Don't Keep Cellphones Next To Your Body, California Health Department Warns (techcrunch.com) 344
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.
Telephones (Score:2, Funny)
Are known to the state of California to cause cancer.
Re:Telephones (Score:5, Insightful)
California does have a tendency to get ahead of themselves. They seem to be the first to warn people about danger but the problem is they don’t do the full science and come with the warning after the science is over, so they have a lot of false starts.
I think California wants to be progressive and say they are the first to protect people from danger while the rest of the world gets in trouble by taking time to study it. However often the benefits of things outweigh their danger. Especially if the danger isn’t fully proven.
Yes we get companies trying to block and confuse the science and that practice should be stopped, but policies should wait for the science process to get to a consensus before making policy.
Re: Telephones (Score:5, Insightful)
Scaremongering about GMO and cellphone radiation is the exact opposite of "progressive". Using that label for a bunch of luddites is very 1984.
Re: Telephones (Score:3)
The people who think that fearmongering about WiFi is completely justified will list an equally impressive-looking bunch of reasons for why they believe it, and their list will be just as bullshit as yours. That's what happens when you ignore science and worry yourself into a panic over some nonsense you read on Natural News.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think its safe to say California is sorry.
Re: Telephones (Score:2, Insightful)
MasterBlaster turn off power and water from Arizona, see how California likes dark and thirsty!
Re:Telephones (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Telephones (Score:2, Insightful)
Why on Earth would you take any of those things into account in calculating the size of an economy?
That's some sort of standard-of-living calculation, not economy size.
Re:Telephones (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's misleading, too, because the cost of living is high precisely because the economy is so strong. And the cost of living is high only in the cities. If you're willing to live in the middle of nowhere, California isn't that crazy a place to live, cost-wise.
Also, those taxes are high largely because the federal governme
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think its a question of rather being safe than sorry.
UCLA did a study which showed that cannabis smoke was not only not a cancer risk, but also may in fact reduce cancer risk. But now California is classifying cannabis smoke a carcinogen, on what basis exactly? Answer, totally made-up bullshit because they want to regulate where you are allowed to smoke to the last millimeter so that they can sell permits and write tickets. Everyone and everything is a profit center.
California's warnings and prohibitions started out with good intentions, and I am extremely ap
Re: (Score:3)
One study that disagrees with many other studies, and you want to cling on to it? Sounds just like what a climate science denier does.
That is not at all what is happening, though. California classified cannabis smoke as a carcinogen because it contains compounds known to be carcinogenic. But one thing doesn't lead to the other, because the human body is a complicated place. If the smoke contains both things which raise and things which lower your cancer risk, then you can't simply point to it and say "look, it causes cancer". In fact, some of the other things it does (like increasing sputum production) actually reduce your risk from other
Re: Telephones (Score:3)
That's a nice bit of hand waiving, but there are quite a few studies which show that marijuana use DOES in fact correlate with an increase in cancer rates. It's not like California is the only place in the world that's looking into this stuff, you know.
Re:Telephones (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that strategy causes no one to take California's concerns remotely seriously.
For example, prop 65 warnings are on everything and everywhere:
https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mp... [licdn.com]
It has no teeth because pretty much everything has that label. Many companies add the label as a matter of course, even if they don't have any of the relevant chemicals in some products because it's easier to apply the label to everything than keep track of whether they need to or not. Additionally, some of the chemicals on the list are about as likely to cause cancer as non-ionizing radiation.
Heck even contact with most shipping pallets can cause a package to be contaminated with formaldehyde enough to be detected in some of the tests, so a company without a warning could be at risk from that despite it being a shipping company's fault.
Re:Telephones (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in my pocket, next to my three boys, not good? (Score:5, Funny)
where then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it the ones or zeroes that are worse for you??
No radiation risk (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:No radiation risk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then having a hot shower would be even more dangerous. Drinking hot cups of coffee and tea is known to raise the risk of esophageal cancer.
Re:No radiation risk (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What about second- and third-order harmonic generation
The FCC doesn't want them, so manufacturers put filters in the phones to suppress higher harmonics and other kinds of distortion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The wavelength in these RF bands are long enough that it wouldn't only excite any particular single structure. It could deposit energy deeper into the body but it would again still be not much different from any other heating. Higher order vibrations are rapidly dampened in liquid and solid systems, and that energy dissipates to heat. If you're denaturing some regulatory protein you're also denaturing adjacent protein - at this point you might as well call this a burn or cooking. The smallest point for e
Re: No radiation risk (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No radiation risk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, heat? 1-2 degrees of extra heat is not going to cause cancer. Counterexample - Humans wear clothes, which increases body temperature. Year wearing clothes does not increase cancer rates by any noticeable amount.
