or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone ranks in middle of pack for radiation
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iPhone ranks in middle of pack for radiation

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 
As concerns grow over the potential negative health effects of cell phone radiation, Apple's iPhones have been noted as producing average amounts of radiation, while several Motorola handsets are rated as emitting the most.

On Tuesday, the World Health Organization made headlines when it changed its stance on the potential dangers of mobile phone use. In a study commissioned by WHO, a team of 31 scientists found sufficient evidence to categorize exposure to cell phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans," CNN reports.

WHO previously maintained that no links between cell phone use and adverse health effects had been found. The organization placed mobile phone use in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform and recommended further study of the issue.

The wireless industry quickly responded with damage control, noting that WHO "did not conduct any new research, but rather reviewed published studies."

In a follow-up report, CNN cited a database compiled by the Environmental Working Group, "a lobbying group that advocates on behalf of public health and the environment," listing the radiation levels of numerous mobile phone models. With data through December 2010, the study found that Apple's iPhones were in the middle of the road in terms of Specific Absorption Rate, the measurement used to check how much radiation a body receives from a phone.

The iPhone 4 rated 1.17 watts per kilogram, just below the 1.19 W/kg of the iPhone 3GS. The older iPhone 3G has a lower radiation rate of 1.03 W/kg. The FCC's legal limit for SAR on a mobile phone is 1.6 W/kg.



The phone with the lowest rated radiation emissions was the LG Quantum with just 0.35 W/kg. The phones with the most radiation were the Motorola Bravo and Motorola Droid 2 Global, which tested at 1.59 W/kg and 1.58 W/kg respectively, just below the FCC limit.

The report was quick to point out, however, that the numbers are "only ballpark figures" and actual radiation varies depending on use. Also, no study has conclusively proven that a higher SAR level poses a greater health risk.

Apple's own safety manual for the iPhone 4 cautions: "When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 millimeters (5/8 inch) away from the body."

The iPhone 4 drew criticism last year when reports emerged that the new stainless steel band external antenna design was prone to signal loss when held a certain way. Apple eventually held a press conference to address the situation and gave away free bumper cases to customers, despite the fact that only 0.55 percent of customers had contacted AppleCare regarding the issue.

"It's a challenge for the entire industry, and we're doing the best we can, but every phone has weak spots," said CEO Steve Jobs.
post #2 of 46
What does Antennagate have to do with radiation coming out of the phone? The difference in radiation between the 3GS and 4 was miniscule (and the 4 was actually less).
post #3 of 46
The radiation emitted by ANY cell phone is non-ionizing, meaning that it doesn't have enough energy to harm or even influence a persons body. Basic physics people, all of these studies trying to tie cell phone use to cancer are failing to identify correlative vs causative in their analysis. Electromagnetic "radiation" surrounds us everywhere on the planet at all times, and further more, it always has. Every creature on earth has co-existed with this fundamental force of the universe. Furthermore, the "background density" of the planetary electromagnetic field lines FAR exceeds the .01 to .5 watts a cell phone emits at it's peak. At any rate, unless you are willing live in a Faraday cage, you are being exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Knowing this, it would seem to me that we'd be all better off investing our resources trying to find things that are at least possibly dangerous according to the known laws of physics. Just a thought.
post #4 of 46
Quote:
possibly carcinogenic to humans

To put this into context, also in this category is coffee and coconut oil.

What happens if I bath in coconut oil while drinking coffee and talking on my cell phone? Rapture?
post #5 of 46
They didn't say it was carcenogenic, and they didn't say it wasn't. They said, "It can't be ruled out." So it's "possible" that cell phones cause cancer. It's also possible the caffeine causes cancer, and bacon, and any number of things. Okay, do some research. As a precaution cell manufacturers should probably pay attention to radiation. If there's some easy way to keep the "possible" effects to a minimum, do so. Otherwise, you can't worry about everything.
post #6 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeHumanBeing@Aol.com View Post

Furthermore, the "background density" of the planetary electromagnetic field lines FAR exceeds the .01 to .5 watts a cell phone emits at it's peak rate.

while I agree with your general angle there is more to radiation than power, I'm no trained expert but frequency plays a part, as would distance from source. Sure we have all evolved within an electromagnetic field but not a 2.4 - 5ghz one emitting from within 2 foot of our heads.

Cancer is simply cells reproducing with errors, perhaps due to low telemerese count. If you take the swathe of things damaging us and requiring more cell reproduction, toss in reduced telemerese production and then top it off with a low intensity, high frequency localized source of radiation perhaps we are creating more cell errors than is wise.

It will likely take a generation or two to find out. Just a thought.
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #7 of 46
I would venture to say that personal injury lawyers are funding the studies and encouraging the scare mongering reports. The lawyers see a potential money tree in the making. Unlike asbestos cell phones can never be banned from production as they have become too ingrained into the culture and economy. Lawyers will eventually find a way to attach themselves, like sucker fish, to the underbelly of the cell phone industry and ingest money. It's really quite surprising that a lawsuit has not been filed yet to test the waters, a lawsuit claiming cell phone use caused cancer in some random "victim" of the cell phone industry. I'm positive that it's in the works.
post #8 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeHumanBeing@Aol.com View Post

The radiation emitted by ANY cell phone is non-ionizing, meaning that it doesn't have enough energy to harm or even influence a persons body. Basic physics people, all of these studies trying to tie cell phone use to cancer are failing to identify correlative vs causative in their analysis. Electromagnetic "radiation" surrounds us everywhere on the planet at all times, and further more, it always has. Every creature on earth has co-existed with this fundamental force of the universe. Furthermore, the "background density" of the planetary electromagnetic field lines FAR exceeds the .01 to .5 watts a cell phone emits at it's peak. At any rate, unless you are willing live in a Faraday cage, you are being exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Knowing this, it would seem to me that we'd be all better off investing our resources trying to find things that are at least possibly dangerous according to the known laws of physics. Just a thought.

A very good post, thank you. There are way too many 'research projects' that amount to junk science being picked up by the main stream media these days to grab attention ... simply to sell ads. The sad thing is real science gets damaged by this sort of thing as the masses can't tell the difference.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #9 of 46
The best analysis and perspective on the recent WHO report I've found is from Cancer Research UK, and can be read here:
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk....es-and-cancer/
post #10 of 46
Prediction: More people will be killed from driving/walking or simply not paying attention while using their iPhone than people will get brain cancer from their iPhone. Stupidity: The real killer.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #11 of 46
"As concerns grow over the potential negative health effects of cell phone radiation"

Are concerns growing?
post #12 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mateus109 View Post

To put this into context, also in this category is coffee and coconut oil.

What happens if I bath in coconut oil while drinking coffee and talking on my cell phone? Rapture?

Where did you find the ref to coconut oil? I take this daily, curious.
post #13 of 46
Maybe so, but my girlfriend is an OR nurse. None of the OR surgeons use cell phones directly to the head. They try to use the land line when possible and then speaker phone was necessary. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that the increase in cell phone use has caused tumor growth by where most people would hold a cell phone. That is coming from surgeons at a highly respected medical institution in Michigan who have been dealing with tumors in the head for years and have access to relevant data. There are no serious studies involving the issue because nobody is interested in funding the research. The OR surgeons take precautions, and I trust their judgement more then yours (no offense).

Further, the radiation emitted by phones dropped substantially over the last ten years. Until the last five years, I couldn't use a cell phone period. After two minutes of use I would get a massive headache. I could actually feel the a tingling sensation when the phone was real close. Some people suggest that was just the heat. Maybe, but heat doesn't cause headaches like what I experienced.

My last Nokia phone, I could talk for a while before experiencing a headache. The iPhone is better still.

