Solution to Overcome Health Risks of Mobile Phones

Have you any idea how big the antena would need to be at khz ?

a quarter wave which is used the most would be at 150khz =1640 feet

compared to 3.28 inches at 900 mhz

somtimes a 1 eighth lenth is used so at 900 mhz = 1.64 inches

and at 150 khz = 820 feet.

can you spot why your idea wouldnt work?

any way so far the damage to humans is at the moment just thermal heating a bit like sticking your head in a microwave

"by the way you know the texting service everyone takes for granted was never intended for public use, It was set up to allow engineers to have communications without interfering with the rest of the system."

And the phone companies are reaping millions of $ on something that essentially uses no additional band width. Bastards!

On a slightly different note people complain about the milliwatts ( millionths of a watt )of power used by cell phone but no mention is made of TV and radio transmitters.

example where i live in the UK, there is a TV radio mast in Sutton Coldfield that transmits on 1MW of power no not 1 Milly watt

ONE MILLION WATTS

AND PEOPLE LIVE WITHIN A FEW HUNDRED YARDS OF THIS.

and your right no one says a word.

http://www.aerialsandtv.com/emleymoortx.html

http://www.zyra.org.uk/phonmast.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichfield_transmitting_station

http://www.aerialsandtv.com/suttoncoldfieldtx.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

sorry but radio systems are my hobby

you would never gues would you

people complain about the milliwatts ( millionths of a watt )

I just checked, for US. One milliwatt is one thousandth of a Watt. I haven't done any research for UK, I take your word for granted.

Just for yor info: 1 milliwatt is 1/1000 watt. 1 millionths is called a MICROWATT

????

Sorry, must have missed the postman.

Thank you so much. I could see your expertise in ths field was very evident from such elaborate explanation. I have visited radio trasnmitter stations in the medium wave frequency and those antennas are really huge - especially to get the directivity etc.

There was an article in our local newspaper explaining harmful effects of these devices and why we have to live with it- as we do not have alternative solution. He was explaining how younger children in the age 5 to 6 have started using cell phones and what would be impact on them by the time they are 40 / 50 years- I will not be around to find out, but I thought I MUST try to find some solution.

You have said people living near TV transmitetrs do not have problems and those frequencies are not so high. If you don't like few hundred kilohertzs, stay closer to say 10 to 20 MHz as far as handset is concerned. Let the antenna handling 450 / 900 MHz be away from the body. Fine if you are driving in a car- keep a WI-FI antenna which communicates over 450/ 900 MHz and your handset can connect to the WIFI trasnceiver. I am fully aware that we can never discard the 450 / 900 MHz infrastructure - but trying to see how that can be kept beyond arms length. Whatever you have expalined about switching frequencies from cell to cell / tower to tpower etc will be handled by this WI-FI or remote antenna (physically away from human body). For such short distances the hand set need not use such a huge antenna and can operate at low power too.

Basically WE MUST FIND A SOLUTION - ATLEAST FOR THOSE WHO WILL USE IT FOR NEXT 30 TO 40 YEARS. We should not turn a blind eye to the problem.

Come on Redfred, they're not going to sell newspapers by repeating that sort of information. GA

Thank you. This says what I was wanting to say, and says it extremely well.

Yamdankee,

I try not to get into a polemic that goes nowhere. I have read your posting and, from the number of GA, it seems that you have impressed a lot of people.

But when you started to mention eV for radio transmitter energy I ascertained that you are not an engineer. Because, if you were one, you would look and found that Wikipedia states:

"The radio waves emitted by a GSM handset can have a peak power of 2 watts, and a US analogue phone had a maximum transmit power of 3.6 watts." That is, a much larger energy will act on anybody's brain, depending on the distance of the cell phone from the head and the duration of the transmission.

For me, what you have presented has false premises, therefore, false conclusions.

I think that the problem is still open, WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF A 3WATT TRANSMITTER PLACED 2 INCH FROM YOUR BRAIN ?

Sorry Indel but Yamdankee got it exactly right. You see the electron volt energy value he is mentioning is the energy per photon, not the average energy per second that transforms an energy unit into a power unit of watts. The energy per photon inversely correlates to the frequency of the radiation and as the Compton effect demonstrated there is a minimum energy per photon threshold for several effects to happen.

....The energy that mobile phones emit is somewhere between 1.24 and 12.4 µeV.

Yeah, exactly right

Excellent report. Thanks. I seem to have missed it. Just for my information what is that electron volt energy level mean?

Let us take specifically at 300 MHz wave length is 1 meter. What is the interpretation of 1.24 micro eV? Is it tolerance limit for humans or how do you interpret it?

I was not looking for definition of electron volt. I was trying understand meaning behind various numbers given in the last column ENERGY in the table. What is meaning behind those numbers at differnt frequency levels from few hertzs to many GHz, THz and EHz

I do not understand the point of your confusion. You asked what an electron volt means and I gave you the short answer and various links to Wikipedia to help you in the fine details. I cannot give you a formal understanding of the Physics of electromagnetic theory, or of human biochemistry in under 20 questions. The table you seem to find confusing of values of frequency and energy level are just the transformation of the photon's frequency to energy using Planck's constant. If you sit down with a calculator, the Wiki link to Planck's constant and crunch those numbers you'll see.

I will check this article more in detail when I have some more time to put in it.

Looks like a nice presentation but a quick view tells me, nice try.

One flaw in this statement is that "the waves cannot penetrate the skin, skull e.g".

Do the test: make a phone call surrounded or covered with or by 5 GA's persons if you do not have the skulls available, and leave no space open where the waves " can escape".

And what is your body, skull and brain different from the rest?

I didn't do the test but I am confident you will make your call and the waves will reach the nearest GSM antenna mast.

Evidence provided or am I that dumb?

The house I live in is made of say roughly concrete with a 12 X 16 inch rebar 5 mesh, and ceilings, in epicore plate. (steel galvanized dovetail support frames)

I still can make telephone calls through this "almost" cage of Faraday.

The high frequency Motorola transmitter "walkie talkies" even work in steel tanks.

Here I suppose the author is dead wrong.

If GSM should prove to be a danger, my prediction would be more:

through disturbance of our nervous control system, rather than cooking, heating, frying, freezing brain cells

- Again nothing has been proven yet

But.... our nerves transmit small signals to be compared with kind of electric, energetic pulses.

Can someone fill me in with the nature of it please?

As long as the functions are not affected,( pulses of the GSM infiltrating the nerve strings - making us do unplanned things) we will not feel any discomfort yet. I also think communication protocols between GSM and brains do not match in a life threathening way.

And if some matches accidentally occur, we still have the override capacity for correction through another string or different type signal, (stick a needle in your finger- pain will make you stop. no?) maybe that causes the headache with some.

In the worse scenario there will be just some more lunatics on the earth, but will who will notice?

I only have a headache when mother- in- law calls, but that is a different story. No good answer from me (yet)

Yamdankee,

You said it all and with concrete proof much more enriching than what I'd read previously. Another GA for you.

In all the noise and argument about radio wave having health risks like causing cancer and all that, I'd always reasoned that in the electromagnetic spectrum, Radio wave has the longest wave length and least penetrating power as compared to X-Ray and Gamma Radiation. More over Radio wave does not react on body tissues since it is a non particle hence stands no chance of constituting a dangerous health risk except burning the skin when exposed to high concentration of microwave frequency.

Health risks of Radio frequency radiation has been a topical issue for a very long time and providing some good debate from time to time, even in this forum, see

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/16131#newcomments and

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/17179#newcomments

Furthermore, most pro health-risk-of-microwave writings i'd been opportuned to read had been more speculative than factual and engendering more fear in people.

This can only be called fear factor and not different from the fear of using mobile phones in gas stations.

This fear became so alarming in Nigeria that the Nigerian Communications commission, in August 2009, came out and dismissed the notion that radiations from mobile phones and telecommunications masts can cause health hazards.

According to the Guardian newspapers of 18th August 2009, "The Executive Vice Chairman of NCC... gave the assurance at a public forum on mobile phone and base stations and health concerns in Lagos.

...that many researches had been carried out by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and no adverse effect had been noticed. He said, however, that phone users should maintain open minds and continue to monitor research findings on the issue..."

This singular effort from the regulating authority in Nigeria, doused the tension and allayed fear in most Nigerian but still there are some skeptics.

Cheers,

ethobil

You have said people living near TV transmitetrs do not have problems and those frequencies are not so high

i didnt say that i said no one complains.

Basically WE MUST FIND A SOLUTION - AT LEAST FOR THOSE WHO WILL USE IT FOR NEXT 30 TO 40 YEARS. We should not turn a blind eye to the problem

WELL AS YOU FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT WHY DONT YOU DO SOMTHING?

Please read all the below, and you cna then decide what to do next, But its your choice, No one is forcing you to use any dangerous equipment.

YOU QUOTED ME AS SAYING THIS

but trying to see how that can be kept beyond arms length.

Whatever you have expalined about switching frequencies from cell to cell / tower to tpower etc will be handled by this WI-FI or remote antenna (physically away from human body). For such short distances the hand set need not use such a huge antenna and can operate at low power too.

YOU NEED GLASSES COS I DIDNT

i didnt say anything about arms lenth.

i supect your mixing my description up with your newspaper articale

i didnt express an opinon just the facts.

the simple soloution is

1 dont let children age 5 and 6 use mobile phones ( who the hell are they calling anyway)

dont use mobile phones, i dont recall there being a law that says you must have one.

do you know theres more energy coming from the sun?

and more people die from sun realated issues, I KNOW LETS TURN THE SUN OFF !!

we all use technology and its our choice to use it if you have a problem with it dont use it.

I dont like drowning, easy i stay away from water.

ALSO I GET HEADACHES IF I STAND FOR LONG PERIODS UNDER POWER LINES.

SO GUESS WHAT I DO?

STAND SOMWHERE ELSE!!

we live in a society that blames everyone else ITS ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSES FAULT.

talking about dangerous, X-Rays can kill Ban them

TRY THIS

BUY A RADIO FREQUENCY COUNTER AND FIELD STRENGH METER AND HOLD IT NEAR YOU ANYWHERE IN A CITY.

YOU WILL BE STUNNED BY THE RADIO WAVES AND POWER IN THEM.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/magnetic-fields

1. What are electric and magnetic fields? Electricity is the movement of electrons, or current, through a wire. The type of electricity that runs through power lines and in houses is alternating current (AC). AC power produces two types of fields (areas of energy)-an electric field and a magnetic field. An electric field is produced by voltage, which is the pressure used to push the electrons through the wire, much like water being pushed through a pipe. As the voltage increases, the electric field increases in strength. A magnetic field results from the flow of current through wires or electrical devices and increases in strength as the current increases. These two fields together are referred to as electric and magnetic fields, or EMFs. Both electric and magnetic fields are present around appliances and power lines. However, electric fields are easily shielded or weakened by walls and other objects, whereas magnetic fields can pass through buildings, humans, and most other materials. Since magnetic fields are most likely to penetrate the body, they are the component of EMFs that are usually studied in relation to cancer. The focus of this fact sheet is on extremely low-frequency magnetic fields. Examples of devices that emit these fields include power lines and electrical appliances, such as electric shavers, hair dryers, computers, televisions, electric blankets, and heated waterbeds. Most electrical appliances have to be turned on to produce a magnetic field. The strength of a magnetic field decreases rapidly with increased distance from the source.
2. Is there a link between magnetic field exposure at home and cancer in children? Numerous epidemiological (population) studies and comprehensive reviews have evaluated magnetic field exposure and risk of cancer in children (1, 2). Since the two most common cancers in children are leukemia and brain tumors, most of the research has focused on these two types. A study in 1979 pointed to a possible association between living near electric power lines and childhood leukemia (3). Among more recent studies, findings have been mixed. Some have found an association; others have not. These studies are discussed in the following paragraphs. Currently, researchers conclude that there is limited evidence that magnetic fields from power lines cause childhood leukemia, and that there is inadequate evidence that these magnetic fields cause other cancers in children (2). Researchers have not found a consistent relationship between magnetic fields from power lines or appliances and childhood brain tumors. In one large study by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Children's Oncology Group, researchers measured magnetic fields directly in homes (4). This study found that children living in homes with high magnetic field levels did not have an increased risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The one exception may have been children living in homes that had fields greater than 0.4 microtesla (µT), a very high level that occurs in few residences. Another study conducted by NCI researchers reported that children living close to overhead power lines based on distance measurements were not at greater risk of leukemia (5). To estimate more accurately the risks of leukemia in children from magnetic fields resulting from power lines, researchers pooled (combined) data from many studies. In one pooled study that combined nine well-conducted studies from several countries, including a study from the NCI, a twofold excess risk of childhood leukemia was associated with exposure to magnetic fields above 0.4 µT (6). In another pooled study that combined 15 studies, a similar increased risk was seen above 0.3 µT (7). It is difficult to determine if this level of risk represents a real increase or if it results from study bias. Such study bias can be related to the selection of study subjects or possibly to other factors that relate to levels of magnetic field exposure. If magnetic fields caused childhood leukemia, certain patterns would have been found such as increasing risk with increasing levels of magnetic field exposure. Another way that people can be exposed to magnetic fields is from household electrical appliances. Several studies have investigated this relationship (2). Although magnetic fields near many electrical appliances are higher than near power lines, appliances contribute less to a person's total exposure to magnetic fields. This is because most appliances are used only for short periods of time, and most are not used close to the body, whereas power lines are always emitting magnetic fields. In a detailed evaluation, investigators from NCI and the Children's Oncology Group examined whether the use of household electrical appliances by the mother while pregnant and later by the child increased the risk of childhood leukemia. Although some appliances were associated with childhood leukemia, researchers did not find any consistent pattern of increasing risk with increasing years of use or how often the appliance was used (8). A few other studies have reported mostly inconsistencies or no relation between appliances and risk of childhood cancer. Occupational exposure of mothers to high levels of magnetic fields during pregnancy has been associated with childhood leukemia in a Canadian study (9). Similar studies need to be done in other populations to see if this is indeed the case.
3. Is there a link between magnetic field exposure in the home and cancer in adults? Although several studies have looked into the relationship of leukemia, brain tumors, and breast cancer in adults exposed to magnetic fields in the home, there are only a few large studies with long-term, magnetic field measurements. No consistent association between magnetic fields and leukemia or brain tumors has been established. The majority of epidemiological studies have shown no relationship between breast cancer in women and magnetic fields from electrical appliances. Recent studies of breast cancer and magnetic fields in the home have included direct and indirect magnetic field measurements. These studies mostly found no association between breast cancer in females and magnetic fields from power lines or electric blankets (10, 11, 12, 13). A Norwegian study found a risk for exposure to magnetic fields in the home (14), and a study in African-American women found that use of electric bedding devices may increase breast cancer risk (15).

CR4 Admin: Modified Post

Copyright Violation: Reduced copied text according to copyright law. Please see Section 13 of the CR4 FAQ about posting copyrighted material.

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=2050&Title=Mobile phones-the latest

http://www.radiationresearch.org/

http://www.amazinghealth.co.uk/Electro%20pollution%20and%20harmful%20effects%20of%20radiaition.htm

Hi Peter, You and I are both old enough to know that Asbestos has been a top product too. Cigarette smoke? , Nicotine, Hydrocarbons?

Humans are able to adapt, but only that much. It took decades to find the link between the disease and the cause. Maybe GSM, Cell phone and a HF computer on your lap, close to your reproductive jewelery, don't prove to be life threatening (yet). Rabbits use no phones.

I agree one day in the future we may i suspect regret using mobile phones, laptops etc.

