4 ms·

> NTP scientists had exposed thousands of rats and mice ... to doses of radiation equivalent to an average mobile user’s lifetime exposure. Misleading. From th

> NTP scientists had exposed thousands of rats and mice ... to doses of radiation equivalent to an average mobile user’s lifetime exposure. Misleading. From the study: > Rats were exposed to ... whole-body SAR exposures of 0, 1.5, 3, or 6 W/kg The lowest exposure they tested was equivalent to an average person (80kg in North America, evidently) standing right in front of the antenna of a 120W transmitter 24/7.

st26 8y ago
Well, they had to jack it up because the experiment (and the rats) would not go on for seventy years. And if the mechanism of action is anything like other types of radiation, risk is proportional to total lifetime exposure, not peak exposure.
- dbcurtis 8y ago
  > And if the mechanism of action is anything like other types of radiation, And if the mechanism is mocrowave heating, then power density driven heating rate is the first order effect. Which 'if' is it? Perhaps neither of the above.
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  That's the "linear-no-threshold" model (LNT) and I see no attempt to show that it holds here. They jumped straight to exposures thousands of times higher than typical heavy use, which smells like they were fishing for a positive result.
  - Semirhage 8y ago
    LNT is a theory of ionizing radiation, and while your overall point is salient, the reference to LNT is not. While many things enjoy a similar exposure model, LNT is a specific term.
    - jjoonathan 8y ago
      Is there a generic term that captures the same idea? If there is, I'd like to use it.
- joecool1029 8y ago
  Nah, jacking it up has its own new set of problems. Cellphone radiation isn't ionizing radiation, at most you're ever so slightly heating cells around it. By increasing the intensity you might be literally baking and killing cells in the process (think the difference between drinking a scalding beverage and burning the shit out of your mouth vs. letting it cool and not being injured or having the cells get killed off). Now take my hot beverage example and repeat it a bunch of times. I would bet that cancer incidence would increase in the scalding group. (as you're destroying epithelial cells and forcing them to regenerate... and cancer is really biological lotto). To top all the above off. With the exception of the migration from GSM to WCDMA technology (GSM pulsed the radio), cell phone radio output power has actually been on the decline due to smaller cells sizes being used in cities. It's nothing like using an analog cellphone in the 80's was in terms of output.
  - theptip 8y ago
    This is an even better analogy than it appears at face value, because hot beverages "probably" cause cancer according to the WHO: https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-very-hot-drinks-may-cause-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization...
  - incongruity 8y ago
    To your last point - individual radio power has declined but I’d suspect that the total exposure has gone up because 1)Device density is far greater and 2)Time spent transmitting is longer per device because we use more data now than in years past. As to whether that causes cancer, I’m not an expert... I guess the ultimate measure will be actual cancer incidence rates but by that point, isn’t it arguably too late for many of us?
    - zamfi 8y ago
      Power drops off with distance squared. Device density increases background levels, but this study wasn’t looking at background levels; time spent transmitting per device is up but the location of that transmission is no longer right up against your head, just your hands. I’d love to see a study about background EM exposure in the various EM spectrum bands that are now in continuous use in urban environments. But it would be very hard to run such a study!
- jamroom 8y ago
  This is true if you believe in the LNT (Linear No Threshold) model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model Then check out the idea of Radiation Hormesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis It's an interesting idea.
  - Analemma_ 8y ago
    Both LNT and hormesis are talking about ionizing radiation and so don’t apply here. Hormesis is unlikely to be true anyway though.
mtgx 8y ago
5G towers are going to be much closer to more people (every 300 meters or so, I believe) to deliver those 1+ Gbps speeds.

st26 8y ago

Well, they had to jack it up because the experiment (and the rats) would not go on for seventy years. And if the mechanism of action is anything like other types of radiation, risk is proportional to total lifetime exposure, not peak exposure.

dbcurtis 8y ago
> And if the mechanism of action is anything like other types of radiation, And if the mechanism is mocrowave heating, then power density driven heating rate is the first order effect. Which 'if' is it? Perhaps neither of the above.
jjoonathan 8y ago
That's the "linear-no-threshold" model (LNT) and I see no attempt to show that it holds here. They jumped straight to exposures thousands of times higher than typical heavy use, which smells like they were fishing for a positive result.
- Semirhage 8y ago
  LNT is a theory of ionizing radiation, and while your overall point is salient, the reference to LNT is not. While many things enjoy a similar exposure model, LNT is a specific term.
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    Is there a generic term that captures the same idea? If there is, I'd like to use it.
joecool1029 8y ago
Nah, jacking it up has its own new set of problems. Cellphone radiation isn't ionizing radiation, at most you're ever so slightly heating cells around it. By increasing the intensity you might be literally baking and killing cells in the process (think the difference between drinking a scalding beverage and burning the shit out of your mouth vs. letting it cool and not being injured or having the cells get killed off). Now take my hot beverage example and repeat it a bunch of times. I would bet that cancer incidence would increase in the scalding group. (as you're destroying epithelial cells and forcing them to regenerate... and cancer is really biological lotto). To top all the above off. With the exception of the migration from GSM to WCDMA technology (GSM pulsed the radio), cell phone radio output power has actually been on the decline due to smaller cells sizes being used in cities. It's nothing like using an analog cellphone in the 80's was in terms of output.
- theptip 8y ago
  This is an even better analogy than it appears at face value, because hot beverages "probably" cause cancer according to the WHO: https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-very-hot-drinks-may-cause-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization...
- incongruity 8y ago
  To your last point - individual radio power has declined but I’d suspect that the total exposure has gone up because 1)Device density is far greater and 2)Time spent transmitting is longer per device because we use more data now than in years past. As to whether that causes cancer, I’m not an expert... I guess the ultimate measure will be actual cancer incidence rates but by that point, isn’t it arguably too late for many of us?
  - zamfi 8y ago
    Power drops off with distance squared. Device density increases background levels, but this study wasn’t looking at background levels; time spent transmitting per device is up but the location of that transmission is no longer right up against your head, just your hands. I’d love to see a study about background EM exposure in the various EM spectrum bands that are now in continuous use in urban environments. But it would be very hard to run such a study!
jamroom 8y ago
This is true if you believe in the LNT (Linear No Threshold) model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model Then check out the idea of Radiation Hormesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis It's an interesting idea.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  Both LNT and hormesis are talking about ionizing radiation and so don’t apply here. Hormesis is unlikely to be true anyway though.

mtgx 8y ago

5G towers are going to be much closer to more people (every 300 meters or so, I believe) to deliver those 1+ Gbps speeds.