find their own balance, but I do think people should question themselves before buying anything: "is this REALLY necessary?"
Lastly, regarding science, SpartanII, you made a topic regarding a scientific topic, isnt it reasonable that people expect/post about scientific publications? Of course finding a single publication saying one thing or other isnt the end-all of the discussion, because as HyperspaceFool posted, we must also think critically about publications, since often they are funded by companies with less-than-honorable intentions, and hence the whole methodology is biased, and conclusions too.. But thats why one must learn to go beyond simple headlines and conclusions and actually read the publications, try to make informed criticism, search for different publications, talk to experts on the subject, etc... Also with these subjects its kinda hard to really have a final word because there are so many sides to cancer and everybody is subjected to thousands of different products and radiations, from sun/cosmic rays to small amounts of carcinogenics in the air from pollution or in cosmetic or even food products and so on and so on, and it all works in long term, plus all the genetic/personal aspects, so to find a definite cause-and-effect is very hard if not impossible. But scientific knowledge is definitely useful and adds to the discussion a lot
endlessness said:
I never said it was unreasonable, I just think it's sad how some people demand science studies just because the issue challenges their world-view. And it disturbs me how defensive some people get when I make jokes about it. This has happened many times on this board with a certain group of posters.
SpartanII said:
Its not sad, it's logical.. I mean, you are the one who started the thread and mentioned yourself about "studies" and linked some news about studies, what else do you expect? Seems like you are contradicting yourself, and falling from the same mistake you are denouncing, acting defensive when something doesnt agree with your view.
If you talk about a subject that involves science, then scientific papers will be asked for. If you think scientific papers are not enough or if you have criticism to the papers at hand, feel free to voice it, but also understand where the others are coming from.
If people seem defensive to you, you can always talk to them and explain yourself, try to unwind the emotional situation. Im not sure if you followed the late issues we have had regarding science and "spiritual" posts, there were a few threads about this which, thanks to the maturity of posters, turned out very well and constructively. Nevertheless I bring this up because it IS an issue that has been going around lately, people who are unreasonably critical towards science, which bring up some more loose-minded views and when any scientific talk is brought up, then they act defensive, refuse to question themselves and their own position, etc.. So maybe this kind of attitude which has recently been happening more often makes the scientific folks 'jumpy', like "oh no, not again, one of these "science is bad" people". Im not saying you are one of these, or that being jumpy is justified (or that it happened here) but just contextualizing the whole issue, so that you understand a bit the other side too... It gets specially tiring from the perspective of being a mod/admin, when you have to make all this work to maintain the quality of the forum and yet pleasing different perspectives, and when issues seem to repeat themselves over and over again.
So with that being said, you can still make jokes and lighten up the mood, but try to be understanding and to also question if its really a joke of "good taste" and if it will help or not... By the way, that smilie face at the end of your "joke", at least to me, gives a feeling of sarcasm that doesnt seem light-hearted but actually spiteful....
Re-reading back over this thread, I hardly see any example of anyone being anti-scientific. Things have been taken out of context.
The scientific method is awesome. So are peer-reviewed journals. Most of the scientists I've met have been humans...creatures driven by all sorts of pre-rational impulses.
The negative vibe this thread has taken seems way more likely to be "sad" rather than "logical". Perhaps "sad" and "logical" are somewhat miscable? Looking at the original post, Mr Spartan mentioned that there are studies saying both: Cell phones DO cause brain cancer and others saing cell phones do NOT cause cancer. And then he asked for our opinions.
The attitude that is being displayed is one of "Spartan is stating an opinion as fact, demanding we accept cellphones as cancer causing when the evidence is far from conclusive". I do not think anyone has really stated anything like that.
The scientific method is awesome. So are peer-reviewed journals. Most of the scientists I've met have been humans...creatures driven by all sorts of pre-rational impulses.
The negative vibe this thread has taken seems way more likely to be "sad" rather than "logical". Perhaps "sad" and "logical" are somewhat miscable? Looking at the original post, Mr Spartan mentioned that there are studies saying both: Cell phones DO cause brain cancer and others saing cell phones do NOT cause cancer. And then he asked for our opinions.
The attitude that is being displayed is one of "Spartan is stating an opinion as fact, demanding we accept cellphones as cancer causing when the evidence is far from conclusive". I do not think anyone has really stated anything like that.
the so called "burden of proof" lies on the person making claims to present some substantial evidence to support said claims.
if you can show reproducible empirical data which correlates to direct causality, then you
have a credible argument. otherwise, what you're left with is isolated cases with no definitive correlation.
if you believe excessive cellphone use can cause cancer, then fine. it's not my place to try to convince you otherwise...but if you're going to try to convince others, especially those who regularly observe the scientific method, you should bring more to the discussion than anecdotes and opinions.
if the scientific view seems "rigid", good.. I'd hope you'd rather have a consistent answer than one that can be interpreted in different ways to serve an agenda. Personally, I don't care for the latter, or else I would've gone to law school instead of becoming a scientist.
data is warped by media and politicians, not scientists..that would be the equivalent of political suicide in the science world.
if you can show reproducible empirical data which correlates to direct causality, then you
have a credible argument. otherwise, what you're left with is isolated cases with no definitive correlation.
if you believe excessive cellphone use can cause cancer, then fine. it's not my place to try to convince you otherwise...but if you're going to try to convince others, especially those who regularly observe the scientific method, you should bring more to the discussion than anecdotes and opinions.
if the scientific view seems "rigid", good.. I'd hope you'd rather have a consistent answer than one that can be interpreted in different ways to serve an agenda. Personally, I don't care for the latter, or else I would've gone to law school instead of becoming a scientist.
data is warped by media and politicians, not scientists..that would be the equivalent of political suicide in the science world.
Similar threads
- Sticky
