New Study on Cell Phones and Their Risks

Is your mobile device a DNA alchemist?

I, me, myself....I loathe the new trend in cell phones. I go out to eat with my fiancee' and there are couples sitting at the table across from one another, silent, texting on their phones. Everytime I pass a car on the highway, I look in the window. It's almost always someone on their phone. You pass them on the streets. See them in cars. The Movie theatre. On bikes. At the mall. Cell phone users. Everywhere.

This isnt a case of the pot calling the kettle black either. Sure, I have one. But I only use it infrequently. Its more of a precaution to install on long car trips, or for emergencies.

But what if these loathsome devices were hurting us? Could you put yours down?

Better yet, how badly does it have to hurt you, before the technology is banned?

Unless you've had your cell phone permanently glued to your ear, chances are you've heard the recent health buzz: Mobile devices may cause cancer. While it's true that the National Cancer Institute has ruled them safe, a growing number of independent researchers disagree.

Well, this made MSM with Yahoo.com as the provider. I know its the same thing that we've heard for years, but there seems to be a bit more detail in this article. The risks have always been associated with cancers, specifically. But what about damaging your DNA? Isnt that a step in the direction of cancer?

Those experts point out that the FCC wireless regulations on cell phone safety are largely based on something called specific absorption rate (SAR) levels, or the rate at which our bodies absorb radiation. Most phones do comply with the federal standards, but SAR monitors only thermal effects. (In other words, if the radiation from your phone isn't cooking your brain, it's regarded as safe.) But mounting scientific evidence suggests that nonthermal radio frequency radiation (RF)—the invisible energy waves that connect cell phones to cell towers, and power numerous other everyday items—can damage our immune systems and alter our cellular makeup, even at intensities considered safe by the FCC.

So it's safe as long as it isnt cooking your brain? Thats comforting!!

"The problem is that RF can transfer energy waves into your body and disrupt its normal functioning," explains Cindy Sage, an environmental consultant in Santa Barbara, California, who has studied radiation for 28 years. "Here's why that's crucial: Overwhelming evidence shows that RF can cause DNA damage,"

Ouch!! But what about the research, the facts, the goods, the studies? Surely they have some numbers to put out there.

Wireless Radiation Rescue: Safeguarding Your Family from the Risks of Electro-Pollution. Many groups, including the National Cancer Institute and the telecom industry, read the results of that study as a green light for wireless calling. Others, like Crofton, point out that because it was largely based on lower cellphone usage in the '90s, the research has little bearing on today's world, in which 285 million Americans have mobile phones and 83 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds are "wired" all the time and sleep with their cell phones next to their heads.

Not to mention that the studies also showed that using one the devices for just thirty minutes a day, over the span of tens years, raises your risk of being affected by Gioloma by a whopping 40 percent. Thats absolutely insane!
Source article

I guess, like everything else, it wouldnt hurt to use your cell phone in moderation. I remember the world and what it was like back when the cell phone wouldnt fit in anyone's pocket, and certainly wasnt cheap to use.

I ask you, fellow ATS'ers, what is your take? Do you think it's harmful? Do you think we are gadget-obsessed when it comes to these devices?

Do you think that some people may even be addicted to their phone in such a way, that if it WAS harmful...would they still use it? Like smoking cigarettes? You know its bad, but you do it anyway?

What do YOU think?

I'm glad that I use my phone (with the speaker on) fewer than 30 minutes a month.

Thanks for the info!

I only owned one for a few months back in 2001 a year after I got out of high school, and even then tried not to use it much and if I had to with a hands free device, thankfully I left the thing in my jeans when I did the laundry one day and decided they were more trouble then they were worth in addition to the risks. I remember they were getting to be popular must have items while I was in high school and I was one of the few who didn't bother getting one. I used to tell people that we don't know the long term risks of cell phones yet, I'll wait a few years until we do get some studies done, they would always just dismiss it as crazy. I guess us tin foil hatters were right all along.

Thats the problem nowdays, not just with cellphones, people are so quick to adopt things without considering all the consequences, and justify it because everyone else is doing it and they don't see how they could live without the item.

I guess I am lucky in away, I am always very hesitant and one of the last to try or adopt anything. I didn't start or even learn how to use the internet until 2003 because I still wasn't sure if it was just a silly trend that would die out or if it was some kind of government conspiracy. It turns out I was mostly wrong there, but waiting 5 to 10 years after any new type of technology comes out before adopting it seems to be the safest bet. Let other people be the guinea pigs.

I completely agree that there may be dangers that we are not totally aware of in using cell phones. I myself don't use one. I have one, a pay as you go phone that I almost never use unless I go out of town. It's funny that I don't use one since I am an electronics engineer who works for a certain govt. agency. The main reason I don't use one is because of how I think it is damaging us socially though. Like you said, everywhere we go we see people with their phones either glued to their ears or texting like monkeys. I think its sad and pitiful. My wife and I enjoy each others company when we go out to dinner, etc (and our 10 month old too, though he doesn't do much talking). We always have lively conversations and enjoy each other as friends as well as lovers because we're not busy talking to other people on phones when we're together. I think its largely a thing of the past though.

Oh, and I do believe that it wouldn't change most people's habits at all, they'd go on using them just the same.

reply to post by Unilluminist

Thats the problem nowdays, not just with cellphones, people are so quick to adopt things without considering all the consequences, and justify it because everyone else is doing it and they don't see how they could live without the item.

Hit the nail on the head!! Most people dont think about that kind of thing. I mean, technology is moving faster these days than we can keep up with it. Buy a new camera, a better one is out next quarter. Buy a new computer, its outdated in a year. Software, hardware, DVD, BluRay, Ipods, Ipads, routers, modems, video, audio....it's all moving at a blinding pace. But at what cost?

reply to post by wtbengineer

The main reason I don't use one is because of how I think it is damaging us socially though. Like you said, everywhere we go we see people with their phones either glued to their ears or texting like monkeys. I think its sad and pitiful. My wife and I enjoy each others company when we go out to dinner, etc (and our 10 month old too, though he doesn't do much talking).

Absolutely. It IS bad ettiquette.

You wouldnt pass gas in front of your date, so why is it ok to text in front of her?

"Hold on a moment, I have to answer this" translates to me as " This text/call is more important than whjat you are saying"

So not only is it bad manners. It might be upping your risk for cancer too???!!!

The older I get, the more I despise technology.

Since the responses seem to be agreeable so far, Im now waiting the " EVERYTHING causes cancer" pessimist POV.

reply to post by InertiaZero


I notice that a lot also, and the cost is huge, all this materialism is one of the main things putting people in debt. Almost everybody has a huge credit card debt that I know except me and my family. The main reason I never needed a credit card is because I don't need to immediatley buy everything I want, I can wait a few weeks or months until I have enough to purchase it if I have to. Most of the time by being patient and waiting, you either get a better price on the item, or a better version for the same price, and you are not paying interest on any debt either. Other times you just don't waste money on something that is a flop anyway like Blue-Ray, it seems like it will go the way of Beta players unless they can get them to prices near DVD.

reply to post by InertiaZero



You are absolutely right. I think its rude too. And not only the talking and texting that you do on the phone, but all the other apps are basically just to waste time/play games. I can't imagine spending all my time doing that kind of crap. Just like the people that spend all day on Facebook playing all that stupid stuff on there.

reply to post by InertiaZero


I think it is always best to go to the source instead reading the article from the media.

Here is a link to the actual study done.

www.rfcom.ca...


Here is the researchers CONCLUSION:

Conclusion
The authors have concluded that “overall, no increase in risk of either glioma or meningioma was observed in association with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma, and much less so meningioma, at the highest exposure levels, for ipsilateral exposures and, for glioma, for tumours in the temporal lobe. However, biases and errors limit the strength of the conclusions we can draw from these analyses and prevent a causal interpretation.”

NO OVERALL INCREASED RISK.

Further more...if you read the study summary...it showed a DECREASED RISK for regular users of cell phones.

The risk of both types of brain tumors was significantly reduced (OR

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Nice and thanks for going to the original source to clarify a few things.

It is true that throwing around 40%s here and 40%s there will scare the crap out of us but statistics lie just as much as politicians do. They are skewed for purpose and agenda.

However, I do think that wifi, mobile (cell) phones etc etc etc are going to have an affect on us just as I think being cnstantly sat in front of a computer will too.

In thirty years we might see the difference but think of the political pressure that will be applied to research groups and companies. There is no way in hell that a study will come out and say "Yeah working in front of a VDU gives you cancer" and if it does and is real ... there is no government or business that will back it because it would literally destroy the economy in an instant.

If everyone had to stop using VDUs then that is end ex for everyone, we would step away from the machine and go back to paper They would never allow this.

Same goes for mobile phones. The business around it is too strong to ever sanction dropping it. Studies that proved they were bad would be quashed instantly.

My ten pence

reply to post by george_gaz

However, I do think that wifi, mobile (cell) phones etc etc etc are going to have an affect on us just as I think being cnstantly sat in front of a computer will too.

It's possible...that is why people are doing studies. But so far no study has shown conclusive proof of a high increased risk to the point that they should be not used. Of course I think moderation is the key in most things in life...so it would be a good practice for cell phones too.

But I'm sure people thought the same thing about telegraphs, lightbulbs, radios, televisions, etc. I'm sure there was someone saying "These radios...they are going to fry your brain if you sit and listen to it all day".

The best study on these things is time...we will see the effects eventually if there are any.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I think what matters is where they got their data from, time-wise. I guess we wont really know until much further in the future, as it's hard to judge the long term effects of something when it's only been popular for a decade or so.

Even a study from last year would be inaccurate, since cell phone sales increase annually.

And I dont think that unbiased science even exists. There are studies on biased studies, that in essence, are also biased studies.

I think it's smart to be weary of anything that isnt natural. Obviously, biology didnt think that you need a transmitter/receiver built into to your body's systems.

As for the media fudging the data, you never know what's the truth.....or half truth....but there were valid points in the article.

