- Status
elbert
Distinguished
- Jan 11, 2005
- 341
- 0
- 19,260
[citation][nom]knickle[/nom]Lower radiation will have a direct "negative" impact on your reception. There's no way around this. Buy the one with the lower radiation if you want, but please don't blame your service provider when your dropped call rate goes up.[/citation]
Yes there is away around reception of lower radiation emitting cell phones. More towers reducing the distance the signal needs to travel. Service provider's can be blamed for their customers wanting higher radiation cell phones.
Yes there is away around reception of lower radiation emitting cell phones. More towers reducing the distance the signal needs to travel. Service provider's can be blamed for their customers wanting higher radiation cell phones.
[citation][nom]Parrdacc[/nom]"....consensus of scientific belief...."Consensus of scientific belief is not scientific fact or for that matter even science. There was a consensus of scientific belief that the Earth was the center of the universe going back to Aristotle and Ptolemy. If you asked people back then they would have said of course the Earth is the center of the universe (consensus of scientific belief) but obviously that was wrong.Seems to me we are going down this route again. If the majority believe it then it must be true. I have a nagging feeling that even those in the scientific community are starting to go down this road instead of actually doing some real research and find out the facts. Instead it seems like some of them are seeking only "facts" the support their hypothesis and ignore the ones that don't. Careful people is all I am saying.[/citation]
Very very much agreed. the scientific community is getting dangerously close to sticking to a party line and discrediting any who might disagree with it or perform research that could question it
Very very much agreed. the scientific community is getting dangerously close to sticking to a party line and discrediting any who might disagree with it or perform research that could question it
maestintaolius
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 446
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]flamethrower205[/nom]What's so bad about SF's response to be a bit more conservative wrt cell phone radiation? Even if there is no conclusive evidence that it causes damage, that doesn't rule out the possibility that it does. To all the people who get pissy about the masses being concerned about the radiation, is there conclusive evidence that the radiation DOES NOT cause problems? We live in a society in which new technology is always coming out, often much faster than we can really understand it in full. Conclusive evidence for cell phone studies may come out in decades, who knows. But in the interim, why is it so bad to use history as a lesson? Xrays were a fad when they came out, and later people realized that they are in fact harmful. Tons of older high school science books suggest allowing kids to play with mercury...and then people realized this was harmful. The list goes on and on. Our history is full of harmful new technologies and people swearing that it's safe until years later conclusive evidence comes out showing it's not.From this point of view - and until conclusive evidence comes out - fears are justified. Hopefully cell phones are proven to be ok, but until then, I'm not going to keep mine right next to my balls all day.Finally, what do you define as "conclusive"? That's a matter of statistical opinion, which always has a margin of error. The fact that there is some evidence, one way or another, is still worth something, just not as much as if it were very confident.[/citation]
Because anyone who's taken even 1 class of quantum chem or physics knows that microwaves are harmless and there's an absolute mountain of data that says exactly that and not one cell phone study that says "your phone will kill you" (well unless you text and drive perhaps). The problem is perception, when you say radiation, people immediately think it ties to radioactivity or UV or xray radiation and assume all radiation is bad. That simply isn't the case. Radiation just means something is radiating, it doesn't necessarily mean "invisible waves of certain doom".
Case in point, the highest MW radiation is about 2x10^-23 J/photon (and thats 300 GHz not the 1-5 handheld devices use). On the other hand, the average human body radiates IR at approximately 10,000 nm or 2x10^-20 J/photon, meaning your body puts out radiation thats 1000x as powerful as your cell phone and it's doing it ALL THE TIME. Your monitor, tv and cellphone display put out light radiation, which is approximately 26,000x as energetic as cell phone radiation; yet despite hours of watching crappy reality TV while sitting in lighted rooms, people aren't keeling over from light induced cancer.
Now if you actually wanna talk about harmful radiation, UV puts out photons that are actually 1 million times as powerful as MW and xrays put out photons 1 billion times more energetic than MW (yeah Carl Sagan B as in billions). UV and Xrays are harmful because those photons possess enough power to knock electrons off pretty much any molecule or atom, hence why they're called 'ionizing'. Ionizing radiation possesses enough power to tear apart DNA and increase your risk for cancer. If radiation isn't ionizing it, can't do this and won't give you cancer.
So, I can already hear the 'but Maes, the cellphone radiation is concentrated near your head and that'll cause harm because you're absorbing a concentrated dose'. Again, people are confusing this with high energy radioactivity and/or ionizing radiation. Exposure to high energy radiation/radioactivity in a concentrated area can be bad and can cause cancer because you may overwhelm your body's natural healing ability to repair gradual radiation/radioactivity induced damage that you're always absorbing from solar/space/earthbound radioactivity/ionizing radiation sources. Of course, long term/low-level exposure is bad too, but generally not as much of a problem because your body can heal a limited amount of damage and destroy cells it can't heal.
However, the key word to the above paragraph is HIGH ENERGY and IONIZING, if radiation isn't ionizing, it will not ionize your DNA and rip it apart. Even more radiation of the same energy level, even if it's super concentrated, will not induce ionization. That's really the whole basis behind quantum physics and chemistry, if a single photon doesn't possess enough energy to ionize a molecule, more photons of that same energy content will NEVER ionize that molecule.
And if you don't believe me, well, there was this guy in the early 1900s that discovered exactly this phenomena, called the photo-electric effect, they gave him the Nobel prize for it, went by the name of Einstein. He basically discovered that certain metals will ionize when exposed to radiation that met a certain level of energy content (dubbed quanta). He found out that if you crossed this minimum threshold of energy/photon the metal would shoot off electrons at a certain speed, increasing the intensity of light (the number of photons) increased the number of electrons and increasing the energy content of the light (via smaller wavelengths) made the electrons go faster (or made them higher energy). If you failed to meet this minimum energy/photon requirement you wouldn't see a single electron, no matter how intense you made that light.
TL;DR version: MW radiation doesn't possess the power to harm your DNA, no matter how concentrated you make it because Einstein says so.
Because anyone who's taken even 1 class of quantum chem or physics knows that microwaves are harmless and there's an absolute mountain of data that says exactly that and not one cell phone study that says "your phone will kill you" (well unless you text and drive perhaps). The problem is perception, when you say radiation, people immediately think it ties to radioactivity or UV or xray radiation and assume all radiation is bad. That simply isn't the case. Radiation just means something is radiating, it doesn't necessarily mean "invisible waves of certain doom".
Case in point, the highest MW radiation is about 2x10^-23 J/photon (and thats 300 GHz not the 1-5 handheld devices use). On the other hand, the average human body radiates IR at approximately 10,000 nm or 2x10^-20 J/photon, meaning your body puts out radiation thats 1000x as powerful as your cell phone and it's doing it ALL THE TIME. Your monitor, tv and cellphone display put out light radiation, which is approximately 26,000x as energetic as cell phone radiation; yet despite hours of watching crappy reality TV while sitting in lighted rooms, people aren't keeling over from light induced cancer.
Now if you actually wanna talk about harmful radiation, UV puts out photons that are actually 1 million times as powerful as MW and xrays put out photons 1 billion times more energetic than MW (yeah Carl Sagan B as in billions). UV and Xrays are harmful because those photons possess enough power to knock electrons off pretty much any molecule or atom, hence why they're called 'ionizing'. Ionizing radiation possesses enough power to tear apart DNA and increase your risk for cancer. If radiation isn't ionizing it, can't do this and won't give you cancer.
So, I can already hear the 'but Maes, the cellphone radiation is concentrated near your head and that'll cause harm because you're absorbing a concentrated dose'. Again, people are confusing this with high energy radioactivity and/or ionizing radiation. Exposure to high energy radiation/radioactivity in a concentrated area can be bad and can cause cancer because you may overwhelm your body's natural healing ability to repair gradual radiation/radioactivity induced damage that you're always absorbing from solar/space/earthbound radioactivity/ionizing radiation sources. Of course, long term/low-level exposure is bad too, but generally not as much of a problem because your body can heal a limited amount of damage and destroy cells it can't heal.
However, the key word to the above paragraph is HIGH ENERGY and IONIZING, if radiation isn't ionizing, it will not ionize your DNA and rip it apart. Even more radiation of the same energy level, even if it's super concentrated, will not induce ionization. That's really the whole basis behind quantum physics and chemistry, if a single photon doesn't possess enough energy to ionize a molecule, more photons of that same energy content will NEVER ionize that molecule.
