var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
zigziggityzoo
September 9, 2009 3:09 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

A post about cell phones, and not a single mention of the iPhone?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
September 9, 2009 5:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zigziggityzoo: Gods' creations don't emit radiation. The exude beneficent love.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 9, 2009 3:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zigziggityzoo: How dare you call the iPhone a \"cell phone\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 9, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@segfault: I'm going to go ahead and say with this app, it's a Communicator.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
September 9, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@segfault: It's a PC? So that means their commercials are essentially making fun of themselves? Crazy

Reply
\"user-pic\"
eirrom
September 9, 2009 3:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zigziggityzoo:


How is that possible? I thought the earth revolved around the iPhone or is that the other way around?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
eirrom
September 9, 2009 3:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is using a Bluetooth headset any better than having the phone up by my ear? Am I trading one type of radiation for another?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
September 9, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@eirrom: You probably ought to use the headset anyway if you're on the phone for long periods of time: [www.cnn.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Gnort
September 9, 2009 3:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@eirrom: From everything I've heard, it may be worse. A guy I kno who, doesn't want radiation stuck against his head, uses a wired headset and keeps the cell phone on the table, seat beside him.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
meske
September 9, 2009 3:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gnort: I've heard that a wired headset is worse as it directs the radiation up the wire. Who knows.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 9, 2009 3:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@meske: @Gnort: @eirrom: I love it when no one has any idea about something, and they all float their own theories.

@tbax929: you are an inglorious exception.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tbax929
September 10, 2009 12:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless:
An inglorious exception? Is that a good or a bad thing? LOL

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tbax929
September 9, 2009 3:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@eirrom:
From CNET:
Bluetooth devices transmit signals via a short-range radio frequency. That frequency operates at a much lower power level than your phone, so the threat from radiation is insignificant. Also, like cell phones, Bluetooth headsets disperse their signals in random directions, rather than in a straight beam.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mexifelio
September 9, 2009 3:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Cell phone companies, ready to launch D.O.S. attack in 3...2...1...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
wkm001
September 9, 2009 3:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If this is the same article on Gizmodo.... The radiation was measured in Watts/Kilogram. What difference does the weight of the phone make?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
chrylis
September 9, 2009 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wkm001: The kilograms is the mass of the talker; essentially, the larger the person, the more of that phone's radiation absorbed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wkm001
September 9, 2009 11:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrylis: I'm pretty sure that isn't what they meant. When measuring EIRP the mass of the receiver is not in the calculation.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
EarlNowak
September 9, 2009 3:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

But what are the phones that admit the most amount of radiation? Those are the ones I want!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
meske
September 9, 2009 3:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would like to see that correlated to dropped calls. Unfortunately, I'm sure the only ppl with that info is the cell companies, and I'm pretty sure they will never release it...

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
blacklice
September 9, 2009 3:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If only the list was longer - I'm sure Zack Morris's saved by the bell phone grabbed that #11 spot.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
September 9, 2009 5:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@blacklice: My mom's first cellphone was one of those.. I still laugh. She used to stuff it in her hugemungus purse..

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Rusty-Shackleford
September 9, 2009 3:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I carry a Samsung Impression in my front pocket. Maybe thats the reason my children where born with their hands and feet turned around backwards.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
BklynHotniss
September 9, 2009 10:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rusty-Shackleford: LOL. I hope you've produced all your children already.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
internal
September 9, 2009 3:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The website is toast!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Raekwon
September 9, 2009 3:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"The jury is still out on whether cell-phone radiation is something consumers should worry about.\" Says who? Everything I've read about it says it is nothing to worry about. Got to love Carrie posts.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
chrylis
September 9, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Raekwon: Metastudies show that the data are firmly inconclusive. It's probably best to minimize exposure as much as practical and not worry about the rest.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
September 11, 2009 7:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrylis: No, study after study show that non-ionizing radiation is *not* harmful, especially at the level given off my modern, digital, cell phones.

The only thing they have found, in one study, is that there is a non-significant risk of a specific type of non-malignant tumor in those that have been using a cell phone for more than a decade. Speculation at this point is that the heat from the phone, not the radio itself, as the culprit.

No studies have shown a risk of malignancy from cell phones or other forms of non-ionizing radiation ( radio, tv, wifi, bt, portable phones, mobile phones, .... ). People who base their decision on a purchase based on this list are being silly.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Fallom
September 9, 2009 4:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Raekwon: I'm guessing the \"jury\" is a jury of our peers, who think that RADIATION is some sort of boogeyman and not a well-understood, basic physical phenomenon.

I mean I guess you could say that the jury is still out on whether blue light is more harmful than red light if you're a complete moron.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
September 9, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Raekwon: Kind of like the jury still being out on that whole \"global-warming\" thing.. oops I mean \"climate change\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 9, 2009 3:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The website is down.


