Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Cellphones IT Technology

BlackBerry Bold Tops Radiation Ranking 189

Posted by timothy
from the woo-top-of-the-list-awesome dept.
geek4 writes with this excerpt from eWeek Europe: "Data from the Environmental Working Group places the BlackBerry Bold 9700 as the mobile device with the highest legal levels of cell phone radiation among popular smartphones. Research In Motion's BlackBerry Bold 9700 scores the highest among popular smartphones for exposing users to the highest legal levels of cell phone radiation, according to the latest 2010 Environmental Working Group ranking. Following the Bold 9700 are the Motorola Droid, the LG Chocolate and Google's HTC Nexus One. The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BlackBerry Bold Tops Radiation Ranking

Comments Filter:
  • Radiation Blues (Score:3, Insightful)

    by handy_vandal (606174) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @10:00PM (#31280666) Homepage Journal

    It's flamebait for the "cell phones cause cancer" crowd: the word "radiation" is a dead giveaway.

  • not a big deal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sammykrupa (828537) <sam@theplaceforitall.com> on Thursday February 25, 2010 @10:07PM (#31280712) Homepage Journal

    Someone compiled a list, then sorted it numerically by some quantifiable characteristic.

    Something came in at #1. what a surprise. this doesn't mean #1 is that that good or great or bad or harmful, as noted in the summary itself
    "The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules."

    stupid

  • no comprende (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eil (82413) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @10:14PM (#31280746) Homepage Journal

    The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.

    Then why is it a story?

  • Re:Radiation Blues (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 25, 2010 @10:59PM (#31280984)

    What else would you call it? It is electromagnetic energy that radiates from the device.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 25, 2010 @11:33PM (#31281204)

    Electromagnetic radiation in any amount has effects on human biology. Many not well understood. It is not unlikely that at least some of these effects are cumulative. As every coin has two sides it seems likely that these effects cause both positive and negative effects.

    I personally don't think there will ever be much for direct evidence of any ill effects. Possibly because they are not significant enough. Though I think largely because we change our technology to often to get a clear idea of what the effects are from consistent long term use. How long will you have the same phone with the same chips that is transmitting at the same frequency and maintain the same usage pattern.

    Another thing I think should be considered besides just measuring the amount of em is resonance and what component elements in our bodies mite correspond to them. It is also unknown what emergent effects of quantum level interactions may be taking place.

    Can I have my loon badge now.

  • Re:Radiation Blues (Score:2, Insightful)

    by icebike (68054) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @11:37PM (#31281220)

    I thought it was flamebait for why the iPhone drops 30% of calls [engadget.com].

  • Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zero_out (1705074) on Friday February 26, 2010 @12:11AM (#31281394)
    In PA (USA) the legal limit for driving while intoxicated was 1.0. Now it's 0.8. Legal limits change when new facts are discovered. Do you remember asbestos? Lead paint? What about cigarettes? Oh, wait, cigarettes are still legal, even though their deadly effects are well documented.

    Note: I do not believe that cell phones cause cancer, but just because something is legal doesn't mean it's safe.
  • by dafing (753481) on Friday February 26, 2010 @01:16AM (#31281720) Journal
    I agree, my point is, theres all this raw HATE for the iPhone, much of it from bitter people who for whatever reason cannot have an iPhone, and "the coverage sucks" is a very common complaint I hear.

    The problem is not with the phone, its that damn AT&T network in the USA. I hope people remember, Apple supposedly went to Verizon first [usatoday.com]

    From what I understand, Verizon is the best US network, and the iPhone is a very desirable phone (anywhere in the world), if the two met, it would be a marvellous thing.

    I know it sucks having "locked" phones, most of the world has "unlocked" phones, you can easily run any iPhone 3G or 3GS on any of the three networks here in New Zealand, just throw the sim card in, boom!

    Its AT&T that sucks for reception
  • Re:Actually. . . (Score:3, Insightful)

    by QuoteMstr (55051) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Friday February 26, 2010 @02:27AM (#31282052)

    Oh boy, yourself.

