• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The real issue with cell phones isn't radiation it's texting

I'm not saying talking on the phone while driving is a good thing, but it makes me laugh when people get all outraged about holding a cell phone while driving, but no one mentions anything like eating, drinking coffee, smoking, changing the tape/CD/song on the iPod/messing with the A/C.

Some studies have made a distinction between holding the phone and the conversation itself...and they've concluded the conversation itself is what's far more distracting. Bluetooth headsets and the like are just a straw man to make people feel better and think something is being done without taking away their "rights."
 
^ Exactly. It's the conversation, not the act of holding the phone. If that were the case, you wouldn't be allowed to hold a banana up to the side of your head either. Studies have shown that whether you are holding the phone or not makes no difference, and that talking on the phone while driving impairs driving about as much as having a blood alcohol content of 0.08.
 
About 8 months ago this blond bitch rear ended me. She scratched my bumper but pleaded with me not to call the police so what you're suggesting wouldn't happen.

My scratch - her texting - cost her $1 k. That was my price for not calling the police and not reporting it to my insurance.

The scratch cost $100 buffed out at the premium car wash. The rest bought me my new IPad2 a couple months ago. :)

So you did something that was stupid, cruel, and possibly illegal depending on Georgia law. Mazel tov!
 
Maybe I'm just stupid but I can't imagine having the coordination and attention span to pay attention to driving and text people.

I don't know about you but I see it every day in my rear view mirror. Next time you're at a light glance at the person behind you and quite often I see people starring at their laps not at the road or straight ahead.

I'm assuming they aren't looking down at their laps just for the hell of it? :)

Maybe they should take that into account when setting auto insurance premiums. Caught texting while driving? Say hello to a 100% increase!

I just got in an accident a couple months ago because the other guy was texting while driving. He was found to be 100% at fault. That almost never happens.
 
About 8 months ago this blond bitch rear ended me. She scratched my bumper but pleaded with me not to call the police so what you're suggesting wouldn't happen.

My scratch - her texting - cost her $1 k. That was my price for not calling the police and not reporting it to my insurance.

The scratch cost $100 buffed out at the premium car wash. The rest bought me my new IPad2 a couple months ago. :)

So you did something that was stupid, cruel, and possibly illegal depending on Georgia law. Mazel tov!

Yeah, I'm not seeing something to brag about here.
 
These types of 'medical alerts,' make me laugh. On the slim chance that cell phones may cause cancer a world wide alert goes out.

You'd be an idiot to toss out something like that. I've seen the stats and they're fairly compelling that something is going on with cellphones and the brain. The difficulty is that it takes 10 years of constant usage to really have an effect in terms of increasing the number of gliomas.

Here's the problem with your conclusion: neither the technology, nor the usage pattern has been static for 10 years. The phones today operate at different frequencies, and digital units put out up to 10 times less energy than earlier analog units. As mentioned by our esteemed peer previously, people don't use their phones in the same manner as preceding generations of models were.

I'm going to assume you're as familiar with scientific basics, so I'll get to the point: if there has been no consistency in the emission sources, no baseline or static point of reference, how can you possibly draw a scientifically valid conclusion? You can't draw a conclusion when all you have is variables.

Getting away from my technical critique, I'm going to argue for a broader problem with this statement. You can't declare cellphones a hazard in a vacuum. There are consequences. Many modern technologies emit radio waves at similar or greater power and wavelengths, using similar air interfaces. Commercial and government television and radio antennas operate at levels up to 100,000 times the power of a cellphone. We have generations of radio technicians, and they do NOT have a statistically higher rate of tumors or cancer than the general public. You have people working on the 95th floor of the Sears Tower, less than 300 feet from the antennas above that are exposed for 8+ hours a day, 5 days a week of FM, AM and microwave radiation at levels vastly higher than a mobile.

This whole thing has always reminded me of the old controversy over RF emissions from high-voltage power lines. One bad study showed a hazard, and despite several subsequent studies that debunked that one false conclusion, and people still think they're dangerous. They aren't, and they're not much more different than cellphones.
 
Last edited:
About 8 months ago this blond bitch rear ended me. She scratched my bumper but pleaded with me not to call the police so what you're suggesting wouldn't happen.

My scratch - her texting - cost her $1 k. That was my price for not calling the police and not reporting it to my insurance.

The scratch cost $100 buffed out at the premium car wash. The rest bought me my new IPad2 a couple months ago. :)

So you did something that was stupid, cruel, and possibly illegal depending on Georgia law. Mazel tov!

Yeah, I'm not seeing something to brag about here.

I had a similar thought in that regard. I mean, DT essentially admits to extortion, and takes pride in that.
 
Maybe I'm just stupid but I can't imagine having the coordination and attention span to pay attention to driving and text people.

You're at a red light. You get a text message. You start responding to it. The light turns green. You pause the texting until the traffic stops, but then it's kind of heavy, "crawling". You resume texting. And then you're in the middle of typing a large word when you realize too late that the car in front of you stopped "crawling" and came to a complete stop. You smack into their rear bumper. But this is nothing...

The real problem is that people get very good at texting and driving at the same time. Many are actually proud of their skill. And then they get over confident, texting while on the highway and then *BAM!* they're in a major accident.

^ Exactly. It's the conversation, not the act of holding the phone. If that were the case, you wouldn't be allowed to hold a banana up to the side of your head either. Studies have shown that whether you are holding the phone or not makes no difference, and that talking on the phone while driving impairs driving about as much as having a blood alcohol content of 0.08.
That is highly exaggerated. What about talking with people in the car, traveling with you? I can't see that being any less distracting than talking on the phone. It must also be qualified by the traffic and road conditions, which can vary considerably.

The REAL problem is training. Yes, training. In the USA, you take a single driving test and then that's it. You are not tested again, until you're elderly. Our private automotive transportation system is reactively corrective. The expectation is that you'll get into accidents if you're a bad driver, and rack up a lot of points against your license. But no... this doesn't take into consideration that people can get very good at driving offensively. There is no self correcting mechanism here. No periodic tests to make sure you still know how to drive properly. And how to manage your conversations with passengers or on the phone.

When I talk with people while I'm driving, I'm not as attentive to the conversation, because I'm devoting my primary attention to driving. There are times when your attention is highly taxed, like in heavy traffic or on complicated unfamiliar roadways, and other times when it's a breeze, like cruising on a very long straight stretch of highway with little to no traffic. Based on these varying conditions, your skill and experience helps you adjust your ability to carry on a conversation. If I'm on the phone (hands free) and traffic gets dense, I tell the person I'm talking to that I'll have to call them back. It's THAT SIMPLE. But there are plenty of people completely ignorant of this. I've seen some glaringly bad driving habits in other people, not just strangers I witness but acquaintances and some friends, where driving is not considered the primary focus. It's a very dangerous mindset to take.

Another major issue is tailgating. People generally drive much too close to the car in front of them. When both cars are traveling, the relative speed between the vehicles is negligible. The eye doesn't sense much movement, so the brain relaxes, ignoring the fact that higher speed makes that "slightly changing gap" an illusion. It has been discovered that the old "2 second rule" is actually insufficient. It should be at least 3 seconds. But many people don't even make a 2 second clearance. Add a phone distraction into the mix, and the chances for an accident escalates considerably. This is why there has been an increasing number of multi-car accidents over the years. The average driver keeps an unsafe gap between them and the car in front.
 
Last edited:
So you did something that was stupid, cruel, and possibly illegal depending on Georgia law. Mazel tov!

Yeah, I'm not seeing something to brag about here.

I had a similar thought in that regard. I mean, DT essentially admits to extortion, and takes pride in that.
I agree. DT, that was very uncool, and God help you if someone who knows that woman is on this message board and can put two and two together. You could be indicted for extortion.
 
Yeah, I'm not seeing something to brag about here.

I had a similar thought in that regard. I mean, DT essentially admits to extortion, and takes pride in that.
I agree. DT, that was very uncool, and God help you if someone who knows that woman is on this message board and can put two and two together. You could be indicted for extortion.

I've got to add my voice to the chorus, here, and say that was really not cool. But hey, being a good person is overrated when you feel like being self-righteous.

As for me, I'll occasionally check my phone if I get a text and am stopped at a light, but I always wait until I've parked or am out of the car before responding. Trying to actually text and drive at the same time is just stupidity.
 
I really can't see how you can get extortion from a situation where the party paying makes the offer, after that the amount changing hands is irrelevant.
 
I mean, DT essentially admits to extortion, and takes pride in that.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

People engage in financial contracts all the time that don't involve the court system - this was no different. Someone damaged my property and they had a decision on whether they wanted to use the court system to resolve it or via private negotiation.

