Cell Phone Radiation Chart 216
BjB writes "CNet has an interesting article on Cell phone radiation. More interesting is that they've included a chart of the radiation levels that various models of cell phones produce. They've even gone through the trouble of showing the highest and lowest on separate pages. It's lovely to see that your cell phone is #2..." Mine is in the middle of the pack... course, I'm not exactly reassured by that fact.
Huh (Score:1)
Does'nt make sense... (Score:1)
Re:GSM vs. CDMA? (Score:1)
Depends what you're trying to ionize. Example: EPROM erasers (for those of use who remember the days before Flash memory). Someone else mentioned the photoelectric effect; even blue visible light can knock electrons out of metals with a low work function.
Re:How much radiation is reflected by the skull? (Score:1)
The burden on proof is on no one, because he's pointing possible holes that real scientists consider privately, in their minds. I'm sorry if you need a detailed proof, in 12 point font, by Monday morning.
Point by point, since undergrads like you put me in such a bad mood:
The burden of proof is on you. If you believe such a substance exists, please derive its chemical properties
Sure... you just fund him, little solipsist, since in the universe you inhabit, funding is limitless. While looking through your notes, did you forget to take down that the person with an idea needn't be the one who implements the experiment?
Please explain how such a substance could exist in such concentrations in the brain as to be heated several degrees above (due to the miniscule wattage of cell phones) ambient body temperature, and explain how this heating would be "bad" compared to the normal heating and cooling of the body by 1-2 degrees throughout the course of the day.
Localized heating. If the temperature differential is sharp in areas of the brain, consistent damage is possible. And our bodies sure didn't evolve with cellphones shoved next to our skulls.
Occam's Razor. Your theory requires the invention of Substance X to explain something that doesn't show up in the data.
Well, since we don't know much about the brain, then the probability is correspondingly higher that something in there might fit his criteria and lead to brain damage. In fact, you seem to have quite a bit of it.
Stop sitting so close to the screen.
Argumentum ad hominem and back to burden of proof again. Your argument smacks of "How do we know the moon isn't made of green cheese?
His argument isn't the only thing that wants to go around, smacking something. "How do we know that games darken childrens' hearts and turn them into shotgun killers?" Haha! Absurd to question such a thing!
Humans come up with concepts. Humans are notorious for being subjective; that is why we have computers. Pointing out someone suffers from arrogance (and why are you so defensive about that..?) is a point to consider, even if it's not an argument-turner.
Re:OK, so can someone explain (Score:1)
Re:How much radiation is reflected by the skull? (Score:1)
no statistically valid studies which support the 'being punched in the nose hurts' proposition either.
Oh I doubt that. I'm sure there are plenty of studies that prove being punched in the nose hurts. Any medical report of a boxing injury would satisfy your claim for instance.
Re:Kirlian photograpy?..*shakes head* (Score:1)
Re:rats (Score:1)
GSM & 3G (Score:1)
Hence GSM gets around EU restrictions radiation levels as on full output GSM goes way over the highest allowable wattage that anyone should be near, but GSM hardly every transmits at these levels so they let it through.
Also some projections for the new 3G stuff would be nice as well.
Re:What about the Timeport and the Talkabout? (Score:1)
While we're speaking of carcinogens... (Score:1)
Better yet, how about a perfume free elevator?
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
Actually...There are (Score:1)
Actually, there are many. In addition to anecdotal evidence which abounds rather than the third-fourth-fifth person urban legends referencing cell phone hazards, I can demonstrate. Place your nose right there, that's it, just an arms length away from my shoulder. If such a demo is unsatisfactory, I can show you direct evidence that blunt objects impacting your face can cause damage. Let's go to the emergency room at the nearest hospital.
All this is irrelevant since you chose a poor example. The problem is, as you put it, the keyword "evidence". There is none, anecdotal or otherwise supporting this cell phone hazard claim.
We have never subjected large quantities of people to close up microwave transmitters
Actually, we have. The devices in question are often called ovens. They put out much more power than a cell phone and their effects are well documented.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
Re:They should raise the amount of radiation (Score:1)
I don't get headaches from my Samsung (Score:1)
I don't get the effect when I use the headset, though.
Regards,
Radiation in small doses is probably good for you (Score:1)
There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that small amounts of ionizing radiation help prevent cancer. The cancer rate might be a lot lower if there were more background radiation. If so, then even cellphones that produced ionizing radiation would still benefit rather than harm their users. You might want the one that gives the highest dose, to improve your health!
Here's a Japanese study called verifying radiation hormesis in laboratory animals [denken.or.jp].
The medical dictionary definition of hormesis [graylab.ac.uk] is: "An effect where a toxic substance acts like a stimulant in small doses, but it is an inhibitor in large doses."
A relevant text (recommended on the web but I haven't read it) is:
Kondo, S.; Health effects of low-level radiation.
Osaka, Japan: Kinki University Press; Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing Co., 1993.
This page [wpi.edu] has some interesting examples, including the following:
Radiation hormesis in cancer mortality was found in 32,000 United States and 22,000 British military observers of atmospheric nuclear explosions (Robinette et al., 1985; Darby et al., 1988). The cancer mortality rate of Canadian military observers was only 88% of carefully selected military controls (Raman et al., 1987). The leukemia mortality rate of the Canadian observers was only 40% of that of the unexposed controls. In each study the cancer motality rate of exposed personnel was lower that that of the general population.
The cumulative data represents about 100,000 acutely exposed persons in four countries. This is convincing evidence that whole body exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation do not cause increased mortality. The supporting animal data showed that both acute and chronic exposure to low dose irradiation decreased cancer mortality (Luckey 1990, 1993). The combined animal and human results provide impressive evidence that cancer mortality is decreased by acute exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation.
Radiation in small doses is GOOD for you! (Score:1)
The only way people get estimates to the contrary is by doing a straight-line estimation. So if being forced to drink ten gallons of water all at once drowns 99/100 people, being forced to drink a half gallon is assumed to drown 1/20th as many (about 5 people) and so on down the line; a straight-line estimate would allow you to deduce that even a cup of water a day is more deadly than no water at all. This is obviously the wrong way to estimate how dangerous water is; it's also the wrong way to estimate the danger of radiation (both ionizing and non-ionizing).
Here's a Japanese study called verifying radiation hormesis in laboratory animals [denken.or.jp].
The medical dictionary definition of hormesis [graylab.ac.uk] is: "An effect where a toxic substance acts like a stimulant in small doses, but it is an inhibitor in large doses."
This page [wpi.edu] has some interesting examples, including the following:
Radiation hormesis in cancer mortality was found in 32,000 United States and 22,000 British military observers of atmospheric nuclear explosions (Robinette et al., 1985; Darby et al., 1988). The cancer mortality rate of Canadian military observers was only 88% of carefully selected military controls (Raman et al., 1987). The leukemia mortality rate of the Canadian observers was only 40% of that of the unexposed controls. In each study the cancer motality rate of exposed personnel was lower that that of the general population.
The cumulative data represents about 100,000 acutely exposed persons in four countries. This is convincing evidence that whole body exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation do not cause increased mortality. The supporting animal data showed that both acute and chronic exposure to low dose irradiation decreased cancer mortality (Luckey 1990, 1993). The combined animal and human results provide impressive evidence that cancer mortality is decreased by acute exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation.
Maybe because, (Score:1)
about
getting a divorce/sleeping with your best friend/sleeping with your lawyer/sleeping with your wife/buying your stock at the wrong price/missing a purchase opportunity/spilling OJ on your leather couch.
I wouldn't worry about your phone causing you headaches. Otherwise the simple solution is to stop using your cell phone.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Depends on how you hold the phone (Score:1)
If you point the antenna away from the face as much as possible, you reduce radiation exposure.
Re:thanx dick. (Score:1)
I wouldn't say he was exactly right, but you're not right enough to be that rude.
Who cares about radiation (Score:1)
Silly people.
Re:Why did they bother? (Score:2)
It changes for more than that too. CDMA, the digital technology that over-advertised Sprint PCS and others use, change power levels based on activity. When you talk, you broadcast at a higher power level then when you are just listening. This is done basically for power saving reasons, but there are also other reasons related to CDMA specifically (Ec/Io signal to noise levels). There isn't a constant power level.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
So since we don't know of a mechanism for cell-phone emissions for causing cancer, neither can we explain the results of some of the studies, like the impact on reaction time, and memories that cell-phone emissions have been observed to produce.
Never let your model of the universe surpass or supplant your observations. When you do that, you are essentially a religious fanatic.
Other issues with inconclusive studies: (Score:2)
Flouride in the water reduces IQ.
Deisel fuel particles increase allergies.
Magnetic fields from power lines cause cancer.
Oat Bran reduces cholesterol.
Video Games cause violence.
Napster causes musicians to stop making music.
The economy responds more to liberal economic policy than to cheap oil.
Unregulated soft money causes corruption in the US political system.
Re:OK, so can someone explain (Score:2)
Are they stressing you out? Tell them to fuck off. Go on. Do it! It's good for you!
Re:Physics time (Score:2)
the source was an article from this bloke in a newspaper article. After a quick search I could not find this particlar claim so I'll have to retract it. But I did find on his site a lot of very interesting related cell-phone related info.
http://www.electric-words.com/cell/sindex.html
http://www.electric-words.com/cell/industry/mould
thanks for the reply.
Re:Physics time (Score:2)
is that an analog or digital phone?
figures I've seen, indicate digital cell phones can output up to 4X times the range (4watts).
it would be good if you expanded this idea on prolonged exposure and the heat effects on a specific area of the brain (say just where the tip of the phone is located). Is it possible that repeated heating/cooling can have some biological effect at cellular level on the immediate surrounding area? I wonder how brain tissue behaves with such exposure?
In Wired Mag (Score:2)
It talked about the different frequencies as well as differences between the left and right side of your head.
Re:Inverse-square law isn't always relevant (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:Why did they bother? (Score:2)
Let's consider effective radiated power, which is a combination of antenna gain (or loss) and transmitter power delivered to the antenna. It should be about the same from phone to phone, it's actually supposed to meet a standard. At 800 MHz one can assume that the phone antenna is within a half-wavelength of the head no matter what the configuration of the phone, although this might not be true for 1900 and 2100 MHz. If the antenna is perpendicular to your head, I.E. horizontal, it's not going to be very efficient at reaching the cell site compared to a vertical antenna. The cell site will probably get less signal and will command the phone to increase power!
I think the variations we are seeing here have more to do with how it was measured than anything else. If the phones were actually measured in the same rig instead of individually, we'd probably see very different values.
Bruce
Re:Modulation differences matter - a lot. (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:They should raise the amount of radiation (Score:2)
When you type a message on Slashdot, your spelling and capitalization will be better if you're not also talking on your cellphone at the same time
The real problem is wasted power (Score:2)
The main problem with this is not so much the health concerns (which there's no evidence for, as I understand it; I doubt it heats up your head more than a little exercise does). Rather, it's the 50% wasted power output by the cell phone.
In any case, before long this might be a moot point; there are various companies working on ways to tune the emission pattern so that most of the power is directed away from your head. (e.g. by using a phased antenna array, or by putting some sort of non-absorbing mirror like a photonic crystal [mit.edu] on one side.)
Re:How much radiation is reflected by the skull? (Score:2)
Who is "they"? What study are you refering to? As far as I know, no statistically valid study has ever shown a link between cell phone usage and tumors. There has been plenty of anecdotal evidence - but hell, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the 'Psychic Friends Network' can really tell you if you significant other is cheating on you.
-josh
So what? (Score:2)
Radio waves are far far below the energies required to ionize atoms and thus cause harm to DNA, so I can't possibly see how even the worst phone could cause cancer or any other disease for that matter.
If you can postulate a mechanism by which a slight warming (I think a few tenths of a degree C) of the brain can cause cancer or disease let me know...
-josh
Re:Quack alert: EMF is non-ionizing, dudes. (Score:2)
It seems to me that there's a big question in the air as to whether or not this radiation is doing anything. It also seems to be at such a low level that there doesn't seem to be much risk anyhow.
In an unrelated article, I saw radiation levels of different household products. A Television puts out nearly three times as much as my Mobile Phone (Nokia 5190 -- I'm assuming the numbers of the 5160 are close, if not the same). A microwave puts off nearly 5 times as much. The best part? The measurements for the TV were taken at a distance of 10 feet.
