Do cellphones actually give you cancer?

[Ben321]

According to a new study (which has been reported by various news outlets) cellphone RF has been linked to an increase in brain cancer. How accurate is this study? And what exactly would be the cancer causing mechanism from non-ionizing radiation? Specifically, the results of this study are that cellphone use in excess of 17 minutes per day over a period of 10 years, is associated with a 60% increase in risk of getting a brain tumor. Here's a couple articles about it.
https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-phone-radiation/
https://www.dailycal.org/2021/07/06/uc-berkeley-professor-links-cellphone-radiation-to-increased-risk-of-brain-cancer/

I notice that the study doesn't outright claim it causes it, but rather claims that such cellphone use is "associated with" such an increase in the risk of cancer (though the implication seems to be that it causes it). I don't understand exactly how RF could cause brain cancer though. The mechanism couldn't be through the direct breaking of atomic bonds, because RF is not ionizing radiation. I suppose it could be from heating, or induction. If from heating, even a slight increase in temperature, because heat is by definition a vibrating of atoms and molecules, it could be that atoms in the cells bang into each other more if the vibrations are strong enough, and this could result in some unintended chemical reactions being triggered that should not be happening, or disruptions of normal chemical reactions that should be happening. Also with the induction possibility, the RF drives a small electric current in the body. Such current could interfere with normal chemical reactions in the body (as  lots of chemicals in the body are ionic compounds), or in some cases trigger undesired chemical reactions. DNA damage isn't necessarily the only cause of cancer. The DNA just provides instructions for how the cell should operated. If the normal operations of the cells is disrupted through other means, it could also theoretically cause cancer, thus the unintended chemical reactions I described above could theoretically trigger cancer.

[SiliconWizard]

That's still a question that has inconclusive answers so far.
A summary can be found here: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html

As you said, the probability of RF radiation of this kind causing direct DNA damage is very low, so if there is anything, this must be through another mechanism. That nobody seems to know yet. But yes, there are a number of studies showing increased risk of cancer. Some of them are not recent either. Correlation is not causation though, so it's pretty much impossible to draw a conclusion from them.

Just a thought here,  but the damage mechanism, if it indeed exists (which I just don't know), could be triggered by a complex loop. Possibly involving the immune system. That could be why experimenting on isolated cells in vitro would not show us anything much...

[Ben321]

That's still a question that has inconclusive answers so far.
A summary can be found here: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html

As you said, the probability of RF radiation of this kind causing direct DNA damage is very low, so if there is anything, this must be through another mechanism. That nobody seems to know yet. But yes, there are a number of studies showing increased risk of cancer. Some of them are not recent either. Correlation is not causation though, so it's pretty much impossible to draw a conclusion from them.

Just a thought here,  but the damage mechanism, if it indeed exists (which I just don't know), could be triggered by a complex loop. Possibly involving the immune system. That could be why experimenting on isolated cells in vitro would not show us anything much...

I gave 2 possible mechanisms in my above post, heating, and induced current, and explained why I thought they might be able to cause cancer. What do you think about those possibilities?

Also, I just thought of another one. A strong enough electric field (such as that generated by a Tesla coil) actually CAN ionize gases at low pressure. That's why a fluorescent tube will light up when you hold it a couple feet from a Tesla coil, without any wired connection to the coil. The mechanism though is different than ionizing radiation. The concept of ionizing radiation is based on the particle model of light, with each photon having enough energy to knock an electron out of its parent atom's electron cloud. With RF generated by a Tesla coil, the amplitude of the electric field component of the RF radiation has an amplitude that exceeds the breakdown voltage of the gas (which is lower at lower pressures). If the gas in a fluorescent tube has a breakdown voltage of lets say 1000V-per-meter then a radiated RF signal only needs to have an electric field amplitude that's greater than 1000V-per-meter.  It doesn't matter the per-photon energy of the RF signal.

While this won't work for ionizing atoms in a liquid like the body's insides (which is like 70% water I think), the same basic mechanism is at work. In a gas, a strong enough electric field can yank electrons out of their parent atoms. Likewise, any electric field, can move already charged particles (ions, electrons, etc) without having to first ionize anything. Our body is full of electrolyte chemicals (that's something you need to replenish along with water when you are dehydrated), which of course are very much vital chemicals. These are ionic compounds, and when dissolved in water (such as inside your body) they are freely floating charged particles, that could be moved by an external electric field. Such movement of charged particles by an external electric field, could trigger undesired chemical reactions, or interfere with correct chemical reactions, inside our body's cells.

So while to an average person RF may seem safe as it's technically "non-ionizing radiation", once you actually understand how it interacts with the body, you will suddenly see several possibilities for how it could be harmful, potentially even something that could trigger cancer.

[SiliconWizard]

That's still a question that has inconclusive answers so far.
A summary can be found here: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html

As you said, the probability of RF radiation of this kind causing direct DNA damage is very low, so if there is anything, this must be through another mechanism. That nobody seems to know yet. But yes, there are a number of studies showing increased risk of cancer. Some of them are not recent either. Correlation is not causation though, so it's pretty much impossible to draw a conclusion from them.

Just a thought here,  but the damage mechanism, if it indeed exists (which I just don't know), could be triggered by a complex loop. Possibly involving the immune system. That could be why experimenting on isolated cells in vitro would not show us anything much...

I gave 2 possible mechanisms in my above post, heating, and induced current, and explained why I thought they might be able to cause cancer. What do you think about those possibilities?

They could make sense. But my comment above was for a good reason: in vitro studies on cells have already been conducted. If the mechanism involved cells and their internals alone, at least cells from the tissues that would typically develop cancerous cells, I guess we would have been able to prove it by now. This is why I suggested that it could involve much more than just individual cells.

Now the possible effect on the immune system that I suggested could itself come from heating, or induced current. One possibly interesting in-vitro experiment (that I don't think has been conducted, but it may have been!) would be to work on different kinds of immune cells, and observe stuff like, for instance, possible cytokine production... instead of observing any possible direct effect on cells from specific tissues, such as brain cells.

I certainly don't mean to claim that I know everything that has been studied on this topic though. Maybe all of this has already been thoroughly investigated. But I'm just under the impression that we have done relatively little due to very inconclusive real-world data and thus very low suspicion of potential threat.

Another point is that cancer is still a very complex issue, and most often develops over very long periods of time. It's still extremely hard to find experimental models that can mimick the same process while being much shorter.

[Ben321]

That's still a question that has inconclusive answers so far.
A summary can be found here: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html

As you said, the probability of RF radiation of this kind causing direct DNA damage is very low, so if there is anything, this must be through another mechanism. That nobody seems to know yet. But yes, there are a number of studies showing increased risk of cancer. Some of them are not recent either. Correlation is not causation though, so it's pretty much impossible to draw a conclusion from them.

Just a thought here,  but the damage mechanism, if it indeed exists (which I just don't know), could be triggered by a complex loop. Possibly involving the immune system. That could be why experimenting on isolated cells in vitro would not show us anything much...

I gave 2 possible mechanisms in my above post, heating, and induced current, and explained why I thought they might be able to cause cancer. What do you think about those possibilities?

