This is TOTAL wank.

[EEVblog]

and EM radiation is harmless at the levels a smartphone emits.

Not exactly true.
Put a transmitting smart phone up to your head 24/7/365 and you might not be saying that in decade or two.
At some level of power and duration, RF radiation has the capability to cause biological problems. It's why they have standard for these things and test for them in phone designs.
There have been several studies on rats and mice that show correlation, a more recent one is:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/

That doesn't mean go batshit anti-phone crazy, but it does mean you shouldn't go around making the blanket statement "EM radiation is harmless at the levels a smartphone emits" as if it's a fact. There is very good evidence to suggest the opposite may be true and the industry takes it very seriously.

[EEVblog]

Because for years we have had modulated EM Radiation in the same say smartphones emit EM Radiation in the form of radio transmissions, with no ball breaking epidemic.

Err, having a several watt RF peak transmitter right up against you head is kinda a lot different to an RF transmitter many km away, or a WiFi transmitter meters away etc. Distance matters a lot.

[StuUK]

That's why I wear this :   

Is that his cellphone stuffed in his trousers... silly boy, no kids for him....

[Ampera]

So then, go electrocute yourself. That's just a low frequency and higher current version of the same thing.

Uhuh. Yea, well a telecoms transmitter in a phone doesn't put out enough current to electrocute you.

And for everyone else, yea the effect isn't drastic, People have lived their whole lives just fine next to EM transmission towers. They have been around long enough, and people work around them daily without ball busting head smashing effects. A citation of a source can be useless. Anyone can push an agenda, and trying to find someone telling the truth for the sake of telling the truth is a game of sherlock.

I can quote any damned article, and any damned test I please. I could find the studies, evidence, and people to convince someone that werewolves exist, or that bigfoot is real. It's a game of how much you agree with the evidence.

What the actual science is behind the supposed effects of EM radiation, I don't know for complete, but I have personally met people who have been born in the 50's when radios were more than common. They had TVs, radios, and there have been hobbyist radio people for DECADES. EM Radiation is a broad definition for things like light, radio waves, and other sorts of things. So yea, if I were to stick my head in my microwave and get myself a tan (10 points to whoever gets that) or I stick my tongue in a lamp holder, I would get damaged. Same as if I was outside in UV light, or I had a powerful laser on me. But through examining what is going on, there is no reasonable evidence to suggest there are noticeable effects.

Whenever you or anyone quotes a study, there is more than a 50/50 chance that they are being paid to make a fact. There could be people who have some weird monetary or political agenda, who are trying to discourage the use of cellphones. Anyone can be bribed, paid off, or told to do anything, and if done right the average Joe can't tell the facts from the fabrications. There can be some convincing bullshit.

It's like what is said to cause cancer. I were to completely stop using everything that has a possible link to cancer, I would live such a hollow life, vegans would pity me.

I mean even if EM radiation could be somehow harmful, it's not making it's self known drastically enough to be a concern in my opinion. I mean you would probably be worse off driving, or walking down a flight of stairs than with a phone in your pocket. More people have gotten injuries that way, where's the panic about that?

It's not like the effects of lead, mercury, ionizing radiation, and other dangerous chemicals that were originally thought harmless that in a few years made themselves damn well known, EM radiation just doesn't break enough stuff in an open enough way to be alarming to me.

And if you feel endangered by this, you have a hell of a load of higher risks of stuff that can happen to you. I can firmly say, with the lack of massive deaths reported on the issue, the vehicle you drive daily, or weekly is more dangerous than a lifetime of cellphone usage.

[Ampera]

and EM radiation is harmless at the levels a smartphone emits.

Not exactly true.
Put a transmitting smart phone up to your head 24/7/365 and you might not be saying that in decade or two.
At some level of power and duration, RF radiation has the capability to cause biological problems. It's why they have standard for these things and test for them in phone designs.
There have been several studies on rats and mice that show correlation, a more recent one is:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/

That doesn't mean go batshit anti-phone crazy, but it does mean you shouldn't go around making the blanket statement "EM radiation is harmless at the levels a smartphone emits" as if it's a fact. There is very good evidence to suggest the opposite may be true and the industry takes it very seriously.

Fair enough, but that's what some people are doing.

[Ampera]

Because for years we have had modulated EM Radiation in the same say smartphones emit EM Radiation in the form of radio transmissions, with no ball breaking epidemic.

Err, having a several watt RF peak transmitter right up against you head is kinda a lot different to an RF transmitter many km away, or a WiFi transmitter meters away etc. Distance matters a lot.

Fair enough again, but what about hobby radio? That's been around for a while.

But to comment, I do not take it as a serious risk. Serious risks show major issues. This hasn't caused everyone with a cellphone to go sterile yet.

[R_Gtx]

A couple of relevant research papers:

10.1016/j.toxlet.2013.01.003
10.3109/09553002.2013.811309

It does look as though there is an increasing body of evidence that deliberately irradiating one's bollocks may not be overly beneficial. 

[langwadt]

Excuse me for watching TYT, however for real world events, they tend to be alright, but this is rubbish. I am seriously considering not watching TYT anymore.

I think the only place TYT would be considered "alright" is in Cenks alternative reality

https://youtu.be/lsVONO75utI

[vk6zgo]

Because for years we have had modulated EM Radiation in the same say smartphones emit EM Radiation in the form of radio transmissions, with no ball breaking epidemic.

Err, having a several watt RF peak transmitter right up against you head is kinda a lot different to an RF transmitter many km away, or a WiFi transmitter meters away etc. Distance matters a lot.

Dave,people work at Transmitter sites.

In the old days,we used to wander at will around the paddock in front of HF curtain arrays driven by 50kW Transmitters.
The number of kids produced by such folks is about the same as the average number.
Cancer is at average rates,too.

What do seem more common among old time Tx Techs are heart conditions.(probably tied up with eating habits when on shift work)

[Red Squirrel]

Lot of people don't seem to realize that the heat generated by a cell phone is not because of the RF, it's because of the actual device itself getting warm.  Processor, battery etc.   The RF power is very low.  I imagine you'd have to get into the 100w range for it to be dangerous.  Microwave ovens operate in a similar frequency range as cell phones and wifi, but they also output at like 1200w.   Whether it's non ionizing or not does not matter much though, non ionizing radiation can still be dangerous at certain power levels, but I don't think cells  output enough for that.    That said I probably would not want to climb up a cell tower without the transmitters being turned off.

[Santa3]

  I dread to think where you dragged that image up from.

[CoffinDodger]

I can testify that as a radiology technician my balls have been radiated numerous times while in compromising (protection wise) positions to support patients and my sack seems to operate just fine.  I don't think a bit of cell phone hootinany is going to do much.

However, like with trying to study the long terms effect of low dosage radiation procedures on people, how would they go about trying to separate the effects of every other event/vector/some correct word/what?/bs in their subjects' lives from strictly that of the cell phone.  I don't think they could.  Best result would be a short high powered burst to see if there is an effect period.  Then multiple medium length bursts of a smaller magnitude to see if that effect is cumulative. 

or by blasting mice and such.  which I think was mentioned early. (did dave mention it? I think dave mentioned it...)

[TimFox]

Please note that there is no radiation immediately next to a cell phone or similar device.  Very close to the antenna, you are in the "near field" (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field) where energy is not moving, but is being stored in the EM field.  A few wavelengths out, and you are in the "far field", where energy is moving outward from the source.  The relationship between the field values in near and far regions depends strongly on the geometry.  The inverse-square law is only valid in the far field region.
As pointed out above, there is no ionizing radiation involved in this discussion.

[System Error Message]

Lot of people don't seem to realize that the heat generated by a cell phone is not because of the RF, it's because of the actual device itself getting warm.  Processor, battery etc.   The RF power is very low.  I imagine you'd have to get into the 100w range for it to be dangerous.  Microwave ovens operate in a similar frequency range as cell phones and wifi, but they also output at like 1200w.   Whether it's non ionizing or not does not matter much though, non ionizing radiation can still be dangerous at certain power levels, but I don't think cells  output enough for that.    That said I probably would not want to climb up a cell tower without the transmitters being turned off.

Cell phones dont operate at the same frequency as wifi unless you use wifi on them. The frequency that cell phones use even for 4G is still within the radio band which has a lower frequency than microwave or wifi. There was one cell phone band that did use more power which is more of a concern but i think that band is barely ever used anymore (its still around though).

The 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz band are within the microwave region. Satellites use frequencies in the microwave region and infact a satellite from space pointing at you is more harmful than your wifi router. Wifi routers at most use 500mW and up to 1W of combined power (2.4Ghz + 5Ghz) per radio. That means a triband radio wifi router will have a maximum of 1.5W combined. When you add distance however the power drops real fast. Only non consumer wifi equipment transmits at higher watts (such as 1.5W per radio) but are still harmless because they are still smaller than background radiation. What matters is the ionisation and thats something that can be measured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum Should educate you on what is harmful or not. EM fields arent great for the body in large quantities but in small quantities are totally fine but in large quantities just makes you unhealthy in general.

background radiation is more of a concern as it can cause bits in ram to flip.

ionising radiation which is harmful is in a band higher than visible light.