Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@xxxxxxxxx> hath wroth:

In article <c1ha33drn1mk3uos5pj5ajmah5b4fc9jf3@xxxxxxx>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

etc. Never mind that the incidence of brain cancer has been
essentially constant for many years, while cell phone usage has
increased astronomically. If they were related, the curves would
track each other.

While I don't have any reason to think otherwise, cancers of the
induced type are cumulative and the advent of cell phones that you put
next to your head are (in these terms) relatively new. I think you can
shoot the link down from a technical point of view quite effectively,
you probably have to wait another 10+ years before you can put a stake
in it epidemiologically.

Baloney. Cumulative effects might be possible if there were a static
group of potential victims that was being studied. However, the class
of potential victims (i.e. all the increasing number of cell phone
users) has increased dramatically in the same time span. It has
increased sufficiently for used cell phones and dead batteries to be
classified as an environmental waste hazard. Unless you expect RF
radiation exposure to be contagious, require a carrier, or is
self-limiting, where the mechanisms are quite different, cell phone
use and brain cancer should track.


Well said!


What you're suggesting is very common in research, where the mantra
"more research is necessary" is traditionally added to any research
report. 10+ more years of throwing money at a problem that doesn't
exist isn't very useful. However, paranoia and statistical ineptitude
are powerful political motivators. Maybe add a cancer research tax
fund to our cell phone bills and be done with it?

Also well said!
.