On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 at 16:35:15 David Lowenstein wrote:
So Look who's talking, Muth?
I am fimiliar with the article found at: http://cryptome.org/fda102099.htm And I'm not talking. I'm now shaking my head in sympathy.
No one talks on a cell phone for 22 hours straight!
This is unlikely, but what about those who live and work near cellular antennas? They are exposed to the RF radiation 24 hours a day. And there is a school near where I live that has an array of cellular antennas on its roof, only 15 feet above the students in the classroom below.
According to the FDA, there is no evidence saying cell phones cause cancer.
The article also gives no assurance that cell phones are safe, and recommends certain safety precautions such as keeping antennas away from the head and holding mobile phone use to a minimum. As for the results of experiments on test animals being applied to human beings, we do this all the time. This is why questionable substances are tested on animals instead of people. I have nothing against mobile telephones, which are indisputably very convenient. The object of my screed was the blatant media manipulation that we almost seem to enjoy. I mentioned the radiation from cell phones because it *might* be harmful, and no one appears concerned because the media, not wanting to place their advertising revenues in jeopardy, basically ignores the risk. Also, because of the extensive advertising by the mobile phone industry, these phones are becoming entertainment devices and status symbols, especially among children, who often use them as toys. I also doubt that the telephone companies, with their bottom lines at stake, are the best choice to investigate the possible dangers. How many years did the tobacco companies assure us that cigarettes are safe to smoke? Cell telephones are not going away, but their safety is in question, and they therefore should bear a warning such as that now found on cigarette packages. . . before it is too late. Finally, are you associated with a mobile phone company? :-) Now back to the fractals . . . Jim M.