[quote]
In the US men like women with big boobs, and guess what over the last 20 years womens boobs have gotten bigger, thus the conclusion is that since men like bigger boobs women are growing them to attract the men. UNLESS of course you knew the Science behind it....the reason women have bigger boobs is the fact that women eat meat and the meat is injected with hormones and the hormones are giving women bigger boobs!

Maybe women larger breasts due to cell phones, etc mentioned by the radiation. If I remember correctly, the breast enlargement has also been observed in Finland. Can we assume from this that the breasts of women in China will grow over a meter in size?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_mobile_phones_in_use

Aren't router waves too big to affect DNA? I know cellphone could theoretically effect DNA due to wave size, but I'm pretty sure routers are not the case.

---

Finally EU government is heading to right direction:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8514380/Ban-mobile-phones-and-wireless-networks-in-schools-say-European-leaders.html

---

In the absence of a firm scientific proof that cellphones cause Autism, the argument being made here is a fallacy. In particular, if you visit Wikipedia's page that lists various types of fallacies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies

The seventh bullet item in the list of Informal Fallacies is the entry for "Correlation does not imply causation".

That is precisely the fallacy being presented here. Certainly, there may be a correlation between the increase of Autism and the increase in cell phone usage, but that does not, in and of itself, imply any causal relationship.

---

I am fine with more ridicules from you guys since whole study is being hugely ridiculed everywhere. (sponsored with high tech industry and supporters I guess)

In the absence of a firm scientific proof that cellphones cause Autism, the argument being made here is a fallacy. In particular, if you visit Wikipedia's page that lists various types of fallacies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies

The seventh bullet item in the list of Informal Fallacies is the entry for "Correlation does not imply causation".

That is precisely the fallacy being presented here. Certainly, there may be a correlation between the increase of Autism and the increase in cell phone usage, but that does not, in and of itself, imply any causal relationship.

Yeah it is kind of like saying being born causes you to die, we KNOW that is NOT true but we DO know that EVERYONE that is born dies!

But since some serious size of administration begins to act on "right" side the fallacy accuser campaign need to develop better ways to stay alive.

---

But since some serious size of administration begins to act on "right" side the fallacy accuser campaign need to develop better ways to stay alive.

Yet another fallacy here. Argument from authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

You cited that article from Europe, however it ends with the following quote:

Fears have been raised that electromagnetic radiation emitted by wireless devices can cause cancers and affect the developing brain.

The findings were seized on by campaigners who oppose the spread of wireless devices.

Fears being raised do not constitute proof. If there was something in that article that stated that "Scientists have proven that radiation causes autism and cancer", then you'd have something.

The fact that a large number of campaigners and lawmakers agree with this proves nothing, because these people are not experts in the field. This is nothing more than a perfect example of the argument from authority fallacy.

A is an authority. True, these lawmakers do speak with authority in certain matters.
A says B is true. This is also happening, since they are pushing for this legislation.
Thus the fallacious conclusion that B must be true.

Show a web page that actually proves something. Without that, you have nothing.

-- Edit --

In addition, that article cites the following page:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html

Which includes the following:

In fact, due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body absorbs up to five times more of the signal from FM radio and television than from base stations. This is because the frequencies used in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in TV broadcasting (around 300 to 400 MHz) are lower than those employed in mobile telephony (900 MHz and 1800 MHz) and because a person's height makes the body an efficient receiving antenna. Further, radio and television broadcast stations have been in operation for the past 50 or more years without any adverse health consequence being established.

Which constitutes some pretty serious scientific evidence debunking the argument against cellphones.

What this says in laymans terms is that you ought to be far more worried about FM radio, since your body is a far better antenna for that section of the radio spectrum than the extremely short wavelengths used by cellphones and microwaves.

---

I think this large slice of baloney sausage needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

---

Show a web page that actually proves something. Without that, you have nothing.

These studies being around for quite long time but on cellphone side there are trillion dollars of international wireless industry who very comfortably manipulating all the related government agencies. But thanks to their failed manipulation effort the EU government is finally stepping up into right direction.

For cell lobbysts it is quite new to handle EU government versus any other national governments. So you'd better trust them this time that this was right decision. Whatever 100mhz vs 900mhz comparisions are just part of very complex health hazard research so try to look at bigger picture.

---

Show a web page that actually proves something. Without that, you have nothing.

