




I. Radiation, What Radiation?








II. Cell Phone Companies Sue City




III. What Exactly Are They Measuring?






IV. Watered Down Legislation Will Likely Replace Current Bill







Comments     Threshold


By josh416 on 5/7/2011 3:12:57 AM , Rating: 0

Depends which medical doctors you ask. Unlike the uncited "medical doctors" mentioned here, the 3000+ doctors that signed the Freiburger Appeal would most definitely not agree with the above statement (

The extremely well-credentialed members of the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety who signed the Venice Resolution (2008) would also likely take exception to many of the assertions made in this article.

If only pictures of utterly ridiculous and---I'll admit, pretty darn cute---cats wearing tinfoil hats could eliminate the toxic properties of wireless signals, we'd be all set.

For people who like pictures more than words, there's also this:

By Targon on 5/7/2011 8:37:59 AM , Rating: 2
Much of the concerns probably started back in the early early days of cellular phones that were HUGE with a big antenna. Now, we all know that early versions of ANY technology are not terribly power efficient, and in many cases did not have much in the way of shielding. From that perspective, then yes, those who used cell phones over a decade ago may have absorbed a bit of radiation, but those days are long gone.

It is like the level of radiation found on the west coast after the situation in Japan. Yes, there was some radiation found, but not even as much as you would absorb by taking a plane flight. So, you get more radiation upwards of 30,000 feet than you do on the, the airlines should now warn people not to fly because of radiation that isn't even enough to be dangerous?

This is the stupidity of many of these technophobe lawsuits, they are based on the idea that ANY degree of exposure to ANYTHING is going to be enough to cause them to become sick. Do they sue anyone who smokes next to them OUTSIDE just because of that brief contact? How about the whole "mercury in the fish" routine, do they also refuse to eat fish just because it MIGHT be dangerous(when they can't know)? These people really may need medication to help them deal with their fear of EVERYTHING.

By JasonMick (blog) on 5/7/2011 11:17:37 AM , Rating: 5

Your link is broken...


Did you even read the document you cited? It's a call for RESEARCH.

It's NOT expressing any opinion that non-ionizing radiation (cell-phones, wi-fi, etc.) has a legitimate negative impact on human health.

Of course there's a need to research the topic further, but your mistaking lack of knowledge regarding a certain phenomena for evidence that the phenomena is somehow harmful.


Ahem, I don't believe that "documentary" (to stretch the meaning of the term) to be a legitimate scientific work and it should be not be treated as such.

What it appears is a cheap attempt at publicity and making a cheap buck off of paranoid, under-informed individuals.

By SilthDraeth on 5/7/2011 11:22:33 AM , Rating: 2
MY uncle bought one of the Casio mil spec cell phones at my behest, because he works in construction and has had quite a few die from hard use/ abuse...

So he told me his phone gave him a headache, I didn't believe him, but I used his phone for 5 minute call, and sure enough, got some sort of weird headache from that phone.

Never happened to me on any other phone, just that one. Same for him also.


Here are a couple of quotes from the ICEMS document:



Nuff said.





Full report at:


