Are cell phones safe?
Debate Rounds (4)
The radiation emitted by a cell phone can penetrate 4 - 6 cm (1.6 - 2.4 in) into an adult human brain. The amount of RF absorbed into the head can be reduced by using a wired ear-piece (not a Bluetooth) rather than placing the phone against the ear.
The Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute issued a warning  to faculty and staff on July 24, 2008 to decrease cell phone exposure due to a possible connection between cell phone radiation and brain tumors. His warning prompted a congressional hearing on cell phone use and tumors. 
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) announced on May 31, 2011 that it had added cell phone radiation to its list of physical agents which are "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (group 2B agents).  Other group 2B agents include coffee, DDT, pickled vegetables, and lead.
On Oct. 20, 2011 the British Medical Journal published a study of 358,403 Danish citizens " the largest study of its kind to date " which concluded that "there was no association between tumors of the central nervous system or brain and long term (10 years +) use of mobile phones."
I would also like to point out that when my opponent gave THIS piece of evidence, my opponent also gave a piece of evidence of the Director of the Pittsburgh Cancer Institute warned people of a possible connection. However, this evidence is invalid, mostly due to the fact that the evidence submitted that helps MY case was posted in 2011, while the evidence to help my opponent was posted in 2008, meaning that the evidence helping me is more current and up-to-date.
Furthermore, I acknowledge my opponents evidence from the World Health Organization, but I will again mention that it's information, while more current than the information from 2008, is still five months behind, making my evidence my current, once again.
Finally, I will bring up my own evidence from the very same site that I believe my opponent gained their information from, (procon.org) and will use evidence from said website.
According to the website, Radiofrequency radiation from cell phones is non-ionizing and is not powerful enough to cause cancer. Ionizing radiation, including x-rays and ultraviolet light, produces molecules called ions that have either too many or too few electrons. However, radiation emitted from cell phones, radios, and televisions, is NON-IONIZING. This means there is no harm from cell phones in terms of cancer.
According to the same website, all devices that my opponent has mentioned before, being cordless phones, radios, and televisions, emit the same type of radio frequency radiation, and have been doing so since 1893, if these devices are deemed safe, why are cell phones any different?
kittyy forfeited this round.
Apparently, my opponent has failed to respond to the debate, either purposefully ignoring the fact that it was their turn, or simply accidentially forgetting to respond to the time parameters that they themselves set. Since my opponent's news feed states that their last activity was starting another debate roughly 23 hours ago, and the time to post a reponse is three days, it can be assumed that my opponent has purpsefully neglected their turn. That said, I will use this oppurtunity to build my arguments, since there are no arguments for me to refute.
Please note that, unless stated otherwise, the following arguments will come from the same website I used in Round 1. This will be shown with a  at the end of each argument.
According to the Federal Communications Commision (FCC), the amount of radiation that cell phones give off, have been, in fact, tested, and certified, to be within safe levels, this furthers my argument that, though cell phones do give off a very insignificant amount of radiation, it is, in fact, deemed safe to use cell phones. 
US governement agencies, like the FCC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there is no scientific literature proving absolutely that cell phones are connecting to causing brain tumors or other health problems. In fact, according to the FDA, "attempts to replicate and confirm the few studies that did show a connection between cell phone radiation and head tumors have failed." This means that the FDA attempted to make the same tests happen again to test their legitimacy, and all the tests failed to prove a connection. This directly contradicts Con's argument that an increase in cell phone exposure causes tumors. 
Finally, Con claims, using evidence, that brain tumors and cell phone usage is linked. If this is the case, I have a question for Con. Do you use a Cell Phone? If so, do you have cancer? Let me ask the judges the same question. Do you all use cell phones? If any of you said yes, do YOU have cancer? I, also, have a cell phone, and I don't have cancer. In fact, according to the National Cancer Institute, there was NO increase of brain cancers from between the years of 1987 to 2005 despite the fact that cell phone use increase DRAMATICALLY during those same years. 
I hope that in Round 3 my opponent will respond in a proper time and have an argument for me to tackle. In the meantime...
Back to Con.
1 - http://cellphones.procon.org...
kittyy forfeited this round.
Well, that's disappointing. Oh well, guess I might as well do SOMETHING to help myself.
So, in R2, I clearly stated arguments, and even used Con's sources against them. In doing this, I also showed that Con has, accidentially or intentionally, directly copied from their source.
Also, as I have no arguments to refute, I will say that my opponent has, presumably, intentionally forfeited this round. I will go proving this the same way I did the last time my opponent forfeited.
According to Con's DDO profile, the last time of activity was roughly 8 hours ago. Please note that it was Con who set the limit of time alotted for a person to respond. It is because of this fact, and the fact that Con was online less than 9 hours ago that I say they forfeited intentionally.
However, it does seem that Con forfeits a lot of rounds. So I won't hold it against them. Maybe they're just busy or something.
kittyy forfeited this round.
Con has forfeited every argument, except for Round 1. Therefore, I would like the judges to vote Pro. Thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Valkrin 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.