Active Topics
-
Camera phone competition March 2023 "Endless" (35)
to General by Maemish - 1 day, 7 hrs ago -
TLS 1.2 for N9 is ready (28)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by smartblu9 - 1 day, 8 hrs ago -
Maemo repository (3)
to Community by torsen - 2 days ago -
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (11)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 2 days, 22 hrs ago -
Introducing ubiboot N9 (multiboot OS loader) (1,393)
to Alternatives by smatkovi - 4 days, 4 hrs ago - more...
 |
noventa98 |
2009-09-11
, 08:16
|
|
Posts: 122 |
Thanked: 51 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
@ Paris, France
|
#11
|
How many years did it take to "prove" that cigarettes are dangerous for the health? I am not implying that cell phones represent a hazard for health (I am not an expert on these matters), nor would I claim the contrary, but one should always take these assertions cum grano salis, especially when strong corporate interests are involved. Also, If I remember correctly, there was a plethora of physicians who said that smoking was ok.
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to noventa98 For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-09-11
, 09:56
|
|
Posts: 4,384 |
Thanked: 5,524 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ ˙ǝɹǝɥʍou
|
#12
|
Sorry, it wasn't 7W/kg. The 'behavioral change' occurs only at 4W/kg:
"“The FCC limit for the head (SAR of 1.6 W/kg) is just two-and-a-half times lower than the level that caused behavioral changes in animals (SAR of 4 W/kg),” says the representative. “Thus, the brain receives a high exposure, even though the brain may well be one of the most sensitive parts of human body … and should have more protection.”
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/...one-radiation/
Another interesting report...
"In conclusion, our preliminary results indicate that mobile phone exposure does induce behavioral changes in rats. The changes can be observed in terms of higher latency time to reach the target quadrant and less time spent in the target quadrant in the MWM test. This modification of rat behavior could either be due to microwave radiation from the phone or it could be due to vibration, or it may be linked to both. To determine which is more important further study in warranted."
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri...22009000300014
Last edited by ysss; 2009-09-11 at 09:59.
"“The FCC limit for the head (SAR of 1.6 W/kg) is just two-and-a-half times lower than the level that caused behavioral changes in animals (SAR of 4 W/kg),” says the representative. “Thus, the brain receives a high exposure, even though the brain may well be one of the most sensitive parts of human body … and should have more protection.”
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/...one-radiation/
Another interesting report...
"In conclusion, our preliminary results indicate that mobile phone exposure does induce behavioral changes in rats. The changes can be observed in terms of higher latency time to reach the target quadrant and less time spent in the target quadrant in the MWM test. This modification of rat behavior could either be due to microwave radiation from the phone or it could be due to vibration, or it may be linked to both. To determine which is more important further study in warranted."
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri...22009000300014
Last edited by ysss; 2009-09-11 at 09:59.
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ysss For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-09-11
, 10:04
|
|
Posts: 362 |
Thanked: 109 times |
Joined on May 2009
|
#13
|
Originally Posted by ysss
ysss, just put your iPhone on loudspeaker and don't put it closer to the ear, it is almost close to the FCC limit...
Sorry, it wasn't 7W/kg. The 'behavioral change' occurs only at 4W/kg:
"“The FCC limit for the head (SAR of 1.6 W/kg) is just two-and-a-half times lower than the level that caused behavioral changes in animals (SAR of 4 W/kg),” says the representative. “Thus, the brain receives a high exposure, even though the brain may well be one of the most sensitive parts of human body … and should have more protection.”
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/...one-radiation/
In general, the lower the SAR the better the phone, from a potential health hazard point of view. For instance, Apple’s iPhone 3G has a maximum SAR of 1.39 W/kg when held at the ear.
|
|
2009-09-11
, 10:07
|
|
Posts: 4,384 |
Thanked: 5,524 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ ˙ǝɹǝɥʍou
|
#14
|
Yea.. I don't know how much 0.1 W/kg matters.. but mine is still lower than the 5800 Xpress Music =P
 |
|
2009-09-11
, 14:16
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#15
|
Originally Posted by baksiidaa
I certainly won't argue with your credentials and appreciate your information.
According to the FCC (link), no link has been shown between RF radiation and cancer.
As a physicist, I find the numbers telling. To cause cancer, the radiation would have to damage a DNA strand. The photon energy of RF radiation at 850 MHz is 3.5 micro-electron-volts . The energy of covalent bonds, the bonds between molecules in DNA, are on the order of 1 electron-volt--about 300,000 times the energy provided by the photon. This means that the photons from a cell phone can't break the bonds in DNA. Photons can't "gang up" to break the bonds--it just doesn't work that way.