They could make sense. But my comment above was for a good reason: in vitro studies on cells have already been conducted. If the mechanism involved cells and their internals alone, at least cells from the tissues that would typically develop cancerous cells, I guess we would have been able to prove it by now. This is why I suggested that it could involve much more than just individual cells.

Now the possible effect on the immune system that I suggested could itself come from heating, or induced current. One possibly interesting in-vitro experiment (that I don't think has been conducted, but it may have been!) would be to work on different kinds of immune cells, and observe stuff like, for instance, possible cytokine production... instead of observing any possible direct effect on cells from specific tissues, such as brain cells.

I certainly don't mean to claim that I know everything that has been studied on this topic though. Maybe all of this has already been thoroughly investigated. But I'm just under the impression that we have done relatively little due to very inconclusive real-world data and thus very low suspicion of potential threat.

Another point is that cancer is still a very complex issue, and most often develops over very long periods of time. It's still extremely hard to find experimental models that can mimick the same process while being much shorter.

I think that any given RF exposure is VERY unlikely to cause the damage needed to trigger cancer, but multiple exposures increase the chance that the exact right set of events will be triggered by the RF. I think that it may involve multiple cells, but no reason to assume immune cells. Since the chemical reactions I mentioned being triggered by RF may not turn a single cell cancerous, you are right it may require multiple cells. But if one of those cells is disrupted by the RF in a way that causes it to have improper interactions with adjacent cells, that then may very well result in some of the surrounding cells to become cancerous, especially if they too had various incorrect chemical reactions due to RF exposure. It may require just the right set of bad reactions in each cell, in a cluster of several cells, in order for one of them to become cancerous. But when it does become cancerous, it will then do what defines it as a cancer cell. It will rapidly multiply and develop into a tumor, that encroaches on and damages surrounding tissues. All it takes is one cell becoming cancerous to develop a cancer tumor. So I would not at all be surprised to learn that strong enough RF in certain frequency ranges can trigger the formation of some kinds of cancer.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, that's why old microwave ovens need to be checked for leaks before being used. Even a small leak, which results in a weak signal escaping from the microwave oven, while it won't lead to burns, could give cancer to anybody within a few feet of the device.

[TimFox]

When investigating the biological effects of high-frequency RF, there are two quite different physical conditions you encounter, and you must interpret the results with a biological target accordingly:
1.  When you are several wavelengths away from the transmitter (either the cell tower or phone), you are in the "far field", where you actually have radiation and a transmission of power.
2.  When you are very close to the transmitting antenna (e.g., holding the phone up to your skull), you are in the "near field", where there is no actual radiation but energy is stored in the local field.
The relationship between these two limiting cases depends on the antenna.  A conductive medium (like your brain) in the near field will dissipate power due to conduction and dielectric loss, heating the tissue.  In regulations and measurements, this is called "SAR", measured in W/kg.  It is used in regulations for cell phones and MRI systems, both of which are near-field conditions.  There are hypothetical effects of the E-field (either radiated or near field) itself on biological systems (other than heat), but I'm not familiar with the current state of this research.  There are well-documented accidental doses from high-power military radar exposure (far field), including cataracts (again, probably thermal).
Anyway, when investigating possible harm, the situation is different for a relatively high-power antenna on a pole high above a schoolyard, and a relatively low-power antenna and other electronics very close to your head.
A muckraking article in the Chicago Tribune a couple of years ago took several current-model cell phones to an independent lab, who measured the SAR and found that several were over the US legal limit.

[SiliconWizard]

I think that it may involve multiple cells, but no reason to assume immune cells.

There's no reason to assume anything generally speaking.
I'm no specialist of cancer whatsoever, but from the little I know, the immune system may play a much bigger role than one may think.

Of course we do know that being exposed to some form of radiations can damage DNA - and there are other external sources of DNA damage, and that damaged DNA can lead to cancer. That's the process we know best at the moment, and that is relatively easy to understand. What I'm saying here is that there are many other triggers, many of which we still don't really understand. But we know that chronic inflammation can also lead to cancer, for instance. Note that this is merely an hypothesis here, I'm not claiming anything, but I think we may be underestimating the role of the immune system in some forms of cancer. We tend to mainly consider its "positive" role - which here, would be to detect and kill defective cells - and certainly, this role is major, and immunodepression could lead to a situation where damaged cells can reproduce and create tumors. But, we rarely consider its "negative role", and my hypothesis is that it may play a negative role in some forms of cancer. We already know this "negative" role in the case of auto-immune diseases. What if some cancers were actually, at least partly, an auto-immune disease? Take all this with a pinch of salt!

[vk6zgo]

An equally silly explanation could be outgassing of plasticisers from the materials used for the case of the phone.

An important point is that these stories all assume that people are holding cellphones in the traditional position used for phone handsets, &, indeed, that is how OFs like myself use them.

Young people hold the phone out horizontally in front of them & yell at it!
It seems the "scare stories" have already had a result with those demographics.

[AVGresponding]

An equally silly explanation could be outgassing of plasticisers from the materials used for the case of the phone.

An important point is that these stories all assume that people are holding cellphones in the traditional position used for phone handsets, &, indeed, that is how OFs like myself use them.

Young people hold the phone out horizontally in front of them & yell at it!
It seems the "scare stories" have already had a result with those demographics.

No, that's just because they have the attention span of fruit flies, and need to hold the phone like that so they can see the name of the person they are talking to.

[Gyro]

According to a new study (which has been reported by various news outlets) cellphone RF has been linked to an increase in brain cancer. How accurate is this study? And what exactly would be the cancer causing mechanism from non-ionizing radiation? Specifically, the results of this study are that cellphone use in excess of 17 minutes per day over a period of 10 years, is associated with a 60% increase in risk of getting a brain tumor. Here's a couple articles about it....

I developed a brain tumour without any significant use of a cellphone (I was a very late adopter, in fact I got my first smartphone in November). Did that make me 60% less likely to err....   - or just a witness for the defence?

Luck and statistics are odd bedfellows. Trust in one and have a healthy distrust of the other!

[SiliconWizard]

An equally silly explanation could be outgassing of plasticisers from the materials used for the case of the phone.

An important point is that these stories all assume that people are holding cellphones in the traditional position used for phone handsets, &, indeed, that is how OFs like myself use them.

Young people hold the phone out horizontally in front of them & yell at it!
It seems the "scare stories" have already had a result with those demographics.

No, that's just because they have the attention span of fruit flies, and need to hold the phone like that so they can see the name of the person they are talking to.

 

[BrokenYugo]

An equally silly explanation could be outgassing of plasticisers from the materials used for the case of the phone.

Doesn't seem too silly to me, given all the cheap aftermarket cases in use made of rubberized mystery plastics, and how people handle them constantly.

[esepecesito]

My personal opinion... after 25 years of massive use, you would really note by now an incredible increase in cases. AFAIK was not the case.

[TimFox]

I tend to agree with you.  Epidemiology found that the incidence of lung cancer in the population tracked the popularity of cigarette smoking, especially after World War I.

[SiliconWizard]

My personal opinion... after 25 years of massive use, you would really note by now an incredible increase in cases. AFAIK was not the case.

If we consider brain cancer only, then actually there's been a very slight decrease in the last 25 years according to this: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html
(the decrease is not spectacular, but at least you can say it's been pretty stable.)

Now, I do not agree with your "25 years of massive use" statement. Even in developed countries, people have not been massively using mobile phones for 25 years.
25 years ago, I think mobile phones were barely starting to take off. And up to the early 2000's, people were not using them a lot, at least compared to what we do now.
That all really started to be *massive* in both use and numbers in the last 10 years, I would say. Maybe you can stretch that to 15 years, but not much longer than this.

As figures show, and also in-vitro experiments show (as we discussed a little bit above), what we can probably safely say is that there is no conclusive short-term effect whatsoever.
Problem is more with any potential long-term effects. Those are of course very hard to analyze and often even harder to understand. I'd think in this case, we should probably wait another 10 to 15 years before we can actually analyze relevant data. Yes that's a very long time. But as long as we are not able to show anything in lab experiments, any observation we could make will remain inconclusive. Even if cases of brain cancer do eventually increase, how will we ever be able to tell what exactly from our daily life has caused it, unless we took two large groups living in the same areas, one NEVER using any mobile phone, and another using them, and observe them for a decade or two. That's almost impossible. So point is, if there is any real effect, only relevant lab experiments will be able to tell. Observation alone is a lost cause IMHO.

[TimFox]

I would volunteer for the control group that never uses mobile phones, but I'm not sure that my normal life expectancy suffices for a 20-year study.

[Bud]

There's no reason to assume anything generally speaking.
I'm no specialist of cancer whatsoever, but from the little I know, the immune system may play a much bigger role than one may think.

Some people who was at the time of the disaster at Chernobyl nuclear plant in 1986 have died within a few months/years, but some are still alive today.

[TimFox]

The same with victims of the Hiroshima A-bomb attack.

[babysitter]

Eating one entirely, together with some smelly 3rd market case, might. Statistically speaking.

[Halcyon]

Really? This again? The answer is no. Everyone can now get on with their lives.

[Cyberdragon]

An equally silly explanation could be outgassing of plasticisers from the materials used for the case of the phone.

An important point is that these stories all assume that people are holding cellphones in the traditional position used for phone handsets, &, indeed, that is how OFs like myself use them.

Young people hold the phone out horizontally in front of them & yell at it!
It seems the "scare stories" have already had a result with those demographics.

No, that's just because they have the attention span of fruit flies, and need to hold the phone like that so they can see the name of the person they are talking to.

Or it must be this newfangled videophone stuff. They've somehow mananged to miniaturize it down to the palm of your hand, it no longer requires a box of electronics and a CRT on your desk. It's amazing what these whippersnappers come up with these days.

 

[vk6zgo]

An equally silly explanation could be outgassing of plasticisers from the materials used for the case of the phone.

An important point is that these stories all assume that people are holding cellphones in the traditional position used for phone handsets, &, indeed, that is how OFs like myself use them.

Young people hold the phone out horizontally in front of them & yell at it!
It seems the "scare stories" have already had a result with those demographics.

No, that's just because they have the attention span of fruit flies, and need to hold the phone like that so they can see the name of the person they are talking to.

Or it must be this newfangled videophone stuff. They've somehow mananged to miniaturize it down to the palm of your hand, it no longer requires a box of electronics and a CRT on your desk. It's amazing what these whippersnappers come up with these days.

 

I didn't mean hold it up, like unto taking a selfie, rather more like holding it flat, so the screen is gazing up into the heavens.
They then proceed to yell.

[ebastler]

[...] the results of this study are that cellphone use in excess of 17 minutes per day over a period of 10 years, is associated with a 60% increase in risk of getting a brain tumor.

Too bad that there is no control study with a group which used conventional wired phones for the same duration. Maybe it's listening to too much BS which increases your risk of a brain tumor, or listening to BS with the same ear all the time... 

[bson]

Joel Moskowitz is a well-known crank around here.

[SiliconWizard]

Really? This again? The answer is no. Everyone can now get on with their lives.

As anything else, this topic needs to be evaluated and studied using rigorous methods, and using logical fallacies should be avoided at all costs. On both sides.

I'm sorry, but nobody can't bluntly claim "the answer is no". There is no proof of that. If you're claiming it, then you're not being honest.
Now, the fact there is no proof the answer is no doesn't make the opposite true. It's basic logic really, but it seems to elude most people for some reason. So, as we said in this thread, there is also no conclusive proof that cellphone use increases the risk of getting a cancer.

Just saying. Humility never hurts, and at this point, the claim "cellphone use doesn't increase the risk of getting cancer" is just unknown. All we could say this far is that the probability looks pretty low with the (relatively short) hindsight we have. This has nothing to do with the corpus of scientific knowledge we otherwise have on a number of fundamental topics. This one is clearly not an established scientific knowledge. Oh, and the fact many lunatics are claiming the opposite - which, as another blunt claim, is also plain stupid - doesn't make this wrong per se. This is a logical fallacy commonly used these days.

There's nothing wrong saying that we just don't know, but that the risk so far looks pretty low, so we accept it and move on. Which shouldn't in itself prevent further *rigorous* research being done on it until we get something conclusive.

[AVGresponding]

Really? This again? The answer is no. Everyone can now get on with their lives.

As anything else, this topic needs to be evaluated and studied using rigorous methods, and using logical fallacies should be avoided at all costs. On both sides.

I'm sorry, but nobody can't bluntly claim "the answer is no". There is no proof of that. If you're claiming it, then you're not being honest.
Now, the fact there is no proof the answer is no doesn't make the opposite true. It's basic logic really, but it seems to elude most people for some reason. So, as we said in this thread, there is also no conclusive proof that cellphone use increases the risk of getting a cancer.

Just saying. Humility never hurts, and at this point, the claim "cellphone use doesn't increase the risk of getting cancer" is just unknown. All we could say this far is that the probability looks pretty low with the (relatively short) hindsight we have. This has nothing to do with the corpus of scientific knowledge we otherwise have on a number of fundamental topics. This one is clearly not an established scientific knowledge. Oh, and the fact many lunatics are claiming the opposite - which, as another blunt claim, is also plain stupid - doesn't make this wrong per se. This is a logical fallacy commonly used these days.

There's nothing wrong saying that we just don't know, but that the risk so far looks pretty low, so we accept it and move on. Which shouldn't in itself prevent further *rigorous* research being done on it until we get something conclusive.

This pretty much sums it up. I'd add that one of the causes of confusion on this type of subject often arises from the lack of understanding of what the statistics actually mean.
A headline grabbing "60% increase in risk" tells you very little without the knowledge of the base risk level, it's a relative figure and not an absolute one.

A brief google shows male brain cancer affects 1 in 69 UK males, which equates to an absolute risk of roughly 1.45%. Increasing that by 60% gives an absolute risk of around 2.32%, but the figure most people take away is the 60%.
On top of that, the 1.45% figure would include people with cancers caused by RF if indeed it does, which would put the background rate at about 0.9%, and the increased rate at 1.45%.

With all the other factors at play I'd be surprised if there was any useful signal to noise ratio here. May as well say that living longer causes cancer.

[pickle9000]

Is there anything that does not cause cancer?

[TimFox]

Everything in California causes cancer, which is why the statutory notification on everything (including screwdrivers) is totally useless, since the legitimate notices are ignored by the intended audience as yet another notice.