And if you don't believe me, well, there was this guy in the early 1900s that discovered exactly this phenomena, called the photo-electric effect, they gave him the Nobel prize for it, went by the name of Einstein. He basically discovered that certain metals will ionize when exposed to radiation that met a certain level of energy content (dubbed quanta). He found out that if you crossed this minimum threshold of energy/photon the metal would shoot off electrons at a certain speed, increasing the intensity of light (the number of photons) increased the number of electrons and increasing the energy content of the light (via smaller wavelengths) made the electrons go faster (or made them higher energy). If you failed to meet this minimum energy/photon requirement you wouldn't see a single electron, no matter how intense you made that light.
TL;DR version: MW radiation doesn't possess the power to harm your DNA, no matter how concentrated you make it because Einstein says so.
maestintaolius
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 446
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]ordcestus[/nom]Very very much agreed. the scientific community is getting dangerously close to sticking to a party line and discrediting any who might disagree with it or perform research that could question it[/citation]
No, as a scientist/engineer (an evil Chemical Engineer that wants to poison your children and pollute your drinking water all while pouring oil into the Gulf), I'd say the community is more apt to denying any science that doesn't agree with their particular beliefs regardless of how much data there is. Denialism runs rampant regardless of what your political views are. Right-wing conservatives are all about the anti-greenhouse effect (evidence: Venus) or evolution (evidence: fossil records) same as the left wingers tree huggers that believe organic food is better for you and the environment (evidence:nutritional studies and decreased efficiency of organic methods) or the vaccine people that think they cause autism (evidence: CDC study of over 1 million children). There's plenty of "I don't like that science because its liberal (or evil corporate) propaganda" denialism on both sides and is hardly a party-line.
No, as a scientist/engineer (an evil Chemical Engineer that wants to poison your children and pollute your drinking water all while pouring oil into the Gulf), I'd say the community is more apt to denying any science that doesn't agree with their particular beliefs regardless of how much data there is. Denialism runs rampant regardless of what your political views are. Right-wing conservatives are all about the anti-greenhouse effect (evidence: Venus) or evolution (evidence: fossil records) same as the left wingers tree huggers that believe organic food is better for you and the environment (evidence:nutritional studies and decreased efficiency of organic methods) or the vaccine people that think they cause autism (evidence: CDC study of over 1 million children). There's plenty of "I don't like that science because its liberal (or evil corporate) propaganda" denialism on both sides and is hardly a party-line.
maestintaolius why does it have to harm your DNA to be harmful? As you likley already know, exposure to enough (non ionizing) RF energy at a close enough range can cause warming of internal tissue. Since cell phones antennas are practically adjacent to your face, there is sufficient power to have an effect. Also, while carrier frequencies are non ionizing, various intermods and spurious frequencies can reach ionizing levels.
I have coworkers that have worked along side high power MF and VHF and Microwave communciatin equipment. Many of them have developed cancer that COULD be attributed to their long term RF exposure. Radar technicians particulary have higher rates of cancer than would be considered normal. It is also very common knowledge that traffic police who use portable doppler radar guns often develop testicular cancer, since they often rest the gun on their laps. Non of these devices are characterized to emit ionizing radiation, yet the statistics are staggering.
The thing is here, we need genuine scientific long term studies of groups that have steady and consistent and signifigant exposure to non ionizing RF energy. We currently have no such studies, so your scientific consensus is uninformed.
SAR is an important number even in lower frequencies. In my line of work, RF is more and more considered to be a workplace hazard and we are educated to minimized our exposure, despite LACK of scientific consensus.
I have coworkers that have worked along side high power MF and VHF and Microwave communciatin equipment. Many of them have developed cancer that COULD be attributed to their long term RF exposure. Radar technicians particulary have higher rates of cancer than would be considered normal. It is also very common knowledge that traffic police who use portable doppler radar guns often develop testicular cancer, since they often rest the gun on their laps. Non of these devices are characterized to emit ionizing radiation, yet the statistics are staggering.
