Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 125998	2012-08-01 02:32:00	Smartphone Radiation?	Geek4414 (12000)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1292044	2012-08-01 12:05:00	Thank you BillyT for a well researched explanation, I have zero knowledge in this area but would rather be safe than sorry . I think prevention is better than a cure . I don't wear a tin foil hat but certainly avoided talking on my mobile for prolonged period . With a smartphone, I spent 99% of my time using it as a computer anyway . Most of my communication are done through, email, TXT or IM anyway, hardly talk more than a minute or two on my cell phone . 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 .	Geek4414 (12000)
1292045	2012-08-01 20:13:00	No there are many flaws in his argument. The real simple fact is that the non ionising (does not strip dna from cells) radiation cannot cause mutations. people keep talking about how much power is going through your head. Not only is this power deminished when it gets there but also can have the perpensity to bend around objects. Radio waves cannot go through walls but are great at bending around them, the higher the frequency the less the bend. And there have been hundreds of papers published concerning this matter with statistical data to show that there is no link to brain cancer although these are not neccesarily conclusive it seems preety unlikely that their numbers would show as safe and test on animals combined with human surveys show as safe yet it turns out to be a hazard. This is different to cigarettes, almost as soon as cellphones were released scientists were working to see if there was a hazard.	Slankydudl (16687)
1292046	2012-08-01 21:58:00	Radio waves cannot go through walls but are great at bending around them, the higher the frequency the less the bend. This is incorrect - radio at the frequencies we are talking about will penetrate most walls just fine. How else could your phone / WiFi gadget etc work from inside a closed office?	Erayd (23)
1292047	2012-08-01 22:52:00	My understanding is that UHF works in city areas ie underground car parks etc and was chosen for this reason as well as others is because it bounces around reflecting off multiple walls. It's actually line-of-sight but reflects off a lot of surfaces and gets through gaps like windows.	zqwerty (97)
1292048	2012-08-02 06:24:00	Radio waves cannot go through walls but are great at bending around them, the higher the frequency the less the bend. A bold statement and incorrect. Have you heard of a "Faraday Cage/Shield"? It was developed about 1836 by Micheal Faraday for his electrical experiments. Basicaly it is a metal cage (can be constructed from wires or mesh} and can ensure electrical interference does not enter the work area. Also it can be used in the opposite direction to prevent electrical signals getting out of the work area. Bluenose.	bluenose (14548)
1292049	2012-08-02 08:15:00	a faraday cage is not a 1 way deal, it wont let in this case signal in or out And i fail to see how this prooves me wrong, no sayign that im right as that was as you say a very bold statment but still none the less is part true.	Slankydudl (16687)
1292050	2012-08-02 09:14:00	So are you saying that I cannot open the local amateur radio VHF and UHF repeaters 6 kilometres away from inside my house with my handheld transcievers on low power, and that my cellphones will not work from indoors? After all, you did say that "Radio waves cannot go through walls". Are you saying that many thousands of amateur radio operators around the world have got it wrong? Bluenose.	bluenose (14548)
1292051	2012-08-02 10:48:00	if you would have taken the time to read my previous post i did in fact retract that statement	Slankydudl (16687)
1292052	2012-08-02 10:59:00	I have to agree with Erayd that the thermographic jpeg posted is misleading. The left half tosses in the word "harmful" in a very unnecessary and unscientific manner. The second one doesn't subtract the natural heating from the DC current powering the phone, let alone the heating from preventing the skin from shedding blood heat. The author wants us to believe it's all caused by RF Surely the sun is a worse candidate. Think of the thermal gradient from having the sun on one side of your face. If the sun causes 1 kW per sq-m, a 100mm square of face would intercept 10 watts?	BBCmicro (15761)
1292053	2012-08-02 11:49:00	Thank you BillyT for a well researched explanation, I have zero knowledge in this area but would rather be safe than sorry. I think prevention is better than a cure. I don't wear a tin foil hat but certainly avoided talking on my mobile for prolonged period. With a smartphone, I spent 99% of my time using it as a computer anyway. Most of my communication are done through, email, TXT or IM anyway, hardly talk more than a minute or two on my cell phone. It was not researched Geek, it was written directly from my work experience, technical education and training. I have worked in and around the field of RF radiation (accidental pun) since leaving school, more years ago that I care to admit, with a decade or so in industrial law, just for a change, and I am also a consultant to various engineering companies, businesses, educational institutions etc. I simplified things a bit, but at the heart it is accurate, and I am up to date with the relevant research. There are a few cockeyed ideas being thrown around, such as 'RF doesn't go through walls but does go around them', but the bottom line is that radio frequency radiation does interact with human physiology, and there is cogent evidence to suggest that, like many other illness or disease vectors, high frequency electromagnetic radiation can affect some susceptible individuals. Whether or not those effects are wholly or in part psychosomatic for some individuals I am not competent to say, but I have met a small number of persons who claim to be able to sense the presence of low and/or high frequency fields and become genuinely stressed or distressed as a result, however their symptoms may not always coincide with the presence of abnormal field levels, so something else may going on in some instances. Microwave (GHz range) cellular phones without an external antenna are still relatively new to market, and they radiate more electromagnetic energy into the user's skull than did earlier models, and some services operate at frequencies close to those of microwave ovens. Remember the problems with the new iPhone that dropped signal if you 'held it wrong'? It was putting out full power (because it couldn't contact the cellsite), but a good proportion of it was going into the user's head and hand instead. Cheers Billy 8-{) Just picked up on this gem from BBCmicro: The second one doesn't subtract the natural heating from the DC current powering the phone. There is no heating worth mentioning from the dc current, electronics doesn't work that way and it is largely converted to RF energy. As for Erayd's piece by piece dissection, which I have just seen, best you read my background in radio frequency matters before you try to dissect my comments. I wrote in a form suitable for laypersons, but the same message can be translated to a full technical description without difficulty.	Billy T (70)
1 2 3 4