Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: moccacake on 21/12/2006 11:00:01
-
Can cellular phone transmitters really cause cancer? Studies are reported on the news from time to time. But I never hear about researchers saying that walkie talkies can cause cancer, aren't walkie talkies using a more powerful transmitter.
-
I am at an utter loss how these strange ideas get around.
The biological effects of cellular phone transmitters are infinitesimal compared with those caused by natural radio activity and sunlight.
-
Mobile phones or cellphones DO NOT CAUSE CANCER !
Unless you eat one of course but that's your own lookout.
-
If you are a polceman who uses a radar "gun" for measuring traffic speed, don't rest it in your lap.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8213849&dopt=Abstract
-
If you are a polceman who uses a radar "gun" for measuring traffic speed, don't rest it in your lap.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8213849&dopt=Abstract
Cripes !!!.....Thanks Robert
Yep, all the furore about cell phones and cancer died down to make way for new health scare...which ever one that was.....i mean..what ever happened to bird flu ?...aren't we supposed to be batting a pandemic by now ?
-
I think there might a smidgen of evidence for ill health associated with living under high voltage power lines but I have always thought this must if real be due to an excess of Zinc from the galvanized iron towers or maybe Ozone, certainly not any electro magnetic effect
-
People who live UNDER power lines know they're there. People with power lines UNDER their street are not aware. I wonder how well they feel or if there have been any surveys done.
There is another health aspect, too; health is often related to prosperity of an area of housing. When did you see a prosperous area that allowed high power lines to be built over it?
-
Although there is a small electro magnetic field from overhead power lines tests using vastly stronger fields at power line frequencies have never shown any biological effects.
The case for any effects from under ground cables is impossible, the three phases in the cables cancel out any magnetic effects and the steel protective cover on the cables shield out both electrostatic fields and any residual magnetic fields
-
It is reasonable to question if a source of energetic electromagnetic radiation, held up along the side of one's head might have implications to health. It is also reasonable to be concerned since it is optional at least in part and since it is in addition to all other sources of man made and cosmic radiation.
The regulators in different countries set quite different limits on communication frequencies and power associated with communication frequencies. And none of the regulators dismiss harm as a possibility.
So I say keep asking and keep studying.
-
The photons emitted by a hot water bottle are about 10,000 times as energetic as those emitted by a mobile phone so take care if you press one to your cheek.
-
The conductors in three phase power lines under the ground are separated by a finite distance - several cm , for high power lines.
The fields will, therefore, only cancel out at infinite distance. The spacing of overhead lines is greater, so the cancellation would occur further away, granted. You are likely to be far closer to underground cables on occasions than you are to overheads. There are significant loops of single phase circuits, however - like your heaters and cookers in the home. Mains hum can be detected all over the place by magnetically sensitive amplifiers. The fact is that overhead lines are unsightly and that makes people look for reasons to do away with them. I still think the poverty factor is the dominant one. If we did away with that, we would notice a significant improvement in community health.
-
Extreme exposures appear to have some effects, though carcinogenicity is not reported in the following:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=8024607
Then again, extreme exposure to acoustical noise is known to be harmful, but that does not mean ordinary sound is a health hazard.
-
It is not just how energetic radiation is.
Microwaves, uncomfortably close in the electromagnetic spectrum to cell phone transmission, set up a resonance with water, sugar and fat molecules in foods and I suppose living things. As a consequence a relatively low level of radiation produces a dramatic effect. I suppose extreme usage is limited by battery power.
I must object to our tendency to pooh poohing one thing because something else is deemed to be orders of magnitude worse. Because we are powerless to do anything about cosmic radiation (even that may be argued) does not warrant paying little or no attention to that which can be ameliorated. Once upon a time I was presented with the idea that the propellant in a can of hair spray was considered a threat to the ozone layer. I pooh poohed that one with great vigor and have been embarrassed ever since
-
The early experimenters with Xrays and other ionising radiation soon found that large quantities of it did them damage as their fingers started dropping off. and nowadays very low levels are used for essential diagnostic purposes accepting that any exposure carries some risk. Radio waves have been around for a lot longer and if there were any obvious effects other than the heating ones the epidemiology would have shown clearly by now among workers who had been exposed to it in their jobs even if it took many years to show. so if there is any effect it must be very small with a very low risk it is clearly never possible to prove that there is absolutely no effect.
-
Ignore the theoretical level of energy which can be transferred to your tissue from a transmitter powered by a small rechargeable battery (or even the total amount of energy in the battery). Just look at movies of countless experiments in which people have tried to cook eggs etc. etc. with a pile of mobile phones. Nothing ever happens to the egg.
I wonder why so few people thought to object to the introduction of UHF TV transmissions from Crystal Palace at 1000kW effective power for each channel?
Have the transmissions been beamed specifically at Westminster, I wonder, and has this been affecting brain function?
I suspect constant pressure on the side of your head as you press the phone to your ear does the real damage. Not to mention the impaired circulation to your hand, elevated for so long. Then there's the risk of car accidents . . .
Mobiles also appear to damage your hearing because people seem to need to SHOUT when they are using them.
They should certainly all be banned.
If we had the victorian postal service still, we could send each other postcards and receive a same-day reply. All for a penny. Your £25 a month phone contract would pay for a lot of postcards.
-
:)
However as the average income was £44 / a year or 8800d
and today it is £27800
it would be like a postcard costing £3.15
at which point even an SMS looks like quite good value!
-
Let me firstly state that I am quite convinced that there are no ill effects from either the UHF irradiation from either mobile phones or the associated cell transmitters, my belief is based on two points one the frequency is much to low to cause any ionisation two the power is too low to cause any heating effects also mobile phones have been used in vast numbers for at least ten years quite long enough to produce an epidemic if they caused harm.
If it was all I had to go on I would not be totally convinced by the arguments of sophiecentaur, I agree that the TV transmitter has an ERP of 1MW but the energy is radiated from about 300 meters above the ground and the beam is carefully shaped to reduce the the power at ground level in the immediate vicinity (this is so successful that people living within about 1KM get poor reception).
What would be relevent would be the radiance in Watts/cm^2 which of course much higher from a 1Watt source 2cm away from the brain than a 1MW source 1KM away.
Acting as 'devils advocate' I must raise the question of frequency, Crystal palace operates on about 500 MHz whereas mobile phones in the UK are on about 1800MHz although I would add this is far below the level of any ionisation.
Traffic accidents are by far the most important consideration they will continue to be used on the move unless far more draconian measures are brought in to stop their use.
-
Some fair points there, syphrum. However - the TV is transmitted all the time compared with the limited time of personal phone use. The Vertical radiation pattern of tranmitting antennae was not really tailored for safety reasons but for economic use of available power over the service area. There are some very high sidelobes pointing downwards because it is virtually impossible to design a large aperture, directional antenna array for a wide bandwidth (15 to 20% in many cases). Reception near a high mast is often plagued by wierd frequency response effects due to this. Lower power transmitters on short masts are all over the country and 850MHz is the highest UHF TV channel frequency. Their VRP can be even more dodgy; some relay antennae are little more than domestic designs. I don't think the issue of safety was examined too closely in the planning; old figures for exposure risk were used, based on health effects on transmitter and antenna workers. It's a fact that aerial riggers live to a ripe old age due to lots of fresh air and exercise. I am not aware that transmitter engineers suffer too much either apart from the late nights, noise of cooling fans and dust. The 'hazard meters' used for measuring exposure levels are pretty crude, passive devices and seem to have been quite adequate for looking after generations of workers.
It's all a matter of percieved danger. I don't want to seem too complacent but there are are more important things to worry about.
Btw, did anyone ever actually cause a fire in a petrol filling station through using a mobile phone? They are paranoid about that one. How about banning steel toecaps on shoes when you fill up? You'd only have to start tap dancing, hit a piece of flint in the concrete and whoomph!
-
Although not a "professional Aeriel rigger" during my time in the retail TV business I did quite a bit to supplement my income, instead of ensuring a longer and healthy life there were one or two occasions when I came close to terminating it prematurely due to climbing mishaps.
-
I hope you never exposed yourself to high levels of rf up there (even on the way down).
-
"Prof Challis, a physicist, said short-term studies had established no risk but added that volunteers should be looked at over a period of at least five years".
He is negotiating with the Department of Health and the mobile phone industry - which jointly fund the MTHR - for £3m extra to carry out more research.
Another one jumping on the scare-em gravy train!
-
Dr. John Moulder, cancer and radiation researcher, medical college of Wisconsin, ...
Moulder and his team are possibly the world's foremost experts on the subject of health risks and RF.
http://www.mcw.edu/display/router.asp?docid=5175
I think Moulder's main conclusion is that mobile phones are dangerous...you are more likley to have an accident while driving using one.
If you Google Moulder you will find a lot of sites detailing Moulder's research and his collating of other's work.
-
If you want a laugh.. Google Barry (Barrie) Trower and Tim Rifat.. Both seem loony. Rifat wants to sell you Psychotronic Crystals to pretect you from the deadly waves.
Another laugh is the theories surrounding what HAARP is for.
-
I can only conclude that these guys have been sitting, too long, in front of their own transmitters. It may be that they were smoking something interesting at the same time.