Environ Health. 2011 Jun 17;10:59. Mobile phones and head tumours. The discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epidemiological studies - how do they arise? Levis AG, Minicuci N, Ricci P, Gennaro V, Garbisa S. Department of Experimental Biomedical Sciences, Medical School of Padova, Padova, Italy.
RESULTS: Blind protocols, free from errors, bias, and financial conditioning factors, give positive results that reveal a cause-effect relationship between long-term mobile phone use or latency and statistically significant increase of ipsilateral head tumour risk, with biological plausibility. Non-blind protocols, which instead are affected by errors, bias, and financial conditioning factors, give negative results with systematic underestimate of such risk. However, also in these studies a statistically significant increase in risk of ipsilateral head tumours is quite common after more than 10 years of mobile phone use or latency. The meta-analyses, our included, examining only data on ipsilateral tumours in subjects using mobile phones since or for at least 10 years, show large and statistically significant increases in risk of ipsilateral brain gliomas and acoustic neuromas.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of the literature studies and of the results from meta-analyses of the significant data alone shows an almost doubling of the risk of head tumours induced by long-term mobile phone use or latency.
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).
His observation was correct in that all EM may be regarded as quantized. However, since matter/radiation effects in the radio frequency spectrum are simply a result currents driven by the oscillating electric field, you are correct that it is not relevant - power density is all that counts, and disregarding antenna emission characteristics, 4 W > 0.6 W.
Occup Environ Med. 2007 Sep;64(9):626-32. Epub 2007 Apr 4. Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: increased risk associated with use for > or =10 years. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Mild KH, Morgan LL. Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden. lennart.hardell@orebroll.se
RESULTS: The cohort study was of limited value due to methodological shortcomings in the study. Of the 16 case-control studies, 11 gave results for > or =10 years' use or latency period. Most of these results were based on low numbers. An association with acoustic neuroma was found in four studies in the group with at least 10 years' use of a mobile phone. No risk was found in one study, but the tumour size was significantly larger among users. Six studies gave results for malignant brain tumours in that latency group. All gave increased odd ratios (OR), especially for ipsilateral exposure. In a meta-analysis, ipsilateral cell phone use for acoustic neuroma was OR = 2.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 5.3) and OR = 2.0, (1.2 to 3.4) for glioma using a tumour latency period of > or =10 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Results from present studies on use of mobile phones for > or =10 years give a consistent pattern of increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma. The risk is highest for ipsilateral exposure.
Environ Health. 2011 Dec 19;10:106. Childhood brain tumour risk and its association with wireless phones: a commentary. Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K, Hardell L. Department of Oncology, University Hospital, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden. fredrik.soderqvist@orebroll.se
Abstract Case-control studies on adults point to an increased risk of brain tumours (glioma and acoustic neuroma) associated with the long-term use of mobile phones. Recently, the first study on mobile phone use and the risk of brain tumours in children and adolescents, CEFALO, was published. It has been claimed that this relatively small study yielded reassuring results of no increased risk. We do not agree. We consider that the data contain several indications of increased risk, despite low exposure, short latency period, and limitations in the study design, analyses and interpretation. The information certainly cannot be used as reassuring evidence against an association, for reasons that we discuss in this commentary.
Surg Neurol. 2009 Sep;72(3):205-14; discussion 214-5. Epub 2009 Mar 27. Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Khurana VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M. Australian National University, Australia. vgkhurana@gmail.com
RESULTS: The results indicate that using a cell phone for > or = 10 years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same ("ipsilateral") side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use. The data achieve statistical significance for glioma and acoustic neuroma but not for meningioma.
CONCLUSION: The authors conclude that there is adequate epidemiologic evidence to suggest a link between prolonged cell phone usage and the development of an ipsilateral brain tumor.
Cancer Epidemiol. 2011 Oct;35(5):453-64. Epub 2011 Aug 23. Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. INTERPHONE Study Group.
