maemo.org - Talk - cell phone radiation top-chart

maemo.org - Talk (https://talk.maemo.org/index.php)

- General (https://talk.maemo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - cell phone radiation top-chart (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=31534)

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart

Quote:

Originally Posted by exon (Post 329568)

As a cancer researcher, I'm unable to resist de-lurking for a bit of Friday afternoon pedantry. While you're generally correct that DNA damage is required the radiation could have an indirect effect e.g. stressing the cell, resulting in oxidative damage to the DNA. That being said, I've never seen any reliable data to support a radiation->cancer link. (Which doesn't mean that I'm not happy to see that the N900 has lower SAR than the N82 I'll be trading in. :) )

I guess I should have thrown a "to first order" in my statement somewhere, or said that it would be impossible for spherical cows to get cancer from a cell phone :).

What types of cellular (in the biology sense) stresses have been shown to have links to cancer? Would prolonged mild heating (the only apparent result of low-energy radiation) have any effect?

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart

I always understood cancer to be caused by a flaw in division during mitosis (by whatever means). This is when the DNA is most vulnerable. If the random flaw happens to be in a place in the DNA that alters the code to increase reproduction and/or remove the self-destruct component, the result becomes a cancer cell.

With that said... you would need much lower levels of radiation to cause cancer over a long period of time.

This is how radiation treatment and chemotherapy work against cancer as well. Cancerous cells reproduce faster than normal cells, so when exposed to the toxin (chemo drugs are literally poison) or radiation, you're killing the cancer cells faster than the healthy ones (though doing damage to both).

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart

http://dynamics.org/Altenberg/MED/CELL_PHONES/

I don't know how much of these studies/articles can be debunked (these recollection pages tend to be one-sided) but sure there's cause for some concern. Not everything is heat related.
Edit: and cancer isn't the only concern.

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart

Quote:

Originally Posted by exon (Post 329568)

As an Hygienist and HSE consultant I can't resist joining to the fray :D
The size of the body matters. The smaller the body the higher the energy absortion rate. Think about that when giving a cellular to your chidren.
A SAR over 4 W/kg is considered very dangerous. There are legal restrictions on SAR: 0,08 W/kg whole body, 2 W/kg head/chest, 4 W/kg arms
Those legal restrictions have only taken into account thermal effects.
Pulsating microwave radiation can have thermoelastic effects in the brain, even causing auditive effects.
Thermal effects are well known, but there are other possible effects: molecular resonance, polarization of ion channels in the cell membrane... the big unknown, there is almost no research data in this field
Epidemiology still does not help, it is a very new technology, and epidemiologic research needs a lot of data (read quite a few years).
This curious research paper shows brain damage in rats, with SAR as low as 2 mW/kg: http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2003/6039/abstract.html
And a last word, the 291 pages long UE REFLEX report (in-vitro research): http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20041222_reflex.asp

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart

How can you be so blase' when they've shown mobile phones put out enough radiation to pop corn or even worse?

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart

Quote:

Originally Posted by exon (Post 329568)

As a cancer researcher, I'm unable to resist de-lurking for a bit of Friday afternoon pedantry.
...
That being said, I've never seen any reliable data to support a radiation->cancer link.

To take the pedantry a step further...I assume you mean you've never seen any reliable data to support a link between cancer and radiation of non-ionizing energies, specifically the frequencies typically used in modern mobile phone communications? 'Cause I think I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there if you meant that statement literally as you wrote it (As will hundreds of thousands of folks involved in various atomic/nuclear attacks, experiments, and accidents over the decades).

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architengi (Post 325246)

http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone

The most dangerous phones - from higher radiation to lower:

HTC Android myTouch ---------- 1.55 W/kg H!H!H!H!H!
Blackberry Curve 8330 --------- 1.54 W/kg H!H!H!H!H!
Apple iPhone 3G ----------------- 1.39 W/kg H!H!H!H!H!
Samsung Omnia (SCH-i910) -- 1.31 W/kg H!H!H!H!H!
Nokia 5800 XpressMusic ------- 1.29 W/kg H!H!H!H!H!
Apple iPhone 3G S -------------- 1.19 W/kg H!H!H!H!H!
Palm Pre --------------------------- 0.92 W/kg H!H!H!H!
Nokia 7510 ------------------------ 0.84 W/kg *I*I*I*I
Nokia 5610 ------------------------ 0.81 W/kg *I*I*I*I
Nokia N900 ------------------------ 0.80 W/kg *I*I*I
Nokia N97 ------------------------- 0.66 W/kg *I*I*I
Samsung Impression (a877) --- 0.35 W/kg *I*I

EDIT:
Added N900 and N97. Thanks Benny1967 (according to sar.nokia.com)

I have Nokia E71 (RM-346) and it says:

Quote:

SUB-MODEL "(TYPE RM-346)"
SAR when held at the ear 1.23 W/kg
SAR when worn on the body 0.56 W/k

This is worse than Apple iPhone 3G S yet not listed in your top 10 worst?

Source is http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiatio...one/Nokia/E71/

The US and China models are even worse:

Quote:

SUB-MODEL "(TYPE RM-357)"
SAR when held at the ear 1.40 W/kg
SAR when worn on the body 0.76 W/kg
SUB-MODEL "(TYPE RM-407)"
SAR when held at the ear 1.40 W/kg
SAR when worn on the body 0.76 W/kg

That led me to investigate, and to find the worst phones just click here:

http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiatio...=PDA&order=sar (smartphones)

http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiatio...le=1&order=sar (phones)

http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiatio...es=1&order=sar (includes legacy phones)

It is all sorted on radiation (W/kg).

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart

latest news: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/10...ors/index.html

Quote:

A much-anticipated but unreleased report from the World Health Organization on a decade-long investigation called Interphone will show a "significantly increased risk" of some brain tumors "related to use of mobile phones for a period of 10 years or more," the London Daily Telegraph reported in late October. The study will be published before the end of the year, the newspaper said.

Supporting that conclusion, a recent study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that looked at 23 case-control studies found that the research with the more scientifically rigorous methodologies suggested cell phones and tumors are linked. The eight strongest studies made sure the investigators did not know which participants had tumors when they conducted the interviews about cell phone use, and they did not receive funding from industry groups.

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart

Meh. You have to die of something.

Re: cell phone radiation top-chart

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevdKathy (Post 372095)

Meh. You have to die of something.

I'd rather it be by natural expiration date. ;)