Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Wireless Networking Cellphones Medicine Science Technology

Studies Find Harm From Cellular and Wi-Fi Signals 474

Posted by kdawson
from the perennial-question dept.
Over the years we've discussed the possible health risks of cellphone and other microwave radiation: studies from Israel and Sweden indicating a link between cellphone use and cancer, one from England exonerating cell towers as a cause of "microwave radiation sensitivity," and a recent 30-year Swedish study that found no link to cancer. The question won't go away though. Reader Artifice_Eternity writes "I've always tended to dismiss claims of toxicity from cell phone and Wi-Fi signals as reflecting ignorance about microwave radiation. However, this GQ article cites American and European studies going back decades that have found some level of biological harm caused by these signals. Why haven't they gained more attention? Quoting: 'Industry-funded studies seem to reflect the result of corporate strong-arming. Lai reviewed 350 studies and found that about half showed bioeffects from EM radiation emitted by cell phones. But when he took into consideration the funding sources for those 350 studies, the results changed dramatically. Only 25 percent of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects, compared with 75 percent of those studies that were independently funded.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Studies Find Harm From Cellular and Wi-Fi Signals

Comments Filter:
  • by ZuchinniOne (1617763) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @07:18PM (#31048704)

    Although it can be fair to argue about whether or not the industry studies are biased, I think it goes the other way too.

    There are A LOT of people out there who are 'convinced' that cell phones and wi-fi cause cancer. And it doesn't matter how many studies you show them that it doesn't, they just won't believe you.

    And if you consider that many of these so-called 'independent' studies are in fact paid for by fringe anti-science groups, then perhaps their results are aren't as unbiased as they would have you believe.

  • Biased Reports? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amiga3D (567632) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @07:19PM (#31048712)
    Surely not. People skewing tests in accordance with funding would never happen.
  • Confirmation bias. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gandhi_2 (1108023) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @07:20PM (#31048720) Homepage

    The /. demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand.

    This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand.

    We like our echo chambers just like everyone else.

    Now cue the nerds screaming about RF radiation is harmless, and always has been, and always will be:

  • Matters not (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @07:23PM (#31048750)

    It matters not one whit how many studies show result X. What matters is what is shown by peer-reviewed studies done under controlled circumstances and having a significant sample size.

    For example 100 studies done shoddily using sample sizes of 3, 4, and 6 subjects do not outweigh one ten-year study across 1,000 subjects.

    Now just on general principles, if one watt of radio energy was harmful, you'd think that people like RF welders, tower steeplejacks, plasma researchers, and radar disk repairers wolsd be covered in suppurating pustules. But they're not. Even people whose heads are hit by 100 watts of much stronger photons (sunbathers, cowboys), they do just fine.

    So I suggest you use GQ to check up on the latest fashions, maybe not so much on the best science.

  • Re:Matters not (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ArsonSmith (13997) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @07:29PM (#31048784) Journal

    "For example 100 studies done shoddily using sample sizes of 3, 4, and 6 subjects do not outweigh one ten-year study across 1,000 subjects."

    Depends. If one of those 100 shoddy studies gets me the $50M research grant and the ten-year study does not then the shoddy study wins.

  • Re:Biased Reports? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by samkass (174571) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @07:33PM (#31048804) Homepage Journal

    It took years to uncover the fraud that it was.

    Yeah right, the Big Money Hippies will be exposed for influencing the studies done by the poor little oil and energy conglomerates.

    The fact that you think global warming is a fraud is a good case study in how money can buy science, and can especially buy people's perceptions of science.

  • by Vellmont (569020) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @07:42PM (#31048876)

    The GQ article with a cell phone next to a pack of cigarettes couldn't be more misleading. We hear about "such and such % increased risk of this", "such and such % increased risk of that". But these numbers are meaningless in assessing behavior changes unless you know the baseline risk.

    So here's some numbers. The article starts off with cigarettes, so what's the risk of lung cancer between smokers and non-smokers?

    Well, according to wikipedia [wikipedia.org], For Men it's 1.3% for non-smokers, and 17% for smokers. Wow!

    Let's compare that to Brain cancer (all types). According to the National Cancer institute [cancer.gov] it's .6% for everyone. The Swedish study from 2006 found a 240% increase. So that's 1.44% risk.

    So it seems quite obvious to me that even the most alarming study only showed a small increased health risk from cell phone use, and others have shown none. Compare that to smoking, which has been consistent in showing risk over the years, and an ENORMOUS risk. Oh, and for smoking that's JUST the lung cancer risk. We all should know about the other increased health risks associated with it.

  • Re:Biased Reports? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by demonlapin (527802) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @07:45PM (#31048890) Homepage Journal
    You can believe that the proposed mechanism of global warming is correct and that the earth has gotten warmer - and still believe that a scam was perpetrated upon the public. Because it was.

    When the big names on one side of the debate turn out to be engaged in avoiding freedom-of-information requests, carrying on back-channel actions like squeezing people out of journals, and making ridiculous claims about Himalayan glaciers, it weakens their case. That doesn't mean global warming isn't happening; it's just the story of the boy who cried wolf.
  • by wizardforce (1005805) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @07:55PM (#31048950) Journal

    If any warming caused by holding a cell phone near your head caused sufficient warming to actually cause damage in the long term, then exercise of any sort would kill you dead a lot quicker than a cell phone could possibly be responsible for. A two or three degree Fahrenheit increase in body temperature is completely normal during exercise and even this is larger than a cell phone is capable of doing.

  • by oldsaint (736226) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @07:55PM (#31048952)
    "Studies" that are funded or sponsored or promoted by environmental organizations should be taken as expressions of religious dogma, essentially worthless to those who endeavor to understand the underlying issue. Environmental organizations, like religious organizations, perceive themselves as above criticism, and therefore not accountable for the veracity of their proclamations. Commercial organizations might be equally and oppositely dogmatic in their desire for lucre, but tend to have a higher regard for logic, even if they reject it when they can get away with it.
  • Re:Biased Reports? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jimbolauski (882977) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @08:07PM (#31049036) Journal

    Yeah right, the Big Money Hippies will be exposed for influencing the studies done by the poor little oil and energy conglomerates.

    The fact that you think global warming is a fraud is a good case study in how money can buy science, and can especially buy people's perceptions of science.

    Al Gore was worth 2 million before he started warning people about manbearpig now he's worth 100million because he sells manbearpig repellent.

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Saturday February 06, 2010 @08:14PM (#31049088) Homepage Journal

    To show how hardcore of a Slashdot reader I am, I will make a homemade pornographic video of myself and a female acquaintance.

    Obviously an imposter.

  • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @08:16PM (#31049114)

    Yes, I agree with you. Unfortunately it is the sort of crap that gets published on Slashdot.

    Rat organs affected by GMO - check.
    Vermont Nuquelar plant going to kill us all - check.
    Cell phone radiation causes cancer - yup.

    I am waiting now for a vaccine causes autism article to balance out the Lancet story from last week...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06, 2010 @08:17PM (#31049136)

    Doesn't work that way. If the photon doesn't have enough energy to put the molecule into a new state, it simply doesn't get absorbed. There's no difference between one not being absorbed and a billion. Saying that more photons = more energy is like saying that if you have a bunch of red lights and point them all at the same place, they turn blue.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06, 2010 @08:25PM (#31049176)

    That's part of the problem - the other part is people like this:

    http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Wireless/11099.html

    In short, a bunch of local "sensitives" claimed that the tower was giving them rashes, etc. that faded within hours of leaving the area. The telco responded by pointing out that the tower had been switched off for 6 weeks prior (unbeknownst to said yobs) and told them to STFU.

    And at this point, is there really an alternative? We can't exactly just switch off all the RF, even if it *is* causing problems.

    Finally, the balls on people who complain about this (while, for example, most of the lakes in the US are so polluted with mercury that it's only safe to eat a handful of fish from them every year) must be enormous - rivaled only by the "third-hand smoke" hand-wringers. Howsabout they all get back to us after we've stopped burning dirty coal as a primary fuel source?

  • Re:Insulation. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @08:38PM (#31049260)

    These "studies" cut both ways. Greenpeace for example funded the preposterous Rat Organ study that was posted here last week.

    The best and most time tested answer is independent review. Which pretty much works in the long run.

  • by GrumpySteen (1250194) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @08:46PM (#31049304)

    Even if there is a link, how can they be sure it's not due to exposure to chemicals given off by the plastic of the phone? Nothing in any of the studies I've seen would rule out chemical causes.

  • by brentonboy (1067468) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @08:54PM (#31049350) Homepage Journal

    He was doubting that a hardcore Slashdot reader has any female acquaintances, not that the AC was you.

  • by wizardforce (1005805) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @09:07PM (#31049434) Journal

    Maybe it is because there's quite a few actual scientists in the relevant fields posting on Slashdot. Or maybe it's the fact that you expect people to make decisions solely on whom created the stufy rather than 1) evidence 2) rational explanation of the results. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and is the major causal agent behind the climate change we're seeing right now. Microwaves OTOH are not capable of breaking molecular bonds found in cells.
     
    --A biochemist

  • by hoelk (1537469) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @09:47PM (#31049624)
    "Incredible NPC AI" is a vast overstatement, the GFX are nice though...
  • by TapeCutter (624760) * on Saturday February 06, 2010 @09:49PM (#31049634) Journal
    "If you could reason with religious people there wouldn't be any religious people" - Hugh Laurie.
  • by CheshireCatCO (185193) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @10:14PM (#31049728) Homepage

    It is fair to say that the vast majority hold center-left political views, but this usually doesn't mean outright hostility to capitalism,

    In fact, let's go further. Many scientists hold patents which they think may make them money (a very capitalistic goal). Most that I know are sufficiently affluent to be pretty well invested in the stock market or in various businesses. Attacking the economy is not something that most academics are interested in, we benefit from the status quo more than the average person does. The only people I seem to hear making the claim otherwise are right-wing pundits who seem to want to cast doubt on the honesty of researchers who are finding things that they don't like.

  • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @10:22PM (#31049756)

    >There are A LOT of people out there who are 'convinced' that cell phones and wi-fi cause cancer.

    In fact there are lots of people who claim to show symptoms (dizziness, depression, anxiety, pain, etc) when exposed to wifi or cell radio. The kicker is that they only claim this when they know they are being exposed to wifi/cell, not when they are actually exposed.

    I really think the next version of the DSM should have an entry for 'radio phobia.' These poor people are simply mentally ill and need help from professionals. They dont need bullshit studies validating their illness.

  • Re:Biased Reports? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TapeCutter (624760) * on Saturday February 06, 2010 @10:30PM (#31049782) Journal
    "When the big names on one side of the debate turn out to be engaged in avoiding freedom-of-information requests, carrying on back-channel actions like squeezing people out of journals, and making ridiculous claims about Himalayan glaciers, it weakens their case. That doesn't mean global warming isn't happening; it's just the story of the boy who cried wolf."

    The fact that climate scientists who are part of the IPCC pointed out the doggy Himalayan paragraph and the IPCC prominently acknowledged the error [www.ipcc.ch] on thier main report page strengthens their claims of scientific rigour. The rest just feeds the never ending appetite humans have for witch burning and gossip. It doesn't help that we no longer get news and opinion, we get the two rolled together into a multi-channel, multi-media, web-enabled, 24x7 display of ignorance and hubris.
  • by Antaeus Feldspar (118374) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @10:40PM (#31049816) Homepage

