Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Death Of Land Lines

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Last month, AT&T formally asked US Federal authorities for permission to abandon providing land lines if it chooses to do so.

Between 2000 and 2008, land line usage fell 42% and is now said to be declining by 10% per annum.

Medical evidence shows that there is a severe cancer risk posed by mobiles and that heating of the brain can be detected within 15 minutes or so of use of a mobile phone.

Suddenly seeing land lines disappear is, for me, a frightening possibility, but it has been sugested that this will occur within 10 years and some analysts are saying that it is the last opportunity to sell land line company stock.




posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by aristocrat2
Medical evidence shows that there is a severe cancer risk posed by mobiles and that heating of the brain can be detected within 15 minutes or so of use of a mobile phone.

Medical evidence shows no such thing.

Cellphones operate using what is called non-ionizing radiation, which ranges from near-ultraviolet radiation, to visible light, to infrared radiation, to microwave radiation, to radio-frequency radiation, to static fields (caused by magnets). All of these are considered non-mutagenic. Note that there is also mid- and far-ultraviolet, which are mutagenic, and are kinds of ionizing radiation.

Electrical fields (such as those generated by microwaves and radio-frequency waves) can cause what is known as dielectric heating. A dielectric material is simply a material that can be polarized by an electric field. Human tissues are a dielectric material. Studies have shown that cellphones can cause heating of tissues. They have, however, only shown that this occurs on the surface of the skin. For one thing, the heating is only a fraction of a degree, as cellphones have no real power behind them. Second, the skull is sufficient to block this effect from ever reaching the brain.

There is one caveat: the skin can regulate it's own temperature; this is called homeostasis. The eye, however does not. One study found that a 100W/kg radio-frequency wave at a rabbit's eye for a couple of hours caused cataracts. For comparison, a cellphone operates at 1.6W/kg. That's about 100 times less.

No study has conclusively linked cellphone use to cancer. The only results have either been negative (as in, "No it doesn't cause cancer.") or inconclusive (as in, "The data doesn't really tell us anything.")


All that being said, I had a feeling cellphone usage was replacing land-line usage. But I doubt it will keep falling at that rate. I'm sure there are some areas, even in the US, where cellphones are still just too expensive.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Without a source link I can't argue on the validity or specific nature of this, however.

If by landline you mean the plain, old telephone system this doesn't suprise me. Between cell phones and the increased popularity in VoIP technology the need for copper wire criss-crossing the country (say that three times fast) would obviously be reduced for the more robust underground fiber.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


By land lines, that is the end of BOTH copper and optic fibre.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by sciemus
 


Links:

www.icnirp.de... - Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to 300 GHz); p. 12 contains the section on Cellular and Animal Studies, relevant to the cancer discussion.

www.icnirp.de... - Freely available publications from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, including a literature review relating to cellphones and cancer, as well as the article above.

(Despite the .de domain, both are in English.)



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by sciemus
 


Wrong! The studies that have been done were mostly paid for by the telcoms and the outcome either was negative or inconclusive because the studies were not conducted in a scientificly proper way.

The point is not just the frequency of the radiation, wich is (as you correctly state) not harmful in itself, but what does matter is that the radiation is digital and thus pulsates.

This pulsation of the signal combined with the frequency is known to disrupt biological processes and can possibly cause cancer. The studies have not looked into this, they just looked for surface heating.

Here is an interesting article: www.timesonline.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
I think the truth is somewhere between both extremes.

Cell phone use isn't as horrific as one side says, but at the same time it is not as mundane and safe as the other side claims.

All cell phones I have used do indeed get "hot" after about 20-30min.
Well, lets say "warm".

Not because of the communications signal though, but because it is a electronic device which uses a battery to operate.

My PC does not send out signals, but it still gets warm when its running. Same principal makes all electronics have heat radiation. Your putting electricity through conductors.

Just exercise moderation when using cell phones, its simple.

Cut your calls down to the necessary and try to avoid long talks.

If your on hold forever put the phone a distance away till you hear chatter.

Use it when you need to, but just don't keep a piece of warm plastic on your head all day.


And try to not use it while driving, other people exist.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by BazzeMan
Wrong! The studies that have been done were mostly paid for by the telcoms and the outcome either was negative or inconclusive because the studies were not conducted in a scientificly proper way.

That's a pretty bold claim. Got anything to back that up? There doesn't appear to be any conflict of interests in my look at the authors of the lit. review I posted. My university doesn't offer access to the journal that contains the specific article that I talked about, but those authors too appear to not be in the pocket of the telecom companies.