These studies being around for quite long time but on cellphone side there are trillion dollars of international wireless industry who very comfortably manipulating all the related government agencies. But thanks to their failed manipulation effort the EU government is finally stepping up into right direction.

For cell lobbysts it is quite new to handle EU government versus any other national governments. So you'd better trust them this time that this was right decision. Whatever 100mhz vs 900mhz comparisions are just part of very complex health hazard research so try to look at bigger picture.

So tell me do you have a cell phone? And if not do you have you very comfy walking shoes in the car for when it breaks down? Because these days hitch hiking is EXTREMELY hazardous to ones health, even more so than cell phones! One could be MILES away from a phone or garage and the walk could take HOURS AND HOURS!! That is how I finally convinced my 80+ year old dad to get one!!

I think this large slice of baloney sausage needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

How big a grain? Will one pound (about 0.45 kg) be enough?

So tell me do you have a cell phone? And if not do you have you very comfy walking shoes in the car for when it breaks down? Because these days hitch hiking is EXTREMELY hazardous to ones health, even more so than cell phones! One could be MILES away from a phone or garage and the walk could take HOURS AND HOURS!! That is how I finally convinced my 80+ year old dad to get one!!

Why do you carry a cellphone? Because you are very old so your reproductivity age is already passed so you can ignore about cellphone harming effect on your sperm reproductivity and you can push others to ignore all these informations? Because your dad is so ooo 80+ old and seemingly you are so ooo 50+ old so your certain health ingorance standards should be pushed around to people much younger than you? Isn't it too selfish from your side?! (Selfishness-individualism is western standard consciousness I understand that.)

Instead of this pathetic personal attacks why do not you try to accurately deny the latest information of EU decision?!

Let's try not to cross lines. Considering your age your last reply is too pathetic.

---

Instead of this pathetic personal attacks why do not you try to accurately deny the latest information of EU decision?!

Let's try not to cross lines. Considering your age your last reply is too pathetic.

There is little point in continuing this discussion as you seem to hold blind faith in the pseudo-science you have quoted and dismiss any scientific studies other people refer to as propaganda from mobile phone companies. At a few points in this thread you have referred to people ridiculing you or launching personal attacks when they disagree with your viewpoint.

If you are unwilling to consider other people's views and take disagreement as a personal attack it would be much better for everyone to draw this to a close.

A summary of the debate up to this point would be:

1. The psuedo-science claims that mobile phones and wifi signals have caused measurable damage to health in the 20 to 30 years they have been in use. As has been pointed out though the psuedo-science includes a number of flaws and falacies.
   
2. Real scientific studies have found no evidence of damage to health from mobile phones and wifi signals. However no studies have been done on the effects after 30 years of use as we are only now reaching that point.
   
3. The EU report agrees with the scientific view that there is no evidence of damage to health. However the politicians involved are concerned that science hasn't been able to look at the long term effects yet and have chosen to take preventative action in case there is a problem. If in some years time science proves them right they will be seen to have made a good decision. If science proves them wrong they will be seen to have overreacted.
   

If I have counted correctly, 10 people have taken part in this debate.

1 person believes the psuedo-science to the exclusion of all else.
9 people discount the psuedo-science with some openly acknowledging that they may take a different view of the situation if the real scientific evidence shows up.

Cancer causes cellphones, not the other way around you know...
My scientific reliable source:



Sorry for a satirical first post on these forums; I've been number crunching on this account for a few months now and decided to see what the community was like...

Did you know that if you try and push magnets together with the same pole that they repel each other! I think this happens in every country and is some conspiracy that governments put in place in the mid 1890's to discourage homosexuality amongst school children!

One thing this topic does highlight; is something quite good reflecting on this project! As time goes on, our technology becomes greater in magnitude, use and complexity; and as a correlation, so does our ability to diagnose and treat medical conditions!

Oh isn't this nice. More junk science.

We all better stop using our key-less entry device for your cars and other remote control devices. WiFi junk and cell phones use a fraction of a watt.

A old CB radio put out about 5 watts.
My Ham Radio can do up to 1000 watts but I find can normally communicate with just a few watts.

They better shut down all the TV and Radio stations. Radio stations can go up to 50,000 watts and TV station will go into the hundreds of thousands of watts.

If you can receive the radio station or TV station then you are getting more RF energy from them than you will from your cell or WiFi.

Besides that, the effects that they are blaming on Cell and Wifi is caused by the Tea Party, everyone knows that.

---