Slashdot Mirror


California Government On the Dangers of Cellphones (cbslocal.com)

mi quotes a report from CBS Local: After keeping it hidden for years, California's Department of Public Health has released a draft document outlining health officials' concerns about cellphone radiation exposure. The previously unpublished document was released this week after a judge indicated she would order the documents be disclosed. Health officials' overall recommendation is to "increase the distance between you and your phone" by using a headset, the speaker phone function and text messaging. Health officials recommend not sleeping near your phone and not carry it in your pocket or directly on your body, unless it is off. The fact sheet also states that "EMFs can pass deeper into a child's brain than and adult's" so suggests parents limit their child's cellphone use to texting, important call and emergencies.

237 comments

  1. Sigh... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If that's the case, then the entire human race needs to move to the bottom of salt mines, because the amount of radiation being produced by the sun ought to fry our brains by the time we're six months old.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Sigh... by methano · · Score: 1

      By sticking their head in the sand, looks like some judge is well on their way.

    2. Re:Sigh... by Spazmania · · Score: 3, Informative

      The document was unreleased because it was a factually wrong draft. A corded phone produces a weaker EMF than a wired headset? Really?

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    3. Re:Sigh... by Tablizer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      the amount of radiation being produced by the sun ought to fry our brains

      Maybe they are fried. It would explain how that xenophobic Orange Toddler got elected by the masses.

    4. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bask in the glow of a nearby(*) fusion reactor...

      (*) +/- 1 AU.

    5. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The tissues do get warmer according to some studies with heavy use in areas with bad cell reception (equals maximum handset power), but whether that is harmful within the recommended maximum power limits of 2 watts, that is the question.

    6. Re:Sigh... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      You understand, I trust, that the sun produces more than just EM radiation in the visible spectrum, right?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Sigh... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Or, simpler, move out of California, as nowhere else cellphones produce such deadly amounts of radiation.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    8. Re:Sigh... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      If that's the case, then the entire human race needs to move to the bottom of salt mines, because the amount of radiation being produced by the sun ought to fry our brains by the time we're six months old.

      I'm pretty sure that by the time the sun's radiation reaches us, the amount of it that can penetrate more than a millimetre below the skin is vanishingly small. OTOH, the radiation from a cell phone, can and does penetrate much farther - as in all the way through.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    9. Re:Sigh... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know if their concerns are valid or not.

      The concerns are not valid. There are two ways you can determine this for yourself: The finger method, or the brain method.

      Finger method: Type some search terms into a browser and try to find peer reviewed research that shows cellphone radiation is dangerous. You won't find any. You will, however, find plenty of ranting by crackpots.

      Brain method: Think about what radiation is, and how it could damage a brain. There are two ways that could happen: heat and ionization. Cellphone radiation produces a negligible amount of the first, and none of the second.

      In the absence of either evidence or plausible mechanism, it is safe to presume cellphone radiation harmless. You should find something else to worry about.

    10. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it impossible that you are wrong, and that heat and ionization are not the only way that a brain could be affected?

      Do you regard the scientific study of the human brain as complete? I would argue that we have barely begun to understand it.

    11. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The type of radiation matters

      Not to California.

      Because OMG, RADIATION!

    12. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know that heat and ionization are the only ways RF radiation can harm a brain?

      It's well known that exposure to UV increases the risk of skin cancer. Is that heating or ionization?

    13. Re:Sigh... by zerocool512 · · Score: 4, Informative

      How do you know that heat and ionization are the only ways RF radiation can harm a brain?

      It's well known that exposure to UV increases the risk of skin cancer. Is that heating or ionization?

      That would fall under ionization

      --
      If techs didn't disagree with each other, then Microsoft would rule the world.
    14. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ionization. Consider using your local friendly search engine before asking such an asinine question next time.

    15. Re:Sigh... by nbauman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Several years ago, the IEEE Spectrum had a big article in which they tried to find the best current evidence on whether cell phones emitted harmful radiation. So they reviewed all the major studies.

      They had 2 interesting results:

      1. In the best evidence for the harms of EMF, the radiation wasn't steady over long periods of time, but intermittent, with exposures of minutes to hours every day.

      2. Studies of household radiation found the highest levels of EMFs from 2 sources: hair dryers and blenders.

      So if you're really worried about EMFs, you should get rid of hair dryers and blenders.

      I showed the IEEE Spectrum issue to Louis Slesin, the editor of Microwave News, and asked him about it. He refused to comment. I said, why not? He said, I just don't want to comment.

    16. Re:Sigh... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is it impossible that you are wrong, and that heat and ionization are not the only way that a brain could be affected?

      Nothing is completely impossible, but this issue has been studied to death. Billions of people use cellphones. If there was an issue it would have shown up in epidemiological data long ago.

      Doing yet more research is nearly pointless. It would be far better to focus resources on other health issues that are supported by actual evidence rather than pseudoscience.

    17. Re:Sigh... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's well known that exposure to UV increases the risk of skin cancer. Is that heating or ionization?

      UV light causes ionization. Furthermore, there is ACTUAL EVIDENCE that UV light causes cancer. Skin cancer is highly correlated with UV exposure. Americans are more likely to get skin cancer on their left arm. Australians tend to get it on their right arm. The only plausible explanation for that is that Americans drive on the right, and Aussies on the left, exposing different arms to the sun.

      If cellphones cause cancer, there would be similar disparities in brain cancer incidence depending on whether the cellphone is held to your right ear or left ear. Researchers have looked for this, and found no significant difference in cancer rates between "listening side" and "non-listening side". There is also no evidence that heavy cell users have higher rates of brain cancer.

      Is it possible that that we have missed something? Sure, but maybe we also missed Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

    18. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In the absence of either evidence or plausible mechanism, it is safe to presume cellphone radiation harmless.

      That's not necessarily true.

      "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

    19. Re:Sigh... by Sark666 · · Score: 2

      What are these images showing that were making the rounds years ago?

      https://userscontent2.emaze.co...

    20. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OPTION 3: Chinese Plastics/Metals/Coating with toxic and radioactive contaminants.
      They do it in everything else they make ;)

    21. Re:Sigh... by Eugenia+Loli · · Score: 1

      Non-native EMF (such as from devices) is not the same as EMF from the sun.

    22. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem here is that even if cellphone and microwave oven radiation is dangerous (I believe it is a tiny tiny amount dangerous because the scientific bodies that defined dangerous RF essentially said "1/10th of actual danger we found in studies should be fine"), there are things out there that will kill you much much sooner. Most people die from Heart Disease and cancer. Worry about that like 1,000x first before other tiny things.

    23. Re: Sigh... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

      Trump was never the best candidate. He's just a good con-man.

    24. Re: Sigh... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that the sunlight reaching your ears contains more 700-2700MHz RF than your cellphone emits?

    25. Re:Sigh... by Misagon · · Score: 1

      Your point is moot because the sun does not produce electromagnetic radiation in the microwave spectrum ...

      Seriously. Who moderated the parent post up?

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    26. Re:Sigh... by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      Next... the California Assembly mandates the wearing of tin foil hats by children using cellphones.

    27. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be pretty damned obvious by now if cell phones were causing cancer.

    28. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point is moot because the sun does not produce electromagnetic radiation in the microwave spectrum ...

      Wrong

    29. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the date: 1996 and the study was probably done using high powered analog mobile phones, they did cause cancer because they output way more radiation than modern digital phones.

      From what I have been able to research and learn over the years, best practices with your cell phone are to use wired earbuds if you are going to have a long call, but modern digital cell phones put out less radiation at a lower intensity than you get standing in the sun (the frequency makes little difference until your power level becomes ionizing) and on a statistical basis, the risk of cancer from a modern cell phone is on par with the random noise in the statistical risk of getting cancer from all other sources.

    30. Re:Sigh... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      The Sun is the least of our worries. The amount of "high energy" infrared (compared to microwave) EM radiation that we've being bathed in at room temperature is nearly 3 magnitudes greater. The deep tissue heating caused by sleeping next to someone is going to freak these people out.

    31. Re:Sigh... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I did read one research that showed a bias of cancer forming near where the phone is used BUT no increased risk of getting cancer. They assumed that localized warming may help cancer metastasize.

    32. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is it possible that that we have missed something? Sure, but maybe we also missed Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

      Clearly we have, otherwise we would have seen them.

    33. Re:Sigh... by Bartles · · Score: 0

      EM radiation isn't in the visible spectrum. It's not visible as a series of squiggly lines emanating from devices, you know.

    34. Re:Sigh... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      It's California. There is no such thing as pseudoscience.

    35. Re:Sigh... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Can we say with certainty that it's not affected by mental telepaths who live in the mountains of Chile?

    36. Re: Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We use hairdryers and blenders for a few minutes a day if that (0m/y, 30m/y for me), rather than hours a day as with phones. We don't carry them round powered up in our pockets either. The energy also varies with frequency (do hairdryers give out GHz radiation?) but I expect they took that into account.

    37. Re:Sigh... by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      More importantly, cumulative exposure is important. Just because you use your phone does not mean the sun stops shining. Just because you use your phone, does not mean power lines stop generating powerful electromagnetic fields. Just because you use your phone does not mean airfield radars stop. Just because you use your phone does not mean radio and tv transmissions stop. On it's own, with limited use, probably not a problem, added to the rest, yeah, a problem ie using you phone, next to an airport, whilst police operate a radar speed strap and your standing under power lines having just come from a dentists xrays, yep, you are frying the fuck out of your DNA, keep it up and cancer will be in your destiny and make no fucking mistake.

      Bugger the phone marketdroid lies, cumulative impact from multiple radiation sources is as dangerous as fuck and you do not want to keep adding more and more because on it's own the new one is not so bad but is is most definitely not on it's own, idiots (that final straw means death by cancer).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    38. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like, (Score:5, Ignorant)

      Different frequencies, different power levels, broad spectrum exposure as compared to targeted exposure.

      Are you a troll or an idiot?

    39. Re:Sigh... by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Visible light is a subset of electromagnetic radiation. If it's made of photons, it's electromagnetic radiation.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    40. Re: Sigh... by ljw1004 · · Score: 2

      You said you can use your brain and realize only way radiation can damage the brain is through heating or ionization.

      How do you know there's not a third mechanism, where the brain acts like a mini antenna and gets minor electrical signals? And maybe these are harmful in some way, not a big thing like an epileptic fit, but maybe more subtle, maybe that hits a frequency that triggers bad effects? I think that bird brains have a kind of electromagnetic compass so we know that some brains do respond to electromagnetic fields. And sharks sense by electrical fields.

      I'm not saying these are true. I just think they'd need to be ruled out by you 'finger' method of looking at scientific research, and that your 'brain'method isn't enough...

    41. Re:Sigh... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Exposure to Government sources is probably very damaging to your brain. And twice as much in California.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    42. Re:Sigh... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Although my statement about the squiggly lines is still correct, hehe.

    43. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could argue it depends on the frequency of the radiation. 2.45 ghz is the common frequency for microwave ovens, which excite water molecules. Heated water molecules might damage cells and cause problems. I don't know what a blender would emit.

      But the power output on WiFi is fairly low (I think 5 watts or maybe 0.5 watts, I can't remember). I wouldn't sleep right next to one (there is a warning to keep about 8 inches away from it), but it should be okay to be in the same room as it.

      It's got to be even less for cell phones, especially when on standby waiting for calls. The only worry would be when sending large amounts of data, but that's not a huge problem in the US (thanks Verizo and AT&T!).

    44. Re: Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you elaborate? EMF are EMF. Amplitude and frequency may vary but that's basically it.

    45. Re: Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but it's how science works: you stick with the current hypothesis untill you have evidence of a better.

      (There's no evidence that gravity is what we believe it to be; nobody can guarantee 100% that next time you drop an apple, for some unknown combination of reasons, it's not going to fly *up* instead of down. But until that happens, we stick with the current model.)

    46. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're showing you the energy absorbed by the human brain at various ages (I can't speak for the validity but let's assume it's authentic and well established).

      There is a very wide range of radiation that is absorbed by the human brain/body - both man made and natural. The question is does this alter/cause death of cells. As the GP stated, it's neither ionising nor significantly heating the cells.

      Providing an image with no explanation speaks a thousand words of assumptions and poor understanding radiation.

    47. Re: Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not dismissing your argument as I agree there may be unknown reactions but there is a flaw in your statement. How do you know the compass/electric field detection isn't another sense, rather than intrinsically part of the brain? Perhaps you are saying our brain hears and sees rather than electric signals being processed which is sent from our ears and eyes?

    48. Re: Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also electrostatics. Many molecules in living tissue (humans, cows, plants...) react differently in electrostatic fields owing to polarisation. That's known to cause trouble, e.g. with herding animals directly below high-voltage lines.

      Now EM radiation isn't exactly electrostatic, its effects ought to middle out over insanely small amounts of time. So I don't believe that to be an issue.

      But if I was looking for a place to start investigating, just to rule *everything* out, that would be it.

      (There could be resonance or interference effects with different wavelengths way below ionization frequencies, if timing of involved chemical processes matched. Highly unlikely though, I think if that was the case, we'd at least observed some effects by now, with billions using cellphones. Besides, cellphone radiation would have to be at least slightlyl coherent for this to work, which it isn't.)

    49. Re: Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is.

    50. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only two of the sources you cited produce ionising radiation. The rest produce non-ionising radiation that shows no evidence of being harmful to your DNA at all. In fact it's the opposite and even those that claim mobile phones cause cancer state it's the warming of cells from the EMF and not direct DNA damage.

      What you're saying is like I'm being bombarded by many different frequencies of low decibel sounds, so it's causing me to go deaf!

    51. Re: Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our knowledge of the brain is complete enough to know that certain wavelengths of EM have no effect. It's basic biology. We know what types of matter are in the brain, and what wavelengths of radiation affect them.

      Saying that because we don't know how certain neurons interact with certain regions of the brain or where certain memories are stored, or how conciousness is defined means we may not be sure if taking a sledgehammer to the brain is dangerous or not, is stupid. Extending that to assume certain beliefs are true and to legislate about it is a dangerous form of religion.

    52. Re: Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about electricity meters? In some homes in tbe UK, the cupboard housing the electric meter is right next to a bedroom and the space where a bed would go.

    53. Re: Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sleeping next to electric meters is suspected to cause leukemia. Same with living under high voltage lower lines. For some reason being within line of sight of a megawatt TV/radio transmitter increases your risk of being in a cluster of cancer cases.

      Strong microwave radiation is known to increase the rosk of heart attacks (large military radar installations used to detect ICBM's).

    54. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you post myths?

      (no, microwave ovens do not work because of a specific water molecule frequency)

      http://sciencequestionswithsur...