RESULTS: The odds ratio (OR) of acoustic neuroma with ever having been a regular mobile phone user was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.69-1.04). The OR for ?10 years after first regular mobile phone use was 0.76 (0.52-1.11). There was no trend of increasing ORs with increasing cumulative call time or cumulative number of calls, with the lowest OR (0.48 (0.30-0.78)) observed in the 9th decile of cumulative call time. In the 10th decile (?1640 h) of cumulative call time, the OR was 1.32 (0.88-1.97); there were, however, implausible values of reported use in those with ?1640 h of accumulated mobile phone use. With censoring at 5 years before the reference date the OR for ?10 years after first regular mobile phone use was 0.83 (0.58-1.19) and for ?1640 h of cumulative call time it was 2.79 (1.51-5.16), but again with no trend in the lower nine deciles and with the lowest OR in the 9th decile. In general, ORs were not greater in subjects who reported usual phone use on the same side of the head as their tumour than in those who reported it on the opposite side, but it was greater in those in the 10th decile of cumulative hours of use.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no increase in risk of acoustic neuroma with ever regular use of a mobile phone or for users who began regular use 10 years or more before the reference date. Elevated odds ratios observed at the highest level of cumulative call time could be due to chance, reporting bias or a causal effect. As acoustic neuroma is usually a slowly growing tumour, the interval between introduction of mobile phones and occurrence of the tumour might have been too short to observe an effect, if there is one.
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.
You are wrong.
Whiie individual photons below a certain frequency can not ionize water molecules, you are ignoring a number of very important factors:
1. Ionization is not the only damage that can occur. Bonds can be broken without ionization occurring. So even a photon which has energy below the ionization potential for a given atom or molecule can still break bonds - and this can cause problems. Biological molecules can often be relatively fragile and have bonds that can be broken at relatively low energy.
2. There are multi-quanta effects. That is, even when an individual photon has insufficient energy to break a bond or ionize a molecule, under some circumstances, multiple photons can be absorbed and the sum of their energy may be enough. This is very rare (almost unheard of) in non-biological systems, but in biological systems, it's quite common - in fact, it's essential to life on earth since photosynthesis is a multi-quanta reaction.
3. There are temperature dependent biological effects. Even a localized heating of a degree or two could be enough to cause temperature-dependent effects.
You can not simply dismiss the possibility of potential harm any more than the lunatic fringe can assume that the cell phone manufacturers are guilty until proven innocent. So much has changed since the original studies and so many people are affected that it is absolutely worth looking at it again. Changes since the mid-90's:
1. Far more people are using cell phones and for longer time periods
2. Children are using cell phones regularly - which didn't happen when the original studies were done. Children's bodies react differently to externalities.
3. Cell phone antennae are closer to the brain than in the past. When I first started using cell phones, they had an antenna which was pulled out of the phone and was several inches from the head. Today, the cell phone antenna is very nearly in contact with the head.
4. Cell phone power levels have change (decreased, I believe). Some of them operate under different frequencies, as well, since some of the current spectrum was not used 15 years ago.
5. Test methods are far more accurate now then 15 years ago. When the original studies were done, they had to estimate how much radiation individuals received. Today, they can put a sensor behind the ear which would accurately measure actual amounts of radiation received.
Those things do not invalidate the earlier experiments, but they do suggest that the situation has changed enough that another look into the matter is worthwhile. In any event, your blatant assertion that it's physically impossible for cell phones to cause damage is just plain wrong.
What are you talking about? PER PHOTON? This entire discussion is about radio frequency radiation, not light (visible/non-visible/photons).
Radio frequency radiation also consists of photons.
If you don't understand even that most basic concept, you have no business participating in a scientific discussion about radiation.
Yes - but to be fair - radio frequency interactions are not quantized. Quantized interactions only occur when the individual quanta have sufficient energy to cause discrete energy level transitions within atomic or molecular systems. Radio frequency quanta are too small to do that. Radio frequency EM just interacts with delocalized electrons, free ions or polarizable molecules via its oscillating electric field.
Surg Neurol. 2009 Sep;72(3):205-14; discussion 214-5. Epub 2009 Mar 27.
Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data.
Khurana VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M.
Australian National University, Australia. vgkhurana@gmail.com
RESULTS:
The results indicate that using a cell phone for > or = 10 years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same ("ipsilateral") side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use. The data achieve statistical significance for glioma and acoustic neuroma but not for meningioma.
CONCLUSION:
The authors conclude that there is adequate epidemiologic evidence to suggest a link between prolonged cell phone usage and the development of an ipsilateral brain tumor.
Cancer Epidemiol. 2011 Oct;35(5):453-64. Epub 2011 Aug 23.
Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study.
INTERPHONE Study Group.
RESULTS:
The odds ratio (OR) of acoustic neuroma with ever having been a regular mobile phone user was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.69-1.04). The OR for ?10 years after first regular mobile phone use was 0.76 (0.52-1.11). There was no trend of increasing ORs with increasing cumulative call time or cumulative number of calls, with the lowest OR (0.48 (0.30-0.78)) observed in the 9th decile of cumulative call time. In the 10th decile (?1640 h) of cumulative call time, the OR was 1.32 (0.88-1.97); there were, however, implausible values of reported use in those with ?1640 h of accumulated mobile phone use. With censoring at 5 years before the reference date the OR for ?10 years after first regular mobile phone use was 0.83 (0.58-1.19) and for ?1640 h of cumulative call time it was 2.79 (1.51-5.16), but again with no trend in the lower nine deciles and with the lowest OR in the 9th decile. In general, ORs were not greater in subjects who reported usual phone use on the same side of the head as their tumour than in those who reported it on the opposite side, but it was greater in those in the 10th decile of cumulative hours of use.
CONCLUSIONS:
There was no increase in risk of acoustic neuroma with ever regular use of a mobile phone or for users who began regular use 10 years or more before the reference date. Elevated odds ratios observed at the highest level of cumulative call time could be due to chance, reporting bias or a causal effect. As acoustic neuroma is usually a slowly growing tumour, the interval between introduction of mobile phones and occurrence of the tumour might have been too short to observe an effect, if there is one.
It is worth noting that all of the studies you are citing are much more recent than the original studies - which confirms my statement that it's worth looking at the matter again. It is also worth noting that other recent studies conclude that there is still no evidence of harm. Even most of the studies you are citing do not confirm that cell phone use is causing the observations (see the bolded above).
The rational answer is:
1. In 1995, there was no reliable evidence supporting the claim that cell phone use was danger.
2. More recent evidence may be starting to show an effect (or, you may simply be cherry-picking).
3. The cell phone market and technology and testing technology has changed dramatically enough in 15 years that the earlier studies may not be particularly relevant to today's usage.
The conclusion is that more work needs to be done - which is what the FCC concluded and what this discussion is all about. Other than a few extremists on both sides (both the 'guilty until proven innocent' crowd and the 'it's impossible for cell phones to harm you' crows), I don't think there's much disagreement with that conclusion.
I support this wholeheartedly. If we're actually going to get something comprehensive this time around, in the way of a thorough investigation, then we're all better off.
The conclusion is that more work needs to be done - which is what the FCC concluded and what this discussion is all about. Other than a few extremists on both sides (both the 'guilty until proven innocent' crowd and the 'it's impossible for cell phones to harm you' crows), I don't think there's much disagreement with that conclusion.
I agree entirely. There is not a paucity of evidence supporting claims that mobile phone use may be carcinogenic. The evidence is worth further consideration.
I previously worked with physicians and healthcare professionals highly trained in radiation biology, radiation physics and radiation safety. I know of no one in the medical imaging field who wants their child to receive an unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study or even desire an MRI for their children unless absolutely necessary (e.g. all other possibilities have been ruled out).
I previously worked with physicians and healthcare professionals highly trained in radiation biology, radiation physics and radiation safety. I know of no one in the medical imaging field who wants their child to receive an unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study or even desire an MRI for their children unless absolutely necessary (e.g. all other possibilities have been ruled out).
That's an interesting perspective, since nuclear magnetic resonance techniques don't really involve much in the way of radiated energy - just a magnetic field to align proton magnetic moments and a low-energy RF pulse to flip their spins. Is the concern mostly about the possibility of harmful effects from the magnetic field? I assume that their other (preferable) possibilities don't include x-rays.
I agree entirely. There is not a paucity of evidence supporting claims that mobile phone use may be carcinogenic. The evidence is worth further consideration.
I previously worked with physicians and healthcare professionals highly trained in radiation biology, radiation physics and radiation safety. I know of no one in the medical imaging field who wants their child to receive an unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study or even desire an MRI for their children unless absolutely necessary (e.g. all other possibilities have been ruled out).
That said, (in case someone reading this is considering an MRI), MRI is about as non-invasive as an imaging technology can be. The risks are very, very small (and some of them are entirely unrelated to the radiation - such as the requirement to sit motionless in a confined space for an extended time can cause panic attacks). If your doctor recommends an MRI, the benefits undoubtedly outweigh the tiny risks. I wouldn't do one unnecessarily, but if it's needed, it's far better than the alternatives (CAT scans, x-rays, exploratory surgery).
Apple is too big to fail. Any study can be twisted with statistics to show no causal effect. Look at the classic case of cigarette. Cell phones will be around forever, doesn't matter what the study says. Microwave ovens are still manufactured and widely used even some studies have shown it's harmful to our health.
Comments
Mobile phones and head tumours. The discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epidemiological studies - how do they arise?
Levis AG, Minicuci N, Ricci P, Gennaro V, Garbisa S.
Department of Experimental Biomedical Sciences, Medical School of Padova, Padova, Italy.
RESULTS:
Blind protocols, free from errors, bias, and financial conditioning factors, give positive results that reveal a cause-effect relationship between long-term mobile phone use or latency and statistically significant increase of ipsilateral head tumour risk, with biological plausibility. Non-blind protocols, which instead are affected by errors, bias, and financial conditioning factors, give negative results with systematic underestimate of such risk. However, also in these studies a statistically significant increase in risk of ipsilateral head tumours is quite common after more than 10 years of mobile phone use or latency. The meta-analyses, our included, examining only data on ipsilateral tumours in subjects using mobile phones since or for at least 10 years, show large and statistically significant increases in risk of ipsilateral brain gliomas and acoustic neuromas.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our analysis of the literature studies and of the results from meta-analyses of the significant data alone shows an almost doubling of the risk of head tumours induced by long-term mobile phone use or latency.
His observation was correct in that all EM may be regarded as quantized. However, since matter/radiation effects in the radio frequency spectrum are simply a result currents driven by the oscillating electric field, you are correct that it is not relevant - power density is all that counts, and disregarding antenna emission characteristics, 4 W > 0.6 W.
Radio frequency radiation also consists of photons.
If you don't understand even that most basic concept, you have no business participating in a scientific discussion about radiation.
Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: increased risk associated with use for > or =10 years.
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Mild KH, Morgan LL.
Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden. lennart.hardell@orebroll.se
RESULTS:
The cohort study was of limited value due to methodological shortcomings in the study. Of the 16 case-control studies, 11 gave results for > or =10 years' use or latency period. Most of these results were based on low numbers. An association with acoustic neuroma was found in four studies in the group with at least 10 years' use of a mobile phone. No risk was found in one study, but the tumour size was significantly larger among users. Six studies gave results for malignant brain tumours in that latency group. All gave increased odd ratios (OR), especially for ipsilateral exposure. In a meta-analysis, ipsilateral cell phone use for acoustic neuroma was OR = 2.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 5.3) and OR = 2.0, (1.2 to 3.4) for glioma using a tumour latency period of > or =10 years.
CONCLUSIONS:
Results from present studies on use of mobile phones for > or =10 years give a consistent pattern of increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma. The risk is highest for ipsilateral exposure.
Childhood brain tumour risk and its association with wireless phones: a commentary.
Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K, Hardell L.
Department of Oncology, University Hospital, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden. fredrik.soderqvist@orebroll.se
Abstract
Case-control studies on adults point to an increased risk of brain tumours (glioma and acoustic neuroma) associated with the long-term use of mobile phones. Recently, the first study on mobile phone use and the risk of brain tumours in children and adolescents, CEFALO, was published. It has been claimed that this relatively small study yielded reassuring results of no increased risk. We do not agree. We consider that the data contain several indications of increased risk, despite low exposure, short latency period, and limitations in the study design, analyses and interpretation. The information certainly cannot be used as reassuring evidence against an association, for reasons that we discuss in this commentary.
The results and the discussion of the results may be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278351/?tool=pubmed. No subscription required.
Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data.
Khurana VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M.
Australian National University, Australia. vgkhurana@gmail.com
RESULTS:
The results indicate that using a cell phone for > or = 10 years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same ("ipsilateral") side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use. The data achieve statistical significance for glioma and acoustic neuroma but not for meningioma.
CONCLUSION:
The authors conclude that there is adequate epidemiologic evidence to suggest a link between prolonged cell phone usage and the development of an ipsilateral brain tumor.
Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study.
INTERPHONE Study Group.
RESULTS:
The odds ratio (OR) of acoustic neuroma with ever having been a regular mobile phone user was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.69-1.04). The OR for ?10 years after first regular mobile phone use was 0.76 (0.52-1.11). There was no trend of increasing ORs with increasing cumulative call time or cumulative number of calls, with the lowest OR (0.48 (0.30-0.78)) observed in the 9th decile of cumulative call time. In the 10th decile (?1640 h) of cumulative call time, the OR was 1.32 (0.88-1.97); there were, however, implausible values of reported use in those with ?1640 h of accumulated mobile phone use. With censoring at 5 years before the reference date the OR for ?10 years after first regular mobile phone use was 0.83 (0.58-1.19) and for ?1640 h of cumulative call time it was 2.79 (1.51-5.16), but again with no trend in the lower nine deciles and with the lowest OR in the 9th decile. In general, ORs were not greater in subjects who reported usual phone use on the same side of the head as their tumour than in those who reported it on the opposite side, but it was greater in those in the 10th decile of cumulative hours of use.
CONCLUSIONS:
There was no increase in risk of acoustic neuroma with ever regular use of a mobile phone or for users who began regular use 10 years or more before the reference date. Elevated odds ratios observed at the highest level of cumulative call time could be due to chance, reporting bias or a causal effect. As acoustic neuroma is usually a slowly growing tumour, the interval between introduction of mobile phones and occurrence of the tumour might have been too short to observe an effect, if there is one.
You are wrong.
Whiie individual photons below a certain frequency can not ionize water molecules, you are ignoring a number of very important factors:
1. Ionization is not the only damage that can occur. Bonds can be broken without ionization occurring. So even a photon which has energy below the ionization potential for a given atom or molecule can still break bonds - and this can cause problems. Biological molecules can often be relatively fragile and have bonds that can be broken at relatively low energy.
2. There are multi-quanta effects. That is, even when an individual photon has insufficient energy to break a bond or ionize a molecule, under some circumstances, multiple photons can be absorbed and the sum of their energy may be enough. This is very rare (almost unheard of) in non-biological systems, but in biological systems, it's quite common - in fact, it's essential to life on earth since photosynthesis is a multi-quanta reaction.
3. There are temperature dependent biological effects. Even a localized heating of a degree or two could be enough to cause temperature-dependent effects.
You can not simply dismiss the possibility of potential harm any more than the lunatic fringe can assume that the cell phone manufacturers are guilty until proven innocent. So much has changed since the original studies and so many people are affected that it is absolutely worth looking at it again. Changes since the mid-90's:
1. Far more people are using cell phones and for longer time periods
2. Children are using cell phones regularly - which didn't happen when the original studies were done. Children's bodies react differently to externalities.
3. Cell phone antennae are closer to the brain than in the past. When I first started using cell phones, they had an antenna which was pulled out of the phone and was several inches from the head. Today, the cell phone antenna is very nearly in contact with the head.
4. Cell phone power levels have change (decreased, I believe). Some of them operate under different frequencies, as well, since some of the current spectrum was not used 15 years ago.
5. Test methods are far more accurate now then 15 years ago. When the original studies were done, they had to estimate how much radiation individuals received. Today, they can put a sensor behind the ear which would accurately measure actual amounts of radiation received.
Those things do not invalidate the earlier experiments, but they do suggest that the situation has changed enough that another look into the matter is worthwhile. In any event, your blatant assertion that it's physically impossible for cell phones to cause damage is just plain wrong.
Yes - but to be fair - radio frequency interactions are not quantized. Quantized interactions only occur when the individual quanta have sufficient energy to cause discrete energy level transitions within atomic or molecular systems. Radio frequency quanta are too small to do that. Radio frequency EM just interacts with delocalized electrons, free ions or polarizable molecules via its oscillating electric field.
It is worth noting that all of the studies you are citing are much more recent than the original studies - which confirms my statement that it's worth looking at the matter again. It is also worth noting that other recent studies conclude that there is still no evidence of harm. Even most of the studies you are citing do not confirm that cell phone use is causing the observations (see the bolded above).
The rational answer is:
1. In 1995, there was no reliable evidence supporting the claim that cell phone use was danger.
2. More recent evidence may be starting to show an effect (or, you may simply be cherry-picking).
3. The cell phone market and technology and testing technology has changed dramatically enough in 15 years that the earlier studies may not be particularly relevant to today's usage.
The conclusion is that more work needs to be done - which is what the FCC concluded and what this discussion is all about. Other than a few extremists on both sides (both the 'guilty until proven innocent' crowd and the 'it's impossible for cell phones to harm you' crows), I don't think there's much disagreement with that conclusion.
I support this wholeheartedly. If we're actually going to get something comprehensive this time around, in the way of a thorough investigation, then we're all better off.
I agree entirely. There is not a paucity of evidence supporting claims that mobile phone use may be carcinogenic. The evidence is worth further consideration.
I previously worked with physicians and healthcare professionals highly trained in radiation biology, radiation physics and radiation safety. I know of no one in the medical imaging field who wants their child to receive an unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study or even desire an MRI for their children unless absolutely necessary (e.g. all other possibilities have been ruled out).
That's an interesting perspective, since nuclear magnetic resonance techniques don't really involve much in the way of radiated energy - just a magnetic field to align proton magnetic moments and a low-energy RF pulse to flip their spins. Is the concern mostly about the possibility of harmful effects from the magnetic field? I assume that their other (preferable) possibilities don't include x-rays.
That said, (in case someone reading this is considering an MRI), MRI is about as non-invasive as an imaging technology can be. The risks are very, very small (and some of them are entirely unrelated to the radiation - such as the requirement to sit motionless in a confined space for an extended time can cause panic attacks). If your doctor recommends an MRI, the benefits undoubtedly outweigh the tiny risks. I wouldn't do one unnecessarily, but if it's needed, it's far better than the alternatives (CAT scans, x-rays, exploratory surgery).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Cell phone radiation tested levels published here (FWIW)
http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602_7-291-2.html?tag=
looks like in this listing apples iPhone is not in the top 20 for highest radiation. MotoGoogles phones are #1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Cell phone radiation tested levels published here (FWIW)
http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602_7-291-2.html?tag=
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
looks like in this listing apples iPhone is not in the top 20 for highest radiation. MotoGoogles phones are #1
And why is Samsung doing exceptionally well in this area? Is it somehow related their plastic builds?
1) Ionizing radiation. Atoms splitting into particles. The scary stuff from bombs and nuclear waste! Also certain e-m frequencies like X-rays. Danger!
2) Non-ionizing radiation. This includes everything from visible light to TV signals to microwave ovens and—yes—cell phones.
Cell phones are one of many sources of NON-ionizing radiation. This is not in dispute: atoms are not getting split here
You, clearly, have taken physics lessons. First-grade, I'd say.
If Romney gets elected President he will squash this investigation faster than you can say "Koch Brothers".
Apple is too big to fail. Any study can be twisted with statistics to show no causal effect. Look at the classic case of cigarette. Cell phones will be around forever, doesn't matter what the study says. Microwave ovens are still manufactured and widely used even some studies have shown it's harmful to our health.
[VIDEO]