Another thing to consider is that up until recently a high percentage of mobile phones used a transmission scheme that relied on single, higher-powered (often up to 4 watts PEP), channel-based carrier signals, that were modulated to carry voice / data traffic- AMPS, TDMA, GSM, etc. The current trend is towards spread-spectrum transmission (CDMA, UMTS / HSPDA, LTE, etc.) which broadcast information simultaneously over multiple frequencies at lower power- matter of fact, just enough power for the tower to receive the signal at a level just above the ambient (background) noise level.

Power levels radiated by towers are also dropping due to the increasing in cell densities required to handle the increasing number of subscribers. In the 80's it wasn't uncommon to have one tower radiating 150+ watts and covering an area in excess of 100 square miles; there were fewer users then thus fewer towers required. Today, towers are closer together and many radiate less than 50 watts with some as low as 10-20 watts and occasionally below 5 watts such as those within shopping malls, office buildings or similar spaces.

So, current cell phones, and towers in general, are putting out less power now than they were even 10 years ago thus making it increasingly difficult to ascertain what if any damage the phones and towers could be causing.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
...

But I'm sure people thought the same thing about telegraphs, lightbulbs, radios, televisions, etc. I'm sure there was someone saying "These radios...they are going to fry your brain if you sit and listen to it all day".

The best study on these things is time...we will see the effects eventually if there are any.

Don't forget that when it first came out, photography stole your soul.

reply to post by InertiaZero


Would anyone like to enlighten us as to the meaning of Gioloma? Other than a handful of people using is as an online name, I can't find any mention of it. It's not even listed in the Urban Dicationary.

reply to post by Phractal Phil


Glioma is a type of brain tumor.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by InertiaZero


How long do you need to wait? Cell phones, in various forms, have been around for over 25 years now. In that time there have been zero cases of cancer attributed to their usage.

Also, in the past few years cell phones have transitioned to digital signals. This converts you voice into data, which is transmitted and decoded on the other end. It takes less bandwidth and requires less powerful transmitters in the device. If any cases were to be reported, the time has come and gone.

The FCC in bulletin 56 issued August 1999 ruled the maximum RF emitted by devices is allowed for 6 minutes in Occupational Exposure, 30 minutes for the General Public. Why so much higher for the General Public? Because they figure Occupational Exposure is over a 5 day workweek at 8 hours per day=40 hours total a week. They figured the General Public would use such a device less. They were wrong. They never expected Cell Phones would be used by teenage girls for 12 hours a day/7 days a week.

Humans now are exceeding their exposure to RF energy by overusing cell phones.

The FCC has ruled there is no proven effect on biological life when exposed to RF radiation which isn't strong enough to generate heat in the cells. Which has given the green light for UNLIMITED applications in our environment emitting low level RF. At some point areas on Earth will have enough "Low Level" RF which will exceed what the human body can dissipate. Cell death will then occur. It is occurring right now, just our bodies can keep up replacing the cells. At what point will the human body not be able to keep up?

With so many sources of low level RF around us now and we're going to see much, much more....it won't be until an entire City drops dead until the FCC rethinks their "Low Level RF" policy to protect mankind.

They know the day is coming.

"""However, there may be situations, particularly in workplace environments near high-powered RF sources, where the recommended limits for safe exposure of human beings to RF energy could be exceeded. In such cases, restrictive measures or mitigation actions may be necessary to ensure the safe use of RF energy."""

www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html


All RF Radiation is bad...m-kay? There is no such thing as good RF Radiation. We have satellites in space beaming 5-15+watts of microwaves/RF at us night and day from Free to Air satellites, Direct TV, NASA-NOAA-DOD-foreign military satellites. We have radar from news stations-airports-weather stations-ships-planes-boats all beaming radar RF at us.

What a better way to accomplish population control than to have the population pay to kill themselves.

According to the FCC you are not supposed to use a cellphone for longer than 30 minutes. How many people do you know that exceed that? Plus look at all the other RF they are exposed to while they are chatting away on the RF device?

Too many people are getting rich right now killing people. They won't stop the madness until an entire city drops dead. When we reach that point it will be too far along for mankind. Our DNA will be too badly destroyed nationally.

I would like to also point out in that FCC bulletin the FCC states the worse thing you could be exposed to is the VHF (very high frequency) RF.

Congress mandated all UHF/VHF tv to end and the country to switch to digital broadcast tv.

They have leased the VHF frequencies and humans will soon use those for communication. That is the worst thing you could hold up to your head, VHF devices.

The next revolution in cell phones globally I predict will be in the VHF band. This will reduce the global population by sterilizing first. The report says the Testes and eyes are the first effected because there isn't enough blood flow in those areas to counter RF. After the population is sterile we'll see Cancer outbreaks like we could never imagine.

To anyone that thinks RF is completely safe...why do you think your car's simple FM radio has to have it's antenna far from the occupants? If it's so safe put that antenna next to your seat. It isn't there to pick up stations better. They put it there to put the RF away from you.

I knew that opinions would polarize on this issue.

Great responses.