4 ms·

I'm very suprised to find there is some science to this. I'd assumed the radiation was just too weak.

by bogle 3y ago

b112 3y ago
I think due to the 1/4 falloff don't put it to your ear, don't put it in your bra ladies!
retrac 3y ago
I continue to remain skeptical, honestly, of any effect beyond thermal heating. But I've never totally written it off. Very small amounts of EMR can create cascade effects in biological systems. Our vision system is perhaps an example, where the power of the radiation cast on the retina in low light is measured in microwatts or even picowatts, yet our nervous systems are very much affected by it. Tangential trivia: if move your head inside a very strong radio field (far beyond anything put out by a cellphone -- and far beyond anything generally considered safe) it can induce currents directly in the optic nerve/retina, which I've read described as flashing dots of light.
- treis 3y ago
  It seems pretty obviously bunk. Cell phone usage went from ~0% to 100% over the course of a couple decades. If they were a significant health risk the impact would have been obvious.
  - sunshinerag 3y ago
    Why do you think it would be “obvious”? What if health issues did go up but were never attributed to cell phone usage till now?
    - treis 3y ago
      If cell phones caused brain tumors in 1/1000 users we'd have millions of more brain tumors around the world than we did before. That's why it would be obvious.
  - asdajksah2123 3y ago
    The per capita cigarettes smoked in the US went from nearly 0 in 1910 to about 1500 per year per capita in 1930, and yet following those 2 decades despite far more obvious negative impacts of smoking smoking continued to rise peaking at about 4500 cigarettes per capita in the 1960s, and was even being promoted by doctors at this point. So we already have evidence that something with long term negative impacts (and smoking has some pretty immediate easily noticeable negative impacts as well), can persist without this being obvious for a while. In addition, population level data is messy. For example, we know there's been a massive increase in depression amongst children, and deaths of despair in the US over the past decade. What if those are related to cell phone use? That would mean the effect is obvious but connecting it to the primary cause is not easy, despite the fact that there is indeed correlations with cell phone use (the correlations people have pointed out is to the rise of social media, which can quite easily also be a correlation to cell phone use). Sounds far fetched? Possibly. But then again, the US saw a massive unexplained drop in crime over the last 3 decades, and arguably the best explanation we have so far is the phasing out of lead from gasoline about 2 decades before the drop actually happened. When the link was first suggested it sounded equally far fetched to most. I don't think there's enough evidence to panic yet (although it would be prudent to follow suggestions around keeping distance from your cell phone), but it's far too early to say the conclusion is settled and that there is no health risk, especially considering the limited research on this topic yet.
    - baal80spam 3y ago
      > 1500 per year per capita in 1930 Dear god, each US citizen smoked 5 cigs per day on average in 1930? It's mind-boggling.
    - asdajksah2123 3y ago
      > Dear god, each US citizen smoked 5 cigs per day on average in 1930? It's mind-boggling. The US population was smaller at that time, so it was probably more. It also peaked at about 4500 in the 60s [1], so it was even higher then. I do suspect the pareto effect applied here, and the heaviest 20% of smokers raised the mean for the entire population. For example, about 70-80% of alcohol consumed in the US is consumed by the top 20% drinkers. 1: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11795/chapter/4#42 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11795/chapter/4#42
- dTal 3y ago
  I find the visual system an unconvincing example of EMR having unexpected effects on biological systems - it's an organ specifically designed to amplify tiny amounts of EMR, with a very small sensitivity bandwidth.
  - retrac 3y ago
    Vision presumably came about from a biological system that was somewhat affected by photochemical interactions, which then evolved to be useful. That is to say, a living thing must have existed at some point that didn't have vision, but which was affected by light, such that more precise and useful light sensitivity evolved.
pcdoodle 3y ago
It's very complicated but I can see why certain industries wouldn't want this idea popularized.
- brookst 3y ago
  Well yes, but you probably don't want the idea that you're a serial killer popularized. That totally understandable position should not be used as evidence that you're a serial killer.
blueflow 3y ago
Comparison: Phones are up to 3 watts, sunlight is around 1.3 kilowatts per square meter.
- yaantc 3y ago
  Often much less in practice: 2G transmission was up to 2W, but 2G has been phased out in many countries. 3G I'm not very knowledgeable but IIRC was up to 800 mW (common case). LTE/4G is 200 mW maximum for sure. 5G is the same except for mmWaves, but that I don't know very well and it's not used much (not at all in Europe, where I live). There are more powerful band classes, but for fixed wireless access. So for phone use on a modern network, you should now be most of the time at 200 mW max transmit power (same as WiFi BTW).
- MerelyMortal 3y ago
  I'm guessing the average phone size is about 155 square centimeters, or 1.5% of a square meter. Multiply that by 3 Watts, and you get 200 Watts. That's about 15% of the suns energy per unit area. Of course it's probably a different type of radiation, and the whole phone isn't going to be radiating, so the intensity might be stronger.
  - blueflow 3y ago
    You can't re-calculate a radial source into an area like that, most of the phones radiation is going into the other direction than were you are.
  - space_fountain 3y ago
    The way to measure this is based on distance. If say a phone emits 3 watts of RF but it’s set 1 meter away the area that 3 watts operates on is 4pi1^2. If the 3 watts is being emitted right next to you then maybe the size of the antenna stars to mater. This is why if your really worried about RF using wired headphones and never taking a call with the phone pressed up to your ear is the best thing you can do
- _yb2s 3y ago
  The comparison means nothing about relative risk or biological impacts… very different frequencies interact with biological systems and penetrate tissues differently. Microwaves can rotate charged molecules, and penetrate deeply. Sunlight can ionize biological molecules, but only on the surface (skin).

I'm very suprised to find there is some science to this. I'd assumed the radiation was just too weak.

by bogle 3y ago

I'm very suprised to find there is some science to this. I'd assumed the radiation was just too weak.

b112 3y ago

I think due to the 1/4 falloff don't put it to your ear, don't put it in your bra ladies!

retrac 3y ago

I continue to remain skeptical, honestly, of any effect beyond thermal heating. But I've never totally written it off. Very small amounts of EMR can create cascade effects in biological systems. Our vision system is perhaps an example, where the power of the radiation cast on the retina in low light is measured in microwatts or even picowatts, yet our nervous systems are very much affected by it. Tangential trivia: if move your head inside a very strong radio field (far beyond anything put out by a cellphone -- and far beyond anything generally considered safe) it can induce currents directly in the optic nerve/retina, which I've read described as flashing dots of light.

treis 3y ago
It seems pretty obviously bunk. Cell phone usage went from ~0% to 100% over the course of a couple decades. If they were a significant health risk the impact would have been obvious.
- sunshinerag 3y ago
  Why do you think it would be “obvious”? What if health issues did go up but were never attributed to cell phone usage till now?
  - treis 3y ago
    If cell phones caused brain tumors in 1/1000 users we'd have millions of more brain tumors around the world than we did before. That's why it would be obvious.
- asdajksah2123 3y ago
  The per capita cigarettes smoked in the US went from nearly 0 in 1910 to about 1500 per year per capita in 1930, and yet following those 2 decades despite far more obvious negative impacts of smoking smoking continued to rise peaking at about 4500 cigarettes per capita in the 1960s, and was even being promoted by doctors at this point. So we already have evidence that something with long term negative impacts (and smoking has some pretty immediate easily noticeable negative impacts as well), can persist without this being obvious for a while. In addition, population level data is messy. For example, we know there's been a massive increase in depression amongst children, and deaths of despair in the US over the past decade. What if those are related to cell phone use? That would mean the effect is obvious but connecting it to the primary cause is not easy, despite the fact that there is indeed correlations with cell phone use (the correlations people have pointed out is to the rise of social media, which can quite easily also be a correlation to cell phone use). Sounds far fetched? Possibly. But then again, the US saw a massive unexplained drop in crime over the last 3 decades, and arguably the best explanation we have so far is the phasing out of lead from gasoline about 2 decades before the drop actually happened. When the link was first suggested it sounded equally far fetched to most. I don't think there's enough evidence to panic yet (although it would be prudent to follow suggestions around keeping distance from your cell phone), but it's far too early to say the conclusion is settled and that there is no health risk, especially considering the limited research on this topic yet.
  - baal80spam 3y ago
    > 1500 per year per capita in 1930 Dear god, each US citizen smoked 5 cigs per day on average in 1930? It's mind-boggling.
  - asdajksah2123 3y ago
    > Dear god, each US citizen smoked 5 cigs per day on average in 1930? It's mind-boggling. The US population was smaller at that time, so it was probably more. It also peaked at about 4500 in the 60s [1], so it was even higher then. I do suspect the pareto effect applied here, and the heaviest 20% of smokers raised the mean for the entire population. For example, about 70-80% of alcohol consumed in the US is consumed by the top 20% drinkers. 1: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11795/chapter/4#42 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11795/chapter/4#42
dTal 3y ago
I find the visual system an unconvincing example of EMR having unexpected effects on biological systems - it's an organ specifically designed to amplify tiny amounts of EMR, with a very small sensitivity bandwidth.
- retrac 3y ago
  Vision presumably came about from a biological system that was somewhat affected by photochemical interactions, which then evolved to be useful. That is to say, a living thing must have existed at some point that didn't have vision, but which was affected by light, such that more precise and useful light sensitivity evolved.

pcdoodle 3y ago

It's very complicated but I can see why certain industries wouldn't want this idea popularized.

brookst 3y ago
Well yes, but you probably don't want the idea that you're a serial killer popularized. That totally understandable position should not be used as evidence that you're a serial killer.

blueflow 3y ago

Comparison: Phones are up to 3 watts, sunlight is around 1.3 kilowatts per square meter.

yaantc 3y ago
Often much less in practice: 2G transmission was up to 2W, but 2G has been phased out in many countries. 3G I'm not very knowledgeable but IIRC was up to 800 mW (common case). LTE/4G is 200 mW maximum for sure. 5G is the same except for mmWaves, but that I don't know very well and it's not used much (not at all in Europe, where I live). There are more powerful band classes, but for fixed wireless access. So for phone use on a modern network, you should now be most of the time at 200 mW max transmit power (same as WiFi BTW).
MerelyMortal 3y ago
I'm guessing the average phone size is about 155 square centimeters, or 1.5% of a square meter. Multiply that by 3 Watts, and you get 200 Watts. That's about 15% of the suns energy per unit area. Of course it's probably a different type of radiation, and the whole phone isn't going to be radiating, so the intensity might be stronger.
- blueflow 3y ago
  You can't re-calculate a radial source into an area like that, most of the phones radiation is going into the other direction than were you are.
- space_fountain 3y ago
  The way to measure this is based on distance. If say a phone emits 3 watts of RF but it’s set 1 meter away the area that 3 watts operates on is 4pi1^2. If the 3 watts is being emitted right next to you then maybe the size of the antenna stars to mater. This is why if your really worried about RF using wired headphones and never taking a call with the phone pressed up to your ear is the best thing you can do
_yb2s 3y ago
The comparison means nothing about relative risk or biological impacts… very different frequencies interact with biological systems and penetrate tissues differently. Microwaves can rotate charged molecules, and penetrate deeply. Sunlight can ionize biological molecules, but only on the surface (skin).