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.
Great, I'll alert all my rodent friends to stop using their portable electronic communication devices.
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...
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.
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.
GaleHawkins
Member Posts: 8,051 Member
Member Posts: 8,051 Member
Replies
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/
Have you heard about The Pentaverate?
Edit:
This cover left me scarred for life:
Nice call!
Here's the study link.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699
It says it hasn't yet been peer reviewed.
From the actual paper:
So clearly your friend needs to buy a bunch of cell phones and carry them around 24/7, since cell phones extend life...
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.
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.