    I was going to RTFA but it's densely packed in an unfriendly typeface and when I opened it up, I immediately saw warning signs of conspiracy-mongering (Hey, this guy publishes an "investigative newsletter" called Microwave News! And he has a doctorate in environmental policy from MIT! That means if he says that the science is 100% solid about cell phones causing harm, he must be right, because God knows no one who got a doctorate at MIT ever got convinced of some cockamamie theory and started "investigative newsletters" to pursue some non-existent threat!) and research fail ("The "hearing," however, didn't happen via normal sound waves perceived through the ear. It occurred somewhere in the brain itself, as EM waves interacted with the brain's cells, which generate tiny electrical fields." First of all, any time someone mentions the Frey effect, 80% of the time you're about to hear schizophrenic ranting about government mind control transmissions. Second of all, the author seems to have made up the theory that the Frey effect happens because of EM waves interacting with brain cells; it seems quite inconsistent with Frey's own findings that there were some individuals who could not hear sounds around the frequency of 5Kc who also could not hear the "rf sounds". If the Frey effect bypassed the ear and directly stimulated the brain, why would anyone who had a brain be unable to detect this stimulus? Why would the people who were unable to detect this stimulus also be those with known deficiencies in their ears? Coincidence?)

    Anyways, I suspected that what I would find in the article was a situation similar to the Myung meta-review of cell-phone/cancer studies [sciencebasedmedicine.org], where the author declared that even though the overall review of the chosen studies had failed to establish any sort of convincing evidence that cell phones caused cancer, a "sub-group" of "high-quality" studies established a "significant positive association". What the meta-review may have failed to call attention to, however, was that seven out of the eight "high-quality" studies were all done by the same researchers, a group led by Dr. Lennart Hardell, and that Hardell is frequently retained as an expert witness in lawsuits against cell-phone companies. I wouldn't be surprised if at least 75% of the "independently funded" studies in the GQ article are also by researchers who profit handsomely from testifying in similar lawsuits. People talk about how they can't trust any studies done by "industry", but they're naive to think that litigation itself is not an industry.

  • by TapeCutter (624760) * on Saturday February 06, 2010 @10:54PM (#31049878) Journal
    "The /. demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand.
    This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand."


    So what, I see little difference between greenpeace, the heartland institue and the discovery institute, I do not dissmisses then "out of hand" I dismiss them because they are all anti-science. They are all capable of getting the facts straight when the science is on their side.

    Slashdot has a high proportion of knowledgeable people who can think beyond the identity of the messenger. They at least try and base their opinions on Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic (PEARLS's). I don't expect anyone who sees the above quote as a contradiction will understand why that approach is profoundly superiour to all others.
  • by rtb61 (674572) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @11:34PM (#31050094) Homepage

    Far more importantly all those molecular bonds are not locked in, they are in transition from one state to another state, human bodies are living organisms, a fully active molecular processing system. Altering the energy states of molecules in transition has an outcome on the resultant new molecules formed. Probabilities are low but you are dealing with billions of molecules of trillions of reactions, those low probabilities suddenly become lethal given sufficient time, genetic predisposition and plain bad luck.

    That this generation wants to take a chance with the lives of the next generation because it is more profitable to do so, fine, as long as the perpetrators pay the full price, for causing the early deaths of the next generation.

    The telecoms don't think there is a problem, fine let's see those life time guarantee and warranties, ensuring against damages from radiation and make today's corporate executives liable for tomorrows victims. Lets see how many life insurance companies would be willing to take on the risk of insuring against cellular damage caused by radiation all built within the price of a single telephone contract and covering the user for the rest of their life, lets see the telecoms put their money and their current executives future freedoms where their current PR=B$ advertising mouth is.

  • Re:Biased Reports? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joocemann (1273720) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @11:41PM (#31050128)

    The fact that you think global warming is a real is a good case study in how money can buy science, and can especially buy people's perceptions of science.

    See? Two can play that game.

    Lol. The odds that money bought off pretty much all of the relevantly educated people in the field... as compared to having bought the very few fringe-skeptics with relevant educations... is pretty frikking low.

    So low, actually, that there aren't two sides to the game at all.

    But, just as your skepticism is fueled, any discussion or argument that doesn't agree with your preconceived beliefs will not suffice. Your disbelief = your god = your faith. Good luck with that; I just wish you didn't stand in the way of rational progress and truth in the world.

