4 ms·

We have a solid body of evidence now. Cell phone radios do not disrupt biological systems.

colordrops 8y ago
Don't just spout unfounded statements as fact, especially when they are the exact opposite of the truth. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4781774/ https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4781774/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110569017301875 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S111056901... https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposu... https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r... https://www.ewg.org/cell-phone-radiation-affects-brain-function https://www.ewg.org/cell-phone-radiation-affects-brain-funct...
crazynick4 8y ago
Although observable physical effects on humans have not been proven, behavioral effects on insects have been documented. These are interesting pilot studies because insect behavior is relatively simple and deviations more easily measured when compared to humans. Any explanations as far as the physical mechanism would involve changes in brain chemistry/activity which can be too subtle to detect. I would hold out on a final verdict for now as far as humans go and I don't think further studies should be ridiculed as paranoid just yet. Given the global use of cellphones I think it's better to err on the side of caution. It's an unpopular suggestion, especially at a time when tin foil hat conspiracies abound, but I don't think it's uneasonable. Emf is an observed physical phenomenon so there is nothing supernatural about the possibility of it's effects on human behavior. I should also add that what we really have is not so much a solid body of evidence but a number of studies which show a lack of evidence. This could just as easily point to the harmlessness of cell phones as our inability to observe their effects.
- dantheman0207 8y ago
  Thoughtful and well made counterpoint to the sometimes overprotective stance tech industry people take to criticisms of cell phones. Seems to me like the issue is the dosage - there has never been any organism exposed to this sustained level of background EMF. Any longitudinal study started after widespread adoption. Do you have any links for the references you made to effects on insect behavior?
  - fpoling 8y ago
    People working at radar installations were exposed to much higher dosage of EMF than the usage of mobile phones since the second world war. Are there any studies about effect of those?
    - crazynick4 8y ago
      Not that I'm aware of. A general difficulty with interpreting case studies also is the number of unmeasured confounding factors. And when studying humans, what are we checking - is it simply increased rates of cancer? Or if it is behavioral/mental changes, then the natural differences in personal behaviors across individuals would make it practically impossible to set a control. Maybe once we finally develop a clone army we can know for sure.
  - crazynick4 8y ago
    This is the one I was thinking of: https://web.archive.org/web/20120218185250/http://agbi.uni-landau.de/material_download/IAAS_2006.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120218185250/http://agbi.uni-l...
  - garmaine 8y ago
    I'm not coming from a basis in tech, but rather physics. I have a strong background in elecromagnetic theory and physical chemistry. What, may I ask, is the physical basis for the claim that cell phone radiation causes _______ in biological systems? For the most part biology is applied chemistry of organic molecules. Due to something called the photoelectric effect, the thing for which Einstein won the Nobel prize (not relativity) and gave birth to quantum theory, we know that EM radiation below a certain material-dependent threshold is incapable of causing chemical reactions. And this is a property of the frequency, not the intensity--it does not matter how bright or compact the source is, or how close you hold it to your ear! If the incoming EM radiation is below that threshold it will have zero measurable effect on chemistry, just some smaller frequency back-scattering and thermal agitation way below the noise threshold. Things above this threshold is what we call "ionizing radiation" because they create ions which affect chemical processes and is why UV light is so dangerous. Cell phone frequencies are 4-6 orders of magnitude below this threshold, depending on the band. Note also that cell phone frequencies are below the level of infrared and visible-light radiation -- all life is being constantly bathed in higher-frequency radiation than your cell phone gives off. And I remind you, it is only the frequency which matters. And surprise, surprise, if you're not cherry picking studies[1] there is no measurable effect of cell phone radiation on biological systems. Except, perhaps, as quoted by the GP some insects and birds, which is hardly surprising and already known--these species have sensitive organs we lack that enable them to detect electromagnetic fields for navigation purposes. So a bit of a "duh" there since it is about as controversial a result as "sudden bright strobe lights on freeways at night cause traffic accidents". The effect of EM radiation on biological systems was heavily studied long before the advent of cell phones. It was known to not cause any measurable effect in humans before mobile high-bandwidth data communications was anything more than a glint in the eye of some dreamy EE. [1] https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/

Don't just spout unfounded statements as fact, especially when they are the exact opposite of the truth. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4781774/ https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4781774/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110569017301875 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S111056901... https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposu... https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r... https://www.ewg.org/cell-phone-radiation-affects-brain-function https://www.ewg.org/cell-phone-radiation-affects-brain-funct...

crazynick4 8y ago

Although observable physical effects on humans have not been proven, behavioral effects on insects have been documented. These are interesting pilot studies because insect behavior is relatively simple and deviations more easily measured when compared to humans. Any explanations as far as the physical mechanism would involve changes in brain chemistry/activity which can be too subtle to detect. I would hold out on a final verdict for now as far as humans go and I don't think further studies should be ridiculed as paranoid just yet. Given the global use of cellphones I think it's better to err on the side of caution. It's an unpopular suggestion, especially at a time when tin foil hat conspiracies abound, but I don't think it's uneasonable. Emf is an observed physical phenomenon so there is nothing supernatural about the possibility of it's effects on human behavior. I should also add that what we really have is not so much a solid body of evidence but a number of studies which show a lack of evidence. This could just as easily point to the harmlessness of cell phones as our inability to observe their effects.

dantheman0207 8y ago
Thoughtful and well made counterpoint to the sometimes overprotective stance tech industry people take to criticisms of cell phones. Seems to me like the issue is the dosage - there has never been any organism exposed to this sustained level of background EMF. Any longitudinal study started after widespread adoption. Do you have any links for the references you made to effects on insect behavior?
- fpoling 8y ago
  People working at radar installations were exposed to much higher dosage of EMF than the usage of mobile phones since the second world war. Are there any studies about effect of those?
  - crazynick4 8y ago
    Not that I'm aware of. A general difficulty with interpreting case studies also is the number of unmeasured confounding factors. And when studying humans, what are we checking - is it simply increased rates of cancer? Or if it is behavioral/mental changes, then the natural differences in personal behaviors across individuals would make it practically impossible to set a control. Maybe once we finally develop a clone army we can know for sure.
- crazynick4 8y ago
  This is the one I was thinking of: https://web.archive.org/web/20120218185250/http://agbi.uni-landau.de/material_download/IAAS_2006.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120218185250/http://agbi.uni-l...
- garmaine 8y ago
  I'm not coming from a basis in tech, but rather physics. I have a strong background in elecromagnetic theory and physical chemistry. What, may I ask, is the physical basis for the claim that cell phone radiation causes _______ in biological systems? For the most part biology is applied chemistry of organic molecules. Due to something called the photoelectric effect, the thing for which Einstein won the Nobel prize (not relativity) and gave birth to quantum theory, we know that EM radiation below a certain material-dependent threshold is incapable of causing chemical reactions. And this is a property of the frequency, not the intensity--it does not matter how bright or compact the source is, or how close you hold it to your ear! If the incoming EM radiation is below that threshold it will have zero measurable effect on chemistry, just some smaller frequency back-scattering and thermal agitation way below the noise threshold. Things above this threshold is what we call "ionizing radiation" because they create ions which affect chemical processes and is why UV light is so dangerous. Cell phone frequencies are 4-6 orders of magnitude below this threshold, depending on the band. Note also that cell phone frequencies are below the level of infrared and visible-light radiation -- all life is being constantly bathed in higher-frequency radiation than your cell phone gives off. And I remind you, it is only the frequency which matters. And surprise, surprise, if you're not cherry picking studies[1] there is no measurable effect of cell phone radiation on biological systems. Except, perhaps, as quoted by the GP some insects and birds, which is hardly surprising and already known--these species have sensitive organs we lack that enable them to detect electromagnetic fields for navigation purposes. So a bit of a "duh" there since it is about as controversial a result as "sudden bright strobe lights on freeways at night cause traffic accidents". The effect of EM radiation on biological systems was heavily studied long before the advent of cell phones. It was known to not cause any measurable effect in humans before mobile high-bandwidth data communications was anything more than a glint in the eye of some dreamy EE. [1] https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/