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.
[Merged] iPhone and Radiation Safety
- Thread starter southcounty949
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i am not freaking out about radiation!!!
i am not worried about radiation, but still taking a precaution. if putting iphone on airplane mode reduces the radiation yo utake when ur not using an iphone, what is wrong with that?? i just wanna know.
i am not worried about radiation, but still taking a precaution. if putting iphone on airplane mode reduces the radiation yo utake when ur not using an iphone, what is wrong with that?? i just wanna know.
Just a reminder though about that, while in Airplane mode you are not able to receive calls.
I'd stop going out in the sun if I were you... all that solar radiation, or just radio radiation in general.
Turning the phone on airplane mode turns off the radio, so yeah I guess SAR 0, but you're still getting hit from cell tower radiation, radio tower junk, etc.
You can't escape it, so turning off your phone's cell reception isn't going to help... at all.
Turning the phone on airplane mode turns off the radio, so yeah I guess SAR 0, but you're still getting hit from cell tower radiation, radio tower junk, etc.
You can't escape it, so turning off your phone's cell reception isn't going to help... at all.
what about background radiation? you know, proper radioactive radiation, from cosmic rays, food, rock (eg granite)
gonna encase yourself in metres of concrete to stop it?
theres no point in putting the phone in airplane mode to stop radiation, there are millions of other sources all around us
wifi, cell towers, sun, background radiation, medical equipment, smoke detectors etc etc etc
gonna encase yourself in metres of concrete to stop it?
theres no point in putting the phone in airplane mode to stop radiation, there are millions of other sources all around us
wifi, cell towers, sun, background radiation, medical equipment, smoke detectors etc etc etc
Plus, if you are on an airplane you receive a higher radiation dose than you would on the ground! And this is a whole body dose, not just a localized area (ie. ear, waist).
What's with all these threads?! Did people go radiation nuts last year?
FYI in to todays tech-based society you would need to hide out in a bomb shelter to get away from all the radiation! Power lines, all the cell phones ever invented, tvs, microwaves, and not to mention all the wireless signals just flying around with all the different communications frequencies we have in use. Seriously people...
FYI in to todays tech-based society you would need to hide out in a bomb shelter to get away from all the radiation! Power lines, all the cell phones ever invented, tvs, microwaves, and not to mention all the wireless signals just flying around with all the different communications frequencies we have in use. Seriously people...
I spoke with Apple Customer Support about this. They said there were no similar cases with the new 3g version of the iPhone yet, but there were some with the old 2g version. Assuming nothing is wrong with the device, he said it could possibly be 1 of 2 things: (1) sensitivity to the wireless signal the phone puts out or (2) sensitivity to the electrical signal the phone uses to detect it's being touched.
So I decided to test my iPhone in Airplane Mode, and I felt the same pain.
So, my current guess is that it cannot be the signal from the phone. It may either be part of the touch screen or a fault in the phone.
I'm going to try having my friend carrying it around and carrying around another iPhone.
So I decided to test my iPhone in Airplane Mode, and I felt the same pain.
So, my current guess is that it cannot be the signal from the phone. It may either be part of the touch screen or a fault in the phone.
I'm going to try having my friend carrying it around and carrying around another iPhone.
The touch screen should be completely off when the screen is off. I think it is just pressure from the shape that is bothering you and has nothing to do with signals or electrical fields. Try some different pants with looser pockets. Or turn it off completely instead of just airplane mode to rule out the touch screen or fault.
I don't think it's the touch screen either. I've carried it around in shorts, closer to my knee, and my knee will start hurting. I've also carried it around turned off and I feel no pain whatsoever.
What happens if you put it in your shirt pocket? Or maybe your underwear...
OUCH! underwear = bad
great info.
I'm new here to the forum and I enjoyed the discussion, this topic is only going to grow over the next few years.
