FCC Revisiting Mobile Device Radiation Standards

MojoKid writes "Did you know that the FCC hasn't updated its guidelines regarding maximum radiation levels in mobile devices since 1996? FCC chairman Julius Genachowski is apparently aware of this, because he's looking to launch a formal inquiry into the matter. In a statement that was recently circulated, the FCC isn't exactly concerned that current standards are too lax, but it makes sense to periodically review standards for an industry that changes and evolves so rapidly and dramatically. There has been much debate in recent years about the potential danger of radiation from cell phones, and although there has been some study on the subject, there is not yet a general consensus on whether there is a real danger from mobile device radiation, and if there is, what the acceptable levels might be."

Comments

Uh...

[CajunArson]

1. I'm assuming there hasn't been too much radical human evolution since 1996.
2. Considering that modern devices likely emit lower levels of radiation simply to save battery life compared to the bricks of '96, I doubt that you are getting cooked by your iPhone in any worse way than by your grandpa's Startac.

Re:Uh...

[icebike]

1. I'm assuming there hasn't been too much radical human evolution since 1996.
2. Considering that modern devices likely emit lower levels of radiation simply to save battery life compared to the bricks of '96, I doubt that you are getting cooked by your iPhone in any worse way than by your grandpa's Startac.

Grandpa!?? Listen, sonny, I represent that statement!!

My first cell was the MicroTac, which predated both the StarTac and the FCC radiation standards by almost 10 years. This thing would fry your ear with heat on a call of any duration. Their anemic batteries pretty much limited duration to a medium broil.

Further, any effects of radiation from those old school phones should have been seen by now. The NRC states that

The effects of low doses of radiation, if any, would occur at the cell level, and thus changes may not be observed for many years (usually 5-20 years) after exposure.

And they are talking about ionizing radiation, not simple radio waves.

Contrary to the Summary's assertion that "there is not yet a general consensus on whether there is a real danger from mobile device radiation", there is simply no longer any debate, as every study finding even a remote statistical link has been deeply flawed, and pretty well debunked. Even the formerly hand wringing article over at Wikipedia has been forced to admit there is just no evidence. The historical/hysterical versions of that article were pretty comical at times.

What sort of radiation?

[Hatta]

Ionizing or non-ionizing?

If ionizing, why are cell phones emitting ionizing radiation at all?

If non-ionizing, it's completely harmless. No sane person worrys about non-ionizing radiation.

Re:What sort of radiation?

[cpu6502]

>>>Non-ionizing radiation refers to any type of electromagnetic radiation that does not carry enough energy per quantum to remove an electron from an atom or molecule. - wikipedia.

Okay.
That still doesn't mean they are safe. Who knows how the EM waves might disrupt internal cellular processes, like the duplication of DNA during cellular cloning. It is when that process goes wrong that cancer happens.

Re:What sort of radiation?

[Shagg]

Does that mean that you believe you can cook your dinner with a cell phone?

Re:What sort of radiation?

[Immerman]

Agreed. In fact there's very promising research underway in the use of electric fields to kill cancer - since cancer cells divide far more often than most other cells an aggressive "kill field" can be applied to an area making cell division a fatal process, thus damaging the cancer far more severely than the surrounding tissue, without the unpleasant side effects of radiation or chemotherapy. Potential side effects of the electric fields are still unknown.
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_doyle_treating_cancer_with_electric_fields.html

The point of course is that we know for a fact that at least some electric fields can cause severe cellular trauma, it stands to reason that there are much larger number of field characteristics that would result in less obvious damage. In the face of that just assuming that all electric fields are safe is foolish. It's also worth noting that the nature of the transmissions has changed - in '96 analogue transmission was the norm, these days almost everything has gone digital, and that makes a considerable difference in the physical properties of the signal - assuming it will continue to interfere with cellular processes in the exact same (probably mostly harmless) manner is unfounded.

More to the point - while *nothing* is completely safe, it just makes good sense to reexamine the regulations governing fast-changing fields on a regular basis, if only to make sure there are no new developments that cast doubt on the wisdom of existing policy. 90's era cell phones were probably reasonably safe - today we have far more mobile devices in operation, so the level of background radiation generated is considerably higher with different spectral properties. Is that a problem? Probably not, but I'd just as soon have the question asked officially from time to time.

Re:What sort of radiation?

[tomhuxley]

And the moon has massive effects on the tides, yet somehow seems to avoid getting blamed for causing cancer. Likewise, music makes your ear drums vibrate, yet where is the commission looking into rock 'n' roll 'n' cancer?

The reason it would be "retarded" to think those cause cancer is because there is no mechanism by which they could cause cancer. Likewise, there is no mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer. It is orders of magnitude to weak to have any effect.

It's not a blanket statement, it is a reasonable position to hold in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

Non-ionizing radiation

[sandysnowbeard]

Cell phones use non-ionizing radiation. I'm all for some studies to double-check our assumptions, but hypothetically isn't that the end of the story?

Finally

[jrmcferren]

Hopefully they will get rid of these BULLSHIT regulations. Handheld two way radios can put out up to SEVEN yes SEVEN watts and the FCC doesn't have any problems with those. I don't need a seven watt transmitter, but damnit allow them use use efficient antennas in cell phones. If a cop can use a five watt transmitter, why can't everybody else?

General consensus

[Shagg]

You're right, there isn't a consensus:

Sane people: There is no danger.
Insane people: OMG, my cell phone is frying my brain! Hold on... I need to answer this call.

Re:General consensus

[lurker1997]

"there is not yet a general consensus on whether there is a real danger from mobile device radiation"

This is utter bullshit. As you say, there is a consensus among all non-nutjobs. A debate about whether low levels of non-ionizing EM are dangerous belongs in the same category in debates about the easter bunny or ghosts or something. It is pathetic the way media pretends there is a controversy. Some idiot at some point said "I don't understand this and it has radiation in its name, which i think is bad because I'm too dumb to understand the difference between electromagnetism and nuclear radiation". There is not controversy, there is not even a question.

PS. Guidelines are important because of heating; this is the only thing past standards address and if future standards address anything else, it is equivalent to changing the building code to make kids bedrooms ghost proof.

Re:General consensus

[Immerman]

Actually there is some evidence that heavy cell phone use may increase the odds of developing some forms of in-skull tumors. Not conclusive, but it's not a completely clear-cut "it's all good" either. Just because something would be inconvenient if true doesn't make it false.

Also, while the "dangers" research typically focus on cell damage there's another potential problem that could be much harder to detect: every single person on the planet is operating an extremely sensitive and poorly-understood analogue electro-chemical computer, aka "nervous system". We know for a fact that it transmits extremely low-amplitude radio-spectrum signals as part of it's normal operation, and as any engineer can tell you there's no such thing as a "transmit only" antenna. To assume that such an extremely complicated system can operate in the presence of a much stronger radio signal without being effected is completely foolish.