Slashdot Mirror
Don't Keep Cellphones Next To Your Body, California Health Department Warns (techcrunch.com)
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued a warning against the hazards of cellphone radiation this week. They are asking people to decrease their use of these devices and suggest keeping your distance when possible. TechCrunch reports: The warning comes after findings were offered up this week from a 2009 department document, which was published after an order from the Sacramento Superior Court. A year ago, UC Berkeley professor Joel Moskowitz initiated a lawsuit to get the department to release the findings after he started looking into whether mobile phone use increased the risk of tumors. A draft of the document was released in March, but the final release is more extensive.
According to the Federal Communication Commission's website, there is no national standard developed for safety limits. However, the agency requires cell phone manufacturers to ensure all phones comply with "objective limits for safe exposure." The CDPH recommends not keeping your phone in your pocket, not putting it up to your ear for a prolonged amount of time, keeping use low if there are two bars or less, not sleeping near it at night and to be aware that if you are in a fast-moving car, bus or train, your phone will emit more RF energy to maintain the connection.
According to the Federal Communication Commission's website, there is no national standard developed for safety limits. However, the agency requires cell phone manufacturers to ensure all phones comply with "objective limits for safe exposure." The CDPH recommends not keeping your phone in your pocket, not putting it up to your ear for a prolonged amount of time, keeping use low if there are two bars or less, not sleeping near it at night and to be aware that if you are in a fast-moving car, bus or train, your phone will emit more RF energy to maintain the connection.
Who's body should I keep them next to? Or is that "whom's"
Are known to the state of California to cause cancer.
where then?
Not keep in your pocket? Where the fuck are you supposed to keep it? Up your ass?
I'm getting rid of my phone.
There is no danger from mobile phone electron radiation (it is non-ionising radiation). That document in California is wrong. The biggest risk is a unstable battery resulting in a fire in people pocket. Transmission power from mobile phones is limited to maximum 2W (bad signal areas). In towns and such areas most mobile phones are running on transmission power that is from 0.1mW and up to 0.5mW. General rule is that bad signal means more transmission power.
It had to be California. Only the hippie state would come up with this kind of stuff.
I see the word child/children a lot in the draft doc... It is my solid belief that this is an attempt at fear mongering, since the output of the average cell device is comparable to the output of an AC wall outlet... TBH the average PC and Monitor setup pumps out more RF/EMF than you would imagine... just get an old AM radio and set it next to your PC if you don't believe it!
TRUE JOKE: Get ready to be SCARED!!
There is a transmitter that emits a HUGE amount of electromagnetic radiation in all wavelengths. That radiation hits your entire body when you go outside during the day.
The transmitter is called the Sun.
Wait, WHAT? Are you going to eat the batteries? What's in there beyond cobalt will damage you more, I guess.
Somehow I've the impression you are thinking of radioactive isotopes of cobalt, but you are not explicit (perhaps because you don't quite know yourself). In that case, don't worry: those are far too expensive to be used in Li-Ion cells. The naturally occurring isotope of Cobalt isn't radioactive (geez, go look it up in Wikipedia).
As long as you keep the batteries closed you are safe. Recycle them properly!
That much is clear.
Then I would advise you not to eat your cellphone battery.
2009 - "Cellphones do not cause cancer"
2017 - "Cellphones are linked to cancer"
2025 - "Congratulations, you all have cancer"
Although the science is still evolving, there are concerns among some public health professionals and members of the public
Translation: They have no evidence at all. This is the liberal version of replacing "evidence-based" recommendations by recommendations based "on science in consideration with community standards and wishes".
Yes, it does, and it is also known to cause skin cancer.
Another dimwit who doesn't distinguish "radiation" from "radioactive" and "ionizing" from "non ionizing".
My electromagnetism professor did a safety study for the PTA of the local elementary school of where the operator should put their new mast. The PTA didn't appreciate that the optimum location was on top of the school since the worst place to receive a signal is on the axis of oscillation of a dipole emitter.
I do wonder how the intensity of blackbody radiation of a 100W lightbulb in the microwave compares to cellphone throughput.
Even non-ionizing radiation can cause harm and physical stress to the body, which is also known to increase the occurrence of cancer.
