Well actually cell phone and other mobile devices emit radiofrequency energy which is a type of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorised as ionizing and non-ionizing. Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer and brain tumours. So actually cell phone radiation can have a lot of unwanted side effects and circumstances if taken in large amounts.

Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans

Obviously it's not healthy, but the amount of radiation is so low, there really wont be any side effects.

Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans

Hello, I hope you have fun debating this topic with me!This first round is just about putting your idea forward and stating what you're going to be talking about, so it's basically an introduction. Don't comment any facts or data or your arguments in general. This is just to give an opinion about the topic then in rounds 2, 3 and 4 you can do your reasons.I strongly believe that cell phone radiation is not safe for humans of any age. So cell phone usage should be reduced.I hope you enjoy debating this important topic with me, future opponent, and may the debate begin!

Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans

Yes, scientists might say that the radio frequency the user receives is not enough to cause any harm to them, but the average person uses their mobile phone for more than 5 hours per day. Think about how much radio frequency your body absorbs during those 5 hours! But it's not just that, majority of people sleep with their phones on their nightstand, turned on and receiving wifi, those are another minimum 7 hours of your body receiving more radio frequency plus carrying it around in your purse or pocket all day. Basically you could be with your phone for the whole 24 hours of a day. I derived this information from a reliable website. Even if you don't use a cell phone for hours each day, research by leading brain imaging researcher Nora D. Volkow, MD of the National Institutes of Health, revealed that after just 50 minutes of cell phone exposure, the emitted radiation increases brain cell activity in the region closest to the cell phone antenna. From: https://articles.mercola.com... We keep on hearing that cell phone radiation has NOTHING to do with brain tumours, cancers, etc. but people think and say this because the damage from cell phone exposure can take many years to surface. There are rarely any initial symptoms, taking for example smoking causing lung cancer, it takes about three to six months for most lung cancers to double their size. Therefore, it could take several years for a typical lung cancer to reach a size at which it could be diagnosed on a chest X-ray. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans

Quite the contrary to the suggestion that cell phones can cause harm to the brain via radiation, some research has shown the opposite to be true[[Joachim Schuz et al. "Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort," Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 2006]]. The radiation from mobile phones has been shown to reduce the chances of the user developing glioma and meningioma.

They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours.

We all know that radiation is bad for us. Yet we fail to recognise the fact that mobile phones are using radiation in order to make contact with another station. Research has shown [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] that higher frequencies of radiation are given out by a phone the further away it is from a base station; those who live further away from these base station and use mobile phones are more likely to develop cancer. This research shows that cell phones are in fact not safe; they cause a disease which we are still very much in ignorance over how to cure.

They can cause cancer

Your whole entire argument on round 3 is based of that article. I'll be telling you why it's not enough information to support your claim. "I derived this information from a reliable website." Just saying that doesn't make it reliable. You have to look on more than one site, and the things you want to look for is ".org" or ".gov"! Anyone can just get a ".com", so you have to be careful. Your site is something I never heard of, and here is another site mentioning the study conducted, and why it isn't conclusive: "A recent small study in people has shown that cell phones may also have some other effects on the brain, although it"s not clear if they"re harmful. The study found that when people had an active cell phone held up to their ear for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone used more glucose than did tissues on the other side of the brain. Glucose is a sugar that normally serves as the brain"s fuel. Glucose use goes up in certain parts of the brain when it is in use, such as when we are thinking, speaking, or moving. The possible health effect, if any, from the increase in glucose use from cell phone energy is unknown." https://www.cancer.org... Notice how it is a ".org" In one study that followed more than 420,000 cellphone users over a 20-year period, researchers found no evidence of a link between cellphones and brain tumors. Another study found an association between cellphones and cancer of the salivary glands. However, only a small number of study participants had malignant tumors. Another study suggested a possible increased risk of glioma " a specific type of brain tumor " for the heaviest cellphone users, but no increase in brain tumor risk overall." https://www.mayoclinic.org... It is also a ".org" Bring me more than an article. When official sites call out that study made and why it's not conclusive, your argument then becomes not conclusive.

Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans

They can cause cancer

Are cellphones safe

Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents.A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world.

mobile phones are a curse for todays youth

That is like trying to overdose on weed. It will take around 100,000 puffs in less than a half an hour to be dangerous. The amounts are so small, no effects really is going to be done. I recieved this from an official website. "The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy. It has been suggested that radiofrequency energy might affect glucose metabolism, but two small studies that examined brain glucose metabolism after use of a cell phone showed inconsistent results. Whereas one study showed increased glucose metabolism in the region of the brain close to the antenna compared with tissues on the opposite side of the brain (2), the other study (3) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where the phone was used. Another study investigated whether exposure to the radiofrequency energy from cell phones affects the flow of blood in the brain and found no evidence of such an effect (4). The authors of these studies noted that the results are preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism are still unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (5). Some contributing factors include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status." Source: https://www.cancer.gov...

Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans

(OK so now this is the fourth and final debating round, first of all good luck to my opponent, you have done really well and your information has been really well researched. :) Now I will move away from the whole 'cancer and tumour' subheading as we have discussed that a bit too much. In my fourth and last point I will be talking about additional health risks (no, not cancer) cell phone radiation causes the body in both genders. These are sleep quality, baby development and pacemaker functioning. I will start by explaining how it affects sleep quality. It doesn't just harm your eyes from the powerful light phones emit but can also cause insomnia, headaches and confusion. The radiation may also disrupt production of the hormone melatonin, which controls your body"s internal rhythms. Baby Development: How it is affected. The national public awareness campaign, called the BabySafe Project, is being coordinated by Grassroots Environmental Education and Environmental Health Trust, and is based on independent scientific research linking exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones during pregnancy to neurological and behavioral problems in offspring that resemble Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. Finally, how cell phone radiation affects pacemakers. For those of you who don't know what a pacemaker is, it is a small machine that helps people with heart conditions like irregular heartbeat and heart block. A pacemaker is a device that gives off electrical impulses to your heart. These make your heart beat more regularly. It consists of a battery, a tiny computer and a generator in a thin metal box, along with wires that connect the pacemaker to your heart. Now for a cell phone's radiation to affect this is a gigantic danger to the person. If it makes the pacemaker suddenly stop working by the cell phone's radiation interfering with the pacemaker's signal it can have even fatal results. The ways they interfere are; -Stopping the pacemaker from delivering the stimulating pulses that regulate the heart's rhythm -Causing the pacemaker to deliver the pulses irregularly -Causing the pacemaker to ignore the heart's own rhythm and deliver pulses at a fixed rate Like I said, this can have even FATAL impacts on the user. So now after all the reasons I have given about how cell phone radiation affects humans, you must be on my side by believing that cell phone radiation is not good for humans. My reasons were, that cell phone radiation can have an impact on brain cancer and tumours, it affects baby development, it affects sleep quality and interferes with pacemakers. These are my reasons why I STRONGLY believe that cell phone radiation is a big NO. Thank you :)

Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans

the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved

Are cellphones safe

It is indeed a true fact that mobiles can cause cancers.When we place a mobile phone near a speaker and make a call to it we may be able to hear a specific sound.This is caused due to radiation..The radiation of the mobiles can pop a popcorn as shown in the following video. Now from this we have understood that mobiles causes radiation.Next is to know whether they are harmful or not to us.We can see that both pop corn and speakers get affected by this radiation.The same effect happens on human beings.The radiation can cause damage to the cells which are nearer to the mobiles while calling.This gets spread from cells to cells and finally will lead to a great effect in humans.If the students are given the permission to own mobiles they would go on calling and calling their friends.What the con said here was there is no problem in using phones.But it indeed has a great effect if children use it for long hours.So they are bad for children........

children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones.

Phones are useful in some cases, but they also can cause cancer from radiation. Here are some links: www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.org... http://www.nydailynews.com... www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/cell_phones._FAQ.html In my first argument, I will only be going over cancer. I apologize for this shortened argument, but I plan to use a different argument in every round. I look forward to your response.

cell phone use good or bad state your debate

There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people’s brains. Because children’s brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.

Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates...

They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours.

Are cellphones safe

\\\Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint/// Most cell phones look like this: http://weblogs.cltv.com... as you can see the phone is made out of metal or shiny plastic, and not lint. \\\I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist./// This is irrelevant. It does exist because to post this argument I had to check on the mobile web to see if you had posted. ===Point=== I. Causes cancer * Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy (radio waves), which is a form of radiation that is under investigation for its effects on the human body (1). * Cellular telephone technology emerged in Europe in the 1980s but did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s. The technology is rapidly changing, so there are few long-term studies of the effects of RF energy from cellular telephones on the human body (1). * The number of cellular telephone users has increased rapidly. As of December 2008, there were more than 270 million subscribers to cellular telephone service in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. This is an increase from 110 million users in 2000 and 208 million users in 2005. Because cell phones are held near the head when in use, therefore, in theory they may cause: Malignant (cancerous) brain tumors such as gliomas Non-cancerous tumors of the brain such as meningiomas Non-cancerous tumors of the nerve connecting the brain to the ear (acoustic neuromas) Non-cancerous tumors of the salivary glands

Cell Phones Are Dangerous

My opponent provided no other definition of child. Therefore we must conclude that he agrees with me that nobody under 18 should own a cell phone or he has failed in his burden of proof. My opponent clearly did not examine my source. The National Cancer Institute is far more reliable than a YouTube video. However, I shall better explain it here. According to the NCI, cell phones emit "radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation" [1] which, yes, may be absorbed by tissues near the ear. Now, ionizing radiation has been shown to increase the risk of cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, like phones, has not. Again, the NCI states that "radiofrequency energy...does not cause DNA damage in cells" and has not been found to "cause cancer in animals" or enhance cancer-causing effects [1]. Thus we cannot conclude cell phones cause cancer. PRO dropped my communication point; please extend it, and vote CON! [1] http://www.cancer.gov...

Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The latest research says that mobile phones do not damage brain cells. Even those earlier studies that suggested there might be a problem thought that people would have to use a cell phone for hours a day for there to be an effect. It is true that there is no 100% proof mobile phones are safe to use, but that is true of any scientific study.

Whilst people may be focusing on the negative effects that radiation may or may not have, there is also the aspect of personal safety. People no longer have to find a phone booth to make an emergency call. People no longer have to have change on them to use that phone box. Mobile phones have saved thousands of lives. With most people having one, if you are out shopping and an accident occurs, you know that there will be many people around who within a matter of seconds would be able to call the police, an ambulance or a fireman depending on what the situation was. This is a speedier way to handle an emergency and the time saved will have already saved thousands of lives. This is compared to no recorded deaths for the radiation caused by mobile phones.

the increase personal safety

This debate gave me hepatitis

Cell Phones Are Dangerous

What you are saying about is cell phones related to humans.The topic is whether it is good for children.A child is a human between the stages of birth and puberty.The brain of a child is more prone to the bad effects of radiation.Please look these and confirm that they are very bad for children. http://healthychild.org... http://www.earthcalm.com... http://www.internationalparentingassociation.org... So from these websites we can confirm a fact that they are bad for children.The mobiles not only emit radiation during calls.A large amount of radiation is also emitted during the other activities by these cell phones.Children usually gets addicted to these and so the effect of these mobile phones in the children is maximum. So i urge the voters to be in the pro side in this debate. I am also thanking my con side for having a wonderful debate with me.........

the increase personal safety

Are cellphones safe

There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people's brains. Because children's brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.

Should we use cell phones in school

lower sperm count

Are cellphones safe

Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road.

Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road.

Banning cell phones in cars

Even though mobile technology has impacted humans lives in some positive ways, they have also caused many tragic situations that, if humanity wasn't addicted to their phones, could have been avoidable. For instance, texting/email/talking on your phone while driving are a major cause of accidents on the roads. 23% of all car accidents (that's almost 3.1 million crashes) are caused by responding to a text or email while driving, 11 teens are killed each day because of this and almost 3500 people died in 2012 because of distracted driving involving a cell phone or various other mobile technologies. Humanity has put so much faith and life into their phones that the younger you start with a cell phone the worst your addition to it will get, people find themselves checking their phone on average 2 times a minute. Teenagers who have lost or left their phone at home go through withdrawals that have the same stress level as a drug addict who haven't had a fix. Due to peoples addictions to their phones this can also increase risks of cancer from the radiation that the phones let off, always having your phone in your pocket can cause the radiation to be exposed to your leg or private regions for almost 14 hours a day.

Mobile Tech Hurts more than Helps

I think we should be worried about the rise in brain cancer and phones the numbers of cancer and phones have been connected even though they'er funding ran out for research does not mean they found a yes or a no they found leads that say a lot though they found a increase in brain tumors after 10+ years of heavy use ( one call per a week) and a lot of people make more than one call a week that is not the even the tip of the iceberg, so tell me what you think.

Should we be worried about cell phone raiation

Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger. Further, allowing the use of hands free sets has been shown to reduce fatalities, especially in adverse weather conditions through drivers being able to report their status to their loved ones and the local authorities should things become too difficult for them to handle.[1] [1] Stuckey, Mike. “Hands-free phones are lifesavers, study says.” MSNBC. 13/5/2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24580099/#.TtwFTfJVO90

Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous

People succumb to their mobile and drive whilst on the phone

Are cellphones safe

They make people too reliant on them.

Are cellphones safe

Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impair concentration and reactions in braking tests. For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned. Further, "Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed.[1] [1] Healy, Melissa. “Hands-Free cellphone use while driving won’t make the roads safe, studies show. Why? Brain Overload.” 30/06/2008 http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-cells30-2008jun30,0,3192911.story

Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous

Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint.. therefore they are of no harm to anyone.. I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist.

Cell Phones Are Dangerous

Cell phone use within cars is consistently linked with an increased chance of an accident. This is because if a driver only has a single hand on the wheel he lacks the ability to control the car properly. Further, with both hands free and normal sets, the driver has their hearing incredibly impaired by the phone call, reducing their ability to react to certain hazards. Dialling the phone itself results in an even worse outcome as it takes the concentration of the driver away more, by forcing them to look at the phone instead of the road. Estimates indicate that such phone use has led to the death of 2,600 drivers annually in the U.S. Further, having a cell phone in the car and fumbling for it when it rings often causes accidents due to the distraction that it presents, firstly psychologically because of the noise going off, secondly due to the fact that both hands again would not be on the steering wheel to control the car.[1] [1] “Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.” The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008 http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/484395

Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard

Patrick Dudley, who authored the report with Robert Hahn, American Enterprise Institution-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. "The Disconnect Between Law and Policy Analysis: A Case Study of Drivers and Cell Phones." - "The public places a greater cost benefit on the convenience of using phones while driving than it does on safety...We're explaining why the case for a ban isn't there, looking at safety versus economic benefits."

Social benefits of cell phones in cars outweigh risks

"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - "Driving while using cellphones reduces safety margins. Those who assert they know the difference between safe and unsafe use of phones should ask themselves if they are equally confident that the testosterone-loaded 18-year-old rushing from football practice to meet his girlfriend will show the same good judgment when his phone beeps as he approaches in the opposite direction."

Society can't "trust judgement" of drivers with cell phones

"Cell-phone ban may not reduce car wrecks, study says". Sacramento Business Journal. September 16, 2004 - James Prieger an economist at the University of California Davis. - "In our sample, the true effect on accidents is apparently too small to be statistically significant. That is not to say that we think there is no danger at all from using cell phones while driving."

Cell phone bans in cars do not save lives

Resolved that cell phones are dangerous. Please state points why cell phones are not dangerous.

Cell Phones Are Dangerous

The doses delivered by the scanners are tiny by any standard. Passengers would get the same dose in a few minutes in a high-altitude jet, where most of the earth’s atmosphere is not available to shield people from the cosmic rays.[18]

Full-body scanners pose less risk than most natural radiation.

1. Health an safety issues. A child's (say 5-13) brain absorbs 10x more radiation to the brain than adults. An older 'child' (15-18) may be more immune to radiation, but nevertheless, the 'child' will most likely sleep with the phone next to their heads, allowing 10 + or - hours of radiation streaming into the brain and genitalia, which could cause ADHD, autism, damaged reproduction systems, etc. 2. Distraction. You have already gone against this argument but let me expand. If the child took the phone to school, he would be focused on the phone and the new game he got rather than the teacher. His excuse would be "notes" or "the interactive textbook". And for older children, they would focus on the phones, instead of interacting with others. Most parent won't object to this, in today's culture. Exploring an smart phone not quite exploring technology. The creators of smart phones have made it extremely easy to navigate. Unless they were taking it apart, it's not really exploring technology. I believe there are alternatives to a technological education. One of the safest is a desktop, this also provides the parents with easier ways to make sure the child is doing what heshe is supposed to be doing. I suggest visiting this page for reasons why children should not have smartphones. It was also one of my sources. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones.

These studies were based on people who had been using phones for 2-5 years, but this does not show the long term effects. Like smoking, using a phone for 2-5 years probably does not significantly increase your risk of cancer. However, after 10 years, I fear the story is different. A minority of small case studies have been conducted in this area, and they to the contrary show that such prolonged use does in fact lead to higher percentage of rare brain tumours. This was also shown to occur on the side of the head on which the participants used to listen to the phone with.

the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved

Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children. Through calls and texts, parents can know where their child is and be reassured that he or she is safe. And in an emergency, young people can summon help quickly.\ Yes, some children carrying phones have been robbed, but thieves are always after something new. Phones now are both much more widespread and security coded, so there is little point in stealing them. If security is your concern, ban the latest personal MP3 and DVD players instead. Traffic accidents should be blamed on bad safety education rather than phones.\

Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children....

Clearly, using a mobile phone while driving can be dangerous in some circumstances, but equally it is not dangerous in many situations, for example while the car is at a standstill in gridlocked traffic, while waiting at traffic lights, or on a quiet road with good visibility ahead. Other things in the car can be at least as distracting, such as eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimises mobile phone users under all conditions, while ignoring many other causes of accidents.

Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand...

Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - "Cell phone subscribership in the United States has grown dramatically in recent years, from 92,000 people in 1985 to more than 77 million in 1999. A recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey reports that 44 percent of drivers have a cell phone with them while driving, a number that will only increase with the proliferation of phone ownership. We calculated that car accidents associated with phone use account for about 300 deaths per year. While small in comparison to the 41,000 annual deaths from car accidents, these deaths raise the question whether cell phone use while driving is justifiable. We think a ban is unwise at this time because vehicular cell phone use provides substantial personal and societal benefits, but does not contribute to a large number of serious accidents."

Cell phone use in cars does not cause many accidents

Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - "A prudent regard for safety doesn't imply cell phones should be banned. Americans are willing to tolerate some 41,000 annually deaths from car accidents. If we wish to decisively curtail automobile deaths, the national speed limit should be set at 10 miles per hour and vigorously enforced--yet we're not willing to do that, because that inconvenience outweighs the pleasure and efficiency of being able to get places quickly."