I can't proof the cell phone was the cause of my headaches anymore then somebody punching me in the nose was the cause of my nose bleed. Nonetheless, the headaches combined with the surgeons view was enough circumstantial evidence for me to take precautions.This is what I use at home. In the car, I use Ford Sync. When away from both, I use speaker phone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeHumanBeing@Aol.com View Post

The radiation emitted by ANY cell phone is non-ionizing, meaning that it doesn't have enough energy to harm or even influence a persons body. Basic physics people, all of these studies trying to tie cell phone use to cancer are failing to identify correlative vs causative in their analysis. Electromagnetic "radiation" surrounds us everywhere on the planet at all times, and further more, it always has. Every creature on earth has co-existed with this fundamental force of the universe. Furthermore, the "background density" of the planetary electromagnetic field lines FAR exceeds the .01 to .5 watts a cell phone emits at it's peak. At any rate, unless you are willing live in a Faraday cage, you are being exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Knowing this, it would seem to me that we'd be all better off investing our resources trying to find things that are at least possibly dangerous according to the known laws of physics. Just a thought.
post #14 of 46
What about walkie talkies and things along that line? What about wireless routers? What about living near radio station towers?

Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad (2nd gen), 14G Ram, Two DVD-RW Drives, OS X 10.9
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, ATI X1600, 2GB RAM, OS X 10.7
1TB Time Capsule

Reply

Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad (2nd gen), 14G Ram, Two DVD-RW Drives, OS X 10.9
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, ATI X1600, 2GB RAM, OS X 10.7
1TB Time Capsule

Reply
post #15 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post

while I agree with your general angle there is more to radiation than power, I'm no trained expert but frequency plays a part, as would distance from source. Sure we have all evolved within an electromagnetic field but not a 2.4 - 5ghz one emitting from within 2 foot of our heads.

Cancer is simply cells reproducing with errors, perhaps due to low telemerese count. If you take the swathe of things damaging us and requiring more cell reproduction, toss in reduced telemerese production and then top it off with a low intensity, high frequency localized source of radiation perhaps we are creating more cell errors than is wise.

It will likely take a generation or two to find out. Just a thought.

Your post shows why data and logic will not change the minds of people who believe radiation from cell phones is dangerous. Numbers, units, and scientific jargon don't guarantee that a statement is correct.
post #16 of 46
I believe that all that is necessary to ensure public safety, is the application of some very traditional telephone technology.
Simply, "reverse the charges".
post #17 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner View Post

Where did you find the ref to coconut oil?

On a BBC radio news report. The point was that cell phones and coconut oil cannot be proven to be not carcinogenic (but it doesn't mean they are).
post #18 of 46
DISCLAIMER: I am a cancer survivor

So here's the deal from my perspective (head nod to TBell) you have a high incidence of potentially carcinogenic substances in the urban environment, from gasoline to nitrites, cleaning solvents, finishing solvents in furniture and cabinetry. Most of this by itself (and as is usually tested) is fine in the usual very minute doses. What has never been done are extensive long-term exposure studies that measure composite sources over an average lifespan.

You also have a high degree of ambient radiation in the environment from cell tower, microwave transmitters, radio transmitters, highway patrol radar guns, bluetooth headsets, cellphones, satnav units, and so on. You sit in a weak magnetic field generated by the Earth, and the wiring in your house also generates fields as well. As in the case of substances in the environment, extensive long-term exposure studies that measure composite sources over an average lifespan haven't been done for this either.

Worse, you have to consider genetic predeliction for cancers, and the level of genetic resistance to cancers. For example, recent studies suggest that by the time a human male is in his 80s something like 90% will have detectable prostate cancer. There is no known study that reports on the levels of naturally occurring ambient carcinogens outside of what we produce over long periods of time, other than where naturally occurring radioactive substances like radon have an impact.

As urban humans we generate comparatively toxic conditions in which to live when you compare density and risk exposure in daily travel and work, compared to less developed areas. Some of this is mitigated by disease control, safety guidelines and rules and laws, but it is still a much more challenging environment. Stop and think about the number of traffic accidents you see or hear about in the course of your week.

Some of you may recall the way X-rays were handled whene they first became popular. They shot whole rooms of people with broad spectrum, high-powered x-rays, not realizing what a potent causative agent it was for cancer. Over the last decades, the amount and type of x-radiation has been refined to the point of high safety, especially compared to its first uses.

As a closing note TBell, I get a headache everytime my cellphone rings no matter how close it is to me - but that is a whole different causation I think.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #19 of 46
You said there have been no serious studies. The World Health Organization just released a study of it. Which is the reason this topic has come up.

What you are talking about is radiation mutating DNA which leads to cancerous cell growth. It is known that mobile phone radiation cannot do this on its own. Its not powerful enough and does not emit the right type of radiation.

What is unknown whether mobile phone radiation in addition to other factors could "possibly" lead to mutated DNA and cancer. That cannot be ruled out completely and is therefore called "possibly".


Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Maybe so, but my girlfriend is an OR nurse. None of the OR surgeons use cell phones directly to the head. They try to use the land line when possible and then speaker phone was necessary. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that the increase in cell phone use has caused tumor growth by where most people would hold a cell phone. That is coming from surgeons at a highly respected medical institution in Michigan who have been dealing with tumors in the head for years and have access to relevant data. There are no serious studies involving the issue because nobody is interested in funding the research. The OR surgeons take precautions, and I trust their judgement more then yours (no offense).
post #20 of 46
Would it be possible to separate the antenna's from the actual phone?:

One could carry a little receiver (containing all the antenna's) in your pocket or backpack. The little device could send the voice/internet/text message to the phone?!
post #21 of 46
To be honest, I want a phone to put out as much radiation as possible, because this means it will perform well during weak signal conditions.

Non-ionizing radiation is harmless. I want MOAR of it.

When I was a kid I played with CB walkie talkies all the time. They put out four WATTS using a rubber duck antenna that was right next to our face when we transmitted. Yet nothing bad happened. Imagine that!

Cel phones put out a tiny fraction of that. People need to stop worrying; my only concern is all this paranoia will result in cel phones that perform poorly because they can't transmit with enough power to be heard by the towers.
post #22 of 46
I agree with SomeHumanBeing because he used big words that seemed to make sense.
post #23 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeHumanBeing@Aol.com View Post

The radiation emitted by ANY cell phone is non-ionizing, meaning that it doesn't have enough energy to harm or even influence a persons body. Basic physics people, all of these studies trying to tie cell phone use to cancer are failing to identify correlative vs causative in their analysis. Electromagnetic "radiation" surrounds us everywhere on the planet at all times, and further more, it always has. Every creature on earth has co-existed with this fundamental force of the universe. Furthermore, the "background density" of the planetary electromagnetic field lines FAR exceeds the .01 to .5 watts a cell phone emits at it's peak. At any rate, unless you are willing live in a Faraday cage, you are being exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Knowing this, it would seem to me that we'd be all better off investing our resources trying to find things that are at least possibly dangerous according to the known laws of physics. Just a thought.

The non-ionizing nature of the radiation from a cell phone certainly rules out the more commonly known mechanisms of cellular damage, but non-ionizing radiation can still have other deleterious effects that vary by power density and frequency.

In general, the effect of non-ionizing radiation that is absorbed (rather than transmitted or reflected) is simple heating, but the absorption depth varies with frequency. If you stand out in the sun then you are receiving a much higher power density than from a cell phone, but the infrared frequencies causing the heating are almost completely non-penetrating, so it is purely surface heating. The skin is good at coping with that without damage. The uncertainty with cell phone radiation is that the absorption depth is much higher in the microwave region (in which there is not a high natural power density), so the heating effect, while smaller in magnitude, is more internal. Whether that can cause significant long-term cell damage at these low power levels is the question that has not been fully resolved.

However, the lack of a statistically significant rise in the cancers implicated in the studies (I believe that is true in the general population) since the advent of the widespread use of cell phones seems to suggest that it is not particularly hazardous.
post #24 of 46
Microwave your brain on HIGH: another thing Droid Does

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #25 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner View Post

"As concerns grow over the potential negative health effects of cell phone radiation"

Are concerns growing?

Yes. About 10 years back, some studies claimed there was no causal link, while other studies said it was inconclusive, and the public went back to using their cell phones like they weren't the new cigarettes. Now we hear there's a link. Uh-oh. Ten years of microwaving our brains. Thanks, science, for the heads up. Now I'm not panicking, just plan to use a headset or speakerphone.

BTW, I knew someone who had an operable brain tumor, it was located right where old cell phone antennas used to be (back when all phones had retractable whip antennas) when he'd hold his phone up to his ear. Gave me pause to think about whether there was a causal link, because brain rumors are fairly rare. Now we know.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #26 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by uRabbit View Post

I agree with SomeHumanBeing because he used big words that seemed to make sense.

Don't listen to him
Take a frozen burrito, put it in the microwave and cook for 3 minutes. That's what non-ionizing radiation can do to you.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #27 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post

... Non-ionizing radiation is harmless. ...

This is the crux of the issue, but, what many fail to understand is that there is a difference between saying,

x is not known to be harmful
we know of no mechanism by which x is harmful

and,

x is harmless [in all circumstances]


This latter claim, that "x is harmless" is essentially impossible to substantiate. It's the classic problem of proving that some thing -- in this case, harm from x under any circumstances -- does not exist. In other words, the fallacy of arguing from ignorance -- we have no knowledge that x is harmful, therefore it is harmless.

So, when one says, "non-ionizing radiation is harmless," all one really knows is that, "it's not been shown that non-ionizing radiation is harmful."

Many things that were once thought to be harmless have later been shown to be harmful. Many things that we were unaware of the mechanism of action have later been described and understood. My favorite example, which I mentioned in an earlier thread on this topic is the mechanism of inheritance.

Darwin argued that traits were passed from parent to offspring, yet, he, and everyone else at the time, was entirely ignorant of the mechanism of inheritance. But, the ignorance of the mechanism didn't prevent traits from being transmitted, it simply represented a hole, later filled in, in the science.

So, to conclude that cell phone radiation is harmless because we don't know of any mechanism by which it can cause specific harm is entirely mistaken. If there are studies that indicate that there's a possibility that cell phone radiation might cause harm, it's foolish to completely ignore or suppress them. It's foolish to pillory those who publish or bring attention to the studies. The intelligent, rational reaction is to engage in more study, and for each person, in the meantime, to make their own cost benefit decisions based on what is known.
post #28 of 46
I did say that. I, however, meant long term studies. The World Health Organization fact sheet can be found here.


It points out that cancer is hard to show a causal relationship over a long period of time and such studies don't exist. In other words, if you start using a cell phone when you are ten, there isn't enough information to conclude that somebody who develops brain cancer at the age twenty five developed the cancer because of the cell phone usage or if such usage increased that person's risk of cancer.

I also disagree that it is know that cell phone exposure can't cause cancerous growth on its own. Perhaps, it is know that it can't cause that effect in the short term. Radio frequency waves don't break chemical bonds nor cause ionization in the human body, like X-rays can do. That speaks nothing to long term effects.

The same report explains that close range contact with the radio waves has immediate effects on the tissue, where the energy from the radio waves is absorbed by the skin and other superficial tissues. This, however, would be more dramatic in children where the radio waves have a shorter way to travel to reach the brain. Other studies also show the radio waves do cause changes in the brain.

In my mind, this explains my immediate headaches. It also is reason to exercise caution. The studies don't go back far enough to give meaningful information to tell us about long term effects (longer then ten to fifteen years).

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You said there have been no serious studies. The World Health Organization just released a study of it. Which is the reason this topic has come up.

What you are talking about is radiation mutating DNA which leads to cancerous cell growth. It is known that mobile phone radiation cannot do this on its own. Its not powerful enough and does not emit the right type of radiation.

What is unknown whether mobile phone radiation in addition to other factors could "possibly" lead to mutated DNA and cancer. That cannot be ruled out completely and is therefore called "possibly".
post #29 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post

To be honest, I want a phone to put out as much radiation as possible, because this means it will perform well during weak signal conditions.

