Cell Phone Radiation Fears Escalate Despite a Lack of Evidence Discussion

[Judy Jefferson]

Read the full content of this Article: Cell Phone Radiation Fears Escalate Despite a Lack of Evidence Discussion

[Mi An]

I don't need specific scientific evidence to know that placing more radiation next to my head is worse for me than placing less radiation next to my head. And the actual weight of scientific evidence regarding the extent of cell phone caused radiation damage is inconclusive (contrary to the weaselly nonstatement the USDA has been quoted on elsewhere) -- which is what you'd expect in relation to a phenomenon that could take many decades for the effect to become noticeable with a technology that's fairly recent amidst a whole lot of other radiation producing technologies that are also fairly recent.

Apple Computer recently took its own action against apparent misinformation by banning an application that reportedly measures and alerts iPhone users to increased radiation levels during a call. ...
Apple pulled the app from its catalog because the results could be too easily misunderstood, said reports.

That doesn't sound right (though a link to your source would be helpful).

The company says it has talked with Apple execs who told them that all they need to do is make a few "minor API modifications" in order to pass muster

I might return to post about this article's handling of bees later.

[Ed Hardy]

What makes people nervous is the term "radiation". But this isn't the kind of radiation you associated with nuclear power plants. This radiation in the sense that it radiates something. If you use this definition, you could also say that a light bulb puts out radiation.

I've read articles that used "emanations" instead.
-

[RickAgresta]

Right. we discussed this last month:
http://forum.brighthand.com/off-topi...ones-emit.html

[wshwe]

To be on the safe side you could live in the middle of nowhere. Hysteria overtakes real evidence.

[Varjak]

What makes people nervous is the term "radiation". But this isn't the kind of radiation you associated with nuclear power plants. This radiation in the sense that it radiates something. If you use this definition, you could also say that a light bulb puts out radiation.

I've read articles that used "emanations" instead.
-

True enough; but with cellphones it IS 'microwave' radiation, not 'radiation' from the visible light spectrum. I think Mi An said it best: less is better. I doubt that it's a MAJOR problem; but the fact remains that as with most cancers and such, you probably need both a genetic susceptibility AND an aggravating factor (carcinogens, radiation of various types, and behaviors that can alter body chemistry).

[Mi An]

I doubt that it's a MAJOR problem; but the fact remains that as with most cancers and such, you probably need both a genetic susceptibility AND an aggravating factor (carcinogens, radiation of various types, and behaviors that can alter body chemistry).

Indeed. Some people can smoke a pack a day, live to be 90 and die of natural causes. Some people can't. This is probably more akin to studies on second hand smoking. Harder to nail down the risk because of the more limited exposure. That doesn't mean there's no risk, just that it's harder to evaluate.

[Hook]

True enough; but with cellphones it IS 'microwave' radiation, not 'radiation' from the visible light spectrum.

Rather than copying it, I'm linking to the graphic in RA's helpful post in the other thread.

http://forum.brighthand.com/1810180-post2.html

You might be able to cook your face, I suppose (Heat is the major byproduct of intense concentrations of electromagnetic energy at the wavelengths we are talking here-- think sunlight and magnifying glass). But I would return it to the manufactuer if that happened-- it's defective.

[Mi An]

Rather than copying it, I'm linking to the graphic in RA's helpful post in the other thread.

http://forum.brighthand.com/1810180-post2.html

You might be able to cook your face, I suppose (Heat is the major byproduct of intense concentrations of electromagnetic energy at the wavelengths we are talking here-- think sunlight and magnifying glass). But I would return it to the manufactuer if that happened-- it's defective.

And yet the general consensus among people who don't mistake microwave radiation for gamma rays is that the situation is still hardly that simple.

Microwaves are capable of affecting you without burning your skin, btw. The military is testing crowd control methods with microwaves designed to raise the temperature of the moisture in your body without leaving burns. Considered safe with the proper protocols, I'd wager the calculus would change if we were talking about 1 hour exposure a day at close range for 50 years. And although RF radiation (also emitted by cell phones) is generally thought of as safe, we haven't really been placing sources of it next to our head for great periods of time until recently, and even a little distance dramatically reduces the effect any radiation source can have on cells. RF radiation's impact can be similar to that of microwave radiation.

[Hook]

So, because the Military can weaponize microwaves, we should worry about cell phones?

Actually, the folks you linked to seem to have more perspective here than in that one news release from 2009.

I am most certainly not arguing that we shouldn't continue to study and monitor this longitudinally. It would be irresponsible not to and no one credible I am seeing is arguing against that.

It is the level of hysteria in the absence of evidence that bothers me.