Even at such low photon energies, it is possible for damage to be done to biological tissue with high radiation power, due to thermal heating (that's how a microwave oven works). None of the power absorption levels listed above, however, are high enough to do anything. In fact, they are roughly comparable to the amount of heat a normal person generates. If the average person consumes 2000 calories (actually kilocalories) a day, and weighs 80 kg (~180 lbs), then their heat generation is 2000 kcal/(24 hours)/(80 kg) = 1.2 W/kg (thank you Google Calculator).
Sorry for the rant, but after hearing a cancer specialist on say on TV tonight that cell phones have no proven connection to cancer I wanted to try running the numbers. If you really want to worry about what health risks your cell phone has, ask yourself how often you use it while driving.
However, I have seen data contradicting those conclusions. Correlations have been found between heavy cell phone use and certain ailments (not limited to tumors). Significance was observed with predominant effects in the area where users had or held the phone the most.
Granted, correlation does not necessarily indicate causation, but it's reason for concern nonetheless. I think people get the wrong idea when doubts are cast on worst-case scenarios and they assume that the devices are perfectly safe. I also think it's very telling that Nokia has provided warnings about excessive use of their own products and worked to lower emissions (as indicated in the table).
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
| The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-09-11
, 16:14
|
|
Posts: 600 |
Thanked: 742 times |
Joined on Sep 2008
@ England
|
#16
|
Don't forget that a cellphone automatically reduces its transmit power when it is close to the cell tower.
So in a built-up area with many cell towers you will be incurring much less radiation from your phone than in a rural area where the phone may switch itself to full transmit power.
In any case, 90% of my cellphone use is in conjunction with my N810. I don't even need the cellphone to be near my body, and I'm presuming that the bluetooth radiation from the N810 is sufficiently lower in strength that I don't need to worry about it.
Regards,
Roger
So in a built-up area with many cell towers you will be incurring much less radiation from your phone than in a rural area where the phone may switch itself to full transmit power.
In any case, 90% of my cellphone use is in conjunction with my N810. I don't even need the cellphone to be near my body, and I'm presuming that the bluetooth radiation from the N810 is sufficiently lower in strength that I don't need to worry about it.
Regards,
Roger
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to eiffel For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-09-13
, 18:24
|
|
Posts: 87 |
Thanked: 36 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Helsinki
|
#17
|
It's quite interesting to note that Nokia is consistently reputed to have better reception than any of the competing companies, while still having the lowest SAR values.
Also, heating power per mass unit is not exactly useful when trying to determine how 'dangerous' radio waves are. Most dangerous effects (if any) probably come from molecular resonance, changing how easily some chemical reactions happen. Research data, however, is still sadly lacking.
I for one am not going to keep an 'always online' device in my trouser pockets
Also, heating power per mass unit is not exactly useful when trying to determine how 'dangerous' radio waves are. Most dangerous effects (if any) probably come from molecular resonance, changing how easily some chemical reactions happen. Research data, however, is still sadly lacking.
I for one am not going to keep an 'always online' device in my trouser pockets
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Suurorca For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-09-14
, 08:27
|
|
Posts: 362 |
Thanked: 109 times |
Joined on May 2009
|
#18
|
Originally Posted by Architengi
Nokia has very good phones and also it is keeping the radiation to a minimum. The studies on the cell phone radiation effect on the health are still incipient because usually these medical research studies are made over long periods of time, more than 10 years and the cell phones started being popular only about 14 years ago...
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!
Apple iPhone 3G ----------------- 1.39 W/kg H!H!H!H!H!
Nokia N900 ------------------------ 0.80 W/kg *I*I*I
Nokia N97 ------------------------- 0.66 W/kg *I*I*I
EDIT:
Added N900 and N97. Thanks Benny1967 (according to sar.nokia.com)
Thank you guys for your interest on the subject
Hopefully, if you found my compilation in this article good, at least beneficial for your health, you can give me a Thanks too
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Architengi For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-09-18
, 23:54
|
|
Posts: 112 |
Thanked: 26 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#19
|
When I bought my first phone (Nokia 3310 and, well it was my mum who bought it for me) one of the reasons behind the purchase was that it faired better in radiation tests.
|
|
2009-09-19
, 00:16
|
|
Posts: 41 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#20
|
Originally Posted by baksiidaa
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.
As a physicist, I find the numbers telling. To cause cancer, the radiation would have to damage a DNA strand.
)