    55. Re: Sigh... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I talked to my biology teacher about the whole powerline thing. He summed it up as an electric razor produces more EM of any frequency you care to look at, but high voltage powerlines are so high voltage that they can ionize nearby air and leak power to ground. It's not the EM, it's the ionized air.

    56. Re:Sigh... by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Why do you question something he didn't say?

    57. Re:Sigh... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Reading fail:

      "2.45 ghz is the common frequency for microwave ovens, which excite water molecules"

    58. Re:Sigh... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 0

      uhhh....The brain isn't some magic organ. It reacts to external sources of energy as any part of the body and there are TWO things external sources of energy can produce, heat or ionization (the removal of electrons from an atom to produce an ion).

      So....since Microwaves are not ionizing (citation: PHYSICS) you are left with heat which as stated is near zero.

    59. Re: Sigh... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      all are sources of STRONG EM emissions. Cell phones are in the milliwatt range, not the Megawatt or even Kilowatt or even Watt range.

    60. Re:Sigh... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      How? because those are the only two things EM radiation can do (since we are including ionization you need to talk about the entire EM spectrum)

    61. Re:Sigh... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      p-hacking is the more likely case for the slight signal in their data.

    62. Re: Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you're joking.

    63. Re:Sigh... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Nothing is completely impossible, but this issue has been studied to death. Billions of people use cellphones. If there was an issue it would have shown up in epidemiological data long ago.

      Not only has this been studied to death, but if was studied to death when mobiles were less power efficient. If we were going to see EM damage we would have seen it in the analog era.

    64. Re:Sigh... by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Are they suggesting that people who wander around aimlessly with cell phones plastered to their heads used to be smarter?

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    65. Re: Sigh... by dgatwood · · Score: 0

      It isn't any of those things. People who live near power lines tend to be poor, and poverty is correlated with higher cancer rates. When you correct for income differences, the correlation goes away.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    66. Re:Sigh... by dgatwood · · Score: 0

      Actually, the data was probably skewed by people's faulty memory of which ear they used. People with a history of cancer assumed that a correlation must exist and therefore said that they used it more on the side where they had previously gotten cancer. To be valid, you would need to ask that question *before* they got cancer.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    67. Re:Sigh... by sjames · · Score: 2

      Yes, really. The corded phone doesn't have to emit microwaves strong enough to reach the nearest tower. The wired headset will conduct at least some of the microwave radiation directly to your ear.

      The question of harm is a different matter.

    68. Re:Sigh... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The 60 Hz emissions from a hair dryer or blender are quite different than microwave emissions.

    69. Re:Sigh... by sjames · · Score: 1

      It does. It may not be some specific frequency that targets water, but it does heat water. That's why you can boil water in a microwave.

    70. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nerve conduction is mediated by ionic movement, irrespective of heating or ionization. EM radiation affects that, as do EMF's. Whether it's harmful is unclear. Maybe it makes people smarter. Or maybe it just stimulates the brain's pleasure center, causing victims to use cell phones obsessively.

      Whenever there is a large vested interest in evidence not being found, the lack of evidence of harm is not very useful as evidence of lack of harm. In addition, the existence of the vested interest leads to conspiracy theories and crackpots. Then when you mix in the incompetence of politicians, currently there is no way to resolve this issue.

    71. Re:Sigh... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      I am on 50Hz you insensitive clod.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    72. Re:Sigh... by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      2.45 ghz is the common frequency rating for microwave ovens. Food gets heated in a microwave mainly through the excitation of water molecules.

      "2.45 ghz is the common frequency for microwave ovens, which excite water molecules"

      Sounds about right to me.

    73. Re:Sigh... by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      On a tangent, XKCD did a graph of the number of cameras being carried by the general population against the number of verified pictures of said critters. The graph stays level until the 90's then does the ol' hockey-stick thing, while of course the number of pics remains at zero.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    74. Re:Sigh... by Megol · · Score: 1

      Not in context. The use here, while technically correct, implies that the specific frequency somehow is special. The text continues with that faulty implication which indicates the writer actually meant that rather than making the implication by mistake.

      Let's do a comparison. Males are rapists. Technically true (among the group called males there are some that rapes other people) but not really meaningful (the vast majority of males in most animal categories doesn't rape _and_ some females are also rapists).

    75. Re: Sigh... by Megol · · Score: 1

      That may be true (never seen any numbers - and have never searched for it) however powerlines do produce ozone which isn't too nice to be around, would be strange if people living close by wouldn't be affected.

    76. Re:Sigh... by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "The text continues with that faulty implication which indicates the writer actually meant that rather than making the implication by mistake"

      Could you tell me what you mean by 'that faulty implication' ?

    77. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or your mom

    78. Re: Sigh... by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1
      The quantum organelles within the cells of the pineal gland vibrate at a complex frequency, the real component of which is a prime harmonic of common cellular frequencies. When powerful yet highly entropic excitation is electronically induced in these "powerhouses of the soul" by a(n accidentally) well-tuned proximate emitter of electromagnetic radiation, the gland is overwhelmed, quantum consciousness levels are reduced, and you will struggle to achieve your true potential. It's been proven with dozens of scientific studies.

      I sell crystals that can prevent this by absorbing all bad EM radiation.

    79. Re: Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes please! Where can I give you fistfuls of cash for some of your amazing patented New Age Woo(TM)?

    80. Re:Sigh... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      If that's the case, then the entire human race needs to move to the bottom of salt mines, because the amount of radiation being produced by the sun ought to fry our brains by the time we're six months old.

      Microwaves aren't the same as visible light. Shocking revelation, I know.

    81. Re:Sigh... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      But the power output on WiFi is fairly low (I think 5 watts or maybe 0.5 watts, I can't remember). I wouldn't sleep right next to one (there is a warning to keep about 8 inches away from it),

      Further if you're an Apple monitor.

    82. Re: Sigh... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Ozone diffuses very rapidly in air. Outdoors, it would be surprising if any effect were localized near the wires (as opposed to, for example, in an entire city basin), and even if it were, the effect still would be weighted towards downwind, which would be easily seen in the data, I would think.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    83. Re:Sigh... by sabbede · · Score: 1
      We've been swimming in EMF in that range for decades. If 5 Megawatt UHF TV transmitters didn't fry brains, cellphones broadcasting at .5 watts aren't going to be an issue.

      The only 'radiation' generated by a cellphone that is going to penetrate the epidermis in a meaningful way is thermal. That can be eliminated by taping an ice pack to the back of the phone.

    84. Re:Sigh... by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Is the heating more likely to be from EMF or the battery? My money is on the battery.

    85. Re:Sigh... by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Well, then so does WiFi and UHF TV. Not that it really does, else no "holding it wrong" issues for the iPhone 4. Either way, with hundreds of carefully focused watts of EMF in the cell range you can heat something up. That's it. Just heat it up. No ionization, no cellular disruption other than heating. A fraction of an omnidirectional watt, or even two whole watts, ain't gonna do squat. The battery will produce more heat than the antenna.

    86. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mental telepaths

      Are there other kinds?

    87. Re: Sigh... by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      Don't listen to this guy! Buy my book, which teaches you how to grow these crystals in your brain, so you'll never be without them.

      Face it - if you hadn't already damaged your quantum consciousness, you'd have purchased the book already. How can you afford not to?

    88. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 2 cm penetration of the EMF at 2W should be most harmful when an external antenna is poked inside an eye ball. It might cause changes in the eye and potentially even blindness.

    89. Re: Sigh... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      The high voltage power lines are not just dumping ozone into the air, the air is acting like an electrolytic solution. The ozone "disperses" into the air like metallic dust "disperse" in a magnetic field.

    90. Re:Sigh... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Maybe he is using the word in this manner:

      http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
      (3a)

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    91. Re: Sigh... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I thought I saw a study a while back that attributed the higher cancer rates to the defoliant used under the power lines to keep the plants from growing too much. Was that study debunked?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    92. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing funnier than the 90% of comments adamantly telling us cell phones are safe? Knowing those same 90% will be riding the "I told you they were harmful" train in just a few years time.

  2. This again?? by HumanWiki · · Score: 1

    How many times are we going to go through the whole cellphone radiation thing?

    1. Re:This again?? by sheramil · · Score: 1

      We are going to keep going through it for as long as there are so-called "news" organs that need attention. I'm not even sure that the Singularity will rid us of this.

    2. Re:This again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How many times are we going to go through the whole cellphone radiation thing?

      Every time you use it or carry it in your pocket or close to your body while it's on. It's right there in the summary.

    3. Re:This again?? by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't care who you are, this is funny.

      The takeaway is that I don't care who you are.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    4. Re:This again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until we beat a wavelength-sized steel rod through the skulls of anyone bitching about cell-phone radiation. They'd better pray they're not using T-Mobile's 700MHz band because it'll take a while to hammer 42cm of steel into them, and it's likely to do more damage than AT&T's 2100MHz band's 14cm rod. Then again, they likely won't care after the first 5-7cm in either case.

      You just have to make sure that the incentive to STFU about cell-phone radiation is stronger than the paranoia about cell-phone radiation.

    5. Re:This again?? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      How many times are we going to go through the whole cellphone radiation thing?

      Hey, we still have folks who think the Apollo program took place on a sound stage and it's been half a century. We are almost 20 years out from 9/11 and folks still think it was a building implosion that brought down the World Trade Towers... There are people who think vaccines are causing autism after that was disproved 20 years ago... I'm guessing we are going to be going though this cell phone "radiation" as long as I expect to be alive...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re: This again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, kill thise who you disagree with.

      Or you're just some net rager.

    7. Re: This again?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but...

      1) They won't shut up until they're dead.
      2) They don't care how wrong they are, they just won't shut the fuck up.
      3) Wavelengths larger than a human head create a much-more-than-zero chance that the goddamned RF doesn't even touch said head. Unlike a piece of rebar of similar length being hammered through the skull. Pissing people off is statistically much more likely to result in an untimely death.
      4) Wrong people need to Shut The Fuck Up (tm) and listen to those that aren't provably wrong. That means the dipshits that believe cell-phone radiation is deadly.

    8. Re:This again?? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      How many times are we going to go through the whole cellphone radiation thing?

      As long as there are politicians who breathe and can wiggle their fingers behind their back while cupping their hand, and useful hyperbolic idiots to do their scare tactic bidding.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  3. Whole Room Device Charging by dave562 · · Score: 2

    Recently there was a story here about a room that can charge any device that enters into it. I cannot wait to see the health issues that arise from that.

    1. Re:Whole Room Device Charging by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      story...about a room that can charge any device that enters into it. I cannot wait to see the health issues that arise from that.

      Perhaps, but worth it for the fun of all having Don King hair.

  4. Real or Fake News? by s.petry · · Score: 2

    I'm so confused....

    That said, RF is dangerous depending on signal strength and exposure time. I don't, out of long time habits instilled in the Military, keep a cell phone by my head. I use headphones. Can the body tolerate the cell phones? Probably, but it's kind of like eating bacon. It tastes really good but in large quantities is not very healthy. Everything in moderation was coined quite wisely.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Real or Fake News? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Let me ask you. Can the body tolerate solar RF?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Real or Fake News? by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

      With or without a tinfoil hat?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Real or Fake News? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Not very well, tbh. I get sunburned and theoretically could get cancer. The side of a house that is facing the sun will need repainting sooner. Sunlight destroys fabric, carpet, plastic, and a lot of other things. The sun is dangerous, and that's before you even arrive at it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Real or Fake News? by dfsmith · · Score: 1, Informative

      Your head receives less than 10^-12W at 850MHz from the sun [1]. Your phone delivers probably 0.5W. So if you scaled the sun to match microwave radiation levels, then no, you'd be fried in a millisecond. B-)

      [1] http://ipnpr.jpl.nasa.gov/prog... fig.1 at 1MHz bandwidth.

    5. Re:Real or Fake News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    6. Re:Real or Fake News? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Let me ask you. Can the body tolerate solar RF?

      I thought you were just having an unreasonable knee-jerk reaction, but now I realize that you're trolling.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    7. Re:Real or Fake News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retard

    8. Re:Real or Fake News? by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 1

      People on a ketogenic diet would disagree with you about bacon. Carbs are the real unhealthy food.

    9. Re:Real or Fake News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obligatory XKCD

      Not that I disagree with you, but - from the bottom of that XKCD comic: "If you're basing radiation safety procedures on an internet PNG image and things go wrong, you have no one to blame but yourself".

    10. Re:Real or Fake News? by msauve · · Score: 2

      It depends on what one means by "RF". If it's a synonym for EM radiation, sure, you can get sunburn. But it's more often used to refer to much lower frequencies (Wiki says <300 GHz, for what it's worth). Sunburn is caused mostly by ultraviolet, at more like 1000000 GHz (1 PHz).

      I believe the OP was using the more limited, and common, definition, and I don't believe there's enough solar energy at those frequencies to cause harm.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    11. Re:Real or Fake News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me ask you. Does RF exposure decrease with the inverse square of the power? In other words, solar RF might be dangerous, but it is very very far away unlike that RF emitter next to your head.

    12. Re:Real or Fake News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to criticize, but that chart is talking about ionizing radiation. WTF does that have to do with cell phones??

    13. Re: Real or Fake News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fad diets are fads. They have always claimed a scientific basis.

    14. Re:Real or Fake News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notably, cell-phones aren't on it.

    15. Re:Real or Fake News? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Let me ask you. Can the body tolerate solar RF?

      "RF" means "radio frequency". There is almost no "solar RF" at ground level, in particular in the bands that we're talking about here. If there were, you'd get slow cooked.

    16. Re:Real or Fake News? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      In the military, were you dealing with radar systems? The amount of power they pump is enough to melt candy bars - that's where microwave ovens came from. Cellphones are nothing in comparison. There's not enough power to warm an ant.

    17. Re:Real or Fake News? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Radar, transponders, radio, and microwave communications. One thing people neglect is that RF is cumulative. The power from a phone may be low, but if you believe that is the only RF flying into your head you are sorely mistaken.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    18. Re:Real or Fake News? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      So long as the combined effect doesn't result in very high energy, high density, EMF it doesn't' matter. We're swimming in it all the time.

    19. Re:Real or Fake News? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You missed something critical: In your opinion.

      There are no long term studies on overall impact, because much of the RF we are getting today is technology that's less than a decade old. There simply are no studies.

      You can play with your own health as you see fit, but should not try to influence others based on a position of ignorance.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    20. Re:Real or Fake News? by sabbede · · Score: 1
      It doesn't matter what the technology is. It could be cell, wifi, ham radio, or TV, it's still the same old UHF we've been filling the air with since at least the 1930's. Non-ionizing, non-penetrating radiation without enough energy to cause appreciable heating - less than visible light, less than infrared.