But at the moment i see things as way beyond my control.

Its a bit like saying i dont like night time, But it still comes around each evening.

Bandwidth technical restrictions.

Bandwidth technical restrictions

what??

Lower carrier frequencies are proven less efficient to transmit and separate "channels" or even digital information THROUGH THE AIR.

The extreme theoretical hypothesis is: a carrier @20kHz has only room for 1 analog audio channel. Power need is a next issue.

I've just found these new links

Regarding cell phones.

There is much confusing data regarding problems, The frequency has thermal heating properties and heats tissue like the Kitchen microwaves.

I personally get headaches when using a phone for over 5 Min's.

What i do think is the problem is the way the newer phones work ie digitally this seems to interfere with the brain.

I was watching a program the other day which uses pulsed magnetic fields on the skull to stop the brain from sending signals to the hand in this demonstration.

Now if a pulsed magnetic wave can do that its clear that external stimuli can affect the body, What isn't known is by how much and if has any long term effects, But as i say if it can be proven to affect the brain which it can as i saw it, then you now have evidence that not only does electromagnetic waves cause thermal heating but also interruption of signals, So the question now is what else is affected?

Remember Asbestos, Cigarettes, Thalidomide, etc all these were thought to safe once, the effects take time to show.

All of the links below relate to pulsed magnetics

it is logical that if it can heal it can also damage, if used wrongly

http://www.wddty.com/dental-fillings.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation

l

NOW HERES THE PROBLEM THE ABOVE LINKS PROVE ELECTROMAGNEITC FIELDS CAN EFFECT THE BODY, SO HOW CAN THE SAME PEOPLE SAY PULSED RADIO WAVES CANNOT HARM YOU ??????????

Ok let me go sequentially to answer each of your links.

Mercury based dental fillings. http://www.wddty.com/dental-fillings.html

Yes, it appears that better technology exists to replace a filling today than the old mercury amalgams. I consider this to be a cheap shot though because mercury based amalgam fillings were the best material available at the time. Even with 20/20 hind sight despite the long term risks now being slowly recognized, the short term hazard of acute pain, possible disfigurement and the occasionally death for not treating a tooth cavity far out weighs the long term risks.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation and http://www.musc.edu/tmsmirror/intro/layintro.html

Well first this first link appears to be a Wikipedia link to research where a repetitive 2 Tesla magnetic field gets pulsed with a frequency of about 100kHz. The nominal magnetic field of a cell phone is 3 to 40 milli-Tesla with a frequency of hundreds of MHz. That is at least fifty times smaller in intensity than the magnetic stimulation and thousands of times higher frequency. But the magnetic stimulation is being researched as a possible therapy for some conditions. The following links confirms the possible therapeutic effects but mentions nothing about field strength or frequency. Certainly at the correct frequency and energy level electromagnetic fields can and do effect the human body. Just not the ones chosen for cell phone use.

A Bluetooth or wired headset suffices to remove the phone away from the head area. Bluetooth transmit power is very small compared to cell phone transmit power, because the range is intentionally just a few feet.

Here's a solution that will work for everyone: safety freaks, engineers and last but hardly least, fashion mavens.

Remember beanie caps? Those little round caps with a propeller freewheeling in a horizontal plane at the top of the cap? The ultimate fashion statement?

Let's redesign cell phone transmissions as retro beanie caps. The cap is made of aluminized cloth, so as to provide a good ground plane for the quarter-wave antenna emanating vertically from the top. Contrary to assertions elsewhere in this thread, the majority of cell phones now operate around 1.875 GHz. That is one-sixth meter wavelength, and a quarter-wave stub is thus one-twenty-fourth of a wavelength, or about 4 cm, less than two inches. At the base of the stub is the cell transmit electronics, and a frequency converter from Bluetooth to cell frequency. The hand held cell phone now is nothing but the keypad and display electronics, plus a battery. There is also a battery (very thin, and wide) built into the cap.

Now note the benefits:

1) The transmit antenna, working above and against the beanie cap ground plane, is extremely efficient, and range is greatly improved.

