SciTech

Are mobile and cordless phones the secondhand smoke of the 21st century?

Degee.

Posted to SciTech on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:33:51 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

I have just purchased a cordless phone to replace an old beater of a cord phone that I held onto for years. Suddenly I find myself questioning the effect of whatever is radiating from these wireless devices. (I am getting a little more safety conscious lately because my partner and I are expecting our first child in September.)

A little poking around on the intertubes turned up  a study by  Professor Lennart Hardell and Professor Kjell Hansson Mild in the peer-reviewed journal Occupational Environmental Medicine basically intimating that using a mobile phone for more than 10 years at one hour a day increases the risk of getting brain cancer. Hardell and Mill's study has also called in question the exposure to cell phone type radiation of kids due to their thinner skull casing and developing nervous systems. In the UK,   one in three children aged from seven to 11 now owns a mobile

Other studies, such as  one conducted last year  by the MTHR (Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme say there is no connection between mobile cell use and health problems, although they are embarking on a 20 to 30 year follow-up study this year.  The World Health Organization concurs , saying the RF (radio frequency fields) of cell phones pose no significant health threats.

There are cries that organisations such as MTHR are in conflict of interest since they are funded by"industry".  

There are the usual  fear mongers  looking for a fast buck as well as the  health conspiracy theorists  and the  homeopathists.

Wifi, cordless, mobiles: are they safe to have in the house? Are kids with cells phones in danger? Is using  earpiece cellphones   tantamount to cultivating brain cancer? Is there a sane level of precaution  we can take without becoming Luddites ?

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by Degee, cell phones, danger, Will Robinson (all tags)

This story: 10 comments (2 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
3

Here's another few to consider...

skeeter1.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:10:30 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

WLAN connections.  Same thing, and I use it all day, every day to connect to my wireless router.  Wireless MailMinder?  Yup, have one of those, too.  Wireless weather station?  Got one of those too.  Baby monitors?  No different.  

Better get used to it.  Wireless isn't going anywhere anytime soon.  

there's only one way to find out...

5

^ 3

Re: Here's another few to consider...

skeptic.

Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:56:27 PM EST

none

Yes, there are lots of microwave emitters that people have around their homes or offices, but there is still only one kind of microwave emitter that people normally use while holding it to their ear, an inch away from their brain.  That makes a difference.

6

^ 5

Re: Here's another few to consider...

zyxwvutsr.

Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:30:54 PM EST

5.00 (funny, brilliant)

...there is still only one kind of microwave emitter that people normally use while holding it to their ear, an inch away from their brain

7

^ 5

Re: Here's another few to consider...

wetkarma.

Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:52:02 AM EST

none

Yes, there are lots of microwave emitters that people have around their homes or offices, but there is still only one kind of microwave emitter that people normally use while holding it to their ear, an inch away from their brain.  That makes a difference.

Really? Seem like standing in front of a radar tower or living underneath powerlnies might make even more of a difference. Frequency, distance, power all affect absorbance rate.

Now the actual science principle we are jawboning about is that the radiation from your RF device (whether it be a cellphone/whatever) creates thermal heating which damages tissue as the heat is unable to dissipate. As such a 'constant' emitter like an Access Point or Cell Phone Tower is far more likely to cause damage than a cell phone given the use cases and prevalance of the devices.

I tend to wonder however why people are concerned about cellphones around the head and not so much about electronic devices (in general) placed in pockets near their genitals.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

8

^ 7

Re: Here's another few to consider...

skeptic.

Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 09:27:53 AM EST

none

It may be that living under power lines is as great a risk (or, who knows, even greater) than that posed by cell phones.

The main reason why people do not worry about keeping devices in their pockets, located near their genitals, is that the devices are not in use when they are being stored in pockets, and therefore are not emitting any radiation.  To use devices, people first take them out of their pockets.  Not including some music devices such as an I-pod which might be stored in a shirt pocket rather than a pants pocket - and it's not much of a radiation emitter anyway.

9

^ 8

Re: Here's another few to consider...

wetkarma.

Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 09:58:17 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

The main reason why people do not worry about keeping devices in their pockets, located near their genitals, is that the devices are not in use when they are being stored in pockets, and therefore are not emitting any radiation

Clearly you aren't using a modern PDA such as a blackberry. In any event what you are saying is not true even for 'basic' devices. In order to keep in touch with cell towers, cell phones do emit radiation even while not 'in use'.

This is why batteries will drain even if you don't use a phone to talk.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

10

^ 9

Re: Here's another few to consider...

skeptic.

Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 08:57:31 AM EST

none

It's true, I don't use a blackberry.

If these things emit microwave radiation even when they are not in use, then it's true as you say that there is a risk to storing them in your pocket, in addition to the risk of holding them to your ear.

1

mobile or cordless phones

skeptic.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:23:44 AM EST

none

I don't think that this technology can be very dangerous in the short term, because if it was, that would have become obvious by now.  It may be dangerous in the long term, and that is much harder to tell, simply because it is new technology which hasn't been around long enough for us to find out the long term consequences.

I have a long history (roughly half a century) of using telephones that are attached by wires to a specific location, rather than the kind that you can carry around with you, and I still find that perfectly convenient for my purposes.  Even aside from the health issues raised in this story, wire connections are still more reliable than the wireless kind, in terms of clarity of transmission.  I do not mind having to be in a specific location in order to use my telephone.

Our environment is filled with various kinds of electromagnetic radiation of many different kinds, coming from many different sources, but there is one respect in which the mobile or cordless phone is unusual, which is its positioning, held up to the ear and hence, extremely close to the brain.  So, even though the microwave emission by these devices is weak, the brain does get a relatively strong irradiation.  Therefore it is at least plausible to me that it has some medical consequences.  But it may be decades before we have good long-term statistical data.

Personally I think that it would be prudent to limit the expose of children to these kinds of phones, at least unless they use an earpiece, so that the microwave emission is not so close to their brains.

4

^ 1

Re: mobile or cordless phones

ivyafire.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:42:49 PM EST

none

I tend to agree with skeptic.  Unfortunately, by the time we know how bad things are for us, we've usually been exposed to them for years.  By the time we have the information, it's too late.

When it comes to my children's safety, sometimes I'm OK with being thought of as one of the tinfoil hat people rather than taking a chance, iykwim.  

For example, when I was a teen they thought it was perfectly OK to give teenaged girls hormone pills, now they know it stunts our growth, among other things.  That's a good thing for this generation, but thanks to that lack of knowledge my generation is shorter than we needed to be.   Damn, I could have been 5'9"!;)

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

2

bad science serving social agendas

T Slothrop.

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:59:23 AM EST

none

Dvandom nailed it in the sub queue: the poll results reflect my thinking exactly.

As a result of the second-hand smoke fiasco, I no longer take much of anything that comes from "official", government, or quasi-governmental sources regarding health and science in general at face value. Call me naive, but that was the first time I personally became aware of being outright lied to in order to advance a social agenda - even though the social agenda itself (ending smoking) was arguably a good thing.

Is limiting cell phone use in certain situations and by certain populations arguably a good thing? Of course. But don't try do that by telling me it's going to fry my brain and turn my kids into cancerous zombies.

The nanny-state loving ob/comp types who just live for wagging fingers and raising alarms are a lot scarier to me than second-hand smoke or microwaves.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

This story: 10 comments (2 from subqueue)
Post a Comment