General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's not "woo" to be cautious about cell phones.
Just smart.
Simple safety precautions: use a headset or speaker phone; avoid carrying one against your body (and if you have to, carry it with the keyboard side against your body); don't sleep with it close by.
Here's the story of how a University of Washington biomedical engineering professor found himself up against the cell phone industry. It's also a reminder of why professors need the protections of tenure.
http://www.seattlemag.com/article/nerd-report/nerd-report
Lai admits that he was naive. He came to the UW in 1972 and earned a doctorate in psychology. Two decades later, as a bioengineering researcher, he studied esoteric scientific topics in relative obscurity. He and a fellow researcher, Narendra N.P. Singh, were looking at the effects of nonionizing microwave radiationthe same type of radiation emitted by cell phoneson the DNA of rats. They used a level of radiation considered safe by government standards and found that the DNA in the brain cells of the rats was damagedor brokenby exposure to the radiation. Ironically, cell phones werent even on Lais mind when he performed the initial studies. Funded initially by the Office of Naval Research, Lai was investigating how radar, which emits radio-frequency radiation, affects the health of operators. We did not really pay attention to the importance of this thing, he recalls. But during his research, cell phone giant Motorola Inc. indicated that someone had told the company about Lais unpublished results. Motorola asked to meet with him in his lab and at a meeting in Copenhagen.
After Lai and Singhs research finding an effect on DNA was published in 1995, Lai learned of a full-scale effort to discredit his work. In an internal company memo leaked to Microwave News, a publication that examines health and environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation, Motorola described its plan to war-game and undermine Lais research. After initially accepting industry funding for continued research from the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program (created to manage $25 million in research funds), Lai and Singh wrote an open letter to Microwave News questioning restrictions placed on their research by the funders. After that, the head of WTR sent a memo asking then-UW president Richard McCormick to fire Lai and Singh. McCormick refused, but the dustup sent a clear message to Lai and his colleagues.
This shocked me, Lai says, the letter trying to discredit me, the war games memo. As a scientist doing research, I was not expecting to be involved in a political situation. It opened my eyes on how games are played in the world of business.
SNIP
Lais frustration with the increasing body of contradictory research led him to do an analysis in 2006 of the available studies on cell phone radiation between 1990 and 2006, and where their funding came from. What he found was that 50 percent of the 326 studies showed a biological effect from radio-frequency radiation and 50 percent did not. But when he filtered the studies into two stacksthose funded by the wireless industry and those funded independentlyLai discovered industry-funded studies were 30 percent likely to find an effect, as opposed to 70 percent of the independent studies.
Lai says that, while his findings highlight the crucial role industry funding plays in scientific research, the 50-50 split alone should be cause for concern. Even if you accept all the industry studies, you still end up with 50-50, he says. How could 50 percent all be garbage? People always start with the statement Hundreds of studies have been done on this topic, and no effect has been found, but this is a very misleading statement. (The statements) come out from the cell phone industry, and people just use it, like the American Cancer Society. People havent even gone in to look at the real studies and look at the effects that people have reported. This really worries me, because people come out and say things without the facts.
SNIP
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)There's probably nothing to it because lots of people are exposed to radio frequencies at much higher levels for longer times.
The same claims were made about high voltage power lines causing health problems, including cancer. It took decades to prove the claims false.
Still, Microwave News is a pretty careful magazine, they are staffed by engineers and scientists. Err on the side of caution, it hurts nothing.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)I had mentioned to her earlier that callers have trouble hearing my voice & we also talked about how we know not to stand directly in front of a microwave oven when it's on; does it make any more sense holding a cellphone up to the ear.
Anyway, I love my receiver. It has a short, coiled wire (just like the old handsets) that has a jack at the end for plugging into the earphone jack. It comes in different colors & designs. My sister selected a tiger pattern that is orange with black stripes.
Throwing this out there for those who may be interested in getting one (for home use!).
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)That's the kind of phone I have, too.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)It's nostalgically charming with an updated finish. If it weren't too bulky to fit inside my everyday purse, I'd use it everywhere. It's adorable & the sound improves using it, imo.
/typos
Logical
(22,457 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)KT2000
(20,576 posts)to another researcher there when he learned about the health effects of formaldehyde. That was probably at the behest of the pulp and paper industry here and a large aerospace corporation.
A major carpet corporation had a war plan to destroy the reputations of researchers who found carpet backing had neurotoxic chemicals that off-gassed into the interior environment. They were concerned with babies who were developing seizures after new carpet was put down.
This is how it is done now. US research is badly tainted and anyone wishing to learn about the health effects of environmental exposures should look outside the US.
It is rare for a US journal to even publish studies that offend our corporate rulers.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)No, he didn't.
Why? Because the radiation doesn't have enough energy to break chemical bonds. For electromagnetic radiation to break a chemical bond, the photon has to strike the molecule with enough energy to break the bond. And that doesn't happen until you get up to UV light.
So either we need to completely rewrite large parts of the laws of physics, or his study didn't actually show what he claimed.
In addition, radar doesn't operate on the same frequencies as cell phones. So if his study was about radar, how come he was testing cell phone frequencies?
Add to that the other problem - that we've literally blasted megawatts of RF into people for decades without any noticeable harm to their DNA, and it doesn't look like we need to rewrite those laws of physics for a maximum 1W device.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)don't be bringing actual facts into this discussion. There's sciency truthiness being posted.
Sid
Uzair
(241 posts)After all, microwave radiation has no ability to damage human tissue. Not enough energy, right? Except, of course, when that radiation is of just the right frequency to resonate with water molecules. Then you can cook a bowl of chicken noodle soup. Nobody really knows or has seriously studied the effects of certain frequencies on other types of biological molecules, including DNA.
You might want to crack open your old high school physics textbook and look up a thing called "resonance", and then you might want to retract your post to avoid further embarrassment.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)No chemical bonds would be broken by the RF. Instead, the RF would cause water molecules to vibrate, increasing temperature of my head.
My DNA would only be harmed by the high temperature, not the RF itself. Which means the damage is directly proportional to the wattage of the microwave. Microwaves are 1000W or more. Sunlight is 120W/m^2. The light bulbs in much of my house are 60 to 100W. Cell phones max out at about 1W, but they won't ramp up to that power unless absolutely necessary.
If it's wattage you're so worried about, cell phones are very far down the list.
Except they have. The OP lists some, and then dismisses them as propaganda because they don't have the result the OP wanted.
So please explain the mechanism by which a 2.4GHz RF photon damages DNA.
Because you may have noticed that the water molecules aren't getting broken by the microwave. So that microwave isn't gonna be able to break the chemical bonds holding DNA together. So what's your proposed mechanism?
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)April 12, 2012
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)One of our resident moonbats who shall remain nameless, said all TVs have secret cameras in them and the gub'mnt is watching us.