The thing is here, we need genuine scientific long term studies of groups that have steady and consistent and signifigant exposure to non ionizing RF energy. We currently have no such studies, so your scientific consensus is uninformed.
SAR is an important number even in lower frequencies. In my line of work, RF is more and more considered to be a workplace hazard and we are educated to minimized our exposure, despite LACK of scientific consensus.
I work with RF on a regular basis in the military, am in college as an undergrad for EE, and have completed both the Navy nuclear power training as well as the IT pipelines. With such knowledge at my disposal I have TESTED RF absorption in people. I also work with 2 persons who recently went in to have tumors in their neck and throat removed. The diagnosis was the malignant tumor was caused directly by exposure RF and RF absorption, and happened to be in EXACTLY the same shape and patter of the antenna the user used on a regular basis. The persons out there who exclaim that NON-IONIZING radiation cannot cause these symptoms are sorely misinformed. Remember that the frequency of radiation is changed as it passes through a medium (ie the human body) so that potentially most of the emitters energy should NOT be dangerous to a body, the deeper it penetrates through a medium the higher the probability that a percentage of it WILL shift to a frequency that IS IONIZING and DANGEROUS. Also remember that RF power is at a maximum at the antenna, and where do people hold their cell phones at; yes RIGHT AT THE ANTENNA. Only headset users that hold the antenna away from their body will not experience this. Oh and then there is the issue of the bodies natural reaction to heat up when a cell phone is held close. Try this experiment, hold a childs fake cell phone up to your head for 30 minutes. I stand by the assertion that you WILL NOT HEAT significantly. Now do that with a cell phone, I know for a fact that you will. A large portion of that heat is generated by exactly RF ionization, the rest being heat generated as waste by the processor of the phone. All are not good on your body. Then there is the assumption that many have that the antenna in a cell phone ONLY puts off the one frequency that is not dangerous, and this is incredibly false! They cover many bands, and put out a decent powered noise floor covering nearly the entire noise floor. Yes some of that RF is dangerous. So, and to end, my point is that prolonged use (more than a couple minutes a day) is semi dangerous to humans, and the longer any person uses a strong RF in close proximity to their body the higher percentage of damage they are doing. NEVER should a user be on a cell phone for 30+ minutes, despite I know nearly everyone does!
"People have been using cell-phones at an exponentially increasing rate for over two decades. In all that time, not a single confirmed case of any sort of adverse health effects that can be directly attributable to cell phone use. We're talking about hundreds of millions of people and trillions of hours of cell phone use with no established adverse effects. That is pretty much the most comprehensive safety analysis that we could ever hope to have. I think San Francisco needs to stop taking themselves so serious (the FCC too, for that matter)."
Really? Im not a panic type or a conspiracy person or any of that, but I am a doctor. I still use my phone, mind you, like I said, Im not some crazy who worries about everything, but there have been MANY studies done that do proove several adverse health effects. Does it cause cancer? Can't say for sure. Am I saying it does? No, but could it? Maybe. It has been shown to screw up sleep cycles in many peer reviewed studies, and also the radiation of a cell phone in a pocket can lower sperm count and decrease their mobility (they swim around in circles). Yea yea yea some people may LIKE that idea, har har, but point being, there are adverse effects. And the studies are pretty damn clear, read them and make your own opinion, but essentially they are pretty well done with good parameters.
Again, Im not a nut job, but it doesnt hurt anyone who cares a lot about it to take precautions either, and it doesnt affect you if they do.
The other point I am bringing up is that whether it is "bad" for your or not, there isnt much harm in someone not doing it. If someone wants to buy a lower SAR phone why do you care?? Buy your own phone with the highest SAR available, no one else will care either. They are just putting information out there, its not even a "warning". If it just says SAR 1.11 or SAR 1.6 (which is what this is btw), its not saying "Don't buy high SAR". Only people looking for the information will know what it means anyway unless someone decides to care and look it up. Its been on Verizons website for all their phones for years. Again, what do you care what other people do or dont care about?? Geeze, they're not limiting or putting warning stickers on anything. If there is some extra info on the tag just leave it be, skip over the 8 characters, its not a huge deal
Really? Im not a panic type or a conspiracy person or any of that, but I am a doctor. I still use my phone, mind you, like I said, Im not some crazy who worries about everything, but there have been MANY studies done that do proove several adverse health effects. Does it cause cancer? Can't say for sure. Am I saying it does? No, but could it? Maybe. It has been shown to screw up sleep cycles in many peer reviewed studies, and also the radiation of a cell phone in a pocket can lower sperm count and decrease their mobility (they swim around in circles). Yea yea yea some people may LIKE that idea, har har, but point being, there are adverse effects. And the studies are pretty damn clear, read them and make your own opinion, but essentially they are pretty well done with good parameters.