    Your post displays all the hallmarks of pseudoscience: elevated language to bamboozle the layman, accusations of censorship from the media, bald assertion of "common sense" causal connections, and a complete lack of rigorous data. A simple search-and-replace on your post could turn it into a defense of intelligent design, magnetic healing, or homeopathy: the thought process is the same. You adopt all the trappings of science without the rigor that makes the exercise worthwhile. You're no better than an alchemist.

    You're not being censored by the media. Get over yourself. The mainstream media is more than happy to report on harmful substances when there's a modicum of evidence attached: see asbestos, tobacco, trans-fats, etc. That stuff sells like hotcakes! If it were discovered that cell phones were carcinogenic the media frenzy would make the Toyota debacle look like a slow news day.

    There's simply no credible evidence in support of your worldview. You're the one making the outrageous claim that electromagnetic waves we've lived with for over a hundred years are actually harmful despite all the research to the contrary. Therefore, the burden falls on you to provide evidence, and your shameless unfounded assertions are seriously wanting.

    Oh, and before you link to some minor study that purports to find a weak effect: your evidence needs to be strong enough to outweigh the "null hypothesis" of there being no connection. Perform enough studies and you'll get a few that show a positive result just by chance [blogspot.com]. Any study that purports to show a connection between cell phone use and cancer needs to:

    • Rigorously control for other risks. (Oh, look! Cell phones are correlated with cancer in our study! Never mind that all our cell phone users worked in PCB plants and our control group was a class of toddlers.)
    • Have a large enough sample size that its statistical power [wikipedia.org] is significant. If cell phones are harmful, clearly the effect is weak and gradual. A very large study is required to reliably detect weak and gradual effects.
    • Be performed by a credible, disinterested party like a university or government lab. Would you trust a Philip Morris study on the effects of smoking, a Trojan study on the reliability of condoms, or a PETA study on the health effects of red meat? I thought not.
    • Be confirmed by an independent organization

    Show me one of those and I might concede you're onto something. It wouldn't be the first time in history of science that a fringe group happened to be right. But the vast majority of these fringe groups are utterly incompetent if not downright fraudulent. That's why we ask for real evidence. If we were cro-magnons, I'm sure you'd be spreading FUD about the evil spirits that would be awakened if we kept using "fire" to cook our food.

    Provide strong evidence. Put up or shut up.

  • Re:Actually. . . (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Friday February 26, 2010 @03:49AM (#31282422)

    Please take a deep breath and count to ten before trying to absorb what I'm about to say. . .

    You're making a lot of unfounded accusations and demands and you are generally being very uncivil. If you have questions, I'd be happy to answer them. However, demands made from a place of strong emotion and combativeness. . , not so much.

    You have demanded layered proof with very specific protocols. I have in fact offered exactly enough of this to fill a book and indeed provided a link to that book. But will you read it? The answer to that question will determine what kind of person you are.

    A scientific mind would take the time required to research instead of flying off the handle. An unscientific mind, however, would come up with a host of excuses to avoid having to work for knowledge. "I don't have time to read." "I already know what that book contains, so I don't have to read it." "It's too expensive." Etc.

    If you make demands like those you have made, you must be prepared to absorb the information which comes back, otherwise you are just a blow-hard fool of little consequence.

    What you do next is up to you, but pay attention to this last bit because it directly applies. . .

    I don't care what you do. I don't care if you are wise or idiotic. Nobody does. Your level of awareness is your problem. If you want to fortify your own ignorance, then you are free to do so. However, you don't win any prizes for closing up your mind and I certainly don't lose anything. My responding to you now is a courtesy and nothing more. You have, however, been led to believe that your ignorance is precious and that it must be protected, and more strangely, you have been led to believe that people offering to share knowledge are somehow obligated to do so; that they must present it to you and that you needn't offer any effort to obtain it. This is evidenced by your verbally abusive behavior to which you believe you are entitled. Until you recognize that this is a corrupted state of mind, you will not be able to learn anything of much value.

    What will you do next? Are you stronger than your sense of self-importance? Don't answer me that. It's not my problem. It's yours.

