9 ms·
Study highlights: device usage 1 - 20 minutes per WEEK. Study population born 1935-1950, less likely as users of tech. No actual exposure data. Can't take this
by Gnarl 5y ago
Study highlights: device usage 1 - 20 minutes per WEEK. Study population born 1935-1950, less likely as users of tech. No actual exposure data. Can't take this seriously.
- badkitty99 5y ago
- arcticbull 5y agoLuckily there are boatloads of other studies that show the exact same outcome. Here's one from 2016 [1] Overall evaluations show that the current evidence for a causal association between cancer and exposure to mobile radiation is weak and unconvincing. Some of the studies establishing association had significant limitations and weaknesses and, therefore, remain unreliable. Studies have highlighted that using these phones for about 10 years is unlikely to cause cancer. I agree. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4922278 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4922278
- xwdv 5y ago20 minutes per week is probably accurate for how much a person keeps a phone right next to their head these days. It’s not for device usage.
- SigmundA 5y agoCareful you might have to explain inverse-square law.
- dragontamer 5y agoRadio is emitted in 3-dimensions, right? So its inverse-cube law?
- ncmncm 5y agoNo.
- ajb 5y agoThe dilution factor is the surface of sphere centered at the emitter, not the volume of the sphere. EM radiation is not like gas diffusion.
- dragontamer 5y agoAppreciated. That explanation makes a lot of sense. EDIT: I also know we aren't dealing with "spheres", but... I get the gist. Dipole antenna emits in this weird doughnut shape, but as a 3-dimensional object, we can estimate it to be kinda-sorta like a sphere :-)
- ajb 5y agoCertainly their surface areas are both O(r^2) :-) Actually though, I think a sphere is still in a way the right object. The weird donut is a representation of the amount that is emitted in different directions - I guess it's a contour of equal intensity. But the radiation is still emitted at the speed of light in every direction. So the wavefront at any given time is a sphere (until it is defracted or reflected). (Edited to add) unless you're thinking of a really big dipole, so you can't treat it as a point source? Or close to it.
- dragontamer 5y agoHmmm. > But the radiation is still emitted at the speed of light in every direction. I think that makes sense. > (Edited to add) unless you're thinking of a really big dipole, so you can't treat it as a point source? Honestly, didn't think of that issue either. You're right though, some antennas (especially AM antennas) are the size of Godzilla, and its absurd to even think of them as point-sources.
- SigmundA 5y agoNo antenna is a perfect point omni emitter, the weird non spherical shapes like doughnuts is the antennas gain, almost are antennas are somewhat directional, the shape is a plot of the measured radiation around the antenna. You take advantage of the fact that it radiates more to the sides than up and down and orient that so it putting more power to the horizon rather than up into space (for terrestrial transmission). The term gain is just referring to the antennas directionality relative to a perfect spherical omni radiator that doesn't exist.
- SilasX 5y agoPlus, didn't phones in that time period have to emit much higher-power signals to work with the contemporary EM infra?
- ncmncm 5y agoHow much time does your cell phone spend in your shirt pocket? Or, your relatives' shirt pockets?
- dragontamer 5y agoCell phones aren't "emitting" signals while in your pocket. They're largely receiving signals and sleeping. We have many devices that emit 10Watts of EM radiation at us every day: we call them light bulbs or LEDs. Cell phones are only allowed to emit 3W IIRC. It wouldn't surprise me if the screen has more EM than the radio.
- ncmncm 5y agoFalse. Cell phones are emitting signals throughout the day, in bursts. LEDs and light bulbs do not emit modulated microwaves. If the screen emitted substantial RF radiation, the FCC (and related agencies in other countries) would have something to say about it.
- dragontamer 5y agoLight is further up the energy-line of electromagnetic radiation. Least-dangerous -- Radio / Infrared / Visible Light / Ultraviolet / XRays / Gamma Rays -- Most energy/dangerous All light-bulbs, screens, LEDs (etc. etc.) emit visible light. There's a couple of bands in there that might be more dangerous than others (ex: Microwaves specifically resonate with water), but for the most part, Gamma Rays are the most dangerous, and Radiowaves have the least effect on our body.
- chemeng 5y agoThe categorization is 0 minutes, 1-20, >20 minutes per week. The latter with an IQR of 10-45mins per week. I’m not saying it’s a great study, but please at least skim the study before being so dismissive and slightly misleading in the comments.
- nuvious 5y agoThe population born in 1935-1950 is walking around the population of the people that did grow up with tech though. Their exposure is almost a certainty because cell towers didn't exist before 1979 in Japan. Now they're basically ubiquitous and unlike cell phones of the 80s which only transmitted when you were making a call, modern cell phones are constantly transmitting to maintain internet connection. Rates of brain cancer before and after the 80s and 90s should've shown some sort of statistically significant spike in brain tumors if cell phones were an issue but it didn't because they're not. 800-2000MHz seems like a lot but radiation doesn't cause ionization until you get to the 2400 terahertz range. There's literally no mechanism known to PHYSICS that would result in cell phone radiation causing brain tumors.
- tasubotadas 5y agoBut I've read on a Facebook group that it does. /sarcasm off
- ncmncm 5y ago> There's literally no mechanism known to PHYSICS that would result in cell phone radiation causing brain tumors. False. We don't know that any form of microwave radiation can induce brain tumors, but we certainly don't now that they can't. It needs experiments, which are being performed (on the public) as I write this. What we do know is that microwave radiation induces nanoampere currents where absorbed. The exact details of the currents, and where and how absorbed determines their effects. Insisting PHYSICS is a legitimate substitute for experimention is a failing that has become increasingly common, lately.
- nuvious 5y agoYou didn't actually propose a mechanism that describes how this proposed effect causes damage to DNA and causes cancer and I'm not your Google-scholar to search for that for you. Provide evidence, here's mine: "Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck region." - European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, 2015 http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/do...
- forum_ghost 5y agoThis study is the most peer-reviewed April Fools joke.