[Ben321]

Remember a while ago, when people were literally BURNING DOWN cellphone towers, because they thought they were equipped with 5G technology that would give them cancer?

[Psi]

Q: Do cellphones actually give you cancer?

A: Yes, if you throw one in a blender and make a smoothie out of it, you will get cancer.

 

[SL4P]

If cancer’s what you’re looking for, it would be a lot easier to take up smoking.

[Gyro]

It's everyday living that gives you cancer. It is a sneaky predator that only stops stalking you once you're dead.

[borjam]

There are well-documented accidental doses from high-power military radar exposure (far field), including cataracts (again, probably thermal).

Some time ago I was searching for references and what I found was radar operators developing cancer. Operators are usually far from the antenna or the microwave transmitter and the cause was insuficient protection from X-rays coming from vacuum tubes.

[Haenk]

There are well-documented accidental doses from high-power military radar exposure (far field), including cataracts (again, probably thermal).

Some time ago I was searching for references and what I found was radar operators developing cancer. Operators are usually far from the antenna or the microwave transmitter and the cause was insuficient protection from X-rays coming from vacuum tubes.

There was a huge legal settlement in Germany - those radar operators were not aware of the dangers and fixed things in front of the dish while the system was running - on a regular base.
Obviously, there are more than 3000 cases in Germany alone.
Link (in german...):

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-muss-krebserkrankung-von-radarmechaniker-anerkennen-a-1032692.html

[TimFox]

This is only an abstract, but it is an early study from 1965 about cataracts (not cancer).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00039896.1965.10664195?journalCode=vzeh20
I remember reading elsewhere that occupational cataracts in glassblowers (from infrared radiation out of the furnace) and microwave exposure gave cataract problems on opposite sides of the lenses.

[Rick Law]

Prior cell phone use causing little or no cancer causing effect is well established.  But effects of prior technologies is not a good predictor of effects of the new technologies.

A perfect analogy is:  You have been touching the outside of the tea kettle for years, and you never got burn.   Now you replaced it with a brand new tea kettle that delivers hotter water with a different technology.  Are you sure you will not get burn touching the outside of this new kettle because touching the old one was fine?
 
With EM waves, frequency is energy.  Higher the frequency, the more the energy.  In the last 30 years of cell phone, it was not much more than 2GHz.  With true 5G, when fully implemented, it will be much higher frequency (20+ GHz) and directionally focused (it will not decrease by the square of distance).

20+ GHz is getting nearer to the point where the individual photons (energy packets) can cause some damage to a molecule - getting there but not that strong as compare to say dental X Ray which would be over a billion times higher in frequency (energy per photon).  Add to that, cell signals are weak (fewer photons).  So, photons (packets of energy) from the 5G tower may wiggle your DNA molecules a bit but knocking your DNA molecules out of shape is not a worry.

That said, your body is absorbing the energy, a more focused and "hotter" beam more energetic than the weak 2G/3G/4G signals.  What is the effect of heating say the temple area of your brain (which is where your phone is when the speaker is at your ear).  What if you just heat it a little bit let it cool, and do it again;  Day in, day out, again and again.  There is no study out there (I know of) that says it will definitely cause harm, nor is there a study out there (I know of) that says it will definitely NOT cause harm.

Life is full of risks.  Just walking down the street to a pizza joint is risk - a truck tire may blow and you got hit by a piece of rubber that fracture your skull - dying over a bite of pepperoni and cheesed.  But we never worry that much about rubber shooting out of a blown tire walking around town.  So, why should 5G be any different.  Nothing is risk free.  5G EM waves, or the damn truck passing by...

Personally, I worry a lot more about the lost of privacy than the risk of cancer by these new generation of phones.

[Bud]

Remember a while ago, when people were literally BURNING DOWN cellphone towers, because they thought they were equipped with 5G technology that would give them cancer?

How you can burn down a metal tower?

[Terry Bites]

There you have it. News outlets are so often mistaken. Journalsts (mostly innumerate and proud of it) do poor rerseach into things they know nothing about. They will shop arround for the fake scientist bullshiiter that supports thier fictional account. Excuse me sir... do you have the measurements or are you just saying that! Opinions are not facts, but they do generate hours of media bickering- thats what news is now. If the facts don't fit the story, then you'll have to find the alterative facts AKA "shit I made up".

Anyhow, RF is thermal radiation not ionisisng radiation- so it can cook your eyes and brain meat, but it wont directly damage DNA. Maybe the gravy does. Lets find out!
My neighbours are fervently against the evils of phone antennas. So I showed them a back of a takeaway menu comparison between the Iphone stuck to their head and the tower 100m away. Even with antenna gain, the inverse square law shows the phone to be far more brain frying than the mast.

Theres a strong causal link between sunshine and skin cancer. Its not a problem with the infra red. Beer is bad for you. (thats got to be lie, I like beer)
It occurred to me while I was on the London underground, that all phones are screaming for mummy flooding the waveguide of the train and tunnel with RF- thats a worrying idea. Is it true. When do the phones just give up?
BTW, when you hear that sound of scotch tape ripping from the roll you're making X-rays. God help amazons slave army.

Remeber the poweline lukaemia link. Its not the EM but the Corona discharge that makes toxic molecules and ionises other nasty molecules so they stick to your preciuos parts. Utilites companies spent billions proving what they aready knew. Its not the EM or "cylcotron" action inside your cells. Somehow they didn't bother with corona where evil chemistry. UV and X-rays abound.

The small amount X-rays propduced in a magnetrons and klystrons have energies lower than 50Kev.
 Low energy X-rays wont go up a wavguide to any extent and will get lost in a circulator or swich. The magnetron is providing RF to the Dish, so the low energy X-rays were likley not comming out that way. If you put your head inside the RF module (metal shieded no doubt) you might have a problem.  Here we have a German newpaper article, but no figures from a study to look at. Was it science or politics at play, or more probably fear of futher litgation? There may have been an increase in cancers in the operators for reasons not examined. We will never know.

[Rick Law]

...
How you can burn down a metal tower?

Heat can significantly lower the strength of the metal.  That is how ancient metal forging works: heat it enough and you can shape it with a hammer operated by mere human strength.

So burn the base enough, the tower wont be able to hold its own weight up.

[TimFox]

In general, non-noble metals (including iron and aluminum) can burn if heated to a high enough temperature.  Cast iron buildings in the 19th century were inflammable, and required terra cotta insulation to be fireproof.

[james_s]

Everything in California causes cancer, which is why the statutory notification on everything (including screwdrivers) is totally useless, since the legitimate notices are ignored by the intended audience as yet another notice.

Prop 65 is the poster child of stupid feel-good legislation, it was based on good intentions but as is typical it was not really thought through and in practice is completely pointless other than as a source of laughs. Since the warning is on virtually everything, with no regards to the quantity of the potentially toxic ingredient(s) it is totally useless and tells you nothing. Since there is no penalty for applying the warning to something that does not actually require it, and there is a penalty for not putting the warning on something that does, it's much easier to just slap it on everything to cover your bases. I'm not sure if California legislators are actually so inept that they don't realize their state is the laughing stock of the rest of the country or they just don't care I really don't know.

[james_s]

Heat can significantly lower the strength of the metal.  That is how ancient metal forging works: heat it enough and you can shape it with a hammer operated by mere human strength.

So burn the base enough, the tower wont be able to hold its own weight up.

The same way the towers collapsed on 9/11 despite the oft quoted fact that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. You don't need to melt the steel, it softens and loses a substantial amount of strength well below the melting point and gravity does the rest. There's lots of flammable wire insulation and other substances in the core of a mobile phone tower so it's not hard to believe it could catch fire and collapse.

[Kasper]

When stuff like this comes up, I think about how long it took to definitively declare smoking causes cancer.

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

[0culus]

Call me when someone makes a cell phone with a klystron PA. 

[0culus]

When stuff like this comes up, I think about how long it took to definitively declare smoking causes cancer.

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

Yeah, but the EIRP of a cellular phone is so low compared to say, a radar, that it's not going to heat flesh a noticeable amount. Other interactions might be up in the air....however I once read an Israeli study about how sweat glands function as mm wave antennas. I actually came across it when searching for 8510C VNA documentation because the researchers apparently used one.  I should have saved it, as I can't find the actual study anymore.

[Bud]

...
How you can burn down a metal tower?

Heat can significantly lower the strength of the metal.  That is how ancient metal forging works: heat it enough and you can shape it with a hammer operated by mere human strength.

So burn the base enough, the tower wont be able to hold its own weight up.

I challenge anyone to burn a metal tower and post a picture. 

[borjam]

With EM waves, frequency is energy.  Higher the frequency, the more the energy.  In the last 30 years of cell phone, it was not much more than 2GHz.  With true 5G, when fully implemented, it will be much higher frequency (20+ GHz) and directionally focused (it will not decrease by the square of distance).

20+ GHz is getting nearer to the point where the individual photons (energy packets) can cause some damage to a molecule - getting there but not that strong as compare to say dental X Ray which would be over a billion times higher in frequency (energy per photon).  Add to that, cell signals are weak (fewer photons).  So, photons (packets of energy) from the 5G tower may wiggle your DNA molecules a bit but knocking your DNA molecules out of shape is not a worry.

So what about good old visible light? I imagine it will kinda dissolve your molecules and stuff, right?

The limit between ionizing and non ionizing radiation is well known since the past century. Wow, that sounds like ancient! And it is well known (despite some delusional hallucinations mentioned hypothetical non described "non thermal effects" about strange effects of non ionizing radiation. Yes, some authors preach about non thermal effects but in a way that "hey, they do exist, bro!" in the same way they could be advocating little green men living in their fridge.

Yet it curiously focuses on cell phones, like microwaves were invented in the 90's and nobody mentions the stronger television broadcast signals and other radio frequency applications, yada yada.

[borjam]

Yeah, but the EIRP of a cellular phone is so low compared to say, a radar, that it's not going to heat flesh a noticeable amount. Other interactions might be up in the air....however I once read an Israeli study about how sweat glands function as mm wave antennas. I actually came across it when searching for 8510C VNA documentation because the researchers apparently used one.  I should have saved it, as I can't find the actual study anymore.

What I find amazing about reports of radar induced damage is, they affect operators who are obviusly shielded from the radar antenna and can certainly be affected by X-Ray leakage from the display unit.

What about sailors or people who live near the short and especially ports?

A smallish radar on a civilian trawler can put out pulses of 45 KW at around 10 GHz.

[Someone]

...
How you can burn down a metal tower?

Heat can significantly lower the strength of the metal.  That is how ancient metal forging works: heat it enough and you can shape it with a hammer operated by mere human strength.

So burn the base enough, the tower wont be able to hold its own weight up.

I challenge anyone to burn a metal tower and post a picture. 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-22/cranbourne-west-tower-fire-investigation/12277080
Tower, yes
Metal, yes
Fire, yes....

if you want to be pedantic thats almost certainly cable insulation burning, and not the metal. But everyone else is pretty much, yep, thats a mobile phone base station on fire, all the way up the pole.

[james_s]

Given the absolutely massive increase in mobile phone usage around the globe over the past 30 years or so I would expect a similarly massive increase in whatever health effects they might cause. Of all of the potential effects, there is only one very obvious one that kills a lot of people and that is distracted driving caused indirectly by mobile phones. It is obvious to me that they are not causing a measurable increase in cancer.

[james_s]

...
How you can burn down a metal tower?

Heat can significantly lower the strength of the metal.  That is how ancient metal forging works: heat it enough and you can shape it with a hammer operated by mere human strength.

So burn the base enough, the tower wont be able to hold its own weight up.

I challenge anyone to burn a metal tower and post a picture. 

I'm not about to commit a felony to prove a point, but there are certainly cases where the flammable materials adorning metal towers have caught fire and caused the tower to collapse.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-14168281
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_transmitting_station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zendstation_Smilde#Fire_and_collapse

[Haenk]

Given the absolutely massive increase in mobile phone usage around the globe over the past 30 years or so I would expect a similarly massive increase in whatever health effects they might cause. Of all of the potential effects, there is only one very obvious one that kills a lot of people and that is distracted driving caused indirectly by mobile phones. It is obvious to me that they are not causing a measurable increase in cancer.

This.

But.

It seems like 3G / 4G / 5G (and won't we have 6G soon?) will bring to light serious mental issues in a lot of people. Most likely the same people believing in getting chipped by their doctor and frequent buyers of tinfoil hats (because of government control rays).

[Rick Law]

Correct me if I am wrong.  As I understand it, with the penetration issue right now, you would need a "tower" in every room to get 5G in every room.

So, I think we are going to get stuck between 4G+/5G- for a while.  With full 5G having such issues with penetrating barriers such as walls and windows, we would need a lot of minor changes and advancements to occur between 5G- and full 5G.

I think we may get to the point where we have 5G to buildings, and mini-cells of 4G-LTE for that immediate area at full speed and stuck there for a long while.  Or, lower the frequency (thus lowering the bandwidth) to enhance the penetration while keeping some of the other 5G features.  So we have 5G-- or 5G--- or 5G----.

[thm_w]

Given the absolutely massive increase in mobile phone usage around the globe over the past 30 years or so I would expect a similarly massive increase in whatever health effects they might cause. Of all of the potential effects, there is only one very obvious one that kills a lot of people and that is distracted driving caused indirectly by mobile phones. It is obvious to me that they are not causing a measurable increase in cancer.

That is assuming nothing else is causing cancer rates to decrease over that period of time. If you look at very specific types of brain cancer, where you'd expect to see effects, they have been going up: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118305462?via%3Dihub
But as the author says, unlikely to be causal. and as you say, much worse risks out there exist (distracted driving).

Still doesn't mean it should not be investigated.

Correct me if I am wrong.  As I understand it, with the penetration issue right now, you would need a "tower" in every room to get 5G in every room.

So, I think we are going to get stuck between 4G+/5G- for a while.  With full 5G having such issues with penetrating barriers such as walls and windows, we would need a lot of minor changes and advancements to occur between 5G- and full 5G.

I think we may get to the point where we have 5G to buildings, and mini-cells of 4G-LTE for that immediate area at full speed and stuck there for a long while.  Or, lower the frequency (thus lowering the bandwidth) to enhance the penetration while keeping some of the other 5G features.  So we have 5G-- or 5G--- or 5G----.

Should have just stuck with 3G support, good range, lower power consumption, and decent enough bandwidth for most IOT applications.

[Someone]

Should have just stuck with 3G support, good range, lower power consumption, and decent enough bandwidth for most IOT applications.

As was said by all the users of 2G at the time it was switched off, fit for purpose and better suited for wide area lower data communication than 3G. Progression to ever high data rate densities (within the same bandwidth, the "expensive bit" that is bureaucratically limited) basically mandates smaller cells/poorer range...

which should in theory bring lower TX powers! ... less cancer.

[SiliconWizard]

which should in theory bring lower TX powers! ... less cancer.

Lowers TX power but increases the number of relays drastically. The lower TX power really matters only if you're close enough to a relay. In large cities, you'll be a lot more likely to be pretty close to a 5G relay at all times. So what you're exposed too is probably not any lower on average. Unless you were living close to a 3G/4G relay.

[Someone]

which should in theory bring lower TX powers! ... less cancer.

Lowers TX power but increases the number of relays drastically. The lower TX power really matters only if you're close enough to a relay. In large cities, you'll be a lot more likely to be pretty close to a 5G relay at all times. So what you're exposed too is probably not any lower on average. Unless you were living close to a 3G/4G relay.

... lowers TX power of the handset. The bit that people are pressing themselves against and the majority of the exposure.

[SiliconWizard]

which should in theory bring lower TX powers! ... less cancer.

Lowers TX power but increases the number of relays drastically. The lower TX power really matters only if you're close enough to a relay. In large cities, you'll be a lot more likely to be pretty close to a 5G relay at all times. So what you're exposed too is probably not any lower on average. Unless you were living close to a 3G/4G relay.

... lowers TX power of the handset. The bit that people are pressing themselves against and the majority of the exposure.

Ah, yeah. I was thinking of the base stations. For which I have figures. I mentioned them because they definitely have a much lower TX power.

But as to the cell phones, I admit I have no figures as far as TX power is concerned. Which is why I omitted this part.
Do you have any? Of course that would highly depend on how close you are to a base station, which should be relatively close if you are in a well-equipped big city, and not that close otherwise... Of course the same is true for 3G and 4G, and admittedly more problematic as there couldn't be as many base stations even in large cities, but I'd be curious to see real figures depending on use cases.

[james_s]

Isn't the penetration much lower for high frequencies too? I'm not an RF guy, or a biologist, but I know higher frequencies tend to be more attenuated by walls and such. Other than by heating, I just don't see how modest amounts of RF can interact with the body.

[borjam]

If cell phones caused cancer because of their "high frequency", imagine what visible light would do to us!

It is complete nonsense spewed without any proof nor even hints. Just because.

And if radio frequency was harmful we would be dead long ago. There is a lot of RF energy everywhere since the mid 20th century.

[TimFox]

Once the frequency gets high enough, such as far UV and x rays, the radiation causes ionization and thereby does cause cancer.
Below ionization, EM radiation has only been shown to have thermal effects on humans;  if focused or too strong, the thermal effects can be harmful (e.g., cataract formation).

[Rick Law]

Which brings to mind...

With a vibrant sun-screen lotion/oil market out there, may be a new industry will begin...  5G lotion.

Here is how an ad for 5G lotion may be like:
You protect yourself when you go to the beach and you go there only weekends - but you are blasted by 5G all day!  Doesn't it make sense to take the same care?  Send $19.95, and we will ship you our unscented 5G lotion.  For a mere $10 more, you can smell like a rose all day long as you protect yourself all day long.  Send your money now while supplies last...

Call now!  Shipping and handling extra.

[Haenk]

Wouldn't it be much easier and more protective to just dip your smartphone into anti-5G lotion?

[AVGresponding]

Wouldn't it be much easier and more protective to just dip your smartphone into anti-5G lotion?

That won't stop those focused beams of mind-control energy from the cell towers

[newbrain]

[5G+ 5G- etc.]

Please, do not conflate 5G with "mmwave" technology, there's no need to invent special terminology (after all, we are on a technical forum).

5G, initially defined for the Radio Access Technology (5G NR - new radio) in 3GPP Release 15 (2017 IIRC),  uses a number of frequency bands.
Many bands overlap/are the same as previous technologies, then there is FR2 "Frequency range 2" with bands ~24 to ~52 GHz, mmwave.

In Europe, as an example, some countries are freeing bands  currently used by DVB in the 700 MHz range for 5G deployments.

The changes in 5G are in the modulation - not a great technology leap, still OFDM (orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing) as in 4G - which has been optimized and in many other RAT related details, allowing for lower latencies, higher throughput, special use cases etc.

So much so that the radio HW of many vendors can be upgraded to 5G "just" with a SW update, some vendors' radio can even multiplex 4G and 5G in the same spectrum with tens of ms granularity, to serve different generations user equipments.

Of course, the ultra high speeds can only be achieved in the higher bands and it must be said that the USA is, as of my last check, the country where most of the mmwave deployment is being done.

[Ed.Kloonk]

If cell phones caused cancer because of their "high frequency", imagine what visible light would do to us!

As someone who inhabits the wrong part of the planet in terms of my own complexion, I beg to differ. UV light that is contained in all visible light, unless filtered out, does indeed cause cancer. One of my nation's biggest killers. More deadly than koalas.

[Rick Law]

[5G+ 5G- etc.]

Please, do not conflate 5G with "mmwave" technology, there's no need to invent special terminology (after all, we are on a technical forum).
...
...

Not intended as a "formal" terminology, but intended to mock their calling everything 5G these days.  I have two flip phones each from different carriers and both are calling their phone 5G compliant, but it really is 4G+LTE+VoLTE (HD).  So "5G---" is mocking them: less this, less that and less also something else, but we are calling it 5G anyway.

They will call a lawnmower an airplane if it help them sell more.  Our attachment to properly describe an implementation is observably not shared by the Marketing departments, thus the mocking.

[CatalinaWOW]

Members of this forum seem to be widely falling into a logical trap that is getting most of the world also.

Starts with a weak correlation between brain cancer and cell phone use.  Still possible that it is a statistical fluctuation, but seems to be a real chance that there is a correlation.

From there leaping to RF as the probable culprit.  When we don't really have a clue.

1.  Could be that people who have behaviors that lead to brain cancer also are more likely users of cell phones.
2.  Could be postural changes associated with holding cell phones.
3.  Could be more brain activity in speech centers
4.  Could be RF
5.  Could be chemical
6.  Could be thermal
7.  Could be any of the other magnetic or electrical leakage from the phone.
8.  Could be bacterial or viral due to changes in the environment around the ear.

None of these has a clear path proving them to be a causal factor.  All of them have credibility at least on par with the correlation.  The list is not comprehensive.

A lot of people will spend a lot of serious time tracking this down, and it will likely take decades.  Meanwhile, as pointed out in several prior posts the risks are low, and most will find the benefits outweigh the risks.  But the zero risk crowd will scream bloody murder the whole time while partaking in much higher risk activities that for some reason don't trigger their sensitivity.

[Rick Law]

...
...
But the zero risk crowd will scream bloody murder the whole time while partaking in much higher risk activities that for some reason don't trigger their sensitivity.

