[permaculture-oceania] Re: mobile phones safe, carbon tax not

[Matthew Bond]

Please don't take this personally but I have something to say about
'scientific studies' and mobile phones in general and then I will question
their harmony and compatibility to the principles of permaculture before
concluding with some reassurances that I'm just trying to get people
thinking and not trying to alienate mobile users from non-users.

I would take that study with a pinch of salt.  Have you heard of 'the
experimenter effect'/Rosenthal studies that show that certain individuals
overseeing a study have an influence on the outcome of the study just
because they expect a certain outcome?  When people say that you create your
own reality, believe it!  Does this effect include studies such as that of a
friend of mine who placed rats in a cage with a mobile and rats in a cage
without a mobile and found all the ones with the mobile had cancer and none
of the control rats did?  Yes!  Why, because the power of the mind cannot be
ruled out and he may have had psychic powers that infected all of the rats
with cancer!  (No joke!)  And of course it did not take into account
minimisation of exposure from hands-free kits (that, mind you, has been
found in other studies to be quite the opposite and that the radiation is
magnified by hands-free devices and that the radiation goes directly into
the brain!)

There have been many scientific studies on the safety of mobile phones and
the results vary from study to study, some concluding safety and others
concluding danger.  You could do studies on organics vs pesticide coated
food and I can guarantee there are studies that could conclude pesticides
are better than organics!  Would you believe them?  Some people would
because there's something in them that just wants their present
practices/convenience/economic viability etc vindicated and they'll jump on
anything that will support that.

I think everyone on this list would agree that pesticides in a large enough
dosage will kill humans and that no dosage is better than a small dosage.
When will that same objectivity be applied to mobile phones?  Increase the
dosage of radiation or exposure and everyone knows it's harmful.  Why has
hip cancer in men increased proportionally to mobile phone ownership over
the last 20 years?  Would it have anything to do with the fact that a lot of
men wear their mobiles on their hips??

If you can make an appointment with your hairdresser, doctor, etc, why can't
you make it with your friends and family?  Who's more important?  How
important is a client/work if it ends up adversely affecting and intruding
on your life?  If business is that borderline then perhaps you're not in the
right business!  Will the mentality of the slow food revolution ever infect
our communication mentality?  Have you always had a mobile?  Did you survive
without it way back then?

Radation and effects on humans aside, is it ethical to use a device that
when disposed of will leach arsenic, cadmium, lead and other heavy metalsinto
the environment no matter how much education people are given about
recycling their phones (as there's always a certain percentage that will not
heed the advice.)  Can you be sure that when you trade in your mobile, it
will not be sent to landfill?  Taking this into account, can it be justified
to be in harmony with the principle of care of people (given there is no
agreement over the conclusiveness of studies), earth, fair share & care of
spirit?  What aspect of the life of a mobile phone is renewable?

Does this email sound slightly biased?  (Don't answer that!)  Am I getting
sick of people telling me it's so inconvenient for them that I don't have a
mobile or "Why don't you get a mobile?" or "It would be so much easier for
me to contact you!" or "You can use it for a a short time if you're worried
about cancer" or "You can blah blah blah!!???"  Do I pester people who don't
have an email address or a computer to get one?  Am I aware that the mobile
issue is similar to the computer issue with respect to renewability/fitting
into the cycle of life?  Do I have a habit of writing rhetorical questions?
Is this style of writing likely to annoy someone out there?  hehe.

Given there will be a high percentage of people who will take the above
personally as most people have mobiles, I just want to reaffirm the request
that people please take the above rhapsody as food for thought.  I may have
done a pretty good job of it but I'm not trying to alienate mobile lovers
and those attached to their mobiles.  I only intend that people be conscious
of the issue - I'm not pointing the finger at anyone accusing them of being
anti-pc coz you've got a mobile.  I just want to get people thinking and the
best way is usually to be rather blunt :)

toodaloo and happy telephonic communications,

Matthew.


From: Russ Grayson <info at pacific-edge.info >
> Subject: [permaculture-oceania] News excerpts - mobile phones safe,
>         carbon tax not
>
> ABC Online...
> The World Health Organisation recently announced it found no evidence - in
> 15 years of scientific studies - that exposure to radio frequencies from
> transmitters (such as mobile phone towers) increased a person's cancer
> risk.
> It has also said "present scientific information does not indicate the
> need
> for any special precautions for use of mobile phones".
>
> This is encouraging. The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association
> (www.amta.org.au) considers all mobile phones equally safe if they are
> under
> the independently tested Australian safety limit of two watts a kilogram
> (averaged over 10 grams), yet working on the premise that less is best, I
> prefer to choose one that's lower in emissions.
>
> What do these emissions mean? Randal Markey, the association's
> communications manager, says "comparing SAR values is not like comparing,
> for example, energy efficiency stars on electrical appliances. A phone's
> maximum SAR is always below safety standards, but varies widely during
> everyday use, whereas the energy efficiency of electrical appliances is
> largely stable.
>
> "Mobile phones automatically adjust to the minimum power level needed to
> successfully connect and maintain a quality call. This allows them to
> operate more efficiently to preserve battery life, increase talk time and
> reduce network interference. Generally, the closer you are to a base
> station, the lower the output of the phone and studies have shown this is
> the most significant factor in real-life SAR levels."
>
> Kelly Parkinson, a SAR expert within AMTA, says a study in Paris showed
> the
> mobile was mostly operating at only 1 per cent of full power - in which
> case
> "you can be sure that the SAR will be very low".
>
> He says SAR is not the best measurement for safety, noting that the World
> Health Organisation recommends the hands-free kit as the best way to
> reduce
> emission exposure.
>
> "For every unit of distance [the aerial is] away from your head the
> emission
> level drops off twice as much," he says. "So distance is a very critical
> factor."
>
> For most people, this would be enough to make them comfortable with buying
> whichever phone takes their fancy. If, however, you're still paranoid like
> me and want that lower SAR rating, you'll need to do a bit of legwork.
>
> Once you've selected your mobile provider - or have decided you don't want
> to change - make a short list of phones that best suit your needs and
> budget. With any luck, there won't be more than two or three different
> makers involved.
>
> Websites such as SAR Shield (www.sarshield.com), which sells radiation
> shields for mobile phones, and the Mobile Manufacturer's Forum
> ( www.mmfai.org) detail the level of emissions from a wide range of
> phones.
> However, our newer mobiles take a little while to get listed on these
> overseas sites.
>
> Don't waste time on mobile phone company websites looking for SAR
> information. It's usually there somewhere, but it's faster to phone the
> companies direct. Nokia, for example, has a separate web address devoted
> to
> SAR results (www.sar.nokia.com/sar/index.jsp ) - you select the model
> number
> and are given the details immediately. Motorola, Samsung and Sony Ericsson
> are also able to produce information.
>
> For further information, see the Mobile Telephones and Health Effects page
>
> of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
> (www.arpansa.gov.au/is_phone.htm).
> ..............................................................
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://jasper.cmsarchitects.com/pipermail/pil-pc-oceania/attachments/20060720/95cc00c7/attachment.html