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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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 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)
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
"... 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 “[I][B]possibly carcinogenic to humans[/B][/I]” (Group 2B). This evaluation was supported by a large majority of Working Group members."
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?
Not sure of the point you're making.
Either the idea is to reveal they cause cancer and ban the devices or that the cancer will be covered up, just like tobacco, meaning the "studies" are ALREADY pointless and shouldn't be done at all.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson
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.
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
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.
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)
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.
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'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
If discovered to be true, Apple should be be held fully accountable.
Nobody else. Just Apple.
The bastards.
This is what will happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FranSC
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
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.
Don't travel by plane.
Don't live in areas with granite subsurface.
Don't live near a coal dump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson
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.
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 “[I][B]possibly carcinogenic to humans[/B][/I]” (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
Not sure of the point you're making.
Either the idea is to reveal they cause cancer and ban the devices or that the cancer will be covered up, just like tobacco, meaning the "studies" are ALREADY pointless and shouldn't be done at all.