Cell Phone Jammer.....

[qviri]

More hazardous than automobiles? Really?

More hazardous to our health, yes; really. Or were you referring to car accidents as hazardous to our health? If so, please define what falls under hazardous to your / our health please.

If I may use a buzzword, TCO, Total Cost of Ownership. What was added to the system due to the introduction of the item? What wouldn't happen if it was never invented?

In case of cell phones, it includes radiation exposure, injuries due to malfunctioning equipment (exploding batteries or whatnot), all sorts of accidents that can be directly traced to cell phone usage (lack of concentration, etc), and costs associated with the society's dependency on cell phones.

In case of automobiles, it includes any and all accidents involving automobiles, costs associated with society's dependency on the automobile, as well as all pollution directly or indirectly caused by the automobiles since their introduction, as well as its effects.

Because humans aren't perfect, accidents will happen and need to be included in the TCO. An accident while using the phone may involve said phone falling to the floor. If the phone is on the heavier side, some foot injury may result. An accident while using the automobile may involve a 1t chunk of metal and plastic quickly coming to rest as a result of a collision with another 1t chunk of metal and plastic.

It is possible for an accident to occur during, and due to, simultaneous use of both the phone and the automobile. Since the accident wouldn't happen if either of the items were not introduced, it will be counted in the TCO of both items.

What definition of usefulness are we using here anyway?

I’m excluding faster text messaging, excluding surfing on your mobile phone as usefulness. Those are not useful enough (if you like) pointers, to motivate a system that is as hazardous to humans and wildlife as this 3G system is.

Consider having an ability to teleport. However, every time you teleport, a person somewhere in the world dies. You would be a horrible person to use this ability (except maybe to save many more people from certain death), but that doesn't mean the ability itself is not useful.

Whether a 3G network is useful enough to warrant its use depends on your point of view, and probably your data. But even if it as hazardous as you claim it is (no opinion here as I have not done the research) does not mean that it is completely useless, as you had claimed earlier.

Actually yes, here in Sweden it has been of no real use, unless you view faster text messaging and surfing on your mobile phone as a “valid useâ€

[Das_Saunamies]

Not even getting into the disputed facts and figures on the supposed health issues regarding RF and cellphones(I would like less radiation please, bought DLAN instead of WiFi for that precise reason), I'd just like to point out that society can adjust to jammers, just like we have adjusted to cellphones. A bit of backlash is long overdue. I'd also like to see some verifiable sources quoted on this, instead of people just typing out what they think is the state of things - especially when it's serious issues we're discussing here. I'm personally well aware of test results showing that cellphone radiation affects the brain, but for better, worse or to no significant degree... unknown.

Returning to the cinema example: it's not like the doctor is always available even if his cellphone isn't being jammed - battery could be dead, reception could be poor in any case or he just might be considerate and have it switched off - not to mention having forgotten it home. A cellphone should clearly not be the only method for reaching a life-saving professional, they are not reliable enough.

If used right, the jammers should be limited enough to allow calls from the cinema's lobby or outside the fire doors. Both accessible in case of an emergency(admittedly not enough to reach the doc, but see above) for 911 calls and more. In the absence of common sense and successful parenting, 'controlled environments' sound very appealing to me. Just like music is used to create an atmosphere, the jammers could be used to preserve it.

I personally like cellphones(even though my ears felt hot with the early models, definitely too powerful). They make a lot of things easier, and act as personal security devices. Wouldn't want to be stranded in the woods on a cold winter day without one. But 3G et cetera, I'm having my doubts about the health effects as transmitting power, and radiation intensity, increases. Personally I think hotspots are quite enough for internet access, navigation and such shouldn't need reception anyway as you can fit all the maps and updates on a memory card.

PS. What do you think the twentyfold number of emergency calls from callers in an emergency situation does to call centers? Not only do the lines get full(a heart attack while a train crash on fire has 911 busy? tough.) but the amount of misinformation and redundant calls must be staggering.

[Plissken]

Please, don’t insult my intelligence, others intelligence, and perhaps more importantly so; your own, by using main stream media as a source for accurate information and a base for arguing that it would not be harmful.

I'm not using the mainstream media as a basis of an argument (I don't think I've ever done that!) I'm using their lack of reporting on it, along with the countless studies that have shown these transmissions to be safe. I commend you on your mission to get the media to report the dangers of these high-speed transmissions, and look forward to your progress reports.

