Comments on: Being Sensible About Cell Phone Risks

By: Matt B.

Matt B. — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 22:58:29 +0000

I tried to talk some sense into people at Thom Hartmann’s website, but it looks there might be a liberal anti-science bias on this subject.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:51:07 +0000

Salon is often entertaining, but it is not a consistently reliable source:
“A new book probes the connection between mobile devices and a host of health problems — with frightening results” http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/10/10/disconnect_cell_phone_interview

By: david ropeik

david ropeik — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:24:13 +0000

The response to any risk is a combination of the facts, and how those facts feel. So “sensible’ has a dangerously loaded meaning. Mya I offer some insights into the risk perception psychology of this issue via a post at Scientific America. Cell Phones, Radiation, and the Danger of Risk Perception.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=cell-phones-cancer-and-the-dangers-2011-06-01

By: Bobito

Bobito — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:00:23 +0000

I think the only solution is cap and trade on cell usage. The possible increased health care expenses means that there is an externality on cell phone use. Those that use cell phones should be taxed to cover the future burden on humanity. Anyone that says otherwise is obviously a paid shill for Verizon.

By: Chris Moser

Chris Moser — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:47:29 +0000

Cell phones save lives every day. People can report accidents more quickly, the ability to report crimes with cell phones acts a a deterrent, people are better informed about natural disasters and relief efforts and can better coordinate their actions using cell phones in such situations.

By: TTT

TTT — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:09:51 +0000

Electronic hearing aides really are in use during all waking hours–easily 12 hours at a time, and more–and they are always as close to the brain as any cel phone gets, except when they get even closer by being surgically implanted into the skull. Until someone shows a causational link between hearing aides and cancer, I will remain unconcerned about my phone.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:55:33 +0000

Have scientists ever published anything saying “X is not dangerous. There is no need to continue to fund my work in this area”

By: Terry Emberson

Terry Emberson — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:27:12 +0000

It’s funny… when you look around at all the states proposing legislation about this issue, its kind of depressing. The politicians (of any stripe, in this case mostly Democratic) don’t care what the science says, they will use whatever scare is out there to gain a little bit of political clout. The end result is needless legislation making our world that much more restrictive and confusing, while simultaneously convincing some that science just offers fear mongering.

The whackos will then say that the scientists are conspiring with the politicians to “X” and then “My god Big Pharma is…” or “Dang climate scientists are…” and then we’ve got the second wave of fear mongering as politicians of the other stripe take these objections and turn them into political positions.

I guess, in the end, its not a Republican war on science so much as a populist war on science.