I'm a medical student and have taken an interest in this topic- there is peer reviewed research that shows changes in brain electrical activity (in animals) with normal cell phone radiation, some studies have also shown increases in chemicals that cause apoptosis (cell death) in neurons. (again, not in humans). Either way, it probably does something in the human brain, bad stuff, we don't know for sure yet. Cancer is whole topic on it's own. I personally, am playing it a little safe and am using the headphones on my 3G to talk. I am assuming (this seems to make sense although I cant prove it) that the radiation is exponentially higher from a closely placed phone than from other background man made radiation. So it probably does help at least somewhat to use the headphones. In that same line of thought, the intensity is exponentially less at just a couple feet away.
With that out of the way, that brings me to a question that only you guys can answer. I had read that the 3G has an antenna built into the headphone jack, does this mean that the headphones themselves can somehow act as an extended antenna, specifically, transmitting signals. If so, it would be completely useless to use the headphones to avoid a lot of the radiation.
I'm new here to the forum and I enjoyed the discussion, this topic is only going to grow over the next few years.
I'm a medical student and have taken an interest in this topic- there is peer reviewed research that shows changes in brain electrical activity (in animals) with normal cell phone radiation, some studies have also shown increases in chemicals that cause apoptosis (cell death) in neurons. (again, not in humans). Either way, it probably does something in the human brain, bad stuff, we don't know for sure yet. Cancer is whole topic on it's own. I personally, am playing it a little safe and am using the headphones on my 3G to talk. I am assuming (this seems to make sense although I cant prove it) that the radiation is exponentially higher from a closely placed phone than from other background man made radiation. So it probably does help at least somewhat to use the headphones. In that same line of thought, the intensity is exponentially less at just a couple feet away.
With that out of the way, that brings me to a question that only you guys can answer. I had read that the 3G has an antenna built into the headphone jack, does this mean that the headphones themselves can somehow act as an extended antenna, specifically, transmitting signals. If so, it would be completely useless to use the headphones to avoid a lot of the radiation.
Localized RF radiation = localized cell death (cancer)
Thanks, mieichho, for your sane response. There seems to me to be quite a bit of ignorance in this string. We're exposed to RF radiation at a macro level so we shouldn't care about localized RF exposure? That's a bit like saying that our neighbors play their music too loud, so we may as well as invite them over to blast Scorpion in our house at 1000 decibels 24/7.
Exposure to RF radiation causes cell damage. Fact.
RF radiation localized to specific organs causes cell death in those organs. Fact. Constant RF exposure to the brain will cause neuron death. Constant exposure from an RF device in a pocket will likely cause testicular cancer, gynecologic cancer or prostate cancer.
Cell damage from RF exposure reduces dramatically the further you get away from the source. Fact.
In the case of cell phones and other RF-emitting devices, even a matter of feet can make a dramatic difference. While huge macro exposure from satellites and repeater towers does scare the **** out of me, there really isn't much I can do about it. There's devices I can get to supposedly deflect those waves away from my home, but I don't think the scientific evidence is out on whether or not they're effective. But ... that doesn't mean I'm going to make the matter worse and add constant localized exposure to the constant macro exposure. Maybe our bodies are strong enough to fight off the weaker macro exposure (or maybe they simply create more systemic biological effects like depression and fibromyalgia), but they're not strong enough to fight off intense localized exposure.
There's going to be a veritable boom in the neurosurgery industry in the coming years. Removing brain tumors from cell phone radiation is going to become like the Jiffy Lube of oncology procedures. All of these people walking around with bluetooth headsets on 24/7 (this has suddenly skyrocketed in states that don't allow using cell phones while driving) - aside from looking like complete 'tards - are future neurosurgery customers. Good luck with that.
To tie this back to the iPhone ... I recently bought one and love the convenience of having unlimited data and taking web apps with me wherever I go (getting Pandora.com 24/7 wherever I want it was the tipping point for me). But I also realized immediately that I was now walking around with a device that was emitting and receiving RF signals 24/7. Unlike my previous cell phone, whose RF radiation spiked only when it was actually in use (as evidenced by its heating up during phone use), the iPhone was now sitting in my pocket and feeding me radiation full time.
When docked next to my PC, it's bluetooth (the first bluetooth device I've owned) would also constantly mess with my land-line phone calls. And if the energy the iPhone emits can disrupt the energy pattern of a phone, it is most certainly having the same disruptive effect on my own energy flow.
All of these people who choose to bury their heads and ignore the scientific evidence on RF radiation exposure (and there is reams of it) because using their devices is simply more convenient than worrying about long term medical effects (while deal with today what you can put off till you're 50?) will, in historical view, be laughed at just as we now look back and laugh at the doctors who told people in the 50's that smoking was not only good for you, but also gave you a manly, gravelly voice that women swooned over. It's ignorant, plain and simple. These people are buying into cell phone industry misinformation just as everybody bought into the global warming misinformation that we now know for a fact was a deliberate campaign by the groups representing the oil and auto industries.
I love my iPhone. Awesome device. But I will be keeping it in Airplane Mode (they should just called it "Disconnected Mode" or "Off-Network Mode" or something) whenever I'm not out and about and needing it to receive and transmit. i.e. whenever I'm sitting at my desk, it'll be in Airplane Mode. That will, at least, reduce my exposure.
I would be interested in the hardware specs on it, to know for sure that 100% of its RF emission is shut off. I guess it would be relatively easy to test with an RF meter.
I'm really glad Apple added that feature. They should reposition it, though, and make it more prominent.
Thanks, mieichho, for your sane response. There seems to me to be quite a bit of ignorance in this string. We're exposed to RF radiation at a macro level so we shouldn't care about localized RF exposure? That's a bit like saying that our neighbors play their music too loud, so we may as well as invite them over to blast Scorpion in our house at 1000 decibels 24/7.
Exposure to RF radiation causes cell damage. Fact.
RF radiation localized to specific organs causes cell death in those organs. Fact. Constant RF exposure to the brain will cause neuron death. Constant exposure from an RF device in a pocket will likely cause testicular cancer, gynecologic cancer or prostate cancer.
Cell damage from RF exposure reduces dramatically the further you get away from the source. Fact.
In the case of cell phones and other RF-emitting devices, even a matter of feet can make a dramatic difference. While huge macro exposure from satellites and repeater towers does scare the **** out of me, there really isn't much I can do about it. There's devices I can get to supposedly deflect those waves away from my home, but I don't think the scientific evidence is out on whether or not they're effective. But ... that doesn't mean I'm going to make the matter worse and add constant localized exposure to the constant macro exposure. Maybe our bodies are strong enough to fight off the weaker macro exposure (or maybe they simply create more systemic biological effects like depression and fibromyalgia), but they're not strong enough to fight off intense localized exposure.
There's going to be a veritable boom in the neurosurgery industry in the coming years. Removing brain tumors from cell phone radiation is going to become like the Jiffy Lube of oncology procedures. All of these people walking around with bluetooth headsets on 24/7 (this has suddenly skyrocketed in states that don't allow using cell phones while driving) - aside from looking like complete 'tards - are future neurosurgery customers. Good luck with that.
To tie this back to the iPhone ... I recently bought one and love the convenience of having unlimited data and taking web apps with me wherever I go (getting Pandora.com 24/7 wherever I want it was the tipping point for me). But I also realized immediately that I was now walking around with a device that was emitting and receiving RF signals 24/7. Unlike my previous cell phone, whose RF radiation spiked only when it was actually in use (as evidenced by its heating up during phone use), the iPhone was now sitting in my pocket and feeding me radiation full time.
When docked next to my PC, it's bluetooth (the first bluetooth device I've owned) would also constantly mess with my land-line phone calls. And if the energy the iPhone emits can disrupt the energy pattern of a phone, it is most certainly having the same disruptive effect on my own energy flow.
All of these people who choose to bury their heads and ignore the scientific evidence on RF radiation exposure (and there is reams of it) because using their devices is simply more convenient than worrying about long term medical effects (while deal with today what you can put off till you're 50?) will, in historical view, be laughed at just as we now look back and laugh at the doctors who told people in the 50's that smoking was not only good for you, but also gave you a manly, gravelly voice that women swooned over. It's ignorant, plain and simple. These people are buying into cell phone industry misinformation just as everybody bought into the global warming misinformation that we now know for a fact was a deliberate campaign by the groups representing the oil and auto industries.
I love my iPhone. Awesome device. But I will be keeping it in Airplane Mode (they should just called it "Disconnected Mode" or "Off-Network Mode" or something) whenever I'm not out and about and needing it to receive and transmit. i.e. whenever I'm sitting at my desk, it'll be in Airplane Mode. That will, at least, reduce my exposure.
I would be interested in the hardware specs on it, to know for sure that 100% of its RF emission is shut off. I guess it would be relatively easy to test with an RF meter.
I'm really glad Apple added that feature. They should reposition it, though, and make it more prominent.
Personally, I don't see the point in having a phone and keeping it in Airplane mode most of the time. TBH, I don't really care that much if RF Radiation is slowly (or quickly) cooking my brain - I'm going to die some day anyway so I refuse to live my life in fear of shortening it. I'd rather live a shorter, happy life than a long, miserable one.
News just in: Life's dangerous
Having said all that, if you feel more comfortable having your phone in airplane mode all the time, go for it
Personally, I don't see the point in having a phone and keeping it in Airplane mode most of the time. TBH, I don't really care that much if RF Radiation is slowly (or quickly) cooking my brain - I'm going to die some day anyway so I refuse to live my life in fear of shortening it. I'd rather live a shorter, happy life than a long, miserable one.
News just in: Life's dangerous
Having said all that, if you feel more comfortable having your phone in airplane mode all the time, go for it
That's a little like saying there's no point in keeping beer in the fridge if you're not going to be drinking it.
Just with my lifestyle, if I'm at home, I don't need my cell on. I have a land line. If anybody needs to contact me, they can reach me there instead. I realize that just speaks about my personal situation, but I'm sure it's hardly unique. I would rather that than have yet another source constantly causing cell death. Especially as I have three kids in the house who are even more susceptible than adults to RF radiation.
Live your life however you want, of course, but according to your model, why not also smoke 3 packs a day, drink a fifth of whiskey every night and drive a really fast car everywhere you go. That'll be happier ... and shorter.
I choose to try my best to live a long and happy (which requires healthy) life, controlling everything that I'm able to in order to make that happen. Life is dangerous, yes - could be hit by a bus at any point - but knowingly reducing the quality of your life by introducing known toxins/physical disruptions is just plain dumb.
Gotten awfully philosophical here on a forum string about iPhones. Key point is that RF radiation causes cancer/cell death and the ability to turn off the iPhone's emissions is a good thing.
Another point, to other questions that were asked here ... I don't believe wired headsets/headphones emit RF radiation. It's the antenna in the iPhone that does that. The cable to the headset/headphones is just passing data. At least, I believe that's the case; I'm not an expert.
All those articles are rather controversial. I'm quite tired of research groups that use the link of mobile phones just to "sell" it and reach more people, then they add in the conclusions "although we have seen changes, we cannot establish a causal link between mobile phone radiation and cancer/apoptosis/chanes in gene expression (pick one)"
the fact is that no one has demonstrated any link.
the few articles that show some proof are again controversial because of the insanely high levels of radiation they used, causing the temperature to increase, hence the changes in gene expression pattern.
as for apoptosis.. that's my research field and I can tell you that even changing the cell media or the batch number can alter the pattern of cell deaths.. that's why everytime you repeat an experiment or assay something, you have to start fromt he beginning or at least make sure everything is exactly the same, same batch number, same ingredients, everything.
for example, today I just repeated an experiment I did last November. We're polishing some results so we can get something published. Well, last November I had less cell death (non-apoptotic) than todays. Why? The media and serum are definetly different batches (since we had to change providers) - also the temperature is a lot different... in November it was 10ºC now it's more like 40ºC. That makes a difference too.
So, my point.. not everything that is peer-reviewed and published is true. It just mean that a few scientists went over the data and the mehtods and thought it was all done according to good scientific practise. That's all.
If mobile phones did indeed cause cancer or other alterations, by now enough people would have managed to reproduce it ex vivo.
Personally I would like to see where you get all those "Facts" from. So, cell death huh? And oncologist have been radiating (with ionising radiation) cancer patients for decades and now I learn all they have to do is put a mobile phone next to their cancer!!
Please, I'd just like some scientific rigour in your statements, rather than just gratuitous arguments to scare people off.
A mobile phone does *NOT* cause cell death of any kind.
A few reports have been published where they put devices that emit a few time more powerfully than a mobile phone, and all they could see were slight changes in gene expression, then it was found it was caused by temperature increase in the liquid sample.
So, no, no cell death.
Checking for cell death is pretty easy and straight forward: you take the cells, dye them with some compounds and inject them in a device called flow cytometer. If they are dying of apoptosis, they emit green flourescence, if they dying of necrosis, they'd be red. If they're already dead, then they show both red and green fluorescence. Easy peasy. Still, no cell death when mobile phones are involved.
the fact is that no one has demonstrated any link.
the few articles that show some proof are again controversial because of the insanely high levels of radiation they used, causing the temperature to increase, hence the changes in gene expression pattern.
as for apoptosis.. that's my research field and I can tell you that even changing the cell media or the batch number can alter the pattern of cell deaths.. that's why everytime you repeat an experiment or assay something, you have to start fromt he beginning or at least make sure everything is exactly the same, same batch number, same ingredients, everything.
for example, today I just repeated an experiment I did last November. We're polishing some results so we can get something published. Well, last November I had less cell death (non-apoptotic) than todays. Why? The media and serum are definetly different batches (since we had to change providers) - also the temperature is a lot different... in November it was 10ºC now it's more like 40ºC. That makes a difference too.
So, my point.. not everything that is peer-reviewed and published is true. It just mean that a few scientists went over the data and the mehtods and thought it was all done according to good scientific practise. That's all.
If mobile phones did indeed cause cancer or other alterations, by now enough people would have managed to reproduce it ex vivo.
Personally I would like to see where you get all those "Facts" from. So, cell death huh? And oncologist have been radiating (with ionising radiation) cancer patients for decades and now I learn all they have to do is put a mobile phone next to their cancer!!
Please, I'd just like some scientific rigour in your statements, rather than just gratuitous arguments to scare people off.
A mobile phone does *NOT* cause cell death of any kind.
A few reports have been published where they put devices that emit a few time more powerfully than a mobile phone, and all they could see were slight changes in gene expression, then it was found it was caused by temperature increase in the liquid sample.
So, no, no cell death.
Checking for cell death is pretty easy and straight forward: you take the cells, dye them with some compounds and inject them in a device called flow cytometer. If they are dying of apoptosis, they emit green flourescence, if they dying of necrosis, they'd be red. If they're already dead, then they show both red and green fluorescence. Easy peasy. Still, no cell death when mobile phones are involved.
Yes they do. Specifically, RF radiation reduces cells' oxidative state. i.e. they suffocate and die.
Ice samples show that our environment used to contain between 38% and 50% oxygen. Today, we have below 20% oxygen in our environment. At 7% oxygen levels, humans asphyxiate.
So we take that situation - which we've created - and then we add RF-emitting devices that further decrease cellular oxidation. i.e. suffocating (killing) our cells. With iPhone and Blackberries, we've gone from partial localized RF exposure to constant localized RF exposure (plus all the stupid bluetooth headsets that go with it).
All the studies that claim no connection between RF radiation and cell death have unrealistic study times. The cell phone industry gets a research team to study rats undergoing GSM modulation exposure for 24 hours and then hail the rather paltry results as evidence that cell phones don't cause cancer.
There are numerous studies that found connection between RF radiation and cell deoxidation and death, and even those weren't conducted over a timeframe necessary to reasonably recreate the typical human exposure over a number of years from regular cell/mobile phone use.
