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?!
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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".
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
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.
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.
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!!!!!!!
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
Comments
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?!
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.
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.
"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.
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.
... 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.
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).
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".
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.
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.
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
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!!!!!!!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cheers,
Cameron
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.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]