The real issue with cell phones isn't radiation it's texting

[PKTrekGirl]

I completely agree that "texting" is a major problem. I'm a high school teacher and when I share with my students the dangers of distracted driving several of them actually get angry and very very defensive.

One girl in particular actually responded angrily and adamantly that nothing was ever gonna make her put down her phone! It was her "right!"

With that kind of attitude permeating our youth, I'm fearful for many of us on the road.

Before texting we had to worry that some slob would get on the road drunk and kill us and our family. Now, not only that but, we gotta worry about some teenage girl more worried about texting gossip and not watching the road.

I asked her about my "rights" to travel the roads safely and not having to worry about distracted teenage girls occupied with trivial texts and she said "You're not dead!"

???????

This is one of the more alarming posts I've read recently on this board.

Any way you can call her parents and alert them to the fact that their daughter is pretty much a fatal car accident and/or massive lawsuit waiting to happen?

Because this is really scary.

I'm sorry, but no one has the ability to drive and text at the same time. Not and drive with anywhere near the concentration required.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Kids are stupid. Then they grow up. To be stupid adults.

 

[STR]

This all takes place in the context where RF is known to have the potential to cause harmful effects, contrary to STR's post.

Not quite what I meant. Clearly, blasting 100,000 watts of microwaves at human being standing 2 feet away is going to cook that individual. Suggesting otherwise is absurd, which is probably why I didn't bother to preface my argument with an exception to extreme exposure. I didn't, because we're not talking about 100,000 watts at 2 feet, but several hundred feet away, as well as 0.5 watts and 0 feet, and tens of watts at a few feet, and everything in between that balances output and distance to equal the SAR of a cellphone.

Within that context, people are exposed to phone equivalent SAR's (or somewhat greater, but that's really besides the point here) for longer periods at a time, and have done so for decades and no study has found statistically relevant increases in health problems. If cellphones cause health problems, so do radio stations, tv stations, the electrical grid, the computer your typing on, the light bulb in your room, and any other electrical appliance on the planet. All create RF fields. Therefore, all would have some kind of affect on people. Cellphones are not unique.

Also, you're wrong about RF not being potentially dangerous. The FCC says it can be and that mitigation steps are required in those cases. The question is, does this apply to cell phones?

The FCC does say there are risks at certain levels, and therefore set strict limits on exposure, based on the aforementioned RF technologies that have been operating for decades. No cellphone licensed to operate exceeds those limits. Such rules were not created in a vacuum. The specific rule on personal communication devices was implemented in the 1980's, after close to a century of experience and study of RF equipment and exposure. It has been reviewed since that time, and in the opinion of the FCC, there has not been sufficient cause to change it.

As an aside, what the hell is wrong with the WHO? First they legitimize acupuncture, the granddaddy of all quakery, now this. Helps with depression and stroke? Really?

 

[Amaris]

Kids are stupid. Then they grow up. To be stupid adults.

Thank God you haven't let cynicism ground your optimism into dust! I was worried!

Seriously, though, it's fascinating to watch communications technology become so integrated into our society that, at least amongst the young, it's being equated to a universal human right. While I believe one has the right to free speech, one does not have the right to impose life threatening harm upon others while acting upon the predication of said free speech.

 

[farmkid]

Kids are stupid. Then they grow up. To be stupid adults.

Thank God you haven't let cynicism ground your optimism into dust! I was worried!

Seriously, though, it's fascinating to watch communications technology become so integrated into our society that, at least amongst the young, it's being equated to a universal human right. While I believe one has the right to free speech, one does not have the right to impose life threatening harm upon others while acting upon the predication of said free speech.

To be fair, though, kids don't really understand the concept of "rights". What that girl actually meant by "right" was "I want to do it and I'm used to doing whatever I want". That's not quite the same concept as the inalienable rights the founding fathers talked about and enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Unfortunately, there's no shortage of adults who think the same way as this kid.

Kids are stupid. Then they grow up. To be stupid adults.

Thank God you haven't let cynicism ground your optimism into dust! I was worried!

I draw your attention to my custom rank.

 

[Mr Awe]

If cellphones cause health problems, so do radio stations, tv stations, the electrical grid, the computer your typing on, the light bulb in your room, and any other electrical appliance on the planet. All create RF fields. Therefore, all would have some kind of affect on people. Cellphones are not unique.

Cellphones are unique in a way. You hold them right next to your brain. The other RF sources you mention are much further away. Especially radio and TV stations! The strengths falls off very rapidly, square of the distance isn't it? That's why they suggest you hold the phone half an inch away from your head. It's enough to make a difference.

Also, they've had live brain scans of people using a cellphone and they've seen the effects, live, that it has on the brain that only happen right near where the subjects are holding the cellphone.

So, the cellphone is having an impact on the brain. They can't say that it causes cancer but they can say it affects the brain in some way because they've seen it. They're basically cooking their brains slowly.

All of those other sources of RF have not had that affect on the brain.

Mr Awe

 

[Lindley]

If cellphones cause health problems, so do radio stations, tv stations, the electrical grid, the computer your typing on, the light bulb in your room, and any other electrical appliance on the planet. All create RF fields. Therefore, all would have some kind of affect on people. Cellphones are not unique.

Cellphones are unique in a way. You hold them right next to your brain. The other RF sources you mention are much further away. Especially radio and TV stations! The strengths falls off very rapidly, square of the distance isn't it? That's why they suggest you hold the phone half an inch away from your head. It's enough to make a difference.

STR's premise, which you seem to be ignoring here, is that the total output of those other stations is so much higher than a cell phone that the effective exposure is the same or greater, regardless of the difference in distance. That's already accounting for the inverse square law.

Do you disagree with that notion?

I do agree that holding the phone just a few inches further away could significantly decrease exposure, but that isn't germane to the point here.

All of those other sources of RF have not had that affect on the brain.

The question being---why not? If the exposure level is the same, what is the factor that sets them apart?

 

[Mr Awe]

If cellphones cause health problems, so do radio stations, tv stations, the electrical grid, the computer your typing on, the light bulb in your room, and any other electrical appliance on the planet. All create RF fields. Therefore, all would have some kind of affect on people. Cellphones are not unique.

Cellphones are unique in a way. You hold them right next to your brain. The other RF sources you mention are much further away. Especially radio and TV stations! The strengths falls off very rapidly, square of the distance isn't it? That's why they suggest you hold the phone half an inch away from your head. It's enough to make a difference.

STR's premise, which you seem to be ignoring here, is that the total output of those other stations is so much higher than a cell phone that the effective exposure is the same or greater, regardless of the difference in distance. That's already accounting for the inverse square law.

Do you disagree with that notion?

I do totally disagree with that notion. The proximity of the phone to the brain yields a higher effective exposure than the other sources. They have seen the effect on the brain from cellphone usage but not the other normal RF sources.

So, no, I wasn't ignoring STR's premise, I already addressed it. The other RF sources do not have a measurable effect on the brain whereas cellphone RF does.

As for the why, play around with the RF exposure calculator here and it become immediately apparent. If you have a hugely powerful transmitter, 100,000W that's a couple of miles away compared to a 1w transmitter that is touching your head, the power density (mW/cm^2) AT YOUR HEAD is literally 10,000 greater from the nearer but far less powerful transmitter! This may not be intuitive but distance is such a huge factor in things like this.

Mr Awe

 

[Lindley]

What about workers at the TV station? They're a lot less than a couple of miles away. Let's say that the RF exposure at 2 miles from a TV antenna is 10000x less powerful than that from a cell phone. The workers who are stationed 100 feet from the antenna all day long would then be receiving 10000x more RF exposure from that antenna than someone 2 miles away....

In order to really have a discussion about relative RF exposures, charts of some kind are needed. Blanket statements aren't really enough.

