h a l f b a k e r yI think, therefore I am thinking.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A theory: Excessive radiation from proliferating wireless devices can cause serious health issues.
A prediction: Excessive radiation from proliferating wireless devices _will_ cause serious health issues. Rates of cancer will increase.
An idea: Preemptively create non-wireless areas
in bars, restaurants, stadia and other public venues. Hand out bumper stickers, buttons and placards. Take out ads in the newspaper and on television. Educate the public on second-hand radiation, how to ask people to stop SMSing in the coffee shop and ask guests to step outside if they "have" to check their e-mail.
A petition: Insist on a wireless free workplace! If your employer is hesitant to institute a no wireless policy, negotiate a "wireless room" where those unwilling to give up their gadgets can damage themselves. Remember: It's your body, your right.
[P.S. There is no Public:Safety, but I thought this was close enough]
Move Here
http://www.nowpubli...tes-ban-cell-phones
No cell phones, period (.) [Giblet, Apr 12 2008]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Any data to support the theory? When should the prediction become true? What bandwidth are we talking about, a few Hz from neural activity, 50Hz from line power, kHz to MHz from radio and TV, GHz from cell phones? |
|
| |
I like the idea though, many people could find jobs making and distributing the campaign material. Talk could also benefit. |
|
| |
There have been various studies about particular frequency ranges and so on, but I wonder sometimes whether anyone has adequately studied the _aggregate_ affect of all the different wireless technologies that urban dwellers are exposed to constantly. Cellular, TV, CB radio, WiFi, Bluetooth, microwave ovens, etc, etc, etc. |
|
| |
The prediction/theory is very controversial, and not just because a lot of studies are being sponsored by mobile phone companies*. No conclusive results (or, there are as many conclusive results as there are research scientists). Your allusion makes a very good point, though. |
|
| |
Good friggin luck getting people to give up their mobile phones. God forbid people wait until they get home to make that call. |
|
| |
--
*I'm not saying it's inherently wrong. Just controversial. |
|
| |
([bris] - You couldn't have know this, but my comment above is not only luddite, it's hypocritical :P ) |
|
| |
In this country, to avoid the controversy and delays of not-in-my-back-yard-ism, telecommunication companies have started installing antennas hidden in flagpoles, placed innocently among homes. |
|
| |
My original intent was to draw a parallel between this and second-hand smoke, however I was afraid it would be seen simply as political satire. You'll notice the similarities, I'm sure. [Detly]'s comments about "studies are being sponsored by mobile phone companies" and "Good friggin luck getting people to give up their mobile phones" certainly echo those of the tobacco issue. |
|
| |
I'm not personally concerned about the background radiation from these devices - yet. But it's only a matter of time before everyone wants to go around with a 25 watt transmitter strapped to their belt, PDA, laptop and rooftop. |
|
| |
The whole thing is tongue-in-cheek. That's probably reason enough for [MFD], so blast away. But remember you heard it here first. |
|
| |