Hands free
Hands free, with air-acoustic tubes, not wires:
I fully expect Challis' response would be as mine; I am sure he is quite well aware that phones really do cause problems, and if asked would say, keep the length of calls down. (Could he say otherwise?) He would advise the use of hands free as precaution, but not because it will save you from certain harm. But advise it, he certainly would; he's been over this long ago. Even Colin Blakemore was named in 1999 as a scientist who was cutting back on use of his mobile:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/288245.stm
Preventing wired earpieces from conducting RF into the ear is only common sense, after the study demonstrating this effect, and using air-tubes is even more common sense. There's no "opinion" about it, and he would certainly not advise against using them. The Stewart update advises on them and recommends evaluation of shielding and field-altering devices for efficacy. Challis is chair of MTHR and is bound to support Bill Stewart on both counts.
But we are a long way from Challis or the like admitting proof of damage to health. It is interesting that in the King's study into validating people's reports that use of mobile phones cause headaches, nausea, fatigue etc., that their volunteer subjects were able without hesitation to confirm when the test device was on or not. But the (millimetre?!)leap from "affecting the brain" to "being harmful" is a surprisingly hard one to take, when your feet have been nailed to the floor.
http://www.tetrawatch.net/science/wirelessworld.php
See the link at the end to China. Imagine how the UK industry would take it if phones automatically cut out after so many minutes, or so much per day? How on earth would you sell 3G, video etc. on the back of that? They'd never get their £32 billion back, let alone pay for the new spectrum auction. Note too, how keen WHO, in its draft framework for precaution, is to ensure there is no retrospective blame:
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/reports/en/precautionary_framework_october2004.pdf
And here's another Brownie-point for our super-protective mobile phones for kids:
Today my daughter, in a very highly respected High School, brought home a letter regarding changed policy on mobile phones. No, not to protect their health in the light of the Jan 2005 "Stewart update". Could the Headmistress care about that? No, she wanted to "celebrate" these marvels of technology and how they made their daughters so much safer. The problem is actually phones being used in class to bully and intimidate, and worse, camera phones being used to take subversive images that subsequently find themselves on the Internet (and presumably MSN messenger groups) to further "bully and intimidate". The policy now is that all mobile calls are to be made in the school office under supervision. Why not just use the school telephone?! Surely this is the answer to the smart-arse who suggested masts near schools were a good idea because kids' phone that keep them so safe would receive stronger signals!!
Andy
From Mast Network
I fully expect Challis' response would be as mine; I am sure he is quite well aware that phones really do cause problems, and if asked would say, keep the length of calls down. (Could he say otherwise?) He would advise the use of hands free as precaution, but not because it will save you from certain harm. But advise it, he certainly would; he's been over this long ago. Even Colin Blakemore was named in 1999 as a scientist who was cutting back on use of his mobile:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/288245.stm
Preventing wired earpieces from conducting RF into the ear is only common sense, after the study demonstrating this effect, and using air-tubes is even more common sense. There's no "opinion" about it, and he would certainly not advise against using them. The Stewart update advises on them and recommends evaluation of shielding and field-altering devices for efficacy. Challis is chair of MTHR and is bound to support Bill Stewart on both counts.
But we are a long way from Challis or the like admitting proof of damage to health. It is interesting that in the King's study into validating people's reports that use of mobile phones cause headaches, nausea, fatigue etc., that their volunteer subjects were able without hesitation to confirm when the test device was on or not. But the (millimetre?!)leap from "affecting the brain" to "being harmful" is a surprisingly hard one to take, when your feet have been nailed to the floor.
http://www.tetrawatch.net/science/wirelessworld.php
See the link at the end to China. Imagine how the UK industry would take it if phones automatically cut out after so many minutes, or so much per day? How on earth would you sell 3G, video etc. on the back of that? They'd never get their £32 billion back, let alone pay for the new spectrum auction. Note too, how keen WHO, in its draft framework for precaution, is to ensure there is no retrospective blame:
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/reports/en/precautionary_framework_october2004.pdf
And here's another Brownie-point for our super-protective mobile phones for kids:
Today my daughter, in a very highly respected High School, brought home a letter regarding changed policy on mobile phones. No, not to protect their health in the light of the Jan 2005 "Stewart update". Could the Headmistress care about that? No, she wanted to "celebrate" these marvels of technology and how they made their daughters so much safer. The problem is actually phones being used in class to bully and intimidate, and worse, camera phones being used to take subversive images that subsequently find themselves on the Internet (and presumably MSN messenger groups) to further "bully and intimidate". The policy now is that all mobile calls are to be made in the school office under supervision. Why not just use the school telephone?! Surely this is the answer to the smart-arse who suggested masts near schools were a good idea because kids' phone that keep them so safe would receive stronger signals!!
Andy
From Mast Network
Starmail - 5. Feb, 14:53