Here's just a few:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044737?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17624651?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
You seem awfully sure of your position, given there's just as much evidence demonstrating a connection as there is demonstrating no connection. Have you asked yourself: what are the intentions of the scientists behind these studies? I'm willing to bet there's a significantly higher incidence of money connection between the cell phone industry and the scientists in the "no cancer connection" group than there is between the cell phone industry and the scientists in the "cancer connection" group.
I'm also willing to bet my health and welfare on my position. Are you willing to bet your health on your position? Let's discuss in 15 years. If you tell me then there's no connection, I'm pretty sure you'll also be sucking down your healthy, manly-voiced Marlboros and insisting there's no global warming while your home town washes down the river.
I have only gone through a few of the reports you link and yes, it's what I thought. So, you add RF together with agents that induce oxidative stress and boom, cell die. You remove the agent and leave RF alone, and surprise surprise, cells don't die.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Oxidative stress in fact is bad for the cell. So you say that lower O2 levels today (the 50% was millions of years ago so it's hardly something we have done. What we have done is pollute the air with nasty chemicals and CO2) together with RF decreases cell oxidation stress? Well, in fact that would be a lot beneficial for humans, since we would no longer get cancers and we would definitely not age a bit.
the more cell oxidation, the more the damage caused in the cell. That's why those studies that put together oxidative stress-inducing agents together with RF (5x the normal mobile RF) see cell death.
And for the the financial incentive of scientist. I will tell you that scientist are not a sect, we're not a closed group. If one research group is "paid" by the industry, there's nothing stopping anohter group in Australia to go reproduce the experiment and publish the contradicting results. That's how it works. Academia doesn't normally get involved in dirty practises like that.
So, no, no cell death.
Ps. I don't smoke and I think it's shameful what the US does to the entire Earth in terms of climate. (I'm in the EU.) In the EU we've had heavy exposure to GSM for a lot longer than the US. It's been widespread since 1995 or earlier. That's 13 years. And we don't see mass cases of brain tumors or neuron cell death.
In fact, the first GSM network in the world started operating in Finland in 1991. That's 17 years ago.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Oxidative stress in fact is bad for the cell. So you say that lower O2 levels today (the 50% was millions of years ago so it's hardly something we have done. What we have done is pollute the air with nasty chemicals and CO2) together with RF decreases cell oxidation stress? Well, in fact that would be a lot beneficial for humans, since we would no longer get cancers and we would definitely not age a bit.
the more cell oxidation, the more the damage caused in the cell. That's why those studies that put together oxidative stress-inducing agents together with RF (5x the normal mobile RF) see cell death.
And for the the financial incentive of scientist. I will tell you that scientist are not a sect, we're not a closed group. If one research group is "paid" by the industry, there's nothing stopping anohter group in Australia to go reproduce the experiment and publish the contradicting results. That's how it works. Academia doesn't normally get involved in dirty practises like that.
So, no, no cell death.
Ps. I don't smoke and I think it's shameful what the US does to the entire Earth in terms of climate. (I'm in the EU.) In the EU we've had heavy exposure to GSM for a lot longer than the US. It's been widespread since 1995 or earlier. That's 13 years. And we don't see mass cases of brain tumors or neuron cell death.
In fact, the first GSM network in the world started operating in Finland in 1991. That's 17 years ago.
everything causes cancer, and you are going to die. im still going to get checked by a doctor every few months and exercise and eat right, but im not going to wear a tinfoil hat and proclaim that cell phones are going to kill everyone in 15 years.
Yep, cancer is the price to pay for higher life.
When cells started using Oxygen, they managed to get more complex and look at us today. But oxygen is highly reactive and will potentially cause errors, mutations, and bad stuff to most cells. That's why we age and die.
You are right EVERYTHING causes cancer. When I was a UNI I did a carcinogen course. After the first week I gave up mustard.......during the second week I drew the line at oxygen. ;-)
It's a scale with somethings being more carcinogenic then others.