California Government On the Dangers of Cellphones (cbslocal.com) 237
mi quotes a report from CBS Local: After keeping it hidden for years, California's Department of Public Health has released a draft document outlining health officials' concerns about cellphone radiation exposure. The previously unpublished document was released this week after a judge indicated she would order the documents be disclosed. Health officials' overall recommendation is to "increase the distance between you and your phone" by using a headset, the speaker phone function and text messaging. Health officials recommend not sleeping near your phone and not carry it in your pocket or directly on your body, unless it is off. The fact sheet also states that "EMFs can pass deeper into a child's brain than and adult's" so suggests parents limit their child's cellphone use to texting, important call and emergencies.
Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's the case, then the entire human race needs to move to the bottom of salt mines, because the amount of radiation being produced by the sun ought to fry our brains by the time we're six months old.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Informative)
The document was unreleased because it was a factually wrong draft. A corded phone produces a weaker EMF than a wired headset? Really?
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Several years ago, the IEEE Spectrum had a big article in which they tried to find the best current evidence on whether cell phones emitted harmful radiation. So they reviewed all the major studies.
They had 2 interesting results:
1. In the best evidence for the harms of EMF, the radiation wasn't steady over long periods of time, but intermittent, with exposures of minutes to hours every day.
2. Studies of household radiation found the highest levels of EMFs from 2 sources: hair dryers and blenders.
So if you're really worried about EMFs, you should get rid of hair dryers and blenders.
I showed the IEEE Spectrum issue to Louis Slesin, the editor of Microwave News, and asked him about it. He refused to comment. I said, why not? He said, I just don't want to comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you question something he didn't say?
Re: (Score:2)
Reading fail:
"2.45 ghz is the common frequency for microwave ovens, which excite water molecules"
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, really. The corded phone doesn't have to emit microwaves strong enough to reach the nearest tower. The wired headset will conduct at least some of the microwave radiation directly to your ear.
The question of harm is a different matter.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The tissues do get warmer according to some studies with heavy use in areas with bad cell reception (equals maximum handset power), but whether that is harmful within the recommended maximum power limits of 2 watts, that is the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, simpler, move out of California, as nowhere else cellphones produce such deadly amounts of radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case, then the entire human race needs to move to the bottom of salt mines, because the amount of radiation being produced by the sun ought to fry our brains by the time we're six months old.
I'm pretty sure that by the time the sun's radiation reaches us, the amount of it that can penetrate more than a millimetre below the skin is vanishingly small. OTOH, the radiation from a cell phone, can and does penetrate much farther - as in all the way through.
Re: (Score:3)
More importantly, cumulative exposure is important. Just because you use your phone does not mean the sun stops shining. Just because you use your phone, does not mean power lines stop generating powerful electromagnetic fields. Just because you use your phone does not mean airfield radars stop. Just because you use your phone does not mean radio and tv transmissions stop. On it's own, with limited use, probably not a problem, added to the rest, yeah, a problem ie using you phone, next to an airport, whilst
Re: (Score:2)
Non-native EMF (such as from devices) is not the same as EMF from the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is moot because the sun does not produce electromagnetic radiation in the microwave spectrum ...
Seriously. Who moderated the parent post up?
Re: (Score:2)
Next... the California Assembly mandates the wearing of tin foil hats by children using cellphones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You understand, I trust, that the sun produces more than just EM radiation in the visible spectrum, right?
Re: Sigh... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Visible light is a subset of electromagnetic radiation. If it's made of photons, it's electromagnetic radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected. Although my statement about the squiggly lines is still correct, hehe.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if their concerns are valid or not.
The concerns are not valid. There are two ways you can determine this for yourself: The finger method, or the brain method.
Finger method: Type some search terms into a browser and try to find peer reviewed research that shows cellphone radiation is dangerous. You won't find any. You will, however, find plenty of ranting by crackpots.
Brain method: Think about what radiation is, and how it could damage a brain. There are two ways that could happen: heat and ionization. Cellphone radiation produces a negligible amount of the first, and none of the second.
In the absence of either evidence or plausible mechanism, it is safe to presume cellphone radiation harmless. You should find something else to worry about.
Re: (Score:3)
What are these images showing that were making the rounds years ago?
https://userscontent2.emaze.co... [emaze.com]
Re: Sigh... (Score:3)
You said you can use your brain and realize only way radiation can damage the brain is through heating or ionization.
How do you know there's not a third mechanism, where the brain acts like a mini antenna and gets minor electrical signals? And maybe these are harmful in some way, not a big thing like an epileptic fit, but maybe more subtle, maybe that hits a frequency that triggers bad effects? I think that bird brains have a kind of electromagnetic compass so we know that some brains do respond to elect
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Informative)
How do you know that heat and ionization are the only ways RF radiation can harm a brain?
It's well known that exposure to UV increases the risk of skin cancer. Is that heating or ionization?
That would fall under ionization
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's well known that exposure to UV increases the risk of skin cancer. Is that heating or ionization?
UV light causes ionization. Furthermore, there is ACTUAL EVIDENCE that UV light causes cancer. Skin cancer is highly correlated with UV exposure. Americans are more likely to get skin cancer on their left arm. Australians tend to get it on their right arm. The only plausible explanation for that is that Americans drive on the right, and Aussies on the left, exposing different arms to the sun.
If cellphones cause cancer, there would be similar disparities in brain cancer incidence depending on whether the cellphone is held to your right ear or left ear. Researchers have looked for this, and found no significant difference in cancer rates between "listening side" and "non-listening side". There is also no evidence that heavy cell users have higher rates of brain cancer.
Is it possible that that we have missed something? Sure, but maybe we also missed Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How? because those are the only two things EM radiation can do (since we are including ionization you need to talk about the entire EM spectrum)
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it impossible that you are wrong, and that heat and ionization are not the only way that a brain could be affected?
Nothing is completely impossible, but this issue has been studied to death. Billions of people use cellphones. If there was an issue it would have shown up in epidemiological data long ago.
Doing yet more research is nearly pointless. It would be far better to focus resources on other health issues that are supported by actual evidence rather than pseudoscience.
Re: (Score:2)
It's California. There is no such thing as pseudoscience.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we say with certainty that it's not affected by mental telepaths who live in the mountains of Chile?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
all are sources of STRONG EM emissions. Cell phones are in the milliwatt range, not the Megawatt or even Kilowatt or even Watt range.
Re: (Score:2)
This entire category of "attack vector" makes an organism sensitive to an EM radiation of a given frequency or higher. If we had this issue with microwave radiation, we'd also have the issue with IR radiation, insta
Re: Sigh... (Score:3)
This again?? (Score:2)
How many times are we going to go through the whole cellphone radiation thing?
Real or Fake News? (Score:3)
I'm so confused....
That said, RF is dangerous depending on signal strength and exposure time. I don't, out of long time habits instilled in the Military, keep a cell phone by my head. I use headphones. Can the body tolerate the cell phones? Probably, but it's kind of like eating bacon. It tastes really good but in large quantities is not very healthy. Everything in moderation was coined quite wisely.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me ask you. Can the body tolerate solar RF?
Re:Real or Fake News? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the OP was using the more limited, and common, definition, and I don't believe there's enough solar energy at those frequencies to cause harm.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your head receives less than 10^-12W at 850MHz from the sun [1]. Your phone delivers probably 0.5W. So if you scaled the sun to match microwave radiation levels, then no, you'd be fried in a millisecond. B-)
[1] http://ipnpr.jpl.nasa.gov/prog... [nasa.gov] fig.1 at 1MHz bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me ask you. Can the body tolerate solar RF?
I thought you were just having an unreasonable knee-jerk reaction, but now I realize that you're trolling.
Sure it can (Score:2)
Does that mean that you should stand outside uncovered in 110 degree sunny weather for hours at a time every day? How about standing in front of a microwave transmitter at the minimum safe distance for a prolonged time every day? Your point is both irrational and illogical.
Re: (Score:2)
People on a ketogenic diet would disagree with you about bacon. Carbs are the real unhealthy food.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Supplementary obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many times are we going to go through the whole cellphone radiation thing?
Hey, we still have folks who think the Apollo program took place on a sound stage and it's been half a century. We are almost 20 years out from 9/11 and folks still think it was a building implosion that brought down the World Trade Towers... There are people who think vaccines are causing autism after that was disproved 20 years ago... I'm guessing we are going to be going though this cell phone "radiation" as long as I expect to be alive...
Re: (Score:2)
How many times are we going to go through the whole cellphone radiation thing?
As long as there are politicians who breathe and can wiggle their fingers behind their back while cupping their hand, and useful hyperbolic idiots to do their scare tactic bidding.
Re:This again?? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't care who you are, this is funny.
The takeaway is that I don't care who you are.
Whole Room Device Charging (Score:3)
Recently there was a story here about a room that can charge any device that enters into it. I cannot wait to see the health issues that arise from that.
California's Department of Public Health (Score:4)
Protecting rats from cancer since 2007.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why are politicians getting extra protection?
So nothing about ... (Score:2)
... tablets on or about the body, using WiFi, which produces the exact amount of _____. (Hint: EMF)
Health officials recommend not sleeping near your phone and not carry it in your pocket or directly on your body ...
Draft Document != hidden (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This. This document doesn't list a single reference. Not a single reference to a case study, a research institution, or even the name of a doctor.
The article has this to mention:
"n the draft fact sheet, state health officials list their recommendations for members of the public who wish to reduce their exposure to the radiation emitted from cellphones, but state that as more studies are done the recommendations on the fact sheet may change."
Okay, I'm down with that, but can you tell us what their original
So which is it? (Score:2)
Given multiple other studies have already concluded that there actually is no danger from EMR, I seems this must necessarily prove one of:
a) every one of those other studies were wrong or have been corrupted, presumably by "big telco"
or
b) CA are just a bunch of ultra-paranoid wingnuts that want to live in fear.
So which is it actually?
Re: (Score:3)
(b)
There was no Cowboy Neal option.
Department of HEALTH my ass. (Score:2)
"After keeping it hidden for years, California's Department of Public Health...
It's pretty fucking bad when you can't even make it through the first fucking sentence of TFS before wanting to dial a damn lawyer.
You had one fucking job to do, Department of Health .
This bullshit, coming from the land that gave birth to "known to the state of California to cause" warning labels.
Fucking hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's nonsense, so there is nothing to tell. Wasting time thinking about it is bad for my health. The did their job perfectly. Here, wear this tin foil hat, it will make you feel better.
And when there IS something to tell in the future, and they also chose to keep it hidden for years? THAT is the point here. Maintaining trust is rather key with the organization who's job is to inform the Public regarding Health matters.
Break down the reasons this was kept hidden. It was hidden for the sake of capitalism, as to not induce fear and impact the lucrative cellular telecommunications industry, which was probably the accurate thing to do if there are no definitive results to prove a concern fo
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree. There is a reason that a "little" knowledge is a dangerous thing, rather than "no" knowledge. People are more dangerous when they think they know something.
I have seen these signs placed on the sides of buildings, with NO description of WHAT it's actually referring to. Is it what the building was painted with? Exhaust from passing cars? UV radiation from the Sun? Underground nuclear tests?
When I see one of these signs, what exactly is my response supposed to be? How am I able to actually use this
Natl. Cancer Institute's Explanation (Score:5, Informative)
"Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk (1).
"The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy."
Sleep easily next to your smartphone tonight.
Re:Natl. Cancer Institute's Explanation (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand:
The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radio-frequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.
-- http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-ce... [www.iarc.fr]
If scientific bodies are still not on the same page, what can we expect of laypeople?
Re:Natl. Cancer Institute's Explanation (Score:4, Interesting)
Granted, I cherry picked that from the list but the reason for a 2B designation is that they don't have the statistical power from their study to rule it out as a cause of gliomas, which means that the incidence is very low in exposed vs. unexposed populations. I think it's safe to say that as long as laypeople are okay with living in a house made of carpentry then they should be okay with using a cell phone.
Re: (Score:3)
"Carpentry and Joinery" includes adhesives, which often contain formaldehide [cancer.gov]. High exposure (such as, say, being a carpenter) does carry a risk.
You need to pick your cherries better :)
Re: (Score:3)
"Formaldehyde is also produced naturally in the human body. It is essential for the production of some basic biological materials, such as certain amino acids. Amino acids are necessary for important life processes as they are the building blocks of proteins in the body."
It's normal but unnecessary for laypeople to be afraid of cell phones, just like it's normal but unnecessary for them to fear formaldehyde in small amounts. Now, as fo
Re: (Score:2)
There are some newer finds than what are referenced (directly or indirectly) in that Fact Sheet.
The most interesting is this one:
Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans [sciencedirect.com].
Alexander Lerchl et al. April 2015. Jacob's University, Bremen, Germany.
The thing that most people don't understand about cancer is that cells are turned into cancer cells quite often but that the human immune system usually is very good at identifying and killing microtumours bef
Warning (Score:3)
This post is known to the State of California to cause cancer
April 1st is still over 4 weeks away (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
California has so many warnings that it is desensitizing people to warnings. Now, they have an Assemblyman that wants to put warnings on soda indicating consumption causes obesity and tooth decay (no kidding)
Nevermind that eating too much of anything could likely have the same effect.
