How Intimate Is Your Relationship with Your Phone?

frugalftw on 25/03/2020 - 15:24

Hi Forum,

With the current physical distancing going on, thought I'd remind people about the use of mobile phones, especially when you have kids.

This was an actual talk at Melb Uni: "The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation" — Dr Devra Davis (play at 1.5x). (Settle down, Sydney…) Who'd thought to ban smoking cigarettes on airplanes! It's a mad world.

If you run out of things to stream, it's quite fascinating to follow this rabbit hole. No matter where you might end up, keep calm and wash your hands!

Poll Options

  • 0
    Are you colluding with my SO? I thought we talked about this...
  • 2
    It's glued to my hand, I tried to unglue and replace it with a waist device, but it didn't take.
  • 0
    Phones are for when I'm at work, I use my tablet on me at home, especially before bed.
  • 55
    Thanks for wasting another 2 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
  • 1
    We used to be closer, but now they are too big to fit into my pocket so I keep it at couch distance.
  • 2
    We were joined at the hip, now I'm not sure if it's the right relationship for me.
Mobile

Comments

  • bobbified on 25/03/2020 - 15:27
    +11

    I make love to mine every night. Some nights, I even ask my tablet to join us.

    • HighAndDry on 25/03/2020 - 15:28

      Only at night? I wear it out in public!

      • bobbified on 25/03/2020 - 15:30

        Only at night?

        Its courting moves look better on the screen at night. lol

        • frugalftw on 25/03/2020 - 21:15

          Lol I thought you need alcohol for that :D

  • slow on 25/03/2020 - 15:39
    +1

    I once slipped in the shower whilst holding it and ….

  • SBOB on 25/03/2020 - 16:12
    +4

    "The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation"

    is it that non-ionizing radiation isnt a problem?

    good, thats what i thought

    • frugalftw on 25/03/2020 - 22:46
      -1

      No, you don't have to watch the talk, but please don't mislead people. She clearly said the irregular pulse was the problem, not the power. The fact the standards were made for outdated assumptions such as that the user's brain should not be heated up after a 6-minute phone call alone, was scary af. My mother would not have finished telling me what to do to combat the virus after the first 10 minutes lol

      • SBOB on 26/03/2020 - 06:40
        +2

        She clearly said the irregular pulse was the problem, not the power

        What she claims is wrong and based on scaremongering. The fact the power goes up when the phone rings , then down, then up when talking…it's irrelevant

        As an epidemiologicast, she should be skilled in finding patterns in health changes …there has been no correlation between things like brain cancer and mobile phone use. Clearly she isn't doing her job very well, but making a heap of money 'selling' the idea using scary graphs , 3d models and zero actual scientific proof.

        • frugalftw on 26/03/2020 - 10:53
          -1

          What she claims is wrong and based on scaremongering. The fact the power goes up when the phone rings , then down, then up when talking…it's irrelevant

          Source?

          As an epidemiologicast, she should be skilled in finding patterns in health changes …there has been no correlation between things like brain cancer and mobile phone use. Clearly she isn't doing her job very well, but making a heap of money 'selling' the idea using scary graphs , 3d models and zero actual scientific proof.

          She doesn't work for me, so I can't tell her how to do her job /s. Apparently you do, and you don't find her findings useful, even though she's presented plenty of evidence to support her claim in the talk. I hope you have evidence to support yours.

          • SBOB on 26/03/2020 - 11:03
            +2

            @frugalftw:

            Source?

            every scientific, peer reviewed, repeatable test based journal article on non-ionizing radiation or the effects of mobile phones on brain cancer?

            • frugalftw on 26/03/2020 - 11:08

              @SBOB: That doesn't answer my question. Imagine every paper had a citations and sources section saying just that. If I read it correctly, you are claiming everything about her is wrong, how you want to back that up is up to you. If I were you, I'd go against every paper she'd referenced and point out the fallacy.

              • SBOB on 26/03/2020 - 11:17
                +1

                @frugalftw:

                If I were you, I'd go against every paper she'd referenced and point out the fallacy.

                nah..
                anyone who thinks non-ionizing radiation and mobile phones cause brain cancer, clearly isnt going to care about fact based evidence.

                the scientific jury is about 99% 'phones dont cause brain cancer' and 1% 'phones cause brain cancer'
                Why should i equally weight my effort on the 1%?

                Same as giving 'equal time' to climate change deniers. Its not splitting the argument evenly based on evidence, its dis-proportionally giving a voice to the wrong side of the facts.

                • frugalftw on 27/03/2020 - 09:08

                  @SBOB: I'm rather curious of the opposing argument, because there lies the opportunity to learn something new. The bee studies are quite fascinating, for example. Here's an old article on it:

                  "But it was the number of returning bees and their returning times that were vastly different. For two control hives, 16 out of 25 bees returned in 45 minutes. For the two microwave-exposed hives, however, no bees at all returned to one hive, and only six returned to the other."

                  Also just because an opinion is popular, doesn't make it automatically correct. It's rather dangerous to equate those two.

                  • SBOB on 27/03/2020 - 10:33

                    @frugalftw:

                    opinion

                    Science doesn't have opinions.
                    It has theories.
                    And theories can be tested and re-tested, and proven to the best of our current abilities, and until proven wrong, can be classified as the best information we have about something at the time.

                    • frugalftw on 27/03/2020 - 12:56

                      @SBOB:

                      the scientific jury is about 99% 'phones dont cause brain cancer' and 1% 'phones cause brain cancer'

                      If the 'jury' is not unanimous, you can call it whatever you want, they are just a tag open to be swung by new information/evidence.

                      Thanks for your comments tho :) And those who downvote.

                      The Guardian has an article on this too back in 2018: The inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones.

  • John Kimble on 25/03/2020 - 16:49
    +2

    I'm addicted to it as I am to OZB. I also have batterydrainaphobia. My wife let's hers run down to zero regularly…it annoys me tremendously.

    • frugalftw on 25/03/2020 - 21:21
      +1

      Power bank cured my batterydrainphobia. Then I developed it for the power bank.

  • [Deactivated] on 25/03/2020 - 17:30
    +2

    Everytime I get drunk, the charging port gets a little bit more loose.

  • skywards on 25/03/2020 - 22:47

    My relationships with iPhones these days is no more than 2years+. I remember back during those Nokia 8210 times, those were simpler times.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join