On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:10:33 +1000, "John H." <john at faraway.com.au>
wrote:
>The research is conflicting. The test will soon be available in the real
>world. If mobile phones are such a threat then given their extensive use we
>should start seeing early onset senility occurring in droves quite soon. I
>think that with the old analogue phones, which requires circa x10
>transmission power, there was a potential problem but the digitals appear
>safer. Whatever, I hate the bloody things, have never owned one, and failed
>to see why most people are so bloody anxious to be kept in touch with the
>human race. Thus sayeth the hermit ... . You may recall that initially the
>worry was cancers. Well that bugbear has fallen by the wayside, now there's
>a panic about the blood brain barrier. Whatever, the research must be done,
>in the interim my general take is that anyone who uses a mobile phone that
>much to induce any possible damage deserves what they get.
I couldn't agree more, John. But, why stop with cell phones? The
problem isn't the low-level technology, it's the concept of commodity
phone time. Phones are necessary, but calls should be brief and
purposeful. Phones should be designed so a yellow light comes on
after 5 minutes. At 7 minutes, a red light comes on and the handset
begins to emit x-rays. Not at a high rate of energy, mind you... just
enough to be worrisome over the long term. That innovation, I think,
would improve human society immensely. But, the phone companies would
be agin it because it would cut their revenues. They have powerful
lobbiests who can block progress for a long time.
My main interest is peripheral to this subject. I cited as an
example, as an area of inquiry in which dubious claims are being
tested and considered rather than summarily dismissed.
How is your grow-light research coming, BTW?
Charlie
