The iPhone 4 Has a Serious Flaw (or two)! [Archive]

Grumsh

06-25-2010, 10:11 AM

Apples new Iphone 4 is officially on the market, and media outlets are reporting on not 1, not 2, not even 3, but multiple issues that R&D should have picked up on with ohhh say... 2 minutes of handling. Gizmodo has it all summarized nicely right here (http://gizmodo.com/5572624/the-latest-iphone-4-problem-some-have-swapped-volume-buttons) and talks about how using cheap glass is bad right here (http://gizmodo.com/5572546/design-test-note-fragile-beauty).

Clearly, this is not the best Apple launch in history: After the pre-order debacle, the yellow tinted screens, the pixel constellations, and the antenna problems, now it's the turn for the swapped volume buttons.

And about the use of bad fabrication materials:

Despite being glossy and shiny, the undeniable fact is that glass is not a good material to make products that are constantly being moved around, under stress, and in the hands of users. Glass breaks. That's why you never see products made of glass around you, except when it's completely necessary because the product itself needs to be transparent.

It doesn't matter that it is strengthened, like aluminosilicate glass, the one Apple uses in the iPhone 4's. In fact, strengthening glass to avoid scratching—which is what Apple did—makes it more prone to extreme shattering on shock. The reason: Aluminosilicate glass has a much higher internal tension than regular glass. What makes it harder also makes it more fragile.

Cases of broken iPhone 4's backs are already appearing. One of Gizmodo's interns broke his iPhone 4 after accidentally dropping it while testing it. This hasn't changed from previous generations. Hell, I broke my iPhone display twice. The fact is that, at the end of the day, dropping the phone while handling it is something that everyone will suffer sooner or later.

But the difference is that the iPhone 4 is all glass. If you drop any other phone, you have a 50% chance of breaking its screen. With the iPhone 4, the risk will always be there, no matter how it falls. It's just more exposed to damage because of the material choice.

This is just lousy product testing there is no other way to argue the point. Did Apple's team fail science 101? Did they miss that part about human bodies able to complete a circuit and holding the phonoe like 99% of the population holds a phone will complete a circuit and kill the antenna? I sure am happy I didn't fall for the hype this time around.

Sad really, I actually enjoy gaming on my Iphone.

brandonjclark

06-25-2010, 10:14 AM

Just posted something similar (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116952), albeit much more inflammatory:)

pwnophobia

06-25-2010, 10:18 AM

Just posted something similar (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116952), albeit much more inflammatory:)

The merging of threads didn't work like I wanted it to, but there we go :p.

Grumsh

06-25-2010, 10:23 AM

The merging of threads didn't work like I wanted it to, but there we go :p.

Understandable, you must have used Apples R&D team to double check your work...

Cygnus

06-25-2010, 10:25 AM

Heh..this is kinda sad and funny at the same time. You have the holier than thou mactards who wait 10+ hours in line just to buy an overpriced and over hyped product...

shadow763

06-25-2010, 10:28 AM

I am curious, all of the times I can really think of this being an issue is with facetime. I dont hold a phone that way when talking on it, and I don't use speaker phone. Now would this affect facetime since that is going off of wifi? Are the wi fi antennas positioned the same way?

brandonjclark

06-25-2010, 10:32 AM

Are the wi fi antennas positioned the same way?

From Apple's website (http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/)....

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/4282/antenna.png

brandonjclark

06-25-2010, 10:37 AM

Let's add a DROPTEST VIDEO while we're at it... (3 strikes and yer outta there!)

K7-OBoDFeDY

...as well as some yellow screens over at Gizomodo (http://gizmodo.com/5571143/some-iphone-4-screens-have-yellow-bands-and-spots)......:eek:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/06/iphone4-screen-problems.jpg

http://gizmodo.com/5571699/iphone-tint-problem-gallery-1/gallery/3

Chimpbot

06-25-2010, 10:51 AM

Its stories like this that are slowly turning me into an Android fanboi. Hell, my decision to buy a nook over a Kindle was solidified by the fact that it runs Android.

At least my nearly year-old Droid works perfectly when I hold it like a normal human being.
I'm surprised Apple doesn't release a special gripping device above and beyond their $30 rubber band. The could call it iTongs, special tongs designed to grip only iPhone 4.

zim2411

06-25-2010, 10:59 AM

Phades

06-25-2010, 11:03 AM

I think Apple is going to start packaging the phone with their "bumper" case. That's really their only acceptable solution at this point. No way they can keep up the "you're holding it wrong" line....

brandonjclark

06-25-2010, 11:03 AM

(And for the record, I'm not an Applemactard.)

Denial isn't a river in Egypt, my friend:p

http://www.mikekaleikini.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/denial.jpg (http://www.mikekaleikini.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/denial.jpg)

senorduck

06-25-2010, 11:08 AM

I upgraded from a 3GS to the 4, and I'm mildly amused by all of this drama. We got two, and both have absolutely flawless screens. Both do have the antenna issue as far as I can tell though. I was planning on getting a case, and I'm just waiting for http://www.goincase.com/ to update their lines.

As for if I regret upgrading to this new "broken" phone, not at all :D

(And for the record, I'm not an Applemactard.)

I hate to admit it, but this is the kind of thing I find to be hilarious about tech heads. The thing is first and foremost supposed to be a phone, but its other, newer, sexier technolusties outweigh the fact that you have to stand on one leg and pat your belly just to talk on the thing. Hooray, you have a phone that can do HD video. Good luck with that, and while you are watching Transformers 2 I will be over here actually talking to people.

zim2411

06-25-2010, 11:10 AM

Denial isn't a river in Egypt, my friend:p

My iPhone is the only Apple product I own. I bought my 3GS back in August because my family is locked into AT&T (4 different lines, all with varying 2 year contract end dates.) I seriously wanted an Android phone, but there wasn't a single one for AT&T or an unlocked one that I could have gotten that was actually worth getting. ($400+ for a G1 unlocked, that would have no 3G access, and where is that phone nowadays?)

I was quite happy with my 3GS. Due to some AT&T record keeping error, I was able to upgrade early (I shouldn't have been able to till next year), and I'm a sucker for high res screens :D

zim2411

06-25-2010, 11:13 AM

I hate to admit it, but this is the kind of thing I find to be hilarious about tech heads. The thing is first and foremost supposed to be a phone, but its other, newer, sexier technolusties outweigh the fact that you have to stand on one leg and pat your belly just to talk on the thing. Hooray, you have a phone that can do HD video. Good luck with that, and while you are watching Transformers 2 I will be over here actually talking to people.

The extent of the problem is exaggerated, but like I said, I'm amused too. My solution now is a bit of scotch tape, but I really don't hold the phone with the vulcan death grip necessary to cause the problem anyway.

ElektroDragon

06-25-2010, 11:16 AM

The most serious flaw is that it is made by Apple.

Zing!

OmegaVader

06-25-2010, 11:18 AM

Maybe they should start selling cell phone bungies since dropping them isn't permissible anymore. Flip phones may be dated, but at least they were durable.

Roc Ingersol

06-25-2010, 11:20 AM

For what it's worth, my iPhone 3G has had the antenna issue since day one. Hand covering lower left corner == signal degradation; sometimes dramatic. In real-world use, it only comes up if I'm playing a game in portrait orientation with two-thumbs. (e.g. Tap Tap or Rock Band.) It certainly hasn't been an issue and it's not something I particularly care about. But then again, I'm not a big "phone" guy. All I really care about is net, games and media. So YMMV.

I've also read that the yellow blotch thing is due the glue holding the protective glass to the display; it isn't done setting or some shit and goes away after another day or two. But whether that's true or not doesn't matter. I'd deal with yellow blotches the same way I dealt with stuck pixels: you hand it back to them, they hand you a new one. Apple has zero tolerance for screen issues.

(And for the record, I'm not an Applemactard.)You can say it till you're blue in the face and they won't care. You own something with an Apple logo on it and you get treated like the personification of every lame, tired macolyte strawman ever dreamt up.

Cygnus

06-25-2010, 11:32 AM

Thats not the case with me, as I own an ipod touch. Its just that the mactard worships at the thrown of steve jobs and appledom.

Regarding the iphone 4, with so many antennae, I wonder about the level of radiation emitted.

You can say it till you're blue in the face and they won't care. You own something with an Apple logo on it and you get treated like the personification of every lame, tired macolyte strawman ever dreamt up.

Roc Ingersol

06-25-2010, 11:51 AM

Thats not the case with me, as I own an ipod touch. Its just that the mactard worships at the thrown of steve jobs and appledom.I don't know and have never met a single person like what you've described. Just like I've never met anyone that enamored with Nintendo, or Sony, or Microsoft, etc. Never in my life. I mean, I'm sure there's someone out there, an analogue to Zune Guy. But they're so far from any identifiable trend, what's the point in bringing them up? No-one else loved Microsoft like Zune Guy did; not even Ballmer. So why would we treat wackos like that as proof that any sort of larger trend exists?
Regarding the iphone 4, with so many antennae, I wonder about the level of radiation emitted.Don't. The cell phone concerns are further from science than astrology, power lines causing cancer or vaccines causing autism. Every single known cancer agent works by breaking chemical bonds. Cell-phone and wifi radiation doesn't have nearly enough energy. Radiation only has enough energy at the far end of the visible spectrum, near and at ultraviolet light. You'll remember ultraviolet light: the active cause of skin cancer. If less-energetic particles could do the deed, UV sunblock and window tinting wouldn't work.

Roc Ingersol

06-25-2010, 11:52 AM

Flip phones may be dated, but at least they were durable.Yeah and old corded home phones never got lost or stolen either.

brandonjclark

06-25-2010, 12:21 PM

I don't know and have never met a single person like what you've described.

Dude, they're out there. They've made a damn movie (http://www.macheadsthemovie.com/)about these types of people.

Witness Exhibit A:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y233/xandrix916/apple_fanboy.jpg

Exhibit B:

http://www.gearfuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/iphone_men.jpg

vivafletcher

06-25-2010, 12:44 PM

I bought an iPod shuffle years ago-- the old kind that's plastic, white and looks like a pack of gum. You can drop it from almost any height and it will work just fine. It's all plastic. You can throw it as hard as you can on carpet and you can't break it. Maybe the cap comes off and you have to put it back on.

No screen, no video and no wifi. But it works 100 percent of the time with no issues. Somehow, I don't feel deprived. Enjoy your yellow screen iPhone.

scott topic

06-25-2010, 12:46 PM

that response by jobs is pretty damn inconsiderate if you ask me.

ElektroDragon

06-25-2010, 12:50 PM

Don't. The cell phone concerns are further from science than astrology, power lines causing cancer or vaccines causing autism.

Dude, if you were a doctor in the 40's you'd be one of the ones recommending cigarettes: http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=23846

Just replace the cigarette with a cell phone in the above commercial.

Do you really think people have just stopped being stupid and ignorant since the 40s? In many cases, I think we've regressed.

I suppose you think high fructose corn syrup is perfectly fine for you too?

Roc Ingersol

06-25-2010, 12:53 PM

Dude, they're out there.Shame you didn't keep reading.

"why would we treat wackos like that as proof that any sort of larger trend exists?"

Does everyone who owns a Honda need to explicitly disavow being a street racer? Street racers are out there, but they're still the exception. No-one would treat any discussion about Honda as if only street racers bought Hondas.

(To be clear: street racers just have a hobby; not a borderline personality disorder. But they're still statistical outliers. And a fair bit more numerous than "mac cultists".)

Evil Avatar

06-25-2010, 01:18 PM

I suppose you think high fructose corn syrup is perfectly fine for you too?

You mean how its all natural because it is made from corn and it is fine in moderation?

Johan

06-25-2010, 01:39 PM

Bahahaha! Thank you for posting this, both of you! :D

I love Steve's reply, too. That just adds to the hilarity!

Roc Ingersol

06-25-2010, 01:41 PM

Dude, if you were a doctor in the 40's you'd be one of the ones recommending cigarettesNo. I'd be the guy looking at the science and drawing an educated conclusion; as distinct from the guy latching onto a crusade that has no objective science so much as hinting at possible support.

We're not talking about ingesting or inhaling a chemical. We're talking about whether radiated energy can cause cancer. And it can't. Not at those energy levels. Not by any known mechanism.

Now, being a guy forming opinions based on evidence, I'm open to the idea that maybe there's some other, currently unknown, method whereby radiated energy can cause adverse health effects, other than breaking chemical bonds.

But a convincing argument of such needs either evidence of this new mechanism or some strong statistical correlation between use/exposure and an adverse health effect. You can't just wave your hands and intimate that because the facts happen to align with a profit motive that they're false. That shit don't fly in the intellectual circles you lament the passing of.

With smoking, even absent evidence of the cancer-causing mechanism, there was an undeniable correlation between mouth/throat/lung cancer and tobacco use. Where's that correlation for cell phone use?

If cell phone use could cause any adverse health effect, we'd be sitting in the middle of a global epidemic. But there simply isn't one. There is no statistical correlation between a spike in any disease and the explosion of cell phone use around the globe.

Let's next consider HFCS -- since you brought it up. Notice the undeniable correlation between obesity and prevalence of processed foods with HFCS? So did I. So, no, I don't buy into the idea that HFCS is "fine". Even if the chemical itself is "fine", it's common concentration is clearly not.

If you were half as intelligent as you wish the rest of the country was, you'd know better than to assume that someone who disagrees with you on one subject necessarily disagrees with you across the board. The people you wish surrounded you do not fit into such convenient boxes. Nor can they be convinced that you are anything other than that which you bemoan, when you assume people can be tagged so easily.

Now I, unlike you, will grant you the benefit of the doubt. I won't assume that you're a stooge or a rube. I'm guessing you're just being intellectually lazy. But just so you know for certain: there are people out there who aren't picking a team and abdicating our critical fucking thought.

So the next time you feel the urge to accuse someone based on a single opinion, maybe take a look in the damn mirror first, then examine the facts of the case in question.

And, if you still disagree, (which you very well might) at least you can speak intelligently about the subject, rather than trying to demonize by analogy.

brandonjclark

06-25-2010, 01:53 PM

The people you wish surrounded you do not fit into such convenient boxes.

actually......

http://www.walyou.com/img/customized-geek-coffins-2.jpg

Oooooooh, I'm a smartass today!

Cygnus

06-25-2010, 01:59 PM

I dunno. I think the safest thing to say is that the jury still is out regarding the long term of effects of cell phone usage. Lets not forget that they used to say the same thing about cigarette smoking... BTW kind of ironic that of all places, san fran just passed a cell phone radiation posting law (http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/06/23/san-francisco-cell-phone-law.html?ref=rss)

Don't. The cell phone concerns are further from science than astrology, power lines causing cancer or vaccines causing autism. Every single known cancer agent works by breaking chemical bonds. Cell-phone and wifi radiation doesn't have nearly enough energy. Radiation only has enough energy at the far end of the visible spectrum, near and at ultraviolet light. You'll remember ultraviolet light: the active cause of skin cancer. If less-energetic particles could do the deed, UV sunblock and window tinting wouldn't work.

donkeydrop

06-25-2010, 02:03 PM

Anenome

06-25-2010, 02:04 PM

I like the attempt to move the industry forward by using all glass. I've never been happy with the durability of plastic in phones. The durability of glass, though, that's another issue to be solved. Myself, I try very hard not to drop my cellphone, and might average one drop a year, if that. The guy in that video had to drop it 4 times to shatter it, that would last me the life of the phone :P

Strangely, it seems like Apple sold you a phone knowing they were also going to force you to buy rubber grips to go around the phone so you were no longer touching the antenna. That's pretty dumb, shame on Apple for that. It should ship with it if it's not really optional. Jobs couldn't come out and say 'buy an apple antenna protector', thus his dumb reply up there.

ElektroDragon

06-25-2010, 02:12 PM

You mean how its all natural because it is made from corn and it is fine in moderation?

And how it is the unacknowledged number one cause of adult onset diabetes in this country? There is nothing "natural" about it. It's taking some natural, corn, and chemically and artificially screwing it up so bad that it becomes harmful.

ElektroDragon

06-25-2010, 02:17 PM

Roc, valid points, I agree with you. I apologize. However, HFCS corn syrup is fucking deadly, and I'm sticking by it. Also, I am not fully convinced that a decade from now, people who have been using CERTAIN higher radiation cell phones for many hours a day won't sprout tumors out of their ears.

ElektroDragon

06-25-2010, 02:20 PM

Obviously, I was being tongue in cheek there. To qualify, HFCS in high doses, but equal to sugar, is much more harmful and much more likely to destroy your pancreas to the point diabetes ensues. And yes, I know brain tumors don't sprout out of one's ears.

But I'm done with this line of thought.. It's too negative and morbid. Bring on the rainbow colored unicorns, please.

Anenome

06-25-2010, 02:25 PM

I dunno. I think the safest thing to say is that the jury still is out regarding the long term of effects of cell phone usage. Lets not forget that they used to say the same thing about cigarette smoking... BTW kind of ironic that of all places, san fran just passed a cell phone radiation posting law (http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/06/23/san-francisco-cell-phone-law.html?ref=rss)
Worrying about cellphone radiation is ridiculous. Seriously, go educate yourself, and don't read the loonies. Read some science. Learn about radio waves. Cell phone tower radiation isn't going to hurt you either, no powerlines. And preservatives in soda don't turn into formaldehyde and damage you internally. And there's no such thing as bigfoot.

Anenome

06-25-2010, 02:36 PM

Oh, and, why did you post a picture of a homeless man holding an Iphone?

ElektroDragon

06-25-2010, 02:40 PM

Well, after getting diagnosed as a diabetic at 30 with NO family history of it (or any other illness for that matter) and WITHOUT being grossly overweight, I specifically blame HFCS for my condition. Specifically, drinking ridiculous amounts of regular Coca-Cola all throughout my teens and 20s.

So yes, based on my personal exerperience, HFCS is the devil.

Johan

06-25-2010, 02:44 PM

Honestly, when people talk like they know shit, they should, you know...KNOW SHIT. :rolleyes:

The science is rolling in on this issue. Expect to read/hear/see much more of this in the next decade or two. (http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?currentPage=1)

Though the scientific debate is heated and far from resolved, there are multiple reports, mostly out of Europe's premier research institutions, of cell-phone and PDA use being linked to "brain aging," brain damage, early-onset Alzheimer's, senility, DNA damage, and even sperm die-offs (many men, after all, keep their cell phones in their pants pockets or attached at the hip). In September 2007, the European Union's environmental watchdog, the European Environment Agency, warned that cell-phone technology "could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol."

Perhaps most worrisome, though, are the preliminary results of the multinational Interphone study sponsored by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France. (Scientists from thirteen countries took part in the study, the United States conspicuously not among them.) Interphone researchers reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell-phone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor—specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone—goes up as much as 40 percent for adults. Interphone researchers in Israel have found that cell phones can cause tumors of the parotid gland (the salivary gland in the cheek), and an independent study in Sweden last year concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300 percent increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the acoustic nerve.

Essentially, a cellphone is a low-power microwave (without walls) held up to your head. Repeatedly. For year after year. Decade after decade.

In a study published in 1975 in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Frey reported that microwaves pulsed at certain modulations could induce "leakage" in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain. Breaching the blood-brain barrier is a serious matter: It means the brain's environment, which needs to be extremely stable for nerve cells to function properly, can be perturbed in all kinds of dangerous ways. Frey's method was rather simple: He injected a fluorescent dye into the circulatory system of white rats, then swept the microwave frequencies across their bodies. In a matter of minutes, the dye had leached into the confines of the rats' brains.

Frey says his work on radar microwaves and the blood-brain barrier soon came under assault from the government. Scientists hired and funded by the Pentagon claimed they'd failed to replicate his findings, yet they also refused to share the data or methodology behind their research ("a most unusual action in science," Frey wrote at the time). For more than fifteen years, Frey had received almost unrestricted funding from the Office of Naval Research. Now he was told to conceal his blood-brain-barrier work or his contract would be canceled.

Since then, no meaningful research into the effect of microwaves on the blood-brain barrier has been pursued in the United States.

Got cooked brain tissue yet?!!?

As for the other issue brought up here, vaccines have not been linked as a cause of autism, but they ARE linked to triggering autism (and there is a difference between a trigger and a causal agent) in otherwise normally-developing children with a specific mitochondrial condition. Dr. Gerberding of the CDC admitted so herself, (http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2008/03/julie-gerberding-admits-on-cnn-that.html) and the research on the issue shows a connection.

PowerPoint on mitochondrial disorder and autism. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CCsQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maine.gov%2Fdhhs%2Fboh%2Fdocu ments%2Fautism-5-12-2009%2FMaine%2520cdc%2520talk%2520final%25205-12.ppt&rct=j&q=vaccine+risk+%2B+mitochondrial+condition+%2B+res earch&ei=6CAlTLucMMH78AaQ4-34Dw&usg=AFQjCNHwVbcEFWyVgcPv55p5oGEdQqoeuQ)

Mitochondrial Dysfunction emerging as most common medical condition associated with autism.

* Of 159 autism patients in one autism clinic, 38% had non-specific biochemical abnormalities. Poling et al. Developmental regression and mitochondrial dysfunction in a child with autism. J Child Neurol, 2006. 21(2): p. 170-2.

* 7.2% of patients with Autism could be classified as having a ‘definite’ mitochondrial respiratory chain disorder and 20% had elevated serum lactic acid Oliveira, G., et al., Mitochondrial dysfunction in autism spectrum disorders: a population-based study. Dev Med Child Neurol, 2005. 47(3): p. 185-9.

* 2nd study 4%; Oliveira, G., et al., Epidemiology of autism spectrum disorder in Portugal: prevalence, clinical characterization, and medical conditions. Dev Med Child Neurol, 2007. 49(10): p. 726-33.

Mitochondrial Dysfunction emerging as most common medical condition associated with autism 2

* 36% of 100 autism patients have total carnitine levels 1SD below mean control, pattern suggestive mild mitochondrial dysfunction. Filipek, P.A., et al., Relative carnitine deficiency in autism. J Autism Dev Disord, 2004. 34(6): p. 615-23.

* 65% of autism pts referred for mitochondrial evaluation to specialty clinic positive for OxPhos disorder on muscle biopsy. Shoffner, J., L.C. Hyams, and G.N. Langley, Oxidative Phosphorylation (OXPHOS) Defects in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders, in AAN. 2008: Chicago.

Individuals with this particular mitochondrial disorder are highly susceptible to inflammatory triggers, particularly immune-system-stressing agents like vaccines, to being tripped into autism. There is INDEED a connection between autism and vaccines, but it is not a causal one. Without this condition autism isn't a result of vaccination. Vaccines are, however, a trigger; perhaps one of several possible triggers for such individuals, as well (we don't know). Interestingly enough, we do not test for this condition prior to giving vaccinations. Can anyone say "avoiding liability through ignorance" for the government/pharmaceutical companies? :rolleyes:

Inform yourself before posting tons of bullshit people. Please. And if you want to dispute my post, do so with something other than fingerpaints and your own opinion dredged out of your ass, posting actual research citations as I've done here. Thanks.

Anenome

06-25-2010, 02:52 PM

That's the sugar. Diet = no diabetes.

Anenome

06-25-2010, 02:55 PM

Inform yourself before posting tons of bullshit people.
Season 2, Episode 2 of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! addresses the cell phone radiation scare.

Also, if you think a phone can microwave your brain you also clearly have no clue how a microwave actually works either.

ElektroDragon

06-25-2010, 02:56 PM

That's the sugar. Diet = no diabetes.

There are plenty of countries ingesting tons of sugar where diabetes is very rare, not an epidemic like here. The only difference is HFCS doesn't exist in those countries.

HFCS is poison. Sugar is just bad in large quantities.

ElektroDragon

06-25-2010, 03:05 PM

Remember, no one thought trans fats were any more harmful than regular sat fat for the longest time. When you eat things that have been screwed with, even natural things, you get screwed!!

Trans fat? Heart disease.
HFCS? Diabetes.
Charred meat? Cancer.

Moral of the story is, don't chemically alter your food too much or mutate its proteins before ingesting it, or those chemicals and mutant proteins will alter and mutate YOU.

It's kind of like cows that were given feed with bits of other cows and cow brains in it. Yeah, you can argue... it's all NATURAL food. Yeah, well, it ain't natural FOR THE COW EATING IT. Hence you get those mad cow prions.

When we eat mutated and chemically altered food, it's like the freaking cow who is eating other cow bits. Not what nature inteded. BAD things happen.

Furious Wang

06-25-2010, 03:08 PM

Errrr...Opium is all natural and fine for you in moderation. Actually pretty much everything is fine for you in moderation. A lot of people drink soft drinks exclusively, however. They were just never raised to drink water at a meal or because they're thirsty. I haven't researched the topic too much, but I've read that HFCS is as bad for your liver as alcohol. That's pretty crazy, if true. I also imagine there are risks to using a cell phone for long periods of time, but I'm not really much a phone talker so I probably have a higher risk from the thousands of bands of radio and wifi smashing through my brain all day.

Anyway, back on topic. It is completely absurd that the maker of the current flagship product in a market could overlook a design flaw that can be fixed with scotch tape. One could contrive up some attempt for Apple to sell more cases, but that seems like a bit of a stretch. More likely it was a known problem, they caught it late, but didn't want to risk delaying release for fear of losing ground to Android. Some people at the top just kept their mouths shut and this is the result. Pretty poor form.

full disclosure: I own a Mactop.

ElektroDragon

06-25-2010, 03:08 PM

Furious Wang

06-25-2010, 03:09 PM

Also, prions are very interesting. You should research the link between fungal prions and the origin of conscious thought.

Furious Wang

06-25-2010, 03:13 PM

And by the way, did you know that in Canada, Australia, France, even MEXICO they actually don't cheap out and put REAL SUGAR in their Coke? We are one of the only, if not THE only country stupid enough, or sold out to mega corporations badly enough, to use HFCS poison in our food and drink.

In Australia, France, etc. HFCS is not cheaper than sugar. HFCS is so cheap here due to all of the subsidies paid out to corn growers and the fact the we grow an insane amount of corn, due to it being America and all...where corn came from...

That is slowly changing, however, as ethanol needs and subsidies are rising, so too is the cost of HFCS. Thus, sugar is actually becoming a cheaper ingredient. That's a large reason why so many companies are switching. They're naturally a bit scared of changing their formulas (especially soda makers, see catastrophe of New Coke) and are doing it slowly.

Anenome

06-25-2010, 03:17 PM

There are plenty of countries ingesting tons of sugar where diabetes is very rare, not an epidemic like here. The only difference is HFCS doesn't exist in those countries.

HFCS is poison. Sugar is just bad in large quantities.
Well, let's see. High Fructose Corn Syrup is used in softdrinks here because of the corn lobby which protects the corn-making industry and gives them both legal protection from competition (tariffs) and subsidies.

Conservatives are against farm subsidies.

Therefore, democrats gave you diabetes :P By manipulating the industry.

Sugar is actually cheaper than HFCS, it's the legal protection and intervention by the fed that results in its use.

Johan

06-25-2010, 03:21 PM

Season 2, Episode 2 of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! addresses the cell phone radiation scare.

Also, if you think a phone can microwave your brain you also clearly have no clue how a microwave actually works either.

This is the kind of fingerpaint sphincter bullshit I mentioned earlier. Bring legitimate research sources which refute my own posted links/research, not this drivel, or just STFU. :rolleyes:

Conservatives are against farm subsidies

Unless they actually represent a farm state/region which gets the subsidies, and then they support them. :rolleyes:

ElektroDragon

06-25-2010, 03:40 PM

They're naturally a bit scared of changing their formulas (especially soda makers, see catastrophe of New Coke) and are doing it slowly.

A shame, as back when I was drinking soda, I marvelled at how much better Coke made with sugar tasted than Coke made with HFCS.

Therefore, democrats gave you diabetes

That gives me another fantastic reason to hate Democrats.

You should research the link between fungal prions and the origin of conscious thought.

Wow, you're on to something there. I wonder if this mean that if I eat a lot of mushrooms and blue cheese, my offspring will inherit proteins that will cause them to think and act more like myself...

shadow763

06-25-2010, 04:09 PM

From Apple's website (http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/)....

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/4282/antenna.png

My understanding of the two antennas around the outside is that they serve separate purposes. Is that incorrect? I thought one was for one purpose and the other for maybe wifi, or bluetooth, or whatever.

brandonjclark

06-25-2010, 04:43 PM

Good question, I'm not really sure to be honest. I read it like it's actually one antenna, with two purposes.

Scramble

06-25-2010, 05:24 PM

And how it is the unacknowledged number one cause of adult onset diabetes in this country? There is nothing "natural" about it. It's taking some natural, corn, and chemically and artificially screwing it up so bad that it becomes harmful.

Your American Coke Classic tastes like shit. Real Coke with sugar FTW!!

/derail

Grumsh

06-25-2010, 05:43 PM

Season 2, Episode 2 of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! addresses the cell phone radiation scare.

Also, if you think a phone can microwave your brain you also clearly have no clue how a microwave actually works either.

While I was planning of staying out of the debate since it appears that some would just throw out random BS/fake science to prove how they are right...

I have to throw the BS Flag (pun intended) here. BS is not and shall not be considered factual science. It's a show put out by 2 comedy magicians who take items of public hysteria and prove or disprove them using whacky science. For example, they interviewed self proclaimed Ghostbusters to disprove the 2012 scare. Funny but not scientific or containing opinions that you could call relevant. A bunch of hippies to prove organic gardening is a sham (look people whatever you put in the ground goes into your food weather its nitrates, hog poop, or pesticides you can't deny this).

BS is funny, and I have not missed a single show through and including season 7, but it is not 100% honest science.

Back on topic Iphone 4 sucks.

Anenome

06-25-2010, 05:50 PM

BS is not and shall not be considered factual science. It's a show put out by 2 comedy magicians who take items of public hysteria and prove or disprove them using whacky science.

BS is funny, and I have not missed a single show through and including season 7, but it is not 100% honest science.

Well of course, I wasn't quoting them as a source! What they are is accessible to regular people. And the lie about organic gardening is the idea that we could go 100% organic and still feed the world, that's not at all true. About 2 billion people would die of starvation worldwide if we went organic and GM free.

Grumsh

06-25-2010, 06:01 PM

Well of course, I wasn't quoting them as a source! What they are is accessible to regular people. And the lie about organic gardening is the idea that we could go 100% organic and still feed the world, that's not at all true. About 2 billion people would die of starvation worldwide if we went organic and GM free.

Ok, good. For a minute there I was thinking you had lost your mind, must have been from the cell phone radiation <drum roll>.

Also a 2 billion person cut in population doesn't really sound too terrible too me... =P

Did you know that if we don't cut the population explosion now, that the planet will no longer be able to support life in 100 years? Some Aussie scientist wrote a report about that recently... no joke.

Anenome

06-25-2010, 06:25 PM

Also a 2 billion person cut in population doesn't really sound too terrible too me... =P
I hope you're just being deliberately provocative :P You sound a bit like the Prince Phillip here.

Did you know that if we don't cut the population explosion now, that the planet will no longer be able to support life in 100 years? Some Aussie scientist wrote a report about that recently... no joke.
Haha, Grumsh is showing us what happens when we just go by the words of uncited sources :P

But seriously people, some things don't need sources. This claim does, but not the claim that cellphones don't harm you. Only extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. No one's asking me for a source if I claim the sun will come up tomorrow, or that women are hard to grok.

Similarly, those who claim cellphones are causing brain damage and cooking your head like a microwave might are the ones with the burden of proof on them, and they deserve to be ridiculed until the can produce a shred of proof--which so far they've failed to do. This thing's been studied before, and at length. Saying that some X scientist was paid off or silenced, etc. It's just hearsay.

And again, really research how a microwave actually works before claiming a cellphone can cook your noodle.

A microwave oven uses microwaves to heat food. Microwaves are radio waves (http://home.howstuffworks.com/radio-spectrum.htm). In the case of microwave ovens, the commonly used radio wave frequency is roughly 2,500 megahertz (2.5 gigahertz). Radio waves in this frequency range have an interesting property: they are absorbed by water, fats and sugars. When they are absorbed they are converted directly into atomic motion -- heat.

You also see people disparaging aspartame in diet soda, etc. Here's a great article (http://whatdoesthesciencesay.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/aspartame-and-formaldehyde/) I found recently and sent around to some friends who've made similar wacky claims.

That article's also excellent for explaining how scientific rumors get spread and build on each other. He examines a claim that 98 studies claim aspartame is hamrful, etc., and actually looks into the claim and finds that dozens of them are just papers or articles, and many seems to be sourcing the same single study, which others then source, which are then cited as sources in turn. Ultimately, it was a single faulty study which found any problem whatsoever, and the science was quite flawed.

Then, they did their own study, giving rats the equivalent aspartame as if a person were to drink 25 liters of diet cola every single day.

Guess how much formaldehyde build-up they found. Negligible. Nada. Not gonna happen. If 25 liters worth of formaldehyde isn't going to harm you, don't worry about 1-2 liters in a day's worth.

Anenome

06-25-2010, 06:35 PM

Seems Iphone antenna problems may be in-part caused by government regulation: http://www.antennasys.com/antennasys-blog/2010/6/24/apple-iphone-4-antennas.html

brandonjclark

06-25-2010, 06:52 PM

Seems Iphone antenna problems may be in-part caused by government regulation: http://www.antennasys.com/antennasys-blog/2010/6/24/apple-iphone-4-antennas.html

From your link...:

The FCC puts strict limits on the amount of energy from a handheld device that may be absorbed by the body. We call this Specific Absorbtion Rate, or SAR.

Now, I don't have ANY data to lead me to believe that cell phone emissions could be harmful but why is there a limit on this SAR? Why, when older phones used antenna which extended out past the head, was this considered a better solution safety-wise?

An intelligent person who knows literally nothing about the situation and hears those kinds of things begins to ask questions, you must admit.

Now, if the SAR limit is designed so that some dumbass company doesn't put a nuclear reactor near your head, then I understand. But I would guess that the limits are fairly small enough (according to the FCC) if Jobs' team had to design around it, right?

Sinistar

06-25-2010, 06:53 PM

I licked the back of my iPhone 4G just a moment ago

and now

I see magical Retina Display™ colors.

blackzc

06-25-2010, 06:56 PM

You can say it till you're blue in the face and they won't care. You own something with an Apple logo on it and you get treated like the personification of every lame, tired macolyte strawman ever dreamt up.

People really dislike the pretentious vibe that apple and its worshipers have. I will never buy and apple anything because of this.

shadow763

06-25-2010, 07:14 PM

People really dislike the pretentious vibe that apple and its worshipers have. I will never buy and apple anything because of this.

Who are "people" getting this vibe from? I get the pretentious vibe from a lot of people who have a lot of toys. Doesn't seem to matter who makes them.

Anenome

06-25-2010, 07:17 PM

Informative article on the antenna problem, and its easy fix:

http://www.fastcompany.com/1663768/iphone-4-antenna-fix?partner=hacker_news

Johan

06-25-2010, 07:34 PM

Similarly, those who claim cellphones are causing brain damage and cooking your head like a microwave might are the ones with the burden of proof on them,

And I've already posted evidence. You have not.

and they deserve to be ridiculed until the can produce a shred of proof--which so far they've failed to do.

You suffer from a deficit in literacy.

This thing's been studied before, and at length.

Because you say so. :rolleyes:

Saying that some X scientist was paid off or silenced, etc. It's just hearsay.

Hilarious irony. :rolleyes:

And again, really research how a microwave actually works before claiming a cellphone can cook your noodle.

Anyone with a brain, and I presumed upon your own capacity in that regard, would have understood that statement for hyperbolic humor. :rolleyes:

Got any more anecdotal sphincter content to toss on here? :rolleyes:

Now, I don't have ANY data to lead me to believe that cell phone emissions could be harmful but why is there a limit on this SAR? Why, when older phones used antenna which extended out past the head, was this considered a better solution safety-wise?

Because, as Anenome has proven through his own anecdotal claims and a television show, there is absolutely no danger from cell phone emissions. None. :D

As I already linked:

there are multiple reports, mostly out of Europe's premier research institutions, of cell-phone and PDA use being linked to "brain aging," brain damage, early-onset Alzheimer's, senility, DNA damage, and even sperm die-offs.

Interphone researchers reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell-phone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor—specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone—goes up as much as 40 percent for adults. Interphone researchers in Israel have found that cell phones can cause tumors of the parotid gland (the salivary gland in the cheek), and an independent study in Sweden last year concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300 percent increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the acoustic nerve.

Swedish study: Use of a cell phone increases brain tumor risk years down the road. (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/40764.php)

Anenome

06-25-2010, 07:50 PM

Johan's argument boils down to this:
GQr6SbYpTYM

My argument:
przkFZJSkOc

And yes, lest someone think the popcorn video was actual, someone was holding a lighter under the table. Duh :P

Anenome

06-25-2010, 07:52 PM

Phony Cancer Scares Debunked (http://www.livescience.com/health/061212_bad_phones.html)

The Danes, relatively inactive on the world scene since their conquest of Greenland and invention of that delightful pastry, have conducted one of the best health studies yet revealing that there's no apparent link between cancer and cell phones.

Researchers at the Danish Cancer Institute (who, remember, don't want you to get cancer) followed more than 420,000 cell phone users, nearly a tenth of the Danish population, and found that their cell phone habits did not increase their risk of any type of cancer. The results were published last week in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Brain cancers can take many years to develop. The most reassuring aspect of the massive Danish study is that some of the cancer-free subjects have been using cell phones for more than 20 years.

Yet most scientists aren't surprised by the result. Study after study has been showing no evidence of cancer precisely because there's no plausible reason for cell phones to cause cancer.

Next.

Johan

06-25-2010, 08:01 PM

Phony Cancer Scares Debunked (http://www.livescience.com/health/061212_bad_phones.html)

From your own link:

Study after study has been showing no evidence of cancer precisely because there's no plausible reason for cell phones to cause cancer.

WRONG! :D Next. :rolleyes: I love how the study linked in your above link goes to a page that no longer exists, too. That's solid research there!

It's amazing to me that you would actually state that one study "DEBUNKED" cancer scares. You should know better, but I've been known to be unreasonably optimistic in my assessments of the intellectual capacities of others.

Johan's argument boils down to this:

Anenome's argument boils down to this:

: fingerpainting doodles, videos, and photoshops, followed by anecdotal shit bombs :

:rolleyes:

The FACT of the research on this issue is that there have been studies showing a correlation between extended cell phone use and brain tumors, AND there have been studies showing no correlation and/or resulting in inconclusive results. Denying that some studies show a link makes you a flat earther, but you can feel free to post cutesy little videos and refer to television shows for your scientific evidence. It becomes you. :rolleyes:

For those actually interested in data and scientific evidence on the issue, the Imperial College of London is conducting a long-term study. (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_22-4-2010-13-52-53) The National Cancer Institute began a study in 1994 studying the risks for brain cancer, and it will be published next year; it will include an examination of cell phone use.

Add to the links I've already provided the June 2001 issue of the scientific journal Differentiation, where an Australian team reported that normal cell phone use can lead to cancer. (http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/cell062501b.htm)

Researchers in Australia have reported one of the first scientific hypotheses that normal mobile phone use can lead to cancer. The research group, lead by radiation expert Dr Peter French, principal scientific officer at the Centre for Immunology Research at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney, said that mobile phone frequencies well below current safety levels could stress cells in a way that has been shown to increased susceptibility to cancer.

Dr. French emphasised that no link has yet been shown between the specific biological effects of mobile phone radiation and cancer, but that there was now a theoretical framework for such an effect that could be investigated. His previous work has included showing that the production of histamine, a chemical involved in asthma, can be nearly doubled after exposure to cellular frequencies.

To date, most safety levels have been set on the assumption that damage is caused by heating effects of radio waves in human tissue, much higher than the levels at which Dr French claims heat shock proteins are triggered.

His co-authors include Professor Ron Penny, the director of the Centre and one of Australia's leading experts in the cellular effects of HIV, and Professor David McKenzie, head of applied physics at Sydney University.

Of course according to Anenome the Danish study debunked this one. Everyone knows that ANENOME + the Danes = Absolute knowledge. :rolleyes:

Anenome, enjoy your videos and finger-doodles. :rolleyes: U R Internet WinNaR! :rolleyes:

pwnophobia

06-25-2010, 08:08 PM

Anenome, enjoy your videos and finger-doodles. :rolleyes: U R Internet WinNaR! :rolleyes:

So do you!
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e199/Rory341/winrarisyou.jpg

Johan

06-25-2010, 08:09 PM

So do you!

Are. Proper verbiage when insulting others. Are.

gzsfrk

06-25-2010, 08:11 PM

Phony Cancer Scares Debunked (http://www.livescience.com/health/061212_bad_phones.html)

Worth noting that the article you linked above is from 2006, whereas the one Johan linked (http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?currentPage=1) is from February of this year.

So given that different legitimate studies have reached different conclusions, that tells me that the issue is far from decided either way, and that anyone claiming that it's stupid or naive to consider one position or the other legitimate is the equivalent of Al Gore incessantly shouting, "The science is settled! The science is settled!" in the hopes of silencing all potential opposition to his AGW claims, while himself refusing to openly debate the issue with those who disagree and cite their reasons for so doing.

I mean, come on. Show respect to a differing point of view. Reasonable men can disagree, after all. Unless you want to attack every study that has showed ANY level of correlation between cell/mobile phone use and negative health effects as illegitimate, how about backing your position down to a more reasonable tone of "I remain unconvinced that there are significant negative health effects related to the use of mobile phones", rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks on the suggested naivete, paranoia, and sub-par intelligence of those who disagree with you?

Sensei-X

06-25-2010, 08:12 PM

My argument:
And yes, lest someone think the popcorn video was actual, someone was holding a lighter under the table. Duh :P

How about a video of an iPhone 4 in a blender instead. :p

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_S8sxpK4_iA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_S8sxpK4_iA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

or better yet, an iPhone 4 getting shot.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Apcv0EgsuwU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Apcv0EgsuwU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

pwnophobia

06-25-2010, 08:13 PM

Are. Proper verbiage when insulting others. Are.

No, you also win one Internets. I was correct.

U R Internet WinNaR!

I understand that the above quote wasn't exactly like the picture (you win one internets), but it was close enough that I had an excuse to post said picture.

kthxbye

gzsfrk

06-25-2010, 08:18 PM

Are. Proper verbiage when insulting others. Are.

In the context of the coupon image he included in his post ("You win one free Internet"), "So do you!" was actually a fitting response, assuming that "U R Internet WinNaR" was interpreted to mean "You win the Internet."

Plus, I mean... if you can break grammatical rules with "U R Internet WinNaR", let's not go throwing stones. :)

Johan

06-25-2010, 08:21 PM

Lawrence Challis, chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications Health Research Programme (MTHR), said it was "responsible" to study long-term users. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6281695.stm)

He said there was a "hint of something" suggesting a link between mobiles and ill health but no hard evidence.

'Dilemma'

Prof Challis, a physicist, said short-term studies had established no risk but added that volunteers should be looked at over a period of at least five years.

The science is settled. Anenome and the Danes have it locked down. :D

No, you also win one Internets. I was correct.

kthxbye

Bahahaha! Welcome to the WinNaR's club yourself! :D

Plus, I mean... if you can break grammatical rules with "U R Internet WinNaR", let's not go throwing stones. :)

Touche indeed!

Raw

06-25-2010, 08:23 PM

Nice to see Apple fall, if only for a bit. People will still be buying their products. I myself bought a iPod Touch 2nd gen, and within a week, I could find so many design flaws that I was amazed people were still buying new ones. And what's their excuse: keep it simple, pfft (yeah, let's wait a year to introduce volume buttons).

Come on, Apple. Why are you called leading innovators? It took you 3 full years to implement multitasking, a so-called feature that has been present on the tech world for almost 50 years (Leo III).

I just want to say, Crash & Burn, Apple, you deserve it.

Anenome

06-25-2010, 08:56 PM

I love how the study linked in your above link goes to a page that no longer exists, too. That's solid research there!
Do you understand the concept of a peer-reviewed research journal? "The results were published... in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute."

And as for plausibility of cell phones causing cancer, that was in direct references to the question of a physics-based explanation for how such low levels of radiation could possibly even cause harm. None's been shown as of yet, and may never be.

Your inflated rhetoric isn't going to change that.

It's amazing to me that you would actually state that one study "DEBUNKED" cancer scares.
That's the title of the article. You didn't actually visit the link, did you. Fail.

Anenome's argument boils down to this:

: fingerpainting doodles, videos, and photoshops, followed by anecdotal shit bombs :

Now you're just being childish :P

there have been studies showing a correlation between extended cell phone use and brain tumors, AND there have been studies showing no correlation and/or resulting in inconclusive results. :rolleyes:
I agree actually. Why you're conflating the article title with my own statements I have no idea. Doesn't this idea contradict your own statements? You're so sure there's a link, no?

Pretending that the issue has been proven medically, etc., when the truth is that experts cannot agree, and various studies dispute each other, is dumb. However, in such a case it takes an expert to sort out the truth of how individual study methodologies went wrong or didn't. This is not an open-shut case, you don't get to simply assume you're correct about this issue, given the current state of the research.

The physics of the issue says there should be no causal factors at all. To discover an actual cellphone link to cancer you have to discover a new way that electromagnetism interacts with the body. That's a pretty steep standard.

The fact that any study finds no effect at all must also be explained by those who believe there is an effect. From what I know of physics, biology, the way microwaves actually work, etc., I'm not in the least bit worried.

For those actually interested in data and scientific evidence on the issue, the Imperial College of London is conducting a long-term study. (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_22-4-2010-13-52-53) The National Cancer Institute began a study in 1994 studying the risks for brain cancer, and it will be published next year; it will include an examination of cell phone use.
And will you accept their results if they find no correlation? I doubt you will. You don't accept the 2006 study I provided which tracked 42,000 Danes with 20-year histories of cellphone use. Let me clue you in: 42,000 people is a damn good sample size.

