---- START NEW MESSAGE --- Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109] by dpmail10.doteasy.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id A7D63C6B00D8; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:47:34 -0800 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <10.00CC7FE6@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; 1 Feb 2004 14:47:29 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 2211 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:47:24 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 2719; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:46:29 -0500 Received: from postfix4-1.free.fr [213.228.0.62] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with ESMTP ; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:46:29 EST X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by postfix4-1.free.fr Received: from ASUS28.free.fr (lns-th2-10-82-64-152-209.adsl.proxad.net [82.64.152.209]) by postfix4-1.free.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C702B0E57 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 20:46:31 +0100 (CET) References: <004901c3e77b$d6520900$7b01a8c0@Paradise> <401B5780.7438AA09@UALBERTA.ca> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 Francais MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <8vkq101cskld3qap7bujevga7l2j0poep2@4ax.com> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 20:46:26 +0100 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list From: Robert Soubie Organization: no organisation Subject: Re: [EE:] Long term study suggests no cellphone-cancer risk up to 10 years To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU In-Reply-To: <401B5780.7438AA09@UALBERTA.ca> Precedence: list X-RCPT-TO: Status: U X-UIDL: 371856764 On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:21:36 -0700, Robert Rolf wrote on Re: [EE:] Long term study suggests no cellphone-cancer risk up to 10 years: >Typical cell phone frequencies (1.9GHz) only penetrate a few mm into >normal human tissue, so a deep brain cancer would NEVER have seen >RF energy above normal neural EM. > >While that fact doesn't preclude there being some possible effect from = EMI >exposure, unless other possible factors are totally eliminated (food or = water >contamination, other environmental effects), the conclusion that >EMI is causing cancer is erroneous. There are MANY other environmental >factors that could be contributing to the elevated rates you see. I won't question your competence on this, however there are cases that would probably infirm your says. As just one example, there is an elementary school close to Paris that has (had) an antenna on its roof.=20 In two years, there have been no less that 4 cases of a rare form of cancer in this school. Of course other environmental potential causes have been explored, but nothing was found; just that nice cellular antenna... See for instance=20 http://www.ecoparis.org/breve.php3?id_breve=3D4368 (french) http://www.teslabel.be/liste_etudes.htm (in belge, a variant of french 8-) and others. As we say here, facts are stubborn; and sometimes statistics and correlations amount to facts. =20 * Xrobert.soubie@free.frX (veuillez supprimer les "X") * http://www.astrosurf.com/soubie * Au royaume des aveugles, les borgnes sont mal vus... - P.Dac -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads .