Those darn cell phones

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thingy, Apr 2, 2006.

  1. thingy

    thingy Guest

    thingy, Apr 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. thingy

    Jerry Guest

    thingy wrote:
    > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6056325.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
    >
    > Interesting that there was a 240% rise on the side of the head that the
    > cell phone was normally used on...
    >
    > Now that is one interesting statistic....
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing


    The study only says that 85 of 905 people with brain tumors were heavy
    users of cellphones. With no control group, it doesn't sound like a
    very scientific study. How many of 905 people without brain tumors are
    heavy users of cellphones? How many are heavy chewers of gum? So what?
     
    Jerry, Apr 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thingy

    ~misfit~ Guest

    thingy wrote:
    > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6056325.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
    >
    > Interesting that there was a 240% rise on the side of the head that
    > the cell phone was normally used on...
    >
    > Now that is one interesting statistic....


    Yeah, nasty huh? So, I've often wondered if changing ears every few minutes
    is a good idea. I've experimented with it ever since I saw some thermal
    scans of the brain of someone using a cell phone. Over a period of several
    minutes the temperature on that side of the brain rose over 2°C compared to
    the rest of the brain.

    Or am I asking for twin tumors by changing sides periodically? I try to
    avoid long cell phone calls (they also give me a headache, could be
    psychosomatic or just due to concentrating so hard to decode the compressed
    signal causing it) but am now wondering about my Panasonic digital (2.4GHz)
    cordless land-line phone.
    --
    ~Shaun~
     
    ~misfit~, Apr 2, 2006
    #3
  4. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Jerry wrote:
    > thingy wrote:
    >
    >> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6056325.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
    >>
    >> Interesting that there was a 240% rise on the side of the head that
    >> the cell phone was normally used on...
    >>
    >> Now that is one interesting statistic....
    >>
    >> regards
    >>
    >> Thing

    >
    >
    > The study only says that 85 of 905 people with brain tumors were heavy
    > users of cellphones. With no control group, it doesn't sound like a
    > very scientific study. How many of 905 people without brain tumors are
    > heavy users of cellphones? How many are heavy chewers of gum? So what?


    The control, is the fact that the brian tumors occured on the side of
    the head that the cell phone was most used on.

    This was an exercise in statistical analysis, not a controlled test for
    drugs, there is a difference.

    If you smoke, you dont automatically get lung cancer or a heart attack,
    it is statistically a lot more likely though. Some people accept that
    risk knowing that it is likely they are exposing themselves to greater
    ill health and a higher chance of a nasty death, people still smoke.

    I am sure cell phone users will still use cell phones, I minimise mine.
    You do have a choice, if you think that slapping a high frequency item
    right next to your brain is totally OK, without proof it is, that is
    your choice.....to me it is more sensible to ask, is this safe? and not
    is this not dangerous?

    My greatest concern is the huge quantity of school kids who use them.
    Their brains are still developing plus they seem to use them a lot, so
    we are conducting one huge experiemnt on our children..........
     
    thingy, Apr 2, 2006
    #4
  5. On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:19:07 +1200, Jerry <>
    wrote:

    >thingy wrote:
    >> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6056325.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
    >>
    >> Interesting that there was a 240% rise on the side of the head that the
    >> cell phone was normally used on...
    >>
    >> Now that is one interesting statistic....
    >>
    >> regards
    >>
    >> Thing

    >
    >The study only says that 85 of 905 people with brain tumors were heavy
    >users of cellphones. With no control group, it doesn't sound like a
    >very scientific study. How many of 905 people without brain tumors are
    >heavy users of cellphones? How many are heavy chewers of gum? So what?


    Top 10 List of Bread Statistics

    1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
    2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming
    households score below average on standardized tests.
    3. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven
    that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse.
    The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
    4. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
    5. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread
    and given only water begged for bread after as little as two days.
    6. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder"
    items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.
    7. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the
    home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant
    mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth;
    and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged
    whole nations.
    8. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24
    hours of eating bread.
    9. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit!
    That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
    10. Many bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between
    significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.
     
    Jason Clinton, Apr 2, 2006
    #5
  6. In article <>, (Don Hills) wrote:
    >In article <>, thingy <> wrote:
    >>
    >>My greatest concern is the huge quantity of school kids who use them.
    >>Their brains are still developing plus they seem to use them a lot, so
    >>we are conducting one huge experiemnt on our children..........

    >
    >On the plus side, they usually can't afford long calls so spend most of
    >their time with the phone in front of them txting rather than up against
    >their heads.


    ... in their laps instead ? ... hmmm ... :)


    Bruce

    ----------------------------------------
    I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good
    people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and
    only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

    Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards ! - Terry Pratchett

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Apr 3, 2006
    #6
  7. thingy

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <>, thingy <> wrote:
    >
    >My greatest concern is the huge quantity of school kids who use them.
    >Their brains are still developing plus they seem to use them a lot, so
    >we are conducting one huge experiemnt on our children..........


    On the plus side, they usually can't afford long calls so spend most of
    their time with the phone in front of them txting rather than up against
    their heads.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286
     
    Don Hills, Apr 3, 2006
    #7
  8. thingy

    Sharktbbtfy Guest

    Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article <>, (Don Hills) wrote:
    >> In article <>, thingy <> wrote:
    >>> My greatest concern is the huge quantity of school kids who use them.
    >>> Their brains are still developing plus they seem to use them a lot, so
    >>> we are conducting one huge experiemnt on our children..........

    >> On the plus side, they usually can't afford long calls so spend most of
    >> their time with the phone in front of them txting rather than up against
    >> their heads.

    >
    > .. in their laps instead ? ... hmmm ... :)


    Darwinism as its finest! Along with dorks who put their kids on quad bikes!





    --
    Sharktbbtfy
     
    Sharktbbtfy, Apr 3, 2006
    #8
  9. thingy

    Jerry Guest

    thingy wrote:
    > Jerry wrote:
    >
    >> thingy wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6056325.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
    >>>
    >>> Interesting that there was a 240% rise on the side of the head that
    >>> the cell phone was normally used on...
    >>>
    >>> Now that is one interesting statistic....
    >>>
    >>> regards
    >>>
    >>> Thing

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> The study only says that 85 of 905 people with brain tumors were heavy
    >> users of cellphones. With no control group, it doesn't sound like a
    >> very scientific study. How many of 905 people without brain tumors
    >> are heavy users of cellphones? How many are heavy chewers of gum? So
    >> what?

    >
    >
    > The control, is the fact that the brian tumors occured on the side of
    > the head that the cell phone was most used on.
    >
    > This was an exercise in statistical analysis, not a controlled test for
    > drugs, there is a difference.
    >
    > If you smoke, you dont automatically get lung cancer or a heart attack,
    > it is statistically a lot more likely though. Some people accept that
    > risk knowing that it is likely they are exposing themselves to greater
    > ill health and a higher chance of a nasty death, people still smoke.
    >
    > I am sure cell phone users will still use cell phones, I minimise mine.
    > You do have a choice, if you think that slapping a high frequency item
    > right next to your brain is totally OK, without proof it is, that is
    > your choice.....to me it is more sensible to ask, is this safe? and not
    > is this not dangerous?
    >
    > My greatest concern is the huge quantity of school kids who use them.
    > Their brains are still developing plus they seem to use them a lot, so
    > we are conducting one huge experiemnt on our children..........


    Actually, the article doesn't evenb say how many tumors were on which
    side. It pulls a 230% figure, seemingly out of thin air. I don't see
    the difference between this and anti legalise marijuana claims that a
    recent study has found that 32% of heroin users have tried marijuana,
    therefore marijuana causes haroin addiction.

    According to this study, 9% of the people with brain tumors were
    considered heavy cellphone users. I conducted a study at work today. I
    asked 10 people that don't have known brain tumors if they were heavy
    cellphone users. 4 said they were. If 40% people without brain tumors
    are heavy users, but only 9% of brain tumor sufferers are, then heavy
    cellphone usage must *prevent* brain tumors

    Sorry, the link you posted is crap, my study is crap.

    As someone did say, I don't know many kids that *talk* on their
    cellphones much anyway, they all text.
     
    Jerry, Apr 3, 2006
    #9
  10. thingy

    Jerry Guest

    Don Hills wrote:
    > In article <>, thingy <> wrote:
    >
    >>My greatest concern is the huge quantity of school kids who use them.
    >>Their brains are still developing plus they seem to use them a lot, so
    >>we are conducting one huge experiemnt on our children..........

    >
    >
    > On the plus side, they usually can't afford long calls so spend most of
    > their time with the phone in front of them txting rather than up against
    > their heads.
    >


    And they get RSI in their thumbs from it. Some kids can text about
    100KMH though.
     
