or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › FCC proposes first cellphone radiation investigation in 15 years
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FCC proposes first cellphone radiation investigation in 15 years - Page 2

post #41 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcartesius View Post

Every time I use a cell phone for a longer period of time, I get a headache. Have been using all kinds of cell phones since the mid 90s. Since the headache goes away soon after a call is finished, "there's nothing to worry about", the experts and economically conscious authorities say. They also say my observations have no (scientific) value whatsoever since I'm not a proper expert. "Maybe it's just tension neck or something similar? Maybe I'm just imagining things, and subconsciously "hate" the cell phone as a symbol of stress.."

 

The iPhone gives the mildest headaches of all the many phones I've tested ;)

 

Still, these things are worth looking into.

 

Whether or not cell phone radiation is dangerous (all information so far is that it's not), what you are reporting is rather definitely the product of your imagination.  For it to be otherwise, all science and logic would have to be suspect.  

post #42 of 103
You make good points here but do realize that RF energy and light are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. As to sun burns we are talking about UV energy which is very dangerous. In fact UV is often used to sterilize products and fluids.

So what I'm saying here is that safety discussions about electromagnetic energy have to take into account operating frequency. What is notable about police cars and the people inside, is the wide variation in frequencies they are exposed too. These devices operate over various power levels on purpose though. Even then I wouldn't advice looking directly into one of those radar guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson View Post

Ionic radiation is compounding and non-ionic radiation is non-compounding.  If you get a "sun-burn" today and another one next summer, those two burns compound and greatly increase your chances for melanoma.  RF radiation is nonionic and non-compounding so it doesn't matter how many times you get hit.  

A good example is police officers:  they use low power cell phones, portable radios blasting 4-5 watts directly into their body, 50-100 watt mobile radios operating directly above them and 20-30 GHz radar radiating to their front and rear all while inside their squad cars.  If non-compounding RF radiation was dangerous, police officers should have cancer after their first year on patrol.
post #43 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This is a ridiculous statement. Terrific research is done in 'industries' all the time. Many company research teams have won Nobel science/medicine prizes. Large amounts of life-changing innovations have come from companies in the 20th century (including mobile telephony).
Moreover, any halfway smart company knows that is suicidal, from a profit maximization standpoint, to fudge this kind of analysis when large numbers of independent researchers across the globe can replicate their methods and analysis. Self-interest is entirely consistent with good research.

This is a ridiculous counter argument that depends on confounding the difference between research that is directed towards product development and research on product safety.

You're quite right if you restrict your argument to product development. But, apply it to product safety and it's patently absurd, as well as contrary to historical evidence.
post #44 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Your comments demonstrate what is wrong with America these days. If there is something out there that can't be seen but might harm you it must be outlawed. Not because it has or or will cause harm but rather that it might for on sensitive individual out of billions. It is the same irrational fear of nuclear power plants and other invisibles that is frankly out of hand. One can look at Japan and realize that not one person has died yet from the nuclear plant failures there yet still we have this outlandish fear of nuclear power systems. ...

Your comments demonstrate what is wrong with America these days: knee jerk anti-government, anti-science, anti-rational, ... and so on, combined with an inability to comprehend things in any but the most simplistic terms.

I really can't understand how people can go totally crazed just because someone says that a little scientific investigation is a good thing, but, instead, somehow read into that that it's being claimed to be dangerous.

Why are so many of you afraid of searching for the truth by actually applying science to questions?
post #45 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Whether or not cell phone radiation is dangerous (all information so far is that it's not), what you are reporting is rather definitely the product of your imagination.  For it to be otherwise, all science and logic would have to be suspect.  

That's not true.

kcartesius claims: "Every time I use a cell phone for a longer period of time, I get a headache. Have been using all kinds of cell phones since the mid 90s. Since the headache goes away soon after a call is finished,"

You are correct that it's unlikely that the radiation from the cell phone causes it. However, it's entirely possible that it's real and not his imagination. It could be that there's a neuromuscular problem in his arm that causes him to get a headache when lifting his arm. Or perhaps he tilts his head in a certain way when using a cell phone and pinches a nerve, causing a headache. Instead of simply dismissing it as imagination, s/he should have it evaluated to determine the cause. Meanwhile, I would use a hands-free device or set the phone on speaker to avoid the headache if the claim is really true. (It seems rather strange that the person would continue to use cell phones for over 15 years without switching to a hands-free device if it really does cause him/her pain every time).
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #46 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

This is a ridiculous counter argument that depends on confounding the difference between research that is directed towards product development and research on product safety.
You're quite right if you restrict your argument to product development. But, apply it to product safety and it's patently absurd, as well as contrary to historical evidence.

