http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/ Engadget Comments for Cellphones are dangerous/not dangerous, the lost episode http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/Feb 3rd 2006 2:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/
Course it's the latest and greatest bluetooth model to avoid those pesky wires.

How long til I see a report on if Bluetooth gives me BRAIN CANCER too?

]]>Feb 3rd 2006 3:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/Feb 3rd 2006 3:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/Feb 3rd 2006 3:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/Feb 3rd 2006 4:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/Feb 3rd 2006 4:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/
which means that the users probably went from 850MHz analog in the mid-1990s to CDMA/TDMA and/or 850/900/1800/1900MHz GSM, not to mention potential use of 900MHz/2.4GHz home cordless phones.

Do differing frequencies (850MHz vs. 1900MHz) or technologies (perhaps strong bursts of TDMA are more dangerous than continuous streams of CDMA) make a difference? Are newer cellphones safer than older cellphones, or vice versa?

Time to bring in the lab rats =D]]>Feb 3rd 2006 4:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/
I instantly imagined cages full of rats with tiny cell phones taped to the side of their heads.]]>Feb 3rd 2006 11:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/Feb 4th 2006 5:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/
I recall that one of the Swedish studies concluded that the older, analog phones provided the most significant increase in risk and that much use of these phones was required to bump up the risk.

Aren't there a slew of devices that emit electromagnetic radiation near the head or body? Why the focus on mobile phones? Is it the hours of daily use for some people? If there were a significant risk you'd have expected to see an outrageous spike in certain kinds of cancers over the last decade.]]>Feb 4th 2006 8:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/03/cellphones-are-dangerous-not-dangerous-the-lost-episode/
WTF does that mean?

]]>Feb 7th 2006 8:58AM