[fastturtle]

Yea: Turn on your jammer and end up with a Trauma Doctor or nurse who can't respond to a call. Or how about the parent who gets an emergency phone call from the police that there house burned down but the children are safe because of quick thinking baby sitter?

Even better. your sitting at dinner and get a call that the your teen son/daughter's been in accident. Bus/car/train what ever and you need to get to the Hospital ASAP

And yet, everyone of these are jammed by irresponsible fools along with the interference created on police/fire/paramedic frequencies because of the extraneous noise created by your home built jammer.

As you can tell, although I dislike people being rude and not being able to disconnect, there are folks who absolutely have to stay connected so instead of jamming their phones, why not require them to turn the ringer off and go to vibrator mode? Allows them to stay in touch if needed while ensuring a ringing phone doesn't disturb everyone else and if it does ring and they can't keep from yaking, then politiely ask em to take speak quietly or use their headset?

[Das_Saunamies]

As you can tell, although I dislike people being rude and not being able to disconnect, there are folks who absolutely have to stay connected so instead of jamming their phones, why not require them to turn the ringer off and go to vibrator mode? Allows them to stay in touch if needed while ensuring a ringing phone doesn't disturb everyone else and if it does ring and they can't keep from yaking, then politiely ask em to take speak quietly or use their headset?

It's already required. People don't obey. Especially the people who do NOT need to stay in touch 24/7. I welcome the jammers, and hope they will be studied and made safe to use.

[qviri]

It's already required. People don't obey.

So then should the police shoot out the tires of everyone exceeding the speed limit?

[maria_]

It's already required. People don't obey.

So then should the police shoot out the tires of everyone exceeding the speed limit?

Police have already their own mechanisms in place -- like giving speeding tickets. If you exceed the speeding limit, you risk parting with your money, therefore you would be hesitant to do so.

If you shout your lungs out in a cinema or a restaurant, no financial consequences are present and you are likely be a habitual nuisance repeating the same unrefined behaviour everywhere unless someone throw a bottle on your head once. I am positive i have stopped few of those in my lifetime... But how many bottles can i throw?

[Bluefront]

I'm with Maria on that.....but I don't throw bottles. There has to be a way to stop rude/useless/annoying cell-phone usage. A short range jammer seems to be a good response. Nobody gets hurt, no police involved, and the jamming would end when the offending cell-phone is outside your range of hearing.

As to the emergency call thing.....if you think hard enough you can find an excuse to continue your own bad manners/behavior, when anything is involved.

[qviri]

I'm with Maria on that.....but I don't throw bottles. There has to be a way to stop rude/useless/annoying cell-phone usage.

There is, it's called "asking someone to tone it down". If they don't, you have a different problem, and that's one of an inconsiderate asshole - cell phone or not.

A short range jammer seems to be a good response. Nobody gets hurt, no police involved, and the jamming would end when the offending cell-phone is outside your range of hearing.

Except it doesn't actually deal with the problem. It's the cellular equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating "la la la I can't hear you." Chances are, as soon as the offender is out of the range of your wonder box, he'll continue just what he was doing without thinking twice about why his call dropped earlier. He'll probably call someone and loudly relate the story of an odd coverage black-out...

As to the emergency call thing.....if you think hard enough you can find an excuse to continue your own bad manners/behavior, when anything is involved.

Dude, I don't even own a cellphone. Save the sniping for someone else.

It's already required. People don't obey.

So then should the police shoot out the tires of everyone exceeding the speed limit?

Police have already their own mechanisms in place -- like giving speeding tickets. If you exceed the speeding limit, you risk parting with your money, therefore you would be hesitant to do so.

I don't know where you live, but around here (oops... just noticed I blanked my location field too, southern Ontario, Canada), not many people seem to be terrified of the prospect of receiving a ticket for exceeding the limit by 10 or 20 km/h. The average speed on the main highway (100 km/h limit) is easily 115-120 km/h. If the usual method (ticketing, asking people to STFU) doesn't work, we should clearly switch to more effective ones (jamming everyone's signal, blowing out everyone's tires) without trying the basic one first, correct?

If you ask someone and they don't shut up, fine, do your magic with the wonder box. If a speeder doesn't stop when signalled to by the police, I don't mind harsher methods being used.

If you shout your lungs out in a cinema or a restaurant, no financial consequences are present and you are likely be a habitual nuisance repeating the same unrefined behaviour everywhere unless someone throw a bottle on your head once. I am positive i have stopped few of those in my lifetime... But how many bottles can i throw?

Yes, but the equivalent of enabling a jammer would be to drop a hundred bottles from the ceiling indiscriminately, at everyone in the room, instead of throwing one targeted at the offender. The dude likely won't even guess it was aimed at him.

[maria_]

There is, it's called "asking someone to tone it down". If they don't, you have a different problem, and that's one of an inconsiderate asshole - cell phone or not.

This doesnt work. People this inconsiderate are usually the ones that you cannot talk to tone down in the first place. If you encounter them, you are likely to be offended more by the same person hurling insults at you or abusing you. I have been spared few times since i am a woman, but you are likely to get a good beating in the process when you try to prevent those kind of people.

I had a person beeping his horn at 2 am in he morning for 30 mins nonstop. I woke up from my sleep. I was on the 7th floor. I throw down a bottle of coke on his car. It made such a loud bang and i could see his ceiling bend down and up when it hit. I am sure that person never beeped his horn in his entire life again.

Chances are, as soon as the offender is out of the range of your wonder box, he'll continue just what he was doing without thinking twice about why his call dropped earlier.

Why would i care if he is doing it or not if it no longer bothers me? I am not here to teach people manners. Purpose is to eliminate disturbing acts.

I don't know where you live, but around here (oops... just noticed I blanked my location field too, southern Ontario, Canada), not many people seem to be terrified of the prospect of receiving a ticket for exceeding the limit by 10 or 20 km/h. The average speed on the main highway (100 km/h limit) is easily 115-120 km/h. If the usual method (ticketing, asking people to STFU) doesn't work, we should clearly switch to more effective ones (jamming everyone's signal, blowing out everyone's tires) without trying the basic one first, correct?

Usually there are tougher penalties for speed increases. Where i live, you get a fine... and if you are 50kms/hr above the limit, your car is impounded for 3 months. Like I said, police have their own deterrance mechanisms in place. But furthermore, I live in a place with the highest deaths per accident in the world, and that is why i drive a Vette (more than speed -- answer to the person who accused me of polluting in another thread). I was sick and tired of being pestered every day until i bought a vette. Those road rage guys do not come close any more.

Yes, but the equivalent of enabling a jammer would be to drop a hundred bottles from the ceiling indiscriminately, at everyone in the room, instead of throwing one targeted at the offender. The dude likely won't even guess it was aimed at him.

He doesnt have to know it is aimed at him. He just cannot abuse the others. And as for the others, it doesnt make a difference, if they are not planning to use their phones, they would not notice. If they are planning to use their phones, they are nuisance and effectively eliminated.

[Bluefront]

qviri....In the most dangerous city in the USA, St. Louis, you can get shot for something like "please sir, could you tone down your cell phone conversation". Such things happen all the time here. It's called "dissing" I think, short for "disrespecting".

A jammer would be your safest response around here, short of getting up and leaving. You got another idea?

[qviri]

I think looser gun control can solve this problem. Criminals are intimidated when public is not afraid to own and use guns, correct?

Closing statement in the main argument: I cannot wait for the day when jammers are cheap enough for everyone to own one. That would be interesting.

[Bluefront]

qviri.....the bad guys already have the guns and cell phones, a lifetime supply. Explain how some new law will cause these guns to disappear.

Plus...if for some reason they aren't carrying a gun, they would just beat you to death, with the help of their buddies.

Any more ideas?

[djkest]

It's all good until someone can't call 911 for an emergency. There are plenty of good reasons to use a cell phone, and you have no right to take that ability away from someone, unless you are in a top secret area, or taking a test, or something like that.

I can't believe someone would JAM cell phones to enjoy a quiet dinner. Talk about selfish.

I agree people are annoying, but that is ridiculous.

Also this product would be very useful to terrorists and criminals as well.

[walle]

you can get shot for something like "please sir, could you tone down your cell phone conversation".

Getting shot whilst asking someone to tone down their mobile phone conversation? If so, I would assume that you have some serious issues that need to be addressed, than again; jamming the phones would not solve the problem of being shot at all, now would it? They would start asking people who the hell are jamming the phone, and if no response, or if the person still jams the phone, the numnuts would shoot their fellow human beings regardless. Or so I would assume since it appears as if thou its disrespectful to ask someone to tone the heck down.

A jammer would be your safest response around here, short of getting up and leaving. You got another idea?

Well, I’ve given my view and I would say that getting up and leaving would be your best bet.

I can't believe someone would JAM cell phones to enjoy a quiet dinner. Talk about selfish.

Kind of symptomatic now, wouldn’t you say; after all; shouting and having the darn mobile phone signal on a loud setting whilst also near to shouting during the conversation is equally rude.

