6 ms·

The actual study findings: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.htm... From t

The actual study findings: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.htm... From the fact sheet: "Rats and mice were exposed to RFR in special chambers for up to two years, or most of their natural lives. NTP scientists looked for a range of cancers and noncancer health effects. Exposure to RFR began in the womb for rats and at 5-6 weeks old for mice. The RFR exposure was intermittent, 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off, totaling about 9 hours each day. The RFR levels ranged from 1.5 to 6 watts per kilogram of body weight in rats, and 2.5 to 10 watts per kilogram in mice. The chambers were shielded rooms with a transmitting antenna that radiated RFR fields, plus rotating stirrers that generated a uniform field.4,5 Pilot studies established field strengths that did not raise animal body temperatures excessively.6 The rats and mice were exposed to whole body RFR at frequencies of 900 and 1900 megahertz, respectively, from two technologies – Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM). NTP and RFR experts from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the IT’IS Foundation designed and built the chambers specifically for these studies. " Also: "Were there any surprise findings? NTP found longer lifespans among the exposed male rats. This may be explained by an observed decrease in chronic kidney problems that are often the cause of death in older rats"

ChuckMcM 8y ago
I particularly like "...strengths that did not raise animal body temperatures excessively." No sense microwaving the rats to death. For a 70kg person, that exposure (using the rat scale, 105 - 420 watts) for your entire life. Vs a cell phone which has an effective radiated power ERP of about 1 watt[1]. So somewhere between 1% and .25% of the power. Cell phone signals fall off with the square of the distance so the bulk of the power of a cellphones RF energy that you are exposed to comes from the handset. [1] "Meanwhile, the total power emitted from the cell phone itself ranges from 0.75 to 1 watt. According to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), this is an acceptably safe amount of power for a cell phone since their cut-off or specific absorption rate is only 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg). As a result, the power radiated from a cell phone is considered as non-ionizing as opposed to ionizing." -- https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/EbruBek.shtml https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/EbruBek.shtml
- username3 8y ago
  What if you’re around 105-420 people with cellphones radiating 1 watt each?
  - gotocake 8y ago
    Again, the energy falls off with the square of the distance, so unless those hundreds of people have very long arms and decide to press their phone against you...
    - eganist 8y ago
      Not trying to be a troll -- Tokyo subways come to mind.
      - hwillis 8y ago
        1 watt corresponds to an in-use phone. Heavy data use. Even a call has much lower power. Unless the phone is actively doing something, the cell pings are very brief and use very little power.
        docker_up 8y ago
        You're discounting the fact that cell phones are more used for data than for talking and data is always being transmitted, especially with apps that run in the background.
        hwillis 8y ago
        Nah, the amount of power used for data is just also low when not being actively used. I'm sure some people update over 4G, but not many.
        seandougall 8y ago
        But how many people use their phones for data while holding them against their heads? (Not to mention in a shielded cubicle?)
saulrh 8y ago
To make sure I understand the energy levels right: 6 watts per kilogram would be roughly like sleeping with a multi-kilowatt radio transmitter running in your bedroom?
- hwillis 8y ago
  Far more than that. It would be about half as bad as literally sleeping inside a microwave oven at full blast. The rats were kept in a shielded room so the microwaves bounce around until they are absorbed. It's no wonder they got cancer.
  - manmal 8y ago
    I do wonder why they got cancer. The industry always told us that non-ionizing radiation is harmless and it’s laughable that it should have ANY effect. So now there’s at least brain and heart tumors, and, strangely, improved kidney function.
    - cheeko1234 8y ago
      Non-ionising radiation does not penetrate deep into the tissues but increases the risk of damage to the skin and eyes. Dependent on the energy and exposure time, non-ionising radiation can cause localised heating, or photochemical reactions can occur with possible permanent harm. It's not totally harmless. Just orders of magnitude less than ionizing radiation.
      - manmal 8y ago
        I generally agree with you, but not with the "does not penetrate deep into the tissues" part. Non-ionizing radiation includes frequencies like 980nm (near infrared) which penetrates 3 centimeters deep at ~15W: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552256/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552256/ Microwaves have wavelengths orders of magnitude longer than infrared light and can penetrate even deeper at the same wattage. It would IMO be VERY iffy to say that the possibility of photons emitted by a cellphone reaching the brain is zero.
tynpeddler 8y ago
>"Were there any surprise findings? NTP found longer lifespans among the exposed male rats. This may be explained by an observed decrease in chronic kidney problems that are often the cause of death in older rats" The increased lifespan could be at least partially responsible for the increased cancer rates. All populations that see an increase in lifespan see an increase in cancer rates. Cancer seems to be the default prize for living a long life. Also, the caption on slide 20 for their BioEM2016 Meeting, Ghent, Belgium, June 8, 2016 presentation surprised me a litte. It states that the historical control incidence of malignant gliomas is in the range of 0-8%. This study saw a rate of 0% for its controls. That's not unreasonable but it is interesting. It's also odd that they did not see an indication of a dose response curve for GSM modulation, though admittedly the number of samples is low. I don't doubt the statistical significance of the evidence presented, but data patterns suggest that it's at least a little possible that there's an issue with their protocol.
- meowface 8y ago
  >The increased lifespan could be at least partially responsible for the increased cancer rates. All populations that see an increase in lifespan see an increase in cancer rates. Of course, but wouldn't this be so obvious that the researchers would undoubtedly have accounted for that as a confounding variable? At least I hope so.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > Of course, but wouldn't this be so obvious that the researchers would undoubtedly have accounted for that as a confounding variable? At least I hope so. Woudln't count on that these days, in general. If something is accounted for, it's usually stated in the paper.
  - tynpeddler 8y ago
    That's what I thought, but I wasn't able to find where they addressed this issue. If you can point me to the control for lifespan, I'd appreciate it.
manmal 8y ago
I wonder if photobiomodulation is the cause of improved kidney function. PBM leads to nitric oxide release which in turn leads to lower blood pressure (beneficial for kidneys).

ChuckMcM 8y ago

I particularly like "...strengths that did not raise animal body temperatures excessively." No sense microwaving the rats to death. For a 70kg person, that exposure (using the rat scale, 105 - 420 watts) for your entire life. Vs a cell phone which has an effective radiated power ERP of about 1 watt[1]. So somewhere between 1% and .25% of the power. Cell phone signals fall off with the square of the distance so the bulk of the power of a cellphones RF energy that you are exposed to comes from the handset. [1] "Meanwhile, the total power emitted from the cell phone itself ranges from 0.75 to 1 watt. According to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), this is an acceptably safe amount of power for a cell phone since their cut-off or specific absorption rate is only 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg). As a result, the power radiated from a cell phone is considered as non-ionizing as opposed to ionizing." -- https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/EbruBek.shtml https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/EbruBek.shtml

username3 8y ago
What if you’re around 105-420 people with cellphones radiating 1 watt each?
- gotocake 8y ago
  Again, the energy falls off with the square of the distance, so unless those hundreds of people have very long arms and decide to press their phone against you...
  - eganist 8y ago
    Not trying to be a troll -- Tokyo subways come to mind.
    - hwillis 8y ago
      1 watt corresponds to an in-use phone. Heavy data use. Even a call has much lower power. Unless the phone is actively doing something, the cell pings are very brief and use very little power.
      - docker_up 8y ago
        You're discounting the fact that cell phones are more used for data than for talking and data is always being transmitted, especially with apps that run in the background.
        hwillis 8y ago
        Nah, the amount of power used for data is just also low when not being actively used. I'm sure some people update over 4G, but not many.
        seandougall 8y ago
        But how many people use their phones for data while holding them against their heads? (Not to mention in a shielded cubicle?)

saulrh 8y ago

To make sure I understand the energy levels right: 6 watts per kilogram would be roughly like sleeping with a multi-kilowatt radio transmitter running in your bedroom?

hwillis 8y ago
Far more than that. It would be about half as bad as literally sleeping inside a microwave oven at full blast. The rats were kept in a shielded room so the microwaves bounce around until they are absorbed. It's no wonder they got cancer.
- manmal 8y ago
  I do wonder why they got cancer. The industry always told us that non-ionizing radiation is harmless and it’s laughable that it should have ANY effect. So now there’s at least brain and heart tumors, and, strangely, improved kidney function.
  - cheeko1234 8y ago
    Non-ionising radiation does not penetrate deep into the tissues but increases the risk of damage to the skin and eyes. Dependent on the energy and exposure time, non-ionising radiation can cause localised heating, or photochemical reactions can occur with possible permanent harm. It's not totally harmless. Just orders of magnitude less than ionizing radiation.
    - manmal 8y ago
      I generally agree with you, but not with the "does not penetrate deep into the tissues" part. Non-ionizing radiation includes frequencies like 980nm (near infrared) which penetrates 3 centimeters deep at ~15W: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552256/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552256/ Microwaves have wavelengths orders of magnitude longer than infrared light and can penetrate even deeper at the same wattage. It would IMO be VERY iffy to say that the possibility of photons emitted by a cellphone reaching the brain is zero.

tynpeddler 8y ago

>"Were there any surprise findings? NTP found longer lifespans among the exposed male rats. This may be explained by an observed decrease in chronic kidney problems that are often the cause of death in older rats" The increased lifespan could be at least partially responsible for the increased cancer rates. All populations that see an increase in lifespan see an increase in cancer rates. Cancer seems to be the default prize for living a long life. Also, the caption on slide 20 for their BioEM2016 Meeting, Ghent, Belgium, June 8, 2016 presentation surprised me a litte. It states that the historical control incidence of malignant gliomas is in the range of 0-8%. This study saw a rate of 0% for its controls. That's not unreasonable but it is interesting. It's also odd that they did not see an indication of a dose response curve for GSM modulation, though admittedly the number of samples is low. I don't doubt the statistical significance of the evidence presented, but data patterns suggest that it's at least a little possible that there's an issue with their protocol.

meowface 8y ago
>The increased lifespan could be at least partially responsible for the increased cancer rates. All populations that see an increase in lifespan see an increase in cancer rates. Of course, but wouldn't this be so obvious that the researchers would undoubtedly have accounted for that as a confounding variable? At least I hope so.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > Of course, but wouldn't this be so obvious that the researchers would undoubtedly have accounted for that as a confounding variable? At least I hope so. Woudln't count on that these days, in general. If something is accounted for, it's usually stated in the paper.
- tynpeddler 8y ago
  That's what I thought, but I wasn't able to find where they addressed this issue. If you can point me to the control for lifespan, I'd appreciate it.

manmal 8y ago

I wonder if photobiomodulation is the cause of improved kidney function. PBM leads to nitric oxide release which in turn leads to lower blood pressure (beneficial for kidneys).