Well, as Kevin pointed out. Alot of people will capitalize off of the hype and fear. It's probably the same fols doing the studies that are selling the anti-radiation products and warning you of hold cell phones so close to your head, etc.
Who's done those studies? I look into it quite often and haven't found a study that, without a doubt, shows that cellular signals can have a big impact on humans. Not just electromagnetic waves, radiofrequency.
Let me translate: "Nevertheless, in all the studies the numbers of long-term users and heavy users are limited, obviating any firm conclusion." means - Hey, we didn't get the results we were looking for but, we're sure to get those results as soon as we can study people with more exposure.
Otherwise, I have to agree with you. I can't make heads or tails of environmental change due to CO2 emissions because it is an almost entirely political subject.
I never said microwave radiation is good for you. Education is the real answer. We know high levels of microwave radiation will kill you in minutes yet, how much is "safe" is not so clear. Being aware of what we truthfully know and don't know prepares a consumer to make a choice that makes sense to them. An informed consumer would probably be more interested in their exposure level than to the color of the case.
Ah, you sly devil. You left out the part that said,
"Nevertheless, in all the studies the numbers of long-term users and heavy users are limited, obviating any firm conclusion."
Such is the world of partisan politics (which includes the world of science, regardless of how much scientists claim to float rather than walk).
The smart consumer will examine conflicting claims, weigh carefully the motivations of claim-makers (such as HUGE PROFITS!), and employ prudent avoidance of things like microwave communication devices that heat up your brain like a soggy hamburger with extra pickles from Mickey D's.
You've given me a lot of material to review and evaluate and I can't give you a complete and proper response at this time.
However, the first study you site "Christensen, et al., Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors. A population-based, incident case–control study, Neurology 64 (2005)1189–1195," says, right up front, in the Abstract: "Conclusion: The results do not support an association between use of cellular telephones and risk for glioma or meningioma.", find it here: http://www.altcancerweb.com/osteosarcoma/cancer-risk/cell-telephones-brain-tumor-risk.pdf
So, it looks like I'm using your scientists.
As about one in 4,000 people get brain cancer and considering the "conclusions" reached here http://www.ewg.org/project/2009cellphone/cellphoneradiation-fullreport.pdf, one of which indicated a doubling of risk for brain cancer due to cell phone use, I don't think there would be any doubt if one in 4,000 turned into one in 2,000. If the incidence of brain cancer doubled in the last 10 years I think that would make the 6:00 news around the world. Since that hasn't happened, it makes the claim appear unsupported in reality.
indicated potential damage to human health based on cell phone use?
Or maybe you mean the conclusions of some of these studies:
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2005. Use of cellular telephones and brain tumour risk in urban and rural areas. Occup Environ Med 62(6): 390-4. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2006a. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003. Int J Oncol 28(2): 509-18. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2006b. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997-2003. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 79(8): 630-9. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2009. Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases. Pathophysiology: in press. Hardell L, Hansson Mild K. 2006. Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the interphone case-control study in five North European countries. Br J Cancer 94(9): 1348-9; author reply 52-3. Hardell L, Mild KH, Carlberg M. 2003. Further aspects on cellular and cordless telephones and brain tumours. Int J Oncol 22(2): 399-407.
Until a conclusive study is released, the debate will continue. I work a lot with this because working for the telecom regulator, many communities opose new base stations close to where they live, stating it causes cancer and other diseases.
We normally coordiante talks, telling them we have power limits and that those transmissions are nothing compared to other devices (microwaves, TV transmissions, etc).
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.