Towers are quite powerful emitters, I'd call it nothing short of criminal negligence to put one on an elementary school.
That must be it.
I have an aftermarket battery made from single origin artisinal cobalt. It's a bit more expensive, but you can tell the difference.
What else are you going to eat? It's not like you can afford food after buying an iphone.
Citation needed.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The intensity of radiation passing through any unit area is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the point source. It is the fundamental law of the universe, and It is valid for any radiation, including electromagnetic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Practically it means, that even a small increase in distance decreases the radiation dramatically. So putting a smartphone into a backpack, or on a windowsill, away from the bed, decreases the radiation probably by several orders of magnitude.
In even simpler words, - do not keep radiating devices, like a smartphone, router, etc., too close to a place were you sit or sleep.
How's one to know when there are "two bars or less" - phones haven't been displaying "bars" for several years now.
Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published. These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base stations and wireless networks.
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/pub...
Troll alert...
There is no relation between the use of minute amounts of cobalt in batteries and cancer.
Reference on Cobalt being a cancer risk?
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
But is it free-range cobalt?
#DeleteFacebook
If some does try to sue, they now can't because they've been warned. That's all it is.
Get, it now. Not for, just iPaqs, any more.
Made in, US sewn, in China.
I'm waiting for the tards like AniMojo to come in and shout from the rooftops of how progressive California is, and how we're all sexist and racist for not believing that cellphones cause cancer because California said so.
Actually, the term is "artisanal-mined cobalt". Contrary to what you might think, that's that bad stuff.
Using a cell phone turned my hair white on one side of my head.. I no longer use cell phones... just home IP phone..
I can't find much actual scientific information in any of the links in the summary. Can someone please provide a link to the actual findings of which mention is made? (Yeah, I'm too lazy to do it myself.) Or has the word "findings" taken on an "alternative" meaning?
There is some reported toxicity regarding cobalt buildup in the body, typically from a hip replacement or overindulging in B12 supplements.
Unless you're prone to removing the battery for a late night snack, any danger presented by the cobalt in your battery is dwarfed by the likelihood of walking into traffic while distracted by your cellie.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Radio frequencies are not strong enough to break chemical bonds.
Amazing this garbage theory is still around since the eighties. Oh and land lines are evil too!!!
Firstly while lower energy UV are non ionizing , the higher UV frequency at the boundary from xray are ionizing - it depends on the molecules/atoms as there is no fix precise limit on what an ionizing energy is. But far more importantly they are at frequencies where bonds can be broken. That is why the effect is far different than with microwave radiation, as those are frequencies where mostly rotation occurs (as a rule of thumb, microwave rotations of groups, infrared , vibrations, uv/visible, bond breakings, high energy uv and above, ionizing - the problem starts at bond breaking not ionizing, but ionizing is actually far more dangerous biologically).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/...
In 2016 40,000 people were killed in automobile accidents (nationwide. I can't get reliable numbers for California due to ambulance chaser web sites clogging search results). 4.6 million people seriously injured. These are real, recordable factual numbers, not some foggy "might possibly be but can't really see anything conclusive" epidemiological study.
But when a solution is offered, AKA self-driving vehicles, the outcry from the nut jobs is that there's no way they'll ever trust those darn confusers to shuttle them around. Even when you point out that aircraft with advanced autopilots are one of the primary reasons for their excellent safety record. Even when you point out that human error is the primary reasons for vehicle accidents. Even when they don't remember the last time they had to reboot their phone.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
Just turn off data. The data transmissions are the most cancerous.
.......... prove me wrong!
Cobalt, like just about every heavier element is a toxin when ingested, but even that that doesn't make it a cancer risk.
What makes it even more ridiculous is that iDevice batteries are sealed in & even if zombie idiots were prone to midnight teardowns & subsequent battery gnoshing, they would die from lithium & electrolyte poisoning long before cobalt toxicity became an issue.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
The wisest among us were known for holding their phones at a distance using so called "selfie sticks". While at first derided by others, their intelligence evidenced by longer lifespans and lack of serious illnesses lead to a beautiful society blessed with their fabulous rulership.
This is why my son, we must always photograph our food before first eating, to share the joy of our blessed nonnoms with the world and more importantly our esteemed ancestors in the cloud.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
What I said in the grandparent comment about electromagnetic radiation is exactly correct.