2) Because the antenna is so much better, you need much less transmit power for the same range, hence you get more talk time per charge, or you need less battery for the same amount of talk time.

3) And less rf exposure.

4) The person's head, being below the beanie cap, is shielded from the cell phone transmissions. This is real folks: the beanie cap radius is longer than the radiating antenna stub, making it a good ground plane, and a good shield. Of course, for even better range, and better shielding, you could go from beanie cap to ten-gallon Stetson. That would be particularly popular in the southwest (USA).

5) You would have essentially hands-free operation, once the call was placed.

In a rational world, one run by geeks and engineers, this plan would make me a freaking billionaire. Or more precisely, this is the way cell phones would have been developed in the first place, since technically it works way better than the present antenna in the handset model.

But all of these considerations are offset by fashion sense. Beanies are so passe. Think about what this says for the the priorities of our world...

emc_c

Search on the green sites - you can find all sorts of fruitcakes interested in this topic. First you need to come up with just one reputable study showing some linkage to a disease of any kind. Not all types of asbestos are dangerous Not all forms of mercury are dangerous However uneducated BS is generally dangerous

I checked some green sites.

Pardon me to not have found:

1. interested fruitcakes

2. non toxic asbestos

3. forms of mercury, other than Hg

4. educated or uneducated BS

5. that link......... At least, the good news is that there is none found yet, but once there is, it is called knowledge or science. What we do is brainstorming as vigilant research.

Welcome.

I don't think it is up to us to "make" a link to a disease, but to provide a exchange of ideas coming from various disciplines to not take a chance to detect this link only after 1970 years of use of the GSM or Cellphone, as it took for asbestos, counting only from the year 1 BC. Unless you come up with evidence of the contrary

I consider ALL asbestos and Hg dangerous.

Of course this is my personal interpretation.

Wrong on all types of mercury being toxic Wrong on all types of asbestos being dangerous One green topic with some of the more loony bunch is EMF and magnetic bands around the world where they also tend to dump in cell phone radiation.

One item I guess people miss in this discussion is that there are two types of frequencies in the mobile communications.

1st the carrier frequency and 2nd the internal frequency. 900 Mhz GSM uses 210 Hz for internal periodic signals. So it is time division and carrier frequency issue.

The body cells communicate with each other with electrical signals in minute electrical levels and they have also low frequency communications.

For that reason, it is not the heat effect or the carrier frequency immediately but there are other unknown effects to us yet.

In UMTS/WCDMA systems the issue is even graver for this internal frequency is even lower.

And one last comment about High Voltage Power lines... We have a fair area in my home town. In my teenage years we used to go for hunting and we used to walk the hills and valley whole day with our guns. In that fair area, after only walking 2 hours I was getting exhausted, for which I learned later on that the power lines were underground. So whether it makes cancer or not, they have an effect- an obivous one!

Regards, Korkut

EXCELLENT- you have cited personal experience. Let the scientists go on giving links and references. Real concerns are being brushed by bombarding with with irrelevant information. SOLUTION MUST BE FOUND. Infact teh Guest has made a very practical sugegstion - fashion designers may not like it. Ultimately one day teh earthligs will look like those imaginary Martians with antenna stcking out of their head as shown in some science fiction. It will be reality and not a joke.

I guess you read only the high voltage part and name the rest personal experience.

Yes, that was a personal experience and it was for real because all people felt the same in that area. Now let us remove your ignorance a bit: go read on web

1. The effect of power lines on cow orientation (and maybe first you should have known that they orient themselves according to geomagnetic field),

2. How bees, whales, and birds find direction with geomagnetic field and how they are affected with artificial EMI. (Ulrich Warnke)

3. Robert O. Becker, The Body Electric, Cross Currents (the semiconducting nature of body and its systems)

If you will need to check more, then you should kindly ask for it...

