Australian airlines approve phone use on flights

[Cuchulainn]

Still don't have a mobile phone. Never have; never will.

Guess you'd need to get some mates first lest you waddle about talking to yourself.

That's a good one, David.

[thaibeachlovers]

Yeah. I really want to sit on a 12 hour flight to LHR listening to what some prat beside me rattling on about what he had for dinner last night.

Still don't have a mobile phone. Never have; never will. Refuse to turn into a brain dead, pathetic moron waddling the streets peering into a small plastic box or shouting into one on a bus.

Sent from my two tin cans with Thaivisa app and a brain

You have my vote. Right on.

[Cuchulainn]

Yeah. I really want to sit on a 12 hour flight to LHR listening to what some prat beside me rattling on about what he had for dinner last night.

Still don't have a mobile phone. Never have; never will. Refuse to turn into a brain dead, pathetic moron waddling the streets peering into a small plastic box or shouting into one on a bus.

Sent from my two tin cans with Thaivisa app and a brain

You have my vote. Right on.

Thank you!!

But I bet you have a mobile!!!!

[lvr181]

Yeah. I really want to sit on a 12 hour flight to LHR listening to what some prat beside me rattling on about what he had for dinner last night.

Still don't have a mobile phone. Never have; never will. Refuse to turn into a brain dead, pathetic moron waddling the streets peering into a small plastic box or shouting into one on a bus.

Sent from my two tin cans with Thaivisa app and a brain

You need to learn to use technology NOT let technology use you. Simple really.

Nice to have a mobile phone in the case of an emergency - life threatening or motor vehicle breakdown, etc. It doesn't turn you into a "brain dead, pathetic moron waddling the streets peering into a small plastic box or shouting into one on a bus".

[thaibeachlovers]

Yeah. I really want to sit on a 12 hour flight to LHR listening to what some prat beside me rattling on about what he had for dinner last night.

Still don't have a mobile phone. Never have; never will. Refuse to turn into a brain dead, pathetic moron waddling the streets peering into a small plastic box or shouting into one on a bus.

Sent from my two tin cans with Thaivisa app and a brain

You need to learn to use technology NOT let technology use you. Simple really.

Nice to have a mobile phone in the case of an emergency - life threatening or motor vehicle breakdown, etc. It doesn't turn you into a "brain dead, pathetic moron waddling the streets peering into a small plastic box or shouting into one on a bus".

Unfortunately a whole generation has become addicted to the machines. Have you seen the young backpackers in Thailand- too busy with the machines to actually look at the scenery, and questions about what sim to use in Thailand have become as frequent as those about the weather on travel forum .

[Diablo Bob]

Yeah. I really want to sit on a 12 hour flight to LHR listening to what some prat beside me rattling on about what he had for dinner last night.

Still don't have a mobile phone. Never have; never will. Refuse to turn into a brain dead, pathetic moron waddling the streets peering into a small plastic box or shouting into one on a bus.

Sent from my two tin cans with Thaivisa app and a brain

[Cuchulainn]

Exactly Bob, but I bet that monkey has more brain cells and social etiquette/manners than a lot of mobile phone users.

[Opl]

And I suppose people ( both educated and non educated) will then yell (more than usual) on phone because the person they are speaking to is very, very, very, very far away....

Restriction on reclining seats (maybe to come) but phone use approved... enjoy your flight!

Please , do not allow people to take off their shoes, it's a real pain sometimes...

[attrayant]

Cell phones and electromagnetic radiation from them is classified by the WHO as a carcinogen.

It doesn't actually say that anywhere in your link.

Incidence of brain cancer has surged in the last 20 years (since cell phones and wi-fi begun) by 40 % in the EU and US, Many tumors are located at the area where the headset/phone touches.

Here's what your cite says:

Ionizing radiation is the only established environmental cause of brain tumors (Preston-Martin 1996).

RF and EMF from cell phones and other sources is non-ionizing. In fact, power levels being equal, it's less energetic than ordinary visible light. The only place where you might have gotten scared is this:

Other environmental agents that have been suggested as contributing to this type of cancer include pesticides, solvents, electromagnetic fields (including cell phones), and nitrosamines that may be created in the digestion of processed meats such as bacon, ham, and sausages (Preston-Martin et al. 1996).

Notice the verb is "suggested".

[attrayant]

Women that put their cellphones in their bras are increasingly coming down with breast cancer.

I watched the story. There was a lot of "it might be this or that" and "we just don't have enough data to know one way or another". Woman have always gotten breast cancer. Just because they've recently started carrying phones next to their cancers doesn't establish causation. If men start carrying their phones in their butt cracks, can we start blaming our prostate cancers on them?

For more info on research on electromagnetic radiation effects you can check out www.bioinitiative.org.

I stopped reading after the first nonsensical claim (which means I never made it to the second page).

[Bwanatickey]

Good idea, if the technology of a mobile phone can be used to make a once in a life time call , Quantas passenger calls " Struth you won't believe it but there is some funny things going on here, we are meant to be flying to Asia, but we are over the Indian ocean in the middle of nowhere "

[flagator96]

Women that put their cellphones in their bras are increasingly coming down with breast cancer.

I watched the story. There was a lot of "it might be this or that" and "we just don't have enough data to know one way or another". Woman have always gotten breast cancer. Just because they've recently started carrying phones next to their cancers doesn't establish causation. If men start carrying their phones in their butt cracks, can we start blaming our prostate cancers on them?

For more info on research on electromagnetic radiation effects you can check out www.bioinitiative.org.

I stopped reading after the first nonsensical claim (which means I never made it to the second page).

You may want to take a look at the conclusions page :

http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/

This page provides a much more precise review of the findings.

[lvr181]

Women that put their cellphones in their bras are increasingly coming down with breast cancer.

I watched the story. There was a lot of "it might be this or that" and "we just don't have enough data to know one way or another". Woman have always gotten breast cancer. Just because they've recently started carrying phones next to their cancers doesn't establish causation. If men start carrying their phones in their butt cracks, can we start blaming our prostate cancers on them?

For more info on research on electromagnetic radiation effects you can check out www.bioinitiative.org.

I stopped reading after the first nonsensical claim (which means I never made it to the second page).

You may want to take a look at the conclusions page :

http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/

This page provides a much more precise review of the findings.

Are these peer reviewed results? Carried out at what recognised institution?

[attrayant]

You may want to take a look at the conclusions page : http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/

This page provides a much more precise review of the findings.

I really don't have the time to wade through all of their cites, so I'll rely on the IEEE's analysis of the report:

COMAR Technical Information Statement: Expert Reviews on Potential Health Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields and Comments on the BioInitiative Report

This report summarizes the conclusions from several major reports and comments on the markedly different conclusions in the BioInitiative Report. Since appearing on the Internet in August 2007, the BIR has received much media attention but, more recently, has been criticized by several health organizations (see Section titled Views of health agencies about BIR). COMAR concludes that the weight of scientific evidence in the RF bioeffects literature does not support the safety limits recommended by the BioInitiative group. For this reason, COMAR recommends that public health officials continue to base their policies on RF safety limits recommended by established and sanctioned international organizations such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, which is formally related to the World Health Organization.

And that of the Netherlands Health Council:

The Committee concludes that this report is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge and does not provide any grounds for revising the current views as to the risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields.

And that of the Australian Center forRadio Frequency Bioeffects Research:

Do the BioInitiative Report authors represent an authoritative international body?

Often in assessing public health issues, bodies are formed to evaluate evidence and offer recommendations about particular issues. The model that most scientific expert bodies in this area (e.g. World Health Organisation (WHO)) employ is to engage independent experts to provide a review and recommendations on an issue. Independent experts are engaged because it is meant to provide an objective evaluation of the issue. This contrasts strongly with the BioInitiative Report, which is the result of the opinions of a self-selected group of individuals who each have a strong belief that does not accord with that of current scientific consensus. An indication of this may be seen in the groups stated purpose, which is to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enoughto protect public health, rather than to provide a scientific evaluation of the issue.

[snip]

Overall we think that the BioInitiative Report does not progress science, and would agree with the Health Council of the Netherlands that the BioInitiative Report is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge. As it stands it merely provides a set of views that are not consistent with the consensus of science, and it does not provide an analysis that is rigorous-enough to raise doubts about the scientific consensus.

[attrayant]

[continued, because the forum limits tha number of quote tags per post]

And the European Commission's EMF-NET comments:

There is a lack of balance in the report; no mention is made in fact of reports that do not concur with authors statements and conclusions. The results and conclusions are very different from those of recent national and international reviews on this topic.

The stated purpose of the BioInitiative Report is to assess the scientific evidence of health effects of low-level EMF exposure below current international limits, and to establish which changes are needed to reduce public health risks from EMF exposure. If this report were to be believed, EMF would be the cause of a variety of diseases and subjective effects, including: Sleeplessness, headache, fatigue, skin disorders and changes in skin sensitivity, loss of appetite, tinnitus, impairment of memory and concentration, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, cardiac problems, changes in brain and nervous systems activity, stress reactions, inflammatory and allergic reactions, genotoxic effects, changes in immune system function, and many types of cancers.

None of these health effects has been classified as established in any national or international reviews that assessed biological and health effects from exposures below internationally accepted EMF limits when the whole database of scientific literature is reviewed according to well-accepted international risk assessment methods and criteria.

And the German Office for Radiation Protection:

[The Bioinitiative Report] failed to differentiate between the health effects of low-frequency and high-frequency electromagnetic fields, which is scientifically unacceptable.

[flagator96]

[continued, because the forum limits tha number of quote tags per post]

And the European Commission's EMF-NET comments:

There is a lack of balance in the report; no mention is made in fact of reports that do not concur with authors statements and conclusions. The results and conclusions are very different from those of recent national and international reviews on this topic.

The stated purpose of the BioInitiative Report is to assess the scientific evidence of health effects of low-level EMF exposure below current international limits, and to establish which changes are needed to reduce public health risks from EMF exposure. If this report were to be believed, EMF would be the cause of a variety of diseases and subjective effects, including: Sleeplessness, headache, fatigue, skin disorders and changes in skin sensitivity, loss of appetite, tinnitus, impairment of memory and concentration, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, cardiac problems, changes in brain and nervous systems activity, stress reactions, inflammatory and allergic reactions, genotoxic effects, changes in immune system function, and many types of cancers.

None of these health effects has been classified as established in any national or international reviews that assessed biological and health effects from exposures below internationally accepted EMF limits when the whole database of scientific literature is reviewed according to well-accepted international risk assessment methods and criteria.

And the German Office for Radiation Protection:

[The Bioinitiative Report] failed to differentiate between the health effects of low-frequency and high-frequency electromagnetic fields, which is scientifically unacceptable.

Here is a video for you.

I do not expect you to change your mind over it. Regardless of what you or me think about this issue, there is an increasing body of evidence that non ionizing electromagnetic fields are associated with harm in humans. It will be prudent and fair since the science has not been settled yet not to force people to irradiated against their will in public places.

[attrayant]

It will be prudent and fair since the science has not been settled yet not to force people to irradiated against their will in public places.

Why do you think an airplane is a public place?