Banning cell phones is not the best way to save lives

Cell phones cause people to die. Family members lose their own children, own siblings or parents. They have to go their rest of their life with out those people. Yes phones do need to be used during emergencies, that's ok. But it's not right to text and drive or use your phone just to call someone. If you look down for a split second to read a text message, in that split second a little kid can come running out from behind a car because his ball went in the street. Then next thing you know your sitting in a jail cell for murder. And that family lost their precious little five year old. If your texting and looking down and back up every other second and the next second you look up there is a car in a dead stop on the high way and you don't have enough reaction time to swerve, to you re end them and kill a full car that has the whole family in it. You are responsible for all the deaths of the family and your in jail for just that one message. So therefore texting and calling while operating a vehicle Is not right.

Phones

"Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents." -->Which if true, is the reason why many states and countries are implementing a hands-free rule when driving. Only blue tooth headsets will be allowed, to allow the driver to pay more attention to driving his/her car. ".A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world." --> A claim that is not backed up with a link or a reference to verify such a claim. As I have shown in my previous round, studies of up to 10 years show minimal to no cancer effects from cell phone usage. ~Conclusion~ No references and 3 forfeited rounds should obligate a vote for Con. My opponent has failed to show how cell phones are the curse for today's youth, and even dropped one of his points in the beginning.

This round is ONLY for defence and conclusions.1)"Are you not aware that many things in are every day life emit radiation?"How many of those things do you carry with yourself which are constantly in contact with your body, with just some clothe layers in between? X rays are harmful for the body to some extent. Air won't have so much radiation, it will be basically negligible. The sun gives of way more radiation than a phone. Absolutely right. But all of that radiation doest not reach to us. It is a small fraction. And even that fraction does harm like SKIN CANCER if you spend too long in it, GUESS WHAT A DEVICE IN YOUR BREAST POCKET CONSTANTLY EMITING RADIATIONS BECAUSE IT HAS TO CONNECT TO THE TOWERS AND WIFI AND WHAT NOT WILL DO. 2) "toddlers cannot participate in any official sport till the age of 6" Physical development doesn't need 'official' games. It requires baby games like tickling the kid, exercising his body, etc. And why did you choose the age 6? Official means - "having the approval or authorization of an authority or public body" The games little kids play are not unofficial. They are not offending anyone by playing copycat with their parents. "Children will also by natural run around and play, the phone will not provide an obstacle for the children if the parents manage it properly" They won't sit all day with the phones. But something like a smart phone is addictive for a small kid. Who hasn't seen videos on youtube, of adorable babies playing on a smart phone, and when it is taken from them, they start crying. Brain development at childhood is not SUCH a big problem that something like a smart phone is needed to help. Babies' brains used to develop just as well when smart phones were not given away so carelessly to them, assuming that it is 'helping'.3) "Procrastination can be controlled by the parent and its there responsibility to dictate phone time."Easier said than done. When it comes to young teenagers, they can just sneak the smart phone out at night. Even if parents give a fixed time, it's hard for me to believe that more than 10% of those people at an age that humans tend to be the most stubborn at, will follow it. It is also not efficient for the parents to keep a check on the kid ALL the time since they have their own lives to deal with too.4) "Books can be used yes, but googling can allow you to scroll through the information faster and become more multi perspective."Know about the Google effect? The Google effect, also called digital amnesia, is the tendency to forget information that can be found readily online. According to the first study about the Google effect people are less likely to remember certain details they believe will be accessible online.Now this might sound okay-ish to you, but to me, it sounds pretty bad. It is just dampening, or more suitably, destroying the brain's capabilities. Your brain thinks, "I can look this up the internet without wasting much energy, no need to remember it then" And, a student should not be dealing with such a problem. It will interfere with performance at school. And even in their future, they might be in one of the vast list of jobs that require you to remember many things, from school, from recent affairs, etc. Looking it up the internet every time would be highly inefficient, the brain has to be trained to do good, not be lazy.5)Writing down to practice and reading from a book is the safest way to study. The apps are designed to help, not to be depended upon. 6)"So you make the ignorant claim that you threw your phone out because of negative affects and it should be enforced on other individuals?"Quoting an incident does not mean trying to enforce it on others according to my senses."Lets look at any device, a computer" " So are you also saying that teenagers shouldn't have computers?"If you read my rebuttals, you should know I already have talked why computers are better than phones and won't cause as much harm. It is quite easy to understand why spending (wasting) loads of time on a small lightweight phone is far easier than on a relatively large computer.7)"by the age of 14 most parents have responded that it was okay for there children to watch pornography"Okay this 'fact' is completely absurd. Everything from 'by the age of 14' to 'MOST parents' sounds a bit too farfetched. The source you mentioned speaks about effects of pornography on a couple. We are most definitely NOT talking about effects of porn on relationships here. Most parents would not want their kids to be watching such a thing, because - They are too naive and can get themselves into trouble. Once you are legal age, then you decide whether you want something like that, or stay a good 100 feet away. But we are talking about people less than 16 y/o.8)"I will state that a simple flip phone will be bad for business" The debate topic is whether children should be allowed smart phones or not, NOT how it affects business of the sellers.So, smartphones are bad for kids

Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o)

A World Health Organization study released in 2010 showed that using a mobile for more than half-an-hour a day for ten years increased the risk of a brain tumor. Many public health experts believe that, as serious risks to children could be involved, we cannot wait for science to be conclusive. John Wargo, Ph.D., professor of Environmental Risk and Policy at Yale University and lead author of a report released in February 2012 by US health charity EHHI that "The scientific evidence is sufficiently robust showing that cellular devices pose significant health risks to children and pregnant women." (mobilewise.org) Parents should be building relationships with their children and not relying on cell phones to keep tabs on them. There are many instances where a cell phone is useless, dead battery, poor signal or turned off any of these instances would add to a parents worries about their child. Victims of cyber bullying are the targets of lies or vicious gossip or are victims of impersonation. Most parents of victims have no idea it's happening. Victims often don't want to tell their parents about it; they may be embarrassed or, they may not fully realize that they are being bullied. They know that what is happening makes them feel bad but may not connect with the fact that it is wrong and something that they should tell someone about. Cyber bullying can lead to suicide. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), 4,400 children a year commit suicide and for every child who dies there are 100 suicide attempts. Cyber bullying has been linked to suicide, whether the child is the bully or the one being bullied. Children under 16 should not have cell phones but should supervised by adults.

