| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 125998 | 2012-08-01 02:32:00 | Smartphone Radiation? | Geek4414 (12000) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1292034 | 2012-08-01 07:01:00 | I discovered by accident that my PC's speakers will pick up an incoming text before the phone announces it. If I sit the phone between the speakers (amp and power supply built into one of the speakers) they will produce about 8 sputtering sounds over about 2 seconds. Another second later my phone lights up and announces a text. Seen it happen twice. It can't be the incoming signal, so it must be the outgoing handshaking signals from my phone that it's picking up. Given the amount of data in acknowledging a text is miniscule when compared with the stream of data in a voice call, it does leave you wondering just how much energy is being fed through our brains. Vodafone have been triggering this type of interference before the phone actually goes of affecting radios and speakers for as long as I have had a cellphone so 15 years at least, Telecom phones have never done this |
gary67 (56) | ||
| 1292035 | 2012-08-01 08:18:00 | I discovered by accident that my PC's speakers will pick up an incoming text before the phone announces it. If I sit the phone between the speakers (amp and power supply built into one of the speakers) they will produce about 8 sputtering sounds over about 2 seconds. Another second later my phone lights up and announces a text. Seen it happen twice.This is to do with the way GSM signalling works - unlike CDMA (which is used by all 3G networks in New Zealand), GSM uses a method known as TDMA (en.wikipedia.org) to share a single radio frequency between many devices. One of the side-effects of this is that it causes the phone to transmit data in multiple short pulses. While the actual radio frequency used is quite high, the interval between pulses is inside the range which humans can hear, and will be picked up and amplified by any nearby unshielded amplifier, resulting in the buzz you hear from the speakers. It can't be the incoming signal, so it must be the outgoing handshaking signals from my phone that it's picking up.It's not handshaking; it's the way that GSM devices share spectrum, and as such applies to *all* data (including voice calls) transferred over a GSM cellphone network. What you're hearing is outgoing transmissions from the phone - it's far closer to the amp than the tower it's talking to, and as such the signal at the amp is correspondingly stronger from the phone than the tower. Given the amount of data in acknowledging a text is miniscule when compared with the stream of data in a voice call, it does leave you wondering just how much energy is being fed through our brains.Almost none. In most cases, the cellphone will be transmitting at less than a single watt, and will be radiating it in all directions. Combined with the placement of the antenna within the phone, and the fact that the signal strength attenuates extremely quickly with distance (due to the spherical radiation pattern), the amount that actually makes it as far as your head is tiny. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1292036 | 2012-08-01 08:32:00 | As Erayd said it's the way GSM works that makes the noise. Not because of radiation. I think GSM is most likely the reason that Phones were banned from operation in flight by the FAA. They feared that there could be interference if the shielding was damaged/insufficient. I have never heard of an aircraft downed by cell phones despite being on many domestic Chinese flights where it is nigh impossible to get a chinese business man to put down his phone. Esp if told by a bossy little chinese airhostess!! |
The Error Guy (14052) | ||
| 1292037 | 2012-08-01 09:29:00 | the main reason for cellphones being banned is that at such high altitude the comparable difference between the distance from cell towers is miniscule and causes the phone to constantly switch. | Slankydudl (16687) | ||
| 1292038 | 2012-08-01 10:37:00 | Simply sitting in the same room as a heater, or standing in the sun, results in orders of magnitude more heat being applied to the body areas in question than a cellphone can possibly generate. It's also worth pointing out that simply holding your hand to the side of your head for fifteen minutes will result in an almost identical thermal image - claiming that this image shows health-damaging effects is pure fabrication.. You are several fathoms out of your depth Erayd. Firstly, you are confusing thermal radiation with radio-frequency radiation. Both lie within the electromagnetic spectrum (or maybe you didn't know that), but heat per se is within the infrared waveband, which gives you surface burns; ultraviolet is much higher in frequency and penetrates below the surface of your skin, hence sunburn and the enhanced risk of skin cancer, X-rays are higher again and then comes gamma then nuclear radiation. As the frequency rises, so do the electron-volt energy values increase, and it is that energy that creates the (human) cellular damage, breaking cellular bonds and that can lead to mutations. Modern cellphones operate in the gigahertz region and induce circulating currents in the skin surface, but because they penetrate deeper than infrared, they also cause significant heating in brain tissues. The modern phone operates at frequencies not far below those of a microwave oven, and the lack of an external antenna means that the radiating antenna elements are not only much closer to your head, but are also radiating greater energy levels than earlier generation phones in order to maintain a reliable connection. Most cellphone users have experienced "hot ear" after long conversations, and it is noteworthy that this does not occur to the same extent with a normal landline phone, though the trapped body/blood heat does become apparent after an extended call. It is not the external thermal image that is the problem either, it is actually the temperature gradient within your brain, something you can't measure without sophisticated thermal imaging technology, and that show the stress levels