No credible company conducts "product development" research without simultaneously conducting "product safety" research if/when it gets to the market test and product introduction stage. As I said before, it's suicidal. Why would any sane company spend gazillions on the former, then run the risk of foundering on the latter, especially when -- I repeat a point that your vacuous response specifically wants to ignore -- independent researchers can invalidate their findings and put them (and their shareholders) in legal jeopardy!?

This is not to say that companies and industries always get it right, or never hide or obfuscate the truth. The innuendo in your posts, however, is both incorrect and irresponsible. 'Historical evidence' in a vast majority of the cases -- indeed, in all but a handful of cases -- is the exact opposite.

Btw, the overwrought claim that you're making about deceptive research can be equally made about governments and academics, no? We can all name dozens and dozens of examples.
post #47 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Your comments demonstrate what is wrong with America these days: knee jerk anti-government, anti-science, anti-rational, ... and so on, combined with an inability to comprehend things in any but the most simplistic terms.

Sorry, but you're the one with the anti-rational, anti-science, anti-government view. You're defending someone who has taken a very strong 'guilty until proven innocent' stand - and there's absolutely no way to scientifically prove innocence, so the phone companies MUST be guilty to anyone with that view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I really can't understand how people can go totally crazed just because someone says that a little scientific investigation is a good thing, but, instead, somehow read into that that it's being claimed to be dangerous.

That's not what happened. kerryb took the view that the phone companies were guilty and were hiding evidence. I pointed out that this isn't true and that the matter has been extensively studied and no evidence of harm has been found. I further stated that there's nothing wrong with further research, it is not appropriate to start from the standpoint that the industry is guilty and covering up known danger (using the tobacco industry as an analogy) - because extensive research from governments and academics also shows that there's no evidence of harm at this point. If further research indicates that there is some harm, it's not evidence of a coverup, but rather evidence that scientific methods have improved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Why are so many of you afraid of searching for the truth by actually applying science to questions?

No one is afraid of searching for the truth - or, at least, I certainly am not. I just object to 'guilty until proven innocent' as the starting point.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #48 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

No credible company conducts "product development" research without simultaneously conducting "product safety" research if/when it gets to the market test and product introduction stage. As I said before, it's suicidal. Why would any sane company spend gazillions on the former, then run the risk of foundering on the latter, especially when -- I repeat a point that your vacuous response specifically wants to ignore -- independent researchers can invalidate their findings and put them (and their shareholders) in legal jeopardy!?
This is not to say that companies and industries always get it right, or never hide or obfuscate the truth. The innuendo in your posts, however, is both incorrect and irresponsible. 'Historical evidence' in a vast majority of the cases -- indeed, in all but a handful of cases -- is the exact opposite.
Btw, the overwrought claim that you're making about deceptive research can be equally made about governments and academics, no? We can all name dozens and dozens of examples.

Actually, it goes beyond that. If there was no evidence at all, then anonymouse and kerryb's position might be a little more plausible. But there is already mountains of evidence from universities, governments, and industry on the matter, none of it showing any measurable effect.

I'm all in favor of further research. First, the technology has improved and the researchers could do a better job today than they could 15 years ago (for example, 15 years ago, cell phone radiation had to be estimated while today it would be easy to make a small detector to sit behind the ear to measure actual radiation dosages). Second, cell phone usage is far more widespread now than it was 15 years ago. Not only do far more people use cell phones, but they are used many more hours per day. Third, there's much more history. We probably have at least 50, maybe 100 times as many man-years of cell phone usage history as we had then, so if there's an effect that accumulates slowly, it would be easier to pick up now (for example, if cell phone usage caused a type of cancer that takes 10 years to appear, virtually no one would have had it in the mid-90s, but plenty of people might have it now). Finally, the phones themselves may have changed. I'm not sure, but I think that the radiation level is lower than it was 15 years ago. That is partially countered by the fact that the antenna is generally closer to your head in current phones.

When you combine all those things, it is absolutely reasonable to want to have another look at the matter. It is not, however, reasonable to take the 'guilty until proven innocent' view that some people are taking.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #49 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celemourn View Post

What Nagrome said is correct, as is what you just said.  Ionizing radiation COMES FROM emission of particles from atoms through radioactive decay, and causes ionization.

 

C

 

Ionizing radiation also comes from sources other than radioactive decay, such as nuclear fusion and things like synchrotron and bremsstrahlung (yeah, they're related) radiation.

post #50 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

One can look at Japan and realize that not one person has died yet from the nuclear plant failures there yet still we have this outlandish fear of nuclear power systems.

 

 

This information  is incorrect.  

 

Even if it were correct, it is not the proper inquiry upon which to base an opinion on the safety of nuclear power.  

post #51 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Let me offer a rebuttal in the form of an example: Microwave is considered to be a non-ionising radiation. Depending on the intensity of the radiation, it can cause death. If you want to verify that for yourself, put your Mom's cat in the microwave and cook on high for a couple minutes.

The debate here is " whether wireless radiation carcinogenic".  Microwave ovens push 2.4 GHz from 600-1200 watts, much more powerful than any cell phone or other consumer RF device.  Water doesn't cause cancer, but that can kill you too.  So the argument of my Mother's cat in the microwave (sorry Mom) is apple's to oranges.

post #52 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

You make good points here but do realize that RF energy and light are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. As to sun burns we are talking about UV energy which is very dangerous. In fact UV is often used to sterilize products and fluids.
So what I'm saying here is that safety discussions about electromagnetic energy have to take into account operating frequency. What is notable about police cars and the people inside, is the wide variation in frequencies they are exposed too. These devices operate over various power levels on purpose though. Even then I wouldn't advice looking directly into one of those radar guns.

My example of a "sun burn" was used as a common example of ionizing radiation and the compounding effects.  Why would you advise not looking directly into a low power radar transmitter?  If you're going to avoid looking directly into objects, I would recommend lasers.

post #53 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson View Post

The debate here is " whether wireless radiation carcinogenic".  Microwave ovens push 2.4 GHz from 600-1200 watts, much more powerful than any cell phone or other consumer RF device.  Water doesn't cause cancer, but that can kill you too.  So the argument of my Mother's cat in the microwave (sorry Mom) is apple's to oranges.

Sure I was exaggerating. In your example of police officers would develop cancer within a year if RF was dangerous was just as ridiculous. It is a matter of degrees. In the case of the police they are taking precautions. Their radio is not pointing at their head it is mounted on their tool belt. The radar is pointing away from them and the in car radio's antenna is outside the vehicle shielded by the steel roof of the car.

 

My original post was a statement of precaution and accepting the possibility that there may be long term effects of constant radiation emitted by cell phones held close to the head, which is not an original thought. Many scientists have suggested that there may be risks especially in children. Your statements, on the other hand, seem to dismiss any possibility of danger of cell phone usage whatsoever, which unless you have some vested interest in people holding cell phones to their head, seems like a foolish premise to support given there is little data available. Cell phones have only been in use for less than 30 years and the handheld version for maybe half that. Only in the past few years has the cell phone become ubiquitous and even shorter time for adolescents and children to be using them. The data set is far too small to draw any conclusions especially since the typical environmental exposure types of cancer usually take decades before even producing symptoms.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #54 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Sure I was exaggerating. In your example of police officers would develop cancer within a year if RF was dangerous was just as ridiculous. It is a matter of degrees. In the case of the police they are taking precautions. Their radio is not pointing at their head it is mounted on their tool belt. The radar is pointing away from them and the in car radio's antenna is outside the vehicle shielded by the steel roof of the car.

