1. OCAU Merchandise is available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion in this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

New study suggests cancer risks from mobile phone radiation

Discussion in 'Science' started by antipody, May 30, 2016.

  1. Ratzz

    Ratzz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    10,494
    Location:
    CRANBOURNE 3177
    I like the communication device. I used to have one I believe, but there were many restrictions. You could only connect to one person at a time. Apps were very limited. I always had problems with the volume control on mine, and if the cord contacted anything between myself and the other user then disconnection was inevitable.

    I don't remember ever breaking a screen on one though.
     
  2. sanousie

    sanousie Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,164
    Location:
    Sydney
    Dude, seriously, if i had the option not to contact my parents and friends via mobile phone and only use a land line, it will be the only way that i'd contact them, but sometimes a mobile phone is needed, especially with todays technology etc.

    Having my phone in Airplane mode is a common practice for me, i only activate it when im outside the house, find my quality off sleep is way better when disabling all wifi/mobile devices in the bedroom.

    But cancer is a serious thing and comes in many different forms and caused by many different factors, until we have concrete evidence (e.g. most of todays mobile using youth have ear tumors/brain tumors 20 - 30 years down the track, or something along those lines) then i will agree with the docs. Research like this takes years and concrete evidence is needed.

    Just taking the piss on most of these researches, Any tom dick and harry can conduct a experiment and post their results, but its nothing with out concrete evidence (please dont start with rats having tumors due to mobile phone signals passing through them), we arent testing the LD50 of a chemical/Medication.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2016
  3. Ratzz

    Ratzz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    10,494
    Location:
    CRANBOURNE 3177
    Mate, I kinda get the whole sticking a transmitter to your ear bit, I really do.

    I think disabling wifi/mobile devices improving your quality of sleep might be a bit of an imaginary thing though.

    If you really think that helps, then try not to dwell on the thousands of other sources of various forms of radiation you are absorbing 24/7 even with those things turned off. The thought of that might also keep you awake.
     
  4. sanousie

    sanousie Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,164
    Location:
    Sydney
    I agree with what your saying, but everyones physiology is different, some people have more receptors in certain areas of the body compared to others, which might/might not make them susceptible to certain radiation waves/frequencies, but the difference can neglegible.

    In regards to disabling wifi, I forget sometimes and it does not bother me really, It being in my head might correct, but activating Air plane has improved my sleep, no one can call me and wake me up :) hehe.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2016
  5. Ratzz

    Ratzz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    10,494
    Location:
    CRANBOURNE 3177
    This, agree with, I can :thumbup: .
     
  6. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    162,098
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    Predictable given the size of the industry in question here.
     
  7. Foliage

    Foliage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    32,058
    Location:
    Sleepwithyourdadelaide
    It has nothing to do with the industry and everything to do with the study being rubbish.
     
  8. Ratzz

    Ratzz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    10,494
    Location:
    CRANBOURNE 3177
    It has everything to do with the industry and everything to do with the study being rubbish.

    It is supposed to be a US government study, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than one mobile manufacturer involved, and desirable results will be required for their money.

    Money talks. That's why cigarettes weren't made illegal in the 60's. The mobile industry is rich enough to buy whatever studies it wants, and even to influence governments if there are sufficient local jobs involved.

    That said, I'll just continue to use my mobile, and they can attribute all my various maladies as a direct result of this if they so choose. We live in an irradiated world, and Antarctica is too cold to escape to (maybe that will change in 50 years or so with climate change ;) )
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2016
  9. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    162,098
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    Exactly the example I was going to quote earlier, but couldn't be bothered. Mobile phone industry is mammoth/powerful, as is the tobacco industry.
     
  10. Foliage

    Foliage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    32,058
    Location:
    Sleepwithyourdadelaide
    Mobile phone radiation is a simple beast though, it causes extremely minor heating of cells and that is it.

    Tobacco on the other hand has extremely complex interactions with the body so many studies were needed. Yes they were doctored massively by the tobacco industry but science prevailed eventually.
     
  11. sanousie

    sanousie Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,164
    Location:
    Sydney
    Agree, someone might react badly to the chemical Harmine in tobacco, compared to someone that would not. Harmine is a mild MAO-A and would react with many different medications. I Presume that would be one of the reasons why many studies differed over the years.

    Who's to say that its same thing with mobile phones, Physiology plays a big part to how our bodies react to external stimuli. Hopefully these mobile phone companies dont hinder these studies and let the Dr/Prof do their work in finding the truth (but thats a long shot for sure when there is billions of dollars involved).
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2016
  12. lolitsbigmic

    lolitsbigmic Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    133
    I reminded of this after having hour and half phone conversation for work. My ear felt like it had a sun burn. Probably the heating up of the phone from the processor work as well.
     
  13. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    If you're in an average coverage area (>-90dBm) and using WCDMA 3G, the UE (phone) power should be less than 0dBm (1mW). This is actually a little less than most cordless phones and way below the level required to generate heating of human tissue.

    OTOH, in poor signal areas approaching the edge of coverage footprint, the phone might be outputting more than 200mW, and conversely in close proximity to the site the handset power will be below -20dBm. This is because the power control loop seeks to maintain a constant minimum Eb/N0 at the BTS receiver, and the WCDMA power control needs to be greater than 80dB to achive that.

    I'm a RF engineer, not a medical scientist so I can't say with any authority that low level exposure is completely safe, although it's something I'm asked about it on a regular basis.

    Regardless, a precautionary approach can only be a good thing, so a general understanding is useful. Due to sq law nature of EM wave path loss, the handset itself represents a far higher level of RF power than a base station, so lots of base stations actually reduces the exposure level you're subjected to on a daily basis, which is contrary to what the media and most people will tell you.

    Also, base stations themselves are relatively low power sources, with controlled horizontal and vertical directivity typically resulting in public expose levels hundreds of times below the mandated maximum.

    In a worse case scenario, say 150m from a large multi headframe monopole, the field strength will be roughly the same as you'll experience standing 10km from a metropolitan FM / TV tower, assuming you can see the tower.

    For the majority of people, their home Wi-Fi will constitute the single greatest source of radio frequency energy, followed be their handsets / data dongles, TV/ FM towers, comms sites, and mobile phone cell sites.
     
  14. lolitsbigmic

    lolitsbigmic Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    133
    To be honest i haven't done much reading at all on this to know if 200mW is anything at all. I remember reading study on high power transmission lines that someone was banging on about how bad they where but the study they where quoting was very inconclusive.

    My case i know its from the usual phone load heat up.

    But long term effects of WiFi is going to be interesting. Its going to be tough to single these things out, they might contribute. But things like diet are stronger influence on getting cancer than any other environmental influence.
     
  15. BlueRaven

    BlueRaven Brute force & optimism

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,691
    Location:
    2076
    Very interesting stuff, thanks for posting. :thumbup:
    I was aware of the controlled-directivity nature of phone towers, but it's interesting to get an idea of relative power within a certain footprint.

    The old "phones give you cancer" chestnut will never go away.
    People are easily scared by the word "cancer" (even if you're not at all specific about which of the hundreds of types of "cancer" you're referring to).
    Mobile phones are ubiquitous in developed countries, and are rapidly becoming so in developing nations.

    It will always be comparatively easy to extract a portion of government funding from the public purse to do a phone study, or convince those with a vested interest to give you some money to do so.
    As compared to other research projects that would arguably be more useful.

    Science is a business like anything else these days, which is partially why it's so badly misrepresented in the media.
    Unscrupulous people absolutely will manipulate a bunch of ignorant fools for their own ends.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2016
  16. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    If you're holding the phone on your ear, 200mW can potentially result in a field strength that gets close to the mandated 200uW /cm2 public exposure limit. Due to an overarching compliance for any device where maximum power is less than 2 watts and where the antenna gain is less than 2.1dBi, actual field strength compliance is not required for handsets, so it's something to keep in mind.

    Health concerns from low frequency power lines isn't strictly a EMR issue because the very low frequency makes it impossible for EMR to be converted into heat within the human body. From what I've read on the subject, concerns stem from the electric fields and the implication that galactic cosmic radiation might be deflected to zones either side of the lines, resulting in elevated GCR's for people who live there.

    WRT Wi-Fi, possibly yes, but nobody seems to care. For example, most schools will not allow mobile base stations to be sited within 500m, but those same schools (and the various associated anti-tower activist groups) have no problems with kids taking their phones to school, and they don't see any problems from installing a Wi-Fi das for coverage throughout the entire school either.

    IOW, they're more concerned about low level EMR than high level EMR, which makes no sense at all.
     
  17. sanousie

    sanousie Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,164
    Location:
    Sydney
    Very interesting.

    Remember watching a program on landline a while back, with a elderly man who was on the edge of coverage and used his phone in his tractor nearly all day (about 4 - 6 hours), he developed a tumor in his ear after years of the above use. I can recall he started using a mobile phone when they were on analog.

    I cant remember the fella's name or what part of australia, but it was flat with alot of wheat fields (haha wish i could be more specific), he was also bold, maybe in his 60 - 70 age, Can anyone recall watching this?

    Thanks for this post mate, sheds alot of light on the situation, might be a good idea from now on to use hands free when your reception is low.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2016
  18. BlueRaven

    BlueRaven Brute force & optimism

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,691
    Location:
    2076
    #notallEMR
     
  19. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    That's not a bad assessment.

    Fwiw, I was a cell planning engineer for 10 years with a big Telco, and I hosted quite a few Q&A sessions for concerned community groups, but efforts to educate were mostly in vain. Even when presented with empirical evidence in the form of live measurements, most people believed that I was part of a grand conspiracy to irradiate, sterilise, and terminate all life forms within several kilometres of the proposed site.

    Those scare campaigns were very effective.
     
  20. Walshy

    Walshy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Messages:
    353
    Location:
    Brisbane
    There's a definite art to a good scare campaign.

    Like the campaign to block production of drinking water from sewerage. Because drinking water taken from a dam that cows and birds crap in is perfectly healthy, compared to "ZOMG! Sewer water!"

    Or the whole "Wind Turbine Syndrome" thing (where nobody is ever afflicted until the activists come calling, and being paid money for having a turbine on your land is amazingly prophylactic...)

    They thrive because so few people understand basic science, let alone some of the more esoteric stuff like EMF absorption, and cell damage mechanisms.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: