Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 87
  1. richlux's Avatar
    Posts
    19 Posts
    Global Posts
    25 Global Posts
    #61  
    Originally posted by Minsc
    I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the SAR ratings represent the MAXIMUM level a phone is capable of emitting. Under most circumstances, especially if you're in a decent coverage area, I would imagine the SAR level of the Treo would be far less than 1.5.
    And these ratings are while the phone is IN USE. When it is in your pocket in standby mode, it is not giving off that kind of RF radiation. Sooo, unless you keep it in your pocket during long phone calls, I wouldnt' worry about it.

    Rich
  2. #62  
    Well, what makes the phone particularly threatening is that when a call active, it is always transmitting. Think of a radio, you press the talk button for about 5 seconds, say your sentence, and thats it. Phones (except for PTT), don't do that, they constantly monitor for sounds to transmit and put out this harmful radiation while doing so.

    In your pocket, a phone still transmits every few seconds to maintain a digital connection with the tower/provider. That probably isn't all that threatening, but it is something. Still, the greatest concern is on long conversations. No other handheld radio transmits for as long a period of time as a cell phone.
  3. #63  
    For the record. The purpose of this thread should be for information...not for conspiracy theory. In addition:
    1. 10 minutes of sunlight a day does not cause cancer. Ultraviolet radiation exposure, damage, and repair of the resultant thymidine dimer formation (DNA) is a natural process. UV has many more beneficial effects, producing vitamin D for instance.
    2. Radiation exposure during ones lifetime IS quantitative and permanent. (Every X-ray, CT scan, and trans-continental flight...etc...) Stays with you for life.....
    3. There are not thousands of persons with head and neck induced melanoma who may die of surgical resection. I don't think I have ever seen ONE.
    4. I posted earlier (page 2) references on Pubmed supporting and not supporting the theory of CDMA and GSM induced biological cell damage. For the record...radiation does damage biological cells. Radiofrequency waves are a subset of radiation, although presumably less potent.

    Again...there is nothing wrong with informational discussion.
  4. #64  
    Originally posted by Melvin2


    I have two questions:

    1. Yes or No: Can a high SAR rating kill or damage sperm?

    2. Yes or No: Will turning off the Wireless Mode before putting the unit in your pocket help? Or, is the radiation level the same either way?
    1. Not by any means I, as a physicist, could reasonably believe... the only means that I can think of would be heating from resonance, and that is EXTREMELY unlikely - the power a microwave oven draws is on the order of a 1500 W, while cell phones batteries could never provide more than about 10 W. And while a microwave uses almost all its power on the radiation, part of the cell phone power goes to running the electronics. Hence, I can't imagine any scenario where there could be any serious effect on ANY internal organs.

    2. If you're really concerned, turning off wireless mode ends all RF transmissions - those that are left are miniscule (on the order of .001 W) from the electronics, and if you turn the screen off, that drops even further.


    Originally posted by CmdrGuard
    In Ham Radio safety regulations, RF radiation IS dangerous. There are explicit regulations that state how to set up a large powerful antenna so as to minimize the radiation, you the transmitter may receive, as well as neighbors! There are also recommendations that hand held transceivers be used with large antennas so that transmissions are over your head when speaking into the microphone.

    These handheld transceivers put out about 3-4 watts of power on 400 MHZ. The technology of them is very similar to the early days cells phones, so much so that they can be used as cells phones on certain repeater towers and with certain codes.

    So for one, I'm skeptical that these cell phones really only use 1 watt or so of power, cause they sure seem to get much hotter than 1 watt should make them. And I also doubt that cell phone towers are so close that 1 watt of power would suffice for daily use.

    At the very least, to state RF radiation is NOT dangerous is clearly false. RF radiation can be dangerous depending on the power of the transmission (watts) distance from transmission to person (meters), and the duration of the transmission (seconds). Maybe cell phones use such small amounts of power that they are harmless, but that seems unlikely that the power put out by cell phones are so low enough that they cause no effects when the phones are mere centimeters from your brain and on calls from a minute to God knows how long.
    The limitations on HAM radios are NOT because of a danger to humans. The problem is that they interfere with other RF devices and some sensetive electronics... You are of course correct that high levels of RF can hurt people - stand in front of a high-power radar and you really can be "cooked," but that's at least 3 orders of magnitude higher than anything available to average citizens.

    Also, comparing HAM to cell phones is like apples and oranges - modern cell phones operate using very different technology - the reason why digital cells were so sucessful was because in digital mode, they use about a tenth the power as the analog devices did. Part of that is in the electronics, but a lot of it is because there's compression and error correction in digital data, so less power is needed to transmit it.



    Originally posted by dlbrummels


    Very much correct, there is every reason to take whatever safety precautions you can.

    I have been in electronics my whole adult life. I have been repairing computers since there was home computers.

    I know the risks of the technologies.

    Sure, you may not be the one to be affected by it, but maybe someone you care about maybe.

    And to the person who said their family member smoked his whole life and didn't get cancer, good for them !

    Don't make the exception the rule, smoking kills, if you don't think so may GOD have mercy on you.

    If you think for one moment that the goverment will protect you, just look around at what is left of our Vietnam Vets.

    MMMM.... statistics, interesting, less than 10% unemployment ?
    Guess what, they stop counting you when your benefits run out, and if you didn't get them, your not even included in the statistic !

    Garbage IN Garbage Out...

    In neither of these posts did you address anything I said... you never gave any explanation for how low-level RF could hurt people... all you've done is claimed that the government is lying... the government has NOTHING to do with this. I am not a member of the government in any way, shape, or form, but I do know that my cell phone doesn't emit ionizing radiation. Can you actually respond to anything about the topic at hand?
  5. #65  
    Originally posted by keithmeyer
    For the record. The purpose of this thread should be for information...not for conspiracy theory. In addition:
    1. 10 minutes of sunlight a day does not cause cancer. Ultraviolet radiation exposure, damage, and repair of the resultant thymidine dimer formation (DNA) is a natural process. UV has many more beneficial effects, producing vitamin D for instance.
    2. Radiation exposure during ones lifetime IS quantitative and permanent. (Every X-ray, CT scan, and trans-continental flight...etc...) Stays with you for life.....
    3. There are not thousands of persons with head and neck induced melanoma who may die of surgical resection. I don't think I have ever seen ONE.
    4. I posted earlier (page 2) references on Pubmed supporting and not supporting the theory of CDMA and GSM induced biological cell damage. For the record...radiation does damage biological cells. Radiofrequency waves are a subset of radiation, although presumably less potent.

    Again...there is nothing wrong with informational discussion.

    What is the mechanism by which RF damages cells? UV and up is capable of ionizing atoms in biological cells, and the resulting damage is understandable. But it is IMPOSSIBLE for RF to ionize anything... so aside from heating, how can it damage biological cells?

    Again, I'm not completely closed to the possibility of RF being harmful, but when there's studies as conflicted as you pointed out, I need to see a mechanism to be convinced.

    BTW, on #2, that just isn't true... what is "staying with you"? having lots of X-rays or high-altitude flights stick with you in the sense that each one increases the risk of cancer, but EM radiation cannot "stick inside" anything. And as I said, the cancer risk only applies to dosages of ionizing radiation... (Radioactive decay products can, but that's a completely unrelated effect.)
  6. #66  
    Originally posted by dlbrummels
    ....
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by dgoodisi


    And aliens built the pyramids...

    Seriously I read that article very closely. Nowhere did it sat that cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage.

    All it says is "might", "possibly", and "maybe".

    And I still don't see why you would want to turn wireless mode off.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ....


    Excuse me?...
    There is NO EXCUSE.

    Thank you SO MUCH for quoting me out of context.

    My reply was to a previous thread.

    And yes, you can also pump the equivelent of 200 cans of soda into a rat and give it cancer. Guess you better stop drinking soda as well.

    Come down off your high horse and join the real world.

    Or at least keep YOUR facts and statistics correct.
  7. #67  
    Originally posted by keithmeyer
    For the record. The purpose of this thread should be for information...not for conspiracy theory. In addition:
    1. 10 minutes of sunlight a day does not cause cancer. Ultraviolet radiation exposure, damage, and repair of the resultant thymidine dimer formation (DNA) is a natural process. UV has many more beneficial effects, producing vitamin D for instance.
    2. Radiation exposure during ones lifetime IS quantitative and permanent. (Every X-ray, CT scan, and trans-continental flight...etc...) Stays with you for life.....
    3. There are not thousands of persons with head and neck induced melanoma who may die of surgical resection. I don't think I have ever seen ONE.
    4. I posted earlier (page 2) references on Pubmed supporting and not supporting the theory of CDMA and GSM induced biological cell damage. For the record...radiation does damage @.biological cells. Radiofrequency waves are a subset of radiation, although presumably less potent.

    Again...there is nothing wrong with informational discussion.

    1. Fair skinned people who sunburn easily, which for thousands can occur within 10 minutes of direct sunlight, are at a particularly high risk for skin cancer when exposed daily as you have included. The resulting biological changes/damage to the cells structure, sunburn, is a direct result of exposure to the sun uv.

    Your mention of the vitamin D benefits, which can positively affect bone density, along with your incorrect statement that 10 minutes a day of sun is of no risk is convoluted to say the least in light of your current statements and concerns with regard to the dangers of RF waves.

    2. Are you suggestiig that rf waves expose people to radiation and are quantitative and permanent? Please present me some case studies or papers written on such. I would appreciate it.

    3. Briefly, the dangers and resulting disfigurements and or deaths from skin cancer are alarming and should be of far greater concern then any possible rf wave side affects from cell phones, which to this point have not been proven.

    4. Please indicate were it is written that RF waves directly cause changes to the cell structure. I would like see a case study showing this direct cooreltion that you suggest.

    The fact is, there are more leaps going on here then in a herd
    of gazelles.

    Informative medical discussions require a rational degree of evidence be brought forth and not conjecture as has been presented here.

    Ps.Trans Continental flights staying with you the rest of your life? For what it's worth, this is a perfect example of how bizzare the discussion here has become.
    Last edited by JTREOB; 01/26/2004 at 08:09 PM.
  8. #68  
    Cataracts are more of a concern than brain tumors w.r.t. microwave radiation.

    (semi-ot: mention the "cataract problem" to the next cop who stops ya for speeding...)
  9. #69  
    Originally posted by Eteq


    The limitations on HAM radios are NOT because of a danger to humans. The problem is that they interfere with other RF devices and some sensetive electronics... You are of course correct that high levels of RF can hurt people - stand in front of a high-power radar and you really can be "cooked," but that's at least 3 orders of magnitude higher than anything available to average citizens.

    Also, comparing HAM to cell phones is like apples and oranges - modern cell phones operate using very different technology - the reason why digital cells were so sucessful was because in digital mode, they use about a tenth the power as the analog devices did. Part of that is in the electronics, but a lot of it is because there's compression and error correction in digital data, so less power is needed to transmit it.
    I disagree with this. Granted, part of the regulations are to prevent your transmission from disturbing other signals, much of it is indeed due to personal safety. Why is it suggested that a long "rubber duckie" antenna be used on a hand held radio when the SWR of those antennas is somewhat poor? I heard its to try and minimize the RF radiation expose to your head and keep the transmission above you.


    As for the power of cell phones versus hams, I'm not sure of the improvements between a digitial transmissions compared to an analog one, but according to a previous post, the power of the transmission was said to be about 2 watts. That is a considerable amount of power for a transmission of extended duration and of close proximity to your body. Again, cell phones when in conversation, are almost always putting out a transmission. Although this is an assumption, I think only a very very low output of 1 watt or less can be considered safe since there is constant exposure.



    Just in regards to this whole topic, I consider cell phones to be quite dangerous. But I still have one (Treo 300). I try and use it as little as possible but I still consider my useage to be harmful. At the risk of sounding pessimistic and maybe a bit dramatic, I think were going to see widespread symptoms of this unprecedented use of a transceiver (the cell phone), in years from now. Maybe it will be in the form of cancer or cataracts or who knows what, I can't see cell phones as being harmless devices when the knowledge I picked up in ham radio suggests otherwise.
  10. Minsc's Avatar
    Posts
    967 Posts
    Global Posts
    974 Global Posts
    #70  
    From what I've gathered reading some related threads at HoFo, I believe the max power of a CDMA phone is actually only 200 mW (milliwatts) whereas GSM phones are 2W. However, because GSM uses time slots it's actually only transmitting 1/8 of the time - so maybe this offsets the higher power levels somewhat.
    Regardless, I have a hard time believing that 200 mW (probably less, most of the time) is enough to cook your brain.

    Incidentally, I've heard anecdotal stories that this very "pulsing" effect of GSM phones may actually be worse for you than the steady stream of CDMA. Again, anecdotal eveidence so take this with a grain of salt. The last thing I want to do is get a CDMA vs GSM thread going.
  11. #71  
    How can you have a steady conversation with a GSM phone when it only transmitts a set intervals?
  12. Minsc's Avatar
    Posts
    967 Posts
    Global Posts
    974 Global Posts
    #72  
    How can you have a steady conversation with a GSM phone when it only transmitts a set intervals?
    Because it happens so fast you don't hear any interruptions. With TDMA (which is what GSM is) you are sharing your frequency with other users, each taking turns in a round-robin fashion. -so at any one time, only one conversation is happening on that frequency. But by splitting the frequency up into "time slots", you can all share it.
    Others here can probably give a better explanation than that.
  13. mgauss's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    745 Global Posts
    #73  
    A lot of posts here are missing the point.

    If your own kid asked you Dad, what about the phone?

    Here is what you would say:

    1) Use a headset if you are going to use it more than a few seconds.

    2) While you use the headset place the phone away from the body

    3) Try to use it for business and not for pleasure (while its on)

    Right?
  14. #74  
    Originally posted by mgauss
    A lot of posts here are missing the point.

    If your own kid asked you Dad, what about the phone?

    Here is what you would say:

    1) Use a headset if you are going to use it more than a few seconds.

