S. Florida Attorney Dies From Cell Phone Induced Cancer

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

Microwaves PENETRATE into the interior..

But it's heat, like any other heat. Is there a difference if it penetrates? Does that somehow make it carcinogenic? If I put a big heating pad on you, it'll heat the inside eventually. I'm not sure it makes it "good heat" (if heat is bad at all, a conjecture I dispute, if the heat's within reason).

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
"The main difference between these two methods of cooking is that microwave energy penetrates deeper into the food and reduces the time for heat to be conducted throughout the food, thus reducing the overall cooking time. "

Nu?

Recently, with the rapid proliferation of mobile communication devices, the effects of electromagnetic waves on the human body have drawn attention. Although these effects depend significantly on frequency, the THERMAL EFFECTS due to absorption of the electromagnetic energy are considered predominant at MICROWAVE frequencies. In general, as the guideline for the thermal effects, the power per unit mass absorbed in the biological body, namely, the specific absorption rate (SAR [W/kg]), is used. Cellular phones are employed in close proximity to the head where vital functions of the body are concentrated. Even if the output is weak, there is the possibility that the power absorption may become locally excessive. Therefore, it is extremely important from a safety point of view to establish an experimental evaluation procedure regarding the SAR for the human head. In this paper, the characteristics of thermography are recognized by means of which the surface SAR can be measured, and thus the SAR distribution in an arbitrarily shaped medium. Using the biologically equivalent phantom developed in the authors' laboratory for improving the conventional phantom used for the same purpose, a fundamental investigation is carried out as to how accurately the SAR distribution can be measured. © 2000 Scripta Technica, Electron Comm Jpn Pt 2,

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...:12%3C24::AID-ECJB3%3E3.0.CO;2-0/abstract

And I found the paper linked to the thermal imaging I posted earlier...


apps.fcc.gov...

Not only are children exposed to a higher SAR, but also the relative volume of the
exposed and still developing child’s brain is far greater than in adults. Fig. 4 shows the
depth of the cell phone’s radiation absorption into the brain is largest for the 5-year old
penetrating far beyond the mid-brain. For 10-year old children the penetration of
radiation is less, but still beyond the mid-brain, and for the adult, the penetration is
much less, and ends well before the mid-brain (Gandhi et al., 1996).
Of course, while no models have been developed for toddlers or infants who may
be using or playing with cell phones today, their absorption would be even greater
than that of a 5-year old, because their skulls are yet thinner and their brains are yet
more conductive and far less developed.
A recent study (Christ et al., 2010a) details the age dependence of electrical
properties on the brain, concluding that:
“Exposure of regions inside the brains of young children (e.g. hippocampus,
hypothalamus, etc.) can be higher by more than 2 dB –5 dB [1.6 –3.2 times] in
comparison to adults.”
“Exposure of the bone marrow of children can exceed that of adults by about a
factor of 10. This is due to the strong decrease in electric conductivity of this
tissue with age.”
“Exposure of the eyes of children is higher than that of adults.”
“Because of differences in their position with respect to the ear, brain regions
close to the surface can exhibit large differences in exposure between adults and
children. The cerebellum of children can show a peak spatial average SAR more
than 4 dB [2.5 times] higher than the local exposure of the cortex of adults.”
Increased exposure to the eyes and cerebellum was suggested in a 1998 study of
far-field exposures at resonant frequencies to the head and neck (Tinnisword et al.,
1998). The authors noted, “[T]he highest absorption is in the neck as the currents
generated in the head have to flow into the body through the constricted volume of
the neck concentrating them (i.e., increasing the current density) and as a result
increasing the SAR.” A figure (see figure 5 below) from this article suggests that
there is a significantly increased SAR to the thyroid gland.
However, with a dearth of U.S. research funds provided for cell phone research,
no studies have examined the exposure of the thyroid gland when using a cell phone.
Another study analyzed relatively greater absorption of children and adults
smaller than SAM and concluded, “The results suggest that the recommended
ICNIRP reference levels need to be revised” (Bakker et al., 2010), and p

So I was right about the thinner skull size allowing more microwave radiation in ..I was also right that microwaves do no need a tuned cavity in order to have thermal effects...

I will read the whole paper tonight..

For some reason the link does not want to post correctly just search google with this:
brain-equivalent solid phantom;SAR;thermographic method;emittance

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
I was also right that microwaves do no need a tuned cavity in order to have thermal effects...

Aaaand, the sixth time:

"Neither does your cell phone. Your microwave oven does because the food's inside a tuned cavity - basically, it's in a resonant waveguide.

The phone sees your head as an impedance step change, and the bone as another, and the spinal fluid around your brain as another. At each step, you reflect most of the signal and some of the rest flows around the boundary. The rest goes into heat. "

Your microwave OVEN does because the food's inside a tuned cavity...

At each step, you reflect most of the signal and some of the rest flows around the boundary. The rest goes into heat

Not only is it considered apocryphal, he would have had to be standing with his leg against the feed horn. (and why???)

(because...) He'd have to have been. Square of the distance is a harsh task master.

(and as proof...)the article: "During the war it was common in winter for Raytheon engineers to walk past banks of magnetrons operating in the open air and warm their hands on the heat they emitted"

There you go. Again. Six times. Every comment is correct.



Every time you repeat the lie, God kills a kitten. Think of the kittens, man.

It's going to be a finite element model. I believe if you pony up the money for it, what you're going to find is that they built a model to simulate what the energy distribution inside the head looks like, and you're going to find it's not a thermal image.

eta: Right. Hey, a free paper. What that is is the depth of penetration (that's where the signal energy drops to half its initial value) calculated from a model. It's not a thermal image at all.

a reply to: Bedlam

Yeah reading that now..its not a thermal image. But thermal imaging is used to measure SAR ratings..

I apologize for not reading your statement completely.. I thought you were saying cell phones don't cause thermal radiation to the body..

Interesting article..

www.cnn.com...

Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.
Before its announcement Tuesday, WHO had assured consumers that no adverse health effects had been established.
A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."
What that means is they found some evidence of increase in glioma and acoustic neuroma brain cancer for mobile phone users, but have not been able to draw conclusions for other types of cancers
"The biggest problem we have is that we know most environmental factors take several decades of exposure before we really see the consequences," said Dr. Keith Black, chairman of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
Is your cell phone safe? Dr. Gupta explores cell phone safety How to use your cell phone safely Can cell phones cause cancer?

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
I'm calling shenanigans on this one.
People would be falling over dead in the streets with all the folks using cell phones. Kids heads would be exploding...

Give it time grasshopper, After all in the grand scope of things cell phones are the new kid on the block.
Compared other cool things like colour TV etc.

Never forget that lead paint/DDT/Agent Orange/Asbestos/ECT and ECT were proclaimed to be safe and the public should give thanks for such helpful additions to our lives :-) And now you know the rest of the story.

Regards, Iwinder

Are you OK with the fact that cell phones are heating the brain tissue ?

"Using a first-of-its-kind technique for measuring electromagnetic radiation, researchers found the radiofrequency field generated by your cell phone causes brain tissue to heat up. This proves your brain is absorbing radiation from your cell, study author David Gultekin, Ph.D., a researcher at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, tells MensHealth.com."

www.menshealth.com...


Good safety tips...

1. "Distance is your friend." Davis repeats it like a mantra. If you check the legal fine print in any cell phone manual, you’ll see manufacturers like Apple and Motorola recommend keeping your cell at least 10 millimeters—or the width of a pencil—away from your body at all times. Davis agrees—but a hands-free device is even better, she adds.

2. Beware of weak signals. Cell phones release more radio frequency radiation while searching for a signal, Davis says. That means rural areas or any spot where your signal is weak are bad places to make a call, she explains.

3. Point the number pad toward your body. That is, if you have to keep your cell in your pocket, David says. The electromagnetic field transmits through the back of your phone, so more of the harmful radiation will be directed away from your thigh (and nearby sensitive areas).

4. Switch it up. Change hands (and ears) frequently while talking on your cell phone to limit the amount of exposure to one side of your head, says Davis.

5. Dial with your phone on speaker. The radiofrequency radiation is strongest when your phone is attempting to place a call, so hold it away from your head until you hear someone pick up, Davis explains.

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
I apologize for not reading your statement completely.. I thought you were saying cell phones don't cause thermal radiation to the body..

No, you just get a # heap less loss in a cavity. Outside where its a propagating wave you only intercept part of the pattern and it's more likely to reflect away. Plus you get that square of the distance falloff.

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
Are you OK with the fact that cell phones are heating the brain tissue ?

Do you mean do I think it happens or do I think it's an issue?

I think it will heat your scalp and skull a lot more. But what ends up in your brain is a fraction of what your brain puts out by itself. You've got a lot of circulation to dissipate that.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

My attorney also died from cancer from using his cellphone on the very side of the head where he used his cell phone..People are dying..

There are millions of cell phones and how many deaths? A few dozen? I'm only saying that there are hundreds of ways to die and cell phones are not very high up on the list of leading causes.

There are more cell phones in the world than there are people....

a reply to: Aquariusdude

If you wish to make a scientific case, you need to quote scientific courses. Blogs, especially ones written people who believe in magic super powers, are not credible sources for making a scientific case.