Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Iphone radiation and health, a discussion
- Thread starter blow45
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Judging from you minus 7 rating on your post, what do YOU think!
----------
An understatement for sure.!
Looking at most people, they have chosen to eat themselves to death!
I eat the salad but would rather have the burger. Now I am hungry!
I think you need to get out more and stop acting out to strangers in forums.Judging from you minus 7 rating on your post, what do YOU think!
I can't help it if people don't want to face a potential health risk with their phone use and get defensive and rate down. I asked specific usage questions and information pertaining to SAR, antenna placement and signal strength, bluetooth and cabled earphones, with regards to how one can gauge the amount of radiation they are receiving so as to make an informed decision on whether they should use the iphone or how to best use it to minimize radiation exposure. You claimed this was already discussed and resolved yet at no point did you show any indication of knowing any particulars about the finer points of SAR testing (and signal strength & antenna placement and how they relate to SAR so as to gauge if indeed SAR is a reliable indicator) bluetooth and cabled earphones, hence you didn't contribute anything here. Probably you hadn't even read what I enquired about to begin with and reacted in a knee jerk type of way. I would suggest that you stop picking up fights with strangers, putting mad smilies on and writing in bold and go out for a walk.
(luckily there were a few posters that did try to offer some information based on their knowledge of the situation, so thanks to them, I end up wiser and more informed to make a choice on my phone usage.)
Wait - what are you saying I'm wrong about? My interpretation of blueroom's point?
Why do you think I was defending his point? I was just trying to clarify it.
To recap - blueroom's point was (as far as my interpretation is concerned, although I could be wrong and will happily admit so if they come back and correct me) that in their opinion the risk of cancer from cell-phone use is so much lower than more immediate risks (again, this is all my interpretation of their point) like exhaust fumes and muggings, that worrying about cell-phone use isn't something they consider worth spending time on. Your interpretation of their point, however, was from the standpoint that cell-phone use is a high risk activity. (Again, my interpretation of what you're saying.) Therefore in your opinion, not caring about cell-phone use is akin to not caring about "other" high-risk activities like smoking, unsafe sex, and drinking a gallon of vodka a day. IMO, that wasn't at all what they intended.
You should note that nowhere did I say that blueroom was correct and you were wrong. Nor did I say that blueroom was wrong and you were correct. I was just trying to explain why you shouldn't take his point to be advocacy of risk behavior.
I gotta ask - are you new to using the Internet? In my experience, it's really quite common for a topic posited in an initial post to wander beyond what the initial poster wants it to be. Consider the "how do you like your steak?" thread nearby. In many pages, it has also included a discussion on flavors of sea salt, and the relative merits of restaurants in America, Canada and Europe. It's just the nature of the Internet. Moderators and contributors try to control it once it happens, but it cannot be prevented.
I've been in your position - starting a thread and having it wander off in some direction I was totally not interested in. But it's the nature of the Internet, and I'm sorry to say it's not anything you or I can change. Best to just accept it, IMO.
Three things:
1) I take exception to your accusation that I am constantly replying to what I think you are saying instead of what you are actually saying. Did you not see where I summarized my understanding of what your actual questions were? I apologize if that came across as an authoritative statement - I meant it to be an opportunity for you to confirm or deny whether my understanding was correct. I'm TRYING to be helpful - you can take my links to various papers and articles as evidence of that. (Ps, based on further reading of your posts, I'd add a fourth question that I think you're asking. "What can be done to lower the SARs from cell-phones and other communications devices like bluetooth headsets"?)
2) I think you are doing what you accuse me of doing. My statements about blueroom were neither in support nor rejection of his point, I was just trying to clarify what I think was his stance.
3) For what it's worth - I started using computers around the time when the IBM PC was first released, I was online and conversing when all we had were dial-up BBSes, and I've had lots of discussions over Usenet... In short, I'm not young.
See? Did I not properly summarize this question of yours in my three points in a previous post?
Like I've said, mostly people have a different base assumption than you, and are therefore addressing your question from that point of view. It's like asking "How can I improve my relationship with the Flying Spaghetti Monster?" then getting upset when somebody responds "Dude, the FSM doesn't exist." Sure, it doesn't address your question, but it's not a surprise anybody would say such a thing.
Yep, quite correct. I'm no expert. But you brought it up, so I thought it was fair game to express my own opinion in my response to your post. My apologies if I have offended.
You're welcome.
The article I found that number in says it came from a study by William G. Scanlon of Queen's University in Belfast regarding an Ericson bt headset.
One other thing to keep in mind - my rudimentary understanding is that specific absorption rate is inversely proportional to the square of distance. That is, increase the distance from you to the source by a factor of 2, and the SAR goes down by a factor of 4. So if we have a SAR of 1.0 at 1cm, and we increase that distance by 10 times, the SAR would go down by (10*10)=100 times, meaning the SAR is then 0.01. If you consider the iPhones SAR of 1.11 to be too high, just figure out the SAR you consider acceptable, and do the math to calculate the distance you need to keep the phone in order to achieve that.
This of course won't help you when carrying the phone around, so as far as I can think of right now your only options are to either turn the phone off when being carried, or get a faraday-cage like case that attenuates the signal. I don't know of any such cage being produced, but you could purchase some brass mesh and make your own I suppose.
And we can't help it if your idea of "discussing" this is to have us all simply nod and agree that iPhones are harmful and something must be done. Typically, discussions have room for differing viewpoints, even disagreements. That's what you're seeing here.
That's because none of us here are radiation specialists, and can't authoritatively answer these questions for you. Even you admit in your first post that SAR values are pretty much meaningless considering that definitive data on the topic is absent.
So, all we can do in this forum is merely speculate. And it appears that any speculation that's dissonant to what you want to hear, is invalid to you. that hardly constitutes a discussion.
@elistan Thanks for the points you are making on bluetooth and the research you provided. Very much appreciated. Allow me to not go into our little internet squabbling here for no other reason than the fact that I don't want to accentuate it, and accept my sincere thanks for offering me a good thread of evidence to research in terms of bluetooth usage. I am aware of this inverse square rule for radiation but I am sure it will be helpful to other readers, so thanks for elaborating on it.
I said in my first post that I don't know the relative merits of SAR values, hence the discussion. I don't mind speculation even, I will examine it and take for what it's worth according to the logic behind it and the evidence. I mind people not seeming to understand what I the discussion is about, and constantly interfering with it for some reason. Can you please not post if you think this topic is irrelevant, pointless, silly, misguided or whatever other reason you have instead of marring this thread and constantly misrepresenting my point of you? Please.
I never said iphones are harmful, I said all phones pose potential risks, they might end up proven harmful in the long run and they might not. My concern is to minimize radiation exposure to be on the safe side. Please learn to read what other people are saying. All the more so when I have expressed a doubt too that SAR is an accurate measure of phone radiation (although I have not been convinced of that), and since the iphone has a relatively higher sar compared to others, if SAR is not an accurate indicator iphone could actually be safer than other phones with lower SARS due to it's new antennae and the quality of the signal it maintains that might spike less to higher SAR value.
First of all speak for yourself, I don't think you can represent others here. Maybe some people have an expertise and are mac users and they happen to be here and want to chime in. I am sure it would be more conducive for them to post here if you didn't clutter this thread with posts trying to end the discussion before it even begun.
I said in my first post that I don't know the relative merits of SAR values, hence the discussion. I don't mind speculation even, I will examine it and take for what it's worth according to the logic behind it and the evidence. I mind people not seeming to understand what I the discussion is about, and constantly interfering with it for some reason. Can you please not post if you think this topic is irrelevant, pointless, silly, misguided or whatever other reason you have instead of marring this thread and constantly misrepresenting my point of you? Please.
Last edited:
Very simple:
1. Go the store where you purchased your cell phone.
2. Return it and cancel service.
Again, we do not have conclusive data. We do not know what level of radiation exposure, if any, is truly harmful, nor what level of exposure, if any, is safe. Without that data, no one can say for sure what level of exposure reduction is safe, if it's needed at all, or the only way is not to be exposed at all.
We just. Don't. Know.
I won't insult your intelligence, as you have me, by asking you to learn to read. What I will do is address the REAL problem here, and advise you not to ignore what people are telling you just because it's not what you want to hear.
Seeing that SAR is the only recognized value for radiation exposure, flawed as it is, then this only reinforces what you've been told over and over: we can't tell you anything new. We can't just make up a new standard here... it would be even less valid (if that's even possible) than SAR.
Seriously?
Okay, name some forum users who you know for a fact are radiation experts who can definitely speak about safe cell phone radiation exposure, who have done the groundbreaking, never-before-seen research that answers this question, once and for all, and rather than submit that research in a peer-reviewed journal as is common practice, are instead going to reveal it in this very forum.
Go ahead. Take all the time you need.
The fact that no one on here... not a single person... has chimed in to identify themselves as such, speaks volumes.
I have no power to end this discussion. They are free to chime in whenever they please. I can't stop that from happening.
In fact, that would be great for you (and them), because it would prove me wrong and shut me up. So please, don't pin any lack of response on me. If no one in that capacity responds, it's because no one in that capacity posts here. To their credit, they're probably too busy finding real answers to serious health questions than to spend their time here, wading past the 9000th "Why the Samsung Mutara Nebula 6000 S II is better than iPhone, so I'm switching" thread to get to our little topic, champing at the bit to answer this question here, before the wider medical community, regulatory bodies and cell phone manufacturers can see it and act on it.
I don't think the topic is any of those things. Again, I could say "please learn to read what others have posted," but I know and respect that you have the intelligence to be able to read... you simply would rather ignore it.
What I am saying is, no one here can give you a satisfactory answer, because there is not enough data. For the umpteenth time: we do not know what practices (wireless headsets, wired headsets, or other "safeguards") are "safe enough," or necessary at all. More research must be done.
Until that research happens: the only true, 100% safe action (if you subscribe to the belief that cell phone radiation is harmful), is to avoid exposure at all costs. That would mean not using a cell phone at all, though even that won't guarantee that you're never exposed.
instead of marring this thread and constantly misrepresenting my point of you? Please.
If I were truly capable of "misrepresenting [your] point of view," it's only because you haven't been able to effectively represent it yourself. I can't edit your posts, or change what you say. So, please refrain from blaming me if you can't get your point across.
Last edited:
This study showed visible damage to plants which were 50 cm from wifi sources. They cautioned that results are not conclusive, but it's enough to make you wonder what effect all this radiation is having on us.
And Myth Busters found that trees grow better when you talk to them. So talk to your plants but in person, not via your mobile phone!
lol at least this kind of trolling is funny, lol....
unlike the trolling that was happening a few posts before.
And we think you are funny!
May the RF be kind to your brain cells!
Bingo! Electromagnetic "radiation", even microwaves, simply doesn't have the energy levels required to cause molecular changes in DNA until you get into the ultraviolet / X-ray part of the spectrum.
Radio waves and microwaves are *way* down the spectrum, well below visible light and infrared. You may as well be more concerned by that infrared heater sitting under your office desk.
People really need to understand the difference between "radiation" and "ionizing radiation". The first is the general classification of any sort of electromagnetic waves including light or radio waves, the later is the subclassification where the electromagnetic waves are high enough in the spectrum (have a high enough internal energy, i.e. x-rays) to cause ionization of molecules in your body.
To say that cell phones haven't been ruled out as carcinogenic is sort of like saying you haven't ruled out the existence of ghosts. Difficult to prove the nonexistence of something.
More like since forever. You're thinking of "background radiation" which is the constant natural ionizing radiation coming from space, the sun, and naturally occurring radioactive substances in the Earth.
Last edited:
Ignorance is bliss, I know. Now pardon me while I light up.
In all seriousness though, no one asked you.
I'd like to propose a simple rule of thumb for those of you needing help deciding such risks: if the light you're worried about is at least as red as your purple crayon, then there is absolutely no risk of it giving you cancer.
My opinion is that there's simply too much profit to be had. Too many companies thrive off the huge margins some like Apple generate. Formally educated in the field of electrical engineering & computer science, I'm convinced mobile phones are harmful when held up to ones head. The remaining question is how harmful are they? Far too much money passes under the table to reveal the truth anytime soon. The way our government operates, the time tested stalling technique will reign supreme & bury any meaningful test results from seeing the light of day.
Please explain the physics to me. How does RF do anything beyond perhaps slightly warming your ear? Are you equally concerned about ear muffs?
Seconded. ixodes, I am curious what mechanism you believe would be responsible for causing harm.
I would enjoy discussing a reasoned hypothesis.
These fields overlap. He doesn't need a degree in medicine to be aware of the effects of radiation. He might even know the effects better than most doctors. When I did work in Uranium enrichment, I could tell my partner (physician) more about the effects of radiation than anyone.