[Way OT] Is your cell phone killing you?

Don't _you_ start. Read all the references listed in the back of ANSI C95.1 and get back to us.

Kevin Gallimore

and get back to us.

900 MHz CDMA phone at 2 mW

IEEE limit is 30 W / m^2 or 3 mW / cm^2, *for 6 minutes*.

I'm just saying.

--Winston

and get back to us.

That you don't understand RF.

Is my cell phone killing me? Nope.

Life is a bitch, then you die. No one gets out alive. You can get cancer from a cell phone, or an ulcer from fretting about it, or get run over by a beer truck.

Don't worry so much.

All bleeding stops eventually. Everyone dies from something.

Steve

Dissclaimer- I work in wireless so therefore anything I say is in no way obiviusly dicdicdictated to me by Industry Operatives by using Microwave MiMiMind Control to warp my every thththough to thier own Evil Purposes (usually that means forcing me to reload the office printer ...)

That being said there is no known mechanisum that will cause living tissue to become carconegenic through application of non-ionizing radiation. The only repeated demonstrable effect that non-ionizing radition (i.e. radio waves) has on tissue is a heating effect. Have you ever noticed how using a cell phone on a cold day warms you up? No? Thats because the amount of power put out by a phone, & the percentage of that actuall absorbed by your body, is so low it wouldn'r warm up a nat.

Everybody has heard of the studies that show a link between cellphones (or power lines, or cuddly stuffed teady bears) and cancer. What never seems to make it into the news are critiques of the studies (at least the ones published in peer reviewed venues, be very wary of people who don't want peer-review) or the results of duplicate studies that result in null or even opposite results.

My general take on the people doing these studies is that they broadly fall into two groups-

Those with doctorates in physics who know nothing about biology

and

those who are biologists who no nothing about radio waves.

As far as I can see the only thing both groups have in common is the general scientific curiosty to see if publishing papers will get them more grants & possibly tenure :/

Especially in Sweden.

The Medical Colledge of Wisconsin used to maintian a very good summary of cellphone-cancer studues, unfortunately they gave it up but copies of it are still available @ web.archive.org-

have a thorough look, it's a real eye opener.

I'll contribute a few thoughts on this-

First, if there is an actual link between EM radiation & cancer I would expect that by now there would be very clear, very repeatble evidence of this, so far there isn't.

Secondly, consider the amount of energy a cell phone puts out, then consider the amount of energy thay you get from standing in the sun (wearing sun block of course- UV *is* ionizing) or even from office lighting. Holding a cell phone againt your head probably results in less effect to your body than holding a flashlight against it.

Third, for an article that makes a number of less than subtle remarks about sources of funding for "negative" studies it might be instructive to check out the general tone of other articles sponsered by the people who paid for this one.

H.

>

Thanks Howard :)

The article was cited on comp.risks, so I figured it was an important warning.

--Winston

If you want another reason to fret, look up the intensity of the RF and magnetic fields in an MRI machine.

The RF power absorption can be up to 10W/Kg, enough to cause noticeable heating and considerably above the limit for cell phones. Plus the magnetic field is strong enough to bend a knife. I ran an NMR in a chem lab one summer and like everyone else had to see how strong

14,000 Gauss really was.

jsw

(...)

The perfect enclosure for an uppity employee.

:)

--Winston