Add to the links I've already provided the June 2001 issue of the scientific journal Differentiation, where an Australian team reported that normal cell phone use can lead to cancer. (http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/cell062501b.htm)
From your own article: "Dr. French emphasised that no link has yet been shown between the specific biological effects of mobile phone radiation and cancer"

You should know better, a guy like that is looking for grant money. He's involved in the question, compromised. If he finds a link there's 30 years of grant money for him, if he finds none it's time to get a new job. Same credibility problem global warming researchers have.

Besides that, it would take about five seconds to figure out what temperature causes heat shock to a cell and realize that no cellphone can ever heat a cell to that level. I guarantee no cellphone can ever heat any cell in your body to a level close to that of standing in 130 degree heat in the middle of the Sahara desert without a hat. And, know what, people live there, and have been living there for a damned long time.

Increased levels of this and that protein or hormone, sure. You know what, slap someone on the fact and their adrenaline starts pumping. That means nothing healthwise.

Of course according to Anenome the Danish study debunked this one. Everyone knows that ANENOME + the Danes = Absolute knowledge. :rolleyes:
Did you even read the article you posted? It boils down to this: One guy theorized a possible physical mechanism of interaction. There's no research behind it or physical proof. There's only a possible direction of research, seeing if cellphone use actually raises the levels of the specific protein he figures is involved in damage. The article even says this: "Dr. French emphasised that no link has yet been shown between the specific biological effects of mobile phone radiation and cancer, but that there was now a theoretical framework for such an effect that could be investigated."

Anenome

06-25-2010, 09:15 PM

Worth noting that the article you linked above is from 2006, whereas the one Johan linked (http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?currentPage=1) is from February of this year.
It was really just the first one that was convenient. You want 2010? Here ya go:

The Science Behind the Cell Phone Cancer Scare (http://www.livescience.com/health/cell-phone-radiation-cancer-100118.html)
This article gives a fair run-down of the issue on both sides, but is quite clearly in the skeptical camp, which is where every reasonable person should be until something real is shown conclusively.

Because you know what, I'll bet Johan still uses a cellphone and lives in the city, where there's radiowaves literally permeating every inch of the air and ground, and has been since the invention of television and other radio-wave based communication devices, as well as above-ground powerlines.
Do cell phones cause brain cancer? There's no good reason to think they do.

But if we are to believe the gospel truth delivered by physicists that radio waves from cell phones simply aren't powerful enough to break chemical bonds, the trait of all cancer-causing (http://www.livescience.com/topic/cancer) mutagens, why then do very smart people — smarter than me, for sure — continue to investigate this matter?

The answer lies in the fear of the unknown. Never in the history of humankind have we drenched ourselves so soddenly in electromagnetic radiation. Could it be that we simply cannot envision the risk, that our science blinds us to the truth, much like the way doctors performed surgery unwashed and barehanded 100 years ago?
Well, again, there's no good reason to think so. But here are the reasons nonetheless.

All known cancer-inducing agents — certain chemicals and viruses and ionizing radiation — act by breaking chemical bonds to produce DNA mutations. Ionizing radiation refers to gamma rays, x-rays, most ultraviolet light and certain subatomic particles. Their energy is high enough to detach an electron from an atom.

Lower-energy, non-ionizing radiation from light bulbs and cell phones (both part of the electromagnetic spectrum (http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070226_about_light.html)) can't do damage unless there's enough focus to heat tissue. Even if cell phones could deposit harmful heat, circulating blood should dissipate this.

And that's the main problem for those trying to find a link with cancer. Cellphone radiation is non-ionizing and to find any such link you have to find a completely new interaction mechanism.

Thus, cellphone radiation scares should be ignored and laughed at until something far more serious and conclusive shows up. So far, nothing has. Considering that you have to basically break the laws of physics to find a cancer link, I think we're all gonna be just fine.

Still, there's something unsettling about bathing your brain in supposedly innocuous radio waves. So scientists are investigating non-ionizing, non-thermal or weakly thermal effects of radio waves. The theories get sketchy here, though... But studies don't reveal a cancer link.
Here's the only open question:
Herberman feared the unknown, namely the current studies' inability to rule out long-term risks.

Yet a larger, longer 2006 Danish study of more than 400,000 subjects found no such link. The 2008 update to the massive 13-country INTERPHONE study also could not resolve a connection. Lifestyle factors of nonstop cell phone use could be the greater influence. Similarly, the reported dizziness and headaches — so called electromagnetic hypersensitivity — might be due to holding an object against your head for an hour and not to any waves going in or out.
Remember the power-line sensitivity people. Remember that article a few months back, a couple were suing some power station claiming they were being made sick by it, but it turns out the company had turned off that power-station during that entire month, thus proving the couple's response was entirely in their head.
Before cell phones it was power lines. "The Great Power-Line Cover-Up" by Paul Brodeur, based on articles he wrote for The New Yorker, helped fuel cancer mania. But like 95 percent of the cat cartoons The New Yorker publishes, those articles were just plain wrong. Billions of dollars were spent disproving the controversy. Yet all you needed to do was look at cancer-free monk parakeets surviving in Brooklyn chiefly from the warmth of nests built on power lines and transmission boxes.
Rare cancers (http://www.livescience.com/topic/cancer) have a way of revealing themselves. Lung cancer is rare outside of smoking, so causation was an open-and-shut case once half the U.S. population lit up. Industrial hazards are similarly identified when clusters of workers contract rare tumors.
No one has gone sterile from microwaves; no one has gotten cancer from their computer monitors. But people do get cancer from the sun's ultraviolet radiation (UV). About two billion people use cell phones, and there's been no spike (yet) in rare head and neck cancers. Caution is prudent, but fear is not.

Again, you're perfectly safe using a cellphone. Don't listen to Johan. Laugh at his inflated rhetoric, he gets off on having an opponent. Doesn't make him right. And, frankly, he's losing a lot of credibility pushing for the cancer-scare side if you ask me. Skepticism is the proper attitude on this issue, as with power-line sensitivity, and many other quake issues, like aspartame turning into formaldehyde and fluoride in the water being a mindcontrol drug.

Johan

06-25-2010, 09:15 PM

Do you understand the concept of a peer-reviewed research journal?

To a greater degree than you do, as I've posted several peer-reviewed studies which show a link between brain tumors and cell phone use. Nice try, however.

And as for plausibility of cell phones causing cancer, that was in direct references to the question of a physics-based explanation for how such low levels of radiation could possibly even cause harm. None's been shown as of yet, and may never be.

I've already posted several possible explanations. Nice try, however.

You're so sure there's a link, no?

I'm sure that research has been mixed on the issue, because it has been mixed in its results! DUH! I"m sure that you're the type of person who would have declared we didn't need to study smoking and its health effects in the '50s, and I'm the type of person who would want further study. After all, one Danish study was enough for you to ignore equally legitimate peer reviewed studies on the issue that come to opposite conclusions.

Pretending that the issue has been proven medically, etc., when the truth is that experts cannot agree, and various studies dispute each other, is dumb.

Irony escapes you readily. :D

This is not an open-shut case, you don't get to simply assume you're correct about this issue, given the current state of the research.

Irony escapes you readily. :D

The physics of the issue says there should be no causal factors at all.

Basic literacy would help you here.

From what I know of physics, biology, the way microwaves actually work, etc., I'm not in the least bit worried.

Ah, to have a grasp of physics, biology, microwaves, and every other topic under the sun that YOU have...it would be a marvelous thing.

And will you accept their results if they find no correlation? I doubt you will. You don't accept the 2006 study I provided which tracked 42,000 Danes with 20-year histories of cellphone use. Let me clue you in: 42,000 people is a damn good sample size.

Irony escapes you readily. :D There doesn't need to be further study. You've proven that with your one study. :D

From your own article: "[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]Dr. French emphasised that no link has yet been shown between the specific biological effects of mobile phone radiation and cancer"

And from my links, I've already shown research that shows a link.

You should know better, a guy like that is looking for grant money.

I guess the Danes weren't looking for grant money with their study. They funded it with love.

Besides that, it would take about five seconds to figure out what temperature causes heat shock to a cell and realize that no cellphone can ever heat a cell to that level.

You continue to assume an amazing grasp of science and the workings of cell phone emissions on cells. Publish! You're ready!

It boils down to this: One guy theorized a possible physical mechanism of interaction.

And you, in your wisdom, have disproven it! I'm grateful for your willingness to deign to allow us to partake of your knowledge.

And that's the main problem for those trying to find a link with cancer. Cellphone radiation is non-ionizing and to find any such link you have to find a completely new interaction mechanism.

Thus, cellphone radiation scares should be ignored and laughed at until something far more serious and conclusive shows up. So far, nothing has. Considering that you have to basically break the laws of physics to find a cancer link, I think we're all gonna be just fine.

Nothing has? Break the laws of physics? Liar.

I've already linked the June 2001 issue of the scientific journal Differentiation, where an Australian team reported that normal cell phone use can lead to cancer. (http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/cell062501b.htm)

Researchers in Australia have reported one of the first scientific hypotheses that normal mobile phone use can lead to cancer. The research group, lead by radiation expert Dr Peter French, principal scientific officer at the Centre for Immunology Research at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney, said that [SIZE="3"]mobile phone frequencies well below current safety levels could stress cells in a way that has been shown to increased susceptibility to cancer.

Dr. French emphasised that no link has yet been shown between the specific biological effects of mobile phone radiation and cancer, but that there was now a theoretical framework for such an effect that could be investigated. His previous work has included showing that the production of histamine, a chemical involved in asthma, can be nearly doubled after exposure to cellular frequencies.

To date, most safety levels have been set on the assumption that damage is caused by heating effects of radio waves in human tissue, much higher than the levels at which Dr French claims heat shock proteins are triggered.

His co-authors include Professor Ron Penny, the director of the Centre and one of Australia's leading experts in the cellular effects of HIV, and Professor David McKenzie, head of applied physics at Sydney University.

Long-term effects are unknown/unproven, and shorter-term research provides mixed results, but there is a biological basis for a possible correlation between cell phones and tumors/cancer.

Laugh at his inflated rhetoric, he gets off on having an opponent.

The IRONY of this is so hilarious! Thank you, Anenome, for the laughs. :D

Anenome

06-25-2010, 09:49 PM

I've already posted several possible explanations. Nice try, however.
Possible explanations aren't proof of an actual cause. It's possible the sun goes around the earth, it means nothing in actuality.

And from my links, I've already shown research that shows a link.
And again I'm forced to ask if you actually read your article. This article (http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/cell062501b.htm), right?

The one that says, "No link shown."

The one that says, "Dr. French emphasised that no link has yet been shown between the specific biological effects of mobile phone radiation and cancer"

Right? Shows a link? Not even close. It's an article to announce one guy's theory of a link, and has major causal problem as well.

Basic literacy indeed.

I guess the Danes weren't looking for grant money with their study. They funded it with love.
It should be obvious they're clearly less interested in 30 years of grant research if their conclusion is that there's no cancer link.

Bias is also much harder to inject when there's a ton of people involved in the research, not just one guy with a theory, as in your 2006 article you claim proved a link.

The 13-nation Interphone study found no link among short-term users (<10 years) and was funded by the WHO.

So, the truth of the matter is there's conclusively no short-term risk of cancer for cellphone use. All studies show this. The only question is long term use. Period.

Nothing has? Break the laws of physics? Liar.

I've already linked the June 2001 issue of the scientific journal Differentiation, where an Australian team reported that normal cell phone use can lead to cancer. (http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/cell062501b.htm)
Hate it break it to, that doesn't report on a study. That reports on one guy's theory that may lead to a study. The headline is misleading. Nothing's been proven, and again, the guy's theory shows causal difficulties. It's tantamount to blaming smoke for causing fire.

Long-term effects are unknown/unproven, and shorter-term research provides mixed results, but there is a biological basis for a possible correlation between cell phones and tumors/cancer.
Here's where you're lying. Short term use shows no cancer link. Only the long-term effects are questioned, and that's because we've only had major cell-phone usage for a short time, a few decades tops, and nothing like modern use levels. However, the physics of the issue should still lead one to take a skeptical attitude until proven otherwise.

And, why don't you tell us whether you own and use a cellphone or not now?

Anenome

06-25-2010, 09:53 PM

Cellphone use might actually be beneficial:

Cell Phone Radiation Might Improve Memory (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html)

"It surprised us to find that cell phone exposure, begun in early adulthood, protects the memory of mice otherwise destined to develop Alzheimer's symptoms," Gary Arendash, lead author of the study and researcher at Florida Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, said in a statement.

Johan

06-25-2010, 10:01 PM

Possible explanations aren't proof.

I provided proof.

It should be obvious they're clearly less interested in 30 years of grant research if their conclusion is that there's no cancer link.

In your world researchers who agree with you are professionals of integrity, and those who do not are money-grubbing falsifiers of data who merely want grants.

Interesting world, that.

Bias is also much harder to inject when there's a ton of people involved in the research

Yes, but you've shown we don't need any more research based on your one study, and you're not biased.

Case closed. No problems!

The 13-nation Interphone study found no link among short-term users (<10 years) and was funded by the WHO.

I love it when global warming deniers rely upon international institutions when they agree with their conclusions. It's...cute. :D
The only question is long term use. Period.

You said it was safe, though, and there was no question at all!

Seriously...do you even READ what you post? :D

Hate it break it to, that doesn't report on a study. That reports on one guy's theory that may lead to a study.

Hate to break it to you, but that reports on the scientific basis for potential cell damage from cell phone emissions, which he studied!

Here's where you're lying. Short term use shows no cancer link.

Short-terms and long-term are meaningless unless defined. The reality is that a decade shows potential correlations.

However, the physics of the issue should still lead one to take a skeptical attitude until proven otherwise.

I've already linked why that's wrong. Feel free to warm yourself in its embrace, however.

And, why don't you tell us whether you own and use a cellphone or not now?

I used to smoke. That doesn't mean I deny the potential for adverse effects. I use a cell phone, but I use it hands free and do everything I can to mitigate it's effects in terms of proximity to me.

But, you know all, and there are no dangers at all.

Thank you for solving that. As I said before, U R Internet WinNaR!

Cellphone use might actually be beneficial:

Cell Phone Radiation Might Improve Memory (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html)

Bahahaha! Do you READ the stuff you post?

The scientists speculate the cell phone radiation increases brain temperature, causing brain cells to release the nasty plaques.

You said that was IMPOSSIBLE according to the laws of physics. Apparently it's only possible for cell phone emissions to affect the brain in positive ways, not negative ones. Cell phones can increase brain temperature to do good things, but not to do bad things to your cells! :rolleyes:

You need to get right on a cure for HIV/AIDS and several other intractable diseases/conditions. You're able to do amazing things with science!

stalazon

06-25-2010, 10:16 PM

Heh, the way this thread went from iphone to its current topic has been highly amusing. If you two are going to keep at it I need to grab some popcorn.

Anenome

06-25-2010, 10:24 PM

I provided proof.]/quote]
No you didn't, lol. Just saying it doesn't make it so. Cue one of your pithy mocking replies in the place of an actual refutation! Modus-operandi-Johan.

[QUOTE=Johan;1895983]
In your world researchers who agree with you are professionals of integrity, and those who do not are money-grubbing falsifiers of data who merely want grants.

Interesting world, that.
- I suppose that is a weak point. I was trying to say that if you prove there's no link the researchers move on to new things and don't get new grant money. Whereas those willing to flub research and find a link suddenly find themselves thrust into proving the link ad infinitum. Wait, isn't that exactly what the guy in your 2006 article did? Huh, I guess so.

Yes, but you've shown we don't need any more research based on your one study, and you're not biased.
You're ignoring the 13 nation Interphone study by the WHO?