It amazes me how often people comment on Slashdot in a hostile manner to try to show that they know more than someone else. I've studied that extensively. My best theory at present is that those who try to show superiority in a hostile way had bad childhoods. They were made to feel inferior by adults. By being hostile and superior, they are acting out their conflicts from childhood.
The best (but not excellent) scientific article I have found about the effects of electromagnetic radiation on biological chemistry is Effects of microwave radiation on brain energy metabolism and related mechanisms. (Feb. 17, 2015) A PDF file of the article is available.
That article provides one example of experimentation about the effects on biochemistry of electromagnetic radiation (page 3, 2nd column):
Like many scientific articles, that article is poorly written. What is the amount of radiation from a cell phone, for example, per square centimeter? By not providing context, the article can appear to be more important than it really is.
However, that article is showing interest in a VERY important direction. How does electromagnetic radiation affect biological processes? Which biochemical reactions could be affected by small amounts of radiation?
This article, RF Radiation Levels From Cellular Towers, says "A total of 25 percent of the power densities exceeds 1,000 microwatt/m**2 [1 milliwatt/m**2], which has been suggested to be the average threshold value for non-thermal biological effects." Notice that the power is in square meters. 1,000 microwatt/m**2 converted to square centimeters is 0.0001 mW/cm**2.
The first article says, "After MW radiation of 3 mW/ cm**2 for 0, 3 and 24 h, no significant changes in the COX I and COX IV mRNA expression levels in the rat cerebral cortex and hippocampus were found." That article also doesn't provide context. A power level of 3 mW/cm**2, said to have no effect, is 30,000 times what the 2nd article says is an amount of microwave energy that has no biological effect. So, cell phone towers are not emitting enough energy to have a biological effect.
Again, by not providing context, the article can appear to be more important than it really is. A far bigger problem is that the intention of the authors to mislead indicates that the authors are dishonest. That raises the question: Can anything the authors say be trusted?
What is a far more important question is how much energy does a cell phone radiate, per square centimeter, if it is next to your skin and emitting the greatest amount of energy because of having only one bar of signal strength? (One bar requires a cell ph
Because the incidence of brain cancer over 29 years (i.e. from before mobile phones existed until today) have not changed: https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
Other wireless devices are completely safe even though Wifi is in the same frequency (roughly, factor of 2 or 3)? What about Bluetooth? You stick that practically in your ear. It is lower power, but radiation is inverse law. Right now, 15 AP base stations are flooding my person with their radiation.
You get so much exposure to RF signals in the GHz range in a modern setting that if there is some statically increased risk, you should be able to easily find it and prove it.
It is alarmist in a nebulous sense, but it's not a warning. There aren't any actual claims about negative impacts to your health, just a bunch of bullshit about what may happen, or what some people believe. The actual title is, "CDPH Issues Guidelines on How to Reduce Exposure to Radio Frequency Energy from Cell Phones."
The closest thing to a solid claim that it makes is: "Although the scientific community has not reached a consensus on the risks of cell phone use, research suggests long-term, high use may impact human health." Claiming that the scientific community has not reached a consensus on this seems like an outright falsehood, but I suppose that as long as there's one holdout then you can say that it's not a real consensus.
This Cell Phone is known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects etc.
to die from the freaking air you breath everyday than keeping it in your pocket.
that's what those selfie sticks are for: you can walk down the street safely with your mobile phone at a safe distance of a selfie stick.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Was I the only one who read that as "Don't Keep Cellphones Next To Your Buddy"?
I was relieved after reading the actual headline.
I wear lead lines pants so...
Not this again...
just turn it off when you're not using it.
O Sweet Saint Andreas, hear our prayer.
The news that California has adopted this as an official position is a bit disturbing, especially in a state that's home to so many great universities. This could only mean that lawmakers don't have much STEM education if any. I hope this remains isolated to the one state. In the current culture of ignorance, it could spread like California wildfire.
Hasn't it occurred to them, that, with billions of cellphones in use around the world for decades, if there were any problem, it'd be obvious?
Because (at least on TV) that's how all the cops find the body. By calling the cell phone and hearing the dumpster ring.
Have gnu, will travel.
