Should any of us be worried?

[rawrblaah]

The Daily Dot - Samsung's response to a customer whose phone caught fire only made things worse

This is an article about a guy's GS4 catching on fire. Luckily he caught it soon enough before it got to the battery and made the battery explode.

However, is this something that a considering GS4 person should be worried about?

This is basically life or death....

 

[tpence2177]

I think most of the stories like that usually have some underlying problem with the phone. I heard a case of a gs3 catching on fire but if I remember correctly it was water damaged and that was why it caught on fire. I have heard of iPhone catching on fire. When a company makes millions of phones there are bound to be a few lemons.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[Chief G-Hawk]

It's not just the S4, even the iPhone's have been reported to catch on fire or explode, or even being electrocuted. This can happen to any phone regardless of what brand they are. You just have to be careful, such as that you use the charger that was provided in the box, etc etc etc.

 

[DriscolDevil]

Yeah this is a news story that seems to be "breaking news" with every new line of phones. People die in cars, phone batteries can blow up, double A batteries can leak acid, aluminum builds up in your brain.

It's a vicious world, none of us are living forever. No offense, but I always find those "life or death" comments amusing. No offense, but if you really want to live safe, don't get a cell phone at all. Have people just forgotten that even the old cell phones caused brain tumors? Do you think all the new wireless networks are going to reduce that chance in the new phones?

Let's be honest with ourselves here, even if 10 percent of smartphone users turned into solid rock, you would eventually buy one anyways. These stories may seem scary, but think about this, at least we're not being forced into the military, fighting tooth and nail for fresh water, and having our heads chopped off by a psychotic military force. Look at some parts of the world, and this starts to look like a pretty silly "life or death" issue.

Again, no offense, and I would like to point out that I was taking it pretty light with that, I could have listed much worse atrocities that actually happen in some parts of the world but I think kids might use this forum so you know....

 

[Haalcyon]

Well said.

g2

 

[mhinc]

I agree with the above. And 9 times out of 10, there is a 3rd party at hand in most cases. ie. Higher mAH cheap battery.

 

[rawrblaah]

You all have a point. I never looked at it like this before. Thanks everybody.

 

[DriscolDevil]

You all have a point. I never looked at it like this before. Thanks everybody.

No problem. If you ever need a violently cynical point of view on things, just PM me.

 

[monsieurms]

Have people just forgotten that even the old cell phones caused brain tumors? Do you think all the new wireless networks are going to reduce that chance in the new phones?

....

Well, it's hard to forget something that doesn't actually exist.

It was never proven that cell phones caused cancer. It is true that there were a couple of studies that we can now call outliers showing minor levels of increases statistically--which is an association, but not the same thing as causal proof if you're familiar with the way these studies work. Statistical associations do not constitute proof--and they can also occur because of flaws in the way the study was conducted. That happens a lot. A mere association is often meaningless. For instance, to take an easy example, 100% of the people who smoke pot have breathed oxygen. Therefore, air causes pot smoking. Well, no. A lot of the statistical associations are also so small as to be caused just by chance aberrations in a group. So, they must be able to be replicated repeatedly and reliably before they can be accepted as ominous and a standard.

Instead, the vast majority of studies have found exactly the opposite. Absolutely none of those studies that initially raised alarms has been accepted as an actual answer by the scientific community overall, and they have been rebutted and deemed flawed. The vast majority of studies, in fact, have concluded: no link shown, no proof whatsoever.

The National Cancer Institute says:

"Although there have been some concerns that radiofrequency energy from cell phones held closely to the head may affect the brain and other tissues, to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer....

"NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, which tracks cancer incidence in the United States over time, found no increase in the incidence of brain or other central nervous system cancers between 1987 and 2007, despite the dramatic increase in cell phone use in this country during that time .....

"Studies of workers exposed to radiofrequency energy have shown no evidence of increased risk of brain tumors among U.S. Navy electronics technicians, aviation technicians, or fire control technicians, those working in an electromagnetic pulse test program, plastic-ware workers, cellular phone manufacturing workers, or Navy personnel with a high probability of exposure to radar.
...
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for regulating the safety of machines and devices that emit radiation (including cell phones), notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency energy have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency energy from cell phones and health problems.
...
"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that, although some studies have raised concerns about the possible risks of cell phone use, scientific research as a whole does not support a statistically significant association between cell phone use and health effects.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concludes that there is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone use can lead to cancer or to other health problems, including headaches, dizziness, or memory loss."

There is a holdout group that insists something "might be amiss!" That line of thought is described in a good Forbes recent article, which also describes how the scientific community has been bullied to some extent by people insisting that it's true; here, if you care to go through it:

Do Cell Phones Cause Brain Cancer? The Diehards Cling Desperately To Opinion - Forbes

The overall conclusion at the moment is that there is no evidence to support the theory that cell phones cause brain cancer and there is no study so stating that is deemed appropriately done and accepted as proof overall, whereas there are a lot on the other side of the issue.

But since the gist of your post was actually that there was no point to worrying about it, I am pleased to contribute another reason not to worry about it!

 

[DriscolDevil]

I stopped reading at "it was never proven"

Ok bro, and it was never proven that climate change exists and that cigarettes are unhealthy. Do you remember the commercials with doctors telling people that smoking is good for respiratory problems? Or did that not exist either?

Yup, there are absolutely no negative side effects to having all manner of invisible "waves" going through our head at all hours of the day. The increase in cancer frequency has nothing to do with the food or the increase in technological progress.

Look I'm not saying you should stop using your phone, but pretending these problems don't exist is just ridiculous. It reminds me of the people that instantly attack any person or even study that suggests that video games might influence human thought or behavior, until a study shows that it has positive effects and then they post that study wherever they can without questioning it.

 

[jschu22]

I stopped reading at "it was never proven"

Ok bro, and it was never proven that climate change exists and that cigarettes are unhealthy. Do you remember the commercials with doctors telling people that smoking is good for respiratory problems? Or did that not exist either?

Yup, there are absolutely no negative side effects to having all manner of invisible "waves" going through our head at all hours of the day. The increase in cancer frequency has nothing to do with the food or the increase in technological progress.

Look I'm not saying you should stop using your phone, but pretending these problems don't exist is just ridiculous. It reminds me of the people that instantly attack any person or even study that suggests that video games might influence human thought or behavior, until a study shows that it has positive effects and then they post that study wherever they can without questioning it.

So you stop reading once you disagree? How incredibly open minded of you.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[DriscolDevil]

So you stop reading once you disagree? How incredibly open minded of you.

Posted via Android Central App

Yes because you're a shining example of open mindedness.
Not because I disagree with it (is the strawman argument really this popular on this forum?) because I have heard it before and I don't have time to sit and read your article when I can see from the first and last statement that it sums up to "no proof, that means it's not true"

Again, there was a time when there was "no proof" that smoking caused cancer because companies suppressed the information from the public. Sound familiar?

There's "no proof" that humans effect climate change but that doesn't mean there's no truth to it.

There is technically "no proof" of evolution but that doesn't mean it's not real.

There's no proof, but there is evidence. That's what makes it a theory, evidence.

Don't agree with me, fine, you don't have to, but relying on what organizations like the FCC say about the matter just makes me laugh. Have you done the slightest bit of research on the organization itself?
I suppose you trust what the FDA has to say when it comes to modified food and growth hormones too.
Ever hear of the "revolving door?"

I didn't read all of your post because I can clearly see from your sources that there is nothing original or of value in it.


EDIT: Oh my mistake, you are not the guy that posted to begin with, you're just another nosy person trying to further derail this thread. My mistake.

 

[monsieurms]

I stopped reading at "it was never proven"

Ok bro, and it was never proven that climate change exists and that cigarettes are unhealthy. t.

Well, sigh, I don't want to go off on another tangent...but you need to check your science and your history on that. Both are proven. Tobacco harm is so clearly proven at this point that Courts often take judicial notice of it without requiring testimony.

Yup, there are absolutely no negative side effects to having all manner of invisible "waves" going through our head at all hours of the day. The increase in cancer frequency has nothing to do with the food or the increase in technological progress. .

Had you actually read the post, you would have seen the study cited indicating no increase in brain cancer frequency over a 20 year period when cell phone use went about from 0 to everyone.....and the Forbes article cited has interesting info on similar things as well. It is certainly true that scientists have sometimes been wrong. Still, that doesn't mean that the reverse is true--i.e, say "I believe this," and therefore a vague belief has credibility. I understand the scientific method isn't familiar to everyone, but the problem is that opinions don't actually count for much in science.

 

[DriscolDevil]

Well, sigh, I don't want to go off on another tangent...but you need to check your science and your history on that. Both are proven. Tobacco harm is so clearly proven at this point that Courts often take judicial notice of it without requiring testimony.



Had you actually read the post, you would have seen the study cited indicating no increase in brain cancer frequency over a 20 year period when cell phone use went about from 0 to everyone.....and the Forbes article cited has interesting info on similar things as well. It is certainly true that scientists have sometimes been wrong. Still, that doesn't mean that the reverse is true--i.e, say "I believe this," and therefore a vague belief has credibility. I understand the scientific method isn't familiar to everyone, but the problem is that opinions don't actually count for much in science.

Did you read my post? I can hardly judge you for not doing so, but at least I admitted to it when I didn't.

I never said it's not proven, I'm saying it wasn't proven, as in there was a pretty significant period of time when doctors were telling people it was not only safe, but healthy. Maybe you should check your history and maybe you should try to understand that science is not a dogmatic system but that it's strength is in the fact that it's a system that doesn't claim to have all or any of the answers. It's strength is in it's ability to adapt to new information.

Saying "there's no proof, it's not true" is about as unscientific as you can get.

Oh heavens, the Forbes article? Well if Forbes said it then it must be true, I am so sorry I didn't read your long argument now.
So who conducted this study? How many people were tested? Who paid for this to be done? How many tests were scrapped or thrown out in favor of this one that you are presenting? Do you know the answer to any of these questions or are you just parroting something you read online?

Scientists have "sometimes been wrong?" It's so cute that you say that yet you tell me to research some history. Historically, scientists have always been "proven" wrong by other scientists, and the same will happen again. It's not a bad thing, with every culling of bad info we get new understandings which lead to new technology.
Did I say my opinions counted much for science? Judging by your comments, I think it's you that doesn't understand the scientific method. Studying cell phone effects on the brain would be impossible in a purely scientific setting (at least for 20 years) because it requires the control group and even the cell phone group to have no contact with the outside world, otherwise the experiment is contaminated and completely unscientific.
You don't research the effects of a particular diet in a 20 year period by letting a guy go out and live his life and checking back occasionally, you would have no way of knowing if he stuck to the diet. See what I am saying?

I do love your assumption of intellectual superiority. I say again, all I see here are strawman arguments. You are arguing against a person that doesn't understand the scientific method, history, and thinks his opinion is scientific, and that person is somebody that you made up as a replacement for me because, for whatever reason, you seem incapable of touching my actual comments.

EDIT: Oh my mistake, the "study" was looking at brain cancer frequency along with cell phone usage. Well you got me there, because as we know all forms of brain tumors are always found. It's pretty obvious to anyone with x-ray vision. You have that, right?
So since we see no increase in reported "brain cancer" with cell phone usage, does that mean that an increase would be further evidence of this happening? You realize that study you described is even more unscientific than my mistaken version of it, right? I suppose we can say that cell phone usage causes breast cancer since that is in fact rising in frequency.

Come to think of it, a lot of cancers seem to be increasing in frequency.
As long as we are blindly believing in the "officials" do you have any comment on the fact that the Word Health Organization stated that the signals were "possibly carcinogenic?"
Huh, that's a big fancy science word, can an expert in science like yourself tell me what that fancy word means?


Can you show me the reported brain cancer cases in the US? I am having trouble finding it. Keep in mind that Forbes isn't exactly the authority on this.

 

[NotJustAPhone]

Keep the discussion civil and on-topic. Personal attacks, insults, or other violations of the forum rules will be dealt with in accordance with the rules. I suggest that those participating in this thread take the opportunity to familiarize themselves with them.

Sent from my Nexus 4

 

[mrsmumbles]

I don't know if anything has been concluded by science yet as far as brain cancer because it's still a relatively short time since cell phones have been in wider use. Plus, usage varies from person to person.

But it's interesting to ponder whether neutrinos which pass through our heads constantly may also effect cancer if they carry the properties of say, passing through UV light first, before they pass through our heads. Given how small they are I guess there's not yet a good way to test for things like that.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2

 

[monsieurms]

Oh heavens, the Forbes article? Keep in mind that Forbes isn't exactly the authority on this.

I cited numerous actual authorities from the Centers for Disease Control to the National Cancer Institute that say roughly the same thing! The point of the Forbes citation was its discussion of actual authoritative results, including the well known Danish study, and the increasingly few holdouts to what has become accepted scientific conclusions by the rest of the scientific community. It was a good summary in lay language of where the research in the field actually stands. That's all.

I'm tempted to respond with tobacco litigation history and the politics of global warming deniers, but there are already too many tangents requiring too much lengthy source material, and new ones popping up all the time. You can certainly have the last word.