I love it when global warming deniers rely upon international institutions when they agree with their conclusions. It's...cute. :D
There's no agenda item for this, unless it was to damage business by creating a link. The two don't really intersect.

You said it was safe, though, and there was no question at all!

We're talking about studies. There's only a long-term question because there's been no long-term studies. I'm certainly confident the long-term studies being conducted now will find no link.

Hate to break it to you, but that reports on the scientific basis for potential cell damage from cell phone emissions, which he studied!
"Potential" cell damage also means there may be NO cell damage. It's a weasel word and that article is full of them. He found nothing conclusive, only theorized on a possible link, and has nothing other than an idea in his head for a potential biological interaction.

Your standard of proof is incredibly low if that 2006 article is your best reference.

Short-terms and long-term are meaningless unless defined. The reality is that a decade shows potential correlations.
Yes, which is why every time a study finds no link, radiation-truthers, like you, claim it wasn't long term enough. We've seen a few studies now finding now link with 10 and 20 years of use.

I've already linked why that's wrong. Feel free to warm yourself in its embrace, however.
Except that you are failing to apply any critical reasoning to that article at all, which when done undercuts his claim entirely.

You said that was IMPOSSIBLE according to the laws of physics. Apparently it's only possible for cell phone emissions to affect the brain in positive ways, not negative ones. Cell phones can increase brain temperature to do good things, but not to do bad things to your cells! :rolleyes:
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/7470/42youveactivatedmytrapc.jpg

You've just proved you have no interest in the truth of the issue. If cellphone can have affects, as you believe, you should be happy to find a study that shows positive benefits. Instead you're more interested in winning an argument on the internet rather than winnowing out what's true and what isn't. You, sir, fail.

Anenome

06-25-2010, 10:29 PM

We've seen a few studies now finding now link with 10 and 20 years of use.

should be "no link".

gzsfrk

06-25-2010, 11:03 PM

Anemone, how do you reconcile these statements:

Worrying about cellphone radiation is ridiculous. Seriously, go educate yourself, and don't read the loonies.

Again, you're perfectly safe using a cellphone. Don't listen to Johan. Laugh at his inflated rhetoric, he gets off on having an opponent.

...with this one?

Pretending that the issue has been proven medically, etc., when the truth is that experts cannot agree, and various studies dispute each other, is dumb. However, in such a case it takes an expert to sort out the truth of how individual study methodologies went wrong or didn't. This is not an open-shut case, you don't get to simply assume you're correct about this issue, given the current state of the research.

In the first two quotes above, you state the matter as an open and shut case for all but the loonies. But in the last one I quoted, you declare that there is no consensus on the issue among subject matter experts and studies as to whether dangers exist or not.

Inconsistent Anemone is inconsistent.

If the potentially dangerous effects are uncertain--even unlikely--isn't a modicum of caution and concern called for? In my mind, that at the very least doesn't qualify as "perfectly safe." "Probably safe", sure. "Very likely safe", even. But that's a significant step back from "perfectly." And it certainly doesn't justify ridiculing those who express concern at the potential risks, particularly when several recent and respectable studies have established a correlation, if not yet a causal relationship, between cell phone usage and an increased incidence of various physical ailments.

ElektroDragon

06-25-2010, 11:09 PM

Wow, I'm glad I'M not the one stuck in a middle of this lengthy debate/war. Which is ironic because I helped to move things off topic. :o I can't even be bothered to read all the back and forth!

However, since I seem to agree with Johan 90% of the time, I will take Johan's side on this one. :p

Also, somewhere in here, SOMEONE is still trying to hold a discussion about Apple and pretentiousness. So I will say this. The reason I hate Apple is not so much the pretentiousness, though it helps. The real reason I hate Apple dates back to 80s rivalry between Amiga, Atari (ST), and Apple. I was in the Amiga camp. I've thus hated Apple since at least 1989, and always used to laugh my ass off when I'd go in Electronic's Boutique and see a monochrome Mac with an 8" screen next to a Amiga running Battle Chess with more colors and better graphics than any PC would have for years to come. Later I thought it very unfair that iPod ended up dominating the MP3 market when there were so many very good earlier MP3 players, like the Rio. The most recent non-pretention reason for hating Apple is that they are based on a UNIX OS now, and I have this personal vendetta against almost anything based on Unix, including Linux. I like to forget that my PS3 is based on it.

Anenome

06-25-2010, 11:16 PM

Sure, seems inconsistent. I'll grant you.

The top portion is my own opinion on the issue based on the science and evidence I've seen. There is no cancer link, many studies have shown no link.

The bottom portion was attacking Johan's seeming surety that there was harm. At best you can say experts disagree and there's studies going both ways on the issue, at best. You can't outright say there's proof that there's a link, and that there's surely a link. No study has shown a link, quite the opposite. They show no link. Johan's more in the category of finding evidence to prove his unreasoned and unreasonable belief.

A reasonable person should conclude, as I have, that there's no link based on the evidence we have currently, even taking into account whatever studies have shown a link.

The only open-question is the results of long-term studies (longer than what has already been done) which will inevitably be undertaken. And when it comes to which study is good or bad, that's an issue of contention among scientists and not something we can really say too much about without being experts ourselves.

Here's another physics based example. A while back I saw a proposal for an energy efficient space-heating solution. The idea was to transmit microwaves into a room rather than using air convection to heat. The theory was the microwaves would directly heat your skin rather than rely on warming air directly.

The science was sound. Even if you shot actual microwaves at people that actually warmed their skin enough to be felt, it wouldn't damage you, and microwaves that are absorbed cannot pierce the skin very far, I believe the figure was a millimeter or a centimeter.

It's a catch 22. Either it passes through your body and barely interacts if at all at some wavelengths. Or its absorbed by your skin and doesn't even make it past the cranium.

Apart from that, we're still talking about non-ionizing radiation. It's maddening. It's like trying to explain to someone why drinking a cup of mercury won't kill you. It won't. Mercury may be poisonous but it's also extremely poorly absorbed by the digestive track. Drink a cup once, slightly elevated blood levels which soon average out and you're find.

It's science. It's well documented. It's rational. It makes sense. Non-ionizing radiation cannot damage protein structures, which means no possibility of genetic damage, which means no cancer.

Anenome

06-25-2010, 11:18 PM

edit: "No study has shown a link conclusively, quite the opposite. They show no link. Johan's more in the category of finding evidence to prove his unreasoned and unreasonable belief.

A reasonable person should conclude, as I have, that there's no link based on the evidence we have currently, even taking into account whatever studies have shown a link."

gzsfrk

06-25-2010, 11:43 PM

Sure, seems inconsistent. I'll grant you.
...
The bottom portion was attacking Johan's seeming surety that there was harm.

Johan's only claim of surety in this discussion has been that there's uncertainty on the matter. You claiming that he insists there's definitely harm is a grosss misrepresentation of his position for the purposes of providing you an easier target to attack.

A reasonable person should conclude, as I have, that there's no link based on the evidence we have currently, even taking into account whatever studies have shown a link.

It goes both ways. A reasonable person might well also conclude that there may be a link based on the correlative data noted in several studies.

Your repeatedly stating that no definitive link has been established, and then using that as the basis for your dismissal of others expressed concerns, is disconcertingly similar to what the tobacco companies used to say about smoking and lung cancer (even though the correlative data was there).

No, there is nowhere near sufficient causitive evidence (yet) to start bringing lawsuits against the mobile carriers (nor do I look forward to the day, God forbid, when there is). But there's more than enough to warrant caution and further study.

Cygnus

06-25-2010, 11:56 PM

Watch Food Inc, it talks about how corn and chemicals are used in many of the products we eat and drink. Artificial sweeteners are just as bad, if not worse, than sugar. I experienced an allergic reaction from splenda that almost killed me. Most doctors are unaware of the dangers of the chemicals we digest. We must understand that they are still learning too. Now I try to follow the principles of Eat Right 4 Your Blood Type.

And how it is the unacknowledged number one cause of adult onset diabetes in this country? There is nothing "natural" about it. It's taking some natural, corn, and chemically and artificially screwing it up so bad that it becomes harmful.

Cygnus

06-26-2010, 12:14 AM

Right, at best we can say is that the jury still is out on the effects of long term cell phone use. I am not a heavy cell phone user either. I also prefer using the speaker phone. Regarding wifi, I am not aware of any research or study of it effects the body. While I do use wifi quite a bit for my laptops, my XB360 is physically connected to router since I stream movies via netflix and play games online, which movie streaming uses substantial amount of data.

I also imagine there are risks to using a cell phone for long periods of time, but I'm not really much a phone talker so I probably have a higher risk from the thousands of bands of radio and wifi smashing through my brain all day.

Anenome

06-26-2010, 12:38 AM

Johan's only claim of surety in this discussion has been that there's uncertainty on the matter.
He's clearly advocating for the idea that cellphones cause damage, even if he doesn't explicitly state it. He's certainly not approaching this from a disinterested neutral point of view.

Johan's claiming there's uncertainty, but I'm claiming the uncertainty isn't very reasonable. You can throw out any claim you want, but it doesn't make it a reasonable claim.

The sun goes around the earth, further studies needed! Not really. Non-ionizing radiation causing cancer? Same thing. Common sense. If you're going to claim cellphone radiation causes cancer your next claim should be that light from a 60w lightbulb causes cancer, because that's also non-ionizing radiation and whole lot more intense.

You claiming that he insists there's definitely harm is a grosss misrepresentation of his position for the purposes of providing you an easier target to attack.
- I find it funny that you take me to task for something as small as inferring he's actually taken a position on the topic as some "attack" tactic compared to the constant ridicule and mocking he's used rhetorically against my posts. Yes, clearly I'm the one being unfair in my arguments towards Johan by implying he's being awfully overbearing for a guy who's arguing "unsurety." He argues as passionately as if someone said the holocaust never happened.

It goes both ways. A reasonable person might well also conclude that there may be a link based on the correlative data noted in several studies.
- Not if said reasonable person also understands the difference between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation and the chemical/genetic mechanism behind cancer. I admit, that's a lot of technical hurdles people need to know to become reasonable on that issue, but it remains.

If you don't know, or want to ignore, basic principles of physics and biology, then sure, reading those studies could lead you to a reasonable fear of cellphone radiation. It's always the uninformed whom are scared most by these sorts of scare-articles. The problem with Johan is he's ignoring those physical principles which are established fact, which no one disputes, which make the claim of a link extremely implausible and acting like he has 90% of a point, when he has more like 1% of a point.

His end run around those facts of physics is a single scientist with a single theory for interaction that is not based on a study and has some series causal flaws and is riddled with weasel words--and reeks strongly of the sort of article produced by a research professor who's run out of grant money and needs to produce some buzz to kick off his next grant application.

Your repeatedly stating that no definitive link has been established, and then using that as the basis for your dismissal of others expressed concerns, is disconcertingly similar to what the tobacco companies used to say about smoking and lung cancer (even though the correlative data was there).
Similarity of tactic doesn't mean anything, that's a spurious charge. I know you know about the dangers of dihydrogen oxide...

I wouldn't try to make a similar case for tobacco, even 30 years ago, because it's obviously not a parallel case.

Chemicals are not like the interaction of radiation with the body, at all. It's a very difficult standard to say X chemical has little effect on the body from a biological point of view--there's literally billions of factors involved. That's why we spend years testing every new drug. But it's not a hard standard at all to say non-ionizing radiation at X power has little effect on the body. Different class of interaction entirely.

No, there is nowhere near sufficient causitive evidence (yet) to start bringing lawsuits against the mobile carriers (nor do I look forward to the day, God forbid, when there is). But there's more than enough to warrant caution and further study.
I'm not arguing we shouldn't do more studies. Anyone can do any study they want to pay for, I don't care. But should you stop using a cellphone today? No, there's nothing to suggest that. Johan is misrepresenting the science on the issue.

If you talk to an average doctor they're going to laugh off any worry about cellphone use if they're up on the research. Read that 2010 article I posted, that presents the current consensus on the issue.

It's not like just because there's a scientific dispute that no one really knows and you should all limit your cellphone use. No it's more like, we're 99% certain there's no link and that none will be found, but we're studying the issue still to make sure.

Presenting an extreme view as a reasonable view is something that should be fought by those who know better on that issue.

LikeTheRazor

06-26-2010, 12:44 AM

Just wait 10 years and see who has brain cancer and who doesn't...the truth will play itself out in the end and the winner will be declared by whoever has lower medical bills...

Cygnus

06-26-2010, 01:23 AM

With all due respect, you sound like a know it all educated fool here :rolleyes: I still stand by what I originally said "I think the safest thing to say is that the jury still is out regarding the long term of effects of cell phone usage." because no one really knows the answer. You can find compelling arguments on both sides. Even the studies performed in the past are not totally accurate because the technology is constantly evolving. For example, what percentage of the studies included the latest smart phones with data plans?

Worrying about cellphone radiation is ridiculous. Seriously, go educate yourself, and don't read the loonies. Read some science. Learn about radio waves. Cell phone tower radiation isn't going to hurt you either, no powerlines. And preservatives in soda don't turn into formaldehyde and damage you internally. And there's no such thing as bigfoot.

Anenome

06-26-2010, 01:31 AM

There's few questions on which you have as much reason to disregard the opposition as on this one. Cellphone. Non-ionizing radiation. 10-20 year studies show no cancer correlation. What are the chances that suddenly at year 30 and 40 you're going to find some effect. Not great.

You see, smoking continually causes damage until cancer is inevitable. Non-ionizing radiation can't cause any genetic damage in the first place, thus there's no damage to accumulate that can show up on a long-term study. There's no compelling scenario outside the fact of non-ionizing radiation. There are fuzzy theories and unproven guesswork. Because of that, it's reasonable to doubt there's any damage being done, and a bit extraordinary to suggest limited use until anything conclusive to the contrary shows itself (which I personally doubt will show up).

Jotoco

06-26-2010, 05:08 AM

Like Einstein said, he could prove himself right a hundred times, if someone proved him wrong just one time, he would be wrong.

I'm with anemone in this one. I (nor anyone) CAN'T prove that it doesn't cause cancer. Ever. It's like proving a theory by first saying it's true and the prove it can't be said true. I really don't know the words in English to enter this argument, though. So I will leave my participation at that.

Johan

06-26-2010, 08:27 AM

Instead you're more interested in winning an argument on the internet rather than winnowing out what's true and what isn't. You, sir, fail.

Bahahaha! You, sir, are KING of ALL IRONY! :D You get called on incredibly inconsistent statements and what do you do? You launch a verbal DoS attack, posting a screed most people don't want to bother responding to, because all you will do is follow it up with another screed, and another, and another. :rolleyes:

You declare it's impossible that there's a correlation between cell phone use and ANY brain effects, then state that it's possible there can be an effect long term, and even link to a study that shows there is an effect! Your pretzel logic makes me hungry for...a pretzel!

Anenome, king of self-conflicted quote warring ironic humor. Thank you, kind sir. :D

Agnostic Pope

06-26-2010, 09:59 AM

I get all my coke from Mexico. Soft drinks as well. :p

Anenome

06-26-2010, 03:01 PM

Bahahaha! You, sir, are KING of ALL IRONY! blahblah

See I don't get why you're making -me- the issue here. That's where you err. If I wanted to spend post after post pointing out fallacious rhetorical devices in your posts this thread would never end.

I'm addressing the facts as known and the studies themselves. You're more interested in winning a debate through rhetoric than participating in a discussion of mutual benefit to discover truth. We could've been discussing your 2006 article in a reasoned, critical way. I suggested several times there were serious holes in that article and not once have you been curious for my take. I suggest the physics should be an important counterpoint, you're completely disinterested and unwilling to even consider it. It's not that I assume you would have to change your view, but at least ideas should be explored.

Johan, to you an argument is akin to a burn session, and you take every cheap shot you can while saying little to nothing about the issue. It's a selfish way to discuss a thing.

I'm glad you come here to take your frustrations out from real life (as you've previously admitted to doing) because I'm sure your wife would be about this close to leaving you if you pulled this shit on the real people in your life. At the least you aren't improving any relationships. And let's be honest, I'm sure you have done it to her, and maybe it scares you, and it probably should. And frankly I'm sorry for her. It's not a win for you if people don't want to discuss topics with you because they don't want to face the fire-breathing dragon that you've become.

I view an argument as a dance between the two sides by which both can mutually benefit, and others may enjoy watching as well. In such a view, there's little room for disparaging comments and cheap-shots.

I hope some day you grow up a little bit, champ ;) Then we can have a real discussion about something in a mutually beneficial and meaningful way. And, you've earned the patronizing, so don't even talk ;)

Johan

06-26-2010, 06:33 PM

<wall-o-ironic-text-o-rama!>

You are predictable and amusing. :D

Hey, did you hear the latest on research into cell phone radiation? It can't do anything to the brain, because that's impossible by the laws of physics, but it might do something long term, though we don't know yet and there's no evidence of it, and that's really impossible and we shouldn't worry at all and can just laugh any concerns off, while we also found out cell phone radiation does (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html) have an impact on the brain, but it can only impact it in positive ways, because of course it's impossible that it impacts the brain, but if it did it could only be good, and we don't know, but it doesn't happen so don't worry!

We need a freaking GPS to follow your logic and to avoid the logjams in your cognitive processing. :D

Anenome

06-26-2010, 09:03 PM

You're being deliberately ridiculous. I posted a "positive effects" article to prove you're intentions are bad in this argument. You fell for it. I don't believe cellphone radiation has any positive or negative effects, based on the facts of the physics involved. Just give it up. And stop making me the issue.

Agnostic Pope

06-26-2010, 09:29 PM

http://i45.tinypic.com/1z3bjnt.jpg

Scramble

06-26-2010, 09:57 PM

http://postpostracial.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/2103105240_06946c35c6.jpg

Capt_Thad

06-27-2010, 07:38 AM

http://gizmodo.com/5573680/steve-jobs-on-iphone-4-there-is-no-reception-issue--stay-tuned

Apparently the new line from Jobs is: "There is no reception issue. Stay tuned."

Maybe they figured something out? heh I'd like to see what they've got in store for this, even if it's just a hilarious PR spin.

Raw

06-27-2010, 08:08 AM

Ugh, Johan, Anenome, go get a room ¬¬

Agnostic Pope

06-27-2010, 08:11 AM

Ugh, Johan, Anenome, go get a room ¬¬

That is disgusting. :p

Chimpbot

06-27-2010, 08:18 AM

Even the studies performed in the past are not totally accurate because the technology is constantly evolving. For example, what percentage of the studies included the latest smart phones with data plans?

The data planz, they gave me the TOOMAH!!

Johan

06-27-2010, 09:11 AM

You're being deliberately ridiculous.

I was doing everyone the service of providing the Cliffs Notes version of your wall-o-text-o-rama! If your ideas and contradictions are ridiculous, don't blame anyone but yourself.

Ugh, Johan, Anenome, go get a room ¬¬

We can't fit in the same room. He fills it with text; there's only room for him and his ideas in there. :D

kwolf

06-27-2010, 08:58 PM

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/8692/internetargu.jpg

Anenome

06-27-2010, 09:08 PM

The cliff's notes version is: Don't be afraid of non-ionizing radiation.

If non-ionizing radiation causes cancer we have a lot more to worry about because then it'll be time to ban light-bulbs, computers, can-openers, cars, and everything else that puts out minor amounts of radio-waves or EMF.

Johan

06-28-2010, 07:02 AM

The cliff's notes version is: Don't be afraid of non-ionizing radiation.

Naturally, because cell phone radiation cannot, by the laws of physics, affect your brain, except when it can, but it can only do so with positive results, except that it can't affect your brain, because that's impossible.

You win. (http://www.andreasschwartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/arguingontheinternet.jpg)

Anenome

06-28-2010, 10:02 AM

Naturally, because cell phone radiation cannot, by the laws of physics, affect your brain.
Finally we agree.

Johan

06-28-2010, 10:04 AM

Finally we agree.

Oh You! (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html)

Get that story straight, Anenonenonenomeeee. :D

Agnostic Pope

06-28-2010, 10:08 AM

Anenonenonenomeeee. :D

Dementia? :confused:

Anenome

06-28-2010, 10:09 AM

Again, that (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html) was a trap you fell for.

You're just trying to antagonize me. It's futile however. Childish in fact. Grow up.

Johan

06-28-2010, 10:22 AM

Worrying about cellphone radiation is ridiculous. Seriously, go educate yourself, and don't read the loonies. Read some science. Learn about radio waves. Cell phone tower radiation isn't going to hurt you

But it can help you, however! :rolleyes:

Cellphone use might actually be beneficial:

Cell Phone Radiation Might Improve Memory (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html)

Again, you're perfectly safe using a cellphone. Don't listen to Johan. Laugh at his inflated rhetoric

Answered:

Pretending that the issue has been proven medically, etc., when the truth is that experts cannot agree, and various studies dispute each other, is dumb.

But you just said the opposite! :rolleyes:

The physics of the issue says there should be no causal factors at all. To discover an actual cellphone link to cancer you have to discover a new way that electromagnetism interacts with the body.

Answered:

Cellphone use might actually be beneficial:

Cell Phone Radiation Might Improve Memory (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html)

You have GOT to get your story straight, as well as your line of ad hominem attacks. :D

Anenome

06-28-2010, 10:43 AM

Johan. Stop trolling.

Johan

06-28-2010, 10:59 AM

Johan. Stop trolling.

Irony!

http://baysideproducts.com/store/images/windsor_cheval_mirror.jpg

Pointing out the inconsistencies in your supposed 'logic' is a service to the community.

Anenome

06-28-2010, 11:03 AM

And pointing out your complete failure to use any logic at all isn't?

Johan

06-28-2010, 11:04 AM

And pointing out your complete failure to use any logic at all isn't?

Irony! Time for a review of your 'logic.'

Worrying about cellphone radiation is ridiculous. Seriously, go educate yourself, and don't read the loonies. Read some science. Learn about radio waves. Cell phone tower radiation isn't going to hurt you

But it can help you, however! :rolleyes:

Cellphone use might actually be beneficial:

Cell Phone Radiation Might Improve Memory (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html)

It couldn't possibly hurt you, as you have said repeatedly, as that's against the laws of physics for cell phone radiation to affect the brain! :rolleyes: It can only help.

Again, you're perfectly safe using a cellphone. Don't listen to Johan. Laugh at his inflated rhetoric

Answered:

Pretending that the issue has been proven medically, etc., when the truth is that experts cannot agree, and various studies dispute each other, is dumb.

But you just said the opposite! :rolleyes:

The physics of the issue says there should be no causal factors at all. To discover an actual cellphone link to cancer you have to discover a new way that electromagnetism interacts with the body.

Answered:

Cellphone use might actually be beneficial:

Cell Phone Radiation Might Improve Memory (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html)

You have GOT to get your story straight, as well as your line of ad hominem attacks. :D

TeeCakes

06-28-2010, 11:18 AM

http://www.gifanatics.com/files/Jackson_popcorn.gif

Anenome

06-28-2010, 11:34 AM

Watch out, people, Johan thinks non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer! The light coming from lightbulbs can cause cancer! Stop using tv's and monitor's, the radiowaves coming off them cause cancer, according to Johan. Powerlines? Yup, Johan thinks they cause cancer.

In fact, being anywhere in the world where low-power radiowaves exist will give you cancer, Johan believes. Time to head for the hills! Goddamn radio stations exist -everywhere- in the modern world! Wait, TV is a radiowave broadcast too! Holy shit! Cancer! Everywhere!

Essentially, a cellphone is a low-power microwave (without walls) held up to your head. Repeatedly. For year after year. Decade after decade.

Got cooked brain tissue yet?!!?
Yes, holding a cellphone is the same thing as holding a microwave to your head. You're an idiot.

Don't even mention getting x-rays at the dentist!

----
See, that's how easy it is to use your opponents quotes unfairly. I don't do it because it's childish. You know I don't accept the "positive affects" article, I've explained multiple times why I used it, you still quote it as if I believe it. Because that supports your "inconsistency" line. A line which is immaterial to the question at issue.

In your quote above, you look like a foolish, ignorant alarmist. I called you on it back then, you disavowed it, saying it was a joke. Fine, I moved on.

I disavow the "positive effects" article and explain why I used it, and a dozen posts later you're still trying to pin it on me. Why? In a futile attempt to drag me into a fight? Not gonna work.

Johan, stop trolling.

Johan

06-28-2010, 12:23 PM

Yes, holding a cellphone is the same thing as holding a microwave to your head. You're an idiot.

See, that's how easy it is to use your opponents quotes unfairly. I don't do it because it's childish.

Irony! You "don't do it" while doing it; you accuse me of trolling and then post an ad hominem attack against me based upon an obvious humorously hyperbolic statement of mine. NOBODY believes brain tissues can be cooked by a cell phone, but if you were trying to take that seriously, I feel for your ability to comprehend basic English.

Irony! Time for a review of your 'logic.'

I disavow the "positive effects" article and explain why I used it, and a dozen posts later you're still trying to pin it on me

Because it proves that your supposed reliance upon science is, in fact, a reliance upon your own ideas, pulled straight from your ass. You ignore ANY actual science which shows an impact of cell phone radiation on the brain. You're a gnostic...secret knowledge, all in your own mind, answers the questions of the universe. :rolleyes:

Worrying about cellphone radiation is ridiculous. Seriously, go educate yourself, and don't read the loonies. Read some science. Learn about radio waves. Cell phone tower radiation isn't going to hurt you

But it can help you, however! :rolleyes:

Cellphone use might actually be beneficial:

Cell Phone Radiation Might Improve Memory (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html)

It couldn't possibly hurt you, as you have said repeatedly, as that's against the laws of physics for cell phone radiation to affect the brain! :rolleyes: It can only help.

Again, you're perfectly safe using a cellphone. Don't listen to Johan. Laugh at his inflated rhetoric

Answered:

Pretending that the issue has been proven medically, etc., when the truth is that experts cannot agree, and various studies dispute each other, is dumb.

But you just said the opposite! :rolleyes:

The physics of the issue says there should be no causal factors at all. To discover an actual cellphone link to cancer you have to discover a new way that electromagnetism interacts with the body.

Answered:

Cellphone use might actually be beneficial:

Cell Phone Radiation Might Improve Memory (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html)

You have GOT to get your story straight, as well as your line of ad hominem attacks. :D

gzsfrk

06-28-2010, 12:24 PM

Don't even mention getting x-rays at the dentist!

Probably not the best example to use sarcarstically, since when the nice hygienist lady at my dentist takes an xray, she first drapes the bulk of my body in a lead blanket and then leaves the room (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_a_dentist_have_to_leave_the_room_when_the y_take_an_x_ray) before hitting the button. That would seem to indicate a hazard associated with repeated exposure.

gzsfrk

06-28-2010, 12:28 PM

Oh, and for the record--while I agree with Johan on this topic, I don't agree with his antagonism. Personally, I learned my lesson back in the Tycho Twain thread, and now refuse to feed the pink troll. ;)

Johan

06-28-2010, 12:30 PM

Agnostic Pope

06-28-2010, 12:42 PM

http://www.gifanatics.com/files/Jackson_popcorn.gif

Srsly Black Michael is the best Michael. LOL!

Johan

06-28-2010, 12:42 PM

Srsly Black Michael is the best Michael. LOL!

Needs more butter and less dead entertainer. ;) You are correct in your assessment, however!

Butters66

06-28-2010, 02:05 PM

In Australia, France, etc. HFCS is not cheaper than sugar. HFCS is so cheap here due to all of the subsidies paid out to corn growers and the fact the we grow an insane amount of corn, due to it being America and all...where corn came from...

That is slowly changing, however, as ethanol needs and subsidies are rising, so too is the cost of HFCS. Thus, sugar is actually becoming a cheaper ingredient. That's a large reason why so many companies are switching. They're naturally a bit scared of changing their formulas (especially soda makers, see catastrophe of New Coke) and are doing it slowly.

Don't forget that we subsidize American Big Sugar companies to keep the price of sugar high. If sugar was on the open market we would be flooded with it from Central and South America.

It's a double whammy of stupid, mainly fostered by having Iowa be the #2 state in primary elections.

Anenome

06-28-2010, 02:35 PM

NOBODY believes brain tissues can be cooked by a cell phone,
Really? Then why do you keep posting your 2006 article by a guy who believes heat damage proteins may be responsible for cellphone's damaging effects? INCONSISTENCY HOLY HELL, OMG!!!!111!!11111!! WORLDENDINGNOW!!!1!!

Because it proves that your supposed reliance upon science is, in fact, a reliance upon your own ideas, pulled straight from your ass. You ignore ANY actual science which shows an impact of cell phone radiation on the brain. You're a gnostic...secret knowledge, all in your own mind, answers the questions of the universe. :rolleyes:
I'm the one ignoring science?

Here's a direct quote from your 2006 article (http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/cell062501b.htm), the lynchpin of your entire position on this issue:
Researchers in Australia have reported one of the first scientific hypotheses [NOT A STUDY] that normal mobile phone use can lead to cancer...

The paper [NOT A STUDY], published in the June issue of the science journal Differentiation...

Dr. French emphasised that no link has yet been shown between the specific biological effects of mobile phone radiation and cancer, but that there was now a theoretical framework for such an effect that could be investigated.
He has merely a "theorhetical framework" ie: he's bucking for funding. There is no pretense to fact here. Merely an intelligent guess that there may be a link with a study being required to actually prove or disprove his hypotheses.

Why are you citing this paper as evidence of a link??? It's not evidence at all!

Relying on what's known fact about non-ionizing radiation means you're the one ignoring actual science. That's not pulled "out of my ass," that's the presently known truth. Non-ionizing radiation has no effect on the body. That's true until proven otherwise. Studies merely questioning that have a gigantic standard of evidence to overcome before that changes. No study has reached that point yet. It's quite possible none ever will.

Gigantically huge long-term studies with gigantic sample sizes have found no correlation, as in the Danish study which measured 420,000 people over 20 years. That, and other such studies, plus what we KNOW to be true about non-ionizing radiation is a pretty strong case.

But it can help you, however! :rolleyes:

Stop pretending I accept the conclusion of that article, I don't.

No, it can't help you. You're the loon who thinks non-ionizing radiation can have an effect without a single shred of evidence. And if it can have an effect why can't the effect be positive? You're not even able to concede that point. Eh, Johan? Where's your logic on that one? According to you if it has an effect the effect -must- be negative? Logic? Where?

It couldn't possibly hurt you, as you have said repeatedly, as that's against the laws of physics for cell phone radiation to affect the brain! :rolleyes:
Again, if you believe non-ionizing radiation is causing you harm you have a lot more to worry about than cellphones. Pretty much every modern devices and technology issues non-ionizing radiation. What's more, you can't even live in any modern city, as the air is permeated with radio waves at all manner of wavelengths. Escaping from non-ionizing radiation is not possible if you live in the modern world.