Ban cell phones for people under 16

"I believe that cell phones should be banned while driving because it poses a threat to other drivers. " Last time I checked, cell phones do not pose threats to other drivers. They are merely electronic devices. "Cell phones often cause accidents. " No, they don't. "Cell phones are a bigger threat of a distraction then radios are. " Prove it. Thank you.

cell phone being banned while driving

Cell Phones are destroying society now a days. When i walk around out in public all i see is kids, adults, etc. with their eyes glued to their phones, today you can't even hold a civil conversation with someone anymore which is dangerous to your health actually Cell Phones can affect your brain activity, for example talking on the phone with another person simply holding a phone to your ear for a extended amount of time increases activity in regions of the brain closest to the antenna. Researchers have found that Glucose metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole increased significantly when the phone was turned on and muted, compared with when it was off (P=0.004). This may be a acute affect but it contributes to reasons of why they are harmful. Social life, i enjoy being able to talk to someone face to face for others it may be different but studies show that social media is causing anxiety Forty-five percent of responders said they feel "worried or uncomfortable" when email and Facebook are inaccessible, while 60 percent of respondents stated "they felt the need to switch off" their phones and computers to secure a full-fledged break from technology. In other words, it's not being on social networks that makes people anxious. It's being away from them. This can cause to depression and other issues. Which is very harmful for a person.

Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good

Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impairs concentration and reactions in braking tests.[8][studies?...] For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned.

Hands-free cell phones are just as distracting to drivers

Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates...

Mobile Phones Used by Children

"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - "Previous attempts to stop motorists using hand-held cellphones foundered in the face of arguments that cellphones are just one form of driver distraction. Eating, loading cassettes or CDs into car stereos, dropped cigarettes and even buzzing insects can be equally hazardous. But cellphone use, which contributed to 26 fatal crashes and 411 injury crashes between 2002 and 2007, is something the Government can do something about now."

Cell phones in cars can be regulated, unlike other distractions

Radiation around nuclear plants is well within safe limits

Nuclear energy

Firstly, it has been found by some studies that cell phone use does not have a statistically significant impact in the reduction of car wrecks.[1] This might be plausible because being able to call ahead to work for example and tell them that you will be late reduces the chance that people will speed on the roads.  It also reduces the chance that you will attempt to weave between traffic to increase your speed even where acceleration might not be possible. Further, given the societal benefits from cell phone use in cars, such as better organisation for the entire population, it seems that a ban on the use of cell phones should not be implemented because the cost of doing so is too great when compared to the benefits allowing phones would confer.[2] [1] Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414 [2] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. “Ban Cell phones In Cars?” Cato.org 29/12/2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414

Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard

Mobiles may help people to connect the people around the world.But the disadvantages or the defects of these mobile phones are much greater specially for kids.Using mobiles by kids for various purposes such as playing,chatting...etc. can cause much disaster in these children.This is because these mobiles give out radiations which can cause a great damage to our brain.This can even lead to cancers among the children.So to avoid this children should not be given their own phones until they reach a specific age.

children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones.

Health Impacts The waste produced by nuclear power emits ionizing radiation, which can cause cancer and other adverse health effects in humans. Exposure to ionizing radiation can occur externally from material released into the air, or internally from the consumption of contaminated food and water. Scientists have concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation, and that even the smallest dose is capable of contributing to the development of cancer.

THW ban the civilian use of nulear power

Social benefits of cell phones in cars outweigh risks

Banning cell phones in cars

"Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show. Why? Brain overload." LA Times. 30 June 2008 - "Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed."

Hands-free phones can cause drivers to scramble for head sets

Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand from the controls, making accidents more likely, while dialling is even worse, as it also requires the user to divert their attention away from the road. Research shows that drivers speaking on a mobile phone have much slower reactions in braking tests than non-users, and are worse even than if they have been drinking.

I start my argument. Best of luck to my respectable opponent :)Health HazardsIn today's times, many parents give even their toddlers tablets and smart phones to play with. Now how could these young ones be expected not to be addicted to something even a mature adult gets addicted to? "An interesting experiment conducted by researchers at the Center for Toddler Development at Barnard College, showed that children between 18 to 36 months old, when given an iPad to play with, were so absorbed, that they did not respond to their names." Smart phones cause addiction at any age, the difference lies in the level of maturity of the person. Now the person might become mature at an age earlier than 15, or not become mentally mature even after crossing 20, but the age 15-16 years has been selected by me as an average for when most people tend to become more responsible, i.e. more mature. AGE 0-5 y/o (toddlers and young kids (brain is in developing phase))If smart phones become an addiction at an early age, they do more harm than good. Radiations being at number one. When you are giving that innocent toddler a smart phone, you are actually giving him/her a radiation emitting box of terror. A child's brain tissues are more absorbent than an adult's, meaning that the radiations will do more harm to the young kids. Bone marrow of an average child absorbs 10X more radiation than an adult's. And as anyone would know, radiations come with a chance of causing diseases such as cancer.Brain development is negatively affected.Substituting physical activities and human interactions with smart phones would never do good, according to the common sense of a sane person. The young kids' brains are developing, they will obviously develop better if they face the physical world themselves, by using their own senses.The counter argument for this is that their are educational games for the kids, but the use of mobile devices in particular online games should support imaginative play instead of trying to use them as a way to keep children busy, which is normally the case.AGE 5-10 y/o ( young students)Hindrance to concentration and focus.Most people, CAN NOT multitask. Switching between two tasks is something that takes up a lot of energy, especially when the task which needs to be switched from is an addiction. A simple 'ding' for a message can and does shift focus of people (more of kids than adults). An average kid will, after checking the message, engage in online chats, games, etc. for the so called '5 minutes'(which ultimately turn out to be hours) before they realise they have not completed the project they had to submit the next day or did not study for the big test the next day. Though, the only difference this causes is that now they kill time by chatting and playing the games while stressing about what will happen the next day, instead of killing time with a calm mind which they were doing earlier.Reduced social skills and face to face interaction.Have you ever read about people who do terrible in interviews and get rejected? Funny stories, eh? This happens mainly because of lack of social skills. And guess what smart phones help in building ? THE LACK OF SOCIAL SKILLS.The age 5 - 10 involves stuff like brain development, learning social skills, learning important values amongst family and friends, starting to know which field best matches with your interests (Do you love learning? Are you good in athletics? Are you an all rounder?) And again guess what smart phones do? STOP ALL OF THIS IMPORTANT BUSINESS FROM HAPPENING IN THE NATURAL WAY!AGE 10 - 15 ('Tweenagers') Apart from the health problems and lack in social skills, the problems which prevail more in this age group are things like increased 'FOMO' (Fear of missing out), sleep disruption, procrastination and increased stress (I had a smart phone for a week when I was in my 'tweens' and I gave it back myself, because I noticed, IN JUST ONE WEEK, how my life was being affected in a bad way from it!) The tweenagers have hormonal changes taking place in them. They are naturally more irritable and irrational. Sleeplessness, procrastination, stress DOES NOT help, believe me, rather, these just help to make them more irritable. Moreover, these kids are more likely to be opened up to things they should not be watching or doing (pornography, etc.). They thus waste an important part of life on worthless activities. Now, the reason most kids get smart phones is because of safety reasons, to be always connected with the parents. But a simple cell phone does exactly the same, help ensure safety without a myriad of disadvantages which a smart phone poses. Till the age of 15 though, most people have developed to become responsible and have the important values hard wired within. Now they are ready to handle the otherwise 'poisoned chalice' to gain more advantages than the inevitable disadvantages. *SOURCES WILL BE MENTIONED IN LAST ROUND*

I believe that cell phones should be banned while driving because it poses a threat to other drivers, Cell phones often cause accidents, and Cell phones are a bigger threat of a distraction then radios are.

cell phone being banned while driving

Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous

legalise the use of cell phones in cars

you have a cell phone yourself and I don't see you having a seizure every time you check a text or text someone a smiley face geez Antonio .....NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT PHONES ARE HARMFUL thanks for using your imagination Mitch

Should we use cell phones in school

"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - In Britain, a study a few years ago, using a driving simulator, found that motorists using hand-held phones took 30 per cent longer to react to hazards than motorists driving under the influence of alcohol and 50 per cent longer than drivers not under the influence.

Using a cell phone in a car is like drunk driving

When mobile phones first came out there was a lot of worry about the possible effect on children’s health. We now know there is little risk. But the advice from health experts is still that children should avoid too much use of mobiles. Experts still worry that the use of mobiles could be linked with behavioural problems in children, this can mean problems such as being disruptive or having difficulty sleeping.

There are possible safety concerns

At the end of the day, it comes down to if you want your kid to have a life outside of the world of a radiating phone that can cause ear cancer :O

Kids should have cell phones

Okay, I'm a little confused because your grammar is bad. I believe I understand, and what ask you to cite your sources.

Should we be worried about cell phone raiation

Radiation only becomes dangerous when absorbed in large quantities, over short periods of time. According to the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, a dose of 100 rem causes a 1.81% increase in the likelihood of cancer in the next 30 years of a person's life. Astronauts inside a spaceship during any of the last 3 large recorded solar flares would have experienced doses of 38 rem; inside of the storm shelter - 8 rem. On the surface of Mars, which offers much radiation protection due to its atmosphere, the unshielded dose would have been 10 rem, the shielded dose 3 rem. In total, radiation doses of 52.0 and 58.4 rem taken on the missions, are well below dangerous thresholds -- even were they to come all at once. [3]

Solar radiation is no major danger to Mars astronauts.

Fumbling for ringing phone while driving is dangerous

Banning cell phones in cars

Radiation only becomes dangerous when absorbed in large quantities, over short periods of time. According to the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, a dose of 100 rem causes a 1.81% increase in the likelihood of cancer in the next 30 years of a person's life. Astronauts inside a spaceship during any of the last 3 large recorded solar flares would have experienced doses of 38 rem; inside of the storm shelter - 8 rem. On the surface of Mars, which offers much radiation protection due to its atmosphere, the unshielded dose would have been 10 rem, the shielded dose 3 rem. In total, radiation doses of 52.0 and 58.4 rem taken on the missions, are well below dangerous thresholds -- even were they to come all at once. [4]

"Editorial: Cell phone law worth pain". Examiner. 3 July 2008 - "California’s brand-new automotive cell phone restrictions can be seen as a sequel to the earlier cold-turkey readjustment — “Seatbelt Withdrawal Pains II.” In other words, don’t worry. Even cell phone addicts will be able to successfully stop driving with phones held to their ears, and the changeover will be worthwhile."

People will adjust to not using cell phones

Full-body scanners pose less risk than most natural radiation.

Full-body scanners at airports

As a person that was heavily attached to cell phones and social media and music while my sophomore years, and i have to say that it does way more harm than good. You were dead on with the "makes people anxious. It's being away from them. This can cause to depression and other issues. Which is very harmful for a person". The effects are unbelievable, and i am blessed from breaking away from this technology addiction. But it's sad to say that, because i am only one person. Many people of today aren't even close to aware of the addiction that some have to their phones. Having headphones in, checking and posting pics to places like facebook and snapchat and etc, only makes people even less aware. Many have to lose the source of addiction before they are able to be cured.

Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good

US National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration: "Drivers should make every effort to pull over in a safe stopping point before using their telephones. In an emergency, drivers should use their best judgement about whether or not to use their telephones."

Cell phones should only be used while driving in dire situations

there bad

Cell Phones

Utah Pscycologists warn against cell phone use while driving. Much in the same way that you put yourself and others at risk by driving drunk, the same occurs when driving while using a cell phone.[5]

Talking on phone equally impairing as drinking and driving.

Passengers are less distracting than cell phones

Banning cell phones in cars

I don't actually own a cell phone, by the way, so I'm not biased here. Cell phone's batteries last for quite awhile. I doubt most power outages last for over 24 hours. Plus, most phones come with car chargers. Power outages don't really affect phone usage at all. I doubt anyone's afraid to sit in their own house without a phone, but if I were walking down to the corner store after dark to pick up a snack, I'd certainly feel safer with a phone in my hand to dial 911 just in case anything happened. Taking advantage of the systems we have set up for safety and convenience isn't codependence. One could argue that computers are just as bad as cell phones, but here you are online.

Phone on the wall, it was better for us all!

Btw. when i got into this debate i thought i was agreeing with the cell phones doing more harm, Lol considering im new to this but yea i messed up

Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good

Mobile phones make children less safe. Firstly they are carrying an expensive fashion item that makes them a target for criminals. Millions of people are robbed of cell phones every year, sometimes with violence. Secondly, many children spend so much time talking on the phone or texting that they are less aware of what is going on around them. Each year young people get run over crossing the street because their attention was on their phone conversation, not the traffic.

Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children....

Mark Brandly. "The Case for Nuclear Power". Virginia Viewpoint. October, 2001: "Nuclear plants release no gaseous pollutants and the amount of radioactivity is miniscule. Those living near a nuclear plant face less radioactivity per capita than is encountered in many normal daily activities."

