Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Cell phone impact on Health.
GaleHawkins
Posts: 8,159 Member
microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-cancer-results
While these results have been coming out of Europe for about 20 years is the USA about to become concerned about cell phone usage for health reasons? I know of a 40 year old with this type of cancer that just started ionizing radiation for brain cancer treatment.
While these results have been coming out of Europe for about 20 years is the USA about to become concerned about cell phone usage for health reasons? I know of a 40 year old with this type of cancer that just started ionizing radiation for brain cancer treatment.
0
Replies
-
3 -
Texting for the win. ::drinker::2
-
-
Microwave News. Seems like a legit, totally non-biased source.13
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-cancer-results
While these results have been coming out of Europe for about 20 years is the USA about to become concerned about cell phone usage for health reasons? I know of a 40 year old with this type of cancer that just started ionizing radiation for brain cancer treatment.
Great, I'll alert all my rodent friends to stop using their portable electronic communication devices.
In other related human news, the latest study in humans says cellphones doesn't cause brain cancer.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/still-no-association-of-cell-phones-and-brain-cancer/17 -
What's next Gale, an article from the Weekly World News?7
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »What's next Gale, an article from the Weekly World News?
Have you heard about The Pentaverate?
Edit:
This cover left me scarred for life:
14 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »What's next Gale, an article from the Weekly World News?
Have you heard about The Pentaverate?
Nice call!
https://youtu.be/FveBzGMD6zw 3 -
Whew! I was starting to worry no one would get the reference.
1 -
Contrails!!1
-
Chemtrails!1
-
Happy trails!1
-
Entrails!2
-
The study is actually from a U.S. government agency that's part of the National Institutes of Health (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/)
Here's the study link.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/0556990 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »The study is actually from a U.S. government agency that's part of the National Institutes of Health (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/)
Here's the study link.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699
It says it hasn't yet been peer reviewed.2 -
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »While these results have been coming out of Europe for about 20 years is the USA about to become concerned about cell phone usage for health reasons? I know of a 40 year old with this type of cancer that just started ionizing radiation for brain cancer treatment.
From the actual paper:At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of males than in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR. Survival was also slightly lower in control females than in females exposed to 1.5 or 6 W/kg GSM-modulated RFR. In rats exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR, survival was higher in all groups of exposed males and in the 6 W/kg females compared to controls.
So clearly your friend needs to buy a bunch of cell phones and carry them around 24/7, since cell phones extend life...6 -
11 -
Also, some key points to note:
1. The cancer incidence in the experimental groups was not much higher than seen in many control groups in other studies; the main reason this study showed significance was the control group showed a lower than normal incidence of cancer, not that the experimental groups showed that much higher than normal incidence.
2. The study sizes were small enough that even one incidence more or less of cancer would drastically shift the result.
3. The amount of RF radiation given to these rats was absurdly high, and even then the effect was small, if it exists at all. The group of rats that demonstrated a slightly increased risk of cancer were receiving doses equivalent to if a typical human male were absorbing the full EM output of 480 cell phones continuously transmitting on maximum power. You can't really extrapolate this to a human absorbing only a small fraction of the EM output of one cell phone transmitting intermittently on the lowest level of power needed for reliable communication with the nearest cell tower.8 -
Another way to look at this:
A typical cell phone tower, by FCC guidelines, must expose people to an irradiance that is no more than 580 uW/cm^2. Even if every transmitter is in simultaneous maximum power usage, this would require someone to be close and standing within the path of the main beam.
Assuming the worst case, that the plane of your body is exactly perpendicular to the direction of radiation, a typical human male silhouette is roughly 5000 cm^2. This means you are receiving about 3W of power. Assuming you actually absorb the entire signal (which you don't, but I don't have good numbers of how much you would) and you weigh 70kg, this is 0.04 W/kg.
The rats in this case were receiving 6 W/kg, or 140 times the dose you would get if you were standing in the absolute worst place next to a cell tower transmitting at maximum power.8 -
7 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »What's next Gale, an article from the Weekly World News?
Have you heard about The Pentaverate?
Edit:
This cover left me scarred for life:
How did Gale miss this one?4 -
Didn't we have this issue with microwave radiation years ago?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »
I love watching popcorn popping in the microwave. I need a flashlight to see inside because the 'wave is lined with mesh.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
My aunt insisted that anyone who did would become infertile.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »
My aunt insisted that anyone who did would become infertile.
Please don't tell my daughter.2 -
I've worked in the wireless industry for almost 20 years building networks for every carrier in America. Every time one of these studies comes out, another one follows soon after debunking it. The type of radiation emitted by cell towers and phones is of the non-ionizing type, which is the same as OTA television signals, and AM/FM radio. Keep in mind, TV and radio towers transmit at exponentially higher power levels (tens of thousands of watts) than cell towers. UV rays are more dangerous than radio transmissions. The only reputable study concerning health effects due to cell phone use I've ever seen involves the effect of heat generated by the device, but there were still questions of whether it was RF related or due to the battery getting warmer.
I've known people in the industry who have suffered RF sickness, but they were unknowingly exposed to upwards of 90 watts of power over an eight hour day in an enclosed equipment shelter. Most people will never find themselves in that situation.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that basically no jurisdiction can prevent the construction of towers solely based on environmental effects of RF as long as the structure complies with FCC rules.16 -
I've worked in the wireless industry for almost 20 years building networks for every carrier in America. Every time one of these studies comes out, another one follows soon after debunking it. The type of radiation emitted by cell towers and phones is of the non-ionizing type, which is the same as OTA television signals, and AM/FM radio. Keep in mind, TV and radio towers transmit at exponentially higher power levels (tens of thousands of watts) than cell towers. UV rays are more dangerous than radio transmissions. The only reputable study concerning health effects due to cell phone use I've ever seen involves the effect of heat generated by the device, but there were still questions of whether it was RF related or due to the battery getting warmer.
I've known people in the industry who have suffered RF sickness, but they were unknowingly exposed to upwards of 90 watts of power over an eight hour day in an enclosed equipment shelter. Most people will never find themselves in that situation.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that basically no jurisdiction can prevent the construction of towers solely based on environmental effects of RF as long as the structure complies with FCC rules.
Well yeah but how do you explain Bat Boy??
Just kidding. Thanks for the excellent explanation!8 -
Gale, with all due respect, I'm really hesitant to click on any of the links you've posted lately.
You should really sit back and give some honest and logical thought to these arricles before posting the links..15
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions