The recent news of the mobile phone for 4-year-olds, and the negative connotations it raises reminded of some "lost hopes" that I came up with a few years ago, on the basis of technology that has since died - and I'd have to add a kick all the iJunk slops as well, as the cult of form over function has stifled, or rather suffocated, potentially versatile development.

It can't have escaped the notice of many that if you want a pocketful of high-tech toys, you could easily amass quite a collection: phone, pda/organiser, web access tool, MP3 player, MP4 player, GPS receiver/SatNav, camera, camcorder, radio/TV, email handler, etc,

There are also more specialised options that can be incorporated such as emergency beacons, remote controls, barcode reading, electronic security passes, and many more interesting toys.

The relevant ones here however, are the parts which make up the device itself, and give it its basic functionality. This is essentially the hardware and firmware, the parts that are generally under the control of the manufacturers. The rest is software, and can be uploaded or added by the owner as required.

Many years ago, the PDA or pocket organiser I carried had a number of options, and had I wanted them, could have had not only the organiser, but a mobile phone, and GPS. None of these were built-in, but could be slotted into the back, and upgraded as technology advanced. It could also be expanded using any sort of memory car, using another slot-in module.

Back then, I had hoped that there might be some sort of main module developed, and some part, say either the phone or PDS would become central, providing the display and keyboard, while all the other parts would become upgrades.

Sadly, the companies involved in these products have all been gobbled up by the phone makers, they all have their own proprietary standards, there is no slot-in capability, and if you want a combination of features, you still have to have a pocket full devices and chargers, or accept a closest fit to your wants, and duplicate devices if not.

Ah...

Progress.

I worked around high power RF all my working life but I do not like using a mobile phone any more than necessary.  It always seemed crazy to me that there were strict rules on exposure to RF and monitoring of it but the company expected everyone to use mobile phones all the time, actuallt removing some landlines and they would always call your mobile even when they knew you were by a landline phone.

Sorry. There is no silence.

It has been debunked as drivel, years ago, after hundreds of test failed to find any significant correlation.

I'm sure there are links to some of the reports, if not a listing of them all, in the thread in this forum that dealt with microwave ovens a couple of years back.

The only people who are still pursuing the claim are those who are unfortunate enough enough to have suffered an illness which could be blamed on mobile operation or EM (electromagnetic) radiation in general.

Although a formal analysis shows that they have just picked the short straw, because of all the hype an publicity, they are fooled into seeking a cause, and this was a handy option to blame.

It's the same as the MMR hype that the media ran with, and which proved to be a deeply flawed error.

Although it's been closed, there are still people clinging to the belief - and I emphasis the word "belief" - that that their child will, or may, develop autism if the MMR vaccine is administered.

Odd you should have mentioned this, as there was an old programme on TV a few days ago, warning of the effects of EM in offices, and the various screens and "magic gizmos" that could be used to protect office workers.

A few years ago, these were big business for office suppliers, then the (real) Health & Safety Executive released its findings, and stated there was no evidence of significant dangers after years of testing, and that all that was needed was to maintain the usual safe operating procedures around electrical equipment.

They noted that while there were substantiated accounts of headaches, eye problems, and other effects, proper analysis determined that these were down to bad operating procedures of computer monitors, keyboards, and mice, together with bad seating and back support.

I meant to look up the proper references, but got diverted, but I did start to have a look, and it was apparent that rather than office suppliers selling the so-called EM Shield and similar product (to protect users from non-existent dangers) these gizmos now seemed to be on the list of emporiums that sell reflexology crystals, aromatherapy oils, healing stones, and similar items.

If you measure the field strength from a mobile phone at the distance it is normally used from the head then it is at a level that would be considered dangerous in other circumstances.

It annoys me when you see people complaining about mobile phone antenna on places like schools yet the same people will let their children use mobile phones when the field strength is far higher than that from an antenna on top of a building.  Also shutting down the local site will mean the phones are working into more distant sites so will be running higher power which means even higher field strength!

The claim that there is a danger will NEVER be disproven - just as the claim that there is a monster swimming about in Loch Ness will never be disproven.

If I recall correctly, there have been over 200 investigations into the claims that mobile phone emissions pose a significant hazard, carried out by a number of laboratories and researchers, and published for peer review. This I am trawling from the depths, so will have to review and get sources

Richard Branson is a rich executive, former record producer, adventurer, playboy, and entrepreneur, not a scientist, and has no engineering qualifications I'm aware. I think he even left school before getting any qualifications so he could start making money.

A quote from him on the safe or hazardous use of mobile phones has about as much relevance to the subject as a chocolate ashtray has as a useful accessory on a motorbike.

Quoted Text

The government line has been pursued to the point that nothing has been financed to oppose it. Squeezed like a chicken's neck you could say.

East Germany has nothing on Britain these days, the only thing missing is a wall topped by barbed wire, however given time and a reason.

Sorry

Too obscure. If you can expand on this one, I'll look into it.

It could almost have been made to order

No point in me parroting any of it, it's quite long, but it does refer to THE SILENCE (as there's little to be said nowadays - how d'you do a spooky echo in print? ) in the light of the Firefly I mentioned a few days ago - that the mobile phone for babies.

It also goes into the special case of growing youngsters - where there is the worry of a potential hazard due to the effect of non-ionising radiation on growing brain cells in children using mobile phones, but this is based on observations regarding ionising radiation, so is still speculative.

Of more importance is the evidence of zombie-kids, spending all their time jabbering and texting, even when they are supposed to be asleep.

Mobile phones for children: a boon or a peril? (June 23)
Half of British children aged 5 to 9 own a mobile phone, and a brand for tots is imminent. Some experts are unhappy

Had to track this one down just now, or I might not be able to spend any time over the weekend, and it is a serious matter.

The original report was called the Stewart Report, and was published way back in 2000, so I had to check its status.

This was revisited as the "Mobile Phones and Health 2004" report from the NRPB, and although it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the government Chief Scientific Officer - whoever he is and whatever he might have to do with the subject of health, rather than science - it is issued by the HPA, the Health Protection Agency, and prepared by the NRPB, the National Radiological Protection Agency.

It's fairly hefty at over 100 pages, and can't be copied from, but a quick jump to Page 11 bring up "Sensitive groups" and paras 55 to 64 on this subject, with para 60 being the the key summary, and which repeats the original Stewart report:

60 The Board concludes that, in the absence of new scientific evidence, the recommendation in the Stewart Report on limiting the use of mobile phones by children remains appropriate as a precautionary measure.

The report covers much wider issues than just mobile phones, so there is further information to be found.

One relates back the reference of shielding I alluded to when I mentioned "magic gizmos".

While tracking this report down, I came across the site of one such fraud. I hate to include it, but here is the link. You can explore the rest of the site and see the alarmist mythology they present in a format clearly intended to look authoritative and technically correct, and to convince the leyperson of its validity. Having this rubbish in circulation breeds the fear of mobile phones and illness. The site is in fact nothing more than an advert to sell stick-on buttons that protect the user from all the nasty things it warns them that mobile phones will do to them. As you'll see, the linked page is their "independent" lab verification that the stick-on button works. If you trawl this site, you'll find a story about two Russian journalists cooking an egg using mobile phones. They don't say how, just that it took 95 minutes.

If you go to Page 38, para 141, you will see what the NRPB think of these buttons.

Personally I'd like to know how the phone still works if that button is absorbing 99.997% of the signal!

jmb, regarding your point on field strength, if correct, then someone is breaching regulations, and should be reported if there are numbers to prove it. The relevant effect is SAR, specific absorption rate (measure of the rate of absorption of RF energy in the body). In the US, the SAR level is set at or below 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg) taken over a volume of 1 gramme of tissue. In the EU the corresponding limit is 2 W/kg, averaged over ten grammes of tissue.

Even if the switching off of cells takes place, and the phone ups its power to reach the next available cell, it can still only output a power level that falls within the regulations. If the limit is say 3 W, and it was using 1 W to reach the cell that was switched off, then its power will indeed go up, but not beyond the power set by the regulator. When it hits 3 W, that's it, it stops, and if it hasn't reached the next cell, then its "No Service" time. It won't simply carry on upping the power past the safe limit regardless, until it contacts the next cell.

I think most modern small mobile phones would never reach 3 watts but 1 watt at an inch is a high field strength and certainly a lot more than 25? watts or at a quarter mile away which is what the concerned parents campaign against.