Testing Cell Phone Radiation on Humans 159
Palm Addict writes "News.com reports that Finland's radiation watchdog is to study the effects of mobile phones on human proteins by direct tests on people's skin. From the article: 'A pilot study, to be conducted next week, will expose a small area of skin on volunteers' arms to cell phone radiation for the duration of a long phone call, or for one hour, research professor Dariusz Leszczynski said on Friday.'"
Radiation sauna (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Radiation sauna (Score:2)
Re:Radiation sauna (Score:2)
Re:Radiation sauna (Score:1)
Re:Radiation sauna (Score:2)
> ring bell
You press what you though was the bell ringing
button, but unfortunately choose the electric
shock button instead. Your realize your mistake
just as 12,000 volts of current uses you your body
as a conductor to ground.
YOU HAVE DIED. Press return to see how you scored.
Sounds good, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA.
In previous tests, Leszczynski's group found evidence of mobile phone radiation causing cell-level changes such as shrinkage, but he said it was still impossible to say if that had significant health effects.
"Cells function in a different way when they are in the body than in laboratory surroundings. Now we want to confirm whether radiation causes cell level changes in humans as well," he said.
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:2)
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:2)
Expose the human brain to typical UV exposure that the skin receives and how long do you think it will be before cancers and tumours start to form.
This is not an experiment to test cell phone usage, it is a blatant attempt to prove the safe use of cell phones. Science as marketing, which to me always means there
they already did that (Score:2)
and the mutant spawn that resulted wrote the new test protocol
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:2)
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:2)
This reminds me of mobile cooking (Score:2, Funny)
"Many students, and other young people, have little in the way of cooking skills but can usually get their hands on a couple of mobile phones. So, this week, we show you how to use two mobile phones to cook an egg which will make a change from phoning out for a pizza. Please note that this will not work with cordless phones."n
http://www.wymsey.co.uk/wymchron/cooking.htm [wymsey.co.uk]
I suppose cooking a human face is similar enough.
Re:This reminds me of mobile cooking (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This reminds me of mobile cooking (Score:1)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060207/1817205
What they'll find (Score:3, Interesting)
Radiation levels (Score:5, Informative)
Within the US models listed, Motorola has the highest with its Motorola V120c, and the lowest goes to the Audiovox PPC66001.
Maybe people will want to check this chart before buying a new cell phone? Maybe not.
Problems with comparing levels (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, if phones still do automatic power control, then all the field strength tells you is whether the base station told that particular phone "speak up!" at that particular time.
Re:Radiation levels (Score:1)
Re:Radiation levels (Score:2)
tm
Re:Radiation levels (Score:1)
People complain about certain things with my phone, and I seem to be doing alright with those particular issues.
Re:Radiation levels (Score:2)
Re:Radiation levels (Score:2)
From glancing through the chart it looks like the industry is cleaning up the products on their own to a degree.
My current phone (Nokia 6610, which is a few years old design) comes in at a low
while my previous phone, a much older design Nokia 5190, was rated at more than twice as much at 1.29 W/kg. Then look at new models like the N90 at
Why arm skin? (Score:4, Insightful)
They should find out how the radiation affects the two bodily areas my phone is usually found, which coincidentally are the two areas I'm most worried about irradiating.
Re:Why arm skin? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why arm skin? (Score:1)
Re:Why arm skin? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why arm skin? (Score:1)
Re:Why arm skin? (Score:1)
You keep your phone on vibrate mode, don't you?
Re:Why arm skin? (Score:2)
Re:Why arm skin? (Score:2)
Testing arm skin is very practical. The fact that no one uses a cell phone there doesn't mean that it's harder to extract tissue from the arm than the regular places or that it's harder to create a device to generate the radiation that doesn't burden the test subjects for an hour; all you do is strap an active cell phone on the arm.
The arm and the back are among the most popular places for taking tissue samples due to ease of access an
Re:Why arm skin? (Score:1)
Truly ingenious.
effects on proteins on the skin? (Score:3, Informative)
At any rate, it will be good to have another study on this subject, to add weight either that the radiation is mostly harmless, or that we need to start wearing a layer of tin foil...