      And while it is not logically possible to prove the absence of harm, not one of the many valid studies has ever demonstrated even a chance of harm. Nor is there a reasonable mechanism that would allow for harm.

    21. Re:Real or Fake News? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Absolutely incorrect, because you ignore the quantity of RF currently being broadcast.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    22. Re:Real or Fake News? by sabbede · · Score: 1
      EMR in the UHF and SHF spectra has no demonstrable effect on us, nor is there a theoretical mechanism for it to do so. How would it matter if there is more of it? Say there's 100x more than there was in 1950. If the effect is null, then that's 100*0 = 0.

      You can take every cellphone and wireless device you, your friends and neighbors have plus one bedside lamp with a 40 watt bulb. Surround yourself with them and turn everything on. The lamp will transfer more energy to you than all the rest combined, and none of it will be ionizing. The 5Ghz band has one ten-thousandth of the energy of the visible spectrum. And that's the highest frequency of commonly used RF, above the cell bands.

  5. Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That may be what a few 'health officials' think but I have it on the authority of actual Slashdotters that cell phones are perfectly safe because radiation and the Sun and the Earth and stuff.

    1. Re:Nonsense by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You know.. There have been studies... Pretty detailed studies on this. Just ask the FCC, they are responsible for regulating this stuff.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re: Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this deal called "science" there is always time for further studies.

  6. Re:Cell phones ARE dangeros by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    You understand that as long there has been life on this planet, it has been bathed in EM radiation, right?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  7. California's Department of Public Health by PPH · · Score: 3

    Protecting rats from cancer since 2007.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:California's Department of Public Health by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Protecting rats from cancer since 2007.

      Why are politicians getting extra protection?

  8. So nothing about ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... tablets on or about the body, using WiFi, which produces the exact amount of _____. (Hint: EMF)

    Health officials recommend not sleeping near your phone and not carry it in your pocket or directly on your body ...

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  9. Draft Document != hidden by sweet+'n+sour · · Score: 1

    This was a draft document someone whipped up that wasn't used because there were no facts to back it up. It wasn't "hidden", it just wasn't used.

    1. Re:Draft Document != hidden by Major+Blud · · Score: 2

      This. This document doesn't list a single reference. Not a single reference to a case study, a research institution, or even the name of a doctor.

      The article has this to mention:

      "n the draft fact sheet, state health officials list their recommendations for members of the public who wish to reduce their exposure to the radiation emitted from cellphones, but state that as more studies are done the recommendations on the fact sheet may change."

      Okay, I'm down with that, but can you tell us what their original studies were that prompted you to put this in the fact sheet?

      This is the same type of nonsense that gives us anti-vaxxers and homeopathy.....a lot of data from a seemingly trustworthy source without any context.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  10. So which is it? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Given multiple other studies have already concluded that there actually is no danger from EMR, I seems this must necessarily prove one of:
    a) every one of those other studies were wrong or have been corrupted, presumably by "big telco"
    or
    b) CA are just a bunch of ultra-paranoid wingnuts that want to live in fear.

    So which is it actually?

    1. Re:So which is it? by PPH · · Score: 2

      (b)

      There was no Cowboy Neal option.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  11. Denier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If that's the case, then the entire human race needs to move to the bottom of salt mines, because the amount of radiation being produced by the sun ought to fry our brains by the time we're six months old.

    Hey, the science is settled!

  12. Re:Cell phones ARE dangeros by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    And everybody dies!

    See! Radiation! It's Bad!

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  13. Department of HEALTH my ass. by geekmux · · Score: 1

    "After keeping it hidden for years, California's Department of Public Health...

    It's pretty fucking bad when you can't even make it through the first fucking sentence of TFS before wanting to dial a damn lawyer.

    You had one fucking job to do, Department of Health .

    This bullshit, coming from the land that gave birth to "known to the state of California to cause" warning labels.

    Fucking hell.

    1. Re:Department of HEALTH my ass. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, there are worse examples. Hawaii is considering a law that says, essentially: "It might be bad for your health if you're homeless, so doctors should be able to prescribe houses. And just like every other medical prescription that some people can't afford, don't worry, there's Medicaid for that. Enjoy your new house! We'll just have to raise taxes on the people bought their own houses in order to pay for that."

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Department of HEALTH my ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you mind contributing to a growing group of people who suffer from hypothermia, heat stroke and swarming bugs. Who constantly are looking for something to eat - and walk the knife's edge of death each day. Who long to bathe and wash the stench off of their bodies and clothes. Yea, that extra dollar you give is really going to kill you.

    3. Re:Department of HEALTH my ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prop 65 labels are a good thing. It's not as if consumer products have hazard diamonds on them are come packaged with MSDSs. They provide some level of information, and you are free to do with it what you will.

    4. Re:Department of HEALTH my ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right, because chronic care for the uninsured in emergency rooms, not to mention the time in courts and dealing with cops is free.

    5. Re:Department of HEALTH my ass. by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      If all (or even just some significant number of) homeless people were only homeless because the president forgot to pull the "more jobs" lever at his desk that morning then you might have a point there. Problem is that if you put a typical sampling of homeless people together in a home, what you basically get is an insane asylum. There's no problem with that if you're willing to call it (and provide the resources for it) for what it is, but from your level of rhetoric I suspect that you aren't.

    6. Re:Department of HEALTH my ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's nonsense, so there is nothing to tell. Wasting time thinking about it is bad for my health. The did their job perfectly. Here, wear this tin foil hat, it will make you feel better.

    7. Re:Department of HEALTH my ass. by geekmux · · Score: 1

      No, it's nonsense, so there is nothing to tell. Wasting time thinking about it is bad for my health. The did their job perfectly. Here, wear this tin foil hat, it will make you feel better.

      And when there IS something to tell in the future, and they also chose to keep it hidden for years? THAT is the point here. Maintaining trust is rather key with the organization who's job is to inform the Public regarding Health matters.

      Break down the reasons this was kept hidden. It was hidden for the sake of capitalism, as to not induce fear and impact the lucrative cellular telecommunications industry, which was probably the accurate thing to do if there are no definitive results to prove a concern for EMF. However, this document was also hidden to continue bilking money to fund pointless studies for years.

      You can practically hear the justification. I know we've done a study, but let's do another one and another one and another one, and call it a "long-term study" to continue receiving funding. Oh, and let's delay the results for as long as possible, and then summarize vague bullshit in order to support more studies, even if we already know there's nothing to see here.

    8. Re:Department of HEALTH my ass. by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Disagree. There is a reason that a "little" knowledge is a dangerous thing, rather than "no" knowledge. People are more dangerous when they think they know something.

      I have seen these signs placed on the sides of buildings, with NO description of WHAT it's actually referring to. Is it what the building was painted with? Exhaust from passing cars? UV radiation from the Sun? Underground nuclear tests?

      When I see one of these signs, what exactly is my response supposed to be? How am I able to actually use this information?

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    9. Re:Department of HEALTH my ass. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Way to completely miss the point, and to make a lazy emotional play for the establishment of a completely absurd, bureaucracy-rich, round-about way to tax people to buy houses for other people.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  14. Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (A) Californians are wingnuts, which causes increased fear of nonionizing radiation and desire for more transgender washrooms in schools. -or-

    (B) Cellphone radiation intreracts with sea salt to actually harm childrens' brains, causing increased number of transgender children and peanut allergies in California and New York.

  15. Re:California government on aqueduct maintenance by KiloByte · · Score: 1

    But, but, but those Romans used lead pipes! It surely must be better to die of thirst than to swallow homeopathical amounts of lead or radiation!

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  16. Way ahead of you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suggests parents limit their child's cellphone use to texting, important call and emergencies.

    My Siemens Si35i's battery already limits my cellphone to texting, important calls and emergencies. That is, if you can limit your speech to 2 seconds max. Other than that, it's texting. Fortunately, my cellphone provider will allow me to text landlines, converting the text into some robot-voiced automated voice message. Most recipients think you are pulling their leg.

    Replacement batteries (whlie they were available) lasted few months, then it was back to the original one again (which had to serve for decades and is now close to retiring without replacement).

  17. Re:California government on aqueduct maintenance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys have a serious water shortage, but you cant even keep your aqueducts from overflowing.

    I'm fairly certain those two things are mutually exclusive.

  18. Natl. Cancer Institute's Explanation by coldandcalculating · · Score: 5, Informative

    Cell Phones and Cancer Fact Sheet

    "Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk (1).

    "The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy."

    Sleep easily next to your smartphone tonight.

    1. Re:Natl. Cancer Institute's Explanation by alexo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On the other hand:

      The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radio-frequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.

      -- http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-ce...

      If scientific bodies are still not on the same page, what can we expect of laypeople?

    2. Re:Natl. Cancer Institute's Explanation by coldandcalculating · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's a fair point. Just remember, according to that classification system cellphones are in the same group as Carpentry and Joinery (p.7).

      Granted, I cherry picked that from the list but the reason for a 2B designation is that they don't have the statistical power from their study to rule it out as a cause of gliomas, which means that the incidence is very low in exposed vs. unexposed populations. I think it's safe to say that as long as laypeople are okay with living in a house made of carpentry then they should be okay with using a cell phone.

    3. Re:Natl. Cancer Institute's Explanation by alexo · · Score: 2

      "Carpentry and Joinery" includes adhesives, which often contain formaldehide. High exposure (such as, say, being a carpenter) does carry a risk.

      You need to pick your cherries better :)

    4. Re:Natl. Cancer Institute's Explanation by coldandcalculating · · Score: 2

      The whole point being that dosage is critical in all of these cases.

      "Formaldehyde is also produced naturally in the human body. It is essential for the production of some basic biological materials, such as certain amino acids. Amino acids are necessary for important life processes as they are the building blocks of proteins in the body."

      It's normal but unnecessary for laypeople to be afraid of cell phones, just like it's normal but unnecessary for them to fear formaldehyde in small amounts. Now, as for that guy whose job it is to adjust active microwave relays...

    5. Re:Natl. Cancer Institute's Explanation by Misagon · · Score: 1

      There are some newer finds than what are referenced (directly or indirectly) in that Fact Sheet.

      The most interesting is this one:
      Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans.
      Alexander Lerchl et al. April 2015. Jacob's University, Bremen, Germany.

      The thing that most people don't understand about cancer is that cells are turned into cancer cells quite often but that the human immune system usually is very good at identifying and killing microtumours before they start posing any threat.
      You are more likely to have a few microtumours in your body right now than not.

      What is shows in this paper is that while EMF is not ionizing radiation that would directly cause cells to become cancer cells, EMF at cell phone frequencies can promotes tumour growth - thus increasing the risk of microtumours growing past the threshold at which the immune system can kill them on its own.

      The man leading this research - Alexander Lerchl - isn't a crackpot on the fringe somewhere. He has been a relatively public figure in the debate about EMF in Germany and has previous to these finds been quite adamant that cell phones would be completely harmless.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    6. Re:Natl. Cancer Institute's Explanation by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating.

      That's true, but it really doesn't mean much. The only consistently recognized biological effect of eating salts is a salty taste. Nevertheless, many salts are deadly poisons.

      and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy.

      Again, true, but very narrow. "Effects on the body" are not something that's easily measured for practical reasons. There are clearly established effects on tissues and biological systems.

      There is a strong argument that cell phones are not particularly dangerous: they are widely used and we don't see big epidemiological effects. All the other arguments people try to advance for the safety of cell phones are unscientific and unsupported.

  19. Warning by slapout · · Score: 2

    This post is known to the State of California to cause cancer

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tough to put much faith in "The State that Cried Wolf"
      After putting the warning stickers on power cords most of us quit listening ;O

  20. April 1st is still over 4 weeks away by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Are we getting an early start on this or something?

    1. Re:April 1st is still over 4 weeks away by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      California has so many warnings that it is desensitizing people to warnings. Now, they have an Assemblyman that wants to put warnings on soda indicating consumption causes obesity and tooth decay (no kidding)

      Nevermind that eating too much of anything could likely have the same effect.

      California.... the land of fruits and nuts.

  21. Nope, Wired headphones are worse. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Sadly I can't find it now, but I definitely remember reading a study that found for radiation exposure, using wired headphones when your phone was transmitting (i.e. during a call) was actually significantly worse than holding the phone to your head, because the headphone wires/headphones themselves directly conducted the EM radiation straight into your ear canals.

    1. Re:Nope, Wired headphones are worse. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      How do you think hearing aids work with telephones? Well, at least the old kind of telephone...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Nope, Wired headphones are worse. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Without the same concern, because the old kind of telelphone didn't use microwave radiation to communicate to the exchange.

    3. Re:Nope, Wired headphones are worse. by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      But that makes no sense due to the way antennas work. The electromagnetic energy, rather than being conducted through the wire as current, is instead radiated outwards into the surrounding environment.

      I could see the headphones having a slight affect on the shape of the field, like any metal object would, but I find it hard to believe it's either significant or consistent. They could just as easily reflect energy away from your head.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    4. Re:Nope, Wired headphones are worse. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Just reporting on a study I read. I can't explain or validate their findings.

    5. Re:Nope, Wired headphones are worse. by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      No worries. Just discussing the physics. :D

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    6. Re:Nope, Wired headphones are worse. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      So, based on the fact that EMF waves are involved in both situations... Can we please stipulate that the safety issue is the frequency being used? In which case, can we please accept the scientific studies that show where "EMF radiation" starts causing problems as well as the kinds of problems noted? Cancer is NOT among the issues here...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Nope, Wired headphones are worse. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> Cancer is NOT among the issues here...

      I don't think thats even slightly as clear as you sem to believe.
      In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared cell phones a Class B Carcinogen, meaning a âoepossible cancer-causing agent,â based on the available research.
      http://articles.mercola.com/si...

      Also the potential for brain damage such as:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...
      http://www.everydayhealth.com/...
      http://articles.mercola.com/si...

    8. Re:Nope, Wired headphones are worse. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You are quoting WHO & The Daily Mail? Seriously? Has the National Enquirer weighed in here yet?

      Look, this is pretty clear from he physics involved. EMF radiation is not a serious problem for human tissue as long as you keep the power density and frequencies such that no major heating takes place. You can cook yourself, shock yourself, and even Image yourself (MRI's anyone) with EMF, but the chances of causing cancer is pretty much nonexistent.

      In order to cause cancer you need to cause chemical changes to a cell's genetic material. Cell phone RF at the power density levels allowed just doesn't do that.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:Nope, Wired headphones are worse. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> You are quoting WHO & The Daily Mail? Seriously? Has the National Enquirer weighed in here yet?

      The WHO is the health arm of the United Nations. Please provide citations that you are even more of a world-class authority on health.

    10. Re:Nope, Wired headphones are worse. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      WHO is part of a nut house of international craziness called the UN. Where I don't throw out ALL they say, I don't trust it anymore than the National Enquirer. The WHO is often motivated by less than obvious political pressures and is inclined to let the world's health fall to second place in their initiatives. They are an arm of the UN and an agent of it's policies first and foremost, health being their secondary objective. I appreciate their efforts where effective, but in this specific issue they are but another unreliable source of dubious information.

      This issue was studied from a work place safety perspective a LONG time before cell phones made an appearance and the safety of RF clearly established. Exposure limits in the workplace have been in place for decades which are extremely conservative based on field strengths and frequency...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    11. Re:Nope, Wired headphones are worse. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Please cite credible references that back up your claims about the unreliability of the WHO.

  22. It will be kind of like cigarettes.. by Neuronwelder · · Score: 2

    A few subtle warnings over the next few years, And finally: A warning label on the side of the phone.

  23. Bring on the lawsuits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This one will easily get into the tens of trillions of dollars.

  24. Re:Cell phones ARE dangeros by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

    Oh we'll try to stop it, but Big Solar will thwart our every attempt!

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  25. Not buying any of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the day I was a shop TV repairman and spend pretty much every work day for 20 years behind a CRT console TV on the bench ... on. Now if you have never been behind a CRT TV, let me tell you there's all kind of crap going on inside that thing. I'm sure the radiation levels I was exposed to was FAR greater than a cell phone. My brain is fine, the rest of my body is fine, my kids (all conceived after my repairman career) are fine. This is pure BS.

  26. Re:Cell phones ARE dangeros by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    You understand that as long there has been life on this planet, it has been bathed in EM radiation, right?

    Here I go being responding to your trolling again... Sure, ALL wavelengths, power levels, durations, proximities, and modulation envelopes of EM radiation, from hertz to terahertz, can be assumed to have the same effect, (or lack thereof), on human cell and tissues. NOT.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  27. National Cancer Institute disagrees by tomhath · · Score: 5, Informative

    The referenced draft document simply states that IF you are concerned about it, here's how to reduce exposure. It doesn't state that RF exposure is dangerous.

    In fact the National Cancer Institute says the opposite:

    What the study showed: No association was observed between cell phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 13 or more years

  28. I knew it! by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    This is why everybody around me seems to come off like drooling idiots! It's the cell phones! They really ARE cooking the brains! Lets call it a disease, and sell the plebs some medication.... you know for "symptoms"

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  29. The world is not getting dumber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If cellphones were truly harmful to brain function, I think we would have seen the world gradually getting dumber and dumber up to the present day.

    Hey, wait a minute ...

    1. Re:The world is not getting dumber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the world is not getting dumber, the stupid are just getting smart enough to make bigger mistakes

      so the true answer is make them dumber again, then they cant use communication tools / skills / abilities

    2. Re:The world is not getting dumber by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps ALL California legislators should immediately stop using cellphones.

      It's a fact that their brains have already been damaged due to the inane laws they're attempting to pass in the state.

      Force 'em to use wired telephones NOW!

  30. Sure it can by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Does that mean that you should stand outside uncovered in 110 degree sunny weather for hours at a time every day? How about standing in front of a microwave transmitter at the minimum safe distance for a prolonged time every day? Your point is both irrational and illogical.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  31. wow. a positive to fearmongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Break childrens reliance on cellphones through health fearmongering. Brilliant! Wish I'd thought of it.

    1. Re: wow. a positive to fearmongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its only a matter of time before someone markets a (thimerosal free) vaccine against this cellphone radiation cancer. I guarantee it will be 100% effective too.

  32. Re: Cell phones ARE dangeros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, put an antenna on the input of an EF spectrum analyzer. Bring it around to a lot of different locations. Notice there arw spikes and peaks of radiated RF energy. Take note that there is a background of radiated RF energy that is aways present, but also huge peaks of manmade RF energy that is unnatural and a very recent phenomena of the last century.

    Get a fucking clue. In the early days of shipborne radar, there were instances of fried sailors who got in the path of the radar antenna.

    For gods sake quit being a smug nerd.

  33. Re:California government on aqueduct maintenance by aergern · · Score: 1

    So .. a 50 year old waterway that until this year had not been used .. goes boom and you equate this with a cellphone radiation study? Wow. You are a special kind of stupid.

    --
    Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
  34. Re:California government on aqueduct maintenance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So mankind has always had a powerful EM radiation transmitter pressed against its collective skull? Really?

  35. Radians cell phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was radiated with cell phone energy from 2001 to 2007 and my MRI showed brain damage.
    Motorola Engineers also sued Motorola for Brain Cancer from testing cell phones.

    If U put cell phone on your lap while driving, you might get testicle/scrotem cancer.

    Also, if U R far from the tower, the cell phone will increase the energy used to your brain. Make sure you have full BARS and VOIP home phone.

    1. Re:Radians cell phone by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Well I certainly buy the brain damage part.

      I can find one story from 1993 of a Motorola engineer suing them... not compelling.

      You also might get testicle/scrotum cancer if you don't place your phone on your lap.

      If you are closer to the tower, you are exposed to more of the energy from the tower.

      The VOIP comment just baffles me. Does DTMF cause cancer too?

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  36. Re:California government on aqueduct maintenance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We actually have historic snow pack in the mountains and our reservoirs are overflowing. We've so much watch our dam is in trouble. We are not in a drought anymore. Jerry Moonbeam Brown might say so, but that's not reality.

    That does not mean we won't face a future drought, but we will also get another El Nino effect afterward. It's actually a cycle and many people hate all the rain during these times, at least in Southern California. I love it, but I wasn't born here. If only my family would move to a different state or would follow. Can't leave all the old folks alone after all.

  37. The irony of it all by timholman · · Score: 1

    What is particularly ironic is that the same people who obsess over the possible health effects of cellphone radiation will send their children outside to play in the sunshine without a moment's thought ... to be exposed to ionizing radiation that causes about 10,000 deaths per year from melanoma in the U.S. alone.

  38. Re:California government on aqueduct maintenance by anegg · · Score: 1

    This is totally off-topic, but its worth remembering that the water that is inundating California isn't all evenly distributed, so there may very well be parts of California that are still in drought conditions, while other parts are very much in non-drought conditions. Since the governor is responsible for the entire state, he may very well be aware of the local maxima/minima, and how well the former can be retained/distributed to the latter, over time.

  39. Re: California government on aqueduct maintenance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fire is EM radiation. We've sat in front of that for a while.

  40. Paid Shill or just a Putz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which are you?

  41. Shape of the signal NOT the power of the signal by elcor · · Score: 1

    That does the damage. If you beam the same W/m2 continuously you won't do much damage apart from local heating up of tissues. Pulse the damage in a way similar to neurons - aka digital - and you'll start forming disease.

    1. Re:Shape of the signal NOT the power of the signal by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Cellphones don't "pulse" like a digital signal in the way you describe. In fact, no wireless communication system works like that. The closest would be On-Off Keying (the signal is on = 1, the signal is off = 0), but even then the signal being turned on/off is sinusoidal. Either way, modern cellphones use OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing), same as WiFi.

      The point is, this is very different than a step function-like pulse you see in a wired digital system like a microprocessor. In order to form a square wave you are actually combining many different sinusoidal waves of different frequencies, some of which are much higher than the base frequency of the wave you're trying to produce (i.e. harmonics).