in your cells, it is not the heat that is the problem either, it is how the heat is being generated. The cigarette manufacturers' lobbyists continue to dispute that cigarettes cause lung cancer etc, and put out counter-study results to refute medical studies, but anybody with half a brain knows that cigarettes are a major health hazard. Those who dispute it are in denial. Sure cellphone frequencies lie within the non-ionising sector of the electromagnetic spectrum, but they are very definitely within the microwave region and have a significant electron-volt rating. It is considered (by experts) unsafe to stand closer than 1 metre from a cellsite antenna*, and 3 metres is a recommended distance from a microwave dish* with an RF output of 100mW , which is a lot less than any cellphone, see 3G (Third generation) examples below. *If at antenna height as for a rooftop installation. (i) 33 dBm 2 W = 2000mW Maximum output from 3G mobile phone. (Power class 1) (ii) 27 dBm 500mW Typical 3G phone transmission power (Power class 2 ) (iii) 26 dBm 400mW Maximum output from Power class 3 3G phones Power Class 1 is a definite hazard, probably not sold here, because that power level implies that it is for use in regions where cellsites are few and far between, hence the massive output capability, and I'll bet that they have an external whip antenna too. Radar produced a crop of brain tumours in the early days and the results of constant cellphone use by today's children won't be known for decades to come, but my kids used their phones as little as possible and still do. They are thinkers, asked questions, read the literature, and made up their own minds. Every cancer starts with one mutation, and it is exponential growth from there on. It took years for the obesity epidemic to take hold, diabetes has flourished, cancers are on the increase, so preemptive precautions look like a safe bet to me. Being dismissive isn't. Billy Re the phones in flight, it is not just the switching, the problem is that when the phone loses the cell site it transmits at full power to capture the next, but at the speed planes fly, signals are lost as fast as they are captured so it is a constant series of transmissions multiplied by the number of phones, and the odds are that one day it would cause a problem. That is why they put cellular repeaters in (some) planes now, so that the phones never lose the connection and use minimum power for their communications. This is also the reason why your phone battery discharges faster in your car than it does at the office. If I leave my phone on in my office, the charge lasts days. Spend a day in the car and it needs a recharge even if I don't make any calls. |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1292039 | 2012-08-01 10:43:00 | And yet the average lifespan continues to increase. Perhaps if everyone died at 44 like the good old days they wouldn't be around long enough to get cancer..... |
Metla (12) | ||
| 1292040 | 2012-08-01 10:57:00 | And yet the average lifespan continues to increase. Perhaps if everyone died at 44 like the good old days they wouldn't be around long enough to get cancer..... You are closer to the truth than you may think Metla, longevity can prove fatal. However, while average lifespans increase, so do causes of death that the good (who died young) didn't have time to experience. Prudent avoidance has helped, which is why we wear seatbelts, and the road death toll per capita (or per vehicle, I've not researched it) is probably lower as well. There are a lot of factors that prolong the modern lifespan, and a lot of factors working to shorten it. Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1292041 | 2012-08-01 11:12:00 | Exactly So eat, drink, and be merry. Diabetes for life, Yo. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 1292042 | 2012-08-01 11:51:00 | Almost All studies have not been able to connect cellphone usage to cancer both long and short term and all others that do link have failed to be replicated. The low energy RF transmitions have prooven to heat the SURFACE tissue but not brain tissue, i assume it was common knowledge that microwaves do not cook from the inside out but infact heat the tissue they pass through, the more tissue they go through the less energy left to give to deeper tissue. Also in a short enough exposue immense quantities of radiation can have no effect as the radiation is acting on atoms through a weak magnetic force, and the more energy there is the more difficult it is to pass on this energy. I forget the name of this but its like when yourv got two magnets and slide one past the other, if you do it fast enough the energy will not be passed on and the magnet will go right past, this is the same theory used to target the depth of tumors in radiotherapy eg. Shallow depth, use low energy and high exposure. Deep depth, use high energy low exposure and the energy from cellphones is both very low energy and low exposure. Also if ultra violet is only ionizing at the surface then how do you think microwaves are going to ionize in deep tissue. Its all wack. | Slankydudl (16687) | ||
| 1292043 | 2012-08-01 12:01:00 | You are several fathoms out of your depth Erayd.With all due respect, while I may not be a radio expert, I am not entirely lacking in knowledge on the subject, and generally refrain from commenting on subjects I am ignorant on. If you believe I am out of my depth, please clarify which part of my posts you believe to be incorrect - to the best of my knowledge, no statement I have made in this thread is incorrect, and if I've made a mistake on something I'd love to know about it - I do not like being wrong, and if proven to be so would like to rectify my understanding as quickly as possible. Firstly, you are confusing thermal radiation with radio-frequency radiation.I am not - if this is your impression, then you have misunderstood my point. While I did use both in a comparison earlier, this was simply to illustrate relative energy levels - nowhere have I intentionally conflated the two. Modern cellphones operate in the gigahertz region and induce circulating currents in