 

My original post was a statement of precaution and accepting the possibility that there may be long term effects of constant radiation emitted by cell phones held close to the head, which is not an original thought. Many scientists have suggested that there may be risks especially in children. Your statements, on the other hand, seem to dismiss any possibility of danger of cell phone usage whatsoever, which unless you have some vested interest in people holding cell phones to their head, seems like a foolish premise to support given there is little data available. Cell phones have only been in use for less than 30 years and the handheld version for maybe half that. Only in the past few years has the cell phone become ubiquitous and even shorter time for adolescents and children to be using them. The data set is far too small to draw any conclusions especially since the typical environmental exposure types of cancer usually take decades before even producing symptoms.

So you're telling me a 4 watt transmitter using a longer wavelength (lower frequency with better penetration characteristics) is safer next to your torso then a 0.6 watt transmitter next to your head?  Also, a lot of the new public safety portables have the antenna on the mic cable which sits on the officers shoulder. Side lobes still leak RF back to the transmitting source so it doesn't matter where you point the antenna.  And the antenna is placed external to the vehicle to increase it's sensitivity and inhibit loss, not for officer safety.  

post #55 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson View Post

So you're telling me a 4 watt transmitter using a longer wavelength (lower frequency with better penetration characteristics) is safer next to your torso then a 0.6 watt transmitter next to your head?  Also, a lot of the new public safety portables have the antenna on the mic cable which sits on the officers shoulder. Side lobes still leak RF back to the transmitting source so it doesn't matter where you point the antenna.  And the antenna is placed external to the vehicle to increase it's sensitivity and inhibit loss, not for officer safety.  

I'm telling you that radiation is dangerous to biological systems. A small amount of radiation is less dangerous than a large dose of radiation. Constant exposure is more dangerous than infrequent exposure.

 

You seem to be very knowledgable about radio systems, however, I can only offer my opinions based on my 20 years of working in medical radiology which is not exactly the same field of expertise. 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #56 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson View Post

So you're telling me a 4 watt transmitter using a longer wavelength (lower frequency with better penetration characteristics) is safer next to your torso then a 0.6 watt transmitter next to your head?  Also, a lot of the new public safety portables have the antenna on the mic cable which sits on the officers shoulder. Side lobes still leak RF back to the transmitting source so it doesn't matter where you point the antenna.  And the antenna is placed external to the vehicle to increase it's sensitivity and inhibit loss, not for officer safety.  

To be fair, it's just impossible to say which is worse. While longer wavelength radiation is more penetrating, shorter wavelengths have more energy and have the potential to cause more damage. Sometimes there's a window - where radiation of a certain frequency does more damage than radiation either above OR below that frequency. It's simply impossible to predict the effect of any given frequency and power on the human body - which is why the FCC is doing additional testing.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #57 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

No credible company conducts "product development" research without simultaneously conducting "product safety" research if/when it gets to the market test and product introduction stage. ...

Right, that's why we never have products on the market that cause consumer harm and never hear of companies suppressing negative research results.
post #58 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


To be fair, it's just impossible to say which is worse. While longer wavelength radiation is more penetrating, shorter wavelengths have more energy and have the potential to cause more damage. Sometimes there's a window - where radiation of a certain frequency does more damage than radiation either above OR below that frequency. It's simply impossible to predict the effect of any given frequency and power on the human body - which is why the FCC is doing additional testing.

How do shorter wavelengths have more energy?  If I'm transmitting 150 MHz at 4 watts, does that have less energy than 900 MHz at 0.6 watts?  I can modulate more data onto the 900 MHz carrier but it won't have more energy.  And specifically, what damages are being caused by the radio frequency radiation? 

post #59 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Actually, it goes beyond that. If there was no evidence at all, then anonymouse and kerryb's position ...

This explains why none of your responses seem to have anything to do with what I've written. My "position" is not the same as his "position", despite acknowledging that he has a point that he pushed too far. You should try to not let your emotions cloud your comprehension.
post #60 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson View Post

The debate here is " whether wireless radiation carcinogenic".  ...

Actually, the debate is whether it should be studied whether cell phones are associated with any harmful effects.
post #61 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson View Post

How do shorter wavelengths have more energy?  If I'm transmitting 150 MHz at 4 watts, does that have less energy than 900 MHz at 0.6 watts?  I can modulate more data onto the 900 MHz carrier but it won't have more energy.  And specifically, what damages are being caused by the radio frequency radiation? 

