Scientists Believe Your Cell Phone Is a Death Trap

[Win]

Without reading the linked article, AFAIK, only one large scale study of the effect of RF emission on Humans has been udertaken, that being a study of radio amateurs conducted in the 60's who had persistent exposure to high frequency ( less than thirty MHz or so ) RF over a period of time.

IIRC, there may have been some mild increase in leukemia's in the study group. I've been a Ham for thirty six years, seen my fair share of RF, and both my parents died from cancer, one from luekemia, one from a brain tumor (who used a cell phone a lot) and I've already survived a blood based cancer back in my mid thirties.

Personally, I avoid exposure to RF to the extent I can, consistent with my hobby. I use directional antennae separated from my person to the extent reasonably possible, avoid omni antennae except for mobile/portable use, keep my power to the lowest level possible to maintain communications ( this is the law, but is rarely followed ), and I rarely use my handleld cell phone - when I do, it is brief and to the point; for longer conversations I use the OnStar phone that has an external antenna. I would never hang a bluetooth device off my head for any longer period of time than absolutely necessary, although I do have them for both my phone and ham radios. If I have to use a handheld VHF/UHF radio, I prefer to keep it at my hip with a remote speaker microphone.

The very high frequencies used by cell phones, bluetooth, WiFi are likely to be far more problematic to tissue than lower frequencies.

 

[Kestas]

Originally Posted By: Lurch
I like to stay at least 6 feet away from my TV when I'm watching it, which is what I meant to say - not 4 feet. I'm sure it emits stuff but I don't really part with my TV.

What about the computer screen?... okay, you've got an LCD monitor, but what about the past 10 years?

 

[PeteTheFarmer]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
Originally Posted By: Lurch
I have a TriField Meter that measures EMF and I found that most electrical items only emit EMF from close up. TVs emit a lot of EMF but as long as you don't sit closer than 4' or so away, you will not be absorbing it.


Ever heard of a detector van (only used in the UK, as far as I know)? A TV emits enough stuff that they can tell what you're watching from tens of feet away.


Is that what some people refer to as a van Eck phreak? My grandfather, now retired, said some federal computers had to be operated in safe rooms to prevent this type of attack

 

[Lurch]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
Originally Posted By: Lurch
I like to stay at least 6 feet away from my TV when I'm watching it, which is what I meant to say - not 4 feet. I'm sure it emits stuff but I don't really part with my TV.

What about the computer screen?... okay, you've got an LCD monitor, but what about the past 10 years?


I've had LCD monitors for the last few years. I have a Dell Dimension tower PC that puts out EMF but I keep it about 4 feet away from me. I seemed safe from EMF at 4 feet.

I don' t think the LCD puts out much EMF but I haven't checked it yet.

I don't get real close to it. Like right now, typing this, I'm a good 36" from it.

 

[PandaBear]

Everything is a death trap and anyone can be called a scientist these days, I say shenanigan on this.

 

[Quest]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Everything is a death trap and anyone can be called a scientist these days, I say shenanigan on this.


+1.

 

[Samilcar]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
If there really were a health hazard from cell phones, microwaves, and other Gigahertz and lower radio emitters, then we wouldn't be seeing a few isolated cases, we'd be seeing a MASSIVE and rampant outbreak of problems.

Now it is true that all radio waves DO interact somewhat with living tissue, and the lower the frequency the less the interaction. Microwaves at high power levels will obviously cook meat, so you don't want to get a body part in a high-level microwave field. But UNLIKE ionizing radiation (X-rays, gamma rays), exposure to LOW LEVEL radio waves does not "accumulate" over time and cause damage equivalent to a shorter high-level dose. There's a threhold effect- if the level is low enough that it doesn't cause local heating of tissue, then no damage is done.

The guy has taken a real phenomenon and extrapolated it to the point of buffoonery.


I agree.

Our high school was so close to a 100,000 watt radio station tower that you could hear the station as low background music as soon as you picked up any telephone in school. The signal was so strong that car radios would pick up nothing else on any part of the dial. We literally had to drive underneath the shadow of this tower when driving to or from school.

If radio waves caused any sort of ill health effects, we would already know about it, as we've been swimming in the stuff for the past half century.

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: Lurch
Cell Phone = Death Trap


Are there really people that are dumb enough to believe anything that "Doctor" Mercola puts out or promotes?

The guy puts the quack in quackery. He's been cited by the FDA more than once because of his outlandish claims.

He's a profiteer and a snake oil salesman, nothing more. His only achievement has been to part fools from their money.

 

[crinkles]

Originally Posted By: TaterandNoodles
I wonder if this is the cause of my subconscience visceral reation to my phone. When it rings while I am driving I feel compelled to whip it out of the car window.


+1,000,000!

i feel sick in my guts when i hear the [censored] thing ring!

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer

Is that what some people refer to as a van Eck phreak? My grandfather, now retired, said some federal computers had to be operated in safe rooms to prevent this type of attack


Yes, it's the same type of thing. The Federal standard for shielding to prevent the signals from leaking out and allowing interception is called TEMPEST.

 

[mechtech2]

My bother is an electrical engineer in the cell phone industry.
And what he has concluded is that there are indeed dangers for certain people. Maybe head volume, genetics, whatever. But There is a real problem here and there.

 

[Lurch]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: Lurch
Cell Phone = Death Trap


Are there really people that are dumb enough to believe anything that "Doctor" Mercola puts out or promotes?

The guy puts the quack in quackery. He's been cited by the FDA more than once because of his outlandish claims.

He's a profiteer and a snake oil salesman, nothing more. His only achievement has been to part fools from their money.


Personally, I think the real quacks are in the FDA, EPA, and other agencies funded and heavily influenced by multi billion dollar a year profit drug corporations. If you want to follow the FDA, more power to you.

Dr Mercola is IMHO a devoted health care professional and health researcher. Yes, he likes to sell things - but IMHO - he most often sells good things - not "snake oil". I don't buy things from him but if I had more money I would. If you don't want to believe in Mercola and his devotion to diet and health, again, more power to you.

"Snake oil" is what people often label healthy things that they're unwilling to change about their own life style.

The FDA and the MDs prefer you follow them - not Mercola - and run to them for lots of expensive Rx pills that cover up symptoms vs treat the CAUSE of the illness.

 

[Lurch]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
My bother is an electrical engineer in the cell phone industry.
And what he has concluded is that there are indeed dangers for certain people. Maybe head volume, genetics, whatever. But There is a real problem here and there.


Just like mercury / silver fillings. Some people do OK on them, but they can be big trouble for others [like me].

My parents both died of cancer at 58 & 76. I'm 58 now and I don't think I'd be wise to surround myself with known or suspected carcinogens and say more prayers.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
My bother is an electrical engineer in the cell phone industry.
And what he has concluded is that there are indeed dangers for certain people. Maybe head volume, genetics, whatever. But There is a real problem here and there.


I would say it would have some affect, like causing headache and borderline discomfort that if your body is marginal, will increase the chance of certain defects and cancer.

But compare to sun light, tailpipe emission, food poisoning, etc. The impact is much smaller. Certainly not a death trap.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
If there really were a health hazard from cell phones, microwaves, and other Gigahertz and lower radio emitters, then we wouldn't be seeing a few isolated cases, we'd be seeing a MASSIVE and rampant outbreak of problems.

Now it is true that all radio waves DO interact somewhat with living tissue, and the lower the frequency the less the interaction. Microwaves at high power levels will obviously cook meat, so you don't want to get a body part in a high-level microwave field. But UNLIKE ionizing radiation (X-rays, gamma rays), exposure to LOW LEVEL radio waves does not "accumulate" over time and cause damage equivalent to a shorter high-level dose. There's a threhold effect- if the level is low enough that it doesn't cause local heating of tissue, then no damage is done.

The guy has taken a real phenomenon and extrapolated it to the point of buffoonery.


I agree.

Our high school was so close to a 100,000 watt radio station tower that you could hear the station as low background music as soon as you picked up any telephone in school. The signal was so strong that car radios would pick up nothing else on any part of the dial. We literally had to drive underneath the shadow of this tower when driving to or from school.

If radio waves caused any sort of ill health effects, we would already know about it, as we've been swimming in the stuff for the past half century.


We've been "swimming" in the electric field of low frequency RF for many years, but that is materially different from today's exposures which are far higher in frequency, far greater in number, and located in people homes - or against their body. RF field strength is not linear with relation to the distance from a point source - it diminishes dramatically as distance from the source increases, so even a small separation distance can result in a dramatic reduction in field strength, conversely, even a small decrease in distance can result in a dramatic increase in field strength.

Todays world places people in close proximity to a myriad of GHz level RF sources - some as close as being pressed against the head. The effects, if any, of this type of exposure are unclear. Anyone who thinks that the average person's exposure to RF has not increased dramatically need only compare noise floor measurements of today against measurements made only five or ten years ago.

RF Exposure is not just the province of quacks - even for my amateur station, I am now required to calcalute the potential exposure of persons to the field strength of my antennae, and adjust as required to ensure that they are below a maximum permissible level, which decreases with increasing frequency. This is not new - the FCC began promulgating such rules in 1985, and determined that even amateur stations should be subject to them beginning back in 1998.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
RF field strength is not linear with relation to the distance from a point source - it diminishes dramatically as distance from the source increases, so even a small separation distance can result in a dramatic reduction in field strength, conversely, even a small decrease in distance can result in a dramatic increase in field strength.


I would imagine that it falls under the exponential rate that most radiated power does. Half the distance, four times the strength. It assumes no intermediate reduces the strength. For many radiated sources it would be the density of intermediate objects ..which are effectively incidental shielding.

Quote:
RF Exposure is not just the province of quacks


Even if it is currently ..the whole "health physics" of it is relatively young. While they have figured "gross" safety on gamma radiation exposure (for example), the health science itself is less than 50 years old. The occupational levels have more to do with practicality then cast in stone validity. It's mostly a "best defense is no be there" deal.

Given our incredible increase in cell phone usage ..and over such extremely broad demographics ..the ultimate damage assessment will be unclear. Going from essential use by very few (due to expense) ..to totally excessive use by so many ...if any side effects are to emerge they're going to do so in spades and the time frame from onset of exposure to development of the complication may be long.

 

[Liquid_Turbo]

This is a very real problem. Cellphones have only been mainstream for 5 years or so.

Imagine if 20 years from now there is an outburst of radiation bourne illnesses, like brain tumours.


Just a thought. Cellphones could be the new cigarettes. In the beginning everyone assured people smoking cigarettes was 100% safe.

 

[d00df00d]

...except cell phones have a use.

Either way, just imagining a bad consequence shouldn't be cause for alarm. There has to be at least some probability that the bad consequence will occur.

 

[Lurch]

Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
This is a very real problem. Cellphones have only been mainstream for 5 years or so.

Imagine if 20 years from now there is an outburst of radiation bourne illnesses, like brain tumours.

Just a thought. Cellphones could be the new cigarettes. In the beginning everyone assured people smoking cigarettes was 100% safe.


Good point. So many people have the "wait and see" attitude and we shall someday see the long term effects of this technological advancement. So many things like this are done in the name of $$$. There's big money in it - big profits and lots of jobs for many people. That's the good part.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Lurch
So many people have the "wait and see" attitude

I hope you're not referring to the desire to wait for evidence and good science before panicking.

Maybe I just don't get out much, but I don't know anyone who would say "eh, I'll wait until I get cancer before I believe the claims." If they don't react, it's because they have decided that there is insufficient (if any) cause for alarm.