Re:effects on proteins on the skin? (Score:1)
Re:effects on proteins on the skin? (Score:2)
This is silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is silly (Score:3, Informative)
Who needs an actual mechanism, as long as I repeat the experiment enough times to get the right confidence level from the stat tab
Re:This is silly (Score:2)
What makes you think this study isn't being done by some biophysicists or biochemists? The parent article was singularly lacking in detail, but if were working in the field I'd be doing microarray experiments to see if any genes were significantly up or down regulated by microwave exposure. Given what we do know about background leve
Re:This is silly (Score:2)
Well the researchers performing this study may be aware of something you're not, which is that radiation affects biological systems without ionizing them. Drop yo
Re:This is silly (Score:3, Interesting)
Alternating magnetic fields aren't generally considered ionizing radiation either, but rat studies [ehponline.org] have shown that they can cause an iron-mediated peroxide reaction that causes DNA strand breakage in rat neurons.
Just because radio waves cannot directly break carbon bonds like UV radiation and higher doesn't necessarily mean that they're harmles
Re:This is silly (Score:2)
No cell phone I know of permits actual direct contact with the antenna element, plus 3W phones are a th
Re:This is silly (Score:2)
That's not how you do good science. You don't go around looking for correlations, then try to come up with some post hoc explanations to fit your data. You start with a theoretical causal relationship. Then you test it, isolating all but the tested causality.
Re:This is silly (Score:1, Informative)
That works great if you "know what you're looking for". For more epidemiological research, you are trying to find "what you don't know". The question is, do you wait for a noticeable increase in some illness before you look into the cause? Plus, h
More interesting than the test itself (Score:5, Interesting)
...would be the reaction of the world if these things really do cause cancer. Would we just deal with the risk? Rebuild all the towers to use frequencies that don't penetrate human skin? Give up cell phones altogether? Would insurance companies hike your rates if you use a cellphone?
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:1)
Whether or not they had a risk would be downplayed in the media to the point of uselessness. Everyone would nod in unison that "well everything causes cancer nowadays," and nobody would even think it was a risk. Till a rash of cancer appeared and then everyone would finally figure out that the link w
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:2)
But I do have this one comment: don't drink diet soda folks, I know it does more than they say it does. Hell my mom used to get migraines from drinking it, stopped drinking it, migraines gone. You are exposing yourself to all kinds of risks you have no idea about. Because the media and the FDA were bought and sold a long time ago.
Couldn't agree more. If you'd like to see an example of just how bought-out the FDA is, check out the story about a sweetener alternative called stevia. Here's a good link [stevia.net] to
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:3, Interesting)
Two words: Psycho. Somatic.
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:2)
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:2)
I assume you are talking about aspartame-sweetened diet soda. There are also other sweeteners, like sucralose. Sucralose also scares people, it's sucrose with methyl groups replaced with chlorine atoms, which doesn't sound too scary to me. Aspartame, however, is a big complex bundle of amino acids that we don't r
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:1)
But wheat doesn't cntain artificial sweeteners. Let me put it to you this way. Granulated sugar is bad, it's already processed, it has health effects to the point where any truly healthy conscious person will tell you straight up to try to cut it out of your diet as much as possible. Then they take it a step further
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:2)
But it makes some people sick. The point is, you can't deduce that it's generally harmful simply by pointing out some examples of people who suffered ill effects from it.
What does its being processed have to do with anything? Are you saying it's processed with chemical process that might leave a poisonous residue? Almost all foods are 'processed'. Cooking is processing.
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:2)
All the health nut types I know (and I'm not one of them)
You're not a health nut, you're just a nut.
(I wrote this while enjoying a cool, refreshing Coke Zero. The Zero stands for Zero Poison.)
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:2)
"Natural" sugars doesn't really mean anything. Sucrose is a naturally occurring sugar. Hemlock is quite natural, but you don't want to drink it.
I do think it's funny when I see someone who professes the miracle of herbal remedies and drinks artificially sweetened pop. On the one hand they're taking unregulated, unpurified drugs because they're "natural" and on the other they're drinking a chemical isolated from partially burned coal tar because it'
Let that artificial sugar like substance ravage (Score:2)
Look, these health nuts have a serious logic problem. The problem with diets today is the diet itself, not the individual things that go into it. Foods in the US are pumped full of sugar (even things like bread which in Europe are typically unsweetened (or they were a few years ago)). Small wonder Americans are so obese. But it's a mistake to say that sugar itself is bad. The problem is the bad diet. It's like saying that water is har
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:3, Insightful)
Does she still drink any caffenated in varying does? I used to get migranes due to caffeine withdrawal. No more irregular doses of caffeine; no more problem.
I'm suspicious of the aspartame controversy. I haven't seen a single credible
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:1)
Her poison of choice was caffeine free diet pepsi. I remember she used to drink a lot of it. The instant she cut it out from her diet all of her migraines got reduced to irregular mild headaches after noise exposure (like a regular person). She didn't cut out all soda, or anything like this. She simply cut out the nutrisweet or the whatever the h
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you could believe the well-documented report [eu.int] prepared by the EU's Scientific Committee on fo
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:2)
Re:More interesting than the test itself (Score:2)
Will the results change anything? (Score:2, Insightful)
What if cell phones are lnked to cancer? Are they going to expose the cells to triple the duration? Too much of anything can be dangerous. The electromagnetic fields that we live in daily are possibly harmful - will they stop microwave communications?
Re:Will the results change anything? (Score:1)
Re:Will the results change anything? (Score:2)
These salts are added to the purified water to prevent it from tasting bad and from doing damage to your body like distilled water will. You need a salt balance to prevent omosis from slurping up the water in your body into your cells until they rupture. Drinking too pure water is unhealthy and has all kinds of side effects. This i
Re:Will the results change anything? (Score:2)
>..the scary part is, if they do cause ill effects...we're giving mobile communications devices to children younger and younger.
Automobiles cause ill effects when they get into accidents yet we put children in there. In child seats. Don't assume everyone is a this irresponsible ass strawman. If cell phones were linked to harming anyone (elderaly, children, etc) then there would be real efforts to mitigate these dangers. Most states in the US, if not
Re:Will the results change anything? (Score:2)
Automobiles cause ill effects when they get into accidents yet we put children in there. In child seats.
Because we have to.
Little 11-year old girls don't have to spend three hours a day with their cellphones stuck to their faces yakking away. If we find that doing so raises the risk of cancer too greatly it's a simple matter to more heavily moderate this completely unnecessary behaviour.
TRUCO! (Score:2)
Yikes! This is Stupid Bull Sh*t (TM)!
Why to we have to put our children in automobiles?
Re:TRUCO! (Score:2)
OMFW, are you joking!?!?!?!? Because if we didn't, they would never get educated and die everytime they got sick because we couldn't even take them to the doctor? The vast majority of transporting of children is due to things they by and large mostly have to do (duh).
Maybe you live in a big city with well-developed public transport, but not everyone does.
Re:TRUCO! (Score:2)
Why to we have to put our children in automobiles?
Let me put it another way: You try raise your own children without ever putting them in automobiles. Try it. Let's see how far that gets you. Do you realise how dumb you sound now?
Can I imagine raising children without having them talk on cellphones (except in emergencies)? Yes, because I grew up in an era where cellphones didn't even exist.
Twice?! Woof... (Score:2)
I put him and will put her in automobiles everyday.
Is it a necessity? Absolutely no.
I know lots of people who live their lives fullfillingly (is that a word?) without ever entering an automobile. When they have to go to the school, they walk to the school. When they have to go to the doctor, they walk/are carried to the doctor. Because you live in a big City you shouldn't assume everyone does, lest you sound really foolish. I'm not joking, I lived for five ye
Re:Twice?! Woof... (Score:2)
has reason (Score:1)
Re:has reason (Score:2)
Informed consent vs. nanny-state (Score:2)
Of course if "second-hand cell radiation" gets cell phones banned from public places, then I could see more demand for regulation just to force people to shut-up.
Even the starting point is biased here (Score:3)
Still, using the word (which has as little meaning by itself as the word Server does) presents a set of expectations which are inaccurate for most people.
Re:Even the starting point is biased here (Score:2)
Maybe that bias is countered by the fact that this study is partially funded by Nokia. Reference in Finnish is at http://www.tietokone.fi/uutta/uutinen.asp?news_id= 26235&tyyppi=1 [tietokone.fi] - if someone can find english version then post.
Re:Even the starting point is biased here (Score:2)
Re:Even the starting point is biased here (Score:1)
What about 8hrs of Bluetooth per day? (Score:1)
"A long phone call?" - What about the people wearing Bluetooth headsets all day, imparting 2.4 Ghz of energy into their ear and hip? Your shoulders and pelvis make a lot of your red blood cells. Your next phone call could be from Lymphoma...
kulakovich
That makes no sense (Score:3, Insightful)
2.4 Ghz of energy
What the hell is "2.4 GHz of energy"? That makes no sense. 2.4 GHz is merely the frequency, not the intensity. The unit you're looking for is "watts". Your crappy little bluetooth transmitter is very low wattage, but your cellphone transmits at a much higher wattage because it has to talk to towers that are friggin kilometers away.
Cellphones transmit in the microwave band, which is known to definitely heat biological tissue. It is known and not disputed that using a cellphone causes a mi
Re:That makes no sense (Score:3, Informative)
Just to give you an idea though of the relative weakness of intensity of a cellphone transmission, a cellphone typically transmits at no greater than 2 watts (typically around 1) ... my microwave oven on the other hand is 900 watts. A typical bluetooth headset with 10m range transmits at only 2.5 mW (milli-watts).
Re:That makes no sense (Score:2)
Re:What about 8hrs of Bluetooth per day? (Score:2)
User prevented from using the word 'Energy' until he finds out what it actually means.
One more in a long line duplicate studies. (Score:1)
I just hope this study shows no effect like all the other ones, or we will have another good old fashion panic on our hands.
This is dumb (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is dumb (Score:1)
Can I Be The First....? (Score:2, Funny)
How about the different carriers? (Score:1)
Verizon's network is different from T-mobile, etc. From my understanding, CDMA requires a lot more power than GSM. Therefore, I'd like to see some results clearly pointing out these differences. I'm sure the RAZR for Cingular has less radiation power than the one for Verizon.
Granted I could try to figure this out using the data in CNETs article, but that won't help educate others.
Anyone else? (Score:4, Funny)
Conan Exposed to Rays (Score:1, Funny)
the chance that an American TV personality looks just like the president of Finland?
AHHHHHHHHH! (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously though, this is a reply that I made the the last rediculous artlice about cell-phone cancer:
*Rolling Eyes* The people who study these things I think just make up dumb studies so that they can get grant money. There are three ways in which EM radiation (what cell phones use) can be dangerous, in order of severity: 1. Radiation that has the resonant frequency of molecular bonds can give a LOT of energy to the molecules that make us up. That's how a microwave oven works. The EM waves have the same frequency as the resonant frequency for water molecules.
2. Radiation can kick off electrons (beta particles) or protons (alpha particles). If an element loses an electron it becomes more volatile. If an element in our DNA loses a proton it can change the DNA. That's why strong radiation can cause cancer.
3. Radiation can generally heat us up.
Cell phone radiation is not even strong enough to kick off an electron unless it is VERY loosely bound. It has no chance of kicking off a proton.
Bottom line: Unless you feel your brain start cooking (the sun is WAY more likely to cook your brain), don't worry.
Re:AHHHHHHHHH! (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Radiation that has the resonant frequency of molecular bonds can give a LOT of energy to the molecules that make us up. That's how a microwave oven works. The EM waves have the same frequency as the resonant frequency for water molecules.
No, vibrational resonances in molecular bonds are in the range 30--100 THz (that is a factor 2
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:AHHHHHHHHH! (Score:2)
The reorientation time of water molecules (with or without a forcing microwave field) is pretty close to what you would expect based on treating water molecules as spheres in a viscous medium. But yes, on a molecular scale the friction consists of dissipating the energy into low-frequency collective modes. In the case of water, you need to dissociate hydrogen bonds (which are not considered molecular bond
Re:AHHHHHHHHH! (Score:2)
Show me a physics textbook that claims such a definition. Temperature is defined in terms of entropy change per unit of energy added to the system. As you may know, entropy is not just the average velocity.
Electromagnetic interactions (Score:1, Interesting)
In other news.... (Score:2)
uh oh (Score:2)
Especially at work, when I have my own cell phone + the two-way radio cell phone provided for my duties
Test Brain-cells, NOT Skin-cells... (Score:2)
Irrespective of whether lotsa Finnish saunas "harden" the skin -
as an earlier poster quipped - reports from autopsies of long-
time cell-phone users suggest that a better test of the effects
of cell-phone use would focus on the brain, where such autopsies
have apparently revealed small brain tumors on the side of most
cel-phone use.
When will we have more studies of cell-phone use's affect on
brain-cells?
Re:Ok what if Cell phones cause cancer (Score:2)
Not sure if you were joking, but the rationale for having smoking/non-smoking sections in restaurants is because second-hand smoke kills. The odds that second-hand cellphone radiation is harmful to you are basically zero due to the inverse square law - the radiation intensity levels drop off in inverse proportion to the square of the distance. Meaning, if you aren't extremely close to the source, you're getting practically nothing. The only reason there may be some concern with cellphones is that you hold t
Nazis (Score:2)
Is cancer now the only negative effect on health from cigarette smoke? Gee, I didn't know that.
They're "nazis" you say? Well then I guess I better not listen to them, because "nazis" are really bad things, oooooh. They must be really evil murderers! Gosh, nazis! I never knew.
I hate to break it to you, but there is TONNES of literature and peer-reviewed studies on the harmful effects of both first and second hand smoke, and if you follow, more appearing all the time. Tonnes of peer-reviewed publications. A