Again, Im not a nut job, but it doesnt hurt anyone who cares a lot about it to take precautions either, and it doesnt affect you if they do.
The other point I am bringing up is that whether it is "bad" for your or not, there isnt much harm in someone not doing it. If someone wants to buy a lower SAR phone why do you care?? Buy your own phone with the highest SAR available, no one else will care either. They are just putting information out there, its not even a "warning". If it just says SAR 1.11 or SAR 1.6 (which is what this is btw), its not saying "Don't buy high SAR". Only people looking for the information will know what it means anyway unless someone decides to care and look it up. Its been on Verizons website for all their phones for years. Again, what do you care what other people do or dont care about?? Geeze, they're not limiting or putting warning stickers on anything. If there is some extra info on the tag just leave it be, skip over the 8 characters, its not a huge deal
[citation][nom]Transmaniacon[/nom]The cell phone radiation is pretty negligible though, everyone absorbs radiation from the environment everyday, and are bodies can tolerate it fine. Even when we have x-rays, which expose us to levels hundreds of times higher, we are alright (though you have to limit your annual x-rays). Cell phone SAR just falls into that general everyday environmental category. Sure I would support lowering SAR levels on newer phones, but its not something we need to panic over.[/citation]
Radiation that exist in X-rays and radiation that exist in cellular phones is two different type of radiation. I know this is difficult, since you seem to know nothing about science, but try to keep to the facts. This whole discussion is quite hilarious and quite stupid.
If radiation from RF signals caused cancer, then all of the amateur radio operators(Hams) and all of the people who worked around the radio towers, cellular towers, etc, would have melted long ago. Seeing as I am an amateur radio operator and I do not have any type of cancer of second head, this whole argument is crap. Keep on mind that I do operate on frequencies that are at the same level as cellular communications, and even higher.
To help you believe me, I am going to tape a dipole antenna to my head, set my base transceiver to a frequency close to a cellular band and transmit for a solid month(keep in mind that these transceivers have far more power[wattage] than cellular phones). After quite a few months, when I am cancer free, then everyone can drop this idiot's hysteria.
Radiation that exist in X-rays and radiation that exist in cellular phones is two different type of radiation. I know this is difficult, since you seem to know nothing about science, but try to keep to the facts. This whole discussion is quite hilarious and quite stupid.
If radiation from RF signals caused cancer, then all of the amateur radio operators(Hams) and all of the people who worked around the radio towers, cellular towers, etc, would have melted long ago. Seeing as I am an amateur radio operator and I do not have any type of cancer of second head, this whole argument is crap. Keep on mind that I do operate on frequencies that are at the same level as cellular communications, and even higher.
To help you believe me, I am going to tape a dipole antenna to my head, set my base transceiver to a frequency close to a cellular band and transmit for a solid month(keep in mind that these transceivers have far more power[wattage] than cellular phones). After quite a few months, when I am cancer free, then everyone can drop this idiot's hysteria.
Hixbot: I was in law enforcement for a number of years, and I ran traffic enforcement(along with my other duties) for two years, yet my testicles are free from cancer. God, you really are a moron, trying to get people believe your nonsense. I worked in an agency where everyone in it(save for the administration) ran radar and no one had cancer.
I am friends with a number of State Troopers(Georgia) and none of them have ever heard of people getting cancer from radar, lidar, or any other type of speed measuring devices(of which they have all of them). I will certainly pass on your joke to my old colleagues.
tigerwild: My comments to Hixbot mostly apply to you too. Save for...there is no way you have an electrical engineer degree from any respectable college or university. You might have got it from Phoenix University, and that would explain a lot.
