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?
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.
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.
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.
I'm getting rid of my pants.
Only if you let it swing free in some hippie state otherwise you can buy fabric coverings that block the radiation and prevent the worst damage.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
And the sun does not cause sun burns or skin cancer?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
That must be it.
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.
I have found both political parties to be eqaualy stupid in understanding science. However I have found a particular trend.
Liberals don’t believe science when they say something is safe.
Conservatives don’t believe science when they say something is harmful.
The problem is somethings are dangerous and some things are safe. And many of these arguments are not science they are merely thought exercises. X contains trace amounts of bad elements Y. Then people are at risk from over exposure to Y. Or X is purely safe because our body can tolate some amount of Y. But no own is doing the the research to see if the body can and how to tolerate that amount of Y.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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
Why do you think most of us don't go outside and live in basements.
#DeleteFacebook
If some does try to sue, they now can't because they've been warned. That's all it is.
Progressives (they aren't liberal in any sense of the word) are all about banning things (except abortion).
Conservatives (who aren't, either) are about letting people choose for themselves (except abortion).
It's not strange, it's actually ideologically consistent (except abortion).
Actually, the term is "artisanal-mined cobalt". Contrary to what you might think, that's that bad stuff.
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
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
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/...
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.
Someone needs to put a prop65 label on the sun.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Is this where someone posts an affiliate link spam advertising some sale on tin-foil pants?
Tin foil: It's not just for hats any more!
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.
Yeah liberals don't want to regulate behavior at all, except speech, voluntary gay conversion therapy, homeschooling, spontaneous sex, how you spend your money, freedom to hire, interactions with the opposite sex which nobody had a problem with up until 10 years ago, right to choose who to associate with, cake baking, running your business, wedding photography, hunting, eating, playing and on and on to virtually every area you can think of. Other than that, they're completely hands off unlike conservatives.
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.
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.
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.
That's why I buy nVidia video cards instead of AMD.
#DeleteFacebook
20 years ago, I had a full head of hair. Now I'm going grey AND bald! Thanks, now I know it was my cell phone.
So if I stop using my phone, my hair will grow all back and brown, right? Right?!
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.
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.
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
At least, according to the state of California.
So. Everybody stop breathing.
The real timeline has been:
2009 "Cellphones do not cause cancer" (but one or two idiots thinking they do despite some research to the contrary)
2017 "Cellphones do not cause cancer" (but one or two idiots thinking they do despite a fair amount of research to the contrary)
2025 "Cellphones do not cause cancer" (but one or two idiots thinking they do despite massive amounts of research to the contrary)
There's a ton of research on this subject, it pretty much all agrees that there's no cancer risk here. but every so often someone publishes bad science that can't be reproduced, that shows otherwise, and a few people cling to that bad science with "see! I told you so!"
The problem isn't that "no one is doing the research", usually there is a TON of research, the problem is that people are so set in their ways that they DON'T CARE what the research says because they've already made up their mind.
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.
A lot of those are the domain of progressives, a *very* distinct wing of the left. Liberals aren't too thrilled about progressives capturing the left, but of course can't speak out, because the punishment for even questioning progressive dogma is excommunication. Not even the methods... once a progressive comes up with a method that aids their cause, it's sacred. If you completely support the goal but wonder if the method is the best way to go about it? Bam, that's it, you're a racist, sexist, alt-right nazi.
And don't forget the biggest behavior control, the one desire for control, that unites conservatives, liberals, and progressives... the War On Drugs. Nothing more invasive than revoking bodily autonomy, "Yes, you may ingest substance x. No, you may not ingest less harmful substance y." It's still harmful, but prohibition magnifies the harms it has and introduced a bunch of other harms. Then of course, all sides support militarizing police, gutting the 4th Amendment, and incarcerating at a rate the most authoritarian governments can only dream of; all on account of that being the only way to enforce their precious prohibition. (And token reforms like dropping pot from the ban or sentencing to 2 decades instead of 4 don't count).
From the same cunts who think knowingly giving AIDS to someone should only be a misdemeanor. How about FUCK YOU?
Well that's obvious. We stay down there for the organic, all-natural artisinal radon gas, of course.
fnord.
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'
A lot of those are the domain of progressives, a *very* distinct wing of the left.
LOL, "Progressive" the latest rabble-rousing demon word of the right.
Liberals aren't too thrilled about progressives capturing the left, but of course can't speak out, because the punishment for even questioning progressive dogma is excommunication.
Man, you're really upset over how the left actually has dissent and discord within the ranks?
Not even the methods... once a progressive comes up with a method that aids their cause, it's sacred. If you completely support the goal but wonder if the method is the best way to go about it? Bam, that's it, you're a racist, sexist, alt-right nazi.
It's so funny that the right-wing pretends to be offended by apt criticism to the point where they get so defensive they treat the concerns over their racist, sexist, alt-right nazi endorsing behavior as somehow egregious.
And don't forget the biggest behavior control, the one desire for control, that unites conservatives, liberals, and progressives... the War On Drugs. Nothing more invasive than revoking bodily autonomy, "Yes, you may ingest substance x. No, you may not ingest less harmful substance y." It's still harmful, but prohibition magnifies the harms it has and introduced a bunch of other harms.
Actually, it's the Conservatives who are dogmatically inclined towards their war on drugs, even as they mysteriously oppose any regulation of equally harmful substances that infringe on people's bodies.
Then of course, all sides support militarizing police, gutting the 4th Amendment, and incarcerating at a rate the most authoritarian governments can only dream of; all on account of that being the only way to enforce their precious prohibition. (And token reforms like dropping pot from the ban or sentencing to 2 decades instead of 4 don't count).
Yeah, sorry man, Jeff Sessions is all yours, as is the frenetic drive to give the police all the gee-whiz toys that the free militias demand, and so is the riddance of the Fourth Amendment, the racist policies of incarceration, and the rest.
But then you also have to blame yourself for the adulteration of almost everything else. We can't win with you, whatever it is, you're against it if somebody on the left is for it, and if the left opposes it, you're stridently in support.
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.
Black-body radiation emotions from every object in your life is of much more dangerous energy levels and wavelengths than a cell-phone. This includes the black-body radiation that every atom in your body emits, with a gross emission measured in gigawatts. The net emission is responsible or about 50% of your body heat loss at room temp.