the_krasno
Distinguished
- Sep 29, 2009
- 300
- 0
- 18,930
- Status
lightbulbsocket
Distinguished
- Feb 23, 2010
- 37
- 0
- 18,580
Anyone interested in this article should try typing "world health organization cell phone brain cancer" or something similar into google search.
So I'm guessing that if you're fat enough then it doesn't matter since the SAR is based upon body weight?
mlopinto2k1
Distinguished
- Apr 25, 2006
- 817
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]beergoggles[/nom]@JohnnyLucky - Cell phone may be the cigarettes of the 2040's. 'Of course they're safe, even Dr's use them' Do you see all the kids with cell phones perineally plastered against their heads? Us older folks may not live long enough to see an issue. Kids who use their phones more than us and from a younger age really have the concern, IMO. I don't trust the profit driven technology industry to be completely up front on, or even care for that matter, what the long term exposure to radio waves of that level can be.@sinsear - And that makes you feel better? Aside from vitamin D and rickets, most people are saying less sun exposure is better. 30 minutes of unprotected high noon sun day in and out can be pretty bad. If 10 minutes of cell usage equates to that (I realize they are different radiations, but for the sake of equating them as you did) then I would be really nervous.[/citation]
@Beer,
There's a whole lot of people regurgitating what they heard about cellphone radiation mouth to ear but very few of them are aware that unlike UV rays from direct sunlight exposure, the radiations emitted by consumer radio devices do not have the energy to break organic bonds in human cells and no amount of additional radiation of the same wavelength band can change that. A lot of studies made on this subject are based on flawed interpretation of statistics and imperfect sample sizes. While I'm aware that the analogy was ineffective to begin with, even though the long term effects of radio wave exposure are still relatively undocumented, it is equally, if not more, foolish to panic at the unknown than to ignore it.
Being of electrical engineering background and based on the little knowledge I have, I'm frankly more concerned about the lack of education surrounding ELF radiations from living within the vicinity of a cluster of high voltage transformers, which is still quite common in cities but much much less demonized than even an unplugged cellphone tower, which have made fool of the radio-sensitive crowd on more than one occasion.
In the end, saying that the big morally bankrupt corporations will never let word of the danger stemming from using their products out in the wild is quite easy to agree with but it doesn't prove anything and serves nobody's cause on either side of the debate. What good can come out of this, is that hopefully it will publicize the often flawed methodology in the current trend of sensationalist studies and open our eyes on technologies that are more than relevant in our day and age.
@Beer,
There's a whole lot of people regurgitating what they heard about cellphone radiation mouth to ear but very few of them are aware that unlike UV rays from direct sunlight exposure, the radiations emitted by consumer radio devices do not have the energy to break organic bonds in human cells and no amount of additional radiation of the same wavelength band can change that. A lot of studies made on this subject are based on flawed interpretation of statistics and imperfect sample sizes. While I'm aware that the analogy was ineffective to begin with, even though the long term effects of radio wave exposure are still relatively undocumented, it is equally, if not more, foolish to panic at the unknown than to ignore it.
Being of electrical engineering background and based on the little knowledge I have, I'm frankly more concerned about the lack of education surrounding ELF radiations from living within the vicinity of a cluster of high voltage transformers, which is still quite common in cities but much much less demonized than even an unplugged cellphone tower, which have made fool of the radio-sensitive crowd on more than one occasion.
In the end, saying that the big morally bankrupt corporations will never let word of the danger stemming from using their products out in the wild is quite easy to agree with but it doesn't prove anything and serves nobody's cause on either side of the debate. What good can come out of this, is that hopefully it will publicize the often flawed methodology in the current trend of sensationalist studies and open our eyes on technologies that are more than relevant in our day and age.
extremepcs
Distinguished
- May 6, 2008
- 172
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]gosefroba[/nom]How is the iPhone not number 1. I do not know how many times while I am giving a presentation that the iPhone messed with the sound[/citation]
Apple advertises a lot on CNet?
