Cell Phones Bad For Your Health – Again - Lifestyle News - Digital Trends
It’s the issue that won’t go away. Are cell phones detrimental to your health? Will the electromagnetic radiation cause brain tumors? Studies have said yes, studies have said no.
Again and again I have heard this. Again and again, I have to say that to make statements that cellular telephones specifically cause brain tumors is a load of nonsense.
I do not say this lightly either. As a long, long time Ham Radio operator I have used radios for many years. In the military I used handheld radios as did many, many people.
Amateur Radio Operators have been exposed, on average to much more Radio Frequency (RF) energy than anyone is exposed to by cellular phones on a daily basis, over long periods of time.
The fact is that all life on earth has adapted to exist in low frequency, naturally occurring radio frequency energy. While Amateur radio tends to be higher frequencies - usually falling between 2 and 30 megahertz, and a majority falling in the 144-440 mhz (used in local and repeater communications).
I believe that there are numbers showing that ham radio operators do not suffer from any greater instances of cancer than other people not exposed to ham radio. I’ll probably look into that a bit more later, but for now, this is merely opinion - although it’s not simply my opinion, but it is based upon knowledge of RF radiation.
Essentially, RF radiation is non-ionizing radiation and in most cases the worst thing that can happen is skin heating. Of course, not to minimize this a high powered radio system can injure you and cause burns.
Cellular telephones are much higher in frequency than even your television signals, or those of ham radio, the local AM/FM radio stations and so forth. They generally run in the 800-900 Mhz range - approaching what is commonly called “microwaves’. So-called because of their very short wavelength in the micrometer length.
Nearly all radio frequency energy at those frequencies travel over the surface of radiators, or antennas - and I’m speaking of the human body in terms of acting like an inductive device. The human body is mostly salt water, and thus is relatively conductive in comparison to many other things.
In fact, the human body will conduct RF along the surface. The evidence for internal heating simply doesn’t exist except at extremely high energy levels, something a cellular telephone is NOT capable of accomplishing. The fact is that tumors occur internal to the body, and frequencies from above about 30 Mhz simply don’t enter the body into the brain unless there are inordinate amounts of energy being used.
The majority of cellular telephones in use generally use less than 2 watts of RF power. There are some that use as much as 4.6 watts, but in general most phones are much less. Now, since I can’t cite specific studies where they have shown the penetrative abilities of RF energy at telephone frequencies, I can’t say for certain that 2-4 watts of energy does not definitively cause damage, however, I will say that from personal experience with radios operating at higher wattages, close to my face that I have never once suffered from RF burns on my eyes, eye sockets or anywhere near them, having used radios of much higher power, and even lower frequencies.
I know of no other amateur or professional radio operators who have suffered such damages either.
I did see one… error… at least in my opinion. Far be it for me to “question” a person with a phd, however,
Occupational and Environmental
Medicine (2004) Volume 61; pages 769-772). In other words, deep in a building
or in a moving elevator, the handset’s power output increases temporarily in order
to pick up a base-station’s signal so that the phone users can continue to
communicate effectively.
this bothers me some. His explanation is incorrect, though, I get his meaning. The handset doesn’t increase it’s power in order to “pickup” the base-station’s signal, it increases power to maintain contact with the base-station. Nitpicking, I know, but if you’re going to write a technical paper, then be technically correct.
In electrical signals, particularly alternating current signals, there is a physics phenomenon called “Skin Effect”. This is where currents flow in conductors closer to the surface as the AC frequency increases. There are set depths in electronics for various frequencies using copper as the medium. The higher the frequency, the lesser the depth for copper. The human body, being made up as I mentioned before of mostly salt water is a poor conductor at best and therefore higher frequencies penetrate the skin less than they do in copper wires.
This simple science fact should be enough for everyone to understand that at higher telephone frequencies there is less ability for RF energy to penetrate into the body. And yet, so-called “smart organizations” like the World Health Organization states that cell phones are dangerous. Oh, pardon me, they have “determined” they are dangerous.
Well, as a former electronics teacher, a real-world “physicist” with my background in RF energy, and a professional communicator, an amateur radio operator and someone with forty years of RF experience, I too have made a determination. The World Health Organization, Vini G. Khurana and his paper and pretty much anyone that makes the comment that “cell phones are dangerous and cause cancer” are simply playing on your emotions, probably have a reason to detest cellular phones and want the general public to stop using them at large.
In other words, these groups and people are wrong - and in short “full of it…”.
Obviously, I’m not a doctor, nor a lawyer, but I am an expert in RF radiation. It seems to me that these “dire warnings” put out in this paper
are based upon less science and more upon poorly accomplished research than anything else. In particular this scientist states clearly that this is “evidence based conclusions” and “opinions” of the author alone.
That is fine and dandy, but any one with a sufficient amount of research can find and draw incorrect conclusions from any evidence one choses to use, and in some cases ignore. At the same time, I do understand myself that safety precautions should always be observed in relation to any sort of electronic communications devices that emit radio frequency radiation. However, there are some questionable issues with the paper, as well as anyone simply making the accusation that a tumor is caused by a cellular phone.
Will I, should I ever find myself in that scary predicament suddenly sue Sprint and Samsung because I’ve been using the same sort of phones for over 10 years now, and the same services for at least eight or nine years? I might. Previous precedence has already been set in law suits leading up to these sorts of articles.
Essentially, there have been several dozen studies which have had varying degrees of finger pointing regarding cancer, cell phones and malignant brain tumors. In no case has any study conclusively determined there is a connection. Period. The World Health Organization, for no apparent good reason has determined cell phones are dangerous, and various people across the land have made unsupported, unsubstantiated claims regarding RF energy from cellular phones.
Why, I wonder, haven’t military personnel made similar claims about handheld radios? How about police and fire officials, nearly all of whom have handy-talkies strapped to their belts? What about amateur radio operators? How about ambulance drivers? Why aren’t any of the people in the security field making similar claims of handy-talkies?
It amazes me that this radio technology has been around since 1945 (hand held radios) set up on various frequencies from 1 MHz all the way up to the gigahertz range and yet is is only cellular telephones which have become the bane of the brain, and the purveyor of cancer when radio signals at higher frequencies like the cellular phone do not even penetrate the skull.
When will things like Global Warming and the rest of these silly, pseudo-science-based Conspiracy theories stop?
When people become educated.
I will state that a cellular telephone in the hand is generating an average of 2 watts, and probably much less would even be contacting a person from a few inches away. People who live in buildings, with antennas above their heads, broadcasting hundreds, or perhaps thousands of watts are in a much greater danger than those with handheld devices.
My own antennas have 100 watts or less RF power applied (and much less than that a few meters away from the antenna) so keeping in safety guild-lines put out by the Federal Communications Commission is not very difficult to do. However, making “more rules” for consumer devices is much more invasive than the RF that this doctor, and others are trying to limit.