And about the real solution, use less mobile, dont use dect use conventional PSTN, use your mobile with earphone preferably with HF ferrit bead and or at least with bluetooth, and sleep in a EM free place, a Faraday caged bedroom. Thus, you will have more melatonin and eventually seratonin and you wont write me such comments any more.

But about power lines or 50/60 Hz magnetic field, no easy solution can be found...

Plz dummy funny comments no more...

This has been a fascinating discussion from my point of view (my profession was medicine rather than engineering). Please allow me to make 2 points:

1. The internet is a fantastic source of information, as long as you already have some idea of the subject and can recognise the dross when you see it.

2. An engineer is not as good at analysing biological data as someone trained in the biological sciences. Let us say that for engineers the maths skills are in physics whereas for biologists the prime maths skills lie in statistics. This is important, because there is no point in arguing the quality of information if you don't understand the statistics justifying that information.

From my point of view, the evidence for a radiation danger from mobile phones is somewhere between poor and non-existent. Yes, a commission in the UK has advised that children's use of mobile phones should be limited, but the evidence is still lacking and it is purely a precautionary gesture.

But don't take my word for it. Go and ask another biologist.

I partially agree with you but a biologist alone is not the authority in this topic either.

http://www.emf-portal.org/

There is plenty of work here for your review. Check couple of articles you would see that there are biologist but there are engineers as well. This is the field of biomedical research.

I do not think a biologist can calculate the EM absorption, radiation and penetration alone. When it comes to statistics, I had that stuff in my cirruculum. EE engineers receive the most math in all the engineering classes.

I would recommend reading EM effects on the heat shock protein, the phenomena of resonance, internal pulsation of modulations/technologies and its effect on brain waves. That might change your stance from a biologist point of view too.

There is no expert on this issue, there are approaches, ideas, opinions but only time will show who is right... Like cigarette case, like asbestos, like nuclear materialed face creams, we will learn it by the hard way it seems.

WKR,Korkut

Superman comic books are possibly a good reference work on this topic as well!

You are roght - teh raeltruth is "There is no expert on this issue, there are approaches, ideas, opinions but only time will show who is right... Like cigarette case, like asbestos, like nuclear materialed face creams, we will learn it by the hard way it seems".

Everyone has expressed their opinion. This seems to be similar to another controversial topic- the Monsanto Terminatror seeds issue (also known as Genetically modified (GM) seeds. Only Time will reveal the truth - but scientists must err on teh side of caution and try to find remedial solution instead of brushing things below the carpet (or rather heap of controversies)

With respect, the question is not how any damage is caused, but whether any damage is caused at all. This is purely a biological question, and there is no point in engineers rambling on about mechanisms of injury until there is something proven to ramble about. If you can present me with some new and compelling evidence that the use of mobile phones (specifically, not any other kind of radiation) causes any kind of damage to any kind of mammal brain or other skull tissues, I will be duly grateful.

With all due respect, this is supposed to be an engineer's blog. So a biological question placed here will produce engineers to ramble on about mechanisms. However, your point about this being both a biological question and that there has yet to be a credible citation of a actual biological effect is quite correct. In theory this is not a problem and in measured effects this is not a problem.

You are correct that the studies performed to date are equivocal about risks: some studies found positive risk correlation, while others found none at all, and it has not been possible for reviewers to figure out why these studies generated different results.

The precautionary approach is sensible, in part because the mixed results are not explained, and also because of the time scale factor. The existing studies look at (if I recall right) ten years of exposure. We know that the statistical risk of a tumor, even where there was a positive correlation found, is not huge. That is reassuring.

But what we have to remember is that the lifespan of the child who is going to be exposed to a cell phone every day is not just ten years. We hope, 80 years or maybe more. It would be very sad if the small increase in risk found after ten years, turned into a more significant risk after twenty years and more than that after thirty. For all we know, the risk could increase exponentially with longer exposures, and a large number of people in the 'cell phone generation' could suffer as a result.

Therefore consideration of precautionary measures and engineering alternatives is appropriate and reasonable under the circumstances.

.. another biologist.