 

[RJDiogenes]

What exactly is the "effect on the brain" that has been allegedly measured?

 

[Hugo Rune]

People sat in stationary traffic using their phone - verbal warning

People driving whilst talking on the phone - fine and points on their licence

People driving and texting - get reported and sent to court for Driving Without Due Care or Attention. They can explain themselves to a Magistrate and possibly receive a high fine and double the points on their licence.

That's how I play it.

It's all about the attention required in my opinion. Seriously, if you are texting and driving, then you're eyes aren't on the road, one hand is operating a different device and hence you're not in control of a 1.5+ tonne piece of metal...

Driving and using the phone is a pet hate of mine.


Hugo - caught a guy driving and playing scabble on his phone...

 

[RandyS]

I completely agree that "texting" is a major problem. I'm a high school teacher and when I share with my students the dangers of distracted driving several of them actually get angry and very very defensive.

One girl in particular actually responded angrily and adamantly that nothing was ever gonna make her put down her phone! It was her "right!"

With that kind of attitude permeating our youth, I'm fearful for many of us on the road.

Before texting we had to worry that some slob would get on the road drunk and kill us and our family. Now, not only that but, we gotta worry about some teenage girl more worried about texting gossip and not watching the road.

I asked her about my "rights" to travel the roads safely and not having to worry about distracted teenage girls occupied with trivial texts and she said "You're not dead!"

???????

It's not just the kids, but it IS the younger generation. I have a 27 year old friend who does the same thing, even to the point of having both hands on the damn phone while controlling the steering wheel with his knees!

No, I'm not joking.

Not only do I worry for his safety, I worry for mine, since as a disabled person, I rely on him to get around certain days in the week.

Discussing this with him is pointless, since he doesn't seem to care. He's already been cited for it three time this year, and caused four road accidents, three last year, and one this year, and his only response to this has been to bitch about having "to pay for the unfair tickets", and the "absurdity of his insurance being raised" after he lost in small claims court in one of the accidents that he admits was his fault.

Wed need stronger laws about texting while driving.

 

[Mr Awe]

What about workers at the TV station? They're a lot less than a couple of miles away. Let's say that the RF exposure at 2 miles from a TV antenna is 10000x less powerful than that from a cell phone. The workers who are stationed 100 feet from the antenna all day long would then be receiving 10000x more RF exposure from that antenna than someone 2 miles away....

In order to really have a discussion about relative RF exposures, charts of some kind are needed. Blanket statements aren't really enough.

I don't know, plug in the numbers into the RF exposure calculator and find out. I'm not sure what power a typical TV station broadcasts at. I'm not claiming to know all the answers.

But, distance is very important, more so than the actual power of the transmitter. And, moving a cell phone half an inch makes a huge difference.

Also, I didn't make a blanket statement, I used very specific numbers.

What I do know is that the live scans of the brain showed an effect from cell phones while background sources such as TV stations, etc. did not show the same effect.

You asked why. I'm guessing that it's the distance issue and then gave an example that compared a 1 watt transmitter right next to your ear giving you a much higher effective exposure than a 100,000 watt transmitter 2 miles away.

So, I'm hypothesizing that it's the fact that you're placing the transmitter right next to your brain that makes the difference.

I will be the first to admit, however, that just because having a cell phone next to your head stimulates the brain doesn't necessarily mean it causes cancer. More research is definitely required to prove or disprove that connection.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

What exactly is the "effect on the brain" that has been allegedly measured?

Nothing alleged about it. It's been measured. The only question is whether it causes cancer or not. This study doesn't answer that question. However, it's been posited that the cell phone RF is slowly cooking the brain like a microwave oven.

The scientists found that metabolism in the brain region closest to the antenna — in the orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole — was about 7% higher when the cellphone was on.

"The important thing to remember about a cellphone is that it's really a microwave radiation antennae. The amount of radiation you get from it is directly related to distance it is from the head," says Black, who recommends plugging in a headset.

