s*********n
发帖数: 2283 | | h********n
发帖数: 4079 | 2 there is no solid evidence showing cell phone cause cancer.
Epidemiology study can only give you association, not causation. | s*********n
发帖数: 2283 | 3 Is it safe to say ...
1) If Cell phone radiation is beyond a certain/unknown threshold, it
will
hurt users or cause cancer in a long-term usage model.
2) Mostly the current cell phone radiation may not be strong enough to
reach that threshold.
If this is the case, I guess it is about defining the threshold.
BTW, is epidemiology the only area we should look at?
PS. The Newman Case. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64790,00.html
In 2000, a Maryland neurologist named Christopher Newman filed an $800
million lawsuit against Motorola and Verizon. His claim was that using
his cellular phone caused the brain cancer that he had been diagnosed
with in 1998.
Newman used a cell phone for an estimated 343 hours from October 1992
until his March 1998 diagnosis of a brain tumor. That adds up to about
1.2 hours of talk-time per week. Newman said he held his cell phone with
his right hand next to his right ear, the area where the tumor
developed.
But like a lawsuit filed in 1993 by Florida resident David Reynard, who
claimed that radiation from cell phones caused or accelerated the growth
of a brain tumor in his wife, Newman lost his lawsuit.
After two years in the courts, the judge in the Newman case eventually
ruled there was not enough scientifically valid data to support the
claims that Newman's cancer was caused by his use of cell phones. The
case was dismissed in 2002 and Newman died in 2006. He was 47.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20066842-
266.html#ixzz1OEvUefkn
【在 h********n 的大作中提到】
: there is no solid evidence showing cell phone cause cancer.
: Epidemiology study can only give you association, not causation.
| n***w
发帖数: 2405 | 4 Newman's case would be a nice argument writing in GRE analytical writing.
lol | s*********n
发帖数: 2283 | 5 Is it called a discrepancy question or dilemma or a specialty-vs-
generality question?
The question stem is here. What are the choices you will put after it?
writing.
【在 n***w 的大作中提到】
: Newman's case would be a nice argument writing in GRE analytical writing.
: lol
| h********n
发帖数: 4079 | 6 1) I don't know. There is no solid data about cell phone radiation's
physiologic affect.
2) I don't know either.
I guess the simple experiment is to give cultured cell line radiation (mimic
those of cell phone) for months or longer and see any effect. I guess some
people did it but did not find anything interesting.
epi is not the only thing we can look at, but currently epi data is the data
we can have. No mechanistic research. On the other hand, for smoking,
there are solid evidence: if you put cigarette carcinogen to cell lines,
some cells will be transformed.
【在 s*********n 的大作中提到】
: Is it safe to say ...
: 1) If Cell phone radiation is beyond a certain/unknown threshold, it
: will
: hurt users or cause cancer in a long-term usage model.
: 2) Mostly the current cell phone radiation may not be strong enough to
: reach that threshold.
: If this is the case, I guess it is about defining the threshold.
: BTW, is epidemiology the only area we should look at?
: PS. The Newman Case. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64790,00.html
: In 2000, a Maryland neurologist named Christopher Newman filed an $800
| n***w
发帖数: 2405 | 7 directly use mice and give long-term radiation and see.
I am wondering how to mimic the exact or even close dosage of radiation
emitted by cell phone. I bet the
normal radiation from cell phone is very small especially when it is fully
charged and has perfect signal.
At least I am not worry about this. lol
mimic
some
data
【在 h********n 的大作中提到】
: 1) I don't know. There is no solid data about cell phone radiation's
: physiologic affect.
: 2) I don't know either.
: I guess the simple experiment is to give cultured cell line radiation (mimic
: those of cell phone) for months or longer and see any effect. I guess some
: people did it but did not find anything interesting.
: epi is not the only thing we can look at, but currently epi data is the data
: we can have. No mechanistic research. On the other hand, for smoking,
: there are solid evidence: if you put cigarette carcinogen to cell lines,
: some cells will be transformed.
| h********n
发帖数: 4079 | 8 ask an engineerer to help. Put 10 cell phone near mice cage and let them
work as they were used by human and observe.
【在 n***w 的大作中提到】
: directly use mice and give long-term radiation and see.
: I am wondering how to mimic the exact or even close dosage of radiation
: emitted by cell phone. I bet the
: normal radiation from cell phone is very small especially when it is fully
: charged and has perfect signal.
: At least I am not worry about this. lol
:
: mimic
: some
: data
| s*********n
发帖数: 2283 | 9 Thank you for the replies! Indeed I am confused more though. It sounds to
me so far this is not a technically difficult question. I am sure many
researchers have done lots of work on it already.
Then what on earth are WHO, CTIA and FCC arguing about? about some
technical details or political correctness? |
|