Radiation around nuclear plants is well within safe limits

I totally agree that children should not be given phones before the age of 14. Nowadays, there are companies which manufacture specially designed mobile phones targeted exclusively to the young children. There are cell phones for kids with pictures of cartoon characters in order to attract the attention of children and increase sales. Kids are a target audience for even mobile phones in today"s age! When children by phones then it has adverse effects on them like: 1.Teachers in schools are complaining of increasing indiscipline in class ever since young children started bringing mobile phones to class. According to these teachers students who bring cell phones to school talk on the phone during class and send messages. They do not pay attention and play on their cell phones during class hours. They thus miss out on lessons being taught and fall behind the other students. Their entire concentration is on the mobile phone and not on their studies. The teachers say that students with mobile phones are uninterested in studies during class hours. Their attention is more on the mobile phone rather than on the blackboard. 2.According to some children who have a cell phone, it is a status symbol for them among the others. The more the phone is modern and stylish, the better because it increases prestige among friends and other schoolmates. Mobile phones have a major effect on children and can bring about undesirable changes in their lifestyle. These children become so obsessed with the phone. They are constantly checking messages, and do not do the important things that young children should do. Instead of spending time playing sports in the fresh air and engaging in other creative activities and hobbies, they spend most of their time on the phone. According to scientists, keeping in continuous contact with people can get addictive. 3.Studies recommend that mobile phones should only be given to children above fourteen years of age. Children below the age of fourteen should not be given mobile phones since their brain is too sensitive to withstand the effects of mobile radiation. Since the tissues in the brain and body are still developing, these radiations can cause cell damage. Due to absorption of radiation, children can have severe health issues. Although adults also get affected by these radiations it will be more severe in children because of increased absorption of these radiation levels. Experts also believe there is a link between childhood cancer and mobile phone usage among children. 4.There are high chances of misuse of the mobile phone, by children who have them. Children may send and receive vulgar messages and pictures. Children can have access to adult websites. 5.We live in a dangerous world where so many incidents of crime against children. Parents of children having mobile phones must take some steps to ensure safety of the child. Parents should warn and keep children aware of the various mobile phone crimes. Sometimes it is possible for a child to get stalked by strangers over the phone. Parents of young children who have a mobile phone must get a post-paid connection and check the cell phone bill when it arrives. I now wait for my opponent to respond and contradict my statements with specific reasons.

Chidren should not be given phones before the age of 14

Dr. Joseph de Beauchamp. Subject: The Telephone. All Experts.com. 27 Mar. 2005 - "Banning cell phone use on the road would save lives and the benefits to society would cancel out the costs of such a ban, according to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.

Savings from a vehicle cell phone ban would offset loses

I Agreed 100%, a big pet peeve of mine is when i talk with someone with headphones in one ear( i find that rude and annoying) and agreeing with you with you with not being able to "stand someone that can't go 5 minutes without checking their phones". I always ask myself if cell phones divide us more rather then unite us, even with social media. And i feel that it does, people of today seem way more divided. I remember trying to get a girls number once and she said "just contact me on Facebook" which i feel is pointless, i would rather get a personal experience and get to know you more through talking face to face(what i like more) rather then being on my phone for a extensive period of time. And you are dead on point with phones leading to depression, many can look like social outcast do to the fact that they never get off their phones and meet new people, many might find it easier to make friends without the effort of using their voice, but i prefer to get to know someone by voice not by text. If i wanted to know someone by text, i would read a biography or autobiography book.

Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good

Throughout history, phones have become so advance that it became a daily part and need in many people lives. But i feel that technology has become so advance that many people feel too attached to them. You can have someone constantly checking their social media page every two minutes, or you can see someone having headphones in, even if someone is currently having a conversation. Many could argue that "phones are important for emergency purposes, but throughout history, many have been able not survive without phones. With the first portable cellphone not being invented until the year 1973, so you have to ask how people survived without them. And many people are said to not even have a cellphone such as myself. Cited: www.theatlantic.com

Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good

PRO claims that I am referring to humans. Is PRO claiming that children are not human? PRO provided no sources for his definition of child. Therefore my definition from Round 1 stands - a young person under age 18. Thus PRO'S argument must include anyone under 18. Again PRO ignored my argument concerning the necessity of phones in a digital age. He concedes them. My opponent provided links but did not support them with arguments. I reaffirm my position. The National Institute of Environmental Health Science states that there is no evidence to link "cell phone use with any adverse health problems" [1]. PRO also provided no proof that radiation is emitted by other activities. We can discount this claim. Even if the radiation was harmful, which I have proven there is no evidence to suggest, PRO is still arguing that no one under 18 should have a phone. I thank PRO for a great debate and urge you to vote CON! [1] http://www.niehs.nih.gov...

Food Irradiation: exposure of food to electron-stripping energy sources. Due to exposure to irradiation, this issue raises health concerns. One concern that is overlooked, but deserves to be addressed, is the health and safety of workers. Workers in tons of fields do dangerous work, including military, police, fire department, nuclear plant workers, and so on. Irradiating food might raise concerns regarding the health for people who do such a thing for a living. However, while valid concerns, they are not serious. For one thing, what makes working dangerous is if there were to be any accidents or disasters. For irradiation facilities, severe accidents aren't possible. (http://uw-food-irradiation.engr.wisc.edu...) Also, unlike uranium at a nuclear power plant, irradiation facilities give off gamma rays, which can be recycled or regenerated, and they have no radioactive waste, which minimizes exposure to radiation from both workers and the public. So if the facilities are safe, then how could anyone justify an argument claiming irradiated food to be dangerous?

Food Irradiation

INTERPHONE [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] completed a study based upon phone use and brain tumours. They specifically found no correlation between the two phenomenon. Given that hand held phones are held to the ear with the antennae near the brain, surely this is where most of the damage would be caused. Given this, it is high time that we stopped scaring ourselves out of using technology and move forward with it

the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved

Arthur Weinreb. "Full-body scanners; it's just common sense." Canada Free Press. January 8, 2010: "The CBC warned that the scanners emit radiation. Well, if ways have been found protect x-ray technicians and others who work with radiation, then the screeners can be protected. And there was nothing to suggest that flyers who get scanned are at risk although when the machines are put into use, that will inevitably come up."

Full-body scans pose no more risk than x-ray machines

Banning cell phones is not the best way to save lives

Banning cell phones in cars

Cell phone use in cars does not cause many accidents

Banning cell phones in cars

driving without due care and attention is a limited charge that can be very difficult to prove. In any case, every time a driver of a moving vehicle uses a mobile phone a potentially dangerous situation is created, as they are much less able to react to events around them. This justifies a specific offence being introduced.