Prepare your tinfoil hat, though, that might actually help you and you alone.

http://yarp.motivatedphotos.com/uploads/2010/6/28/634133318731518965-TinfoilHat.jpg

But you just said the opposite! :rolleyes:
- You have a much higher standard of evidence than I do, as you have to contravene known fact. If you claim the sun goes around the earth and you're so incredibly sure about it, I'm going to retain my reasoned position that it doesn't while also attacking your surety. That's the context on that quote. I'm sure you'll quote it five more times anyway.

Whenever you'd like to, you know, actually discuss the topic, we can.

Johan

06-28-2010, 02:41 PM

I'm the one ignoring science?

He has merely a "theorhetical framework" ie: he's bucking for funding.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/21/33814183_bc322c7343.jpg

No...he has clearly stated that it is possible for cell phone radiation to affect the brain. You, on the other hand, have stated it is IMpossible, while simultaneously stating that it could be because we don't know, and also stating that the brain can indeed be impacted by such radiation in a positive way.

You're the loon who thinks non-ionizing radiation can have an effect without a single shred of evidence.

You rude little troll. :D Actual scientific data, from my initial link:

Except our shoes don't send microwaves directly into our brains. And cell phones do—a fact that has increasingly alarmed the rest of the world. Consider, for instance, the following headlines that have appeared in highly reputable international newspapers and journals over the past few years. From summer 2006, in the Hamburg Morgenpost: are we telephoning ourselves to death? That fall, in the Danish journal Dagens Medicin: mobile phones affect the brain's metabolism. December 2007, from Agence France-Presse: israeli study says regular mobile use increases tumour risk. January 2008, in London's Independent: mobile phone radiation wrecks your sleep. September 2008, in Australia's The Age: scientists warn of mobile phone cancer risk.

Though the scientific debate is heated and far from resolved, there are multiple reports, mostly out of Europe's premier research institutions, of cell-phone and PDA use being linked to "brain aging," brain damage, early-onset Alzheimer's, senility, DNA damage, and even sperm die-offs (many men, after all, keep their cell phones in their pants pockets or attached at the hip). In September 2007, the European Union's environmental watchdog, the European Environment Agency, warned that cell-phone technology "could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol."

Perhaps most worrisome, though, are the preliminary results of the multinational Interphone study sponsored by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France. (Scientists from thirteen countries took part in the study, the United States conspicuously not among them.) Interphone researchers reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell-phone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor—specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone—goes up as much as 40 percent for adults. Interphone researchers in Israel have found that cell phones can cause tumors of the parotid gland (the salivary gland in the cheek), and an independent study in Sweden last year concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300 percent increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the acoustic nerve.

Read More http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?currentPage=1#ixzz0sBdixraX

Actual science, in peer-reviewed journals no less! Time for a review of Anenome 'science' and 'logic.'

I disavow the "positive effects" article and explain why I used it, and a dozen posts later you're still trying to pin it on me

Because it proves that your supposed reliance upon science is, in fact, a reliance upon your own ideas, pulled straight from your ass. You ignore ANY actual science which shows an impact of cell phone radiation on the brain. You're a gnostic...secret knowledge, all in your own mind, answers the questions of the universe. :rolleyes:

Worrying about cellphone radiation is ridiculous. Seriously, go educate yourself, and don't read the loonies. Read some science. Learn about radio waves. Cell phone tower radiation isn't going to hurt you

But it can help you, however! :rolleyes:

Cellphone use might actually be beneficial:

Cell Phone Radiation Might Improve Memory (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html)

It couldn't possibly hurt you, as you have said repeatedly, as that's against the laws of physics for cell phone radiation to affect the brain! :rolleyes: It can only help.

Again, you're perfectly safe using a cellphone. Don't listen to Johan. Laugh at his inflated rhetoric

Answered:

Pretending that the issue has been proven medically, etc., when the truth is that experts cannot agree, and various studies dispute each other, is dumb.

But you just said the opposite! :rolleyes:

The physics of the issue says there should be no causal factors at all. To discover an actual cellphone link to cancer you have to discover a new way that electromagnetism interacts with the body.

Answered:

Cellphone use might actually be beneficial:

Cell Phone Radiation Might Improve Memory (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html)

You have GOT to get your story straight, as well as your line of ad hominem attacks. I'm sure your fingerpaint-by-picture is cute and all, but you really need to brush up on the difference between actual science and you own pulled-from-the-ass opinion. :D

Anenome

06-28-2010, 02:49 PM

Probably not the best example to use sarcarstically, since when the nice hygienist lady at my dentist takes an xray, she first drapes the bulk of my body in a lead blanket and then leaves the room (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_a_dentist_have_to_leave_the_room_when_the y_take_an_x_ray) before hitting the button. That would seem to indicate a hazard associated with repeated exposure.
Yes, because if the technician was getting hit with xrays everyday they'd quickly exceed the exposure limit. Also, you don't want xrays hitting gonadal regions in any case, sterility issues.

Modern dental xrays, however, are orders of magnitude less than they used to be, and perfectly safe for the exposure given. That is, the slight risk is worth taking for the save of proper dental care.

Johan

06-28-2010, 02:59 PM

Modern dental xrays, however, are orders of magnitude less than they used to be, and perfectly safe for the exposure given.

Once again your propensity to spout knowledge pulled out of your ass, on every topic under the sun, proves how truly useless your opinion is and that you should be ignored.

X-ray exposure and dosage varies widely. (http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/XHP/HowXRaysVary.html)

o An assumption, widely held among physicians and patients alike, is that x-ray practitioners in general already give x-ray doses which are as low as technically possible, consistent with obtaining good images.

o That assumption is demonstrably false, as illustrated by the table below, which is based on nationwide surveys of about 300 facilities (CRCPD 1989 + CRCPD 1994).

Source: The most recent observations published by the CRCPD are the 1994 Chest Radiography Survey, 1993 Dental Survey, 1992 Mammography Survey, 1990 CT Survey (head exam only) and 1991 Fluoroscopy Survey (upper gastro-intestinal exam only), 1989 Abdomen and Lumbar Sacral Spine Survey in Private Practice and Chiropractor's Offices.

It is not "perfectly safe for the exposure given" because you have no idea how much exposure is actually being given, as it varies widely by the expertise of the practitioner and the settings of the device, as well as the organs involved.

Truly, the depth and width of your knowledge is boundless. :rolleyes:

DeadPixel

06-28-2010, 03:12 PM

What the hell happened to this thread? Just pull your dicks out on the table and see who's bigger. So much arguing over nothing.

Capt_Thad

06-28-2010, 03:13 PM

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/06/500x_steve-jobs-full-bars.jpg

Looks like there's a class action (http://gawker.com/5574781/an-iphone-class-action-suit-is-in-the-works) law suit on the way too.

Anenome

06-28-2010, 03:33 PM

No...he has clearly stated that it is possible for cell phone radiation to affect the brain.
- No, he's offered a "theoretical framework" which is the same thing as a guess that needs to then be verified by a study or falsified by study. It is not proof in any way.

You, on the other hand, have stated it is IMpossible, while simultaneously stating that it could be because we don't know, and also stating that the brain can indeed be impacted by such radiation in a positive way.
No, I stated it's impossible [my position based on science] while simultaneously stating you can't be so sure there is damage. As for the positive article, you're deliberately being belligerent on that point.

Actual scientific data, from my initial link:
And yet this isn't taken as closing the issue by mainstream doctors or scientists because of all the studies showing no increased. Also, the Interphone's final results showed no correlation, screw the preliminary results.

Actual science, in peer-reviewed journals no less! Time for a review of Anenome 'science' and 'logic.'
At the very least we can say if there is a link it's not due to ionization.

Because it proves that your supposed reliance upon science is, in fact, a reliance upon your own ideas, pulled straight from your ass. You ignore ANY actual science which shows an impact of cell phone radiation on the brain. You're a gnostic...secret knowledge, all in your own mind, answers the questions of the universe. :rolleyes:
You actually cut and paste from your own posts; that's pathetic man.

But it can help you, however! :rolleyes:

It couldn't possibly hurt you, as you have said repeatedly, as that's against the laws of physics for cell phone radiation to affect the brain! :rolleyes: It can only help.
http://yarp.motivatedphotos.com/uploads/2010/6/28/634133318731518965-TinfoilHat.jpg

Answered:

But you just said the opposite! :rolleyes:

Answered:

You have GOT to get your story straight, as well as your line of ad hominem attacks. I'm sure your fingerpaint-by-picture is cute and all, but you really need to brush up on the difference between actual science and you own pulled-from-the-ass opinion. :D
So, all of this is cut'n'paste? Even more pathetic.

Johan

06-28-2010, 03:36 PM

- No, he's offered a "theoretical framework" which is the same thing as a guess that needs to then be verified by a study or falsified by study.

But you said it was IMPOSSIBLE! :D

Some studies on the effects of cell phone radiation on the body/brain:

Except our shoes don't send microwaves directly into our brains. And cell phones do—a fact that has increasingly alarmed the rest of the world. Consider, for instance, the following headlines that have appeared in highly reputable international newspapers and journals over the past few years. From summer 2006, in the Hamburg Morgenpost: are we telephoning ourselves to death? That fall, in the Danish journal Dagens Medicin: mobile phones affect the brain's metabolism. December 2007, from Agence France-Presse: israeli study says regular mobile use increases tumour risk. January 2008, in London's Independent: mobile phone radiation wrecks your sleep. September 2008, in Australia's The Age: scientists warn of mobile phone cancer risk.

Though the scientific debate is heated and far from resolved, there are multiple reports, mostly out of Europe's premier research institutions, of cell-phone and PDA use being linked to "brain aging," brain damage, early-onset Alzheimer's, senility, DNA damage, and even sperm die-offs (many men, after all, keep their cell phones in their pants pockets or attached at the hip). In September 2007, the European Union's environmental watchdog, the European Environment Agency, warned that cell-phone technology "could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol."

Perhaps most worrisome, though, are the preliminary results of the multinational Interphone study sponsored by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France. (Scientists from thirteen countries took part in the study, the United States conspicuously not among them.) Interphone researchers reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell-phone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor—specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone—goes up as much as 40 percent for adults. Interphone researchers in Israel have found that cell phones can cause tumors of the parotid gland (the salivary gland in the cheek), and an independent study in Sweden last year concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300 percent increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the acoustic nerve.

Anenome: It's IMPOSSIBLE!

Scientists: It's quite possible, and some studies already show a correlation between cancers and cell phone radiation exposure. More study is needed.

Anenome: TIN-FOIL! IMPOSSIBLE! GARRRRR!

Now, could you tell us more about how x-rays are "perfectly safe for the exposure given" please? :rolleyes:

I await every drop from the faucet of your knowledge. Please turn on the spigot. It sustains me. :D

Anenome

06-28-2010, 03:38 PM

Once again your propensity to spout knowledge pulled out of your ass, on every topic under the sun, proves how truly useless your opinion is and that you should be ignored.

X-ray exposure and dosage varies widely. (http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/XHP/HowXRaysVary.html)
My statement presupposes varying dosages, read it again man. I said modern xray equipment uses less than past equipment. What was your point again? Oh, you had none, right.

It is not "perfectly safe for the exposure given" because you have no idea how much exposure is actually being given, as it varies widely by the expertise of the practitioner and the settings of the device, as well as the organs involved.

It's still "safe" even at the highest, oldest dosage allowable, where safe is defined as a tradeoff between the damage caused by some minor xrays, and the benefit the knowledge given by an xray can give to the dentist to improve your teeth.

Frankly, my dentist uses a digital system which requires a much lower dosage than older film-based methods.

Anenome

06-28-2010, 03:46 PM

***silly rhetoric without taking a position***
http://yarp.motivatedphotos.com/uploads/2010/6/28/634133318731518965-TinfoilHat.jpg

Emabulator

06-28-2010, 03:47 PM

Johan and Anenome: Decadent chocolate or refreshing strawberry (http://www.k-y.com/kissables#)? :D

Johan

06-28-2010, 03:48 PM

It's still "safe" even at the highest, oldest dosage allowable, where safe is defined as a tradeoff between the damage caused by some minor xrays, and the benefit the knowledge given by an xray can give to the dentist to improve your teeth.

It's safe because "Modern dental xrays...are orders of magnitude less than they used to be" which means that lowering the dose as compared with the past makes it safer, yet according to you they're also safe "even at the highest, oldest dosage allowable..." Truly, your knowledge is ASTOUNDING, and you like pretzels, as well!

John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Molecular & Cell Biology, Univ. of Calif. Berkeley believes there is solid, empirical cause for concern. (http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/XHP/HowXRaysVary.html)

The American College of Radiology White Paper on Radiation Dose in Medicine states there is reason for concern. (http://www.acr.org/secondarymainmenucategories/quality_safety/white_paper_dose.aspx)

The determination of ionizing radiation dose to a living human from an x-ray examination or nuclear medicine study is very complex. Even during radiation oncology treatment, the radiation dose is actually measured only in extreme cases. This never occurs in diagnostic imaging.

The ACR should encourage radiology practices to define a surveillance mechanism to identify patients with high cumulative radiation doses due to repeated imaging.

The NIH wants to track cumulative exposure to radiation from medical imaging. (http://www.healthimaging.com/index.php?option=com_articles&view=article&id=20431:jacr-nih-to-measure-track-radiation-dose-with-medical-imaging)

But why? It's SAFE according to Anenome!

Your wisdom and knowledge astound. Truly. You spout verbal DoS attacks in virtually every thread here, prolific in your vapidity and unbounded in your enthusiasm to display your 'knowledge' of everything under the sun. You're hilarious! :D

Johan and Anenome: Decadent chocolate or refreshing strawberry (http://www.k-y.com/kissables#)? :D

:D Are you buying? :D

Anenome

06-28-2010, 03:51 PM

Murder dentists, X-rays are killing your children dead!
http://yarp.motivatedphotos.com/uploads/2010/6/28/634133318731518965-TinfoilHat.jpg

Anenome

06-28-2010, 03:55 PM

***More vapid sarcasm***
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4495/634133371611415685xrays.jpg

Johan

06-28-2010, 04:02 PM

Photo-fingerpaints! I can't believe you've finally been found 'speechless,' for once! :D

Anenome on cell phone radiation risks: It's impossible for cell phone radiation to affect your brain, even though scientists are unsure of the long-term effects and there is evidence of a positive effect from such radiation on the brain which I will post for you here and promptly ignore, and we can ignore the negative effects seen in some research as well, because it's impossible for such radiation to affect the brain, even though we just don't know and need more study.

Anenome on medical imaging radiation: It's perfectly safe because it's far lower than it was in the past, which was higher and therefore more dangerous, but it would be perfectly safe even if it were at the higher/older amounts, and even though the NIH and respected medical experts have declared that the amount of radiation exposure varies greatly due to the settings of the device, the organs involved, the number of imaging procedures and other individual factors, it's perfectly safe so don't worry, because I know what I'm talking about.

Anenome on Johan wondering WTF Anenome is talking about with his pretzel logic:

IMAGE FILE IMAGE FILE IMAGE FILE IMAGE FILE! :D Anenome, you are a Steam game sale for EVERYONE, except you're more fun than some of their cheaper titles, and you're free. :D

Here's the true scientific reality: Long-term exposure to cell phone radiation has shown a mixed correlation to brain tumors. Further study is needed and people should take simple precautions, such as using hands-free devices to avoid close proximity between the phone and their brain.