Any professor, at a respectable place of learning, that would teach you that RF radiation would cause cancer, or even give you a hint that it might, they would not be working there any longer.
I am friends with a number of State Troopers(Georgia) and none of them have ever heard of people getting cancer from radar, lidar, or any other type of speed measuring devices(of which they have all of them). I will certainly pass on your joke to my old colleagues.
tigerwild: My comments to Hixbot mostly apply to you too. Save for...there is no way you have an electrical engineer degree from any respectable college or university. You might have got it from Phoenix University, and that would explain a lot.
Any professor, at a respectable place of learning, that would teach you that RF radiation would cause cancer, or even give you a hint that it might, they would not be working there any longer.
[citation][nom]elbert[/nom]Yes there is away around reception of lower radiation emitting cell phones. More towers reducing the distance the signal needs to travel. Service provider's can be blamed for their customers wanting higher radiation cell phones.[/citation]
Of course they could, but cell sites cost an arm and a leg. Your bill will go up significantly. Most customers would rather get cancer than fork out more money for their phone.
Of course they could, but cell sites cost an arm and a leg. Your bill will go up significantly. Most customers would rather get cancer than fork out more money for their phone.
No need to call names. Is that how the police usually deal with the public? I didn't make things up, it is a very true reality that some retired officers who kept their radar guns on their lap during MANY years of service developed testicular cancer. Now officers get madatory RF awareness training (here in canada).
I'm surprised that you speak with such certainy on the subject. You make certain claims about what professors should and shouldn't say, where as you clearly have said your career was in law enforcement.
I speak with no certainy, although I am an RF engineer, and work daily in the field. I know better than to claim certainy on the safety of non ionizing radiation. My point from the start is that people are unable to claim certainy that it is safe without LONG term studies. (your 2 years working traffic is not a study).
Since safety isn't certain, I think posting SAR specs on devices is useful to concerned public.
It is important to know that not developing cancer from your personal experience does not constitute evidence of anything. It is important to realize that absobtion rates increase very rapidly as range to the antenna decreases. Immediately adjacent to a transmitting antenna is MUCH worse than even 1 foot away.
It is important to know that risks of RF are not strictly cancer, as I mentioned its the local heating of internal tissue that can be a risk. Wireless devices with their transmitting antennas adjacent to the head, close to the eyes and brain may not be a good idea for extended periods of time over many many years.
Once again, I'll say that I'm not saying with certainy that it is NOT safe. I am merely saying that no one can currently say with certainy that IS safe.
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/fnradpub.html#recommendationstraffic
I'm surprised that you speak with such certainy on the subject. You make certain claims about what professors should and shouldn't say, where as you clearly have said your career was in law enforcement.
I speak with no certainy, although I am an RF engineer, and work daily in the field. I know better than to claim certainy on the safety of non ionizing radiation. My point from the start is that people are unable to claim certainy that it is safe without LONG term studies. (your 2 years working traffic is not a study).
Since safety isn't certain, I think posting SAR specs on devices is useful to concerned public.
It is important to know that not developing cancer from your personal experience does not constitute evidence of anything. It is important to realize that absobtion rates increase very rapidly as range to the antenna decreases. Immediately adjacent to a transmitting antenna is MUCH worse than even 1 foot away.
It is important to know that risks of RF are not strictly cancer, as I mentioned its the local heating of internal tissue that can be a risk. Wireless devices with their transmitting antennas adjacent to the head, close to the eyes and brain may not be a good idea for extended periods of time over many many years.
Once again, I'll say that I'm not saying with certainy that it is NOT safe. I am merely saying that no one can currently say with certainy that IS safe.
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/fnradpub.html#recommendationstraffic
elbert
Distinguished
- Jan 11, 2005
- 341
- 0
- 19,260
[citation][nom]knickle[/nom]Of course they could, but cell sites cost an arm and a leg. Your bill will go up significantly. Most customers would rather get cancer than fork out more money for their phone.[/citation]
Not really. At the same time the cell sites are added there could be an increase in customers. More cell sites would increase quality, reduce dropped calls, and reduce those worried about the risks. If cell company's want more customers I cant see no other way except increase quality near that of wired base phones. Cell phone company's cant increase the SAR beyond the limit so they must add more cell sites.