Careless driving laws are inadequate; cell phone ban is necessary.

Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - "Indeed, it is likely that the market will more effectively address cell phone risks than will government intervention. If the cell phone problem becomes serious enough, car insurance companies can classify drivers who use cell phones in higher-risk groups and charge them commensurately higher premiums. Because an insurance company bears the burden of reimbursing injured parties for their losses, a company may decide to charge drivers who use cell phones higher premiums, to compensate for the increased risk that cell phones force the company to assume."

Markets are better at regulating cell phone use in cars

For example, it is responsible to use a cell phone while the car is at a standstill in gridlocked traffic, while waiting at traffic lights, or on a quiet road with good visibility ahead. The driver should be taught to use cell phones on the road with discretion, rather than rigidly banning their use all together.

Citizens' judgement should be trusted in using cell phones

"Radiations being at number one. When you are giving that innocent toddler a smart phone, you are actually giving him/her a radiation emitting box of terror." Are you not aware that many things in are every day life emit radiation? Processed foods, medical xrays and even air. If you walk outside in an urban environment you will soak in just as much radiation as you would being on your phone. Even are sun gives off MORE radiation than a cell phone, this argument is not concerning as the radiation a cell phone emits is VERY little in comparison to objects in our everyday lives. http://www.livescience.com... "Substituting physical activities and human interactions with smart phones would never do good" Bear in mind that a toddler is between the age of 0 and 5, and toddlers cannot participate in any official sport till the age of 6. Children will also by natural run around and play, the phone will not provide an obstacle for the children if the parents manage it properly. Children can also learn a lot from IPad applications, I work in the special needs department at my school and we give them phones/ipads to give them educational and brain games. This only helps there social interaction and makes them learn something new. "Most people, CAN NOT multitask. Switching between two tasks is something that takes up a lot of energy, especially when the task which needs to be switched from is an addiction" Procrastination can be controlled by the parent and its there responsibility to dictate phone time. Banning phone use will negate a lot of opportunities a lot of present day applications use. Education brain games can be crucial and can help a lot of developing kids, as technology if used properly will make people smarter. Books can be used yes, but googling can allow you to scroll through the information faster and become more multi perspective. http://www.usatoday.com... "The age 5 - 10 involves stuff like brain development, learning social skills, learning important values amongst family and friends, starting to know which field best matches with your interests " In the article above the school uses smart phones to help kids with brain stimulating activities, it can also provide benefits to many children as well, as it can help them learn a wider array of topics. Learning important values among family members and friends will come through social interaction. Regardless if you have a phone or not, you will be able to develop social skills as elementary schools will enforce it. Family values do not correlate to whether someone has a phone or not, I actually do not see how you can even find that compatible. Family values should be taught by the family members, and I was able to learn and adapt to my family's expectations even getting a phone at the age of 10. "AGE 10 - 15 ('Tweenagers') Apart from the health problems and lack in social skills, the problems which prevail more in this age group are things like increased 'FOMO' (Fear of missing out), sleep disruption, procrastination and increased stress (I had a smart phone for a week when I was in my 'tweens' and I gave it back myself, because I noticed, IN JUST ONE WEEK, how my life was being affected in a bad way from it!) " So you make the ignorant claim that you threw your phone out because of negative affects and it should be enforced on other individuals? Lets look at any device, a computer. If you're on the computer for to long, the same affects will develop. Being on the computer will disrupt sleep, make you procrastinate and increase your stress. However phones have also debunked my stress because I use it to communicate with friends, talk to family members from faraway lands and use it to learn. A flip phone will prevent you from communicating from long distance relatives as well, unless you want to pay extra money. So are you also saying that teenagers shouldn't have computers? "Moreover, these kids are more likely to be opened up to things they should not be watching or doing (pornography, etc.). " I don't know what household you grew up in, but by the age of 14 most parents have responded that it was okay for there children to watch pornography, unless you align yourself with a different religion. It actually has a lot of benefits and can help kids understand what it really is. You may be saying it puts them in a different mindset, but they will be brought into the mindset regardless as teenagers and their surroundings, if you truly dislike that mentality, send your kid to a private school. http://sexuality.about.com... In your last argument, I will state that a simple flip phone will be bad for business. No one wants to manufacture them and its a waste of money, all in all a cell phone an is unconstitutional and should be left by the parent. I will conclude there

Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o)

Physically holding a handset removes one hand from the controls, making accidents more likely, while dialling is even worse, as it also requires the user to divert their attention away from the road. Research shows that drivers speaking on a mobile phone have much slower reactions in braking tests than non-users, and are worse even than if they have been drinking.[1] Such cell phone use has led, according to some estimates, to the death of roughly 2,600 drivers annually.[2]

Cell phone use in cars impairs driving, causes accidents

Nuclear reactors are very dangerous and threaten the safety of human lives. Radiation caused by the nuclear reactors there are two. First, direct radiation, which occurs when the radiation emitted by radioactive directly on the skin or the human body. Second, indirect radiation. Indirect radiation is radiation that occurs through contaminated food and drink radioactive substances, either through air, water, or other media. Both the radiation directly or indirectly, will affect organ function through cell-cell formation. Organs that are sensitive to and become damaged. Cells of the body when contaminated radioactive description as follows: the occurrence of ionizing radiation can damage the relationship between the atomic cell with molecules of life, can also alter the condition of the atom itself, alter the original function of the cell or even to kill him. In principle, there are three due to radiation can affect cells. First, the cell will die. Second, there was a doubling of the cell, can eventually lead to cancer, and the third, damage can occur in the egg or testes, which will start the process of deformed babies. In addition, also cause burns and an increasing number of cancer patients (thyroid and cardiovascular) as much as 30-50% in Hryvnia, respiratory inflammation, and inhibition of the respiratory tract, as well as psychological problems and stress resulting from radiation leaks. There are some latent dangers of nuclear power plants that need to be considered. First, human error (human error) which may cause leakage, which is a very broad range of radiation and be fatal for the environment and living things. Secondly, one of which is generated by nuclear power plants, namely Plutonium has a very powerful warhead. Plutonium Because of this, one of the raw material for making nuclear weapons. Hiroshima city destroyed simply by 5 kg of plutonium. Third, the waste generated (Uranium) can affect genetics. In addition, nuclear power emits radioactive radiation that are dangerous to humans. THINK IT OVER! NUCLEAR REACTOR IS HARMFUL!

Go Nuclear