Mobile phone radiation - the cigarettes of our generation?

Kuva

California says the only safe way to talk on your cell phone is to text

study into the safety of mobile (cell) phones is expected to report early next year that the devices can trigger the most lethal form of brain cancer, glioblastoma multiforme (GBM)

They released their initial findings early so that the report couldn't be buried apparently. Levels of that type of cancer have risen in the general population.

Wi Fi, bluetooth, they all operate in the same way yes? Just with varying levels of intensity?

Apple explicitly tells you to use a hands-free option like speakerphone or headphones while talking in order to “reduce exposure to RF energy.” The manual also notes that cell phones are currently tested for radiation assuming the devices would be kept at least 5 mm (0.2 in) away from the body while being carried. That’s a lot more than the thickness of pocket fabric.

Will you change how you use your phone?

Atlantic Dawn

I would say diesel cars would be more the cigarettes of our generation.

Grab All Association

Haven’t died yet. Mobile phone owner since the TACS 088

Are Am Eye

Kuva wrote: »

California says ...

Look. It's started already.
Kuva is having conversations with Nation and State territories. Damn you
radio signal radiation. Damn you.

Kuva

Are Am Eye wrote: »

Look. It's started already.
Kuva is having conversations with Nation and State territories. Damn you
radio signal radiation. Damn you.

I rang them on the landline.

peasant

I'm still on cigarettes...

ThisRegard

Have cigarettes been banned or something for them to be no longer cigarettes of every generation?

Yamanoto

Patients in Ireland who have undergone removal / partial removal of Glioblastomas (which will almost certainly return) are told by Neurologists to avoid the use of mobile phones.

Donald Trump

Why are you trying to smoke mobile phones ya lunatic?

Capt'n Midnight

Phones have been around longer than most people on the planet. And most people on the planet use mobile phones.

5 billion people use mobile phones. Even tiny risks would have shown up in the statistics by now. Mobile phone radiation is non-ionising, so it's less harmful than warmth at a distance.

Microwave ovens are allowed to leak way more radiation and more energetic radiation than a phone. The old CRT TV's were lethal , X-rays and Kilovolts and Ozone in every home.


Sunlight is a proven cause of cancer.
Oxygen is also a carcinogen.



Mobile phones are safe, as long as the battery doen't catch fire.

Roger_007

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

................


Mobile phones are safe, as long as the battery doen't catch fire.

Strangely enough cigarettes are also safe, as long as they don't catch fire!;)

I've this big fancy smartphone there the last year and I reckon it's frying my hands..

Tropheus

Sugar is the cigarettes of our generation. Just look at the levels of obesity around you. Mobile phones don't even come close.

Ten of Swords

Kuva wrote: »

Will you change how you use your phone?

No

And neither will anyone else

4068ac1elhodqr

The only solution to reduce mobile phone 2.4ghz radiation is:

i) Use 'Airtubes' (hollow earpiece) during conversations, and keep at a distance*.
ii) Consider SAR rating/values e.g. Some iPhones can be 300% higher than some Samsung Notes
iii) Avoid use if there is only 1bar, as it will be boosting power output to achieve a steady connection.
iv) Very high data transfers e.g. Live HD stream will 'cook' much more than simple audio calls.
v) Don't press the phone directly against your head, this is especially important for younger skulls.

*Bluetooth can do this, but that also runs (likely lower, but also at 2.4ghz^), hence hollow tube sonics are better.
^2.4ghz is the exact same frequency of electromagnetic radiation as the typical household microwave.

Ash.J.Williams

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I would say diesel cars would be more the cigarettes of our generation.

How could they when our national green party forced the entire country to buy them... They are the green party they know what they're doing

Kuva

Tropheus wrote: »

Sugar is the cigarettes of our generation. Just look at the levels of obesity around you. Mobile phones don't even come close.

No, we know sugar is a killer, we don't have doctors telling you to eat more.

Capt'n Midnight

Jeremiah Breezy Author wrote: »

The only solution to reduce mobile phone 2.4ghz radiation is:

Turn off wifi and bluetooth*

3G and 4G use lower , less energetic frequencies than 2.4GHz.


*of course this is only worth doing if you turn off everything in your house with wifi and bluetooth, like your telly and internets.

4068ac1elhodqr

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Turn off wifi and bluetooth*

3G and 4G use lower , less energetic frequencies than 2.4GHz.

*of course this is only worth doing if you turn off everything in your house with wifi and bluetooth, like your telly and internets.

All signals to towers from mobile phones are microwave and thus based on 2.4hghz standards, same as bluetooth/wifi. No difference if 3G,4G,5G.

The only real exception might be networks using even higher or twin channel for up/down streams.

Best idea is as you kind of suggest hard-line internet, landline. Sat or cable fed TV.

All these gizmos and gadgets from doorbells, adjustable lights and non-stop recording Alexa yokes don't help with overall EMF/radiation exposure.

Capt'n Midnight

Jeremiah Breezy Author wrote: »

All signals to towers from mobile phones are microwave and thus based on 2.4hghz standards, same as bluetooth/wifi. No difference if 3G,4G,5G.

The directional point to point links up on the towers don't radiate much down to the ground.

Also they for defo they don't use the 2.4GHz ISM band.

This reminds me of the "This will raise your chances of getting ___ by 45%." and people think it means ".005% > 45.005%".

Atlantic Dawn

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

How could they when our national green party forced the entire country to buy them... They are the green party they know what they're doing

. I suppose they are working in that the more people they kill off the less resources of the planet those that are dead can use.

donegaLroad

Tropheus wrote: »

Sugar is the cigarettes of our generation. Just look at the levels of obesity around you. Mobile phones don't even come close.

apparently a tumor needs two things to grow, glucose and a blood supply.

Jawgap

Kuva wrote: »

California says the only safe way to talk on your cell phone is to text

study into the safety of mobile (cell) phones is expected to report early next year that the devices can trigger the most lethal form of brain cancer, glioblastoma multiforme (GBM)

They released their initial findings early so that the report couldn't be buried apparently. Levels of that type of cancer have risen in the general population.

Wi Fi, bluetooth, they all operate in the same way yes? Just with varying levels of intensity?



Will you change how you use your phone?

No, but that's because my theses was on non-ionising radiation and the biological effects thereof

Canis Lupus

I'd say cigarettes are the cigarettes of our generation unless people have stopped smoking?

chocksaway

In California, life gives you cancer

Donald Trump

chocksaway wrote: »

In California, life gives you cancer

In life, California gives you cancer


Why no links to Rhythm is Dancer classic lyrics?

Donald Trump

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Turn off wifi and bluetooth*

3G and 4G use lower , less energetic frequencies than 2.4GHz.


*of course this is only worth doing if you turn off everything in your house with wifi and bluetooth, like your telly and internets.

Yeah but you'd have to be a nerd to know those things. Which likely means you'll have a shite life anyways.

Can't feckin' win it seems

Canis Lupus

donegaLroad wrote: »

apparently a tumor needs two things to grow, glucose and a blood supply.

Best of luck completely removing all forms of sugar from a person.

flaneur

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The directional point to point links up on the towers don't radiate much down to the ground.

Also they for defo they don't use the 2.4GHz ISM band.

Actually, you’re mostly using frequencies similar to UHF television with European mobile networks.

2G and increasingly 3G : 900MHz (UHF)
3G 2100MHz (microwave)
4G mostly 800MHz (UHF)
1800 MHz is also used as a secondary GSM 2G band and for 4G.

The reason microwave ovens are dangerous is not the frequency, it’s the intensity. They output about 650 to 800 Watts into an enclosed chamber.

Try putting your hand under a 800W light bulb enclosed in a small reflective box. That’s compared to a mobile phone barely outputting the power of a small torch bulb.

WiFi and Bluetooth use absolutely tiny power outputs, which is why they only work over relatively very short distances.

Capt'n Midnight

flaneur wrote: »

Actually, you’re mostly using frequencies similar to UHF television with European mobile networks.

Ah, but TV networks have been pumping out megawatts since the 1950's. So we'd have seen the effects by now.

tip - if you are carrying a fluorescent tube near a transmitter and it starts glowing like the sun it's probably a good idea to stand a little further away

The reason microwave ovens are dangerous is not the frequency, it’s the intensity. They output about 650 to 800 Watts into an enclosed chamber.

I'm only counting the allowed leakage of microwave ovens, a few mw/cm2.

Bypassing the safety interlocks is not a good idea. You still won't get cancer though. Just burns. Internal burns.

flaneur

Generally you'll only see that florescent tube effect with very high power AM transmitter systems and they're scarily high wattage - half a gigawatt in some cases getting output in the 100 to 900kHz area. Not MHz

Old transmission systems used single very high power sites. Modern system use multiple low wattage sites

Brute force broadcasting.

The biggest risk to humans actually from RF is cataracts.

Your eyes can't dissipate heat very well from the lens. So if you expose them to high intensity RF (including IR)(usually from the sun) it will cook the lens much like an egg white.

rgodard80a

In fairness, liberalism flourishes in a rich area.... so it's no surprise that California is the source of this.

Someone with wealth and the need for social approval is going to dictate their views to the world.

Just look at the "smug alert" episode of South Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smug_Alert!

s7ryf3925pivug

Yamanoto wrote: »

Patients in Ireland who have undergone removal / partial removal of Glioblastomas (which will almost certainly return) are told by Neurologists to avoid the use of mobile phones.

