Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Iphoneattack

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 26, 2012
117
0
I was reading about how the 4S has high sar rating and I as wondering if...

Is it bad to use safari and play games a lot because the radiation will be exposed to your face?

Is it bad to carry the 4S in your pocket?

Thanks in advance
 
The radiation given off by cell phones is not damaging to human tissue. There is nothing to worry about.
 
No one knows if it is dangerous. We (scientists) currently don't think it is, but a lot more research is needed before we know for certain. Mobile telephones simply haven't been in use long enough to know what the long term effects of this type of radiation are.

There are, however, rules about how much radiation a phone may emit and the iPhone 4S is within those limits (any phone that is on sale is approved).
 
No one knows if it is dangerous. We (scientists) currently don't think it is, but a lot more research is needed before we know for certain. Mobile telephones simply haven't been in use long enough to know what the long term effects of this type of radiation are.

There are, however, rules about how much radiation a phone may emit and the iPhone 4S is within those limits (any phone that is on sale is approved).

Cell phones have been in use for over 25 years. Radio phones have been in use for almost 50. Not sure how much more data is needed?

We also know what forms of radiation effect human tissue. Hell, we know exactly how much gamma radiation we can use within the brain, on a precise point, to kill a tumor. Scientists will always say we need more testing. It's called getting grants for job security.
 
Cell phones have been in use for over 25 years. Radio phones have been in use for almost 50. Not sure how much more data is needed?

We also know what forms of radiation effect human tissue. Hell, we know exactly how much gamma radiation we can use within the brain, on a precise point, to kill a tumor. Scientists will always say we need more testing. It's called getting grants for job security.

There are actually big differences between radio phones and phones we use nowadays. Mobile phones may have been in use for 25 years, but it only started becoming really big and popular in the late 90s. That's 15 years of usage and only in the past five years a lot of people started using it heavily (thanks to smartphones and their new features).

There is still a lot of research needed. I'm not saying that it is not safe to use smartphones a lot, but I'm also not saying that it is safe to use smartphones a lot.

Everybody thought the world was flat. They said that the world being round was not true. There was no prove for it. The sun would come up in the east and when it was in the west, the sun would go down beneath the surface of the earth and would than be transported back to the east. Scientists said that wasn't true, but of course they were only trying to get a grant for job security, right?

Tobacco wasn't damaging. Impossible. Centuries of usage. Same for alcohol.

As I said, the long term effects are unknown. It might be perfectly safe, but it also might be dangerous.
 
Cell phones have been in use for over 25 years. Radio phones have been in use for almost 50. Not sure how much more data is needed?

We also know what forms of radiation effect human tissue. Hell, we know exactly how much gamma radiation we can use within the brain, on a precise point, to kill a tumor. Scientists will always say we need more testing. It's called getting grants for job security.

It's not about how long cell-phones have "been around"... it hasn't been that long since the majority of the population started carrying cell-phones on a daily basis...
Plus, when you're talking about cancer research.. you have to have 20+ years to be able to see cancer trends... and since it's only been in the last decade that cellphones have become ubiquitous.. it'll still be some time before there'll be enough data to see any trends in cancer rates.. and even at that it won't be conclusive.
 
There are actually big differences between radio phones and phones we use nowadays. Mobile phones may have been in use for 25 years, but it only started becoming really big and popular in the late 90s. That's 15 years of usage and only in the past five years a lot of people started using it heavily (thanks to smartphones and their new features).

There is still a lot of research needed. I'm not saying that it is not safe to use smartphones a lot, but I'm also not saying that it is safe to use smartphones a lot.

Everybody thought the world was flat. They said that the world being round was not true. There was no prove for it. The sun would come up in the east and when it was in the west, the sun would go down beneath the surface of the earth and would than be transported back to the east. Scientists said that wasn't true, but of course they were only trying to get a grant for job security, right?

Tobacco wasn't damaging. Impossible. Centuries of usage. Same for alcohol.

As I said, the long term effects are unknown. It might be perfectly safe, but it also might be dangerous.
The world was considered flat because there was no one willing to test the limits of the "4 corners" of the world. There is a ton of research on cell phone use, hence a common standard of acceptable radiation limits. You know I can spend 6 months on a nuclear sub and receive less radiation than going to the beach for an afternoon. How do we know this? We have a good understanding of forms of radiation and what it can and can't do and wh at is deemed safe. Gamma knife radiation is a perfect example of this.

And tobacco by itself is not damaging, just like marijuana by itself is not damaging. It's when tar, rat poison and whatever else is put into those products that make them dangerous. Nor is alchohol damaging. I can drink a glass of beer, every single day for 70 years and have no ill effects.

Now if you want to talk about dangerous things, more dangerous than cell phone use, look into the chemical that is used on the inside of metal, tin and aluminum cans of your favorite foods. Look at the amount of chemicals used to keep food fresh and safe from bugs. You have more chance of getting cancer from just eating the food in your local supermarket than from using a cell phone. And there is plenty of data on the use of BPA and what it does.
 
Notwithstanding the replies above, I've found that my 4S makes my desk phone at work buzz if I hold the phone too close. None of my earlier phones (Nokia, Sony, HTC) have done that. I don't know whether this is due to radiation or some other form of interference - does anyone know what causes this?
 
The radiation given off by cell phones is not damaging to human tissue. There is nothing to worry about.

You seem to have conducted endless researches in the field to state that. May you share them with us?
 
The world was considered flat because there was no one willing to test the limits of the "4 corners" of the world. There is a ton of research on cell phone use, hence a common standard of acceptable radiation limits. You know I can spend 6 months on a nuclear sub and receive less radiation than going to the beach for an afternoon. How do we know this? We have a good understanding of forms of radiation and what it can and can't do and wh at is deemed safe. Gamma knife radiation is a perfect example of this.

And tobacco by itself is not damaging, just like marijuana by itself is not damaging. It's when tar, rat poison and whatever else is put into those products that make them dangerous. Nor is alchohol damaging. I can drink a glass of beer, every single day for 70 years and have no ill effects.

Now if you want to talk about dangerous things, more dangerous than cell phone use, look into the chemical that is used on the inside of metal, tin and aluminum cans of your favorite foods. Look at the amount of chemicals used to keep food fresh and safe from bugs. You have more chance of getting cancer from just eating the food in your local supermarket than from using a cell phone. And there is plenty of data on the use of BPA and what it does.
If something is dangerous, it doesn't directly mean you get ill. There are enough people out there who are working and exposed to dangerous chemicals and live long and happily, but there are also people out there who do get ill when exposed to the same chemicals.

Oh, and please, don't argue that all radiation is the same (as you're doing now). There are all kinds of radiation out there: some will kill you in a short period of time, some are actually good for you.

You seem to be fairly confident of your case that the radiation smartphones emit are perfectly safe. You also refer to the fact that there are tons of money spend on research that prove that smartphone radiation have absolutely no negative effects at your body at all. Can you please link me to some of these studies? I think it would be interesting to read. :)
 
Notwithstanding the replies above, I've found that my 4S makes my desk phone at work buzz if I hold the phone too close. None of my earlier phones (Nokia, Sony, HTC) have done that. I don't know whether this is due to radiation or some other form of interference - does anyone know what causes this?

I will guess that your other phones were cdma and your new one is gsm? Electromagnetic interference is higher on gsm phones, if I recall correctly.

----------

If something is dangerous, it doesn't directly mean you get ill. There are enough people out there who are working and exposed to dangerous chemicals and live long and happily, but there are also people out there who do get ill when exposed to the same chemicals.

Oh, and please, don't argue that all radiation is the same (as you're doing now). There are all kinds of radiation out there: some will kill you in a short period of time, some are actually good for you.

You seem to be fairly confident of your case that the radiation smartphones emit are perfectly safe. You also refer to the fact that there are tons of money spend on research that prove that smartphone radiation have absolutely no negative effects at your body at all. Can you please link me to some of these studies? I think it would be interesting to read. :)

Sure, here you go:

In 2006 a large Danish study about the connection between mobile phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000 Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer. The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz) considers this report inconclusive.
The following studies of long time exposure have been published:
The 13 nation INTERPHONE project – the largest study of its kind ever undertaken – has now been published and did not find a solid link between mobile phones and brain tumours.
The International Journal of Epidemiology published a combined data analysis from a multi national population-based case-control study of glioma and meningioma, the most common types of brain tumour.
The authors reported the following conclusion:
Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.
In the press release accompanying the release of the paper, Dr. Christopher Wild, Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said:
An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from Interphone. However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.
A number of independent health and government authorities have commented on this important study including The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) which said in a statement that:
Until now there have been concerns that mobile phones were causing increases in brain tumours. Interphone is both large and rigorous enough to address this claim, and it has not provided any convincing scientific evidence of an association between mobile phone use and the development of glioma or meningioma. While the study demonstrates some weak evidence of an association with the highest tenth of cumulative call time (but only in those who started mobile phone use most recently), the authors conclude that biases and errors limit the strength of any conclusions in this group. It now seems clear that if there was an effect of mobile phone use on brain tumour risks in adults, this is likely to be too small to be detectable by even a large multinational study of the size of Interphone.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)which said in a statement that:
On the basis of current understanding of the relationship between brain cancer and use of mobile phones, including the recently published data from the INTERPHONE study, ARPANSA:
concludes that currently available data do not warrant any general recommendation to limit use of mobile phones in the adult population,

continues to inform those concerned about potential health effects that they may limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting; and
recommends that, due to the lack of any data relating to children and long term use of mobile phones, parents encourage their children to limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting.
The Cancer Council Australia said in a statement that it cautiously welcomed the results of the largest international study to date into mobile phone use, which has found no evidence that normal use of mobile phones, for a period up to 12 years, can cause brain cancer.
Chief Executive Officer, Professor Ian Olver, said findings from the Interphone study, conducted across 13 countries including Australia, were consistent with other research that had failed to find a link between mobile phones and cancer.
This supports previous research showing mobile phones don’t damage cell DNA, meaning they can’t cause the type of genetic mutations that develop into cancer,” Professor Olver said.
However, it has been suggested that electromagnetic fields associated with mobile phones may play a role in speeding up the development of an existing cancer. The Interphone study found no evidence to support this theory
.
A Danish study (2004) that took place over 10 years found no evidence to support a link. However, this study has been criticized for collecting data from subscriptions and not necessarily from actual users. It is known that some subscribers do not use the phones themselves but provide them for family members to use. That this happens is supported by the observation that only 61% of a small sample of the subscribers reported use of mobile phones when responding to a questionnaire.
A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of glioma or meningioma."
A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."
A German study (2006) that states "In conclusion, no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users; however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed before firm conclusions can be drawn."
A joint study conducted in northern Europe that draws the conclusion that "Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn."
Other studies on cancer and mobile phones are:
A Swedish scientific team at the Karolinska Institute conducted an epidemiological study (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a type of benign brain tumor. The increase was not noted in those who had used phones for fewer than 10 years.
The INTERPHONE study group from Japan published the results of a study of brain tumour risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach: determining the SAR inside a tumour by calculating the radio frequency field absorption in the exact tumour location. Cases examined included glioma, meningioma, and pituitary adenoma. They reported that the overall odds ratio (OR) was not increased and that there was no significant trend towards an increasing OR in relation to exposure, as measured by SAR.
A publication titled "Public health implications of wireless technologies" cites that Lennart Hardell found age is a significant factor. The report repeated the finding that the use of cell phones before age 20 increased the risk of brain tumors by 5.2, compared to 1.4 for all ages. A review by Hardell et al. concluded that current mobile phones are not safe for long-term exposure.
In a time trends study in Europe, conducted by the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen, no significant increase in brain tumors among cell phone users was found between the years of 1998 and 2003. "The lack of a trend change in incidence from 1998 to 2003 suggests that the induction period relating mobile phone use to brain tumors exceeds 5–10 years, the increased risk in this population is too small to be observed, the increased risk is restricted to subgroups of brain tumors or mobile phone users, or there is no increased risk."
 
Last edited:
Do your own research for once or read Mac.World's posts.

The only information you can gather from that article is that further investigation is needed. Those results refer, at most, to 2006, and the others refer to earlier years. All they say is: there are not significant results we can observe in that range of time, referring to brain tumors. This doesn't mean there aren't risks, only that, mainly in the 80s and 90s, within 20 years at most, nothing particularly interesting has come out.
We need research and time. Meaning you can't really observe, as said, trends within a short length of time.
 
The impact of cellular radiation on the human body wont be known for quite some time.

Maybe in 20-30 years.

However, I tend to not my phone against my head. Speakerphone or Apple headphones is what I prefer just because of the concerns and possible cases from the late 90's.

It does seem like phones got vastly hotter back in the day.
 
I will guess that your other phones were cdma and your new one is gsm? Electromagnetic interference is higher on gsm phones, if I recall correctly.

----------



Sure, here you go:

I'm sorry but your argument was that mobile phones are not bad for your health and enough research has been done. From reading what you've posted:

The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.

... further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.

A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."

A Swedish scientific team at the Karolinska Institute conducted an epidemiological study (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a type of benign brain tumor. The increase was not noted in those who had used phones for fewer than 10 years.

I'm not someone who thinks: "Wow, a lot of text. He must be right."

Your studies actually show I'm quite right and that long-term effects are unknown. It also shows that some studies actually do believe that there are health risks involved - and these are all studies based on the short-term. When we are looking at the long-term health risks, than we're looking a few decades ahead; not a few years.

I'm standing with my original conclusion: long-term effects are unknown so more research is needed to find out if there are any health risks involved.
 
I will guess that your other phones were cdma and your new one is gsm? Electromagnetic interference is higher on gsm phones, if I recall correctly.

Someone else has told me that in the past, I just didn't mention it in my post so as not to influence the results :)

I actually posted a thread a few months ago asking whether there's any way to turn off the GSM radio in a 4S. Nobody knew how. I'd love to know why it scans for GSM networks when it already has a working WCDMA connection.
 
And of course there is no danger from other things like smoking, too much alcohol, texting while driving, eating too much, driving too fast, driving while intoxicates, using illegal drugs, etc. /sarcasm

I'd worry more about known hazards than unknown unproven hazards
 
And of course there is no danger from other things like smoking, too much alcohol, texting while driving, eating too much, driving too fast, driving while intoxicates, using illegal drugs, etc. /sarcasm

I'd worry more about known hazards than unknown unproven hazards

Same thing I've always thought.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.