You are disregarding localisation. There are many ways to apply heat, in your ill fitting analogy you are drawing upon the very tangible methods such as convection and conduction as mechanisms of transport into the body, localised high temperature spots don't naturally occur in the mediums that facilitate those methods and even if they did they would dissipate before deeply penetrating the body.
Heat emerging from interaction with penetrating radiated energy is a different kind of beast, however you should b
Re: (Score:3)
2W of non-ionizing power, only 1 W MAX of which can be directed towards your body, at frequencies where the energy just doesn't penetrate much into your body. It is about as risky as taking a christmas tree light bulb, putting it in a cell-phone transparent box, and putting that inside your pocket.
I'd sooner believe the connection between high voltage transmission towers and cancer. The power at ground level is again absurdly low, but at least there I can imagine the high voltage arcing into the air at po
Re: (Score:2)
The risk from high voltage transmissions lines is as I understand it believed to be due to the concentration of pollutants due to the low level magnetic fields that they produce. That is it's not the power lines themselves that are the problem, because the idea the power lines directly cause cancer is as laughable as the idea that mobile phones do.
The basics are there is *NEVER* been in the history of the world a *REPEATABLE* scientific experiment that shows a link between non ionizing radiation and cancer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The basics are there is *NEVER* been in the history of the world a *REPEATABLE* scientific experiment that shows a link between non ionizing radiation and cancer.
Skin cancer due to UV has been mentioned several times in this thread. You may want to be more precise in your wording.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you are a tech-hating Luddite aging flower child who believes that silicon dioxide crystals with various dopings, worn on the body or just kept in a house, affect your health in beneficial ways, you can't even pretend to convince yourself that you "understand" a cell phone the way you do the channeling of crystal energies with sacred symbols. This creates a state of cognitive dissonance -- what you don't understand you fear and you resent in equal parts. The resentment is made even greater when all
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, visible light (not UV) and even infrared have much more energy per photon than what mobile phones transmit, and you are exposed to higher energies when you go outside than when you have a phone nearby.
Many adult human males have cross-sections from the front or back of 0.6 to 0.7 square meters. The Sun delivers 1400 W/m/m to the Earth, so someone on the low end of that range would -- if they were lying down -- receive about 840 W of energy from the Sun. Even if you de-rate that because
Re: (Score:2)
If it was built by someone stupid enough to ask that question, no.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how it works.
The electromagnetic waves from mobile phones do not cause the initial mutation that causes a cell to turn into a cancer cell and multiply out of control. That fact has been long established and is not contested here.
What microwaves in the frequency ranges used by cell phones have been shown to do is to promote the growth of existing cancel cells.
Mutations into cancer cells are actually not as uncommon as most people think. All of us have had cancer cells many many times, but what nor
Re:No radiation risk (Score:5, Insightful)
UV is partly ionizing and partly not. However, it always carries more energy per photon than visible light. What we call radio, even including microwaves, is in the opposite direction. Microwaves carry even less energy per photon than infrared light, and if you told someone you were afraid of a 2 watt quasi-spherical infrared emitter they'd fall over laughing.
Re: (Score:2)
I know. The point is that you can't make a blanket statement that all non-ionizing radiation is safe.
Re: (Score:2)
And, if we were dealing with an infrared emitter, they'd be right. We're not. We're dealing with something with roughly the same penetration as a microwave oven.
Incorrect (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly while lower energy UV are non ionizing
Then it's not incorrect, is it ?
Radiation vs. radiation (Score:2)
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
Somebody bought stock from a man-purse company (Score:2)
That must be it.
Radiation inverse-square law (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Cellphones are not isotropic radiators.
Re: (Score:2)
Cellphones are not isotropic radiators.
Here is the general idea of a cell phone radiation pattern: http://www.raymaps.com/wp-cont... [raymaps.com]
Obviously, it does not have a directional antenna, simply because a smartphone does not know to what tower it is connecting so it radiates in all direction.
Yes, theoretically id does not radiate from one point, but practically speaking it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the radiation intensity is lower not 100 times, but 100*100 = 10000, ten thousand times lower.
The inverse-square law is applicable also to such things as, say, shrapnel, light, loud sound, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, this is the fundamental unbreakable law of nature. That is, by the way, why there is no powerful central cell tower in a city, but several cell towers covering the area.
Re: (Score:2)
I just wanted to inform that if one worries that it may be harmful, then it is possible to reduce the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation thousands of times by moving a device just several centimeters from the body. Because the radiation decreases by the square of distance.
WHO says no (Score:5, Informative)
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... [who.int]
Re: (Score:3)
Hard to see how cell phone signals causes cancer. These frequencies are not ionizing. A bit like saying the warmth from holding someone's hand is going to cause cancer. Makes no sense. There needs to be a mechanism for the radiation to do damage (knock off electrons), but there is none.
Re: (Score:2)
So how does non-ionizing UV light cause cancer ?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't, duh. Ionizing UV light does
US Federal Communications Commission material defines ionizing radiation as that with a photon energy greater than 10 eV (equivalent to a far ultraviolet wavelength of 124 nanometers).
The longer wavelength UV (UVA/UVB) is between 280-400 nm, but can still contribute to cancer.
Re: WHO says no (Score:2)
WHO who? In La La Land California Health Board rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Findings"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
There doesn't actually appear to be any, it seems to be made up from a bureaucrat based on faulty findings. Honestly? The entire thing reminds me of the "danger of EM radiation from powerlines!" that was hot shit in the 1980's and 90's, if you want to see an example of that in action, there's an entire near-cult-like anti-em-powerline following in Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, sorry, being exposed to people like Mashiki is not known to cause cancer. Yes, he is toxic, vile, and despicable, but that's a matter of character, not substance.
If you got anymore bitter, we could use you as a source of quinine and you'd actually be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't waste your time. The California Department of Health is a political body, not a scientific one.
Meanwhile, the real threat is ignored (Score:2, Insightful)
http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/... [fortune.com]
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
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the real threat is ignored
Except the threat is not being ignored, every automaker is working on autonomous vehicles, and California in particular is fast-tracking trials.
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to the general public's perception of autonomous vehicles. Admit I should have been a little more specific.
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to the general public's perception of autonomous vehicles.
Do you have a source for this, maybe in the form of a poll? I get the impression that people overwhelmingly support autonomous vehicles, or at least semi-autonomous. Admittedly it's totally anecdotal. I just think about all the cars being sold now with adaptive cruise control which is essentially a basic form.
Re: Meanwhile, the real threat is ignored (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
* - Yes it's inflammatory language, but to torture someone means to voluntarily inflict severe pain over a long period of time, and that's exactly what is happening as doctors
When future generations look back... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
It's not a warning (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
i get it (Score:2)
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.
Don't Keep Cellphones Next To Your B... (Score:2)
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.
Can CA please go away? (Score:2)
Unsettling (Score:2)
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?
Good advice (Score:2)
Because (at least on TV) that's how all the cops find the body. By calling the cell phone and hearing the dumpster ring.
Graphs, people ... (Score:2)
... one showing exponential growth of cell phone use and the other showing exponential growth in brain tumor incidents.
[citation needed]
getting ridiculous (Score:2)
Re:Not gonna happen. (Score:5, Funny)
In your European man purse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I keep my shopping bag in my pocket you insensitive clod.
Re:Not gonna happen. (Score:5, Funny)
If I carry a shopping bag, it's a thin one that wads up and goes in my pocket. I don't want to be carrying items in my hands if I can avoid it. That's why I was born with a penis... so my clothes would have pockets.
I don't want kids, so I just keep my cellphone in my front pants pocket. Kill two stones with one bird.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And the sun does not cause sun burns or skin cancer?
Re:True Joke: Deeply, deeply frightening!!! NOT. (Score:5, Funny)
Why do you think most of us don't go outside and live in basements.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I buy nVidia video cards instead of AMD.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone needs to put a prop65 label on the sun.
Re:The Battery has Colbalt in it. (Score:5, Informative)
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
There is some reported toxicity [sharecare.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:The Battery has Colbalt in it. (Score:5, Funny)
What else are you going to eat? It's not like you can afford food after buying an iphone.
Re: (Score:3)
But is it free-range cobalt?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the term is "artisanal-mined cobalt". Contrary to what you might think, that's that bad stuff.
Re:Alt science (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: Alt science (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's got an iPhone, which shows signal strength as a series of progressively longer butt plugs.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably a reference to Prop65, which specifically does enable a company to not get sued, so long as there is the prop65 warning on it. This narrowly applies to prop65 specific cancer things (not any claims about non-ionizing radiation), but it is the poster child for ineffectual crying wolf to not get sued in California.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: Turned my hair white (Score:2)
Re: Turned my hair white (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That hasnâ(TM)t been fully researched. For now it would seem âoewhoâ(TM)sâ is safest.
The meaning of your post is harder to decipher than the CDPH's response.