That's exactly what should be studied. Studies that some seem to be opposed to because we already know everything there is to know.
post #62 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson View Post
 And specifically, what damages are being caused by the radio frequency radiation? 

RF should actually be considered a form of pollution. Some people are probably more susceptible than others to the effects of constant exposure to RF but nevertheless there are no beneficial aspects of random RF exposure to human physiology. Exposure to RF should be limited as much as possible. Sure, the sun emits cosmic radiation, including that in the radio spectrum, but the less radiation you receive over all, the better off your are.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #63 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

That's exactly what should be studied. Studies that some seem to be opposed to because we already know everything there is to know.

What are you talking about? You want to study as to why a VHF transmitter pushing 4 watts to the antenna has more power than 900 MHz at 0.6 watts? Really?

You can save time and study up on basic RF theory along with effictive radiated power (ERP)
post #64 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

RF should actually be considered a form of pollution. Some people are probably more susceptible than others to the effects of constant exposure to RF but nevertheless there are no beneficial aspects of random RF exposure to human physiology. Exposure to RF should be limited as much as possible. Sure, the sun emits cosmic radiation, including that in the radio spectrum, but the less radiation you receive over all, the better off your are.

Not to sound like a complete dick here, but prove it.  Show me any case study where humans react differently when exposed to radio frequency radiation.  You are correct, there is no beneficial aspect of RF radiation expose, but again, it's low power, non-compounding nonionic radiation.  So why should RF expose be limited?  And you're body is radiating right now (assuming you're still alive) so stating that "the less radiation you receive over all, the better off your are" is a very broad and inaccurate statement.

 

Along with with no benefits, there are no known side effects.  Higher power is different.  I've been hit by 300 watt radar and you know when you're being radiated.  You start to sweat and you may feel nauseous but that's about it.  The human body is extremely resilient and easily dissipates the absorbed RF radiation into heat.  

post #65 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson View Post

  The human body is extremely resilient and easily dissipates the absorbed RF radiation into heat.  

To a point and this is where the concern is. What is the tolerance? Children are potentially more susceptible to repercussions of overexposure than adults. 

 

I really don't understand why you are so opposed to scientific research into potential health risks. Is it the government spending of tax revenue on the research? Do you work for a cell phone manufacturer? What is your agenda? To argue that there is no potential risk from holding a cell phone to your head for extended periods as we see countless young people do has to be some form of denial.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #66 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


Right, that's why we never have products on the market that cause consumer harm and never hear of companies suppressing negative research results.

I guess you have trouble with reading and comprehension too.

 

That explains a lot.

post #67 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

This explains why none of your responses seem to have anything to do with what I've written. My "position" is not the same as his "position", despite acknowledging that he has a point that he pushed too far. You should try to not let your emotions cloud your comprehension.

Your position is that you're defending someone who is taking the position that the cell phone manufacturers are guilty without any evidence at all. By defending him/her, that appears to be your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson View Post

How do shorter wavelengths have more energy?  If I'm transmitting 150 MHz at 4 watts, does that have less energy than 900 MHz at 0.6 watts?  I can modulate more data onto the 900 MHz carrier but it won't have more energy.  

The relationship was discovered by Max Planck a long time ago. Energy is inversely proportional to wavelength (which means it's directly proportional to frequency).
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_relationship_between_wavelength_and_energy

The energy/wavelength relationship is PER PHOTON. A high energy (short wavelength) photon has more energy (and therefore greater potential of causing damage if absorbed) than a low energy (i.e., long wavelength)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson View Post

And specifically, what damages are being caused by the radio frequency radiation? 

The existing evidence says that none is being caused. FCC wants to investigate with more sophisticated test methods to see if the existing evidence might have missed something. I agree because so many things have changed since the original studies have done (see my comments above). So, current knowledge is that no damage is being caused, but there are valid reasons to reconsider the matter.

But if any damage is occurring, it is possible to say that the greater the total energy, the greater the damage. Similarly, the greater the energy per photon, the greater the damage (at fixed total energy level).

It is impossible to predict a priori how any given combination of frequency, power, and contact time will play out. That's why you do the studies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

That's exactly what should be studied. Studies that some seem to be opposed to because we already know everything there is to know.