Paranoia is rampant in the technology world.
fry your brain.. literally (Score:2)
Second, I read an article in IEEE last month and they looked at the various studies about cell phones and their usage and if it causes 'brain cancer' and what kind of side effects using cell phones may have on us. The article had went over several studies. Each study did showed that different phones had different levels of radiation. However when trying to link to brain cancer they ALL were inconclusive. However they did mention that the amount of radiation that they produce does affect your brain. Cell phone radiation heats the brain much like certain types of thinking does. One of the studies showed that people who used a cell phone were given a quiz before using the phone and they tested their score and time. After using the phone they were given a similar quiz, only this time there responses were faster. (They didn't say weather they were right or wrong just faster or slower). Apparently using a cell phone will pre heat your brain.
No I don't think it would make you smarter.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
What about the Timeport and the Talkabout? (Score:2)
Here's the numbers from the chart (digital only):
StarTAC 7860: 0.24
StarTAC 7867: 1.38
Talkabout T8167: 1.38
Timeport P8167: 1.38
Garbage (Score:2)
"Gee, look honey. This phone is
"Why certainly, dear ! I'll take the Radio Shaft XL-800 cell phone, please"
If you want to know how dangerous cell phones are (RF wise), you need to look at the population of ham radio operators and various professionals who use UHF radios on a regaular basis. These groups are exposed to 10 to 5000 more times the power that cell phone users are. (Hint: They're not -- and this is coming from a ham radio operator who's an environmentalist)
Inverse-square law isn't always relevant (Score:2)
If you're an optics geek, you could crunch the numbers and give yourself a better idea of the nature of the source at close distances... Of course the "real" answer is going to be something between squared and linear.
OK, so can someone explain (Score:2)
What's up? Where are the bio-tech geeks?
Re:Garbage (Score:2)
As I pointed out in post #204 here, this is a completely invalid comparison due to the differences in modulation methods. The evidence is still coming in, but you can make a fairly strong case that a few milliwatts of GSM/TDMA is far more damaging to biological systems than 1) kilowatts of AM or FM, or 2)possibly megawatts of CDMA. Those are some pretty large spreads. This issue is not as simple or cut and dried as it appears, since wireless phones differ so much in their basic physics...
Re:Modulation differences matter - a lot. (Score:2)
See post #207 for some links to sites that have more info on this. There is indeed a lot we don't know yet, but then hubris has always been a problem, hasn't it?
Re:Quack alert: EMF is non-ionizing, dudes. (Score:2)
I don't think anyone this side of Ted Kaczynski is arguing that all "radiation" is bad. But the people who maintain that RF "can't possibly be harmful because at these levels it doesn't have the energy to break molecular bonds" are taking a position even more ridiuculous than Ted's.
The only safe thing to say is that there is a lot we don't know, and that there is at least some evidence that even low-power RF can cause health problems. (That high-power RF can cause health problems is easily validated by defeating the safety interlock on your microwave oven. I don't recommend that you try that, as you'll probably need new corneas afterwards, if you're lucky..)
A couple of sites not mentioned yet that have a good set of reasonable links about possible risks:
Australian Journalist Stewart Fist's collection of General Cellphone Health risk links [electric-words.com]
Fist's list of links to scientific data and papers on the issue [electric-words.com]
I had another really good one or two bookmarked, but apparently they've moved. If I find out where they went, I'll post the info.
There are links in the above to the many studies that show a linkage between wireless phone usage (especially the GSM and other TDMA CancerPhones (my term, not his)) and non-trivial biological effects. We clearly don't understand this complex issue yet, but to say there's nothing there is simply to be ignorant of the facts, or take a blind position based on a wish.
Physics time (Score:2)
Buddy, I've got news for you. The classical model is wrong. Albert Einstein won his Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect. In a nutshell, the photoelectric effect says that the photons striking a metal must have sufficiently high individual energy (read frequency) for there to be any electric current. For some metals, a bright red light will have absolutely no effect, while an extremely dim blue light will produce a current. The threshold frequency depends on the metal. For the record, the frequency (and energy) of visible light is several orders of magnitude higher than that of microwave radiation. I saw a demonstration of the photoelectric effect in my physics class just the other day...
What this means is that microwaves don't have sufficient energy to ionize any molecules you'll find in your brain.
So, you might ask, how do microwaves cook food? The food absorbs the photons, and gains energy, in the form of heat. (The photons are of sufficient energy to excite certain vibrational states of water molecules).
So why is it a bad idea to put your head in a microwave, but OK to use a cellphone? Look at the power output on each. Your microwave is probably about 750 watts, most of which is absorbed by the food. By comparison, your cell phone puts out 0.5 - 1 watt, most of which is not absorbed by your head. Having your head heated at a rate of some small fraction of a watt just isn't significant--the heat will easily be dissipated faster than it can accumulate (exercising probably does a hell of a lot more to heat your brain). Having your head heated at a rate of 750 watts means heat is going into your brain faster than it can leave. There's the difference. I could go into the physics of what happens to pressure when you hold volume constant and increase temperature, but I don't think that's necessary
This is why I like physics better than biology. Biologists can spend millions of dollars on research trying to figure out whether cell phones cause cancer, and not know the answer. A physicist can sit down for 5 minutes, and give you a more definite answer than you'll ever get from the biologist.
You're welcome (Score:2)
In some circumstances (i.e., the photoelectric effect) the classical model makes predictions that are completely wrong. The classical model predicts that any frequency of "light" should be able to liberate electrons from atoms, and that the frequency should only affect the rate at which electrons are liberated. In contrast, the standard model (i.e. quantum mechanics) predicts that a certain minimum frequency is required to liberate electrons. The classical model also fails completely to explain things like the two-slit interference pattern with single photons...
hmm well this is amusingly moronic. the photoelectric effect says no such thing about current. if it did, radios would not work. the photoelectric effect states photons striking a metal must have sufficiently high individual energy to EJECT AN ELECTRON FROM THE METAL ATOM.
You're partially right here. I should have been more specific--I meant current due to the photoelectric effect. However, radios work by causing already free electrons to move, not by ionizing atoms.
"So, you might ask, how do microwaves cook food?"
no he didnt ask you stupid twat, and he clearly has an understanding of the process if you even bothered to read the whole post.
I know he didn't ask, and yes, I read his post. I said that because I'd seen many other people make the point about microwave ovens, and I wanted to address that.
You appear to have some knowledge of physics, but absolutely none of manners or social skills. Guess that's to be expected from an AC...
Re:Physics time (Score:2)
figures I've seen, indicate digital cell phones can output up to 4X times the range (4watts).
Can you give me a source? From what I've heard, normal digital phones typically produce 0.5 -1 watt. Older analog phones put out more (hence the better battery life with digital). In any case, even if the power output was 4 watts, that's still a lot less than 750 watts (microwave oven).
it would be good if you expanded this idea on prolonged exposure and the heat effects on a specific area of the brain (say just where the tip of the phone is located).
Most of the heating will take place on your scalp and skull. Only a very small amount of radiation will reach your brain. Furthermore, your brain is mostly water, so it takes a lot of energy to heat it up. Finally, blood and fluid is constantly circulating throughout your brain, removing excess heat. If very slight heating effects are carcinogenic, then wouldn't hot water bottles on the head result in brain cancer, too? Funny how nobody is freaking out about them.
Usually when I hear people freak out about cell phones, they're just scared of "radiation", without knowing anything about it. The heating argument is more intelligent, but I would be surprised if the heating effect on brain tissue is significant, and again surprised if slight heating of brain tissue caused cancer.
Re:Actually, it is true (Score:2)
It's only scientific if you have a control group sleeping on laptops that aren't running. And I'd wager that whether it's running or not, using a laptop as a pillow is gonna make you feel funny.
Evolution in action. (Score:2)
Radiation emitting phones are a good example of how this is not true. If you think about it, we've introduced a new variable into our environment that can adversely affect us. Those with genetics making them less likely to be affected by radiation beamed into their brain will go on without batting an eye (or getting brain cancer so to speak). Those who are more susceptible to the effects of low-level radiation will begin to be removed from the gene pool.
We haven't removed ourselves from evolution. We're just changing the path we are taking by introducing new variables into our environment.
EMUSE.NET [emuse.net]
Re:Evolution in action. (Score:2)
EMUSE.NET [emuse.net]
Re:I'm either confused or suspicious (Score:2)
The 7867 [pdlmobility.com] has CDMA 1.9GHz and Analog 800MHz.
The hardware layers are probably implemented differently.
--
Re:How much radiation is reflected by the skull? (Score:2)
> when you're actually wondering, "Could this EMF emitter next to my brain get my ass killed?"
I'm using the scientific method. It's a pretty damn good tool for determining the validity of falsifiable hypotheses.
If you'd care to describe your tool, and why it's better, please go ahead. As of right now, the only "tool" I see you using is FUD.
> since we don't know much about the brain, then the probability is correspondingly higher
> that [Substance X might exist and create localized heating in response to low-level EMF] and lead to
> brain damage.
In what way does our lack of knowledge about the brain increase the probability that a substance exists whose properties are determined only by someone's need to support a theory whose implications are unsupported by the existing data?
And I'd say that we do know enough about the brain to know what brains are made of, and whether or not such a substance exists?
I'm not saying "why has nobody (on your side) done the experiment", I'm asking "why has nobody (on your side) even posited a possible chemical structure for this mystical substance"?
As long as we're engaging in ad-hominem attacks, I'd bet $1000 that if we did fund such an experiment, and it proved conclusively that no such substance existed in brains, the proponents of your side of the argument would posit that phlogiston, or aether, or some substance undetectable by experiment, existed.
(Don't believe me? Look at all the people who fall for therapeutic touch, creation science, or other bunk - yes, bunk - and who come up with increasingly-Rube-Goldberg contraptions to explain their results in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary.)
Science doesn't work that way. Sorry if you don't get it. If you want to believe things in the face of the evidence, go ahead. But until you can come up with the evidence, please don't try to call the basis for your belief "scientific".
Re:How much radiation is reflected by the skull? (Score:2)
>conclusion is present. Otherwise, the "simplest explanation" of why volcanoes erupt would still
> be "because God is mad at us."
The reason that's not a "simple" explanation is that it presupposes the existence of an omnipotent (or at least volcanopotent :) being.
The reason I believe the doomsayers of cellphone radiation do not posess the "simpler" explanation (in Occam's sense) is because they also seem to presuppose the existence of mechanisms solely to support a theory - whereas the data do not yet support said theory.
> I think the poster was more supporting caution until more results are in than Chicken-Littling.
Where one draws the line between caution and Chicken-Littling is a matter of personal preference. I use data to determine where I draw the line. Others, apparently, do not.
All that said, risk assessment is one of those things where the rules of probability tend to be thrown out the window.
(Canonical examples - some people feel safer behind the wheel of a car than on an airplane. Still others will refuse to board an airplane altogether, but laugh off the asteroid threat as pie-in-the-sky doomsaying. People won't play a 50/50 game where you put down $1.00 to win $2.00, but will spend buckets on lottery tickets. Go fig.)
Re:Quack alert: EMF is non-ionizing, dudes. (Score:2)
> what empirical evidence has shown to be true, especially if it flies in the face of known principles
> of biology, physics, etc
Abso-friggin-lutely.
I agree that the studies on cellphone radiation are useful - and if the weight of the evidence changes in favor of the hypothesis that it's harmful, then I'll change my opinion.
Your comment on "especially" if the evidence flies in the face of established knowledge also rings true. It's been said that "the only way to see a revolutionary advance in physics has been to wait for all the old physicists to die".
Einstein spent the latter part of his life refusing to accept quantum physics. Scientists are people too.
Go Nokia 918! (Score:2)
Personally, I'm hoping for the radiation one. There's nothing I'd like better then to wake up one morning, and being able to shoot lazers out of my eyes. In fact, if I did, I wouldn't go to school
Now, if you'll excuse me, my phone just rang.. it is my chiropractor. (Apparently the phone is too heavy for me to cradle on my shoulder.
------------
CitizenC
Trasmiter Radiation isn't the only problem... (Score:2)
Another option is that you're in a high population zone where more cell phones are in use. This means each phone needs to "shout louder" to be heard over the others, which means both more transmissions and more battery usage. Also, some places (such as Taiwan) have regulations for how often Base Stations need to keep in contact with cell phones. In Taiwan, your battery life will be much lower than in other areas, which will definitly contribute to the total amount of stray electricity interfering with your brain.
-Ted
Re:um "Cell" Phones? (Score:2)
They only listed the analog in their chart, but at the Sanyo SCP-4000 is dual mode (AMPS Analog/PCS digital) for sure- there are two of them in my family.
oh and with the CDMA phones, it only transmits at peak power when you scream into the thing as loud as you can
Nope. The volume you speak at affects the output power not at all. Remember, these are just bits you're transmitting. If you look at it with a spectrum analyzer, the power is always just about equal, though it may go down when you are transmitting "silence" due to the style of codec that the phone employs (the codec acts as a kind of compression scheme for voice). This is more of a battery power saver thing than anything else.
What if... (Score:2)
Re:Quack alert: EMF is non-ionizing, dudes. (Score:2)
Take ultraviolet radiation as an obvious example; it clearly causes cancer.
Even simple, low power magnetic fields [dyndns.org] have biological effects. Higher powered magnetic fields can do even more [dyndns.org] to sensitive tissues like the brain.
So, as you said, don't believe the hype, believe the physics, but you must also ALWAYS believe what empirical evidence has shown to be true, especially if it flies in the face of known principles of biology, physics, etc. It is specifically because we find these "rule breakers" that we discover important new phenomena, and are able to refine/correct our existing equations.
Note that I am not saying that cell phone radiation is harmful; however, there isn't enough evidence to say it is clearly NOT harmful. [dyndns.org]
Tops and bottoms? (Score:2)
Personally, I'd shop for a model with a higher rf output. Presumably, it'll send a stronger signal. The biggest gripe I have with my cellphone is that it cuts out when I go into large department stores, so I can't wander around while I'm asking the s.o. what to buy.
Oh, and yes, I use the hands-free kit, so in the unlikely event that rfi turns out to be harmful to brain cells, the only ones I have to worry about are the ones in my hips. ;->
Thank you , Tackhead. (Score:2)
While there are some interesting bone therapies that use low frequency, I just don't see the problem with microwaves. I knew someone with a degenerative hip. Part of his therapy was to wear a pair of magnets strong enough to make a phone reciever hum. It was not a good thing to put on the head! But don't listen to me, trust some of these folks intead:
Here, for those who have asked, are some more specific links about cell phones. http://www.mcw.edu/gc rc/ cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.html [mcw.edu] http://www.foxnews.com/sci enc e/junkscience/000721.sml [foxnews.com] http://www.microwavenews.com/makesense.html [microwavenews.com]
How much money has to be spent before this issue dies? I don't know, there's money in it.
Poster worries about the health of people who use cell phone while driving, mountian climbing, skakeboarding, bike riding, you get the picture. Poster does not own a cellphone, because it cost too much.
Re:It's all a conspiracy! (Score:2)
----
Re:How much radiation is reflected by the skull? (Score:2)
A scientist would reject the claim as being unsupported by the evidence. Until your side of the debate can come up with the evidence, your claim is invalid.
One could make the argument that by marketing cell phones, the manufacturers are making an implicit claim that they ARE safe, and thus they have the burden of proof.
I worry at the way this "scientific" argument is being applied. "Are cell phones safe?" is not a theoretical scientific question to be examined objectively for as long as we want and hold the answer agnosticly positive till proof otherwise. It's a public safety issue and should (IMHO) be approaced like a new pharmacutical or food additive - riggorous testing before release, provisional acceptance and monitoring after release.
Kahuna Burger
Re:Quack alert: EMF is non-ionizing, dudes. (Score:2)
What great juxtaposition... (Score:2)
Re:Quack alert: EMF is non-ionizing, dudes. (Score:2)
Perhaps we need to put "low-radiation" stickers on cell phones to get them to shut the hell up. ;^)
--
Panic. (Score:2)
This just in: trampolines are dangerous -- story at 11.
Just another example of how the media is dumbing down the public by leading them to believe in bad science.
--
Re:Lawsuits waiting to happen (Score:2)
If the cellphone manufacturers currently know that mobile phones cause cancer ...
And if they continue to deny it while knowing it's true ...
... And if they rubbish reputable scientific research proving a link between mobile phones and cancer, while knowing it to be true ....
... and if they then refuse to produce less dangerous mobile phones, in order to avoid creating the poor publicity of implying that the old dangerous phones were dangerous ...
... and if they start to market mobile phones in Third World countries without any of the safety warnings which they are required to put on them in the USA ...
... then, and only then, would the comparison with tobacco be accurate, and in that case I think we'd have a decent case for suing them.
But what does this really mean? (Score:2)
For every study that points to this kind of radiation causing cancer, there is another that proves it to be a wash and cancer rates are unaffected by this kind of radiation exposure. The UW paper/study was recreated and found to be a wash.
Each human being has different sensitivities to radiation. There might be a genetic trait to susceptibility to cancer. Maybe not. Sure, at some point we all get cancer, but at what frequency (ionizing radiation) and what power level? Radio waves pass through us all day.
It comes down to this: your choice. If you don't need a cell/PCS phone, don't use it. If you do, use a headset. What causes most deaths? People not paying attention when they're driving and talking. Not the radiation. That's where the first laws need to be established.
Re:How much radiation is reflected by the skull? (Score:2)
From that article, it sounded like SAR numbers for any phone were typically just a WAG.
Re:How much radiation is reflected by the skull? (Score:2)
You seem to want to win some sort of argument. Arguments are intellectual fights. As I have said in other posts - because I am a certified expert in fighting I understand that winning a fight has nothing to do with being right or wrong - the winner of a fight is the winner of the fight and nothing else. A point which many intelligent people fail to understand.
Fights are destructive to both parties involved - I seek to avoid them wherever possible. The idea of arriving at something as fragile beautiful, precise and delicate as the truth by means of something as crude and destructive as a fight is ludicrous.
For many years the intellectually strong have wielded the power of science as though it were a weapon to bludgeon lesser minds into submission. I won't put up with that sort of behavior - the scientific method is an intellectual tool - not a weapon to be used to establish some ego gratifying pseudo superiority with.
As i said - I don't want to fight. But fighting is what I do for recreation - and I am really good at it. If you want a fight - I'll give you a fight you will never forget. It won't be some namby pamby debate - with rules and a referee. It will be an all out street fight where you don't get to whine about ad hominem or anything else forbidden under the dainty Marquis of Queensberry rules of using logic for intellectual sparring.
In your post you behave as though you believe that winning a fight is proof that you are right - it is not.
If you wish to have a civil discussion of the proper use of the scientific method I would be happy to join in; there is a good chance I could learn something important in such a discussion.
If on the other hand you want to establish your dominance - score points, count coup, and ring buzzers of humiliation in my face, then I will do my best to rip your know-it-all head off of your shoulders and shove it up your arrogant ass - the choice is yours.
Re:How much radiation is reflected by the skull? (Score:2)
Just because there aren't any valid studies doesn't mean that something isn't true. A point which 'cynics' often conveniently ignore.
As I have pointed out before the key word in the phrase 'anecdotal evidence' is 'evidence', 'anecdotal' is a modifier which tells what type of evidence it is. A wise person understands this and judges how much weight to give the evidence. It is just as bad a mistake to always assign a value of zero to anecdotal evidence as it is to always assign a value of 100% to it. Sometimes anecdotal evidence is the only evidence there is. If the early people in the nuclear radiation field hadn't paid attention to the anecdotal stories of health problems of people dealing with radioactive materials why would anyone have ever done any studies on the subject?
We have never subjected large quantities of people to close up microwave transmitters. Any time you do new things you discover things you didn't know before.
The claim that microwaves can't do anything because they are not ionizing radiation is at best doubtful. How do we know that there isn't a chemical substance in the brain which resonates at the frequencies of these transmitters and which will selectively absorb energy from them causing a breakdown of the chemical from selective heating?
To say "Its safe because I don't see any way it could be dangerous" is pretty arrogant.
College Fraternities (Score:2)
This will be the next great fraternity prank. New recruits will be required to spend their pledge time on the cell phone. At their initiation party, they'll shut off the lights and watch their heads glow. For added effect, they'll fix the antennae to be in the shape of the frat's greek symbols.
Information (Score:2)
1) Yes RF may be non-ionizing, but it does get absorbed by the human body, and it must be converted into something (usually heat). I have heard that exposure to strong RF energy will cause cataracts (the eyes are apparently the most sensitive to RF energy). See this WHO page [who.int]. Note we talking about power levels in the hundreds of watts. Kinda like your microwave oven, but not enough for you head to explode like an egg or any other immediate effects. The strongest handheld transmitter I have used is 5 watts.
2) Even with the same power level different antennas radiate different amounts of energy towards the human head. Energy that is absorbed by the head is lost and is useless for communication, in addition to possible health hazards. The EE department at my University was doing research in the area. I saw 3D models of the human head and the power absorbed by the different tissues due to particular cell phones. They were working on antennas that radiated less power towards the head, and more away.
This explains why I can't cook an egg in the shell (Score:2)
They may or may not cause brain damage, but those people who drive with them probably already have all the brain damage they can handle.
--
Chief Frog Inspector
Re:New Rumor (Score:2)
Ever since I got this Nokia 6185, I just can't sp0rt the m@dd w00d like I used to.
Richard
----
Re:Actually, it is true (Score:2)
ear is sore and I drooled in the dvd slot...
Re:OK, so can someone explain (Score:2)
I bet it has a lot more to do with how you're cocking your head, with the quality of the sound reception, etc., than it does with anything that the phone itself is emitting.
I mean, heck, I get a headache after talking on any phone for more than a little while. And I get a headache if the neighbors are playing their stereo too loud. Even though it's not painfully loud at my house, all I hear is a rhythmic "booming" noise, just at the edge of my hearing. Drives me nuts.
Lots of stimuli can cause irritation and headaches; it doesn't take some sort of boogey man "radiation" to do it.
The leading cause of cellphone injury is probably car accidents.
-RobRe:Why did they bother? (Score:3)
Anyway, if I was forced to carry one of these damn things, I'd use a headset. I'd much rather have hip cancer than brain cancer.
Re:Physics time (Score:3)
Buddy, I've got news for you. The classical model is wrong. [...]I saw a demonstration of the photoelectric effect in my physics class just the other day...
Which class? I don't remember actually seeing a demo of the photoelectric effect in my UBC physics courses (1991-1995), but I am familiar with the basic principle. I also took a couple of solid-state courses, so I know about bandgaps, potential wells, and such (although I admit I've forgotten a lot of it by now). It doesn't alter the fact that classical electrodynamics is still a perfectly adequate way to describe many real-world situations, particularly when you're at the radio / microwave end of the EM spectrum. You have to choose a model which fits the problem you are studying, and I don't think there are many systems in the human body which work by ejecting electrons out of metals in a vacuum to create a photoelectric current. The closest one I can think of is the one in my original post - visible light interacting with the retina.
What this means is that microwaves don't have sufficient energy to ionize any molecules you'll find in your brain.
If you read my original post, you'll see that I did compare the energy of a microwave photon to that of visible light, reaching a similar conclusion. But who says you have to ionize the molecule?
And while we're at it, if microwaves are not "ionizing radiation", how do you explain what happens if you put a lightbulb or a small neon bulb in a microwave oven? [Kids, don't try this at home. If you do, make sure you put in a big glass of water as a dummy load, and shut off the microwave as soon as you see the light. But don't even try it in the first place]. Guess what - the gas in the bulb ends up getting ionized in a big way! I have a Classical explanation; do you have a Quantum one?
(The photons are of sufficient energy to excite certain vibrational states of water molecules).
So if they have enough energy to vibrate water molecules, maybe they have enough energy to vibrate or bend other molecules? Even if you don't break any chemical bonds, you still might alter the rate at which some enzyme reacts with some other substance. Here, a biochemist would be more useful than a physicist.
So why is it a bad idea to put your head in a microwave, but OK to use a cellphone? Look at the power output on each.
I did, in my original post. My point was to explore the _non-thermal_ effects of microwave radiation (if any).
A physicist can sit down for 5 minutes, and give you a more definite answer than you'll ever get from the biologist.
And half the time, the physicist's answer starts out like "consider a spherical cow..." - simplifying the problem, but sometimes omitting relevant details. 5 minutes with a physicist will certainly give you a good idea of what areas to ignore and what areas might deserve further investigation, but it's dangerous to rely on just the 5-minute answer.
Re:Quack alert: EMF is non-ionizing, dudes. (Score:3)
They developed tumors at twice the rate of non-exposed mice.
Draw your own conclusions.. reportedly objections were raised about the study, but the sidebar didn't go into too much detail, so that's all the info I have.
How much radiation is reflected by the skull? (Score:3)
Yet more ironic... (Score:3)
Even better! (Score:3)
Important Information Missing (Score:3)
Re:Quack alert: EMF is non-ionizing, dudes. (Score:3)
My bigger concern is all the freaking nuts who use their cell phone all the time. They are very dangerous, especially behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. I suggest we worry about that before we worry about the potential for cancer if someone uses their cell phone for 10 hours a day.
So dammit, I'm in violent agreement.
Bathing in reflected glory (Score:3)
Why?
Simple, I live in Fremont, Center of the Universe, in the midst of Seattle. Not only do I have cool towers pumping out HDTV up on Queen Anne to deal with, I like to brunch on Capitol Hill, where we have even more. And I work blocks from KOMO/4 and KING/5 and take the bus past KCPQ/13, so I'm hoping I get my recommended daily dose of mutation-inducing raditation.
Hey, someone's got to spawn the next race of Net-optimized super beings, and I think I'm up for the job.
GSM vs. CDMA? (Score:4)
1. Cel phones do not emit what is traditionally called "ionizing radiation" (UV, X-ray, gamma ray) - photons with enough energy to knock electrons out of atoms and break chemical bonds. Yes, this type of radiation causes cancer. No, cel phones do not emit it. Period.
2. My cel phone does, however, emit some radiation at a frequency that is capable of effecting electrochemical changes in biological molecules. Specifically, the power LED and LCD backlight emit photons of visible light that interact with my retina. The energy per photon of this radiation is roughly 1/2 of that of the UV at the low end of the "ionizing radiation" spectrum. Let's say a wavelength of 500 nm for "visible", 250 nm for "ionizing". (energy per photon is proportional to 1/wavelength)
3. The "interesting" radiation from the phone is at a frequency of approx. 3 GHz. This gives a wavelength of 10 cm, or 100,000,000 nm. In other words, the energy per photon is 200,000 times less than that of visible light and 400,000 times less than that of "ionizing" radiation.
4. I know that microwave ovens cook food. A cel phone uses a lot less power than a microwave oven. Consider this - it would hurt to stick your hand in a toaster for 5 minutes. That's infrared / visible radiation, with a higher energy per photon than your microwave. Does that mean that all infrared and visible radiation is harmful? Does it mean you will burn your brain if you sit next to a candle? Our bodies contain a lot of water, which has a high heat capacity. We also have circulating blood and an evaporative cooling system which allows us to regulate our temperature. Thermal radiation is only a problem at intensity levels which overload our body's regulating systems.
5. So the question now is, what's left in cel-phone radiation that could cause cancer or other biological effects? This is where I would be interested to hear the opinions of people who know more about these areas:
- Biological systems are quite sensitive to the shape of molecules. Microwave ovens heat food by exciting certain rotational/vibrational modes of water molecules. Is it possible that some interesting biological molecules are tuned so that microwave photons can distort their shape or alter the rate of some chemical reaction?
- Electric or magnetic fields. Instead of the quantum picture of individual photons, consider the classical picture of an electromagnetic wave. A time-varying magnetic field will induce electric currents in a conductive medium. The magnetic field itself will exert a force on moving electrons (Hall effect). Cel phones are easily capable of interfering with nearby electronic devices - some phones make the picture on computer monitors jump around, or produce audible pops and buzzing from cheap radios. The human brain is a rather delicate electrical system. Is it totally unaffected by the same levels of EM fields which interfere with electronic appliances? [I don't know the answer here]
6. If there are any actual interactions according to this last point (which to me seems to be the most likely, _IF_ there's anything there at all), shouldn't the effects be more pronounced with GSM phones than with CDMA ones? As you can see from technical references such as this one [motorola.com], GSM phones use "Time Division Multiple Access" where each one transmits pulses of radiation in a narrow frequency band. Conversely, CDMA phones transmit over a wide frequency range. Given the same total amount of energy being transmitted, a narrower bandwidth means a higher peak intensity of electric and magnetic fields. Therefore, wouldn't the GSM ones be more likely to cause adverse non-thermal effects in surrounding devices?
Modulation differences matter - a lot. (Score:4)
In particular, they ignored the extremely important factor of modulation method. Comparing raw "power output" figures for CDMA and TDMA is more like comparing apples and rocks than even apples and oranges. TDMA (and TDMA-based systems like GSM and its ilk) use a wideband, high-power transmission rigidly slotted in time. This by necessity produces a train of extremely sharp rise-time/fall-time RF power spikes that appear, at least in some studies, to have potential harmful effects on nearby biological systems. Every study that has shown a correlation between RF and potential health problems has been with either analog (which has higher radiated power in general) or TDMA/GSM digital systems. Even analog systems seem to be safer than TDMA because thier continuous modulation lacks the sharp spikiness that seems to be part of the health problem.
CDMA is fundamentally different in its physics because the RF signal is both much lower power and *continuously* spread across the entire frequency band, thus, no spikes. (CDMA is a direct sequence, not frequency-hopping, spread spectrum system.) This is just what Claude Shannon said would happen: if you spread the information out over the frequency domain, the power required to propagate the signal falls dramatically. In fact, CDMA signals are very much like background noise, which is why they were first used for secure and stealthy military communcations syustems. (The direct sequence "spreading sequence" in CDMA is evan called a PN, for "pseudo noise" code. There are a set of these codes called "gold codes" that are all orthogonal to one another, and obviously, the ones you want to use to maximize cell capacity.)
Finally, not all systems are power agile, as Bruce suggests - CDMA is, and developing the ability for the handset to be able to adjust and coordinate its power output in real time with the base station was probably the most difficult part of the engineering that went into making CDMA a commercial reality. (It was certainly responsible for CDMA's rocky and slower start in the market than the brute-force TDMA approach. Power agility is a nice-to-have for battery life in a TDMA system, but it's a gotta-have in a CDMA system of any significant density.)
It's obvious there's quite a lot we don't know about the effects of RF exposure on living things, but there's more than a little evidence to suggest that high power analog and sharp, very fast high-power spikes *may* be hazardous, so why not opt for an alternative that is likely much safer?
This is my frustration with Handspring over their (finally) perfect implementation of a phone for integration with a PDA - it's only available in GSM CancerPhone form. I'd buy one in heartbeat if I could get it with a CDMA radio.
And no, for the record, I do not work for Qualcomm or any other CDMA company - it's just better technology, and a couple of years ago, I bothered to do the research to find out the facts, as best we know them today. I also have decided, unlike some notables like Richard Branson, that carrying and using a wireless phone is worth the risks - but I made sure I understood the nature of the risk I was taking on before I accepted it.
(As an aside, I personally think all the people, even here on slashdot, decrying the "danger" of phone use while driving are luddites - there was a similar argument about the "obvious" dangers of car radios back inthe 1920's. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed...)
Re:How much radiation is reflected by the skull? (Score:4)
BZZT. Go back to Philosophy of Science 101.
In science, the burden of proof is upon the one making the claim.
You claim that there exists a radiation hazard from cell phones. This is a falsifiable, testable claim, and is properly within the domain of science.
Yet the studies do not support your claim.
A scientist would reject the claim as being unsupported by the evidence. Until your side of the debate can come up with the evidence, your claim is invalid.
You further fail to understand the point by going on to say:
> the claim that microwaves can't do anything because they are not ionizing radiation is at best doubtful.
> How do we know that there isn't a chemical substance in the brain which resonates at the frequencies of these transmitters and which will selectively absorb energy
>from them causing a breakdown of the chemical from selective heating?
Because:
(i) The burden of proof is on you. If you believe such a substance exists, please derive its chemical properties (easy enough to do given the requirements of a resonance frequency matching the cellular band), and dissect a few rat brains and show it to us.
(ii)Please explain how such a substance could exist in such concentrations in the brain as to be heated several degrees above (due to the miniscule wattage of cell phones) ambient body temperature, and explain how this heating would be "bad" compared to the normal heating and cooling of the body by 1-2 degrees throughout the course of the day.
(iii) Occam's Razor. Our theories of how brains work are supported by our notions on nonionizing radiation and do not require the invocation of Substance X. Your theory requires the invention of Substance X to explain something that doesn't show up in the data. Why should we choose your theory, which invokes a substance (existence of which is unverified even by you!) expressly for the purpose of saving your theory?
> To say "Its safe because I don't see any way it could be dangerous" is pretty arrogant.
(iv) Argumentum ad hominem and back to burden of proof again. Your argument smacks of "How do we know the moon isn't made of green cheese? I mean, apart from the small areas of moon we explored in the 60s. We haven't been to all the square footage of the moon, to say that none of it is made of green cheese is arrogant!
Actually, it is true (Score:4)
As for the body's electrical field and the impact of other electrical fields on it... The theoretical answer is that equipment exists that measures the strength and homogeneousness of a person's electrical field. Cancer patients and other people in poor physical health have much weaker fields, and the fields tend to be distorted and patchy. In contrast, pregnant women have much larger, "fuller" fields. There was an art exhibit done on this, actually, contrasting the outputted electrical field pictures of people based on their health in life. You could probably find information on this online with a google search.
Anyway, the point is that putting any strong electrical field inside of the body's electrical field causes distortions, and this is a "bad" thing. I don't know if it's bad enough to cause cancer, but it's bad enough to cause a headache.
If you want an empyrical test, try this. Plug in a laptop computer, turn it on, and make sure the power saving mode is OFF, so it should stay on for a while. Start up some CPU intensive program like PoV. Find a quite place for it and take a nap with your head on the laptop. See how you feel in an hour or two. High power usage laptops should illustrate better, of course. Hopefully that will be scientific enough to satisfy your own curiosity. (You did want a real scientific experiment, right? You're not closed minded...
-Ted
New Rumor (Score:4)
Pass it on.
Other valuable charts (Score:4)
I would also like to see the following charts, which are just as valuable as this chart:
The relative levels of the magnetic fields from major credit cards.
The amount of electromagnetic radiation ("Oh no! Radiation!") given off from popular brands of flashlights.
The level of "cooties" my wife's purse gives off.
--
Completely useless measurement. (Score:4)
The closer to cell tower, the LOWER the power.
A true model the actual output power, in the field, is well beyond
the scope of a simplistic measurement based on FCC filings.
What is listed is based on peak power and has little or NO correlation to
actual radiated power while the cell phone is in use.
Re:Quack alert: EMF is non-ionizing, dudes. (Score:4)
Also, most of the molecules in your body that are biochemically interesting are chiral. This means that they have a configuration that for all intents and purposes reacts anisotropically to EM things like polarized light and magnetic fields. A quick search through the ACS publications [acs.org] will show you results of chiral molecules reacting preferentially in magnetic fields.
Mind you, this post doesn't endorse the notion that EMF fields cause cancer, but merely suggests possible mechanisms to the condition. Because, on the other hand, we live in a huge magnetic field everyday...the one produced by the planet we live on. (of course the local strength is probably smaller than the one made by the phone next to your head-or nads if you use the ear/mic attachment and keep it in your pocket)
Why did they bother? (Score:5)
Also, your phone changes its power depending on how much is necessary to reach the cell base. If you are close to the cell and in line-of-sight, your phone will emit less RF.
And nobody's mentioning the most important factor, the inverse square law. Exposure decreases as the square of distance - which means don't hold it up to your head if you're worried, use a headset or a roof antenna on your car.
Bruce
Re:rats (Score:5)
Oh wait... what exactly is the difference between a rat in a lab and working in a cubicle under flourescent lights surrounded by monitors, phones, power lines, and CPU's?
-m
Quack alert: EMF is non-ionizing, dudes. (Score:5)
As for the suggestion that the phone be housed in a Faraday cage, uh, wouldn't that kinda defeat the purpose of a cell phone?
Bottom line. Not everything with the word "radiation" is bad for you. Don't believe the hype, believe the physics.
(For that matter, not everything with the word "nuclear" is bad for you either. But that's another story.)
rats (Score:5)
They should raise the amount of radiation (Score:5)
Just a thought.
________