Apple advertises a lot on CNet?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Any mediocre high school student could design an experiment to establish a correlation between cellphones and cancer (e.g., strap a phone to mouse and wait). Yet, not a single credible study exists. Simple statistical correlations prove nothing, since an increased exposure to cell phones for a large enough statistical sample would be coupled with an increased exposure to a whole host of modern technologies, pollutants, and lifestyles.
What they failed to mention in this article is that with a flip phone such as a RAZR the PA (which is the part that emits radiation) is much further from your head than most standard phones since it is at the bottom of the phone. So flip phones are actually better in my opinion even if the overall radiation is higher since you would actually absorb less radiation since it's further away. This is assuming you don't keep it in your pocket but keep it in a holster with a little space. I was a level 3 cellphone tech for 2 years then wrote repair manuals for a large cellphone repair facility for the next 2.
[citation][nom]JonathanDeane[/nom]That kind of scares me... I live in Florida sunshine capital of the the US and by some strange coincidence... skin cancer capital too. Also I own the older brother of #9 lol I think it really depends on how much you talk or text on your phone since the only time it puts out that much power is while your using it. So I being the hermit I am probably safe for the time being.[/citation]
It's worse that even you think:
RF radiation is non-ionizing, low power radiation incapable of causing molecular bonds to weaken (ie, can't cause DNA damage at all). However, much of the Sun's energy CAN do that.
More over, a SAR is NOT a measure of radiation, its a measure of the HEAT (raise in temperature in Celcius) of 1 gram of tissue exposed to the radiation for AN HOUR. So, for ALL the total energy of a phone, directed at a single gram of tissue, it would take an hour to raise it about 1.5 degrees. Step out in the sun on a 75 degree F day, and your WHOLE BODY can raise that much in 15 minutes, all 700,000 grams (on average) of it. In essence, not only is sunlight a FAR more harmful form of radiation (obviously skin cancer is proven), it;s over ONE MILLION TIMES stronger than even the worst cell phone.
Even at 10,000 times the radiation, experiments with rats have produced at best questionable results (and the cancer could have just as easily been caused by the radiant heat, not the RF energy).
This is complete BS science.
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/sar-ratings-are-not-a-measure-of-radiation/
It's worse that even you think:
RF radiation is non-ionizing, low power radiation incapable of causing molecular bonds to weaken (ie, can't cause DNA damage at all). However, much of the Sun's energy CAN do that.
More over, a SAR is NOT a measure of radiation, its a measure of the HEAT (raise in temperature in Celcius) of 1 gram of tissue exposed to the radiation for AN HOUR. So, for ALL the total energy of a phone, directed at a single gram of tissue, it would take an hour to raise it about 1.5 degrees. Step out in the sun on a 75 degree F day, and your WHOLE BODY can raise that much in 15 minutes, all 700,000 grams (on average) of it. In essence, not only is sunlight a FAR more harmful form of radiation (obviously skin cancer is proven), it;s over ONE MILLION TIMES stronger than even the worst cell phone.
Even at 10,000 times the radiation, experiments with rats have produced at best questionable results (and the cancer could have just as easily been caused by the radiant heat, not the RF energy).
This is complete BS science.
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/sar-ratings-are-not-a-measure-of-radiation/
[citation][nom]sinsear[/nom]You still probably receive more radiation from being out in the sun for 30 minutes than you do talking on a cell phone for 10 minutes...[/citation]
Worse. In one hour, on a clear summer day, you can receive as much as one MILLION times the total radiation from the sun as you can from even the worst legally obtainable portable radio, in any frequency. Worse still, RF is non-ionizing, and much of the Sun's spectrum is.
Worse. In one hour, on a clear summer day, you can receive as much as one MILLION times the total radiation from the sun as you can from even the worst legally obtainable portable radio, in any frequency. Worse still, RF is non-ionizing, and much of the Sun's spectrum is.
