Slashdot Mirror
Another Reason to be Annoyed by Cell Phones
lotussuper7 writes: "This story at newscientist (free, no registration, unlike the NY Times) has some insight into the amount of RF you may be getting from all those cell phones people around you are using. Might be time to buy a cell phone jammer."
Would you really want someone jamming *your* important calls? I wouldn't, and turnabout is definitely fair play. Besides which, jamming someone's phone is a DoS. Most people get rather upset over that sort of thing...
If you don't like cell phones, then go find somewhere that doesn't have them.
What is your Slash Rating?
Reduce your exposure to RF emissions by carrying around a powerful RF transmitter! Sure, that'll do the trick.
The article looks like it's just a simulation of what may happen (with some microwave propagation tool), it would be more interesting to perform a measurement (I'm sure that the railways can "lend" a wagon for one day to the experimentalists) and really see what's going on...
It could be much less serious (or much more....).
"Might be time to buy a cell phone jammer."
;-)
No thanks, my cell phone came with a free jammer...it's called AT&T wireless service
Sent from your iPad.
While everyone else is getting brain cancer, I've been wearing my Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie for years.
Just a myriad of uses for these things...
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon
People are worried because of the word "microwave". A mobile phone cannot produce any great amount of RF heating, for a few simple reasons.
A microwave cooker uses a very high power magnetron (usually >500W), directed in a narrow, focused beam, into a resonant cavity (the oven itself) from a distance of around 6". Furthermore, the oven uses a specific frequency, much below which RF heating is much weaker, and you need a lot more power (somewhere around 2.45GHz).
Now, a mobile phone uses around 1 or 2 watts *peak*. In normal use, it won't go above 500mW rms, otherwise the batteries would last only a few minutes. Not only that, but the antenna is designed to spread the signal over a wide area.
Mobile phone cell towers are also pretty much safe - although they use a much higher power than phones (15W or so, IIRC) they tend to be stuck up on high poles, well away from people. Inverse Square Law, anyone?
Here in Scotland, we recently had a series of large protests about siting cell towers near schools. The protesters were mainly middle-class mothers, from supposedly posh parts of Glasgow. Damn near all of them had sunbed tans. I'd take my chances with a mobile phone cell tower before I'd risk skin cancer from a sunbed...
Microwave is simply an indication for the wavelength of a certain type of RF.
Your normal microwave oven works by emitting an RF signal at 2.45GHz
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Radiation found to be harmful, largest Radiation source found to be the Sun, blow up the Sun advises Slashdot.
Scientists claim radiation can be use to kill cancer, carry more mobile phones advises Slashdot.
Living in City can lead to lung disease, move to the country advises Slashdot.
Living in country results in lower salaries, move to City advises Slashdot.
Car pollution causes Global warming, buy bigger cars advises Slashdot.
Is there a risk from this RF, yup, is there more of a risk from people driving while using a mobile than from this... oh boy yes. Is there a risk from Coal fired powerstations from radiation... oh wow yes.
Passive Mobile phone usage, Caligormia to legislate.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Why does everybody still take this stuff seriously? Read the article- all this study does is establish that you get exposed to more RF radiation in a crowded train car than you do in other places. The scary part only comes in when it brings up these "international guidelines" which such exposure may exceed. Who established these guidelines, and how? The article does not say anything beyond the name of the organization, but I note that its name makes it sound like an independent, non-governmental organization- so this could be effectively anybody smart enough to give themselves a clever-sounding name
The idea that RF transmissions will kill you or cause cancer has a long and ugly history of bad science concealed by calculated emotional appeals. It was basically started by a guy whose wife (who used a cell phone a lot) died of brain cancer, from which he concluded that cell phones cause cancer. Most of the "science" that has been done on this issue is basically the same idiotic reasoning dressed up in white lab coats. It is highly likely that the organization setting this 'standard' is in fact one of the lobbying groups associated with the anti-cell-phone movement.
Consider- radio waves are extremely low-energy- far below the threshold necessary to break molecular bonds, which is how genuine cancer-causing radiation works. Thus, if RF waves do cause cancer, the mechanism by which they do this is A. different than for other sorts of radiation, and B. totally unknown.
Plus, as has been pointed out a million times, a 'jammer' is a device which drowns out a signal by emitting a much more powerful signal of its own, not by magically making the other signal go away. If RF waves give you cancer, the jammer will give you cancer faster.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Sounds like all the more reason to use a car instead! That way we can justify building more roads!
Sure there are dangers with microwaves, however as with all things, it comes down to dosage. Strong signals - bad. Weak signals - less bad OR no effect OR benificial. So what is it?