    Bye now.

    -FL

  • by vadim_t (324782) on Friday February 26, 2010 @04:28AM (#31282562) Homepage

    I agree, my point is, theres all this raw HATE for the iPhone, much of it from bitter people who for whatever reason cannot have an iPhone, and "the coverage sucks" is a very common complaint I hear.

    It's not as much hate as annoyance over all this horrible hype it constantly gets. Yes, we get it, you like it. But couldn't you just shut up about it? It's not new, I know it exist so no need to tell me, and there are more interesting things to talk about.

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

    by bartwol (117819) on Friday February 26, 2010 @10:31AM (#31284750)

    I was interested to see, after your initial post and the challenge to show evidence, whether you had any substance behind your position.

    You offered nothing.

    The challenger nailed your deficiencies. You show no awareness of the substance of those deficiencies.

    You may know much _about_ science, but you have no stomach for its underlying rigors and the tightly measured increments by which it informs our understanding of the universe. You _know_ (certainly believe) much more than science tells us. For a scientist, your purported awareness is not just a cruel joke, but a powerfully distorting force in the awareness of the many who simply trust "those who know better."

    And in case you believe some kind of equivalence of smugness between yourself and your challenger, please try to understand your challenger's position...he does not assert that cell phone radiation is safe. He asserts no claim other than that there is no substantive case to support that they are dangerous. In essence, he claims to know nothing. You, on the other hand, claim to know something, i.e. that cell phones emit damaging radiation. And yet, you provide no substantive support of that claim.

    Your challenger needs to prove nothing because he makes no substantive assertion. But you do make a substantive assertion.

    And you offer NOTHING.

    Go home.

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

    by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Friday February 26, 2010 @03:08PM (#31289098)

    And you offer NOTHING.

    It doesn't matter if you repeat it more than once or type it in all-caps, this assertion is still false. Sorry. The universe doesn't respond to the power of 'tantrum.' I'm not trying to insult you. I'm just looking at what you have provided.

    Here's the truth:

    I in fact offered two things. 1) A logical explanation which even a low-level science student can grasp. 2) A book which I have told you contains the full narrative behind that explanation along with all the materials necessary to verify its assertion.

    You know that this is what I have offered. It's not possible for you to NOT know that. Which leaves us with a few possible explanations for your contradictory response, the simplest and most likely being. . .

    You are biased and lazy. What you want is a nice series of links to easy websites you don't have to leave your chair in order to investigate. You also think you know what kind of person I am, and you are basing your response upon that assumption. And finally, you are offended that your beloved electronic toys might be having a detrimental biological/neurological effect upon you, and rather than deal with this unhappy possibility with courage, you are running away using faulty reasoning and all-caps to cover your tail.

    Sorry. Real study requires that you sometimes enter a library or buy books or white papers, and horrors, actually perform some experiments yourself. It also requires the courage to face uncomfortable possibilities.

    As it happens, I certainly do have easy links to exactly the kind of information you are demanding. I have scanned images of graphs and texts I could easily throw up for your benefit. How can I not? Think about this! How can I not? -I am fascinated by this material and I've spent years researching it, and there is plenty of it out there to find. You know this as well! So perhaps I am working this debate in the manner I am for a reason.

    You see, I not going to give any easy links to you. Why should I? I worked hard to build a map of reality, and you are acting like a thoughtless nitwit. Please note, I am not saying that this is what you are, I am saying it is what you are choosing to act like. But in the end, I don't care what you go away knowing at the close of the day, and deep down, that is what is most infuriating for you. It denies your false but dearly-held belief that you are special and deserving. You are not. That's the real lesson here. Knowledge requires work and you are lazy.

    I gave you a very low-level challenge; Obtain a book and read it. It is very simple. Anybody can do it. Yet, for many, this represents an insurmountable obstacle.

    Now. . , will you get to work or blow more of your childish fury at the world for not respecting your specialness?

    Only you can decide that.

    -FL

It is masked but always present. I don't know who built to it. It came before the first kernel.

Working...