In other news, the picture reminds me of the episode where Homer discovers the pens with the disappearing clothes.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Pibbs
September 9, 2009 3:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Meh. Until I hear of a study by an organization without the words \"Environmental\", \"Green\", \"Eco\", or any other nonsense in their name, I'll keep using my phone without worrying.

[en.wikipedia.org]
Advocacy Groups push their own agendas. This groups seems to enjoy fear mongering under the guise of protecting \"public health and the environment.\"

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
September 9, 2009 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pibbs: ...While corporations always look out for the long- and short-term interests of their customers.
Aww, heck. Problems solved! May as well shut down Consumerist today!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 9, 2009 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pibbs: Whether they think that radiation causes cancer or not has no bearing on what levels of radiations the cell phones emit.

It is another matter if it is something you should be considering or not while buying a cell phone.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pibbs
September 9, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: I should have been more specific, I was referring to the title of the article by the Environmental Working Group, \"Limit your exposure to cell phone radiation\".
@Trai_Dep: I'm not defending the corporations. I'm just against fear mongering without scientific facts backing it up.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
September 9, 2009 7:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pibbs: Your second observation is a fair, reasoned point worth considering. Your first sounded a bit tinfoil-hat TeaBagger-ish. :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pibbs
September 9, 2009 7:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Fair enough, I really didn't mean to sound like a loonie.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ogremustcrush
September 9, 2009 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The scientific consensus is that low power non-ionizing radiation, like that emitted by a cell phone or any other consumer wireless device, had no effect whatsoever on human health. And unless you are standing 2 feet in front of a radar array, there is likely no way you could ever receive a high enough power dose of radio energy to do anything to you. Even the active element of a microwave oven, once you remove it from the tiny cube it works in, would have pretty much no effect on the human body. And if it did, well it would hurt and you would know to get the hell away from it. Wouldn't give you cancer or anything though.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
parad0x360
September 9, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ogremustcrush: You say that but then I've read studies done by Swedish Scientists that say otherwise. Id have to wager a guess that any type of radiation will cause damage over time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kccricket
September 9, 2009 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@parad0x360: Well, maybe, except for cosmic background radiation:
[en.wikipedia.org]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Fallom
September 9, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ogremustcrush: It would help to clarify that even if you did receive a high power dose from a radar array, the effect would be intense heat, not cancer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 9, 2009 3:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ogremustcrush: So I should unplug my portable USB radar array?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
donnie5
September 9, 2009 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wish I would have known that BEFORE I sprouted another eyeball.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
September 9, 2009 3:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Let me see if I understand where this is coming from. The EWG is a group that makes its money telling people things are dangerous. If they failed to find dangers, they're raison d'etre would vanish. And they'd be out of work.

So I'm supposed to just take their word for it, when they tell me cell phones are dangerous? Yeah right ...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
SteveBMD
September 9, 2009 3:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm waiting for the rankings of cell phones by smugness emitted.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
September 9, 2009 3:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SteveBMD: Thats easy -
1) iPhone
.
.
.
.
1,000,000) Every other phone

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Vandelay Import Export
September 9, 2009 4:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So who is the Environmental Working Group a front for?

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
AllanG54
September 9, 2009 4:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If people are so worried about this they should stop tethering themselves to their ubiquitous cell phones. That would solve the problem. And by the way....don't live near overhead power lines either.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
ponycyndi
September 9, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AllanG54: Yes. And PLEASE stop buying them for 4 year olds. Yeeesh.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Fallom
September 9, 2009 4:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Complete BS. Quit contributing to public ignorance by acting like all radiation is the same.

Cell phones emit RADIO WAVES, as in, the same thing as that 101.7 KROK station that bombarded you while you were in the womb or that wireless router you have sitting next to you. Look up a model of the electromagnetic spectrum and you'll quickly see the relationship between cancer-causing radiation and wavelength - UV, Gamma, and X-Ray are all on the opposite end of the spectrum from radio and microwaves.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
chris_d
September 9, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I always get irritated when some \"expert\" drops in and says that there is no way mobile phones cause any biological damage at all and that only a moron would think that.

Few would say cigarettes don't cause cancer based on a study of smoking one cigarette a week for a year. I would also doubt many people would believe a study proving the safety of cigarettes if it was largely funded by the tobacco industry. That's exactly what's going on with mobile phones -- most studies are industry funded and there is significant difference in results between those and the ones that aren't industry funded. But somehow, if anyone alleges potential bias there, that's crackpot theory.

If you want to err on the side of caution, just minimize your use. Really. It's not that difficult. I haven't used a cell phone in several days and I'm doing ok. Come on in, the water's fine.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Fallom
September 9, 2009 7:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chris_d: Let me take another approach. When you were in high school, did you talk back to your Algebra teacher and sarcastically call them an \"expert\" when they showed you the pythagorean theorem? Were you sarcastic with your Physics teacher when they discussed Newton's three laws?

I know I can't provide you any credentials over the internet, but it bugs me a lot when people spread myths about things like cell phones and wireless routers causing cancer. I can tell you myself why that's impossible, and I can provide you with citations from textbooks, journal articles, men and women with doctorates in physics, engineers, etc., but you have to be willing to change your mind and open to learning what the electromagnetic spectrum is about and what causes cancer in the first place.

It's really frustrating that you should compare this to the cigarette issue. The same rational approach to carcinogenic effects on the human body applies to the effects of radio waves, too. The only possible bias could be on the side of environmental groups trying to claim that radio waves can cause cancer. The opposite end of the spectrum is fact, rationality, and the results of centuries of scientific learning.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Fallom
September 9, 2009 7:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chris_d: @chris_d: I'm sorry but you are all sorts of wrong. There will never be a conclusive study because plain and simple, it is physically impossible for radio waves to cause cancer. It is not necessary to minimize exposure because radio waves simply can't interact with DNA on that level. Again, look at the electromagnetic spectrum. Find a wiki article about radiation anything to educate yourself

Reply
\"user-pic\"
huadpe
September 9, 2009 6:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chris_d: The thing is that in order to show causation, you need a reason why something would cause something else. Inhaling a whole bunch of particles has a good reason to damage your lungs. It does not have a good reason to be damaging your toes.

We are bombarded with radiation in the radio spectrum constantly, and being near a cell phone would hardly increase that. Sitting near my wireless router, or my laptop, or my cordless landline phone, or being within range of a TV or radio station.

If radio bombardment causes cancer like this, it seems odd that we don't see really strong clusters of cancer around people who work in buildings with really powerful transmitters. If radio waves cause cancer, you would expect almost everyone working in the Empire State Building (one of the most powerful radio broadcasting towers in the US) to develop cancers.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Colonel Jack O'Neill
September 9, 2009 4:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Cell phones causing radiation is BS.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
FooSchnickens - Full of SCAR
September 9, 2009 4:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Who cares about what phones emit the least radiation, I wanna see which ones will boil my brain while i'm on hold with tech support!

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
wheresmymind
September 9, 2009 7:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Any anxiety about getting a brain tumor from a cell phone should be put to rest by simply googling the difference between non-ionizing and ionizing radiation. To sum it up: radio waves don't have the \"umph\" to pop electrons off of atoms, thus damaging DNA etc. The main effect radio waves might have physiologically speaking would be a heating effect, and this only if you happened to spend a lot of time standing in front of a radar installation :-)
Basically, if you're talking on your cell outside the benefits of wearing sunscreen will far outweigh the benefits of using a less powerfully emitting phone.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Fallom
September 9, 2009 7:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wheresmymind: The problem is that Americans have poor scientific education and are more likely to say \"Well I\"ll just play it safe and use moderation, because we can never be sure. Remember what they said about breaking the sound barrier?\"

It's a shame that you see relatively intelligent people spreading myths like this because they're operating on gut feelings, ignorance, and stubbornness.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
September 9, 2009 8:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I never believed the hooey about cell phones causing cancer and I'm glad to see that I was justified in not doing so.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ganzhimself
September 9, 2009 8:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow... My BlackBerry Curve 8330 is one nasty emmiter of radiation. Good thing I rarely talk on it for prolonged periods of time. It usually sits on my desk or on a table, or in a cup holder in the car.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
supernova87a
September 9, 2009 8:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

is it any coincidence that all of the phones are on GSM carriers? If I recall correctly, GSM allows lower signal power, so this might be a natural result.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sprocket79
September 9, 2009 8:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, my mom will be happy. Her phone is on the list of phones that emit the least amount of radiation!

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Razor512
September 10, 2009 4:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You get more radiation from standing in the city than you do from a cellphone. All FCC approved cellphones operate withing the safety limits for radiation exposure.

PS when you get a x-ray at a dentist, your head is exposed to more radiation that you would get from 20 years of using a cellphone.
(PS the lead vest doesn't really protect you since it is not covering the entire body. Radiation is sent out in all directions and it is also reflected by physical objects, so much of the radiation is still able to enter the rest of your body)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
WatchOutNow
September 10, 2009 7:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm alwaysthe negative Nancy when it comes to post like these.

I feel that 2 billion mobile users world wide would be just over the threshold of money over lives.

I've felt the 'ol brain cooker make my noggin' ache after a long chatterBox session with people. Something about concentrated MICROWAVES, you know the same waves that pace makers sometimes get affected by; stuck to your chrome..well it doesn't sit right.

I try to use my earphone headset as much with the cell. My 2 cents

Reply
","","");