Non-ionizing radiation is harmless. I want MOAR of it.

When I was a kid I played with CB walkie talkies all the time. They put out four WATTS using a rubber duck antenna that was right next to our face when we transmitted. Yet nothing bad happened. Imagine that!

Cel phones put out a tiny fraction of that. People need to stop worrying; my only concern is all this paranoia will result in cel phones that perform poorly because they can't transmit with enough power to be heard by the towers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

This is the crux of the issue, but, what many fail to understand is that there is a difference between saying,

x is not known to be harmful
we know of no mechanism by which x is harmful

and,

x is harmless [in all circumstances]


This latter claim, that "x is harmless" is essentially impossible to substantiate. It's the classic problem of proving that some thing -- in this case, harm from x under any circumstances -- does not exist. In other words, the fallacy of arguing from ignorance -- we have no knowledge that x is harmful, therefore it is harmless.

So, when one says, "non-ionizing radiation is harmless," all one really knows is that, "it's not been shown that non-ionizing radiation is harmful."

Many things that were once thought to be harmless have later been shown to be harmful. Many things that we were unaware of the mechanism of action have later been described and understood. My favorite example, which I mentioned in an earlier thread on this topic is the mechanism of inheritance.

Darwin argued that traits were passed from parent to offspring, yet, he, and everyone else at the time, was entirely ignorant of the mechanism of inheritance. But, the ignorance of the mechanism didn't prevent traits from being transmitted, it simply represented a hole, later filled in, in the science.

So, to conclude that cell phone radiation is harmless because we don't know of any mechanism by which it can cause specific harm is entirely mistaken. If there are studies that indicate that there's a possibility that cell phone radiation might cause harm, it's foolish to completely ignore or suppress them. It's foolish to pillory those who publish or bring attention to the studies. The intelligent, rational reaction is to engage in more study, and for each person, in the meantime, to make their own cost benefit decisions based on what is known.

We can go further than that - there is no question that even non-ionizing radiation can be harmful by direct heating at high enough power densities. We just don't always know the damage thresholds for complex systems. As a more extreme example, bear in mind that UV B is non-ionizing, but can still directly excite molecular bonds in DNA to cause structural modifications.
post #30 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

As concerns grow over the potential negative health effects of cell phone radiation, Apple's iPhones have been noted as producing average amounts of radiation, while several Motorola handsets are rated as emitting the most. [...]

Cancer is caused by the mutation of DNA.

The electromagnetic frequencies required to mutate DNA start at above "visible blue light."

Cell phone network frequencies are 1 million times low than that.

It's amazing how little science the public actually knows.

Here's a slightly better explanation: http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN11/wn052011.html

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #31 of 46
There are studies AND books out there written about the effects of 'Electro-Magnetic Radiation' and 'RF (Radio Frequency) Radiation' from high voltage electrical towers and high power radio transmitters and it's not good.

That being said, there may or may not be enough radiation coming from a cell phone to cause damage. I don't take any chances.....99.9% of the time I'm on the iPhone, I'm using a Bluetooth headset. Then this whole thing becomes a non-issue! AND, you have two hands free to drive, do stuff around the house, etc.......what a novel idea......the stupid phone isn't glued to your hand or ear!!!

I too, used to get headaches from my old Motorola 'Flip phone' (1991 and up). It would heat up, if I was on it for a while and it just 'felt' like the phone next to my head, for long periods of time, was doing something to give me those headaches. That's what got me to thinking, 'maybe it's not so good to have a cell phone right up against your head'...!!! I started to use the 'corded' ear pieces, then moved on to Bluetooth headsets.

We all need to PUT DOWN THE DAMN CELLPHONE SO WE CAN DRIVE anyhow (I did this long, long ago), so get yourself a Bluetooth headset!!!!!!!
post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I did say that. I, however, meant long term studies. The World Health Organization fact sheet can be found here.