I had a relation who had this surgery and was not told this.

Tropheus

Kuva wrote: »

No, we know sugar is a killer, we don't have doctors telling you to eat more.

I disagree. We have doctors treating Type 2 Diabetes with drugs rather than diet. "Keep eating the sugar, here's a pill".

The food industry hides it in ingredients under different names to conceal it. It's added to nearly everything at this stage in some form or another.

Kuva

Tropheus wrote: »

I disagree. We have doctors treating Type 2 Diabetes with drugs rather than diet. "Keep eating the sugar, here's a pill".

Change your Doc.

Tropheus

Kuva wrote: »

Change your Doc.

Doesn't exactly solve the point I'm making.

dxhound2005

Phone masts are dangerous. If they are within a mile of someone who thinks they might bring down the price of local property. So are electricity pylons, wind farms and solar farms.

Life expectancy in the US has just fallen for the second year in a row. First time for over 50 years. Even AIDS only brought it down for one year in the 1990's.

Must be the phones.

flaneur

There's one within about 1 mile of EVERY house in EVERY urban area, small town and village everywhere in the world. So, I guess it's time to write off Central London and downtown Manhattan and Paris' most expensive arrondissements.

In general the RF output of mobile phone towers is quite low power. They're only covering small areas and aren't powerful broadcasting transmitters at all. In urban areas, you're looking at large numbers of very low powered mobile phone sites. This actually reduces your exposure to RF from your mobile phone itself as the short distances mean your handset needs to transmit far less power to work. They can have ranges of as little as a couple of km. There are even micro and picocells that are not much more powerful than a WiFi router and provide coverage in areas that main sites can't reach.

Electricity transmission lines have been shown, over and over again to have absolutely no link whatsoever to cancer.

The studies quoted linked clusters of lines to cancer, but neglected to link where those lines were going - feeding highly polluting heavy industry centres that included things like steel mills (which have got a potential to cause cancer clusters when mismanaged / emitting certain pollutants). So clusters of lines often meant clusters of heavy industry. It's a classic example of correlation not equating to causation and a very misleading scare story.

If there were issues with power lines causing cancer, you'd see high incidences of cancer amongst linesmen and people working with heavy power systems. There's no evidence of that at all.

Wind farms and solar panels are NOT dangerous unless you have someone drop one on your head or you decide to go for a ride on a turbine blade.

Capt'n Midnight

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Life expectancy in the US has just fallen for the second year in a row. First time for over 50 years. Even AIDS only brought it down for one year in the 1990's.

Must be the phones.

So it's not the chlorinated chicken , or the hormones in the beef or the GMO ?

In reality
Opioid crisis linked to two-year drop in US life expectancy

In 2016, 63,600 people died from a drug overdose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) - up 21% from the previous year and three times the rate in 1999.

flaneur

The US is experiencing falling living standards on average too. You've increasing concentration of wealth, huge income inequality, political hostility towards socially provided services leading to the winding down and even removal many programmes.

Socially, the US peaked sometime in the 1970s and it has been going downhill since. The more extreme politics gets, the more you will see negative statistics around things like life expectancy. There aren't very many developed countries which would have a political movement arguing AGAINST universal healthcare. Even in countries that don't have it, it's an aspiration.

If it continues the way it's going, you will see a growing number of indicators starting to slip backwards.

SlowBlowin

Why are we talking about phones ?

Take a field strength meter and sit in any modern car, bus, train. All new cars have RF flying all over the place. Every restaurant, hotel, most shops has 2.4 and 5.8 GHz emissions.

Every been in a plane ? The amount of radiation you experience in an average flight is huge compared to terrestrial sources. A 100,000 mile frequent flyer gets about 20 chest x-rays worth.

Live in an area with granite rock, rented a holiday cottage in Devon ? Thats worse.

There is a place in the US, a desert, full of hippies that wrap themselves in foil and swear they feel better. I think that is about the only angle to avoid some of your daily dose.

By the way smoke from cigarettes is also dangerous because it has elevated levels of radiation that get exposed directly on your lungs.

SB

flaneur

People also forget that your systems are designed to cope very well with quite a significant amount of background radiation, ionising, non-ionising and a lot of random toxins and stuff.

Most of the main cancer risks were are exposed to are probably still chemical - products and pollutants that are quite carcinogenic. We have been improving things through much better environmental and product regulation, but there's still a long way to go.

I seriously doubt that mobile phone RF is high up the list of things I would be freaking out about. Things like excessive use of unnecessary chemicals, exposure to incomplete / poorly managed combustion (e.g. open fires) is probably a lot worse for you but they're age-old and warm and fuzzy so nobody pays any attention to that. That lovely smokey smell may be very, very bad for you.

dxhound2005

flaneur wrote: »

The US is experiencing falling living standards on average too. You've increasing concentration of wealth, huge income inequality, political hostility towards socially provided services leading to the winding down and even removal many programmes.

Socially, the US peaked sometime in the 1970s and it has been going downhill since. The more extreme politics gets, the more you will see negative statistics around things like life expectancy. There aren't very many developed countries which would have a political movement arguing AGAINST universal healthcare. Even in countries that don't have it, it's an aspiration.

If it continues the way it's going, you will see a growing number of indicators starting to slip backwards.

Are living standards really falling? Did the US peak socially in the 1970's? I don't know what peaking socially means. If life expectancy is any indicator of standards, then things have been on a steady upwards curve until now.

ED E

Jeremiah Breezy Author wrote: »

All signals to towers from mobile phones are microwave and thus based on 2.4hghz standards, same as bluetooth/wifi. No difference if 3G,4G,5G.

The only real exception might be networks using even higher or twin channel for up/down streams.

Best idea is as you kind of suggest hard-line internet, landline. Sat or cable fed TV.

All these gizmos and gadgets from doorbells, adjustable lights and non-stop recording Alexa yokes don't help with overall EMF/radiation exposure.

Utter horsemanure

Capt'n Midnight

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Are living standards really falling? Did the US peak socially in the 1970's? I don't know what peaking socially means. If life expectancy is any indicator of standards, then things have been on a steady upwards curve until now.

Back in the 1970's you could fund college with a part time job. And when you graduated debt free you'd get a good job could support a family.

flaneur

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Are living standards really falling? Did the US peak socially in the 1970's? I don't know what peaking socially means. If life expectancy is any indicator of standards, then things have been on a steady upwards curve until now.

The big one that has been cropping up has been growing income inequality since the 1980s. That would be illustrated by the steady erosion of the possibility of earning a decent income as a blue collar worker.

It's where you're seeing Trump's angry supporters emerging from, even if he's not really providing them with any answers - that's why they're angry. It's just being expressed in a weird way. If he doesn't deliver, I think you're going to see a lot of very disillusioned people.

Things like life expectancy are likely to trail any major social changes that happened quite a while ago.

dxhound2005

flaneur wrote: »

The big one that has been cropping up has been growing income inequality since the 1980s. That would be illustrated by the steady erosion of the possibility of earning a decent income as a blue collar worker.

It's where you're seeing Trump's angry supporters emerging from, even if he's not really providing them with any answers - that's why they're angry. It's just being expressed in a weird way. If he doesn't deliver, I think you're going to see a lot of very disillusioned people.

Things like life expectancy are likely to trail any major social changes that happened quite a while ago.

I go back a while myself. Not living in the USA I don't know whether you are right or not. If you are right then politics there has been responsible for a lot of bad stuff for 40 years or more, and Trump couldn't have caused much in his short time.

What I do know is that it is human nature to complain about everything, sometimes without good reason. And people living 10 years longer on average than 60 years ago, tells me than things are mostly OK.

flaneur

I didn't say Trump caused it. He's a symptom of a problem that has been growing since the 1980s and the advent of an increasing trend towards income polarisation, dismantling of social support and basically what we now refer to as neoliberalism.

Trump didn't cause it, rather he's the reaction to a couple of decades of quite damaging social and economic policies that have just put huge amounts of money into fewer and fewer hands in the US.

The unfortunate bit is that Trump may be the symptom but he's certainly not the cure.

dxhound2005

flaneur wrote: »

I didn't say Trump caused it. He's a symptom of a problem that has been growing since the 1980s and the advent of an increasing trend towards income polarisation, dismantling of social support and basically what we now refer to as neoliberalism.

Trump didn't cause it, rather he's the reaction to a couple of decades of quite damaging social and economic policies that have just put huge amounts of money into fewer and fewer hands in the US.

The unfortunate bit is that Trump may be the symptom but he's certainly not the cure.

Did 8 years of Obama not reverse anything?

Del2005

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Phone masts are dangerous. If they are within a mile of someone who thinks they might bring down the price of local property. So are electricity pylons, wind farms and solar farms.

Life expectancy in the US has just fallen for the second year in a row. First time for over 50 years. Even AIDS only brought it down for one year in the 1990's.

Must be the phones.

American's are dieing younger because the big drug companies lied and said that opioids were harmless and now the USA is dealing with a major opioid crisis. Due to the nature of the USA some parts won't provide first responders with the drug which stops opioid overdoses so poor people are dieing young, though I've heard from some first responders here that when you save a person from a opioid OD you get abuse because it kills the high.