New Smartphone, what to choose: iPhone 4 or Samsung Galaxy S or....

[pharmacist]

Just to update my old cellular phone to a more modern one. Should I choose the Apple iPhone 4 or the Samsung Galaxy S or maybe another better smartphone. I read alot on internet about these two rivals, but cannot make up which one to choose.

 

[The Hat]

pharmacist
Should I choose the Apple iPhone 4 or the Samsung Galaxy S or maybe another better smartphone.

Which one is the easiest to refill?

 

[mikling]

http://www.surgicalneurology-online.com/article/S0090-3019(09)00145-1/abstract

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2011-02.htm

Excerpted from the second link.

"I told you so; i've been studying this since the 1970s when I started working in radio. Today, with everyone we know getting cancer, just what else do you think is so different from 20 years ago? It's that we've all had these little transmitters glued to our heads these past 10 years, and that cell phones operate on radio bands that just happen to be ideal for absorption by the head. Oops!

Laymen confuse the clear and present dangers of cell-phone radiation with non-risks like EMF from electrical towers and low risks from WiFi. Cell-phone companies just love to try to lump the idiots afraid of power lines along with the scientists who've proved just how dangerous is cell-phone radiation to try to keep the public fat, dumb and happy.

Electrical towers are a non-risk. Even though people in real estate call them "cancer towers," the real risk is that they are ugly, block the view, and might mess up AM radio reception if you're a HAM. In reality, very little energy comes from power lines. They are at a very low frequency (60 Hz) where very little radiates, and they usually use three-phase lines (the Tesla Polyphase system) whose fields cancel each other at a distance anyway. The power companies don't want to lose any of this power, and the fields at people's homes are usually measured in milliGauss (mG). A milliGauss is one ten-millionth of a Tesla, and when you get MRIs, you're in fields measured in Teslas. Not only is power-line field strength about one ten-millionth the magnetic field strength of an MRI, my noted radiologist college tells me that the Tesla-strength fields aren't any sort of risk anyway. They don't deliver any power into the body (it's just a static field that's not absorbed), so power lines and milliGauss fields (or the even much stronger Tesla-strength fields) are a non-issue but laymen fear them, just like anything a layman doesn't understand.

WiFi and Bluetooth do transmit real power, transmit on the same 2.4GHz bands more or less as used by microwave ovens, and this radiation is absorbed by human tissue exactly in the same way a turkey heats in a microwave oven. WiFi and Bluetooth don't transmit much power, so they aren't much of a concern. We're happy if Bluetooth gets us a few feet reliably, and I'm ecstatic if WiFi makes it from one side of my condo to the other.

Cell phones operate on these same microwave bands, but the problem is that they have enough power to transmit many miles to cell phone base stations (towers), and worse, that many of us hold cell phones so close that they touch our heads!

Cancer isn't ever "caused;" it's a random risk just like blurry photos caused by camera shake. Our concern is doing things that increase or lessen the probability of being diagnosed with cancer, or getting a blurry picture. Do the same thing ten times, and some percentage of photos will be blurry or not, and some people will get cancer, and some won't. We're playing with probability, much as scofflaws gamble that they can get away with speeding at any particular point on the freeway.

Cancer risk is elevated by cell-phone use because the microwave power radiated from the cell-phone's transmitter is powerful enough to heat human tissue. The problem is that this heating happens in ways not expected or detected by the body's own very precise temperature-regulation systems, and we get localized heating of the brain. The body's processes are extremely dependant on precisely regulated temperatures, and when we have localized areas getting heated that the body can't correct, we increase the incidence of cancer. (Stand in the sun, and we're heated from the outside though our skin. Use a cell-phone, and you're heating your brain from the inside-out.)

These facts have been known ever since I started studying this in the late 1970s. The problem is that these cancer risks take effect over decades, not days, and that even though we know exactly how cell phones increase cancer risk, getting precise numbers on just how much they increase that risk has been elusive. To do this, we need two huge and otherwise identical samples of the population, with the only way that they differ being cell phone use. Obviously this has been difficult , which is why we haven't had any solid data until now. This research takes money, and the people with the money, the cell-phone companies, certainly don't want anyone to know.

For you laymen, ask yourself: just how well does your cell phone company care about you? Do you look forward to talking to them? Do they treat you well? Of course not; all they are concerned about is increasing users and ARPU (average revenue per user) by keeping that lady in your outgoing voicemail message asking if you want to leave a FAX, which wastes other people's minutes. 3G providers only care about cancer risks to the extent that consumer education would lower their revenues. Cigarette companies are still selling cigarettes as fast as they can make them, just that most are sold overseas today.

Personally, my cell phone is always OFF. I'll check voicemail once a day from my land line, and if I'm in the field, I'll bring it up once a day to check messages. Otherwise, I use Line2 over my iPod Touch's WiFi connection, which works much better then a cell phone, for a lot less money, with no extra cancer risk since I'm on WiFi anyway. "



Interesting topic and possibly where tobacco and smoking stands today. The parallels of wide spread use and small warnings are eerily similar. Cell phones and its commercial implications are too large today to turn back. Depending on how old you are this report may or may not have any consequences. What I am fearful of is when I see kids start using the cellphone from under age ten. They have decades to live again... now roll the probabilities over consecutive decades and the aspect is frightening to say the least. You don't need a Fukushima, it's in your pocket.

I have and use a cellphone but it is good reading for parents who are not aware or for the younger ones as well. I've always suspected the same since the late 90s. This report confirms my suspicion.

 

[rodbam]

It's a good idea to only use the mobile phone in loudspeaker mode to stop the localised heating of the brain when the phone is pressed to the ear. A well known neurosurgeon in Sydney (Yeo) said he's noticed & operated on a big increase in the amount of people presenting with tumours around the site of where the phone sits nearest the brain & the tumours correspond to which side the person holds the phone to their heads.

 

[jru]

Mikling,
Thanks for your detailed post.
Powerlines may be lower energy, but I wouldn't assume that the "fields cancel each other at a distance anyway."
See photo & article below.
Problem is I don't think we can know what effect even low energy fields may have on cells when exposure is on-going and near constant (as when a house is located below power lines).
I myself think it would be prudent to avoid such a situation.
But I appreciate the info on cell phones & towers.

---------


Field by Richard Box
March 1st, 2009 by Jim
Posted in Fluorescent Technology, Light Art, Lighting Art and Installations
http://www.jimonlight.com/2009/03/01/field-by-richard-box/

Richard Box, a lighting artist in the United Kingdom, put 831 fluorescent tubes in a field around some power lines, and powered them with the electromagnetic fields from the power lines.

From Richard Boxs website:

The 1301 fluorescent tubes are powered only by the electric fields generated by overhead powerlines.
Richard Box, artist-in-residence at Bristol Universitys physics department, got the idea for the installation after a chance conversation with a friend. He was telling me he used to play with a fluorescent tube under the pylons by his house, says Box. He said it lit up like a light sabre.
Box decided to see if he could fill a field with tubes lit by powerlines. After a few weeks hunting for a site, he found a field, slipped the local farmer 200 and planted 3,600 square metres with tubes collected from hospitals.
A fluorescent tube glows when an electrical voltage is set up across it. The electric field set up inside the tube excites atoms of mercury gas, making them emit ultraviolet light. This invisible light strikes the phosphor coating on the glass tube, making it glow. Because powerlines are typically 400,000 volts, and Earth is at an electrical potential voltage of zero volts, pylons create electric fields between the cables they carry and the ground.
Box denies that he aimed to draw attention to the potential dangers of powerlines, For me, it was just the amazement of taking something thats invisible and making it visible, he says. When it worked, I thought: This is amazing.

 

[pharmacist]

Hi Guys,

Similar to the answers: oestrogen mimicking agents are found everywhere nowadays in many products and even tap water causing a feminising effect on many living beings including men. And here in the low countries I suspect many should be afraid of inundation threat caused by the warming up of mother Earth...

So on topic: does someone have first hand experience with a good smartphone like the ones I mentioned ?