Ok this is the first study that says there is a link, but let's assume for a moment that what it says is correct and it has the same effect in humans: Would the same also be true for wifi? According to Wikipedia the average cell phone TX power is 500 mW vs 200 mW for 802.11n [0]. Cell phones usually operate at lower frequency than wifi, however wifi (at 2.4Ghz) is at the same frequency as microwave ovens. In the stud…
Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study
31–40 of 163 posts
Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study
#32Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study
#33Ok this is the first study that says there is a link, but let's assume for a moment that what it says is correct and it has the same effect in humans: Would the same also be true for wifi? According to Wikipedia the average cell phone TX power is 500 mW vs 200 mW for 802.11n [0]. Cell phones usually operate at lower frequency than wifi, however wifi (at 2.4Ghz) is at the same frequency as microwave ovens. In the stud…
Power of transmission is only one part; another is distance to the source, since AFAIR the power drops off at a rate inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Being exposed to a router at a few meters, and even to a computer at a meter or so, is probably significantly different from having your phone touching your head or in your pocket.
Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study
#34Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Click the "web" link below the title.
I feel like I'm missing something. Here's what I see: http://i.imgur.com/GAGo2y5.jpg What should I click on?
Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study
#36I'm too much of an idiot here. What frequencies, range, power? How about other ubiquitous signals like Wi-Fi?
Wifi exposure using a computer should be hundreds of times lower than a cellphone that is emitting radio at full power next to your head. If you are talking about Wifi in your phone, its' basically the same effect/power as GSM/CDMA.
Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Power of transmission is only one part; another is distance to the source, since AFAIR the power drops off at a rate inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Being exposed to a router at a few meters, and even to a computer at a meter or so, is probably significantly different from having your phone touching your head or in your pocket.
The third significant element in addition to the two you mentioned is motion. Static field does a lot more damage than a moving field.
Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
The third significant element in addition to the two you mentioned is motion. Static field does a lot more damage than a moving field.
Why is that? Is it because the tissues are exposed continuously at the same place?
Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study
#39Ok this is the first study that says there is a link, but let's assume for a moment that what it says is correct and it has the same effect in humans: Would the same also be true for wifi? According to Wikipedia the average cell phone TX power is 500 mW vs 200 mW for 802.11n [0]. Cell phones usually operate at lower frequency than wifi, however wifi (at 2.4Ghz) is at the same frequency as microwave ovens. In the stud…
I think the reason why people worry about cell phones and not other radio equipment is that they are transmitting very close to the body. Remember, EM intensity falls off as 1/r^2 so proximity makes a big difference.
Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study
#40I did a physics degree at uni, and then spent many years working in genomics. And I've never (even before the biology work) assumed the "non-ionising radiation can not cause cancer" to be a true statement. You can only come to that conclusion if you assume that ionisation effects are the only pathways that can cause cancer.
After working with biologists for many years I've come to the understanding that biology is extremely complex, we have an extremely limited understanding of it, and there could be any number of as yet undiscovered effects of non-ionising radiation on cellular biology.
I would hope that as more of these studies are done (this is not the first and probably wont be the last) that we would hear less of this dogma spouted by supposedly smart people, but I doubt this will happen. It doesn't matter what you do, intelligence and education often go hand in hand with ego and a feeling of infallibility. And the dismissive "non-ionising radiation can not cause cancer" people never miss an opportunity to tell you that doubting this "proven fact" makes you stupid.