Page 3 of 5 12 3 45
Reply
Thread Tools
baksiidaa is offline baksiidaa
2009-09-19 , 04:18
Posts: 183 | Thanked: 115 times | Joined on Nov 2007 @ Seattle, WA
#21
Originally Posted by exon View Post
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?
 
glabifrons is offline glabifrons
2009-09-19 , 06:49
Posts: 149 | Thanked: 134 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ Florida
#22
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).
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glabifrons For This Useful Post:
luca's Avatar
luca is offline luca
2009-09-19 , 11:55
Posts: 1,137 | Thanked: 402 times | Joined on Sep 2007 @ Catalunya
#23
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.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to luca For This Useful Post:
maacruz is offline maacruz
2009-09-21 , 23:04
Posts: 1,101 | Thanked: 1,184 times | Joined on Aug 2008 @ Spain
#24
Originally Posted by exon View Post
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 an Hygienist and HSE consultant I can't resist joining to the fray
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
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to maacruz For This Useful Post:
qole's Avatar
qole is offline qole
2009-09-21 , 23:54
Moderator | Posts: 7,109 | Thanked: 8,820 times | Joined on Oct 2007 @ Vancouver, BC, Canada
#25
How can you be so blase' when they've shown mobile phones put out enough radiation to pop corn or even worse?
__________________
qole.org --- twitter --- Easy Debian wiki page
Please don't send me a private message, post to the appropriate thread.
Thank you all for your donations!
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to qole For This Useful Post:
texaslabrat is offline texaslabrat
2009-09-22 , 00:08
Posts: 271 | Thanked: 220 times | Joined on Sep 2009
#26
Originally Posted by exon View Post
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).
 
allnameswereout's Avatar
allnameswereout is offline allnameswereout
2009-09-22 , 03:51
Posts: 3,397 | Thanked: 1,212 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Netherlands
#27
Originally Posted by Architengi View Post
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:

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:

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).
__________________
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to allnameswereout For This Useful Post:
Texrat's Avatar
Texrat is offline Texrat
2009-11-11 , 00:04
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#28
latest news: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/10...ors/index.html

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.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
RevdKathy's Avatar
RevdKathy is offline RevdKathy
2009-11-11 , 07:56
Posts: 2,173 | Thanked: 2,678 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Cornwall, UK
#29
Meh. You have to die of something.
__________________
Hi! I'm Kathy and I'm a Maemo Greeter! Welcome.
Useful links for newcomers: New members say hello , New users start here, Community subforum, Beginners' wiki page, Maemo5 101, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Did you know Meego.com has forums too?
 
Texrat's Avatar
Texrat is offline Texrat
2009-11-11 , 16:03
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#30
Originally Posted by RevdKathy View Post
Meh. You have to die of something.
I'd rather it be by natural expiration date.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 
Reply
Page 3 of 5 12 3 45

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:29.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top