Apple's iPhone ranks in middle of pack for radiation
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.
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
possibly carcinogenic to humans
To put this into context, also in this category is coffee and coconut oil.
What happens if I bath in coconut oil while drinking coffee and talking on my cell phone? Rapture?
What does Antennagate have to do with radiation coming out of the phone?
I believe the author of the article is trying to imply this radiation issue is as much bunk as the antennagate issue. I'd agree with that opinion.
Furthermore, the "background density" of the planetary electromagnetic field lines FAR exceeds the .01 to .5 watts a cell phone emits at it's peak rate.
while I agree with your general angle there is more to radiation than power, I'm no trained expert but frequency plays a part, as would distance from source. Sure we have all evolved within an electromagnetic field but not a 2.4 - 5ghz one emitting from within 2 foot of our heads.
Cancer is simply cells reproducing with errors, perhaps due to low telemerese count. If you take the swathe of things damaging us and requiring more cell reproduction, toss in reduced telemerese production and then top it off with a low intensity, high frequency localized source of radiation perhaps we are creating more cell errors than is wise.
It will likely take a generation or two to find out. Just a thought.
The radiation emitted by ANY cell phone is non-ionizing, meaning that it doesn't have enough energy to harm or even influence a persons body. Basic physics people, all of these studies trying to tie cell phone use to cancer are failing to identify correlative vs causative in their analysis. Electromagnetic "radiation" surrounds us everywhere on the planet at all times, and further more, it always has. Every creature on earth has co-existed with this fundamental force of the universe. Furthermore, the "background density" of the planetary electromagnetic field lines FAR exceeds the .01 to .5 watts a cell phone emits at it's peak. At any rate, unless you are willing live in a Faraday cage, you are being exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Knowing this, it would seem to me that we'd be all better off investing our resources trying to find things that are at least possibly dangerous according to the known laws of physics. Just a thought.
A very good post, thank you. There are way too many 'research projects' that amount to junk science being picked up by the main stream media these days to grab attention ... simply to sell ads. The sad thing is real science gets damaged by this sort of thing as the masses can't tell the difference.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk....es-and-cancer/
Are concerns growing?
To put this into context, also in this category is coffee and coconut oil.
What happens if I bath in coconut oil while drinking coffee and talking on my cell phone? Rapture?
Where did you find the ref to coconut oil? I take this daily, curious.
Further, the radiation emitted by phones dropped substantially over the last ten years. Until the last five years, I couldn't use a cell phone period. After two minutes of use I would get a massive headache. I could actually feel the a tingling sensation when the phone was real close. Some people suggest that was just the heat. Maybe, but heat doesn't cause headaches like what I experienced.
My last Nokia phone, I could talk for a while before experiencing a headache. The iPhone is better still.
I can't proof the cell phone was the cause of my headaches anymore then somebody punching me in the nose was the cause of my nose bleed. Nonetheless, the headaches combined with the surgeons view was enough circumstantial evidence for me to take precautions.This is what I use at home. In the car, I use Ford Sync. When away from both, I use speaker phone.
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 best analysis and perspective on the recent WHO report I've found is from Cancer Research UK, and can be read here:
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk....es-and-cancer/
The newest study that they considered is 4 years old. Some are over 10 years old. Regardless of the conclusions, I'm not sure how responsible it is to make a press release based on such old technology.
while I agree with your general angle there is more to radiation than power, I'm no trained expert but frequency plays a part, as would distance from source. Sure we have all evolved within an electromagnetic field but not a 2.4 - 5ghz one emitting from within 2 foot of our heads.
Cancer is simply cells reproducing with errors, perhaps due to low telemerese count. If you take the swathe of things damaging us and requiring more cell reproduction, toss in reduced telemerese production and then top it off with a low intensity, high frequency localized source of radiation perhaps we are creating more cell errors than is wise.
It will likely take a generation or two to find out. Just a thought.
Your post shows why data and logic will not change the minds of people who believe radiation from cell phones is dangerous. Numbers, units, and scientific jargon don't guarantee that a statement is correct.
Simply, "reverse the charges".
Where did you find the ref to coconut oil?
On a BBC radio news report. The point was that cell phones and coconut oil cannot be proven to be not carcinogenic (but it doesn't mean they are).
So here's the deal from my perspective (head nod to TBell) you have a high incidence of potentially carcinogenic substances in the urban environment, from gasoline to nitrites, cleaning solvents, finishing solvents in furniture and cabinetry. Most of this by itself (and as is usually tested) is fine in the usual very minute doses. What has never been done are extensive long-term exposure studies that measure composite sources over an average lifespan.
You also have a high degree of ambient radiation in the environment from cell tower, microwave transmitters, radio transmitters, highway patrol radar guns, bluetooth headsets, cellphones, satnav units, and so on. You sit in a weak magnetic field generated by the Earth, and the wiring in your house also generates fields as well. As in the case of substances in the environment, extensive long-term exposure studies that measure composite sources over an average lifespan haven't been done for this either.
Worse, you have to consider genetic predeliction for cancers, and the level of genetic resistance to cancers. For example, recent studies suggest that by the time a human male is in his 80s something like 90% will have detectable prostate cancer. There is no known study that reports on the levels of naturally occurring ambient carcinogens outside of what we produce over long periods of time, other than where naturally occurring radioactive substances like radon have an impact.
As urban humans we generate comparatively toxic conditions in which to live when you compare density and risk exposure in daily travel and work, compared to less developed areas. Some of this is mitigated by disease control, safety guidelines and rules and laws, but it is still a much more challenging environment. Stop and think about the number of traffic accidents you see or hear about in the course of your week.
Some of you may recall the way X-rays were handled whene they first became popular. They shot whole rooms of people with broad spectrum, high-powered x-rays, not realizing what a potent causative agent it was for cancer. Over the last decades, the amount and type of x-radiation has been refined to the point of high safety, especially compared to its first uses.
As a closing note TBell, I get a headache everytime my cellphone rings no matter how close it is to me - but that is a whole different causation I think.
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".
Maybe so, but my girlfriend is an OR nurse. None of the OR surgeons use cell phones directly to the head. They try to use the land line when possible and then speaker phone was necessary. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that the increase in cell phone use has caused tumor growth by where most people would hold a cell phone. That is coming from surgeons at a highly respected medical institution in Michigan who have been dealing with tumors in the head for years and have access to relevant data. There are no serious studies involving the issue because nobody is interested in funding the research. The OR surgeons take precautions, and I trust their judgement more then yours (no offense).