Cellphone frequencies energy quanta are too low to break DNA chemical bonds.
The wattage used is based on RF conditions and the bit error rate (BER) the "bars" tell you nothing, distance from the cell counts more.
Everyone should remember Newton's equations for power over distance.
No one should believe statistical analysis looking for a momey making result.
Correlation is not causation.
Speed of the UE relative to the cell, or causing rapid cell to cell handoff has no effect on the overall transmitter power usage.
UE's always use the miminal power to maintain a digital transfer rate below a certain BER. Both to preserve battery power but also to allow the maximum sessions per cell as greater power causes less Walsh functions to be available.
Panic-stricken snowflakes say Sky Is Falling! Film at Eleven! Seriously, if California said contact with water made things wet, I'd want to see a full study done by some one else. Somebody in good ol' Cali is getting rich, and laughing very, very hard.
Colbalt? I could have sworn it sounded a lot like [Stephen] Colbert...
Just out of reach...
Studies show that players of the California Lottery are at much higher risk for lung cancer. Yet the State of California does not put warning labels on lottery tickets, and actively suppresses this information.
Cobalt is actually a needed trace element (actually an ultra-trace element, you need tiny amounts of it, but you need them badly, as there's a cobalt atom in the vitamin B12 molecule). In higher dosages it is, indeed, nor really healthy (cf. the Wikipedia page for the "fun" fact of "beer drinker's cardiomyopathy").
I think the original poster was thinking of a radioactive isotope of cobalt -- which doesn't exist in nature, and which would be a very expensive (and ineffective) way of building batteries. Chemically they'll probably work, though.
Is it the ones or zeroes that are worse for you??
... one showing exponential growth of cell phone use and the other showing exponential growth in brain tumor incidents.
[citation needed]
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I don't know how many of you are familiar with bureaucratic nonsense and the massive over-control of the government in California but I'd recommend keeping California far away from your body.
Even if cell phones DO increase the risk of cancer, they are still beneficial to your expected lifespan. How many lives have been saved due to faster access to 911 that cellphones provide? Porbably more than are lost to whatever tiny cancer risk cellular RF exposure creates.
Having the phone in my pocket means I can maybe call 911 if something heavy falls on top of me. Cell phones let drivers call for help if they're conscious after an accident. We need them.
A list of things I also expect from the current administration in the next few years:
- Don't get out of your home when there are planes flying around. It's prevention from getting unknowingly sprayed by comtrails filled with mind and sex altering chemicals;
- We're closing every and any lab related to weather monitoring because they'd been known to also control minds;
- Planes are now limited to certain routes around the world so that they don't fall over the borders of Earth. The underside of flatearth is populated by the lizard people and we don't wanna anger them;
- Full revision of 9/11 which was probably planned and organized by the dems. Strong indications point out to a certain Hussain Obama II, a drug addict of inferior race known to have links to terrorists;
- Country wide ban of vaccines, for it's link to child autism;
- Usage of tinfoil fashion is now mandatory in all public spaces, as dictated by the Department of Homeland Security. It'll be wireless connected to the Internet for surveillance puposes, which should eliminate crime;
- All foreign countries are to be advised that US military might is being underestimated because for some reason, enemy states - which is all states other than the US - still fail to consider the hidden nature of our bigfoot ninja army. Just because you guys haven't seen them in over decades of speculation, doesn't mean they are not there, just means how efficient they are;
- We're reallocating tax spending from health, education, veterans, science, environment, transportation, housing, social security, food and agriculture to build a wall all around the US. Because there's no bigger threat than whatever is outside the US;
The energy pulses emitting from a cellphone transferring digital data send data in non-random pulses. The regularity of pulses may themselves be a contributing factor in cellular damage, as, outside of neutran stars, few things in nature pulse with digital regularity, and certainly not within a few inches of a living cell.
We had parents at a school worried about Wifi signals and phone radiation.
I brought a geiger counter in and showed demonstrated.
Being next to a Wifi access point shows no reading on a Plessey PDRM82
A mobile phone registered but only when receiving a call, an in miniscule amounts,
I calculated that you would need about 5000 mobile phones strapped to your body, and all receive
calls simultaneously to cause even minimal radiation damage.