      This doesn't happen wireless modulation schemes, because they simply aren't designed that way. If you spend a bunch of your transmitting power producing frequencies outside your band, not only is that energy completely wasted, but you're violating regulations against spurious emissions and out-of-band interference.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  42. FOLLOW THE MONEY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many Billions of cell phones are there in the wild today? How many Billion more will be made and sold tomorrow? How much more than $1 has been made in profit on each? How much do you think human lives are worth to those making and regulating cell phones?

    1. Re:FOLLOW THE MONEY by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      And yet billions of people don't have brain cancer. Hmm...

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  43. Re:California government on aqueduct maintenance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yea, its called the planet... fucktard

  44. Re: Cell phones ARE dangeros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there were instances of fried sailors who got in the path of the radar antenna.

    It wasn't some mysterious effect of radiation... they were burned. Heated till their skin blistered. Walking into a campfire is dangerous, also. If you're worried about heat, a kitten held to the side of your face is more dangerous than a cellphone.

  45. Re:California government on aqueduct maintenance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's gratifying to see so many AAPL shareholders commenting and modding on a single story.

  46. Re: California government on aqueduct maintenance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The underground aquifers have not been replenished, we need 5 more years of water like this year to do that.

    No water, drought. Suck it up. Or tell central Valley ag to stop growing stuff.

  47. Re: Cell phones ARE dangeros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RF energy penetrates in a different fashion than kitten snuggling heat. Don't touch the antenna of a powerful radio broadcaster RF burns are real.

  48. Re: California government on aqueduct maintenance by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    Actually the lead pipes in Flint Michigan didn't become a serious problem until highly polluted water was run through them. Lead pipes develop a patina that shields the water running through it. The switch to nasty contaminated river water corroded the pipes and introduced the large amount of lead that is the problem now.

  49. Re: California government on aqueduct maintenance by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    Bing Tsher, at least you are spot on, awake, you do your homework. Great job!

  50. Re: Cell phones ARE dangeros by Bengie · · Score: 1

    If you touch a screen projector light bulb you get the same effect. As long as it's not ionizing, EM is EM, just a difference in penetration and how evenly you're warmed. The heat from my cellphone's battery is worse for me than the 0.2watts total of microwave EM it emits. If anything, being more penetrative reduces the concentration of the heating. The human brain generates about 25 watts of waste heat. It's going to take some pretty high wattage cellphone to make any difference.

    Know what will quickly increase my brain's temperature? Working out.

  51. Power cords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chewing at power cords will eventually increase the chances of getting cancer, there's a lot of chemicals in them.

    That is, if you survive electrocution.

  52. Re:Cell phones ARE dangeros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here I go again showing your lack of understanding of radiation. Harmless natural hertz and harmless natural terahertz radiation is natural and cause no cancer, but everything man-made in between causes cancer!!!

    The above is from the same poster that thinks radiation that penetrates further is more harmful than UV radiation that "penetrates less than 1mm"

  53. Visible light kills bacteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interestingly, it looks like certain wavelengths of visible light can kill bacteria. This radiation should be non-ionizing, and I doubt it's doing the killing due to heating effects (it happens in the fridge). So are we certain that non-ionizing radiation can't damage DNA/RNA?

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/home/blue-purple-light-kill-bacteria/

    1. Re:Visible light kills bacteria by Bengie · · Score: 1

      A quick google on the topic shows that the bacteria in question so happens to produce reactive Oxygen compounds that so happen to straddle the UV spectrum. High blue or violet visible light is just enough energy to trigger these compounds into reacting and oxidizing the insides of the bacteria.

      This entire category of "attack vector" makes an organism sensitive to an EM radiation of a given frequency or higher. If we had this issue with microwave radiation, we'd also have the issue with IR radiation, instantly killing us.

  54. Re:Cell phones ARE dangeros by Bengie · · Score: 1

    The higher the frequency, the more "damaging" the EM radiation, except possibly in cases where there is a resonance. Every atom in our body emits IR radiation. Once you calculate for the surface area of a human's atomic surface area, you're sitting in the range of 15 gigawatts of IR at room temperature. If you think the radiation of a 1watt cellphone is going to compare to the 15 billion times of IR..... But, if you think the 1 watt of microwave radiation could cause localized heating, then I agree.

    While our body deals with a wide range of temperatures, it's "not normal" to have a potentially sharp temperature gradient. As for the brain. Not sure. It has a lot of blood flow and should keep the temperature quite uniform. Not to mention the brain generates 20watts of waste heat. Assuming 100% of that 1 watt gets absorbed, you're talking about a 5% increase in waste heat. The deeper the microwave radiation penetrates, the more evenly distributed the heating will be.

    It all comes down to heating and there are many things in our lives that cause much worse heating, by magnitudes. If you're concerned about resonance, don't worry, newer wifi tech is using more and more spread spectrum and wider and wider channels.

  55. Re:California government on aqueduct maintenance by Bengie · · Score: 1

    Why not use Lead pipes? They use Lead as a sweetener. Goes great on all kinds of food. It's like they had soda for water.

  56. Re:Cell phones ARE dangeros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every atom in our body emits IR radiation. Once you calculate for the surface area of a human's atomic surface area, you're sitting in the range of 15 gigawatts of IR at room temperature

    WTF are you smoking?

    Do you have any idea how much power 15 gigawatts is? Where could that much power possibly come from?

  57. This post is know to the State of California... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    Always love seeing those labels "The product is known to the State of California to contain chemicals that may cause cancer." Nobody else knows, though, which should tell you everything you need to know about the State of California thinking they're smarter than its citizens who wouldn't be able to go about their lives without the State telling them to.

  58. a flat metal square someone can stand on. A jagged by Ulfilas2000 · · Score: 1

    A flat, smooth metal square someone can stand on. The same metal, shaped with jagged edges, would slice the person to bits. Digital energy pulsed in non-smooth, broken waveforms, creates jagged energy environments. Notice remote charging? This is possible because the particular arrangement and timing of pulses differs from smooth analog waves. The digital wifi differs from simple analog emf in the same way that a smooth metal square differs from a serated knife edge.

  59. Well, 2.45 GHz will excite water molecules.... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    of course, other microwave frequencies will, as well. Nothing special about 2.45 GHz, other than being an ISM frequency.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  60. Obligatory XKCD by bluegutang · · Score: 1
  61. Re:Cell phones ARE dangeros by Megol · · Score: 1

    I guess you are one of those "free energy" dudes*?

    (* mostly dudes)

  62. Re:a flat metal square someone can stand on. A jag by Megol · · Score: 2

    Remote charging is possible with "smooth analog waves" and the rest of your post is equally crap.

  63. whaaaambulance inbound! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does your asshole still hurt? Stop your fucking whining already. trump won. GET OVER IT!

    1. Re:whaaaambulance inbound! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Does your asshole still hurt? Stop your fucking whining already. trump won. GET OVER IT!

      I have a feeling the butthurt has only just begun.

  64. Extensive studies were done on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My uncle worked at a large reputable company producing cell phones. He mentioned that they did extensive studies on the health effects of cell phones and never encountered any issues. They were actually trying to prove it caused harm so they could find ways to then solve it, but were never able to produce any results that suggested that it did.

  65. Re:Cell phones ARE dangeros by Bengie · · Score: 1

    Learn to read. I never said there's a 15 gigawatt energy gradient, I just said there's 15 gigawatts of energy moving around in the form of IR. Just because there is not a gradient doesn't mean we're not being bathed in it.