The police in Atlanta often won't even respond to non injury accidents. I committed no crime. They could have just as easily decided to make the entire incident an insurance claim. That's called a choice. Either way I would have gotten my car fixed.
 
I mean, DT essentially admits to extortion, and takes pride in that.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

People engage in financial contracts all the time that don't involve the court system - this was no different. Someone damaged my property and they had a decision on whether they wanted to use the court system to resolve it or via private negotiation.

The police in Atlanta often won't even respond to non injury accidents. I committed no crime. They could have just as easily decided to make the entire incident an insurance claim. That's called a choice. Either way I would have gotten my car fixed.

You do realize they could take this to the police or court and get you in a lot of trouble, right?

Your story: "She rear-ended me and was distraught. She offered to pay for the damage herself, and had her boyfriend go get $1000 from the ATM. Turned out it was only $100 worth of damage, so I spent the rest on toys."

Her story: "I accidentally rear-ended this man, and he threatened to go after my insurance, my home, my job--if I didn't pay him $1000 on the spot! I wanted to call the police, but he said he would pursue it in court if I did. I was at fault since I rear-ended him. I didn't know what to do! *breaks down* So I had my boyfriend pay him $1000 to make this all just go away."

It's totally a he-said/she-said situation, and it could look very bad for you depending on how it is interpreted.
 
These types of 'medical alerts,' make me laugh. On the slim chance that cell phones may cause cancer a world wide alert goes out.

You'd be an idiot to toss out something like that. I've seen the stats and they're fairly compelling that something is going on with cellphones and the brain. The difficulty is that it takes 10 years of constant usage to really have an effect in terms of increasing the number of gliomas.

Here's the problem with your conclusion: neither the technology, nor the usage pattern has been static for 10 years. The phones today operate at different frequencies, and digital units put out up to 10 times less energy than earlier analog units. As mentioned by our esteemed peer previously, people don't use their phones in the same manner as preceding generations of models were.

I'm going to assume you're as familiar with scientific basics, so I'll get to the point: if there has been no consistency in the emission sources, no baseline or static point of reference, how can you possibly draw a scientifically valid conclusion? .

Thanks Einstein but I worked in research for over a decade and I know the difficulties. If you read another post you'll see that I did say that it would be difficult, but not impossible. The current studies don't prove that cellphones cause radiation but they do say that something is going on. There is the immediate effect on the brain right near where the phone is that they observe in live scans. And, there's the long term association with an increase in gliomas. That's nothing to sneeze at but, as I said, it's not proof.

However, if you want to risk your own brain, that's your choice.

You can't draw a conclusion when all you have is variables.

That's the, er, . . . funniest (trying to be polite) line that I've read in awhile. Science is all about variables and the connections between them. That's *how* you prove things. :guffaw:

Mr Awe
 
^ Exactly. It's the conversation, not the act of holding the phone. If that were the case, you wouldn't be allowed to hold a banana up to the side of your head either. Studies have shown that whether you are holding the phone or not makes no difference, and that talking on the phone while driving impairs driving about as much as having a blood alcohol content of 0.08.
That is highly exaggerated. What about talking with people in the car, traveling with you? I can't see that being any less distracting than talking on the phone. It must also be qualified by the traffic and road conditions, which can vary considerably.
No, it isn't. I was reporting the actual research done on the subject, by actual scientists and everything. I wasn't reporting on my own experience. Here are a couple of links: link 1 link 2

Perhaps you should stop talking to passengers in your car, too.
 
I mean, DT essentially admits to extortion, and takes pride in that.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

People engage in financial contracts all the time that don't involve the court system - this was no different. Someone damaged my property and they had a decision on whether they wanted to use the court system to resolve it or via private negotiation.

The police in Atlanta often won't even respond to non injury accidents. I committed no crime. They could have just as easily decided to make the entire incident an insurance claim. That's called a choice. Either way I would have gotten my car fixed.

Extortion is overstating it, but what are your state's laws about reporting a minor accident? If it was to the point where there was ~$100 damage to your car you plan on getting repaired, are you required to report it? You might have broken the law there. Just because an officer doesn't show up doesn't mean you can't report it, but I have a hard time believing they wouldn't show up to an accident with an uninsured driver.

What are the laws about not reporting an uninsured driver who you were in an accident with? What if the next driver they get in a possibly more serious accident with doesn't have uninsured motorist coverage? That costs them money and possibly injury in which case their only recourse is to sue which costs the state and taxpayers more money. I know you're interested in saving tax dollars.

What if the person doesn't have insurance because they lost their license for reckless driving or some sort? You possibly let a dangerous driver get away with continuing to drive illegally.

What if the person suddenly develops chronic neck pain because of the accident and decides to sue you? You have no accident report to fall back on and no insurance to cover it because you didn't report it to them. Just because they did something illegal (and so did you, most likely) doesn't mean they can't win a lawsuit, although it would make it more difficult.

Now that we've gotten past the definitely stupid and possibly illegal parts of what you did, we have the unethical part of what you did. Namely, taking a thousand dollars for one hundred dollars of work. Besides being illegal to drive, another reason some people drive uninsured is because they're poor. So, you possibly took advantage of a poor person for whom $1000 is not an insignificant amount and might represent a major portion of their living expenses for that month.

You'll probably rationalize it by saying that it would cost them a lot more if they got ticketed and had to get insurance - which is true - but you clearly weren't doing it to be altruistic if you were willing to rip them off $900. Why not get their information, get an estimate, and request the right amount? If you what the money up front, why not have them pay a more reasonable amount on the spot based on what you think it might cost and return the balance?

I wouldn't even care so much about this except I think this is the second time you've bragged about it, and you received a similar response of disgust from everyone the last time. Yet here you are bragging about it again like you were such a player. It was a dick move, and you should stop being proud of it like you accomplished something.
 
That's the, er, . . . funniest (trying to be polite) line that I've read in awhile. Science is all about variables and the connections between them. That's *how* you prove things. :guffaw:

No, it's about extracting out a constant in the process, or at least something consistent. There is nothing consistent about this "phenomenon". Are you familiar with RF? There's no difference in exposure between a 0.5 watt emitter (the max level most cellphones operate at these days) next to your head, and a 50,000 watt source several hundred feet away. Since the latter has been shown not to cause health problems in decades of constant exposure, it's not possible for the former to be a hazard either.

Therefore there is something wrong with the study that suggests otherwise. You can't have X level dose cause a problem, while the same X dose is harmless. There is nothing unique about cellphones.
 
That's the, er, . . . funniest (trying to be polite) line that I've read in awhile. Science is all about variables and the connections between them. That's *how* you prove things. :guffaw:

No, it's about extracting out a constant in the process, or at least something consistent. There is nothing consistent about this "phenomenon". Are you familiar with RF? There's no difference in exposure between a 0.5 watt emitter (the max level most cellphones operate at these days) next to your head, and a 50,000 watt source several hundred feet away. Since the latter has been shown not to cause health problems in decades of constant exposure, it's not possible for the former to be a hazard either.

You're wrong. You don't have to have consistency, you can have a cumulative dosage. In fact, an important part of the study would be to compare different exposure levels--so you'd actually want variability. And, the wattage, that *IS* a variable that could be included in a study.

Also, you're wrong about RF not being potentially dangerous. The FCC says it can be and that mitigation steps are required in those cases. The question is, does this apply to cell phones?
CAN PEOPLE BE EXPOSED TO LEVELS OF RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION THAT COULD BE HARMFUL?
Studies have shown that environmental levels of RF energy routinely encountered by the general public are typically far below levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased body temperature. However, there may be situations, particularly in workplace environments near high-powered RF sources, where the recommended limits for safe exposure of human beings to RF energy could be exceeded. In such cases, restrictive measures or mitigation actions may be necessary to ensure the safe use of RF energy.
As stated by the FCC here.

Aargh. Our science education is really going down the toilet these days. Basically nothing in your post made sense.

Mr Awe
 
In fact, an important part of the study would be to compare different exposure levels--so you'd actually want variability.

Carefully controlled variability. Science likes variables it can identify and condition over; science does not like unknown variables. That is STR's point, I believe.
 
^^ If you want to do a controlled experiment, sure, you can control the variability. But, that's not always the case or even possible.

In these other cases, what you really need to do is record the variability and see how it correlates to the effects. Yes, I know science, it's my job. And, yeah, correlation doesn't mean causation but that's why it'll be more difficult to build up a case. But, it is possible.

This all takes place in the context where RF is known to have the potential to cause harmful effects, contrary to STR's post. I think I'll go with the FCC, specifically their Office of Engineering and Technology over STR, thank you very much.

Just FYI, unknown variables are often bad, although ironically not in a controlled experiment because the randomization partials those unknown effects out equally.

Mr Awe
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top