Besides what CatalinaWOW wrote in the last reply, which I entirely agreed...  another thing is typically this zero risk crowd would also ignore the total cost of avoiding such tiny risk.

It is often said: "If it saves one life, it would be worth it!"  Really?   The same cost, if deployed on other more meaning factors might have saved hundreds.

If the entire cost is paid by the risk-barer, that is the person's own choice; but cost is rarely entirely covered by an individual.  Even if the risk is say for example hiking.  While you pay for the trip yourself, if injured, your injury affects others insurance rates and tax rates -- someone has to paid for the rescue when bad things happen, and your injury will affect insurance rate calculation for your age group.  Taken as a whole, the resource to avoid one risk must be judged by comparing to other meaningful things.

EDITed:  Initial click was done by mistake and had to re-edit to finish editing.

[Haenk]

That's just these damn statistical problem - a gazillion of factors which might or might not influence very rare occurances.
IMHO if it is not statistical provable by rather easy means, it's safe enough for general use. (Based on modern testing methods, of course.)
Life is risky, every action does add a bit to the overall risk. One should ignore that for very minor risks, for ones own mental health...

[AVGresponding]

Members of this forum seem to be widely falling into a logical trap that is getting most of the world also.

Starts with a weak correlation between brain cancer and cell phone use.  Still possible that it is a statistical fluctuation, but seems to be a real chance that there is a correlation.

Correlation is not causation. This is fairly a basic principle of statistics.

[TimFox]

When I have seen alarmist discussions of geographic clusters of rare cancers, I have never seen a statistical estimate of the probability of such a concentrated cluster (area and population) expected from the general incidence of the disease and the number of randomly-occurring clusters to be expected in a large area (e.g., a State).

[thm_w]

Members of this forum seem to be widely falling into a logical trap that is getting most of the world also.

Starts with a weak correlation between brain cancer and cell phone use.  Still possible that it is a statistical fluctuation, but seems to be a real chance that there is a correlation.

From there leaping to RF as the probable culprit.  When we don't really have a clue.

1.  Could be that people who have behaviors that lead to brain cancer also are more likely users of cell phones.
...

None of these has a clear path proving them to be a causal factor.  All of them have credibility at least on par with the correlation.  The list is not comprehensive.

A lot of people will spend a lot of serious time tracking this down, and it will likely take decades.  Meanwhile, as pointed out in several prior posts the risks are low, and most will find the benefits outweigh the risks.  But the zero risk crowd will scream bloody murder the whole time while partaking in much higher risk activities that for some reason don't trigger their sensitivity.

Literally no one is screaming bloody murder in this thread. It is a discussion between people claiming it has zero risk, and people claiming it has some low amount of risk.
The article is far more extreme in its views and suggestions than anyone here.

All of them have credibility at least on par with the correlation.

No, unless you are going to put forth the effort to provide studies to back their credibility.
eg if it were chemical, you'd see an increase in skin cancer not brain cancer, which is not seen. If it were bacterial, you'd see the same occurrences in cordless phone use, which is not seen.

https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/311044

[CatalinaWOW]

Members of this forum seem to be widely falling into a logical trap that is getting most of the world also.

Starts with a weak correlation between brain cancer and cell phone use.  Still possible that it is a statistical fluctuation, but seems to be a real chance that there is a correlation.

From there leaping to RF as the probable culprit.  When we don't really have a clue.

1.  Could be that people who have behaviors that lead to brain cancer also are more likely users of cell phones.
...

None of these has a clear path proving them to be a causal factor.  All of them have credibility at least on par with the correlation.  The list is not comprehensive.

A lot of people will spend a lot of serious time tracking this down, and it will likely take decades.  Meanwhile, as pointed out in several prior posts the risks are low, and most will find the benefits outweigh the risks.  But the zero risk crowd will scream bloody murder the whole time while partaking in much higher risk activities that for some reason don't trigger their sensitivity.

Literally no one is screaming bloody murder in this thread. It is a discussion between people claiming it has zero risk, and people claiming it has some low amount of risk.
The article is far more extreme in its views and suggestions than anyone here.

All of them have credibility at least on par with the correlation.

No, unless you are going to put forth the effort to provide studies to back their credibility.
eg if it were chemical, you'd see an increase in skin cancer not brain cancer, which is not seen. If it were bacterial, you'd see the same occurrences in cordless phone use, which is not seen.

https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/311044

I agree.  The discussion here has been reasonable and mostly fact based. 

I disagree on credibility.  As far as I know there are no studies which have identified a causal path.  And the correlation is not yet firmly established.  There are contradictory studies and even in the confirming studies the signal is small.  Chemical pathways do not affect all organs identically, and until a particular pathway is studied and either proved or disproved the possibility is low, but not zero.  Same thing with bacterial/viral pathways.  Patterns of use with cordless phones are not similar to cell phone use (but are more similar than corded phones).  And I am unaware of studies of the impact of cordless phones.  They haven't made the news. 

If I were in a position of funding studies on this problem I would have some difficulty ranking them.  Hopefully the proposals would have much more detail than the concepts I threw out and would provide more information to decide upon.  But unless someone came up with a really credible proposal I would not dump large amounts in any direction, hoping that cautious and broad investment would provide more information on appropriate direction for further studies.

[borjam]

So, let's accept that those particular frequency bands are especially dangerous because, well, they tickle spermatozoids or whatnot.

Weren't they dangerous when they were used for high power, in the order of KW, television transmissions? Antennophobiacs tend to think that "those frequencies were invented for cell phone use" or some equivalent bullshit.

[Cyberdragon]

If cell phones caused cancer because of their "high frequency", imagine what visible light would do to us!

As someone who inhabits the wrong part of the planet in terms of my own complexion, I beg to differ. UV light that is contained in all visible light, unless filtered out, does indeed cause cancer. One of my nation's biggest killers. More deadly than koalas.

All visable light has UV? What? LEDs are causing cancer now?

I think you meant sunlight there.

[borjam]

As someone who inhabits the wrong part of the planet in terms of my own complexion, I beg to differ. UV light that is contained in all visible light, unless filtered out, does indeed cause cancer. One of my nation's biggest killers. More deadly than koalas.

Not at all.

Visble light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. UV is insible so obviously it is not visible light.

You are talking about light sources, and there is a world of difference between them. Good old tungsten incandescent bulbs emit very little UV because glass filters it out. Halogen lights are worse because the bulb is made of quartz.

Now, LEDs? Sodium vapor lights? No.

[perieanuo]

hi,
that's like the cases in France country-side, where dozen babies are born without arms, there are studies but non-concludent (i'm talking about government studies after those medical issues appeared in mass-media). people blamed pesticides, other people suggested radiation minerals.
anyway, on those subjects regarding cancer from aliments or radio products, all studies will be 'not concludent'
i'm not conspirationist, but a pattern forms here, it's called capitalism stupidity.
of course chemicals have side effects, radio too, some organisms are more susceptible then another.
can we officially talk about this. NO, we are bad seeds by just asking the questions. the state doesn't do his feedback role, it's compromised, conclusion for sincere scientist from top-labs are censored.
do you think, if you can buy 100 euros device to move your muscle without your neural network to give the impulses, that radio is absolutely non-invasive? my answer is categorically no.
i worked almost 5 years as radio support engineer, had 'radio cash bonus'. i don't have medical issues on this side, i guess my body is not that sensitive to this. others are, i had colleagues with headache when exposed longer than 2-3 hours near relays in vhf. but my oppinion, higher the freq, we approach wavelengths close to our internal ones.
even for lower ones, that's a reason fences are around big power transmitters in simply AM relays. people died by not shutting down the transmitter before entering the perimeter. yes, it's not cancer they cicked the bucket, the idea is that we are affected by radiation (Am ~1MHz is just one example i know personally].
saying any radio receiver (powerfull enough, like anything that could harm us) is not affecting us is just pure ignorance

[salihkanber]

I think there is not enough evidence to prove that, but the question is why "not enough evidence" ?

[thm_w]

Not at all.

Visble light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. UV is insible so obviously it is not visible light.

You are talking about light sources, and there is a world of difference between them. Good old tungsten incandescent bulbs emit very little UV because glass filters it out. Halogen lights are worse because the bulb is made of quartz.

Now, LEDs? Sodium vapor lights? No.

Try staring into this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChJkEfGiv00

 

[borjam]

Try staring into this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChJkEfGiv00

 

Is it a thermal effect or is there some imaginary-alchemical-pataphysical(*) non thermal effect at play?



(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pataphysics

[thm_w]

Is it a thermal effect or is there some imaginary-alchemical-pataphysical(*) non thermal effect at play?

(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pataphysics

Thermal. A good LED can be up to 50% efficient. If you are pumping in 100W, that means 50W of actual light power is going out, when it hits something it will heat it up.
Same idea with a laser cutter that uses visible laser light.

[vk6zgo]

hi,
that's like the cases in France country-side, where dozen babies are born without arms, there are studies but non-concludent (i'm talking about government studies after those medical issues appeared in mass-media). people blamed pesticides, other people suggested radiation minerals.
anyway, on those subjects regarding cancer from aliments or radio products, all studies will be 'not concludent'
i'm not conspirationist, but a pattern forms here, it's called capitalism stupidity.
of course chemicals have side effects, radio too, some organisms are more susceptible then another.
can we officially talk about this. NO, we are bad seeds by just asking the questions. the state doesn't do his feedback role, it's compromised, conclusion for sincere scientist from top-labs are censored.
do you think, if you can buy 100 euros device to move your muscle without your neural network to give the impulses, that radio is absolutely non-invasive? my answer is categorically no.
i worked almost 5 years as radio support engineer, had 'radio cash bonus'. i don't have medical issues on this side, i guess my body is not that sensitive to this. others are, i had colleagues with headache when exposed longer than 2-3 hours near relays in vhf. but my oppinion, higher the freq, we approach wavelengths close to our internal ones.
even for lower ones, that's a reason fences are around big power transmitters in simply AM relays. people died by not shutting down the transmitter before entering the perimeter.

The fences are there to stop idiots climbing on masts,-----in MF radio broadcasting, the usual design is that the whole mast is insulated from earth, & is in fact, the antenna.
Because of this, the mast is "Hot" with RF, & at kW levels and above can give you life threatening burns if you touch it!!
The other, very possible danger with any mast or tower, is that unauthorised climbers may well fall to their deaths.

The main MF site I worked at had a "Dual mast" where the same vertical radiator was fed with 55kW at 720kHz, & 10kW at 810kHz.

One of the more pleasant duties of being on shift there was, on a nice day, moseying down the footpath next to the two feeders to the "mast" hut, & once there, to read & record the line, dual coupling unit, & mast current readings.
To do so, you needed to open the hut door, enter, & stand inside for as long as it took to do the readings.

On emerging, we would stroll around to make sure there was no visible physical damage to what parts of the mast, etc we could see from ground level.

The fenced area  enclosing the base of the mast is quite small, so if you stand just outside the fence, you are still only a couple of metres way from the mast, so any "woo-woo" magic "bities" can happily find their way through the quite ordinary mesh fencing, or over it!

In all my years in Broadcasting, I knew various people who died accidentally------3 were in aircraft crashes, 2 in falls from heights,
Nary a one from  "just kicking the bucket" from getting too near a Radio mast!

Sorry, but your "almost 5 years as radio support engineer", doesn't cut it on this forum, where the vast majority are people with a solid grip on technical subjects, as well as hands on experience.

Go & regale dumbos off the street with your spurious expertise!

[borjam]

Is it a thermal effect or is there some imaginary-alchemical-pataphysical(*) non thermal effect at play?

(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pataphysics

Thermal. A good LED can be up to 50% efficient. If you are pumping in 100W, that means 50W of actual light power is going out, when it hits something it will heat it up.
Same idea with a laser cutter that uses visible laser light.

Yes, so, nothing new.

What we are discussing in this thread is an entirely different issue. Does RF have non thermal effects? If that was the case, visible light at a much higher frequency would have more dramatic side effects.

[PlainName]

visible light at a much higher frequency would have more dramatic side effects

Does that follow? If you use a little IR to warm your hand, does that mean that a little green light will burn you? Material transparency depends on wavelength, so something might indeed be nasty to your insides by can't get past your walls or even skin. Bigger isn't necessarily worse.

[borjam]

visible light at a much higher frequency would have more dramatic side effects

Does that follow? If you use a little IR to warm your hand, does that mean that a little green light will burn you? Material transparency depends on wavelength, so something might indeed be nasty to your insides by can't get past your walls or even skin. Bigger isn't necessarily worse.

Define "a little", please.

Again, thermal effects which are irrelevant to the cancer discussion.

[PlainName]

Define "a little", please.

Figure of speech. In this case, take it to mean however much is necessary to warm your hand.

Again, thermal effects

Actually, an effect. Used to illustrate that bigger and faster isn't necessarily more of the same.

[SiliconWizard]

So, let's accept that those particular frequency bands are especially dangerous because, well, they tickle spermatozoids or whatnot.

Weren't they dangerous when they were used for high power, in the order of KW, television transmissions? Antennophobiacs tend to think that "those frequencies were invented for cell phone use" or some equivalent bullshit.

Well, TV transmission has always used frequency bands below 1 GHz (VHF/UHF), and even the more modern DVB-T or similar.

[MazeFrame]

that's like the cases in France country-side, where dozen babies are born without arms, there are studies but non-concludent (i'm talking about government studies after those medical issues appeared in mass-media). people blamed pesticides, other people suggested radiation minerals.

I remember seeing an ARTE produced documentary on that. I also read some reports from similar (NOT the same) genetic defects were observed in newborns of farmers in Mexico who used some pesticide (can't remember which one). Since pesticides (unlike waves) stay somewhat local to where they are used, I would argue towards that.

[SiliconWizard]

that's like the cases in France country-side, where dozen babies are born without arms, there are studies but non-concludent (i'm talking about government studies after those medical issues appeared in mass-media). people blamed pesticides, other people suggested radiation minerals.

I remember seeing an ARTE produced documentary on that. I also read some reports from similar (NOT the same) genetic defects were observed in newborns of farmers in Mexico who used some pesticide (can't remember which one). Since pesticides (unlike waves) stay somewhat local to where they are used, I would argue towards that.

Yep, although inconclusive as well at this point, pesticides seem to be the more likely culprit here.