Found here.

Mr Awe

 

[Lindley]

But, distance is very important, more so than the actual power of the transmitter. And, moving a cell phone half an inch makes a huge difference.

We certainly agree on that. However, I'm sure you'll agree that for any given transmitter >= the power of a cell phone, a distance from it can be computed which would give an equivalent exposure to a cell phone held against the head. Of course this distance will increase with the square root of the transmitter power (approximately).

The question is, what are those distances for typical RF sources and what studies have been done on people spending a significant amount of time at those distances?

 

[Mr Awe]

But, distance is very important, more so than the actual power of the transmitter. And, moving a cell phone half an inch makes a huge difference.

We certainly agree on that. However, I'm sure you'll agree that for any given transmitter >= the power of a cell phone, a distance from it can be computed which would give an equivalent exposure to a cell phone held against the head. Of course this distance will increase with the square root of the transmitter power (approximately).

The question is, what are those distances for typical RF sources and what studies have been done on people spending a significant amount of time at those distances?

Ok, so I ran some more numbers to see. First, the maximum permissible exposure is 1.005 mW/cm^2.

So, if you have a 30,000W transmitter and you're 100 feet away, you're just above that limit at 1.09 mW/cm^2. You have to get within 10 feet of this 30,000W transmitter to receive a similar power density as from the 1W transmitter examples below. 30000W @ 10 feet yields 109 mW/cm^2.

However, a 1W transmitter that is a tenth of an inch from your brain yields 3639 mW/cm^2 while one that is 1.2 inches yields 36 mW/cm^2.

You can see that the distance is a huge factor. Way more important the transmitter power. Just moving that first inch really reduces the power tremendously.

Mr Awe

 

[farmkid]

Ok, so I ran some more numbers to see. First, the maximum permissible exposure is 1.005 mW/cm^2.

So, if you have a 30,000W transmitter and you're 100 feet away, you're just above that limit at 1.09 mW/cm^2. You have to get within 10 feet of this 30,000W transmitter to receive a similar power density as from the 1W transmitter examples below. 30000W @ 10 feet yields 109 mW/cm^2.

However, a 1W transmitter that is a tenth of an inch from your brain yields 3639 mW/cm^2 while one that is 1.2 inches yields 36 mW/cm^2.

You can see that the distance is a huge factor. Way more important the transmitter power. Just moving that first inch really reduces the power tremendously.

Mr Awe

Your 1/10 inch example is too close. In most phones, the antenna is on the far side of the phone or furthest away from the head (or in the case of some, like mine, it's near the microphone, so near the mouth), so you have the thickness of the phone, ear, skin, and skull between the antenna and the nearest part of the brain. That's going to be about an inch. Not only that, that space is filled with materials which will attenuate and scatter the signal significantly more than air or empty space. The minimum number you should be using in your calculations is 1 inch.

 

[Mr Awe]

^^ That's a good thing because the numbers for .1 inch were so darn high, above the limit by a factor of 3000! You can see the values for 1.2 inches are still above the limit but by a more reasonable amount. Plus, if you add in the material that mention, it's probably a bit lower.

Mr Awe

 

[RJDiogenes]

What exactly is the "effect on the brain" that has been allegedly measured?

Nothing alleged about it. It's been measured. The only question is whether it causes cancer or not. This study doesn't answer that question. However, it's been posited that the cell phone RF is slowly cooking the brain like a microwave oven.

The scientists found that metabolism in the brain region closest to the antenna — in the orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole — was about 7% higher when the cellphone was on.

"The important thing to remember about a cellphone is that it's really a microwave radiation antennae. The amount of radiation you get from it is directly related to distance it is from the head," says Black, who recommends plugging in a headset.

Found here.

Mr Awe

Interesting. They apparently did take into consideration other possible sources of stimulation (such as the actual conversation), so the effect does seem to be related to the radiation. It would be hilarious if it ended up having a positive repercussions.