Mobile/Cell phone radiation.

[jon_hill987]

Personally I'm not a believer in this theory that we are all damaging our health by using mobiles. from what i remember from my physics days the shorter the wavelength of the wave, the more energy it caries. Now we all know that UV rays and any EM radiation with a shorter wavelength can ionize atoms in our DNA and so change it, sometimes causing cancer. mobiles however produce a far longer wave wich does not have enough energy to ionize atoms any more than visable light does.

 

anyway those are my thoughts, here is a recent article.

 

Your thoughts?

[ET Warrior]

I think it's silly. People who worry about cellphones giving them cancer are the same people who go to tanning beds so that their skin is a nice brown.

 

You are correct, shorter wavelength waves carry more energy and are more damaging to cells. I would imagine you'd have to be on a cellphone ALL THE TIME before the exposure could do any noticable damage.

[jon_hill987]

From what I understand, they can't do any damage. If you look at the problem using the "light is a particle" (photons) model:

 

Each photon has X amout of energy given by some formula i can't remember but it is based on the wavelength, the shorter the wave length the more enegy it has, as we have already agreed.

 

In order to cause damage to tissue the radiation has to knock an electron out of one of the atoms.

 

Only one photon can colide with an electron at a time.

 

the energy of the microwaves in mobiles is too low to ionize any of the DNA molecules.

 

unfortunatly I don't have my chemistry or physics text book anymore so i can't find any values to back this up. and finding an example on the intenet will just take more time than I have.

 

I do however remember that visable light can only just knock electrons off various metals, and they have a very low ionisation energy.

 

there could of course be other effects other than ionisation at work, but all the reports I have read go on about damaging DNA and ionisation.

 

that has got to be one of my longest posts 3V4R! I apologise for my many spelling errors!

[ET Warrior]

The truth of your statement can be seen from radio waves. we are continually bombarded by radio waves, all day every day, and so far we haven't noticed radio waves giving us cancer. the wavelength from cell phones are shorter and they DO carry more energy, but I'm not sure it's enough to cause damage.

 

The point is, that those tanning salons are a LOT more dangerous to the health of people than cell phones ever will be.

[Druid Bremen]

Definitely true. I know this isn't a good example, for its just one person, but my father smoked a fair bit. He's on the phone all the time for business clients. For more than 5 years. He doesn't have cancer. The wavelength is short, but not enough to damage anyone unless you put your ear to it non-stop. And even then you need to do that for a really long time before any noticeable effects manifest.

[kipperthefrog]

I never found cell phones usefull myself. i'm used to just going to the nearest wall plug in phone or just calling back later.

 

 

If you don't have a cell phone you don't miss it.

[jon_hill987]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

If you don't have a cell phone you don't miss it.

 

Very true, though I have no other phone so it wouldn't work for me.

 

 

Anybody actualy believe them being bad for you though?

[kipperthefrog]

I don't see how the cell phone is any different then a regular speacker.

[jon_hill987]

I's not the speaker its the microwaves they use to comunicate with the network. Maybe I should have made that clear...

[ET Warrior]

Granted, you may not miss a cell phone if you've never had one, but once you've had one and realize the absolute convenience it brings with it, you almost cannot be without.

 

 

Add to that I have no other phone in my apartment......

[El Sitherino]

I'm never in one place long enough to use a house phone as a way to reach me. Thus a cell phone is absolute for me. Otherwise, everything would just be all over the place.

[kipperthefrog]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

I'm never in one place long enough to use a house phone as a way to reach me. Thus a cell phone is absolute for me. Otherwise, everything would just be all over the place.

 

then how do you post so many posts unless you sit at your PC all day?

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

then how do you post so many posts unless you sit at your PC all day?

ever think that maybe there is more than just one computer in the world?

[kipperthefrog]

I only have one. you do this from work too!

[El Sitherino]

I go to multiple houses.

 

mostly I post on times I take breaks, or cram a lot of posts in before I go off ot do a bunch of random crap.

[toms]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

I would imagine you'd have to be on a cellphone ALL THE TIME before the exposure could do any noticable damage.

 

Eh? Have you seen kids these days? They are glued to their phones 24/7. They even use them to talk to people in the same room! And in the cinema! Grrr!!!

 

Anyway, the studies that show that phones heat up and provide energy within the brain are incontrovertable. The issue is whether this energy transfer causes any damage?

 

Minor studies show some statistical evidence that heavy phone users have worse memories and attention spans to non-users.

 

Its a bit like smoking, until you have had a large number of people who have been using them for a number of years any risks won't become statistically apparent.

 

Personally, I suspect that in 20 or 30 years time we may find that they are just as much of a health risk as smoking, and just as hard to quit. But I have no real evidence for that, just a gut feeling that pumping waves into your head for hours every day can't be that good for you.

 

That said, if phones keep getting smaller it should be possible to create "safer" designs... with the battery and transmitter kept somewhere safer (shoe sole? ) and only a lower powered headset nearer the vital organs.

 

Still, until they can PROVE it is safe (like drugs manufacturers have to (and dodgy ones still get through and have to be recalled all the time)) I'd think that they should produce so low powered "text and emergence calls only" phones for kids. Whether kids will want to use them is another matter...

[El Sitherino]

Cell phones actually aren't all that safe for small kids, because the low level waves they give off. But for adults, they aren't all that much of a risk.

 

 

or so I read somewhere, don't quote me on it.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by toms

Minor studies show some statistical evidence that heavy phone users have worse memories and attention spans to non-users.

 

But those statistics are probably biased by the fact that heavy cell phone users are mostly people from a generation that has placed too little emphasis on learning to concentrate and remember.

[Kurgan]

As far as cell phones causing cancer, I dunno about that. There was something I read about the older cell phones having more possibly dangerous radiation about them, but without the article to cite I can't say, don't want to look like an idiot here. ; )

 

There was a recent study about cell phones being linked to reduced fertility in men, ie: low sperm count associated with having a cell phone strapped to your belt or in your pants pocket all day, every day for a long time, etc.

 

 

However, the study showed a correlation (which as any experimenter knows, does not equal causation). There may have been other factors involved.

 

If I get time I'll post that one up, but I'm sure it was on Yahoo news in the past year, in fact I'm almost positive.

 

This is reminiscent of the controversy over "power lines" being near homes and causing health problems. Of course that argument fell short because the wiring IN people's homes tended to provide more exposure than powerlines outside[/b].

 

But, it's interesting nonetheless, and I think such studies should go forward to make sure, for safety's sake. Every generation has some common, everyday activity that later turned out to be hazardous, we just didn't think about it at the time or didn't worry about it. OR, simply, the studies take time (years to see the effects on folks), and without them how do you convince people of a possible danger?

[jon_hill987]

*bump*

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4432755.stm

 

looks like they still just can't decide.