5 ms·

Ok this is the first study that says there is a link, but let's assume for a moment that what it says is correct and it has the same effect in humans: Would the

Ok this is the first study that says there is a link, but let's assume for a moment that what it says is correct and it has the same effect in humans: Would the same also be true for wifi? According to Wikipedia the average cell phone TX power is 500 mW vs 200 mW for 802.11n [0]. Cell phones usually operate at lower frequency than wifi, however wifi (at 2.4Ghz) is at the same frequency as microwave ovens. In the study the rats were exposed for 10 minutes on - 10 minutes off for 18 hours a day (at an unknown TX power), if you work in an office you are going to be exposed continuously (apart from coffee / lunch) for 9+ hours a day, and even more if you then go home and use a wifi device. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm

quickben 10y ago
There are many factors. I had a friend studying the induced magnetic field and it's effects on tissues (vs frequency etc) long time ago. The conclusion was that there are overall cancer related and other brain related problems. It was her postdoc, and she also had access to the city subway lines for more tests. So from the people I've known doing research and other anegdotal evidence, there is a link. It still perplexes me how most of the studies in the end conclude there is overall no human-related high risk. So maybe cellphones+ other generators are like peanut allergies, to some are fine, to others they are fatal. It's too complex of a subject anyways. ... Edited for minor misspell
miles 10y ago
> this is the first study that says there is a link From 2011: WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk [1] "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.'" [1] http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/ http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/
- Hondor 10y ago
  Not really. That carcinogenic hazard hazard category is a favorite of scaremonger reporters. Lead, engine exhaust and chloroform sound scary but they aren't known to cause cancer. This is Class 2B - "This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals." [1] https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=301 https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_tab...
icebraining 10y ago
Power of transmission is only one part; another is distance to the source, since AFAIR the power drops off at a rate inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Being exposed to a router at a few meters, and even to a computer at a meter or so, is probably significantly different from having your phone touching your head or in your pocket.
- brador 10y ago
  The third significant element in addition to the two you mentioned is motion. Static field does a lot more damage than a moving field.
  - yoz-y 10y ago
    Why is that? Is it because the tissues are exposed continuously at the same place?
    - brador 10y ago
      Yes. Similar, but not the same as, a microwave. Take out the turntable and you'll get localised high temperature spots.
      - ecopoesis 10y ago
        No. Microwave get hot spots because their antennas produce an uneven distribution of emery. This is further exacerbated by reflections in the microwave box, creating zones of high energy and low energy.
svantana 10y ago
I think the reason why people worry about cell phones and not other radio equipment is that they are transmitting very close to the body. Remember, EM intensity falls off as 1/r^2 so proximity makes a big difference.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  And a particularly stupid way to react to cell phone radiation fears is to insist that cell network base stations should be moved away from schools and there should be no wifi base stations. Think of our children! What that means is, of course, increased exposure. The kids are not going to give a way their phones, they'll continue using them. When there is no wifi, they will be using the LTE or 3G or 2G networks. When the base station is further away,the phone will transmit at higher power. The phone itself is by far the dominant source of RF power to people's bodies. Thus, ignorant parents want to decrease radiation, and the very proposals they make would increase it. Whether that really has any impact, we don't know, there's no proof, or a good theory about possible mechanisms, just speculation, mostly based on fear and suspicion.
  - derptacious 10y ago
    Indeed, increasing and improving technology and reducing exposure can go hand-in-hand, and it seems that many people don't understand this. More antennas; less power.
- grecy 10y ago
  ...and I'm reading this with my laptop sitting on my lap..
  - pmorici 10y ago
    The wifi antenna in a laptop is in the monitor. Even in your lap it is still much further from your body than the antenna on your phone when you have it to your ear.
    - 10y ago

quickben 10y ago

There are many factors. I had a friend studying the induced magnetic field and it's effects on tissues (vs frequency etc) long time ago. The conclusion was that there are overall cancer related and other brain related problems. It was her postdoc, and she also had access to the city subway lines for more tests. So from the people I've known doing research and other anegdotal evidence, there is a link. It still perplexes me how most of the studies in the end conclude there is overall no human-related high risk. So maybe cellphones+ other generators are like peanut allergies, to some are fine, to others they are fatal. It's too complex of a subject anyways. ... Edited for minor misspell

miles 10y ago

> this is the first study that says there is a link From 2011: WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk [1] "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.'" [1] http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/ http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/

Hondor 10y ago
Not really. That carcinogenic hazard hazard category is a favorite of scaremonger reporters. Lead, engine exhaust and chloroform sound scary but they aren't known to cause cancer. This is Class 2B - "This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals." [1] https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=301 https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_tab...

icebraining 10y ago

Power of transmission is only one part; another is distance to the source, since AFAIR the power drops off at a rate inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Being exposed to a router at a few meters, and even to a computer at a meter or so, is probably significantly different from having your phone touching your head or in your pocket.

brador 10y ago
The third significant element in addition to the two you mentioned is motion. Static field does a lot more damage than a moving field.
- yoz-y 10y ago
  Why is that? Is it because the tissues are exposed continuously at the same place?
  - brador 10y ago
    Yes. Similar, but not the same as, a microwave. Take out the turntable and you'll get localised high temperature spots.
    - ecopoesis 10y ago
      No. Microwave get hot spots because their antennas produce an uneven distribution of emery. This is further exacerbated by reflections in the microwave box, creating zones of high energy and low energy.

svantana 10y ago

I think the reason why people worry about cell phones and not other radio equipment is that they are transmitting very close to the body. Remember, EM intensity falls off as 1/r^2 so proximity makes a big difference.

ptaipale 10y ago
And a particularly stupid way to react to cell phone radiation fears is to insist that cell network base stations should be moved away from schools and there should be no wifi base stations. Think of our children! What that means is, of course, increased exposure. The kids are not going to give a way their phones, they'll continue using them. When there is no wifi, they will be using the LTE or 3G or 2G networks. When the base station is further away,the phone will transmit at higher power. The phone itself is by far the dominant source of RF power to people's bodies. Thus, ignorant parents want to decrease radiation, and the very proposals they make would increase it. Whether that really has any impact, we don't know, there's no proof, or a good theory about possible mechanisms, just speculation, mostly based on fear and suspicion.
- derptacious 10y ago
  Indeed, increasing and improving technology and reducing exposure can go hand-in-hand, and it seems that many people don't understand this. More antennas; less power.
grecy 10y ago
...and I'm reading this with my laptop sitting on my lap..
- pmorici 10y ago
  The wifi antenna in a laptop is in the monitor. Even in your lap it is still much further from your body than the antenna on your phone when you have it to your ear.
  - 10y ago