Not really. At the same time the cell sites are added there could be an increase in customers. More cell sites would increase quality, reduce dropped calls, and reduce those worried about the risks. If cell company's want more customers I cant see no other way except increase quality near that of wired base phones. Cell phone company's cant increase the SAR beyond the limit so they must add more cell sites.
[citation]http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofreq [...] onstraffic[/citation]
I find linking to OSHA to be amusing.
[sarcasm, just in case] Yes, because government agency regulatory decisions are always well-founded in logic and reasoned discourse. [/sarcasm]
...
Curious...that seems...to be the entire basis of the argument against the SF decision.
[citation]Once again, I'll say that I'm not saying with certainy that it is NOT safe. I am merely saying that no one can currently say with certainy that IS safe.[/citation]
I can't guarantee a bird won't defecate on your head if you go outside sometime today.
I find linking to OSHA to be amusing.
[sarcasm, just in case] Yes, because government agency regulatory decisions are always well-founded in logic and reasoned discourse. [/sarcasm]
...
Curious...that seems...to be the entire basis of the argument against the SF decision.
[citation]Once again, I'll say that I'm not saying with certainy that it is NOT safe. I am merely saying that no one can currently say with certainy that IS safe.[/citation]
I can't guarantee a bird won't defecate on your head if you go outside sometime today.
maestintaolius
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 446
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]syriquez[/nom][citation]http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofreq [...] onstraffic[/citation]I find linking to OSHA to be amusing.[sarcasm, just in case] Yes, because government agency regulatory decisions are always well-founded in logic and reasoned discourse. [/sarcasm]...Curious...that seems...to be the entire basis of the argument against the SF decision.[citation]Once again, I'll say that I'm not saying with certainy that it is NOT safe. I am merely saying that no one can currently say with certainy that IS safe.[/citation]I can't guarantee a bird won't defecate on your head if you go outside sometime today.[/citation]
Exactly, governmental regulations can't be used as proof for your theory. OSHA, like many government bureaucrats and regulations, are responding to the pleas of the public's emotional outcry of "think of the children" that is seldom based on rational thought. Which is what gets my goat about these things, worry-wart politicians pandering to the cries of the populace to protect them from the big bad evil science result in silly public policy decisions that start to affect me directly. Case in point, McCarthy's anti-vaccine rhetoric claiming to be an expert on vaccines because she studied at the "University of Google" has resulted in some people not vaccinating their children resulting in an increase in measles cases or, even worse, polio (which the CDC was estimating would have gone the way of smallpox before the unwashed masses got their torches, pitchforks and "save the children" signs). So many useless regulations are just the result of pandering to the biggest loudmouth shouting his beliefs "that no one can change no matter what they show me".
Anyway, I have worked with RF, IR and UV/Vis all my career and the only one I worry about is the UV for which I wear eye protection. I have never met anyone that's gotten cancer because they worked near an antenna (so I'll raise you your cancer ridden coworkers and call it with my cancer free coworkers anecdotal evidence). Actually, that's not true, one coworker did die of brain cancer 2 years ago at my company... of course he was an accountant, didn't own a cell phone or ever set foot in the lab. He did, however, go to church 2 times a week so maybe that gave him his cancer... or maybe, just maybe, it was his years of alcoholism...
If RF possessed enough power to kill you, the IR your body and surroundings emits and constantly exposes you to throughout your entire body would have killed you long ago, as would have the visible light from your light bulbs and televisions. I've yet to see any reasonable proposed mechanism that would indicate RF could cause cancer and an awful lot of physics that says it cannot. You can't just say, "hmm, RF is radiation therefore must cause cancer", that's just a belief, not a theory or hypothesis. You have to propose a mechanism that can be tested and proven or disproven, that's how science works. Currently the data and science says it can't hurt you, the physics doesn't allow it and furthermore, there's the Interphone study of 18000 people over ten years and a similar study in Denmark of 420,000 people over 10 years showing no increase what-so-ever in cancer rates not to mention the countless studies on rats exposed to extremely high concentrations of RF.