  • Re:Biased Reports? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by joocemann (1273720) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @11:47PM (#31050156)

    The issue is significantly settled among those that are educated in relative studies. The seriousness of the implications of AGW is far greater than any of those examples you made, but you would have to have a relative education to understand why.

    I don't listen to arguments about AGW from the ignorant and while the science I trust is written by qualified people whose qualifications are published and verifiable, the skeptics and critics are by-and-large NOT qualified.

    What qualifications do you have? Before I take your post with any seriousness I want to know you are worth hearing from.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @11:53PM (#31050194)

    It's hysteria meets technology. Blunt and simple. It's like Brain said when he tried his insurance fraud.

    Brain: I'll claim the microwave made me into what I am today.
    Pinky: Why that?
    Brain: Because nobody knows how it works.

    People don't know how something works, but if hysteria is mixed into it, especially if they're at least a touch hypochondriac, you really have a volatile mix that makes them go ballistic on anything that might have any ill effect on them. Add a bit of "I don't need it and it might have a nonzero chance of harming me, so you must not have it either" and we're set.

  • Re:Biased Reports? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Artifakt (700173) on Saturday February 06, 2010 @11:59PM (#31050218)

    Climate prediction generally works:

    1. We have boundaries set on things such as tornado and hurricane seasons. That's a climate prediction. Total numbers of tornadoes and hurricanes fall inside certain limits - that's another one. Various parts of the world have similar rules for typhoons, noreasters, or whatever weather they have. Hurricane season coming at the same time every year is climate prediction. Calling some part of the US Tornado Alley is a climate prediction. Charts showing where the 100 year flood boundaries lie are climate predictions.
    2. Climate prediction is also what we are doing when, for one example, we claim a season is an El Nino or La Nina in California. We don't have high reliability at predicting in advance what will come in a given year there, but we certainly do make a predicton that if we have certain conditions at the start of a season, they will persist for much more than just a couple of days, and equally, we predict a lot of interrelated results and they generally come in a strongly correlated bundle - i.e. El Ninos just about invariably mean more forest fires months after they begin, and have a fairly strong correlation with mudslide chances months after those fires, as well.
    3. Farmers, foresters and the like in general rely on climate following established predictions, and those work well enough. Those predictions aren't of the form "Year X will be a drought", but nobody could cultivate a crop such as apples unless the prediction that, in a given locale, there won't be enough droughts in the next 30 years to kill off all the young apple trees, held up with very high reliability.

  • Re:Biased Reports? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by styrotech (136124) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @12:30AM (#31050334)

    Also, I think you are completely missing the real big money and big power interests behind pushing global warming. Governments are SALIVATING at the proposition of a new way to exercise power over people with all the new carbon regulations.

    Yeah right. How many governments have actually done this so far? Even those commie pinko liberal hippy tax happy eurotrash ones seem to be a bit tardy about this.

    Come on, they've had over 20 years so far to actually do this. It only took a fraction of that time for Warsaw Pact countries to shift from communism to democracies, or the UK to shift from a democracy to a surveillance based police state, or South Africa to dismantle aparthied, or the Chinese to transform into raving captialists etc.

    So far, the main responses from governments seem to be along the lines of pretending it doesn't exist, hoping it goes away, stalling, waiting for everyone else to do something instead, rejecting it outright, or talking big but doing nothing etc etc.

  • by Hurricane78 (562437) <.gro.todhsals. .ta. .deteled.> on Sunday February 07, 2010 @12:43AM (#31050396)

    I have a great PROTIP for everyone out there discussing this topic:

    • As long as you still eat the complete trash you call “food”, with all its extreme quantities of sugar, saturated fats, denatured proteins (!!!) and lacking natural micronutrient combinations...
    • As long as you still breathe car and industry exhaust fumes every day...
    • As long as you still wear clothes and touch furniture with tons of chemicals in them...
    • As long as you still clean your house and your body with tons of unnecessary chemicals...
    • As long as you still sit in sunlight lacking most of the protecting ozone layer...

    ...I suggest you keep your mouth shut and first solve those problems, before trying to look at such comparably insignificant things. :)

    Hmm... Interesting how this is a really good analogy to the “terrorist ‘threat’”, compared to e.g. car accidents, and bad things the own government does...

  • details matter (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07, 2010 @01:28AM (#31050608)

    Ten watts of X-rays is very bad for you. Ten watts of microwaves directed at your eyes can blind you. Ten watts of radio pass right through you. And ten watts of light is nice for reading.

    With EM radiation, its precise frequency and location matter a great deal.

  •     As I said, unreputable sources. :)

        You can find someone who will assert just about anything. It reminds me of my BBS days. As CPU speeds approached 33Mhz, there was a discussion on FidoNet (if I recall correctly), where a few people were terribly insistent that computers would never exceed 100Mhz. Not that it couldn't happen, but when it did, it would be hazardous to be around, the power consumption would be impossibly high, and it would effectively destroy VHF and FM broadcast abilities.

        I remember all the folks who screamed that the 2.4Ghz spectrum would kill us all. Any wireless device would be the equivalent of putting an unshielded microwave oven in your lap.

        I'm still waiting to die of it. I've been pretty well exposed for quite a few years now, and I'm still alive and kicking. :) I may have almost died a few other ways, but they've never been by any method conspiracy folks have screamed about.

        Shhh.. I hear the silent black helicopters coming to take me away now. :)

  • by moortak (1273582) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @02:08AM (#31050744)
    Nope, those pesky laws of physics.
  • I think it goes beyond that to the idea that many people have, it seems, of "they wouldn't print it if it weren't true."
  • Re:Biased Reports? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by styrotech (136124) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @04:53AM (#31051128)

    So two decades after this thing started hitting the radar and one decade after some major UN agreement was signed, the EC is actually starting to enforce something and dismissing many member states plans for being too loose? And these are the tax happy tree hugging commie states to boot. What jack booted carbon thuggery has the rest of the world been doing to "exercise power over the people"?

    That first decade was spent ignoring the issue, the second was spent bitching about how it would kill everyones economies. And now some limp wristed pinko countries have just implemented namby pamby trading schemes for large emitters because taxes ended up seeming a bit too harsh in the end.

    Wow, you'd think if (as you claim) those nasty governments really had been salivating over their power trips that whole time they could've easily come up with something properly draconian by now. After all, the third reich came and went in less time than that.

    Why would they want to bother with this complicated unpopular science stuff, when they can be more popular by using the terrorist bogeyman to get all the draconian power they want over ordinary people anyway?

  • Re:Biased Reports? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07, 2010 @05:04AM (#31051156)

    You really believe that it is unlikely that almost all active scientists in the field get funded by interested parties (corporations in the green industry, government services dealing with taxes and energy policies, green activism organisation, UN)?
    Well I guess it's a long time you were not part of any research center, private or academic...

    This happen for almost all active scientists, climate science or other. This also happen for skeptics that make a living out of it, almost by definition....The only immune ones may be the dilettante, but it is not often that one found an amateur wich has the education and time to build solid arguments and get the exposure to broadcast them efficiently...

    Following the money is a good advice, but in case of the climate science, this does dot allow to decide which side is wrong or right. Money flow to both camps, in big amounts.

    As 7-vodka said, Green movement is not hippies anymore (well, the base may still partly be), it is as serious an industry as big oil (in fact, in many case, it is big oil too, which is rich enough to fund both side just to get in the driver seat should anyone win).

  • by dreamchaser (49529) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @08:49AM (#31051864) Homepage Journal

    Stop trying to pass off a bad strawman argument as if it were truly based in logic and fact. The energy of the photons in the UV part of the spectrum of the Sun is FAR greater than anything generated by a cellphone.

    It's not the number of photons, it's their energy, but I suspect you knew that already.

  • Re:GQ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shatrat (855151) on Sunday February 07, 2010 @01:53PM (#31053418)
    Anyone who buys an Enquirer has demonstrated that they are gullible as hell, making the advertising space on those pages incredibly valuable.
    If someone will believe that there is a half human half bat boy flying around in mexico then they will believe anything.

While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.

Working...