I agree people are annoying, but that is ridiculous

.
Yes, I agree but than again; it’s a response to people that obviously don’t know how to behave, don’t understand that respect goes both ways.

Also this product would be very useful to terrorists and criminals as well.

Which terrorists are you referring too, those in power or those living in caves? Terrorists living in caves are the least of concerns for those of us living in the western hemisphere.

[jaganath]

It's all good until someone can't call 911 for an emergency.

we're only talking about jamming signals in restaurants and cinemas, places that are supposed to be quiet anyway. if they want to make a 911 call all they have to do is go outside (in the rare case that someone has a heart attack while watching a film or whatever).

I can't believe someone would JAM cell phones to enjoy a quiet dinner. Talk about selfish.

is that statement supposed to be ironic? you're the jerk bellowing on your mobile phone in the middle of a restaurant, ruining everyone else's evening, and I'm the selfish one?

[djkest]

Who said I'm bellowing during dinner? I happen to agree with you that people are not conscientious about their environment like they should be. Grow up.

Not only illegal, it's imposing your will on other people. It's not acceptable by any means.

Terrorists living in caves aren't the problem.. You dont' do anything in caves. Lets say you want to set off a bomb. If you jammed cell phones, more people could die, or people might have a harder time reporting a suspicious incident or package. Look at all of the recent terror attacks. How many of them happened inside a cave?

How many happened in an area that had cell phone service?

You think if you have a small jammer in a resturaunt that won't effect other people in the surrounding area? What about across the street?

Now instead of bellowing on their cell phones they will just bellow at the waiter, or at someone at the table next to them, or whatever.

Bottom line, you have no right to make this choice.

[maria_]

It's all good until someone can't call 911 for an emergency.

Moot argument. I didn't understand why a person needs to do a 911 call in the middle of cinema or restaurant? There are plenty of people around to help in the first place... It is easier to shout for help or raise your hands/arms/legs whatever than try to find your phone and dial a number. not to mention that those places already have landlines so anyone can call from the landline in case of emergency.

Furthermore, many establishments already have this sort of signal blockage rightfully in place. What about the 911 guys in these places? What do they do?

[djkest]

By the way, fancy resturaunts can have policies about excessive noise. There are also theaters that are going to 18+ showings later at night, or in some instances all together.

But that won't solve everything. Last time I saw a movie there was a drunk guy in front of us in his 20s rambling the whole time. There wasn't even an usher. You'd think 200 people paying $9 a pop and you could get some sort of service.

[maria_]

Lets say you want to set off a bomb.

Most bombs are detonated through cellular signal. With a jammer, you would be making everyone a favor by effectively blocking the bomb as well if you are already that close.

You think if you have a small jammer in a resturaunt that won't effect other people in the surrounding area? What about across the street?

We are talking about those with a limited radius -- usually 5-10 meters in diameter. People in the street are not stationary -- Even if you managed to block them, they would be off your coverage shortly.

Bottom line, you have no right to make this choice.

I think i do. And I already did.

[djkest]

Furthermore, many establishments already have this sort of signal blockage rightfully in place. What about the 911 guys in these places? What do they do?

If it is illegal, how is this already in place?

Btw, if you are concerned about global warming, you should impose your will on other people. Why not slash their car tires so they are forced to walk home?

Have you ever heard the phrase "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" ? Same thing in this scenario. You can choose to not be disruptive in public, you can't make that choice for someone else.

[maria_]

I think looser gun control can solve this problem. Criminals are intimidated when public is not afraid to own and use guns, correct?

I think guns should be banned altogether, but that is another topic. I swear, in my life there have been many moments where i could have shot someone in a moment's rage... but they are still alive since i don't own a gun.

Closing statement in the main argument: I cannot wait for the day when jammers are cheap enough for everyone to own one. That would be interesting.

No difference, still the same people like you and me would buy these -- cheaper or not. 99% of the population belong to rude/inconsiderate/indifferent category. They would not need one of these even if was a dollar each.

[djkest]

I didn't understand why a person needs to do a 911 call in the middle of cinema or restaurant?

Where do you live? Seriously.

I don't understand why a 110 lb woman with no kids needs a gigantic 8-seater SUV, but that is her decision, not mine. I can only hope next time around that she choses something more efficient.

[maria_]

Furthermore, many establishments already have this sort of signal blockage rightfully in place. What about the 911 guys in these places? What do they do?

If it is illegal, how is this already in place?

I don't know if illegal or legal in where i live. But some cinemas, concert halls, etc. do have these already.

Btw, if you are concerned about global warming, you should impose your will on other people. Why not slash their car tires so they are forced to walk home?

You are talking about physical harm -- that is vandalism.
[/quote]

[maria_]

I didn't understand why a person needs to do a 911 call in the middle of cinema or restaurant?

Where do you live? Seriously.

Some country in Middle East. I don't understand how location is relevant though. We do not have cinemas with upside down screens or seats on the walls.

I don't understand why a 110 lb woman with no kids needs a gigantic 8-seater SUV, but that is her decision, not mine. I can only hope next time around that she choses something more efficient.

This is her personal choice. And it doesn't affect you directly. She might be feeling safer in a SUV from all those road-rage guys. Environmental issues are not what we are discussing here.

[spookmineer]

It's amazing to me that this is a serious problem in some countries.

I've been to the cinema a lot, and never (ever) heard a cell phone go off during the show. Maybe all of them are going there to just enjoy a movie, and turn the phone off by default, because they don't want to be disturbed.
Maybe there's a different mentality about it here, people just want to enjoy a movie for 1.5 hours or so, and forget about all the rest. People getting a bit of candy and they rustle too much, get "hushhh" from at least a dozen of people.
Going to action movies may drown out some noise though...

I don't go to restaurants a lot, can't comment on that.

[Das_Saunamies]

It's amazing to me that this is a serious problem in some countries.

I've been to the cinema a lot, and never (ever) heard a cell phone go off during the show. Maybe all of them are going there to just enjoy a movie, and turn the phone off by default, because they don't want to be disturbed.
Maybe there's a different mentality about it here, people just want to enjoy a movie for 1.5 hours or so, and forget about all the rest. People getting a bit of candy and they rustle too much, get "hushhh" from at least a dozen of people.
Going to action movies may drown out some noise though...

I don't go to restaurants a lot, can't comment on that.

Wish ours was like that, then these sorts of things wouldn't be necessary in any way, shape or form. Too bad we've been blessed with rude, ignorant and downright arrogant people. Used to be a different nation altogether, but we've just lost the feeling that we belong together as a society, and should take others into consideration. Finland and our middle-class individualism taken to the extreme - sucks.

[Trekmeister]

[quote="walle"]Actually yes, here in Sweden it has been of no real use, unless you view faster text messaging and surfing on your mobile phone as a “valid useâ€

[walle]

Shouting about how incredibly bad it is reminds more of some sensationalist tabloid than of scientific expertice.

Not at all, first you make sure that a system isn’t dangerous to people’s health, prior to launching it. Its called; common sense. What they did here is called…making money, making profit.


Proven facts: birds in Holland have become sterile whilst nesting close to the 3G antennas, due to the radiation.

Talking in a mobile phone for 2 minutes disturbs the brain wave frequencies for two weeks.

30% of cancer amongst young children is caused by electromagnetic radiation, according to Dr. David Carpenter

As early as in November 1989, the department of Energy reported that there are biological effects due to electromagnetic radiation.

To use our own country as an example: a study from Karolinska institute showed that as much as 3 per cent of the population suffers from extreme adverse reactions to electromagnetic fields.

And another one, nothing to worry about at all, I’m sure…

A laboratory study has show that radio waves from mobile phones do harm body cells and damage DNA

Plenty of more information should you need it, (than again, there is the search tool)

Huh? Why do you think there were so much talk about who were to get the rights to use the frequency bands in question?

Not to be snide here, but for the sake of making money. Or what? did you think that so was done on them having received any scientifical proof that the system is safe?

A teaser:

http://www.sarshield.co.uk/pages/straling.htm


Added:

While I can understand that some people are worried about the increasing amount of electromagnetic radiation around us, things has to be put into perspective.

But of course, forgive my (and others) lack of perspective and "ignorance" Everything is relative, right? so nothing to worry about eh.

Now; if you and everyone else wish to live in the bubble (no information given, and with no desire to obtain it) thats fine, to each his own.


cheers

[Reachable]

I won't take a stand on either side, but I will make this point: It's not necessary to have these devices on for a lengthy period of time. If an inconsiderate, rude, and potentially hostile person is yakking away on their cell phone at a place where they shouldn't be, then you turn the jammer on. End of inconsiderate conversation. Total elapsed time -- 30 seconds. Turn the jammer off and the doctor at the next table could get his emergency call. Really important calls generally aren't long in duration and their nature is in any case obvious to those in proximity.