Who said that we know everything there is to know?

And who is opposed to additional research? Certainly not me - and not most of the people posting here.

I'm simply disagreeing with your support of someone advocating 'guilty until proven innocent'.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #68 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson View Post


What are you talking about? You want to study as to why a VHF transmitter pushing 4 watts to the antenna has more power than 900 MHz at 0.6 watts? Really?
You can save time and study up on basic RF theory along with effictive radiated power (ERP)


The fact that it seems so ridiculous should be your first clue that the discussion is (apparently) over your head

post #69 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I guess you have trouble with reading and comprehension too.

 

That explains a lot.

 

Your position that people should investigate their own possible wrong doing is irrational.

post #70 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Your position is that you're defending someone who is taking the position that the cell phone manufacturers are guilty without any evidence at all. By defending him/her, that appears to be your position. ...

 

Well, that confirms my suspicion that you never actually read what you respond to.

post #71 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

If discovered to be true, Apple should be be held fully accountable.

 

Nobody else. Just Apple.

 

The bastards.

This is what will happen.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #72 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

They're going to do this until they finally find someone they can pretend died from cancer in that area and then ban all cell phones, aren't they?

 

Yes, it's a huge conspiracy to ban cell phones (sarcarm). Because what those in the industry or in power really want to do is ban cell phones. I mean why would they want to benefit from a trillion dollar industry of cell phones, cellular subscriptions, or, say, easily track anyone's position?

 

Seriously, we must cancel all further research on the matter.

 

It's not like previous studies in any field have ever been proven wrong or inefficient.

 

Or that they have found to be doctored, especially if funded by huge corporate interests. For example, it's not like we had tons of tobacco industry sponsored studies that had shown that cigaretes do not cause cancer in the past, right? And even if we had, surely the cellular industry would not fall to that level, would they?

post #73 of 103
The problem of radio waves damaging cells is releted to the capability of the power source to split molecules, causing DNA error replication. This ability is related to its capacity to split electrons from the valence orbit.
Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Price for his work on this subject, and he found out that the ability to take an electron out if its orbit is not related to the number of arriving quanta (energy density) but to the energy of the quanta itself, which is proportional to the frequency. He discovered that materials have a minimum frecuency below which no electon jumps away of its orbit, and there is no material splitting below the range of visible light, being ultra-violet and above the ionizing zone.
This is consistent with our reality. If we were affected by infrared or visible light we could not survive its effects in our genome.

Radio waves from cell phones are well below that energy and cannot possible affect cells this way. It is as trying to cut a concrete wall with a sheet of paper.The only known effect of this kind of radio waves is its capability to heat water molecules, and this is related to the energy density (an effect applied to electrosurgical devices). At the energy densities cell phones work there is only a tiny amount of temperature increase with no biological hazard, therefore it is a waste of money and time to do such kind of investigations. The US has spent vast amounts of money in the past on this and related subjects with no evidence findings linking radiowaves and cancer.
post #74 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by FranSC View Post

The problem of radio waves damaging cells is releted to the capability of the power source to split molecules, causing DNA error replication. This ability is related to its capacity to split electrons from the valence orbit.
Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Price for his work on this subject, and he found out that the ability to take an electron out if its orbit is not related to the number of arriving quanta (energy density) but to the energy of the quanta itself, which is proportional to the frequency. He discovered that materials have a minimum frecuency below which no electon jumps away of its orbit, and there is no material splitting below the range of visible light, being ultra-violet and above the ionizing zone.
This is consistent with our reality. If we were affected by infrared or visible light we could not survive its effects in our genome.
Radio waves from cell phones are well below that energy and cannot possible affect cells this way. It is as trying to cut a concrete wall with a sheet of paper.The only known effect of this kind of radio waves is its capability to heat water molecules, and this is related to the energy density (an effect applied to electrosurgical devices). At the energy densities cell phones work there is only a tiny amount of temperature increase with no biological hazard, therefore it is a waste of money and time to do such kind of investigations. The US has spent vast amounts of money in the past on this and related subjects with no evidence findings linking radiowaves and cancer.