[citation][nom]gto127[/nom]What they failed to mention in this article is that with a flip phone such as a RAZR the PA (which is the part that emits radiation) is much further from your head than most standard phones since it is at the bottom of the phone. So flip phones are actually better in my opinion even if the overall radiation is higher since you would actually absorb less radiation since it's further away. This is assuming you don't keep it in your pocket but keep it in a holster with a little space. I was a level 3 cellphone tech for 2 years then wrote repair manuals for a large cellphone repair facility for the next 2.[/citation]
Read some facts. It doesn't matter. No cell phone can hurt you (unless you;re hit with it, or it explodes).
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/sar-ratings-are-not-a-measure-of-radiation/
1.6 SARS means that after an HOUR of directed exposure, 1 gram of tissue would raise in temperature 1.6 degrees. You're made up of 700,000 grams (on average). Stand in the sun for a few minutes and ALL of your 700,000 grams will be hotter. 1 gram, distributed across your body, and non-ionizing radiation at that, its so small its barely measurable.
Read some facts. It doesn't matter. No cell phone can hurt you (unless you;re hit with it, or it explodes).
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/sar-ratings-are-not-a-measure-of-radiation/
1.6 SARS means that after an HOUR of directed exposure, 1 gram of tissue would raise in temperature 1.6 degrees. You're made up of 700,000 grams (on average). Stand in the sun for a few minutes and ALL of your 700,000 grams will be hotter. 1 gram, distributed across your body, and non-ionizing radiation at that, its so small its barely measurable.
[citation][nom]zelannii[/nom]Read some facts. It doesn't matter. No cell phone can hurt you (unless you;re hit with it, or it explodes). http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009 [...] radiation/1.6 SARS means that after an HOUR of directed exposure, 1 gram of tissue would raise in temperature 1.6 degrees. You're made up of 700,000 grams (on average). Stand in the sun for a few minutes and ALL of your 700,000 grams will be hotter. 1 gram, distributed across your body, and non-ionizing radiation at that, its so small its barely measurable.[/citation]
I think you've got one too many zeros there bud. I dunno about you but I certainly weigh only 70Kg
I think you've got one too many zeros there bud. I dunno about you but I certainly weigh only 70Kg
So the 3 I keep in my pocket is bad. I have that pantec phone with att it really sucks too. Then I have two razr's.
Go check out this article http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AlzheimersNews/cell-phone-radiation-prevent-reverse-alzheimers-mice/story?id=9497387 It actually shows that the rf emitted by cell phones can actually be beneficial; to mice anyways. These people that believe their cell phone is gonna give them cancer probably also believe in global warming.
I've read 3 comments so far demonizing sunlight. Please, don't spread that trash. At a time when the majority of people have low vitamin D levels and are indoors for all activities, the message to spread should be to get out and get a bit of sun.
Regarding the health risks of cell phones, we will know conclusively soon enough, however, there has to be a good reason for all the concern given the abundant interest and research into the health effects of cell phone/wifi radiation.
Regarding the health risks of cell phones, we will know conclusively soon enough, however, there has to be a good reason for all the concern given the abundant interest and research into the health effects of cell phone/wifi radiation.
Dawgsoverrebs
Distinguished
- Feb 9, 2010
- 37
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]soo-nah-mee[/nom]Go Motorola! No wonder my Razr always got such a strong signal.You're a dead man (or woman).[/citation]
Or parrot
Or parrot
Sinsation Station
Distinguished
- Mar 9, 2010
- 11
- 0
- 18,560
"Fourth place goes to a relatively unknown phone from Virgin, the Jax S1300, with a rating of 1.55 watts."
I wonder if this phone was designed by Ex Motorola employees.
I wonder if this phone was designed by Ex Motorola employees.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Question how to : Samsung SM-S936U , factory reset?
- Started by Stan_13572
- Replies: 2
-
Question Lenovo Yoga 3 1470 Light Blinking Repeatedly
- Started by alrighthowaboutthis
- Replies: 9
Facebook
Twitter