    Jerry, Apr 3, 2006
    #10
  11. thingy

    BrianM Guest

    On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:22:04 +1000, Sharktbbtfy wrote:

    > Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >> (Don Hills) wrote:
    >>> In article <>, thingy <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> My greatest concern is the huge quantity of school kids who use them.
    >>>> Their brains are still developing plus they seem to use them a lot,
    >>>> so we are conducting one huge experiemnt on our children..........
    >>> On the plus side, they usually can't afford long calls so spend most
    >>> of their time with the phone in front of them txting rather than up
    >>> against their heads.

    >>
    >> .. in their laps instead ? ... hmmm ... :)

    >
    > Darwinism as its finest! Along with dorks who put their kids on quad
    > bikes!


    Unfortunately if this were true, the dork gene would have been bred out
    of the human race long ago (natural selection) as it is not an advantage
    to be a dork progeny with the higher risk of not passing on your dorky genes,
    compared to the non-dorks. This assumption must hold some water because
    as you say, dorks still put kids on quad bikes. Also take them out in fast
    boats without lifejackets on, let them stand up in the front seat of a
    car, sit them on the petrol tank of a motorcycle, hold them under one arm
    while feeding a crocodile with the other, dangle them over the balcony of
    a high-rise, ad nauseum. If dorks didn't survive to breed, then Darwins
    theory would apply, but as you know, not only do they survive, they
    thrive, get a law degree, and go into politics.

    cheers
    BrianM

    --
    "It was only a Corvette !"
    Vin Diesel, xXx
     
    BrianM, Apr 3, 2006
    #11
  12. thingy

    shannon Guest

    BrianM wrote:
    > On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:22:04 +1000, Sharktbbtfy wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <>,
    >>> (Don Hills) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In article <>, thingy <>
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>My greatest concern is the huge quantity of school kids who use them.
    >>>>>Their brains are still developing plus they seem to use them a lot,
    >>>>>so we are conducting one huge experiemnt on our children..........
    >>>>
    >>>>On the plus side, they usually can't afford long calls so spend most
    >>>>of their time with the phone in front of them txting rather than up
    >>>>against their heads.
    >>>
    >>>.. in their laps instead ? ... hmmm ... :)

    >>
    >>Darwinism as its finest! Along with dorks who put their kids on quad
    >>bikes!

    >
    >
    > Unfortunately if this were true, the dork gene would have been bred out
    > of the human race long ago (natural selection) as it is not an advantage
    > to be a dork progeny with the higher risk of not passing on your dorky genes,
    > compared to the non-dorks. This assumption must hold some water because
    > as you say, dorks still put kids on quad bikes. Also take them out in fast
    > boats without lifejackets on, let them stand up in the front seat of a
    > car, sit them on the petrol tank of a motorcycle, hold them under one arm
    > while feeding a crocodile with the other, dangle them over the balcony of
    > a high-rise, ad nauseum. If dorks didn't survive to breed, then Darwins
    > theory would apply, but as you know, not only do they survive, they
    > thrive, get a law degree, and go into politics.
    >
    > cheers
    > BrianM
    >
    > --
    > "It was only a Corvette !"
    > Vin Diesel, xXx


    text has also made it easier for dorks to hook up and exchange their
    mutant genes.
     
    shannon, Apr 3, 2006
    #12
  13. thingy

    Murray Symon Guest

    On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 07:28:28 +0000, BrianM wrote:

    > On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:22:04 +1000, Sharktbbtfy wrote:
    >
    >> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> (Don Hills) wrote:
    >>>> In article <>, thingy <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>> My greatest concern is the huge quantity of school kids who use them.
    >>>>> Their brains are still developing plus they seem to use them a lot,
    >>>>> so we are conducting one huge experiemnt on our children..........
    >>>> On the plus side, they usually can't afford long calls so spend most
    >>>> of their time with the phone in front of them txting rather than up
    >>>> against their heads.
    >>>
    >>> .. in their laps instead ? ... hmmm ... :)

    >>
    >> Darwinism as its finest! Along with dorks who put their kids on quad
    >> bikes!