There is an awful lot of research into the effects of mobile phones (certainly here in Europe) as it is such a big issue and people are worried. However, so far no effects have been shown apart from usage of phones actually improving your short term memory by a small amount.
Still worried? Well here is a parallel example. Find yourself a large magnifying glass and stand underneath it in bright sunlight. You will be cooked. Does this mean that sunlight is dangerous? Well yes if its bright sunlight (sunburn / cancer etc). However at low levels it is good for you. Your body needs sunlight to produce vitamin D, without it you get rickets etc.
So will mobile phones kill you? The answer to that is a definite Yes. Many people have already died directly caused by mobile phones. How? Well by walking out in front of cars whilst talking, driving in walls whilst using them etc. Compared to this, this risk of getting cancer or other ill through mobile phone usage is tiny. Not nil, this can't be proved, but tiny.
wot no sig
So your view is that if a study is carried out and it doesn't agree with your uninformed preconceptions, then that study is worthless?
:)
The studies are all public, and the results are frequently published on the TV news and in papers over here. It couldn't be any more open, seeing as the vast majority of the population have mobiles it's in everyone's interest. The fact is there hasn't been any real conclusion one way or the other yet, but that's not because of a cover up or because of people "closing their eyes", it's because science doesn't know whether it's a risk yet or not.
So it comes down to personal choice - I for one and happy to take the (slight, IMHO) risk that there may be health problems in exchange for the convenience. If you don't think that's a risk worth taking, don't use a phone. Just make sure you live in an oxygen tent to avoid pollution, don't drive, don't take drugs, drink or smoke, and avoid eating bread or cakes. All those things have been PROVEN to cause health problems, but people still do them
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Ever seen one of those wireless phones you have at home? So you can run around the house while speaking in it. Got any idea how strong that signal is? How often it transmits signals?
Or what about wireless ethernet for that matter...
We need science, and we need to know what is dangerous and what is not. But these reports, or the reports about the dangers of potato chips, is not especially valid yet. I belive that two independant studies has to be made before you can draw any conclusion, and both of them has to live up to certain scientific standards.
Yeah, but radioactivity and X-rays are ionising radiation. Non-ionising isn't really as dangerous.
There's a much larger EM field set up by the traction motors. Why isn't anyone worried by that?
As someone who has been in a few large substations, and near to high power transmitters, they do have effect on your body. You feel dizzy and ill after being near to these sites - there are no two ways about this. Many others claim this as well.
Phones may not do this to such a great extent - but open up one of the many "monkey drum" microwave dishes found all over the place in the UK, and the USA as well I should imagine. What do you find? A conventional cooking microwave magnetron. Ok, slightly different, and usually of a lower power.
Radar can produce huge bursts of power - and round radar sites, there are exclusion zones to stop you receiving a dose large enough to make you infertile or even kill you. Precision Approach Radar can be very dangerous in this respect due to the fact that the frequency and power used are dangerous, the dishes are located at ground level, and some of them can rotate 360 degress in seconds (the unit has to realign when different runways are used, and if you are in the way). Yes, this is an extreme case... but it still shows something.
I think that dismissing RF as safe because it doesn't cause ionisation or heating is stupid. In the same way as smoking was once viewed as safe, and that skin cancer has only been noticed very recently. Often our bodies do not behave in the ways which we think they should. I just think we should wait to see all the evidence before we jump to conclusions.
Surely electric currents in the brain are affected by RF? Do we know if this is bad or not? People also die when they are using their phone and can't pay full attention to the situation they are in.
Other issues are that when many radio waves are in a small space, they do not always combine to produce the same frequencies. Harmonics and other frequencies are generated, so saying that the frequency that the phone transmits is not dangerous doesn't mean the area is. Powers can also mount up.....
And jammers tend not to be high power - they disrupt the signal in a more clever manner. Although in the short term, the phones will transmit with more power, people will turn them off or the phones will stop trying so regularly.
I don't have a mobile. I don't want one mainly for the reason I don't want to be conctacted when someone doesn't know where I am. Landlines tend to be cheaper as well.
The problem is, there is no mention of any real-world measurements being taken. Maybe the model is fundamentally flawed. Maybe having people in the carriage causes the signals to be attenuated more quickly than the model allows for. Maybe the metal of the carriage is not a perfect reflector. Maybe there is destructive interference between phones like the fading on AM radio stations in the evening etc. After all, if too much of the radiation were bouncing around internally, not enough would get out to allow the phones to work at all.
People used to think that radioactivity and X-rays were really nifty and harmless, but things turned out differently. Maybe we should learn from that and be more careful this time around.
However people also thought humans can never survive speeds at 20 miles per hour, and doomed the frist trains, and were backed by scientist. Even then most medics critizied that there are high possibilities that travelling at such "enormous" speeds is likely to leave permanent damadges on the human body, and warned everybody not to risk that. What do you think today of this?
What should we learn from this? Panoia can also be very rediculous, seen afterwards.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
when one can use a cheap and long known device, a Faraday cage.
As for the train, the only area not covered is the windows, adding a fine mesh of wire (inside the glass) and connect it to the body off the train, and you have an effective mean of shutting down most of the mobile phone emmision, they only remaining is the mobile phones trying to reach a base station.
If people travel a certain amount of time, say 20 minutes or more, they are likely to turn off the mobile phone since there is no access until they get off the train. And they will save some power on the battery (not as big a problem as it used to be though).
Carbon based humanoid in training.
How much RF will you soak up when you have a device in your pocket that will have to put out a 50-100 watt RF spike into every 1 khz of a 50-100 MHz wide frequency BAND? Your ass will melt. Besides: you're not soaking up that much RF from other people's mobiles, not compared to what they do, and if I were you I wouldn't worry so much about a few watts from a tower: if you want something RF to cry about, how about that 50+ kHz wide 50 MEGAWATT radio station that you live only a few miles away from, that's blasting you much harder than a tiny little cell phone tower. Sheesh!
I will agree with you, though, if you say a no-phone section ought to be created in resteraunts. You don't just drop your pants and crap on the floor at a restaurant, do you? No, you get up and excuse yourself and go to the bathroom. That's what people should do when the get or have to make a call in a busy social situ. Plus, all CP's should have a silent ringer.
Indeed, if you're in a restaurant, and someone starts gabbing and laughing on a cellphone right at his table, just go over to his table, pull down your pants, and take a shit right on his table, (preferably in his food, or his lap). When he says "hey!" Tell him, that that is what he is doing to your meal by yacking on his phone while you're trying to eat.
Just a suggestion anyway.
The man has made calculations and assumptions based on these calculations. I see no mention of measurements. There are meters that will measure radiation field strength, and will let you isolate the sources by frequency. Without measurements, the conclusions are just as valuable as the cries of Chicken Little. The sky is still where we left it.
we happen to know that electromagnetic radiation isn't very good for your health.
What's even worse is there's never been a full-scale study about the dangers of Light bulbs. Just look at them (figuratively, I mean) radiating electromagnetic radiation everywhere. I mean, your house is full of the damn things, and those evil light bulb companies don't want us to know the truth.
Turn off the lights!!!
-Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
But if every extremely vocal teenybopper with a cellphone and unlimited minutes suddenly develops cancer and DIES.... I'm supposed to feel SAD about that... right?
It was nicer back in the day when it cost 30 cents per minute to use your cell, and thats if you were only making a local call. A lot of people had them, but nobody used them unless they HAD to, and even then they kept the conversations short and to the point. There was no fear of idle chitchat while in a movie theatre.
And no offense to women, but they're abusive phone users. This is nothing new. But before cheap cell phones, they were isolated to their own homes and didn't seem too compelled to share their hours long conversations with the rest of the world. But now, go into any large grocery store and I can almost certainly guarantee you that there will be at least ONE woman in there gossiping up a storm with someone over the cell, almost completely oblivious to the world around her. Its worse when they drive.
So hey, I'm all in favor. LET the phones cause cancer. Hell, make them even MORE dangerous. And the louder the user speaks, make it emit more radiation. Its the perfect way to rid the world of the people that seem to dedicate their lives to annoying others.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
First, I don't see all these supposive people dropping dead from RF over-exposure via cell phones. Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's one giant conspiracy. Right. Second, I think the person who has the most to worry about is the user. We're not talking second hand smoke here. The power at range just isn't significant to harm a 3rd party. Third, your worried about cellphones when you probably drive through a myriad of high intensity EM fields everyday!? Take a florecent light and walk under some high-tension power lines one of these days. Or put one in a mirowave. I'm sure you'll find the effect enlightening. Funny how a cellphone doesn't produce either of these effects, but it just happens to be everybodies whipping-boy of the day. I love it.
And you actually want to jam cell phone calls? I hope those people get their asses sued off the day somebody tries to phone in a life threatening injury but can't. If you have the right to jam my phone, I must have the right to slash your tires to keep from annoying me. I can't wait until they make jamming triangulators so they can find you, beat your sorry butt down and break your little toy. heh.
Ironically, I'm betting your little jammer will produce more EM radiation than a cellphone. I used to work on EA-6b Prowlers in the navy and you're going to have a tough time jamming without generating an equal or greater amount of power than the source. That, and the greater the range, the more power it'll require. Have fun irradiating yourself, chumps.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Let me add just a tad more information to this discussion.
