Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Cellphones best for talking, not popping popcorn

The Canadian Press

Debunking the online myths surround cellphones, from egg cooking to telemarketing rules ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. K M from Waterloo, Canada writes: Actually, '911' doesn't work in other countries.

    You should really know that '112' on the GSM network [Rogers/Fido] will ALWAYS connect you to emergency services - no matter what country you are in.
  2. C C from Ottawa, Canada writes: Hah, the "do not call list" - that just puts you on the "call me" list for all those organisations that are exempt, which are coincidentally the most annoying ones. Well, them and the Rogers Home Phone people.
  3. Walter Funk from McMahon, Canada writes: Thanks C C. Just what I was going to say.
  4. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    The cell phone popcorn thing was a kind of neat hoax, almost made some sense at first glance. After all mobile phones operate in the microwave band of frequencies (usually 1.9GHz for mobile phones vs. something like 2.5GHz for microwave ovens).

    However the product I do most work on in my job essentially has a mobile phone in it (slight simplification here). It tops out at about 1 watt of power, and that only when we're in a pretty bad situation. Usually we're running at more like 100mW. A microwave oven operates at 1000W. That's a HUGE difference in power. If you could concentrate the power of 100 mobile phones on a kernel of corn you MIGHT be able to pop it, but doing so would be essentially impossible from a logistical standpoint; you just couldn't fit that many phones close enough for it to work. One of the guys I work with did all the math behind it and it just wasn't going to happen.

    Still, neat hoax.
  5. Alex Yaxmos from Canada writes: cellphones will give you brain cancer.
  6. deirdre barry from Vancouver, Canada writes: The focus of this article deflects the public's attention from the real problems with radio frequency radiation and electromagnetic fields produced by our technologies. Scientific evidence published by independent researchers (with no funding ties to the telecommunications industries) in peer-reviewed professional journals worldwide continues to show that cellphone radiation, both from towers and from the phones themselves, as well as radiation from cordless phones, wifi, radar, and even the wiring in our buildings, all can have adverse health effects for a host of living organisms. Health Canada is wrong that there is "no convincing evidence" that cellphone radiation can cause brain tumors. There is good scientific evidence in the journals, and it is mounting. However, it is now imposssible to conduct double-blind experiments showing a direct causal effect, not because there is no causal effect, but because we can no longer assemble control groups. There are no populations on the planet that are entirely free of human-made radiation. Epidemiological studies, on the other hand, show correlations between RFR/EMFs and cancers, heart disease, diabetes, autism, Alzheimer's, respiratory problems, headaches, hearing problems, and more. We need further research in these areas. We would be wise to take the advice of the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, a global professional organization of research scientists in the field, to limit our exposure to such radiation until it has been proven conclusively to be safe. (By the way, the German Parliament has given the same advice to its citizens, as have a number of other organizations in Europe). I'm not going to wait until I or someone in my family develops a brain tumor before I severly limit my use of cellphones and cordless phones!
  7. Mike K from Vancouver, BC, Canada writes: @deirdre berry:

    "Scientific evidence published by independent researchers (with no funding ties to the telecommunications industries) in peer-reviewed professional journals worldwide..."

    Please provide actual research references, eg: which journals, researchers and studies? Otherwise, you just come across as another one of those "authoritative" sources of information that are discussed in the article.
  8. Jesu Pifco from Canada writes: Alex Yaxmos,
    Sez you, or sez who? Or is that a tongue in your cheek?
    If I had a 1200 watt mobile phone I probably could pop popcorn and broadcast my own wireless media content.
    Those suffering from techno-paranoia or ignorance are already suffering from a form of brain cancer. If you're scared, just hang up.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top