the skin surface, but because they penetrate deeper than infrared, they also cause significant heating in brain tissues.This depends very much on how much you consider to be significant. Bear in mind that the total power level is generally very low, and most of the emitted energy does not end up in the brain. The modern phone operates at frequencies not far below those of a microwave oven, and the lack of an external antenna means that the radiating antenna elements are not only much closer to your head...Agreed, up to a point - cellphones use a wide variety of spectrum, some of which are close to 2.4GHz (plus WiFi, which actually operates in the same band). ...but are also radiating greater energy levels than earlier generation phones in order to maintain a reliable connection.Can you provide figures to back this up? As far as I can tell, this claim is incorrect - significant advances in both DSP technology and antenna design actually result in reduced power requirements to achieve the same signal reliability as earlier phones - modern systems can successfully make use of a far fainter signal than their predecessors. Most cellphone users have experienced "hot ear" after long conversations, and it is noteworthy that this does not occur to the same extent with a normal landline phone, though the trapped body/blood heat does become apparent after an extended call.Agreed, however it's worth noting that a typical corded phone receiver doesn't contain heat-producing electronics either, and that the user's hand is far closer to the side of the head when holding a cellphone than when holding a corded receiver. It is not the external thermal image that is the problem either, it is actually the temperature gradient within your brain, something you can't measure without sophisticated thermal imaging technology, and that show the stress levels in your cells, it is not the heat that is the problem either, it is how the heat is being generated.Fair point. The cigarette manufacturers' lobbyists continue to dispute that cigarettes cause lung cancer etc, and put out counter-study results to refute medical studies, but anybody with half a brain knows that cigarettes are a major health hazard. Those who dispute it are in denial.You're making absurd comparisons. In the case of cigarettes, there are plenty of studies that show in huge detail (with lots of supporting evidence) the kinds of problems smoking can cause. In case case of cellphones, there's a distinct lack of studies that can reliably show harm caused by cellphones, and no shortage of studies which eliminate cellphones as a contributing factor. Sure cellphone frequencies lie within the non-ionising sector of the electromagnetic spectrum, but they are very definitely within the microwave region and have a significant electron-volt rating. It is considered (by experts) unsafe to stand closer than 1 metre from a cellsite antenna*...Which has a much higher average power output than a cellphone ...and 3 metres is a recommended distance from a microwave dish* with an RF output of 100mW...Which is directing its energy in a specific direction, rather than radiating it in in a largely omnidirectional fashion. As a result, the attenuation at a given distance from a dish is vastly less than the attenuation the same distance away from an active cellphone. The operating frequency of said dish also isn't given. (i) 33 dBm 2 W = 2000mW Maximum output from 3G mobile phone. (Power class 1) (ii) 27 dBm 500mW Typical 3G phone transmission power (Power class 2 ) (iii) 26 dBm 400mW Maximum output from Power class 3 3G phones Power Class 1 is a definite hazard, probably not sold here, because that power level implies that it is for use in regions where cellsites are few and far between, hence the massive output capability, and I'll bet that they have an external whip antenna too.They can be bought here (and I am aware of several marine systems which use them), but the ones I've seen definitely used an external antenna - they were all mounted on the bridge roof or up a radio mast near the radar. Radar produced a crop of brain tumours in the early days...I wasn't aware of this, but noting the power levels involved, I can't say I'm surprised. Do you have any links to research on this? I'm curious. ...and the results of constant cellphone use by today's children won't be known for decades to come...Only if you're referring to realtime research on human subjects over a period of decades. Lab research and math doesn't have the same issue - you don't have to wait decades for your experiments to complete, and you can extrapolate statistically reliable conclusions from shorter-term data. ...but my kids used their phones as little as possible and still do. They are thinkers, asked questions, read the literature, and made up their own minds.Which is entirely fair enough. If they believe that phones are hazardous, then kudos to them for taking what they see as the sensible course of action. Every cancer starts with one mutation, and it is exponential growth from there on.Agreed. It took years for the obesity epidemic to take hold, diabetes has flourished, cancers are on the increase...And the causes of those things were largely obvious all along. ...so preemptive precautions look like a safe bet to me. Being dismissive isn't.There's nothing wrong with taking preemptive precautions - but it's very easy to take things too far. To the best of my rational ability to process the facts as I understand them, cellphones in their current form do not present a health hazard, and seem very unlikely to be found to do so in any practical way in the future. Please note that I'm not being dismissive here; this is a conclusion I've reached after thinking about what I know, trying to determine what I do not know and how much that may impact my model, and coming up with a probability that as far as I can determine seems very likely to be correct. If you (or someone else) can see a flaw in my model, then please feel free to point it out - I'm more than happy to change my mind if presented with sufficient evidence. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||