California.... the land of fruits and nuts.
Nope, Wired headphones are worse. (Score:2)
Sadly I can't find it now, but I definitely remember reading a study that found for radiation exposure, using wired headphones when your phone was transmitting (i.e. during a call) was actually significantly worse than holding the phone to your head, because the headphone wires/headphones themselves directly conducted the EM radiation straight into your ear canals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without the same concern, because the old kind of telelphone didn't use microwave radiation to communicate to the exchange.
Re: (Score:2)
But that makes no sense due to the way antennas work. The electromagnetic energy, rather than being conducted through the wire as current, is instead radiated outwards into the surrounding environment.
I could see the headphones having a slight affect on the shape of the field, like any metal object would, but I find it hard to believe it's either significant or consistent. They could just as easily reflect energy away from your head.
Re: (Score:2)
Just reporting on a study I read. I can't explain or validate their findings.
Re: (Score:2)
No worries. Just discussing the physics. :D
It will be kind of like cigarettes.. (Score:2)
National Cancer Institute disagrees (Score:5, Informative)
The referenced draft document simply states that IF you are concerned about it, here's how to reduce exposure. It doesn't state that RF exposure is dangerous.
In fact the National Cancer Institute [cancer.gov] says the opposite:
What the study showed: No association was observed between cell phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 13 or more years
I knew it! (Score:2)
This is why everybody around me seems to come off like drooling idiots! It's the cell phones! They really ARE cooking the brains! Lets call it a disease, and sell the plebs some medication.... you know for "symptoms"
The irony of it all (Score:2)
What is particularly ironic is that the same people who obsess over the possible health effects of cellphone radiation will send their children outside to play in the sunshine without a moment's thought ... to be exposed to ionizing radiation that causes about 10,000 deaths per year from melanoma in the U.S. alone.
This post is know to the State of California... (Score:3)
Always love seeing those labels "The product is known to the State of California to contain chemicals that may cause cancer." Nobody else knows, though, which should tell you everything you need to know about the State of California thinking they're smarter than its citizens who wouldn't be able to go about their lives without the State telling them to.
Re: (Score:2)
You understand that as long there has been life on this planet, it has been bathed in EM radiation, right?
Re: (Score:2)
And everybody dies!
See! Radiation! It's Bad!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh we'll try to stop it, but Big Solar will thwart our every attempt!
Re: (Score:2)
You understand that as long there has been life on this planet, it has been bathed in EM radiation, right?
Here I go being responding to your trolling again... Sure, ALL wavelengths, power levels, durations, proximities, and modulation envelopes of EM radiation, from hertz to terahertz, can be assumed to have the same effect, (or lack thereof), on human cell and tissues. NOT.
Re: (Score:2)
While
Re: (Score:2)
Know what will quickly in
Re: (Score:2)
But, but, but those Romans used lead pipes! It surely must be better to die of thirst than to swallow homeopathical amounts of lead or radiation!
Re: California government on aqueduct maintenance (Score:2)
Actually the lead pipes in Flint Michigan didn't become a serious problem until highly polluted water was run through them. Lead pipes develop a patina that shields the water running through it. The switch to nasty contaminated river water corroded the pipes and introduced the large amount of lead that is the problem now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So .. a 50 year old waterway that until this year had not been used .. goes boom and you equate this with a cellphone radiation study? Wow. You are a special kind of stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps ALL California legislators should immediately stop using cellphones.
It's a fact that their brains have already been damaged due to the inane laws they're attempting to pass in the state.
Force 'em to use wired telephones NOW!
Re: (Score:2)
Well I certainly buy the brain damage part.
I can find one story from 1993 of a Motorola engineer suing them... not compelling.
You also might get testicle/scrotum cancer if you don't place your phone on your lap.
If you are closer to the tower, you are exposed to more of the energy from the tower.
The VOIP comment just baffles me. Does DTMF cause cancer too?
Re: (Score:2)
Cellphones don't "pulse" like a digital signal in the way you describe. In fact, no wireless communication system works like that. The closest would be On-Off Keying (the signal is on = 1, the signal is off = 0), but even then the signal being turned on/off is sinusoidal. Either way, modern cellphones use OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing), same as WiFi.
The point is, this is very different than a step function-like pulse you see in a wired digital system like a microprocessor. In order to for
Re: (Score:2)
And yet billions of people don't have brain cancer. Hmm...
Re: (Score:3)
Remote charging is possible with "smooth analog waves" and the rest of your post is equally crap.