    >
    > Unfortunately if this were true, the dork gene would have been bred out of
    > the human race long ago (natural selection) as it is not an advantage to
    > be a dork progeny with the higher risk of not passing on your dorky genes,
    > compared to the non-dorks. This assumption must hold some water because
    > as you say, dorks still put kids on quad bikes. Also take them out in fast
    > boats without lifejackets on, let them stand up in the front seat of a
    > car, sit them on the petrol tank of a motorcycle, hold them under one arm
    > while feeding a crocodile with the other, dangle them over the balcony of
    > a high-rise, ad nauseum. If dorks didn't survive to breed, then Darwins
    > theory would apply, but as you know, not only do they survive, they
    > thrive, get a law degree, and go into politics.
    >
    > cheers
    > BrianM


    Heh!
    OK - that's put Darwinism to rest.
    But it's not looking good for "Intelligent Design" either, then. :)

    Murray.
     
    Murray Symon, Apr 3, 2006
    #13
  14. thingy

    BrianM Guest

    On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 18:15:11 +1000, Murray Symon wrote:

    > On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 07:28:28 +0000, BrianM wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:22:04 +1000, Sharktbbtfy wrote:
    >>
    >>> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>>> In article <>,
    >>>> (Don Hills) wrote:
    >>>>> In article <>, thingy <>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>> My greatest concern is the huge quantity of school kids who use
    >>>>>> them. Their brains are still developing plus they seem to use them
    >>>>>> a lot, so we are conducting one huge experiemnt on our
    >>>>>> children..........
    >>>>> On the plus side, they usually can't afford long calls so spend most
    >>>>> of their time with the phone in front of them txting rather than up
    >>>>> against their heads.
    >>>>
    >>>> .. in their laps instead ? ... hmmm ... :)
    >>>
    >>> Darwinism as its finest! Along with dorks who put their kids on quad
    >>> bikes!

    >>
    >> Unfortunately if this were true, the dork gene would have been bred out
    >> of the human race long ago (natural selection) as it is not an
    >> advantage to be a dork progeny with the higher risk of not passing on
    >> your dorky genes, compared to the non-dorks. This assumption must hold
    >> some water because as you say, dorks still put kids on quad bikes. Also
    >> take them out in fast boats without lifejackets on, let them stand up
    >> in the front seat of a car, sit them on the petrol tank of a
    >> motorcycle, hold them under one arm while feeding a crocodile with the
    >> other, dangle them over the balcony of a high-rise, ad nauseum. If
    >> dorks didn't survive to breed, then Darwins theory would apply, but as
    >> you know, not only do they survive, they thrive, get a law degree, and
    >> go into politics.
    >>
    >> cheers
    >> BrianM

    >
    > Heh!
    > OK - that's put Darwinism to rest.
    > But it's not looking good for "Intelligent Design" either, then. :)
    >
    > Murray.


    Especially the political bit Murray

    cheers
    BrianM
     
    BrianM, Apr 3, 2006
    #14
  15. thingy

    Sharktbbtfy Guest

    BrianM wrote:
    > On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:22:04 +1000, Sharktbbtfy wrote:
    >


    >
    > Unfortunately if this were true, the dork gene would have been bred out
    > of the human race long ago (natural selection) as it is not an advantage
    > to be a dork progeny with the higher risk of not passing on your dorky genes,
    > compared to the non-dorks. This assumption must hold some water because
    > as you say, dorks still put kids on quad bikes. Also take them out in fast
    > boats without lifejackets on, let them stand up in the front seat of a
    > car, sit them on the petrol tank of a motorcycle, hold them under one arm
    > while feeding a crocodile with the other, dangle them over the balcony of
    > a high-rise, ad nauseum. If dorks didn't survive to breed, then Darwins
    > theory would apply, but as you know, not only do they survive, they
    > thrive, get a law degree, and go into politics.


    TMML


    --
    Sharktbbtfy
     
    Sharktbbtfy, Apr 3, 2006
    #15
  16. thingy

    Fran Guest

    Jerry wrote:
    > And they get RSI in their thumbs from it. Some kids can text about
    > 100KMH though.


    Whilst _going_ 100kph.

    Fran
    :):):)
     
    Fran, Apr 4, 2006
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Calvin
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    665
  2. JANA
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,377
    Princess Antonomasia
    Mar 30, 2005
  3. JANA
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    905
    Damian
    Mar 29, 2005
  4. JANA
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    766
    Damian
    Mar 29, 2005
  5. FREECELLS

    GET FREE CELL PHONES and CAMERA PHONES!

    FREECELLS, Feb 11, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    393
    FREECELLS
    Feb 11, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page