In article <fb8k89$5eg$2@news.datemas.de>, lenny <lenny@say.no.wifi>
writes
>On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:08:14 +0200, xxy wrote:
>
>> In article <i7WPM0Ancz1GFw9j@ntlworld.com>, mike.swift@yeton.co.uk says...
>>> In article <fb79k5$ls4$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin
>>> <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>> >>Only ten minutes on a mobile could trigger cancer, scientists believe
>>> >
>>> >No, that is not what scientists believe. Either you or the Daily Mail
>>> >is making it up.
>>>
>>> This is bad for you, that is bad for you, perhaps at birth we should be
>>> sealed in an airtight box pumped with scrubbed oxygen and fed with safe
>>> irradiated nutrients intravenously.
>>>
>> A better plan would be to never read some of the absurd shite that is
>> printed in the Daily Mail.
>
>If you were to read a bit more you'd realise that it was a New Scientist
>story reported in the Daily Mail and I would not be surprised if it wasn't
>carried in other papers (Telegraph for example).

The New Scientist article (1 Sept. 2007 P18) reported research by the
Wiezmann Institute of Science in Rehovot that showed low levels of
875MHz caused activation of the ERK1/2 pathways in cell cultures, the
power level was too low for them to measure a thermal effect. It was
stated that mutations in these pathways had been linked to certain
cancers, although there is no evidence that these mutations cause the
cancer. It was also stated that transient activation of these pathways
is a normal cell physiology.

A far better plan would be to read the original article and learn what
the words mean, relying on the scribbling of a jobbing reporter summing
a page of science with a populist paragraph is not wise.
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams