Cell Phone Radiation

[deranger]

I'd just like to put this out there:

Does anyone know how powerful and/or dangerous cell phone radiation really is? I understand that most studies have shown it to be very low in terms of danger, but I'm becoming incerasingly skeptical that all is ok in the cell world. I used to work for Bell Mobility and they glossed over it, not pretending it wasn't there, but suggesting it wasn't strong enough to be considered a health risk.

Thoughts?

[mattm]

hmmmmm,

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone-radiation.htm

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030222/fob1.asp

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/03/1452215&from=rss

from the fda

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/600_phone.html

[bokonon]

I sell cell phones for the Wireless Wave (Bell, Rogers and Fido) and according to what I have gleaned so far there have been no conclusive studies. Each individual phone model (eg. Motorola V220) has an SAR rating, indicating the amount of radiation produced by the phone. If this really concerns you get a model with a low SAR. Honestly, I really don't believe that my cell phone is going to give me a tumour. It's just fear and skepticism of new technology, which is perfectly normal and understandable. This issue was pretty hot a few years ago, but it has really died down with the lack of evidence. I know there are a few anecdotal cases that would make great examples of proof if they were statistically viable, but the fact is that they are not. I'm pretty sure that there will always be one person that has a bad reaction to even the most banal thing. Humans are infinitely variable in their physiology. Most of us are going to be okay, even if we talk on yuppie phones.

[SevenSeasJim]

My left testicle is 3 times larger than the right one now, but the vibrate feature just feels so nice.

[ge-off]

i fear my cell phone giving me cancer as much as i fear the sun giving me the cancer

edited to add.... which is not much.. you see my wang is showing

<---<<

Edited March 6, 2006 by Guest

[Tooly]

well between computer screens, tv sets, and cell phones, we humans of this age get a pretty hefty dose of radiation.

some of this energy escapes in the form of radiation at various frequencies, in particular VLF and ELF (very low frequency and extremely low frequency) fields. The spot of electrons which sweep the screen generates what scientists call PEMR (Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Radiation) which, at close range, disturbs the balance of all living cells. It has been established that the harmful effects of PEMR exist all around the screen, especially in front of and behind the tube, effects which persist several hours after the computer or TV set has been turned off.

http://www.emf-bioshield.com/emf/arecrt.html

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/TVRad.html

Edited March 6, 2006 by Guest

[Birdy]

i've always wondered why cell phones can't be used when you're pumping gas?

why is that?

[Tooly]

if the cell phone makes a spark via static electricity, i believe that to be why they dont like you on your cell around the gas pumps

[bradm]

It's been hypothesized that using a cell phone can create a spark that could ignite the gasoline vapours. MythBusters doesn't think so.

Aloha,

Brad

[Birdy]

hmm.

a guy yelled at a friend of mine once at a gas station as she was gabbing away. it was ugly.

[deranger]

Since I posted this topic, I've been doing more research, and I can't say what I've found has made me feel any more confident in the complete safety of cell phones....

As for as credibility of studies, I would consider this guy, Dr. George Carlo, to be at the top. He led a 5 1/2 year, $28 million study (funded by the cell industry) to determine the saftey and health risks of cell phones. The industry thought he would conclude what they hoped, they were safe. That wasn't quite what he found....

for example:

* The risk of acoustic neuroma, a benign tumour of the auditory nerve that is well in range of the radiation coming from a phone's antenna, was fifty percent higher in people who reported using cell phones for six years or more, moreover, that relationship between the amount of cell phone use and this tumour appeared to follow a dose-response curve:

* The risk of rare neuro epithelial tumours on the outside of the brain was more than doubled, a statistically significant risk increase, in cell phone users as compared to people who did not use cell phones;

* There appeared to be some correlation between brain tumours occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head;

* Laboratory studies looking at the ability of radiation from a phone's antenna to cause functional genetic damage were definitively positive, and were following a dose- response relationship.

letter to AT&T CEO from Dr. Carlo

http://members.iinet.net.au/~emfacts/mobiles/carlo.html

I'm continuing to research this (yes, online) looking at both sides of the argument.

[ge-off]

for example:

* The risk of acoustic neuroma, a benign tumour of the auditory nerve that is well in range of the radiation coming from a phone's antenna, was fifty percent higher in people who reported using cell phones for six years or more, moreover, that relationship between the amount of cell phone use and this tumour appeared to follow a dose-response curve:

* The risk of rare neuro epithelial tumours on the outside of the brain was more than doubled, a statistically significant risk increase, in cell phone users as compared to people who did not use cell phones;

* There appeared to be some correlation between brain tumours occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head;

* Laboratory studies looking at the ability of radiation from a phone's antenna to cause functional genetic damage were definitively positive, and were following a dose- response relationship.

letter to AT&T CEO from Dr. Carlo

http://members.iinet.net.au/~emfacts/mobiles/carlo.html

I'm continuing to research this (yes, online) looking at both sides of the argument.

<---<< my wang's still waggin' wooo look at him go1

[d_rawk]

Yeah, this is one of those things that until we get more credible studies not funded by the companies themselves, it is really tricky. They may very well be safe, but because the studies can either remain unpublished if they are unfavourable (because they were commisioned by the industries themselves), or only published when favourable (same reason) ... there is little to make a decision on. There are enough researchers who have come forward with their dissatisfaction about having their commisioned studies suppressed that one is at least reminded of the earlier days regarding tobacco research, whether or not the results would be similar.

*Some* people do seem to have very significant problems with *some* types EMFs. Whether this is a direct effect, or whether EMFs for some people serve as a coagulation trigger, etc ... is up in the air. But there are clinical results (and plenty of anecdotal too, of course) of improvements of some disorders through EMF filtering and avoidance.

Dr. Gerald Goldberg just published a book dealing with the effects of pervasive microwave radiation (apparently a not too difficult read) with the sorta cheesy pop-title of "Would you put your head in a Microwave oven?". Haven't read it, so can't vouch for it. I've read some decent extracts, but hate the title.

There are a few very good and balanced ones specificially about EMFs, but being technical and as thick as they are, tend to run $100-$300 a copy.

[Paan]

If you work in a warehouse or retail environment, or just spend alot of time in stores, it won't really make a difference. With the RFID technologies coming into major play over the next year or so, you are going to be exposed to healthy doses of electromagnetic waves, cell phone or no cell phone.

[deranger]

I think one of the main considerations with regard to cell phones is the proximity of the radiation to your tissue, ie right next to your head. Yes, we are bombarded with EMF all the time from all over the place, but what might be at issue is the proximity and duration of that exposure. In this sense, the entire body might be exposed over long periods, vs. localizing it to one specific area.

"With the RFID technologies coming into major play over the next year or so, you are going to be exposed to healthy doses of electromagnetic waves, cell phone or no cell phone."

I agree, but having the cell there (next to my head) anyway might be exacerbating an already tenuous situation.

[boiler]

I highly doubt there's any radiation source in a cell phone, so I don't think that radiation is the worry with cell phones. Maybe only when you sometimes have to stand outside in the sun to use them.

Be more worried about the mantle in your coleman lantern (super radioactive), or if you're really worried about radiation be careful with bananas (oww the potassium in there glows baby).

Most radiation that we are exposed to does not have the power to penetrate passed our skin, or it passes through us with little effect. You have to be exposed to a lot of radiation for it to become carcinogenic.

[deranger]

I think you might want to do a cursory glance at what exactly we're talking about here. Not radiation as in GAMMA radiation, which is the toxic waste, X-ray kinda stuff. The radiation we're talking about is low-level electromagnatic frequency, what most/all electronic devices emit. It is a type of radiation, and it is emitted from cell phones, TV's, computers. And radiation from cell phones is exactly the worry I'm talking about.

Following any of the links mattm provided above might shed some light on it.

Edited March 6, 2006 by Guest

[d_rawk]

Carcinogenic effects are only one consideration, though, of course. (there are some tentative links with leukemia, mind you).

This is rather CFIDS specific, but does give some overview of potential hormonal disturbances and in particular, pineal gland damage, that may occur through consistant, low-level EMF exposure:

EMFS as a co-factor in treatment of CFIDS

Note that the references are more valuable in some ways than the article itself.

A 1998 study by Bonhomme-Faivre et al. found "evidence that chronic human exposure to environmental low frequency EMFs ... can cause neurovegetative, hematological and immunological disorders". Specifically they found that a group of workers who were exposed to MFs ranging from 0.9 mG (0.09 uT) to 66 mG (6.6 uT) had significantly lower lymphocyte counts than a similar control group not exposed to these levels. The exposed group also reported significantly more occurrence of subjective conditions - mental and physical fatigue, depression, melancholy, irritability, fainting and diminished libido - than did the control group. Of particular interest with this study were two workers who had exposures from 3 mG to 66 mG (0.3 uT to 6.6 uT) and worked full-time above transformers. Both were found to have depressed lymphocyte levels which quickly returned to normal when they stopped working in that area (51).

Finally it can be noted that not all researchers agree that environmental-level 50-60 Hz EMFs are causally related to hormone disruption and changes at the cellular level This group support the assumption that the small electric fields and currents induced in the body's tissues from external EMFs are smaller in magnitude than both internally produced fields and even the thermal noise of liquid phase solutions. This assumption has been challenged by Gandhi who has found evidence that the fields induced in the human body by power lines and appliances, essentially all strong artificial EMF sources - are much larger than the fields generated naturally inside the body. Gandhi used a computer model to calculate the electric and magnetic fields in the 41 - 70 Hertz frequency band from internal and external sources. He found that even the largest natural fields generated by the heart are hundreds of times smaller than those induced by standing under a high-voltage line or by using a hair dryer. Ghandi stated "My assumption was that what is already in the body is pretty substantial, but that turns out to be incorrect, . . It is time for people to reject false assumptions" (52).

The work of Ghandi and others has led the current authors to examine mechanisms which might offer some explanation of how weak environmental EMFs might affect living systems. One possible mechanism which is now gaining popular support among biologists is stochastic resonance (53). This novel application of stochastic resonance theory to biological systems is currently being explored in the authors' laboratories.

Note also that this is definately not cell-phone specific, but that cell-phones do provide a significant source of rather localized EMFs -- quite directly to the pineal gland, too, interestingly enough. Endocrine disorders are rapidly on the rise. Something is having a rather deleterious affect. The rise of diagnosed endocrine disorders correlates rather roughly with the rise of EMF prevelance, and considering that endocrine disorders are often entirely undiagnosed, the actual relationship probably comes suspiciously close to 1:1.

But who knows? 1:1 seems too clean. In a quantum universe, as they say, there is no such thing as a single cause.