 

Yes, now that we know absolutely everything that could possibly be known about the universe we live in, we have no more need of science and we don't need to do any research on anything.

post #75 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



The relationship was discovered by Max Planck a long time ago. Energy is inversely proportional to wavelength (which means it's directly proportional to frequency).
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_relationship_between_wavelength_and_energy
The energy/wavelength relationship is PER PHOTON. A high energy (short wavelength) photon has more energy (and therefore greater potential of causing damage if absorbed) than a low energy (i.e., long wavelength)
 

 

What are you talking about?  PER PHOTON?  This entire discussion is about radio frequency radiation, not light (visible/non-visible/photons).

post #76 of 103

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Yes, now that we know absolutely everything that could possibly be known about the universe we live in, we have no more need of science and we don't need to do any research on anything.

Wizard69 was less blunt but I'll get right to it...you clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to radio frequency and/or electromagnetic radiation.  While the FCC is studying this again (and they'll come to the same conclusion - low power RF radiation is harmless) you should write your elected officials and have them investigate the dangers of rainbows and cotton socks.

post #77 of 103

Well, my first cellphone in the mid-90s -a panasonic afair- was literally cooking my ear past a few tens minutes, so I can't really believe that it was harmless back then, of course radiation have hugely decreased since then but I seriously doubt that it always was under control and inoculous.

post #78 of 103

Don't travel by plane.

Don't live in areas with granite subsurface.

Don't live near a coal dump.

post #79 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson View Post

Wizard69 was less blunt but I'll get right to it...you clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to radio frequency and/or electromagnetic radiation.  While the FCC is studying this again (and they'll come to the same conclusion - low power RF radiation is harmless) you should write your elected officials and have them investigate the dangers of rainbows and cotton socks.

 

Essentially, you're simply agreeing with my last post, that we know everything and have no need to study anything, that there could not possibly be any effects that we aren't aware of. Happily, we have people we call scientists who are less certain of their knowledge of everything than you.

post #80 of 103
"... The Working Group concluded that there is “limited evidence in humans” for the carcinogenicity of RF-EMF, based on positive associations between glioma and acoustic neuroma and exposure to RF-EMF from wireless phones. A few members of the Working Group considered the current evidence in humans “inadequate”. In their opinion there was inconsistency between the two case-control studies and a lack of an exposure-response relationship in the INTERPHONE study results; no increase in rates of glioma or acoustic neuroma was seen in the Danish cohort study,4 and up to now, reported time trends in incidence rates of glioma have not shown a parallel to temporal trends in mobile phone use.

The Working Group reviewed more than 40 studies that assessed the carcinogenicity of RF-EMF in rodents, including seven 2-year cancer bioassays. Exposures included 2450 MHz RF-EMF and various RF-EMF that simulated emissions from mobile phones. None of the chronic bioassays showed an increased incidence of any tumour type in tissues or organs of animals exposed to RF-EMF for 2 years. An increased total number of malignant tumours was found in RF-EMF-exposed animals in one of the seven chronic bioassays. Increased cancer incidence in exposed animals was noted in two of 12 studies with tumour-prone animals12, 13 and in one of 18 studies using initiation-promotion protocols.14 Four of six co-carcinogenesis studies showed increased cancer incidence after exposure to RF-EMF in combination with a known carcinogen; however, the predictive value of this type of study for human cancer is unknown. Overall, the Working Group concluded that there is “limited evidence” in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of RF-EMF.

The Working Group also reviewed many studies with endpoints relevant to mechanisms of carcinogenesis, including genotoxicity, effects on immune function, gene and protein expression, cell signalling, oxidative stress, and apoptosis. Studies of the possible effects of RF-EMF on the blood-brain barrier and on a variety of effects in the brain were also considered. Although there was evidence of an effect of RF-EMF on some of these endpoints, the Working Group reached the overall conclusion that these results provided only weak mechanistic evidence relevant to RF-EMF-induced cancer in humans.

In view of the limited evidence in humans and in experimental animals, the Working Group classified RF-EMF as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). This evaluation was supported by a large majority of Working Group members."

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(11)70147-4/fulltext
Edited by MacBook Pro - 6/17/12 at 7:29am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › FCC proposes first cellphone radiation investigation in 15 years