4 ms·

So does this pose any actual problem for me as a user?

by loxs 7y ago

jrockway 7y ago
If you hold your phone 2mm away from your eyeball while using it, it could absorb 8W of heat per kilogram of eyeball mass. Since an eyeball weighs about 8g, it might absorb up to 64mW of power. By comparison, a microwave oven injects about 1000W, or 15,000 times more power into whatever is inside it. (I am using the worst-case figures from the article, and they mentioned your eye as a specific area that you should be concerned about, as it can't dissipate heat as easily as other parts of your body.)
- willis936 7y ago
  Importantly, the only model that shows health effects from non-ionizing radiation is from heating. When we start hearing reports of users being burned by their battery operated devices, then we should sit up in our seats. Until then, it’s fear-mongering for clicks.
  - yoz-y 7y ago
    > Until then, it’s fear-mongering for clicks. And money, don't forget that lawyers always capitalize on anything for which they can drum up popular support. https://www.macrumors.com/2019/08/22/apple-radiofrequency-radiation-law-firm-investigation/ https://www.macrumors.com/2019/08/22/apple-radiofrequency-ra...
    - loxs 7y ago
      Exactly what I thought
      - dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
        For the sake of future generations, I really hope you both are 100% right.
  - dwd 7y ago
    Actually it's not, there are biological effects seen in rats which while not fully understood, have been replicated across more than one trial. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-link-cell-phone-radiation-with-cancer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-link-... Sure rats aren't humans but that doesn't mean we're not going to be seeing the same damage occurring at a cellular level. We may just have mechanisms that prevent that damage becoming cancerous.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
      Try https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4682-9-26 https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4682... My conclusion from that is if cells communicate via EMF internally and externally, then this can be jammed by the right artificial EMF from the outside. Question is if contemporary cell phones, Wifi, etc. have "the right stuff". TBD
      - dwd 7y ago
        Very interesting line of study. There was a case of a cancer cluster among female staff at the Australian Broadcasting Commission's Toowong Building that went largely unexplained. While everyone speculated it had something to do with the radio tower there, nothing conclusive was determined. https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/cancer-clusters-20130309-2frwd.html https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/cancer-clusters-20130309-2f...

So does this pose any actual problem for me as a user?

by loxs 7y ago

So does this pose any actual problem for me as a user?

If you hold your phone 2mm away from your eyeball while using it, it could absorb 8W of heat per kilogram of eyeball mass. Since an eyeball weighs about 8g, it might absorb up to 64mW of power. By comparison, a microwave oven injects about 1000W, or 15,000 times more power into whatever is inside it. (I am using the worst-case figures from the article, and they mentioned your eye as a specific area that you should be concerned about, as it can't dissipate heat as easily as other parts of your body.)

willis936 7y ago
Importantly, the only model that shows health effects from non-ionizing radiation is from heating. When we start hearing reports of users being burned by their battery operated devices, then we should sit up in our seats. Until then, it’s fear-mongering for clicks.
- yoz-y 7y ago
  > Until then, it’s fear-mongering for clicks. And money, don't forget that lawyers always capitalize on anything for which they can drum up popular support. https://www.macrumors.com/2019/08/22/apple-radiofrequency-radiation-law-firm-investigation/ https://www.macrumors.com/2019/08/22/apple-radiofrequency-ra...
  - loxs 7y ago
    Exactly what I thought
    - dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
      For the sake of future generations, I really hope you both are 100% right.
- dwd 7y ago
  Actually it's not, there are biological effects seen in rats which while not fully understood, have been replicated across more than one trial. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-link-cell-phone-radiation-with-cancer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-link-... Sure rats aren't humans but that doesn't mean we're not going to be seeing the same damage occurring at a cellular level. We may just have mechanisms that prevent that damage becoming cancerous.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
    Try https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4682-9-26 https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4682... My conclusion from that is if cells communicate via EMF internally and externally, then this can be jammed by the right artificial EMF from the outside. Question is if contemporary cell phones, Wifi, etc. have "the right stuff". TBD
    - dwd 7y ago
      Very interesting line of study. There was a case of a cancer cluster among female staff at the Australian Broadcasting Commission's Toowong Building that went largely unexplained. While everyone speculated it had something to do with the radio tower there, nothing conclusive was determined. https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/cancer-clusters-20130309-2frwd.html https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/cancer-clusters-20130309-2f...