Subject: Re: Cell phone emissions
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:38:50 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:36:55 BST
Organization: ntlworld News Service
"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
> "News2020" wrote in message
> > That just makes you a blind supporter of the selected group of
> A supporter, but not necessarily blind - I wasn't posting anonymously, and
> do know a little about the issues involved.
> > Therefore, your own independent opinion on the
> > postings/writers/subject-matter do not carry any weight - no basis. Just
> > voice among many.
> I wasn't advancing my own opinion - just pointing out that if you want to
> disagree with The Swedish Radiation Protection Authority and their chosen
> pair of internationally well-known epidemiologists, Dr. John D. Boice, Jr.
> and Dr. Joseph K. McLaughlin from the International Epidemiology
> USA, you have to come up with something more persuasive than a vague
> of disquiet, which seemed to be the sum total of JohnS's arguement.
Ah! I am only getting about a quarter of the news posts from my ISP
currently, which adds to the fun. The point I was trying to make was that
widespread intensive use of mobile phones has existed for too short a time
to really know whether there will be any long term effects. I tend to be
sceptical about studies purporting to show something is safe. After all, in
the UK we were once assured after scientific studies that cows with BSE
would pose no danger to anyone eating beef. Anyone remember a certain
goverment minister feeding burgers to his children on TV to show his
confidence in the safety of beef?
With regard to phones, in my opinion we may need to ask the question of
safety again in ten years time (Thinks: raising the temperature of brain
tissue, which has been reported, might even prove to be beneficial. Hmm,
wonder why no one has spotted the correlation between use of mobiles at
school and the improving 'A' level results?)