Besides, the telecoms would have to influence a lot of scientists in a lot of countries. And none of those scientists could possibly be motivated by anything other than greed (if they were in the telecom's pockets) or fear (if they were intimidated), because they'd then be true to neutrality in science. That's having very little faith, I think, in these scientists.



Originally posted by BazzeMan
The point is not just the frequency of the radiation, wich is (as you correctly state) not harmful in itself, but what does matter is that the radiation is digital and thus pulsates.

All kinds of electromagnetic waves pulsate. Digital, analog, whatever. Frequency is that pulsation. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.


Originally posted by BazzeMan
This pulsation of the signal combined with the frequency is known to disrupt biological processes and can possibly cause cancer. The studies have not looked into this, they just looked for surface heating.

No, they did look at things other than heating and carcinogenics. I suggest you actually read the article I posted, especially, as you seem interested in this, page 7.


Originally posted by BazzeMan
Here is an interesting article: www.timesonline.co.uk...

All that says is that there is a pseudoscientific panic among parents, there are a few scientists who think that there might be other side-effects of long-term EM radiation exposure and that they think more studies should be done.

I will ask you: do you get headaches when you sit in an area with wifi for several hours? Not just every once in a while, I'm talking about a real, statistically significant number of headaches that can only be traced back to wifi. I know this has not happened to me.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
As a professional engineer who works for a major telecommunications company I'd like to offer a few quick thoughts on the subject.

Firstly, without a PSTN line the most common method of accessing broadband internet services is eliminated. You would have to rely on either cable modem, satellite or fibre services; although this isn't a problem the easiest way to access broadband is via ADSL.

Secondly, my broadband and phone package includes free landline to landline calls any time after 6 oclock in the evening on weekdays and free all day at the weekends.

As such I have found myself using my landline more than ever and relying less on my mobile phone thus saving money.

Another thing I would like to point out is that landline telephones do not rely on the national power grid; they are powered via the telephone exchange.

I realise that most people own mobile phones but the majority of the elderly population probably don't thus a landline telephone is their only way of contacting people in the event of an emergency.

Landline telephones may seem a little dated when compared to GPRS, Mobiles, emails etc but they are here to stay for the forseeable future in my opinion.

Edit: spelling

[edit on 31/1/10 by Death_Kron]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by aristocrat2
 


They have this thing called voip bro. You don't have to get rid of your home phone for a cell. We just hooked up with clear wimax internet and phone. 55$ a month for life.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Hard-line, not landline.

A landline is a specific term for any line that connects to land from a ship. Oddly enough most of the time a ships landline is actually over radio waves.

A Hardline is a physically wired non-cordless line.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by aristocrat2
 



Medical evidence shows that there is a severe cancer risk posed by mobiles and that heating of the brain can be detected within 15 minutes or so of use of a mobile phone.


where are the sources for this medical evidence? I always thought this was a crock, just the land line company's way to keep people using their service out of fear of nonexistant brain cancers.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by sciemus
 


I don't know where you got your data from, but it's false. Cell phones are low powered, but the thing to consider is that we're putting it right up to our skull. It does penetrate and depending on age may heat more than half the tissues of the brain. For every hundred hours of cell phone usage, the risk of brain tumor increases 5%. Talk for 3 hours a day two years straight and your risk has increased 297%. Doctors are noticing that many brain tumors are very close to the spot that users hold their phones to. Coincidence? Perhaps the first few times you could write it off, but eventually common sense prevails.



Concern 1: Industry’s own research showed cellphones caused brain tumors. Concern 2: Subsequent industry-funded research also showed that using a cellphone elevated the risk of brain tumors (2000-2002). Concern 3: Interphone studies, published to date, consistently show use of a cellphone for less than 10 years protects the user from a brain tumor. Concern 4: Independent research shows there is risk of brain tumors from cellphone use. Concern 5: Despite the systemic-protective-skewing of all results in the
Interphone studies, significant risk for brain tumors from cellphone use was still found. Concern 6: Studies independent of industry funding show what would be expected if wireless phones10 cause brain tumors. Concern 7: The danger of brain tumors from cellphone use is highest in children, and the younger a child is when he/she starts using a cellphone, the higher the risk. Concern 8: There have been numerous governmental warnings about children’s use of cellphones. Concern 9: Exposure limits for cellphones are based only on the danger from heating. Concern 10: An overwhelming majority of the European Parliament has voted for a set of changes based on “health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields.” Concern 11: Cellphone radiation damages DNA, an undisputed cause of cancer. Concern 12: Cellphone radiation has been shown to cause the blood-brain barrier to leak. Concern 13: Cellphone user manuals warn customers to keep the cellphone away from the body even when the cellphone is not in use. Concern 14: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) warning for cordless
phones. Concern 15: Male fertility is damaged by cellphone radiation.

15 reasons for concern

[edit on 31-1-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I don't have access to any medical studies of mobile phones but I am going to wager a guess that each model of phone would have a separate pile of documents lol.

They may not be publicly accessible either. I don't know who's juristiction that falls under either, might be something like the FDA though. Might be the PCC?

I don't know who studies the health effects of consumer electronics.

But there are probably mountains of studies and each model would be differing.

Some may be a lot safer than others. Like any consumer products.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Tiloke
 





Hard-line, not landline. A landline is a specific term for any line that connects to land from a ship. Oddly enough most of the time a ships landline is actually over radio waves. A Hardline is a physically wired non-cordless line.



Thanks for clearing that up for us, I don't think we would have ever understood what he's saying. But, you are wrong my friend, a fixed-line is the proper term here. Any other word is wrong, ignorant, or obsolete. LETS GET WITH THE TIMES HERE PEOPLE.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Lophe]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by sciemus
 


I don't know where you got your data from, but it's false.

How do you not know where I got my data from? I posted it. Did you not read it?


Originally posted by unityemissions
Cell phones are low powered, but the thing to consider is that we're putting it right up to our skull. It does penetrate and depending on age may heat more than half the tissues of the brain.

The problem with this is RF waves can be completely blocked with something as simple as aluminum foil. Think about this for a second. X-rays, things much more energetic than RF waves, do not pass completely through bone. The average X-ray machine is much more energetic than a cellphone. Would it make sense, then, for a much less energetic RF wave to be able to penetrate bone to any real effect?

I don't think you'll find any real evidence that cellphones heat the brain. The only credible evidence I've seen (all linked above) shows heating in the fractions of a degree, which the body's own homeostatic systems can easily take care of.

A further problem comes from the fact that RF radiation is all around us and has been all around us for years. You are constantly being bombarded by RF and other electromagnetic waves, many at a much higher power than a cellphone. If cellphones do prove carcinogenic, I think we have many other things to worry about.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Well I for one need my land line. I have to send EKG's over the land line.
It does not work with a cell phone.

I also do not want to pay for cell calls. Land line is much cheaper. If they got rid of land lines I would be irate. Where I live, even calling the neighbor is considered long distance. Cell phone prices would kill me.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Can't see that working for business'.
My dad runs a private business, and has found cell phones are nice, but voip services is annoying, and cells have issues in any case.
Hardlines work better.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by sciemus
 


You don't seem to be thinking straight. Of course everything emits Em radiation. That's not the issue. The issue is that we're holding this device directly to our head. Did you not read the article I provided? It provided many links with numerous sources showing that cell phones cause brain tumors, damage dna, and screw up the blood brain barrier. If you don't think this is cause for concern, you might want to reconsider your logic.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by sciemus
 


You don't seem to be thinking straight. Of course everything emits Em radiation. That's not the issue. The issue is that we're holding this device directly to our head. Did you not read the article I provided? It provided many links with numerous sources showing that cell phones cause brain tumors, damage dna, and screw up the blood brain barrier. If you don't think this is cause for concern, you might want to reconsider your logic.

So you seem to understand the basic concept that the power of an electromagnetic field declines as you move further away from it.

But the problem with this is that some devices have more powerful fields than others. Cellphones are pathetically weak. You could wrap one in aluminum foil and it would not get a signal. The towers that send out radio signals, like the ones cellphones and your car radio receive, however, are much more powerful out to a greater distance. My cellphone, for example, can't get a signal in my basement as the foundation and walls of my house block the incoming signal.

If you are worried about cellphones, which are used intermittently, I cannot understand why you then wouldn't be worried about the pervasive and much stronger RF signals from other sources. You can throw away a cellphone. You cannot escape RF-emitting towers.

And as for your sources, I can find just as many that say exactly the opposite. Not only ones that are called out on their bias by your sources, but independent ones as well. The only scientific consensus I can see at this time is that the results thus far are inconclusive and more work needs to be done.






top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join