Apparently there is some laboratory documented benefits of cell phone radiation in preventing or reversing Alzheimer's disease.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100106193217.htm

Apart from the lack of reasonable worry about this, why would anyone want to be at the beck and call of such an obnoxious technology in the first place? As Ambrose Bierce identified long ago, the telephone is an invention of the devil that abrogates the advantage of telling a pest to keep his distance. Just shut the damned thing off. That will keep your annoying ring tones from pestering nearby persons, to say nothing of protecting your precious head from irradiation.

1. What I aimed at and has puzzled me is - lots of arguments and end result uis ZERO.
2. CR$ administrators also to note - lot of heat gets generated without any light at the end of the tunnel.
3. What Tornado has stated in the last comemnt is - somebody has invented such a wonderful technology (mobile phones) anwe should libve with it.
4. I am fully for it. What I was trying to point out was - there are issues of side effects and health risks.
5. This itself should trigger an innovative mind to develop a solution, patent it and make mega bucks.
6. That is why I kept refering to wifi tech, having handset which operates at low ferquency (don't we have remote phones at home operating at low ferquency?) and let it communicate with an active antenna kept away.
7. This can mean having such remote active antenna in a car, in house, in office or one with long wire or no wire- so you carry a hand set + remote antenna. Keep remote antenna at a distance.
8. I am not in this field of wireless communication - otherwise - would have definitely pursued this idea. I was looking for practical handson people and not just critics, critics, critics.

"I was looking for practical handson people and not just critics, critics, critics."

Apparently you failed to read and/or comprehend the thoroughly researched post #44, above.

What can I tell you, some people just refuse to listen. They just like to talk.

It looks like we must postpone our discussion some 30 years, there is in Great Britain a movement for a larger study of the influence of the cell phone radio waves on humans. They intend to have it done on a large sample of the population, taking into consideration all the positions of the cell phone with respect to the body.

Read more here: Experiment

Hmm, with a median population age of 43.5 years and at present Great Britain has a life expectancy of 79.9 years then one should expect that nearly half of the study population will be dead after being studied for thirty years. I say that the actual lethal problem is doing a long term study and not using a cell phone.

This study brings up a few logistic questions though. Who pays for the cell phones of this group of human guinea pigs, experimenters or the experimented? What will happen to the participants and study integrity if a technology change occurs in 5, 10. or 20 years that significantly changes cell phone technology. Must participants cling to the old technology for the sake of this study, despite the peer ridicule. ("You're still using an iPhone 3G. No wonder you don't reply to my Feelly® links.)

What will happen to the participants and study integrity if a technology change occurs in 5, 10. or 20 years that significantly changes cell phone technology.

In fact this is the best argument to stopping the controversy in the discution about the cell phone. I will not give you a GA, I am against the system (unles I am receiving them!)

Oops! I have just received this link in the email:

Cancer?

It appears that this is another perfect example of how statistic misinformation can spread into a likely but unprovable lie. Your link titled "Cancer?" is to an article from the "Electronic Design" industry magazine. This author has read the summary of a long term medical study. In this summary of the medical study it is implied that the statistician recognized the set of long term high cell phone users who happened to have developed Cancer was too small of a group to reach any valid conclusions from the results found in this group. So instead of a simple statement by the statistician that this inconsistent anomaly in the number of Cancer patients that reside in this group cannot be considered statistically significant, the statistician made a plausible guess why the anomaly appears.

I find it hard to fault the statistician for proposing a reason for the anomaly. He did not obscure the anomaly nor his preference to say that this should not be considered significant. What I do find fault in is the implied idea that since this study could not exonerate cell phones from brain tumors that something must be happening. We are at least twice removed from the data and methodology of this study. We should not jump to any conclusions here.

Hopefully we can discuss, again, in ten or twenty (why not 30?) years from now. Till then, enjoy CR4, don't use your cell phone too much and, don't keep the cellular too close to your head (just in case!).

P.S. Not to prove anything, just to show that there is concern about this problem, San Francisco board has just passed this:

Cell Phone Emission Law

Let's wait on the controversy for the proposed time