Use your cell phone with your home fax, cordless phones, speaker phones-get rid of land lines!!!!

[JACKHAMMER]

<< Y'all can make all the stupid, wiseass comments you want about the subject, but it doesn't negate what the studies confirm. >>



The point is, there are NO confirmable studies. Can you provide actual proof? (link?) Go look at a chart of EM waves (and where the wavelengths), you will see why you really shouldn't be worried about cancer from cell phones.

 

[JahWren]

Headsets on cell phones direct the energy into your head - unless you are using a specially designed headset (very rare) you will actually pump more EM energy into your brain by using a headset on your cell phone than you would just using the phone normally. They act like a directional antenna aimed right at your brain. Don't worry though - Richard Branson has been using headsets on his cellphones for years to avoid the brain cancer thing and it was only within the last year or so that someone actually did a scientific study of the effects of using a headset, so if anyone is going to get brain cancer it will be Richard Branson and he's got so much money you can bet we'll have a cure for brain cancer not too long after he is diagnosed.

 

[Justincase]

I was going to mention Branson actually...for anyone that doesn't know it, he is quite a daredevil, and has risked his own life on many occasions...yet he refuses to put a cell phone up to his ear, and will only use one with an earpiece/headset.

The studies are out there...I guess I could bring a stack of them here and we could all go through them together.

No, I don't have any links to actual studies - I don't trust everything I read on the Internet, especially when it comes to health matters. You might want to peruse MedLine, which has a wealth of health information, and may have some info on the subject at hand. There is also some very reliable, unbiased information on the subject at http://www.garynull.com (click search).

 

[Racketear]

<< It has never been proven to given cancer. >>



Neither has tobacco.

 

[Racketear]

<<

<< who needs any land lines!! >>



they who wish to maintain their "expectation of privacy" in their telephone conversations should use a land line. >>


Digtal phones are way more secure than land lines. Anolog can be picked up by police scanner sometimes. I can strip 2 wires in the box down the street from your house, and listen to your conversations clearly. I dont think if possible the average person can "ta" digital cell phones.

 

[nekote]

Racktear, good point about the practicality of tapping someone's phone.

But legality?

Supreme Court said listening to airwave transmissions (receiving), is legal for everybody.
Transmitters (*ALL* users of cordless / wireless / cell phones / radio), need to be aware, particularly if they do not have even the most rudimentary encryption or frequency hoping.

Tapping land lines, however, needs a warrant, to be legal.
Well, at least until this "Patriot" Anti-Terrorist Act became law.
The Fed may no longer need much of a warrant, but private individuals would be in a boat load of trouble, if caught.

 

[CutN2]

So does anybody know how much these things cost? Between my cell phone and home phone bills I must be paying close to $100 a month now. If I could roll it all into one and save some bucks, I'd cut the wires in a minute. I couldn't care less if anybody listens to my calls. And cigarettes will probably kill me first anyway.

 

[JahWren]

nekote - I don't know what supreme court ruling you are talking about, but the the federal law is quite different . The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) which was passed in 1992 allows anyone to transmissions in the clear, but they can not legally communicate that information to anyone else, nor can they act on it either. This law was passed in part because of lobbying by the wireless carriers who did not want to have to implement strong encryption. Instead, they passed a law instead (ignorant dumbsh!ts), which bit them in the @ss a few years back when Newt Gingrich had some very embarassing conversations recorded (legally) and then passed on to news agencies (illegally) who then made them public (legal). So, it may be legal to listen in to a wireless conversation that is in the clear, but it sure isn't legal to act on that information, which is tantamount to the same thing because what good is information that you can't use?

 

[sygyzy]

Gotta chime in here. All of you think that using a headset would reduce the risk of cancer because you are bringing the phone away from the head. Well I watched a pretty interesting PBS special (probably NOVA) and the whole show was devoted to cell phones and cancer. This was within the last year. Anyways, interestingly enough, they said that using headsets actually increases the risk. They had a very interesting and easy to understand explanation too, but as luck would have it, it escapes me at this time. Maybe someone else saw it too. And yes, I trust PBS. I think they are a fine institution. Now I gotta go donate so I can get my name on a brick and an autographed crystal vase!

 

[nekote]

Excellent point(s) Rah Wren.

But of course, that whole incident "went away" when no one was willing to prosecute Jim McDermott (D, WA) nor the couple who provided the recording to him - the two illegal acts, if I understand your interpretation of 1992 ECPA - didn't it?

You can listen but not act - sounds like a field day for lawyers to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Plus, with "journalists" likely to hide behind the First Ammendment to protect their (illegal) source, not much of a law, don't you think?

 

[FarmerJohn]

<< Ah, sh!t - I guess I have to answer that truthfully...yes there are in fact black helicopters flying around here, and they have been since September 11th. Picture of black helicopter near my house, taken 4 days after WTC. >>


Actually that helicopter is colored o.d. green.

 

[Justincase]

True but, the media around here still refer to them as 'black' helicopters.

 

[Bob151]

<< DE28573 was my old one
decata2 8573 was how it was pronounced
they stopped using the letters probably in the 60s >>



From a commercial in NE Ohio, Garfield1-2323. I'm to young for this, I never dialed a number like that.

 

[rav]

Getting back to where it started the cost is approx. $199 from Telular Corp.

VoiceStream 49.99, 3000 anytime deal includes free first minute.

Buy the VoiceStream deal from Amazon and you get Motorola T-193 phone free after coupon and rebate. Also you should get AOL $25 shopping gift certificate!!

Also with $6-7 extra you can get National Long Distance Free!! So technically you can move out after giving initial Texas or southern address!

 

[kt]

<< >>>do you ever go outside?<<<

Just got back from outside, as I do every day. Is there a point to the question? >>


<midget voice>The sun, boss. The sun.</midget voice>

unless of course, you're a nocturnal person.

 

[Justincase]

>>>The sun, boss. The sun.<<<

You mean that big yellow ball thingy in the sky that I used to see when I was a kid? Is that still there?


>>>unless of course, you're a nocturnal person.<<<

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that...I only come out at night :Q

 

[Mixxen]

My professor in Electrical Engineering (Electrophysics specialist) helps with monitoring emf waves emitted from cell antennas on top of buildings to check if they do not harm people living in the buildings.

He also tells us that he will only use his cell phone in emergencies. That tells you something...

Anyway, cell phones do not emit crazy amounts of emf, but having them right up against your brain for extended periods of time throughout the years COULD have a negative effect.

 

[Justincase]

That's right; it's not just the intensity of the exposure that makes a difference, but the intensity, frequency, and duration of exposure combined, over a long period of time, that causes damage. Same as with electric blankets, which are up against the body for 8 hours a day, every day (I won't get into that, but if you've ever put an EMF meter up to one of those, you know what I'm talking about).

 

[Rhody]

Justincase

>>" I was going to mention Branson actually...for anyone that doesn't know it, he is quite a daredevil, and has risked his own life on many occasions...yet he refuses to put a cell phone up to his ear, and will only use one with an earpiece/headset."

I wouldn't put Branson anywhere near the same category as Howard Hughes as far as a risk-taking daredevil, genius inventor, businessman, etc.

He was also a complete nut who was obsessed with his phobia of germs and disease. Refusing to meet with people face-to-face for fear of contamination was one of the milder manifestations of his multiple phobias.

So Branson matters Why???

Back in to your bubble now

 

[Yonsink]

<< Gotta chime in here. All of you think that using a headset would reduce the risk of cancer because you are bringing the phone away from the head. Well I watched a pretty interesting PBS special (probably NOVA) and the whole show was devoted to cell phones and cancer. This was within the last year. Anyways, interestingly enough, they said that using headsets actually increases the risk. They had a very interesting and easy to understand explanation too, but as luck would have it, it escapes me at this time. Maybe someone else saw it too. And yes, I trust PBS. I think they are a fine institution. Now I gotta go donate so I can get my name on a brick and an autographed crystal vase! >>

Well, according to this PBS segment...

"But in contrast to some users' fears, and to concerns raised by Carlo and a handful of other researchers, two new studies suggest no statistical link between cell phone use and brain cancer. "

 

[whizbang]

<< I just love the term land line >>

Yet it's not as important as the acronym POTS (plain old telephone service). That's one of my alltime favorites.

 

[Mixxen]

of course any cell phone study out now will only show the short term effects of cell phone use.

the military use to give out cigarettes to troops back in the day....

 

[Snyder81]

Justincase, I give ya props for speaking out. Many are just too afraid to check into something for themselves. I know some of you guys do research things and present a valid defense against "conspiracy theories," but most people just call someone crazy for thinking a certain way. Don't take everything you hear as Bible truth...research it yourself.

 

[Justincase]

Thanks Snyder. The research IS out there, and available to all those who take the time to look into it.

As you can see though, it's much easier for people to remain ignorant, imply that one is a conspiracy theorist (based on no facts), and hurl what they think are clever little personal insults; rather than challenging their own deep-seated beliefs, then engaging in intelligent discussion on the subject matter. Oh well, a closed mind is a terrible thing to change.

 

[digme]

info on the side,

currently i donot own a cellphone..... I am waiting for 3G to roll out - proposed callendar year is by 2003 or 2004... and the first one to roll out with 3G is going to be ......... SPRINT and 2nd one is going to be Bells -----AT&T is going to be last with Cingular(fn' TDMA takes so many freakin steps to reach Broadband wirelss)... if u got a TDMA phone throw it out, it's junk.... get CDMA phone....