As far as the 'it causes heating and therefore must be bad' argument... well, how do you heat your home in the winter? I know several older homes and schools (OMG think of the children!!!) that use steam radiators, yet you don't have little old ladies and children keeling over from radiator IR induced cancer. My lab has 2 female coworkers that both use an IR space heaters that are pointed directly at them in their individual offices to keep warm (because my company's HVAC system sucks) and they aren't terribly worried about getting cancer from those, despite IR having 1000x the power of MW and emitting a HELL of a lot more wattage than a cellphone. And god help you if you use a fireplace because, that throws out both visible light AND IR, it's surely a cancer deathtrap. About the only way the thermal energy from a cellphone is going to hurt you is if the battery blows up and gives you a steam burn. The brain has a ton of blood flowing through it every second which will carry away any excess heat very quickly and sink it to the rest of the body.
Exactly, governmental regulations can't be used as proof for your theory. OSHA, like many government bureaucrats and regulations, are responding to the pleas of the public's emotional outcry of "think of the children" that is seldom based on rational thought. Which is what gets my goat about these things, worry-wart politicians pandering to the cries of the populace to protect them from the big bad evil science result in silly public policy decisions that start to affect me directly. Case in point, McCarthy's anti-vaccine rhetoric claiming to be an expert on vaccines because she studied at the "University of Google" has resulted in some people not vaccinating their children resulting in an increase in measles cases or, even worse, polio (which the CDC was estimating would have gone the way of smallpox before the unwashed masses got their torches, pitchforks and "save the children" signs). So many useless regulations are just the result of pandering to the biggest loudmouth shouting his beliefs "that no one can change no matter what they show me".
Anyway, I have worked with RF, IR and UV/Vis all my career and the only one I worry about is the UV for which I wear eye protection. I have never met anyone that's gotten cancer because they worked near an antenna (so I'll raise you your cancer ridden coworkers and call it with my cancer free coworkers anecdotal evidence). Actually, that's not true, one coworker did die of brain cancer 2 years ago at my company... of course he was an accountant, didn't own a cell phone or ever set foot in the lab. He did, however, go to church 2 times a week so maybe that gave him his cancer... or maybe, just maybe, it was his years of alcoholism...
If RF possessed enough power to kill you, the IR your body and surroundings emits and constantly exposes you to throughout your entire body would have killed you long ago, as would have the visible light from your light bulbs and televisions. I've yet to see any reasonable proposed mechanism that would indicate RF could cause cancer and an awful lot of physics that says it cannot. You can't just say, "hmm, RF is radiation therefore must cause cancer", that's just a belief, not a theory or hypothesis. You have to propose a mechanism that can be tested and proven or disproven, that's how science works. Currently the data and science says it can't hurt you, the physics doesn't allow it and furthermore, there's the Interphone study of 18000 people over ten years and a similar study in Denmark of 420,000 people over 10 years showing no increase what-so-ever in cancer rates not to mention the countless studies on rats exposed to extremely high concentrations of RF.
As far as the 'it causes heating and therefore must be bad' argument... well, how do you heat your home in the winter? I know several older homes and schools (OMG think of the children!!!) that use steam radiators, yet you don't have little old ladies and children keeling over from radiator IR induced cancer. My lab has 2 female coworkers that both use an IR space heaters that are pointed directly at them in their individual offices to keep warm (because my company's HVAC system sucks) and they aren't terribly worried about getting cancer from those, despite IR having 1000x the power of MW and emitting a HELL of a lot more wattage than a cellphone. And god help you if you use a fireplace because, that throws out both visible light AND IR, it's surely a cancer deathtrap. About the only way the thermal energy from a cellphone is going to hurt you is if the battery blows up and gives you a steam burn. The brain has a ton of blood flowing through it every second which will carry away any excess heat very quickly and sink it to the rest of the body.
- Sep 6, 2008
- 3,485
- 0
- 20,730
I don't mind the decision, but it will most likely cause manufacturers to increase the cost "in order to cover costs".
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Old text messages not showing up on new android phone
- Started by Weathered95
- Replies: 48
-
-
Question Asus Tuff Fx507 not recognizing new WD_Black 4tb ssd in secondary m2 slot- Started by BelgradianSalsa
- Replies: 10
-
-
Facebook
Twitter