"the jury's still out (just pick your favorite dangerous / not dangerous study to fit your belief) on the effect of radiation at levels less than the 1.6 watts per kilogram"
This is exactly what the old saying "Better safe than sorry" is supposed to address, isn't it ?
@thewild I think so too. Also it's funny that in the US citizens only can take 1,6 watts per kilogram while people in Europe can take 2.0 watts per kilogram! (Thats the maximum output a cellphone is allowed to have. Based on that they tell us "cellphones are safe") When will people realize that this are arbitrarily set numbers and not "given by god"...
@thewild Better safe than sorry -- don't go to work this morning cause you COULD get hit by a car. Better safe than sorry, should work from home. Oh and you are probably better safe than sorry cause if you go outside there could be an anthrax or terrorist attack -- better cover your house in a dome and never go outside at all. That kind of logic is ridiculous.
@DoctarPeppar : What is that for a comment ? Did you even think about it or are you just replying spontaneously ?
Radio impact on health is a question about which the scientific community is DIVIDED. Some studies say there is no danger some say there is. Nobody knows, you get it ?
Your jokes about anthrax and terrorist attack are nonsensical, those are quantifiable probabilities, and they are completely negligible.
Now, I DO have a cell phone, and I DON'T look at SAR rates. And since most people will not care, just like me and obviously you, I believe it is definitvely OK to make people understand that there is a real uncertainty about that. There is a big difference between somethong that is unknown and something that is a probability.
For those looking for a device strictly for reading, the new Kobo is a nice little option. It's small enough to slip into a pocket, can do more with a PDF than the competition, and at $129, it's $10 cheaper than both the Nook and Kindle WiFi.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
"the jury's still out (just pick your favorite dangerous / not dangerous study to fit your belief) on the effect of radiation at levels less than the 1.6 watts per kilogram"
This is exactly what the old saying "Better safe than sorry" is supposed to address, isn't it ?
@thewild I think so too. Also it's funny that in the US citizens only can take 1,6 watts per kilogram while people in Europe can take 2.0 watts per kilogram! (Thats the maximum output a cellphone is allowed to have. Based on that they tell us "cellphones are safe") When will people realize that this are arbitrarily set numbers and not "given by god"...
@thewild
Better safe than sorry -- don't go to work this morning cause you COULD get hit by a car. Better safe than sorry, should work from home. Oh and you are probably better safe than sorry cause if you go outside there could be an anthrax or terrorist attack -- better cover your house in a dome and never go outside at all. That kind of logic is ridiculous.
@thewild Maybe after 40 years of use, all cell phones cause brain cancer. We should take them all off the market. Better safe than sorry.
@DoctarPeppar :
What is that for a comment ? Did you even think about it or are you just replying spontaneously ?
Radio impact on health is a question about which the scientific community is DIVIDED. Some studies say there is no danger some say there is. Nobody knows, you get it ?
Your jokes about anthrax and terrorist attack are nonsensical, those are quantifiable probabilities, and they are completely negligible.
Now, I DO have a cell phone, and I DON'T look at SAR rates. And since most people will not care, just like me and obviously you, I believe it is definitvely OK to make people understand that there is a real uncertainty about that.
There is a big difference between somethong that is unknown and something that is a probability.