Immune system 'attacked by mobile phones'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/194065.stm

I was just thinking how wonderful life was, when Lenny
<(E-Mail Removed)> opened his gob and said:

>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/194065.stm

What a load of pap. 'They' have been trying for years to find issue
with microwave EM fields and found nothing significant.

That shows things are safe when taken in perspective, just like
mercury in amalgam fillings.



--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

(E-Mail Removed) (Dr Teeth) wrote:
> What a load of pap.

While I agree we have to be careful not to be too paranoid, I do think
we underestimate the electromagnetic sensitivity of the human body at
our peril... especially when it comes to the brain, which we understand
almost as well as gravity (ie not much).

The safety of mobile phones is only based on their localised heating
effect. Call me crazy, but if mobile phones can cause localised cranial
heating without any infrared radiation being involved, chances are there
are other more subtle effects too. Which is why I own a mobile phone but
only use it for essential, short calls. I'm happy for others to
experiment with their heads though.

Andrew McP

I was just thinking how wonderful life was, when
(E-Mail Removed) (Andrew MacPherson) opened his gob
and said:

>Call me crazy, but if mobile phones can cause localised cranial
>heating without any infrared radiation being involved, chances are there
>are other more subtle effects too.

Depends if one understands how microwaves cause heating effects <g>.
It's quite innocuous.

<rant>
It is just like people saying they are against 'E' numbers. They do
not realise that essential vitamins also have 'E' numbers.

http://www.dhmo.org/ . In a survey in the Daily Telegraph some years
ago, 74% of respondents in a survey wanted to ban this substance,
which is also known as water.

Things have just become too specialised to give the average person
with no scientific understanding or knowledge a say.

I just despair at the amount of crap I hear people spouting about
health matters, phone masts and global warming. They just rehash what
they hear and cannot evaluate whether it is scientifically valid
before they start believing it.
</rant>

Phew, I feel better now.

--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

I was just thinking how wonderful life was, when Lenny
<(E-Mail Removed)> opened his gob and said:

>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/194065.stm


No Lenny, both Coghill and the BBC are WRONG. This is typical
sensationalist reporting that will confuse the non-scientific
majority. Rather, it won't confuse them, they'll believe it!

The article says that leucocytes IN VITRO are affected by microwave
radiation. One can not extrapolate that to mean the same effect exists
in vivo.

--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

"Dr Teeth" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I was just thinking how wonderful life was, when Lenny
> <(E-Mail Removed)> opened his gob and said:
>
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/194065.stm
>
>
> No Lenny, both Coghill and the BBC are WRONG. This is typical
> sensationalist reporting that will confuse the non-scientific
> majority. Rather, it won't confuse them, they'll believe it!
>
> The article says that leucocytes IN VITRO are affected by microwave
> radiation. One can not extrapolate that to mean the same effect exists
> in vivo.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Guy
>
> ** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
> ** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
> ** out of someone who richly deserves it.

Save your fingers, Guy.
Lenny never replies to (or probably reads) replies to his rantings.

George

"Andrew MacPherson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:memo.20070531153345.4340C@address_disguised.a ddress_disguised...
> (E-Mail Removed) (Dr Teeth) wrote:
>> What a load of pap.
>
> While I agree we have to be careful not to be too paranoid, I do think
> we underestimate the electromagnetic sensitivity of the human body at
> our peril... especially when it comes to the brain, which we understand
> almost as well as gravity (ie not much).
>
> The safety of mobile phones is only based on their localised heating
> effect. Call me crazy, but if mobile phones can cause localised cranial
> heating without any infrared radiation being involved, chances are there
> are other more subtle effects too. Which is why I own a mobile phone but
> only use it for essential, short calls. I'm happy for others to
> experiment with their heads though.

There is very little evidence that mobile phones do cause any heating.
It is just used as a measure if it did.
When you think about it mobiles wouldn't work if the signal was absorbed and
turned to heat.

"George Weston" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> Save your fingers, Guy.
> Lenny never replies to (or probably reads) replies to his rantings.

He did reply at first but everyone was calling him a moron so now he just
posts and ignores everyone.
Shame he can't ignore all the cr@p about EMR.

It makes you wonder why he doesn't go on about the bit of the spectrum which
is known to kill thousands of people.. sunlight.

(E-Mail Removed) () wrote:
> There is very little evidence that mobile phones do
> cause any heating.

Very little is not the same as none. The effect isn't disputed, what's
disputed is its relevance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_...ion_and_health
On a scale of one to risky, obviously phone use is not in the same
league as crossing the road, getting out of bed, or driving a car. But
my point is that the vast majority of mobile use is entirely avoidable
chatter, and I think it's a little early in this mass human experiment
to be confident of the long term effects.

We do live in a rather risk-averse society though, so I think your
scepticism is healthy.

Andrew McP

(E-Mail Removed) (Dr Teeth) wrote:

> It's quite innocuous.

Quite being the appropriate word. As I said, I'm happy for others to
experiment extensively with their heads, but I choose to minimise
unnecessary exposure.

> It is just like people saying they are against 'E' numbers.

I honestly don't think that's a fair comparison at all. Still, I'm glad
you enjoyed your little rant. :-)

Andrew McP... who currently lives less than 100 yards from a base
station and probably gets more than his fair share of microwave exposure
anyway