X-ray and medical imaging radiation exposure is a concern to the NIH and every reputable medical scientist in any way connected with radiology or diagnostic procedures. The amount of radiation, and the long-term increased risk of cancer or other deleterious effects, varies greatly depending upon the device used, the organs involved, the expertise of those running the device and the settings of the device, the number of imaging procedures, and other individual factors.

Anenome, post another photo-fingerpaint! :rolleyes:

ElektroDragon

06-28-2010, 04:10 PM

Go Johan! I'm glad someone puts in the effort to be the logic police!

Anenome

06-28-2010, 04:42 PM

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/3010/634133400453895820troll.jpg

Johan

06-28-2010, 04:44 PM

Anenome

06-28-2010, 05:28 PM

Anenome, post another photo-fingerpaint! (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1896658#post1896658) :rolleyes:

Here's the true scientific reality: Long-term exposure to cell phone radiation has shown a mixed correlation to brain tumors. Further study is needed and people should take simple precautions, such as using hands-free devices to avoid close proximity between the phone and their brain.
The true true scientific reality: some studies have shown a "mixed correlation." Many studies have shown no correlation whatsoever. Non-ionizing radiation shouldn't harm you, so if there is a link it is a new mechanism of interaction of which we're not aware. No reason for alarm. People should take whatever precautions they feel comfortable with. Studies will continue (as they always do).

X-ray and medical imaging radiation exposure is a concern to the NIH and every reputable medical scientist in any way connected with radiology or diagnostic procedures. The amount of radiation, and the long-term increased risk of cancer or other deleterious effects, varies greatly depending upon the device used, the organs involved, the expertise of those running the device and the settings of the device, the number of imaging procedures, and other individual factors.
I can agree with that. Those same people would probably also agree with the statement that bi-yearly exposure to x-rays is generally safe in the controlled conditions of a doctor's office. I qualified calling it "safe" non of which you address nor which is countered by your quote.

Should we really be worried that the National Institute of Health is concerned about medical radiation usage? Not really. It's their job to be "concerned." They are going to study it until their dying day.

Are they calling radiation "dangerous" and recommending people not receive radiation at a doctor's office? No. Is it their job to issue guidelines for what is safe? I assume so, but I'm not gonna go research it, it's a reasonable assumption. So then, that means they think current medical usage of radiation as typically prescribed is safe? Huh, I guess so.

Johan

06-28-2010, 05:32 PM

Non-ionizing radiation shouldn't harm you, so if there is a link it is a new mechanism of interaction of which we're not aware.

And I've already pointed out a study which documents a method for this to occur, and you have also pointed out a study where an effect occurred.

But that's impossible, you said.

MOAR PICTURES! :D

Anenome

06-28-2010, 06:10 PM

And I've already pointed out a study which documents a method for this to occur,
You are lying. Having a hypothesis for an interaction is not "documenting" and interaction. Your 2006 article asserts unproven supposition. A potential mechanism which requires an actual study to prove or disprove. By itself it is evidence for nothing--except that some smart guy thinks he has a viable line of research.

Grumsh

06-28-2010, 06:47 PM

WOW!

This debate is still rolling?

"I got evidence that cell phones are not bad for you!". Great I can find evidence that gravity doesn't kill (google the kid who fell 17 stories and lived). I can find evidence that smoking can't be bad for you since Aunt Bella lived to be 94 years old and smoked a pack a day. The sun doesn't cause skin cancer look at all those aboriginal people who get 12 hours a day exposure.

The simple fact of the matter is that we as human beings are all different. What could kill one person wouldn't even tickle another. Great 40,000 people are immune to a lifetime of sunshine yet I can find 40,000 who would burn in under 10 minutes. Some people can play video games for literally hours on end yet others get Nintendo Eye after an hour or less. There is good evidence that cell phone radiation has the potential (note the word I used, potential) to cause harm, why risk it?

Look I have a mildly interesting experiment for you. Get one of those cigarette lighter MP3 player adapters that plug into your car and work off an unused radio station. Hook up an MP3 player and start listening to some music. Then after about 5-10 minutes of clear listening to verify there is no static, set your cell next to the transmitter. Hear all that interferance? Now call your cell, hear it getting worse? Ya that is what is being absorbed into your cells. Whether or not you feel that is detrimental to your body is up to you. If you don't think so, might I suggest an occupation as a Satellite Dish tester?

Look we could debate this (and apparently somone really wants to) until the end of days, if you want to think cell radiation is not detrimental, then by all means go ahead and strap 4 of them to your head. Then run through the streets yelling at the top of your lungs "I can't hear you, my truth is the only real truth". If you are right then the rest of us simply made blue tooth headset retailers a little richer and I can live with that fact. If we are right, I hope you got enough money saved up for the surgery and aftercare.

Johan

06-28-2010, 07:56 PM

You are lying.

We've already established that you have been, all thread long, in between pretty, obfuscatory, finger-paint photo-trolls. Again:

I'm the one ignoring science?

He has merely a "theorhetical framework" ie: he's bucking for funding.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/21/33814183_bc322c7343.jpg

No...he has clearly stated that it is possible for cell phone radiation to affect the brain. You, on the other hand, have stated it is IMpossible, while simultaneously stating that it could be because we don't know, and also stating that the brain can indeed be impacted by such radiation in a positive way.

Actual scientific data, from my initial link:

Except our shoes don't send microwaves directly into our brains. And cell phones do—a fact that has increasingly alarmed the rest of the world. Consider, for instance, the following headlines that have appeared in highly reputable international newspapers and journals over the past few years. From summer 2006, in the Hamburg Morgenpost: are we telephoning ourselves to death? That fall, in the Danish journal Dagens Medicin: mobile phones affect the brain's metabolism. December 2007, from Agence France-Presse: israeli study says regular mobile use increases tumour risk. January 2008, in London's Independent: mobile phone radiation wrecks your sleep. September 2008, in Australia's The Age: scientists warn of mobile phone cancer risk.

Though the scientific debate is heated and far from resolved, there are multiple reports, mostly out of Europe's premier research institutions, of cell-phone and PDA use being linked to "brain aging," brain damage, early-onset Alzheimer's, senility, DNA damage, and even sperm die-offs (many men, after all, keep their cell phones in their pants pockets or attached at the hip). In September 2007, the European Union's environmental watchdog, the European Environment Agency, warned that cell-phone technology "could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol."

Perhaps most worrisome, though, are the preliminary results of the multinational Interphone study sponsored by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France. (Scientists from thirteen countries took part in the study, the United States conspicuously not among them.) Interphone researchers reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell-phone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor—specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone—goes up as much as 40 percent for adults. Interphone researchers in Israel have found that cell phones can cause tumors of the parotid gland (the salivary gland in the cheek), and an independent study in Sweden last year concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300 percent increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the acoustic nerve.

Read More http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?currentPage=1#ixzz0sBdixraX

Actual science, in peer-reviewed journals no less! Time for a review of Anenome 'science' and 'logic.'

I disavow the "positive effects" article and explain why I used it, and a dozen posts later you're still trying to pin it on me

Because it proves that your supposed reliance upon science is, in fact, a reliance upon your own ideas, pulled straight from your ass. You ignore ANY actual science which shows an impact of cell phone radiation on the brain. You're a gnostic...secret knowledge, all in your own mind, answers the questions of the universe. :rolleyes:

Worrying about cellphone radiation is ridiculous. Seriously, go educate yourself, and don't read the loonies. Read some science. Learn about radio waves. Cell phone tower radiation isn't going to hurt you

But it can help you, however! :rolleyes:

Cellphone use might actually be beneficial:

Cell Phone Radiation Might Improve Memory (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html)

It couldn't possibly hurt you, as you have said repeatedly, as that's against the laws of physics for cell phone radiation to affect the brain! :rolleyes: It can only help.

Again, you're perfectly safe using a cellphone. Don't listen to Johan. Laugh at his inflated rhetoric

Answered:

Pretending that the issue has been proven medically, etc., when the truth is that experts cannot agree, and various studies dispute each other, is dumb.

But you just said the opposite! :rolleyes:

The physics of the issue says there should be no causal factors at all. To discover an actual cellphone link to cancer you have to discover a new way that electromagnetism interacts with the body.

Answered:

Cellphone use might actually be beneficial:

Cell Phone Radiation Might Improve Memory (http://www.livescience.com/health/100106-cell-phone-radiation-memory-Alzheimers-disease.html)

When you lie, you should be sure to be consistent in your story. It has a better chance of success that way. Now, please go and enjoy some medical imaging tests...a LOT of them! They're SAFE! :D

Anenome

06-28-2010, 08:33 PM

Hahahaha, you are so pathetic.

http://yarp.motivatedphotos.com/uploads/2010/6/28/634133318731518965-TinfoilHat.jpg

Anenome

06-28-2010, 08:38 PM

Look I have a mildly interesting experiment for you....Hear all that interferance? Now call your cell, hear it getting worse? Ya that is what is being absorbed into your cells.
Except that it's not. Since the body is transparent to most frequencies of radio waves. If it weren't you'd need line of sight to the nearest cell tower and putting your head between it and your phone would instantly drop call. And any that is absorbed is non-ionizing.

I do wonder if all the radiowaves being broadcast for radio and tv might not add up to far, far more radiowave exposure than a cellphone call. Time to put on your tinfoil hat.

Johan

06-28-2010, 08:41 PM

Hahahaha, you are so pathetic.

I'm just glad we've been able to share these moments together. :D

Anenome

06-28-2010, 09:08 PM

I'm just glad we've been able to share these moments together. :D
At least we got a few nice new demotivational pictures out of it :P

Grumsh

06-28-2010, 09:27 PM

Except that it's not. Since the body is transparent to most frequencies of radio waves. If it weren't you'd need line of sight to the nearest cell tower and putting your head between it and your phone would instantly drop call. And any that is absorbed is non-ionizing.

I do wonder if all the radiowaves being broadcast for radio and tv might not add up to far, far more radiowave exposure than a cellphone call. Time to put on your tinfoil hat.

You only quoted part of what I said so I will repeat the important point. If you don't think it will hurt you, use them until your ears bleed (maybe literally). I just hope you have the medical expenses coverage banked. Also I do realize we do not block radiowaves, I question the reasoning that such energy passes through harmlessly when so many other forms of energy definitly do leave their mark.

Grumsh

06-28-2010, 09:30 PM

Back on topic Iphone 4 sucks!

Agnostic Pope

07-01-2010, 08:35 AM

Johan and Anenome: Decadent chocolate or refreshing strawberry (http://www.k-y.com/kissables#)? :D

You win.

My heart. :D

ElektroDragon

07-01-2010, 09:10 AM

Back on topic Iphone 4 sucks!

Yeah, Windows Phone 7 rules! Or will....

Johan

07-01-2010, 12:59 PM

Back on topic Iphone 4 sucks!

Back off topic! (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/06/lawmaker_to_introduce_bill_for.html?hpid=sec-tech)

U R DOOM3D! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062805231.html)

OMG CANCERPHONEHAXXORZYOURBRAIN!! ;)

Agnostic Pope

07-01-2010, 04:58 PM

Damn you Johan!

Johan

07-01-2010, 05:39 PM

Damn you Johan!

This is your ear on a cellphone. (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100306073541AAvKFb9) :D

Anenome

07-02-2010, 09:02 AM

LMAO? No wonder Apple fired its antenna engineers.

Friday, Apple came clean (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/Apple--97663404.html): The antenna works just fine. But the software that displays signal strenth doesn't. The company has been using a faulty formula to determine signal strength in its phones for years.

"Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong," Apple said in a letter from two executives posted on its website Friday morning.

The letter went on to explain that there are no problems with the iPhone's antenna -- the only problem is with software that calculates how many bars should be showing. And the software hasn't worked properly since the original iPhone was released three years ago.

Johan

07-02-2010, 10:32 AM

LMAO? No wonder Apple fired its antenna engineers. Apple came clean. (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/Apple--97663404.html)

Bahahahaha! :D

Anenome

07-02-2010, 12:04 PM

Apple can't actually win the phone wars with a single model focused only on user-experience. It didn't learn this lesson with PCs and it's not learning it now. Which is why the Android with its fewer restrictions and more models will inevitably become the foundation of the smartphone market. Just as PCs swept aside the Mac. Jobs has learned nothing.

lockwoodx

07-04-2010, 12:04 PM

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/370286/424748.jpg

Anenome

07-12-2010, 01:53 PM

Article (http://www.chadfowler.com/2010/7/11/switching-to-android) on dude's experience switching to Android after using the Iphone:

Switching to Android
July 11th, 2010

Instead of upgrading to the iPhone 4, I decided to get a Nexus One from Google. I’ve had it about a week so far and I’m happy with it.. Some friends and colleagues have asked for my impressions, so here is a brain-dump of the highlights so far:

* Speech recognition is actually useful. Big surprise here. I can tweet, search the web etc. with minor edits to my dictated text
* I can write applications and put them on my own phone easily at no cost
* The API is (for my brain) much more straightforward than working with Cocoa. Maybe it’s the years of experience but I also strongly prefer working with Java over Objective-C
* I don’t miss the iTunes store. I was worried about that, but Amazon’s mp3 purchasing service is just as convenient (and you get mp3s instead of DRM’d media by default)
* The UI is clunkier and uglier than even the first iPhone
* I’m not finding myself missing any significant apps. There are some minor ones I wish I had but I don’t but it’s no big deal
* Wifi tethering (Android 2.2) is a good thing
* I’ve never met an on-screen keyboard I didn’t hate. Android is no exception.
* Kelly has an iPhone 4. We are traveling together. Everyone, everywhere asks her “Is that the new iPhone?”. Nobody anywhere asks me about my phone. (Actually one person did yesterday but I think she felt sorry for me not having a phone as fancy as Kelly’s)
* I thought the idea of widgets on the home screens would be faddy and lame (like it is in most cases on desktop OSes). It’s actually pretty useful.
* The Android message bus architecture makes some really neat system-level things possible from 3rd party apps. For example, I have a little app called Handcent SMS which improves on the built-in SMS functionality of the phone. As far as I know this sort of thing isn’t possible on the iPhone and i appreciate it as a user and as a developer.
* I had a Google IO phone a year ago and the Android ecosystem was barren in contrast to what I’m seeing today. That’s a huge change in only one year
* I can now differentiate my ring tone from that of everyone else around me in a public place :)
* I don’t know of a good way to download video to the phone. I like to watch television shows and movies on my phone while traveling on airplanes. iTunes makes that trivial for the iPhone. Fortunately I have an iPad, but it’s always nice to have a backup.
* The Kindle app is a wonderful thing. Just like it is everywhere else. Now to sell my actual Kindle. Anyone want to buy a first generation Kindle?
* I see Java exceptions more often than I would expect (java.net.UnknownHostException, for example). It’s kind of embarrassing when it happens, but being a Java developer myself I’ve actually found it to be much more useful than the app just crashing. Sometimes the exception class thrown gives me a clue to help diagnose the problem. That makes me feel smart. I don’t think my parents would appreciate this feature.
* The background/multitasking stuff is nice.
* It reminds me of switching to desktop Linux. Linux is usually uglier and less usable than its commercial rivals. Android is similarly ugly and slightly less usable. I also find Linux more exciting. You can get deep into its guts. You can customize it to your heart’s content. You can program it to the limit of your capabilities (as opposed to the limit of its EULA). And it’s weird, in both a good and a bad way. Unlike switching to desktop Linux, I’m often finding myself saying: “Oh, nice. I wish the iPhone had that.”

All that being said, I love my iPad and if I didn’t have it I might not have been able to so easily let go of the last remaining Apple mobile device I had available to me. If anyone wants to send me an Android tablet I’d gladly evaluate and review it.