It points out that cancer is hard to show a causal relationship over a long period of time and such studies don't exist. In other words, if you start using a cell phone when you are ten, there isn't enough information to conclude that somebody who develops brain cancer at the age twenty five developed the cancer because of the cell phone usage or if such usage increased that person's risk of cancer.

I also disagree that it is know that cell phone exposure can't cause cancerous growth on its own. Perhaps, it is know that it can't cause that effect in the short term. Radio frequency waves don't break chemical bonds nor cause ionization in the human body, like X-rays can do. That speaks nothing to long term effects.

Just like how not everyone who smokes cigarettes get lung cancer! Hmm... then it's ok to start smoking?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #33 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I also disagree that it is know that cell phone exposure can't cause cancerous growth on its own. Perhaps, it is know that it can't cause that effect in the short term. Radio frequency waves don't break chemical bonds nor cause ionization in the human body, like X-rays can do. That speaks nothing to long term effects.

EVen though there is no 100% certitude in science. They have a pretty good idea of how to discern harmful radiation from more benign radiation. From everything I've read cell phone radiation is magnitudes different from the very harmful radiations.

The whole long term effect argument is simply an argument that exists in the lack of knowledge. You can place a lot of things in that category.

Quote:
The same report explains that close range contact with the radio waves has immediate effects on the tissue, where the energy from the radio waves is absorbed by the skin and other superficial tissues. This, however, would be more dramatic in children where the radio waves have a shorter way to travel to reach the brain. Other studies also show the radio waves do cause changes in the brain.

I'm sure radio waves have some effect on tissue. Mutating DNA specifically has to happen to cause cancer. We know close contact with a cell phone does not do that by itself.

Making a blanket statement such as "radio waves have some effect on the brain" is nearly meaningless and has no direct correlation to mutating DNA or cancer.
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I'm sure radio waves have some effect on tissue. Mutating DNA specifically has to happen to cause cancer. We know close contact with a cell phone does not do that by itself.

Spontaneous mutations occur all the time, particularly during cell division. Usually, your body cleans them up in one way or another, for example, through apoptosis, or various repair mechanisms. Directly causing mutations isn't the only way something can lead to cancer. It could also be by interfering in some way with repair and control. And there is still way to much we don't know to be able to rule out something, especially when there are at least some indications that it may in someway, directly or indirectly be a contributing factor.

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying it can't be ruled out at this time.
post #35 of 46
What we are talking about is cell phone radiation alone causing otherwise healthy cells to mutate. There is an agreement within science that this is not possible.

I agreed earlier that the unknown is how cell phone radiation effects things when other factors are at play, other than only cell phone radiation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Spontaneous mutations occur all the time, particularly during cell division. Usually, your body cleans them up in one way or another, for example, through apoptosis, or various repair mechanisms. Directly causing mutations isn't the only way something can lead to cancer. It could also be by interfering in some way with repair and control. And there is still way to much we don't know to be able to rule out something, especially when there are at least some indications that it may in someway, directly or indirectly be a contributing factor.

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying it can't be ruled out at this time.
post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivertrip View Post

Your post shows why data and logic will not change the minds of people who believe radiation from cell phones is dangerous. Numbers, units, and scientific jargon don't guarantee that a statement is correct.

I don't believe it. I just don't observe an adequate outcome from any of the studies, a demonstration in the medical community that it has yet got a full grasp on all the cumulative impacts that lead to cancer or quite simply enough generations of humans exposed to localised emitters of specific frequencies...

...for anyone to be all big chested about saying it isn't.

Take teflon, the wonder slippery substance. So it has been showing up in river fish in Canada and the USA and in low levels in human breast milk, well according to articles on New Scientist. Took what, 50 years for it to get to that point. Maybe it take 100 years to show what it really does.

It is fool to say that any given thing doesn't have an effect. All things have an effect.

Maybe it turns out it isn't the radiation, maybe it is the rare earths, maybe it is us straining some bit of our brain in a particular way in using mobile phones. Maybe it is a whole list of possible things yet to be even understood about the interactions of all the parts.

