A Balanced Look At Cellphone Radiation 171
A month back we discussed an article in GQ on the alarmist side of the cellphone-radiation question. Now reader pgn674 passes along a PopSci feature article looking at the current state of cellphone radiation research. It profiles people who claim to be electro-hypersensitive, "who are reluctant to subject themselves to hours in an electronics-laden facility" for studies. The limited research on that condition is still showing that sufferers, in blind tests, are unable to detect radiation at levels better than chance. The article also touches on the relationship of non-ionizing radiation to cancer. The conclusion is that while it seems unlikely high-frequency fields in consumer devices directly cause cancer, they might promote it, and might also indirectly cause other health deficits beyond simply heating nearby tissue — though one skeptical researcher cautions, "The gap between a biological effect and an adverse health effect is a big one."
Re:I'm calling CQ bullshit CQ bullshit (Score:1, Informative)
1) Inverse-square radiation law for distance - The phone transmitter is in contact with your head
2) Energy of EM photons are proportional to frequency
Re:i'm safe (Score:4, Informative)
Bone alignment? Do you really think your bones can get out of alignment without leaving their sockets? If you are having problems with your bones go to your doctor, not a chiropractor.
Bones don't generally have sockets to fit into. Believe me. I broke my humerus in July last year and I have the X-Rays [glitch.tl] to prove it. Speaking generally our bodies are held together with string. The tension on the string varies dynamically and tries to keep everything fitting together.
When I started getting knee pain from cycling I consulted several doctors. They all suggested I wrap a bandage around the knee and wait for it to get better. It didn't.
Then I went to a bike shop which caters to the racing crowd and they helped me get the bike fitted properly. They sold me some gear to help with that. They also recommended an osteopath to see. This particular person is a bike rider too, and understands the injuries you can get.
So between the bike fit and a bit of help from the osteopath my condition improved. A doctor who did a lot of bike riding may have helped as well, but I wasn't lucky enough to meet one of those.
Depends what you mean by an atomic bond (Score:4, Informative)
The issue is one of penetration. For the radiation from cell phones this is very low. The depth affected is comparable to that which is warmed by, for instance, sunshine. Except for a cell phone close to the ear - where most of the heating comes from the battery and the electronics getting warm - the effect from all combined sources is very small, much smaller than the effect of sunshine or even an incandescent lamp a couple of meters away.
So, barring the discovery of some kind of magic effect, the conclusion has to be that the risk is negligible because the absorbed radiation is infinitesimally small compared to the energy absorbed from the other wavelengths of incident radiation.
You get much more penetration for lower frequency radiation - up to VHF - than for microwaves, and for the best part of a hundred years we have been exposing people to rather high doses of it. The radiation from the converter stages of a superhet radio or a VHF/UHF television greatly exceeds what you get from wi-fi or your DECT phone. But strangely, nobody suffered from headaches as a result of listening to AM radios, perhaps because they did not know that radio and TV receivers actually emitted radiation, often at several volts per meter.
Re:The energy is fixed at a low level... (Score:1, Informative)
No. Photon is a standard term. Why is it in quotes? Microwave photons have more energy per photon than short wave or CB radio. As frequency goes up so does the energy.
Re:Luddites (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Typical (Score:2, Informative)
Given that the whole slashdot article is revolving around people who claim bizarre reactions to radio transmissions and the like, I would like to see some of your own sources for explaining the phenominon you describe. I've never heard of electronics inducing tinnitus.
I know when I walk into many electronics stores, the high frequency sound generated by faulty electronics can be maddening. I took a 6502 programming course in university, and the monitors were so old that they produced almost pain inducing levels of sound for me. If I hadn't found the course so fun and fascinating, I would have dropped out of the course. As it was, I just grinned and beared it. And this is simply because I had much better than average hearing when I was younger. I've noticed now that these things don't bother me so much anymore, so I can only assume that I finally lost my ability to hear those frequencies.
Re:On the other hand... (Score:3, Informative)
As Lessig said in his latest website chat [blip.tv], 75% of studies not funded by the cellphone industry found evidence for a connection.
I would like say that (as I understand it) Lessig pointed this out to get the obvious reaction from his audience ("Oh wow, the cell phone industry is trying to lie to us!"). He wanted to point out that this is the reaction people always have when they see something like this, and to examine what in our society causes that mistrust and how we may be able to fix it. He uses this specifically when he talks about corporate funding for political campaigns, later on.