http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation
How about all wearing copper helmets with ground rods?
Conan, don't you have a background in communications?
Anybody got some in sight into this situation?
Quote from: FOTD on February 06, 2010, 01:57:00 PM
http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation
How about all wearing copper helmets with ground rods?
Conan, don't you have a background in communications?
Anybody got some in sight into this situation?
Convince people that if they feel the need to be in contact for 24/7 that maybe that should be 24 days a month and 7 months a year.
Good Luck!
Yeesh. More idiocy from people who don't grasp the difference between electromagnetic energy and nuclear radiation.
EM waves only heat up your tissue. Yes, that can cause serious issues (cataracts and skin burns are the main problems) at very high levels, but at the extremely low levels your cell phone emits? These things are designed to do two things, not because it's better for your health, but because it increases battery life:
1) radiate away from your head as much as possible: Energy pumped into your ear is wasted
2) use as low a power to communicate as possible: The higher the power output of the transmitter, the lower the battery life is
Now, just because I said your phone is safe doesn't mean you should go climb a cell tower and put your head an inch from the front of the antenna. The base stations put out 100-200W per sector for the size we have around here. You don't want that beamed directly into your eye.
By contrast, your phone usually puts out about 100 milliwatts average. The transmitter on a handheld is generally rated to do up to 600 mw, but that power is only used in fringe situations, and even then, they haven't transmitted continuously since the analog days. Certain types transmit continuously, but have a very tightly controlled power output so as to make the signal strength from all the mobile units as received at the base station as close to identical as is possible.
If radio frequencies and strong electro-magnetic fields caused cancer, we could expect that people exposed to higher levels of energy would show cancer clusters. In fact, CDC once showed a mild positive correlation between amateur radio operators and leukemia, if I recall right, but again, there was no similar effect found in others exposed to RF fields. Statistical studies are interesting, but not conclusive.
Quote from: Ed W on February 06, 2010, 07:30:10 PM
If radio frequencies and strong electro-magnetic fields caused cancer, we could expect that people exposed to higher levels of energy would show cancer clusters. In fact, CDC once showed a mild positive correlation between amateur radio operators and leukemia, if I recall right, but again, there was no similar effect found in others exposed to RF fields. Statistical studies are interesting, but not conclusive.
Correlations are not cause and affect (effect?). It seems the medical community tries too much to tie correlations to specific ailments together without conclusive evidence. Everyone who ate pickles in 1752 is now dead. Eating pickles is a leading cause of death.
Quote from: FOTD on February 06, 2010, 01:57:00 PM
http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation
How about all wearing copper helmets with ground rods?
Conan, don't you have a background in communications?
Anybody got some in sight into this situation?
Here we go again....
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones
"Several studies have investigated the risk of developing three types of brain tumors: Glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma. Results from the majority of these studies have found no association between hand-held cellular telephone use and the risk of brain cancer (3–8); however, some, but not all, long-term studies have suggested slightly increased risks for certain types of brain tumors (9, 10). Further evaluation of long-term exposures (more than 10 years) is needed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like we were going through this argument 10-15 years ago, when cell phones looked like bricks and had higher wattage..... the old analog "brick" phones were 3 watts; new ones can have less than 1 w/kg but even the "worst" of current digital cell phones have around 1.55 w/kg....
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/the_conscious_consumer/91/cell-phones-and-radiation-10-best-and-10-worst.html
Frustratingly confusing, because if you live in a rural area, you may want to use a Motorola W385, which can be recommended for better signal strength but is listed in the "ten worst phones" with the highest radiation.
If you use the phone a couple of times per day and you're an old fart like me, you shouldn't have anything to worry about; if your kids are always on the phone, then they should be using an earpiece but if I had to bet, they are probably texting like maniacs anyway.....
If you spend hours and hours per week on your cell, it's probably a good idea to get in the habit of using a bluetooth earpiece. Or do what your kids/grandkids do.... text.
I have the solution: tinfoil.
I think copper will work better than tin. Too bad the price is so high.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 11, 2010, 08:05:07 AM
I think copper will work better than tin. Too bad the price is so high.
All metal prices are up from a year ago, but still below the price from two years ago.
I think lead would be the best choice for a metal hat. It is less than a dollar a pound, offers real protection from falling objects, and is pliable enough to custom fit any shape head. Of course, over time, the lead poisoning would cause brain damage, but for a while, you would be protected from the cell phone radiation.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 11, 2010, 08:56:49 AM
All metal prices are up from a year ago, but still below the price from two years ago.
I think lead would be the best choice for a metal hat. It is less than a dollar a pound, offers real protection from falling objects, and is pliable enough to custom fit any shape head. Of course, over time, the lead poisoning would cause brain damage, but for a while, you would be protected from the voices.
And neck damage from the extra weight, I'm thinking ;)
Cancer: God's way of telling you to get off the damned phone.
I think we need to ban cell phones, not for the fact that it causes cancer. But for the fact that my employer can reach me outside of normal business hours.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 11, 2010, 08:05:07 AM
I think copper will work better than tin. Too bad the price is so high.
Asbestos would be a nice touch...
Quote from: brianh on February 11, 2010, 10:58:41 AM
I think we need to ban cell phones, not for the fact that it causes cancer. But for the fact that my employer can reach me outside of normal business hours.
\
1. Don't tell your employer your personal cell phone number
2. Turn the on/off switch to the off position
Lead lined copper helmet with asbestos outer coating.
Copper can be used to collect the bad waves and shunt them to the ground with a static wick.
Lead will shield you from any radiation that isn't collected and might otherwise go to your (used to be) brain.
Asbestos thermal coating will keep you cool in the sun.
Wow. I thought this was going to be all about how Obama was trampling our civil liberties even further.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html
...the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 10, 2010, 11:08:44 PM
I have the solution: tinfoil.
(http://stylepointsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/tinfoil-underwear-150x150.jpg)
Quote from: TeeDub on February 11, 2010, 12:40:17 PM
Wow. I thought this was going to be all about how Obama was trampling our civil liberties even further.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html
...the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
Imagine the hysteria if this story had come out two or three years ago.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 11, 2010, 01:39:40 PM
Imagine the hysteria if this story had come out two or three years ago.
Well, we were promised change. Didn't say what kind.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 11, 2010, 06:27:14 PM
Well, we were promised change. Didn't say what kind.
This isn't a change. It's a continuation of the status quo.
Also, I think this is a far cry from things like using IR cameras to peer inside your house or any of the other questionable activities whose results have been declared inadmissible in court in recent years.
My personal opinion is that it should be perfectly legal for the government to either use a direction finding scanner to locate you or to do the equivalent with the service provider's records. (basically locating which cell tower you're on, or other similarly course information) I don't think they should be able to misuse E911 GPS data to get that accurate a location.