Never mind "correlation != causation," first you have to find a correlation.
https://bsurgmed.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/cns1.jpg
So is there likely to be a generation or two of metastasized metacarpals or frightening phalanges? ... oh, wait...
When do we get the neural implants and stop with all this
If you visit Facebook, then I agree. The wireless data does cause cancer.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
My state is interesting to say the least. Take marijuana smoking. The state says it is good for your heath and encourages it use. The same state has it listed on Prop 65 as a cancer causing agent.
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//p65121517.pdf
I'm not weighing in whether it is or isn't, just highlighting how CA works. This might be a CYA response for the state. They issue a vague precaution and can say they are looking out for the citizens. Who really knows what's driving their desire to weigh in on it.
At least, according to the state of California.
So. Everybody stop breathing.
The real problem is when other chemicals on the skin come into contact with this energy source. You cannot morally hold a catalyst responsible for what is already happening. Its like saying you enjoy burning yourself with fire yet not when gasoline is involved.
Is it the ones or zeroes that are worse for you??
The ones are probably worse due to their sharp edges - they might even get stuck, while the zeroes just bounce off.
pretty sure they say literally everything causes cancer...
A superfluous testicle? My word!
A blanket statement "uv are non ionizing" is incorrect, because as pointed out UV are going from 400+ to ~10 nm. And if you take around 10 eV as a lower limit of ionization energy that is around 120 nm which is *well* into UV granted , it is UV c, but that is *still* UV, even if it is 100% filtered by the atmosphere. Maybe the OP may want state "UV radiation which reach the surface are non ionizing" then it is true. Precision is important otherwise you make blanket statement which are untrue.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The output is less than 1 watt. Every few years some attempt at FUD hits. Nothing to see here. Move along.
I thought this was commonly known? Why is this such a stirr of excitement for people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60
From the same cunts who think knowingly giving AIDS to someone should only be a misdemeanor. How about FUCK YOU?
Generally I do the opposite of what California advises. If Vermont were to say it, I'd totally listen. But California? Lolol. Once I saw that, I had no reason to RTFA.
Science is an ongoing process but the human mind works so that it tries to live on the edge and current moment. If there are new findings then it's the responsibility of the health officials to say it "may" cause health effects but such unusual reports may be proven wrong later (statistical flukes, failed methodologies, failed reproductions etc.). The human mind remembers false and/or unusual reports but nobody remembers when such studies are proven wrong, i.e. when they become "boring results" just as the other studies. There isn't even a mechanism for such an effect and it's the same category as bigfoots(/feet): sometimes you see them, sometimes you don't but you hope they exist or you may hope they don't exist. All the hopes/fears of an event occurring lies in the "noise" of unusual data.
The ones, obviously. Zeroes either pass through your body or are blocked by the cell membranes and bounce harmlessly off. Ones are pointy and so can penetrate not just the cell membrane, but also the nucleus and cause cancer.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Having actually ground a custom Carbide tool, I have read the MSDS on Tungsten Carbide (much of which is held together with a Cobalt matrix).
About 5% of the population is, for some reason, particularly sensitive to Cobalt. Nobody should get Carbide dust into their lungs, it's bad for you, but for the 5% just a tiny bit will kill you dead, in a slow and agonizing way akin to silicosis.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The truth is that it actually is harmful for you. The reality is that most people should worry about not being a fat ass LONG before worring about cellular RF harm. (Metabolic disorder will kill 70 percent of those reading this statement. I wish I was joking.)
Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published. These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base stations and wireless networks.
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/pub...
How about something more recent? Is the NIH a good enough source?:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
It's not an NIH study, but a Swedish one. Also, Biomed Res Int. has an impact factor of 2.4. For a biomedical journal that's rather low. The editors of The Lancet and the British Medical Journal must have thought that this study was as crappy as the journal it ended up in. And why didn't they use their conclusion as a title?
"RF radiation should be regarded as a human carcinogen causing glioma."
But used the inconclusive title
"Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation." instead?
I'm not saying it's dangerous, but I'm also not agreeing with all the folks here that seem so determined to believe it's 100% safe either.
I think I'm safe.
I wear my tin foil hat all the time.
And, I asked Santa for a tin foil suit for Xmas!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
all of the idiots holding cell phones in their hands while driving.