Science, by nature is a continuing process and NEVER correct.

Yet there is a world of fools who trust science as if it were religion.

The future people will look back at us as stupid as the romans we look back at using lead to pipe water, or whatever it was. We don't know -shit- about the effects of the things we have been recently exposing ourselves to.

If you claim science as your weapon of truth friend, then know it as an evolving study as opposed to arrogant faith in it as a rock.
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #37 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

What we are talking about is cell phone radiation alone causing otherwise healthy cells to mutate. There is an agreement within science that this is not possible.

I agreed earlier that the unknown is how cell phone radiation effects things when other factors are at play, other than only cell phone radiation.

No, actually what we're talking about is whether radiation from cell phones may be related to increased cancer/tumor rates.

And there is no agreement within science that it's "not possible" for cell phone radiation to cause mutations. It may be held to be unlikely, but no one worth their PhD is going to declare it utterly impossible.
post #38 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, actually what we're talking about is whether radiation from cell phones may be related to increased cancer/tumor rates.

And there is no agreement within science that it's "not possible" for cell phone radiation to cause mutations. It may be held to be unlikely, but no one worth their PhD is going to declare it utterly impossible.

They use radiation therapy for cancer so for all we know our cellphone use is keeping our tumors down.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #39 of 46
"0.55 percent of customers had contacted AppleCare regarding the issue. " Unbelievable. Why doesn't the media go nuts on reporting just WHO made this an issue.

Cheers,
Cameron

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

As concerns grow over the potential negative health effects of cell phone radiation, Apple's iPhones have been noted as producing average amounts of radiation, while several Motorola handsets are rated as emitting the most.

On Tuesday, the World Health Organization made headlines when it changed its stance on the potential dangers of mobile phone use. In a study commissioned by WHO, a team of 31 scientists found sufficient evidence to categorize exposure to cell phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans," CNN reports.

WHO previously maintained that no links between cell phone use and adverse health effects had been found. The organization placed mobile phone use in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform and recommended further study of the issue.

The wireless industry quickly responded with damage control, noting that WHO "did not conduct any new research, but rather reviewed published studies."

In a follow-up report, CNN cited a database compiled by the Environmental Working Group, "a lobbying group that advocates on behalf of public health and the environment," listing the radiation levels of numerous mobile phone models. With data through December 2010, the study found that Apple's iPhones were in the middle of the road in terms of Specific Absorption Rate, the measurement used to check how much radiation a body receives from a phone.

The iPhone 4 rated 1.17 watts per kilogram, just below the 1.19 W/kg of the iPhone 3GS. The older iPhone 3G has a lower radiation rate of 1.03 W/kg. The FCC's legal limit for SAR on a mobile phone is 1.6 W/kg.



The phone with the lowest rated radiation emissions was the LG Quantum with just 0.35 W/kg. The phones with the most radiation were the Motorola Bravo and Motorola Droid 2 Global, which tested at 1.59 W/kg and 1.58 W/kg respectively, just below the FCC limit.

The report was quick to point out, however, that the numbers are "only ballpark figures" and actual radiation varies depending on use. Also, no study has conclusively proven that a higher SAR level poses a greater health risk.

Apple's own safety manual for the iPhone 4 cautions: "When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 millimeters (5/8 inch) away from the body."

The iPhone 4 drew criticism last year when reports emerged that the new stainless steel band external antenna design was prone to signal loss when held a certain way. Apple eventually held a press conference to address the situation and gave away free bumper cases to customers, despite the fact that only 0.55 percent of customers had contacted AppleCare regarding the issue.

"It's a challenge for the entire industry, and we're doing the best we can, but every phone has weak spots," said CEO Steve Jobs.
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambo View Post

"0.55 percent of customers had contacted AppleCare regarding the issue. " Unbelievable. Why doesn't the media go nuts on reporting just WHO made this an issue.

The other 99.45% complained on AppleInsider.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone ranks in middle of pack for radiation