As I recall from my E&M class (and I am an electronic engineer) the depth of penetration for an arriving wave is related to the wavelength(actually the energy content of the photon is what we're talking about..) So microwaves just don't penetrate that far in relative to something like 100Meter wave lengths.
Further, alot of the cell phones today are spread spectrum phones - so they spread their energy out - so the Watts/Hz is pretty small.
Lastly - when you consider the inverse square law that applies to radiation of RF, then the guy who has the phone against his head is ALOT more at risk that the guy standing next to him or someone standing down the car 5m away? The additive issues of even a dozen phones isn't likely to be an issue compared to the level you are exposed to with the phone next to you.
I would be REAL suspicious of this guy's work.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
My cell phone (the ubiquitous Nokia 3360) is a TDMA phone that operates in the IS-54 (800 MHz) and IS-136 (1.9 GHz) bands. Now, 1.9 GHz sounds like a big, scary cancer-causing number. So let's see if it really is.
First of all, we need to know how radiation causes cancer. We'll just assume it's electromagnetic radiation, since cell phones definitely do not emit anti-protons, neutrons, muons and other shit like that. There's no way in hell a battery the size of a Triscut can generate reaction energies high enough to produce hadrons or leptons, so we can forget about them. (Well, actually, with a big capacitor you might get a few, but you're already getting showered with cosmic rays, and the pathetic little fart of hadrons you'd get out of a cell phone battery wouldn't count for didly squat.) The cancer-causing mechanism for electromagnetic radiation is fairly simple. In order to be dangerous, a photon (the electromagnetic force carrier particle) needs to carry enough energy to ionize (chemistry parlance for "fuck up") something important. It doesn't really matter how many photons you're slinging around, since it's the frequency that determines the energy of a single quanta.
So, what is our hypothetical candidate cancer-causing quanta going to have to inonize to do the deed? Well, DNA of course. It's going to have to cause a genetic mutation. Because of the way photons interact with matter, they are most likely to be absorbed by electromagnetically contiguous objects of sizes roughly equal to their wavelength. The reasons are deeper than this, but suffice it to say that a photon is "smeared" over an area about the size of its wavelength. Since you can't absorb part of a quanta (that's why they're called quanta, after all), you have to have a thing big enough to soak up a whole particle about the size of the wavelength. In this way, everything is, or is made of, antennae. To cause a mutation, you have to have a photon whose wavelength is about equal to diameter of a DNA molecule. Actually, the ideal length of an antenna is a quarter the wavelength of its intended optimal frequency, so we'll say the wavelength we're looking for is four times the diameter.
So, as I said, my cell phone operates at 1.9 GHz, or 1.9 billion cycles per second. What's the wavelength? Well, wavelength is the period times the speed of light. The period is the the inverse of frequency, so :
3*10^8 / 1.9*10^9 ~= 0.16 M
That's about the length of your hand, give or take a thumb. One quarter of that is about 4 cm - about the length of your thumb, give or take a nail. Now ask yourself this question: How big is your DNA?
If your DNA is built out of atoms the size of rasins, you might have something to worry about. The diameter of the DNA helix is 2 nm and the vertical rise per base pair is 0.34 nm. If you want a photon that will be able to reliably zap DNA, it needs to have a wavelength _smaller_ than 8 nm. The probability that a photon will be absorbed by a given object decreases with respect to the difference between the size of the object and the wavelength of the photon according to the standard deviation. So what's the probability that a given photon spewing out of my cell phone is going to fry some of my DNA? Well, we're a factor of five million away from the optimal wavelength. I'd say it's pretty fucking unlikely.
But wait a second - what's kind of radiation has a wavelength of 8 namometers? Well, we do the opposite to find the frequency :
3*10^8 / 8*10-9 = 3.7*10^16
That's in the ultraviolet range. Surprise, surprise!
So, what can we conclude from this? Well, since a cell phone has a transmission power of less than a watt and a wavelength the size of your thumb, it's not going to do jack shit to your DNA. Nada. Zilch. In other words, THERE IS NO WAY CELL PHONE RADIATION CAN GIVE YOU CANCER!!! I'd be more inclined to beleive that the plastic in the earpiece causes cancer.
You're several orders of magnitude more likely to contract cancer as a result of proximity to a 100 watt incandecant light bulb. It's got a much, much higher output, and its frequency range is thousands of times higher.
So relax, enjoy your wireless technology, and wear your SPF-30.
In spite of the suggestions and all the tests that I have made, I have not cavato a spider from the hole.