    2) While you use the headset place the phone away from the body

    3) Try to use it for business and not for pleasure (while its on)

    Right?
    I must be a terrible parent. I got my daughter a Treo 600 for Christmas.

    1) Screw the headset. Your just going to loose it anyway.

    2) Hold that sucker right up next to your ear good a tight.

    3) Your twelve, I sure hope your not using it for "business."

    This thread is a riot, aren't statistics fun?

    Every hear the one "Which is worse, being locked in a room with 2 economists, or spending an eternity in hades (pc attempt here )"

    Check out these "top 10 myths about cancer" and focus on myth 8
    http://health.discovery.com/centers/...op10myths.html


    And check out this artical on "statistical variation" and why all those cell phone studies amount to a pile of horse poo.
    http://www.siddeutsch.org/essay7.html


    And finally do a google search on "chance of getting cancer from a cell phone". Not only will you find the two links above but you will also find that the top 10 search results all say cell phones don't cause disease!

    I defy ANYONE to state unequivocally that a cell phone is more dangerous than ANY of the following:
    1) Riding in a car
    2) Flying in an airplane
    3) Riding a bike
    4) Playing soccer
    5) Crossing the street
    6) Sticking a cotton swab in yor ear

    Ok number 6 may be a stretch, but I doubt it.
  15. #75  
    The conjecture posted here regarding the dangers of cell phone usage reminds of the hypochonrdiac who upon his death at the ripe age of 97 had placed the following words on his tomb stone,

    " See, I told you I was sick"
  16. #76  
    Just something to think about... I'm not saying the treo can or cannot cause problems to your health - however, the fact of the matter is that antennas do cause health damage - how much depends on the exact frequency and power...

    I'm not too concerned about the treo affecting my health (although maybe I should be? - paranoid?)... What I am concerned about is that there is in fact - a known level of radiation that will cause harm - and I've never seen a warning label on any phone which identified that level. Whether or not the chances of the radiation from the treo are a fraction of what is needed to cause damage - that fraction still translates to a percentage of people that will have problems.
  17. mgauss's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    745 Global Posts
    #77  
    In radiation circles there is something called ALARA "as low as reasonably achievable"

    There is no such thing as too little X rays. Even the smallest X ray has risk. And with radiation, risk is not always linear. Many factors, age, sex, nutrition, etc., are in play.

    When it comes to RF "radiation" (non-ionizing radiation), there is no concensus. I think we will know a lot more over the next 50 to 100 years.

    In the 50's kids used to get X rays in shoe stores to be fit. Well today that looks ridiculous.

    We might remember the early years of this century as the years when RF was allowed. We might have a future where it becomes a known problem.

    But then again, the issue might stay controversial for a long time.

    There is also the question of near field and far field. Near field is avoided when using a headset, not when the antenna is on the cranium.
  18. #78  
    Originally posted by Melvin2

    Here is a link to the radiation level chart. Please don't forget to return to the forum and post your reply. Thanks.

    http://www.sarshield.com/english/radiationchart.htm

    There may be reason for concern, but there have been several studies done on the effects of extended use of cell phones done by various goverment agencies and university studies.

    Most have concluded that cell phone use is relatively safe, including the most extensive study done to date reported recently in the national news.

    I couldn't find a link to that most recent study but did turn up these links:

    http://mednews.wustl.edu/medadmin/PA...256BDE00745F31

    http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/600_phone.html

    to be fair there are some studies that have been done with conflicting results, so I remain cautious but not alarmed, at least not yet!
    No good deed goes unpunished
  19. #79  
    Just one more thing to consider.. Remember, the FCC is the government agency that regulates the majority of these issues, concerns and complaints... the same agency that allocates frequencies and gets paid by these large corporations millions of dollars for licenses to use these frequencies... at what point do they say that the frequency or power level that a phone uses becomes harmless and that they won't sell or accept money (millions of dollars) from a company to use that frequency/power level?

    I'm fairly certain the FCC has not documented some of the reports or that they at least support the fact that studies are inconclusive so that they can sit back and collect millions. They are just playing dumb so that they have no liability...
  20. #80  
    Originally posted by dlbrummels


    To believe the goverments findings on anything hook line and sinker, is just scary, they are all about disinformation, lies, cover-ups, and the public right to know.

    With politicians for hire, goverment under the wing off big business, do you think you will hear otherwise ?

    They can hear every conversation and listen to every phone call, do you think the would want to lose trillions of dollars on recalls, fixing the problems ?
    Being in a global economy, this must be the evil secret government that rules the whole world, right?

    They are obviously pretty ineffective if you and the other bold few who preach the word are able to do so without the black helicopters zooming in under cover of darkness to make you disappear without a trace.

    Now back to the X-Files....
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions