Glenn, that 'cellsafe' stuff is pure horses**t.

The 'radiation' from a cellphone is the radio waves it transmits. Reduce that and it becomes useless, as it can't effectively communicate with the cellphone tower.

Correct, good sir.

For what it is worth, there IS a possibility that long-term cellphone use can cause at least some level of tissue damage.

But this is where you end up wrong. The radiation from a cell phone is known as non-ionized, meaning they don't produce charged ions when passing through matter. Non-ionized radiation's only side-effect is that it causes excitation in molecules. That's a physicist's way of saying it heats up, so at most it only heats up your body as it passes through without causing damage.

Unless the laws of physics change drastically, there's no way even long-term use of cellphones cause any kind of damage.

That is 'non-ionizing'... and, yes. It was the 'heat' that I was referring to.

But... EM radiation does NOT have to be 'ionizing' (upper portion of
UltraViolet and higher) to cause problems...

Cluster of testicular cancer in police officers exposed to hand-held radar.



Abstract

Within a cohort of 340 police officers, six incident cases of testicular cancer occurred between 1979 and 1991 (O/E 6.9; p < 0.001, Poisson distribution). Occupational use of hand-held radar was the only shared risk factor among all six officers, and all routinely held the radar gun directly in close proximity to their testicles. Health effects of occupational radar use have not been widely studied, and further research into a possible association with testicular cancer is warranted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8213849

Correlation <> causation.

Only one paper on any of the case reports has appeared in the scientific literature. Davis et al. investigated a cancer cluster in police officers who used radar and later developed testicular cancer. In that report, the authors found some supporting evidence for the plausibility of an association between radar use and cancer, specifically, the cancers were medically verified to be testicular in origin and the temporal characteristics of the cases were appropriate, i.e., radar use occurred years before the diagnosis of cancer. As this was a study of a cancer cluster it is insufficient to resolve whether radar use had any causal role in the development of cancer.

(source)

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Glenn, that 'cellsafe' stuff is pure horses**t.

The 'radiation' from a cellphone is the radio waves it transmits. Reduce that and it becomes useless, as it can't effectively communicate with the cellphone tower.

Correct, good sir.

For what it is worth, there IS a possibility that long-term cellphone use can cause at least some level of tissue damage.

But this is where you end up wrong. The radiation from a cell phone is known as non-ionized, meaning they don't produce charged ions when passing through matter. Non-ionized radiation's only side-effect is that it causes excitation in molecules. That's a physicist's way of saying it heats up, so at most it only heats up your body as it passes through without causing damage.

Unless the laws of physics change drastically, there's no way even long-term use of cellphones cause any kind of damage.

That is 'non-ionizing'... and, yes. It was the 'heat' that I was referring to.

But... EM radiation does NOT have to be 'ionizing' (upper portion of
UltraViolet and higher) to cause problems...

Cluster of testicular cancer in police officers exposed to hand-held radar.



Abstract

Within a cohort of 340 police officers, six incident cases of testicular cancer occurred between 1979 and 1991 (O/E 6.9; p < 0.001, Poisson distribution). Occupational use of hand-held radar was the only shared risk factor among all six officers, and all routinely held the radar gun directly in close proximity to their testicles. Health effects of occupational radar use have not been widely studied, and further research into a possible association with testicular cancer is warranted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8213849

Correlation <> causation.

Only one paper on any of the case reports has appeared in the scientific literature. Davis et al. investigated a cancer cluster in police officers who used radar and later developed testicular cancer. In that report, the authors found some supporting evidence for the plausibility of an association between radar use and cancer, specifically, the cancers were medically verified to be testicular in origin and the temporal characteristics of the cases were appropriate, i.e., radar use occurred years before the diagnosis of cancer. As this was a study of a cancer cluster it is insufficient to resolve whether radar use had any causal role in the development of cancer.

(source)

I was just about to respond but I think Bobby hit the nail on the head better than I could. And yes, sorry, it is non-ionizing, not non-ionized. My bad.

I was just about to respond but I think Bobby hit the nail on the head better than I could. And yes, sorry, it is non-ionizing, not non-ionized. My bad.

I long ago learned that Bobby almost exclusively disagrees for the sake of disagreeing.

However, both you and I somewhat agree, I think, about the potential of thermal effects, however slight they might be...

Your thoughts on that 2nd paper I found, about *non-thermal* effects of microwaves on the lenses of the eyes, possibly being a cause of cataracts?

I await your thoughts...

BTW, BOTH papers were linked off of an nih.gov website, both being originally published in peer-reviewed journals...

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Cluster of testicular cancer in police officers exposed to hand-held radar.



Abstract

Within a cohort of 340 police officers, six incident cases of testicular cancer occurred between 1979 and 1991 (O/E 6.9; p < 0.001, Poisson distribution). Occupational use of hand-held radar was the only shared risk factor among all six officers, and all routinely held the radar gun directly in close proximity to their testicles. Health effects of occupational radar use have not been widely studied, and further research into a possible association with testicular cancer is warranted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8213849

Were they trying to measure the speed of their ....
The radiation comes out the feed horn end.
More likely there was some chemical in the plastic of the hand held unit.

No, Gary, they were not measuring the speed of their wangs....

My understanding is that the (at the time new) handheld radar guns that replaced the vehicle mounted radar units were kept on hot-standby in the officer's laps to hide them from view, only being held up and out the window to clock a car the officer suspected of speeding. Catch more speeders that way. Radar detectors had not yet come into vogue, and when they did it kinda put an end to this silliness. At least until newer devices got marketed that used Lasers (IR lasers, among others). Then it was back to speed-trap-ville until such time as the detector arms-race caught up. But even then the laser units were somewhat more difficult to counter than the old radar units.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

I am sure Gary was referring to the speed of their ... flagella?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Cluster of testicular cancer in police officers exposed to hand-held radar.



Abstract

Within a cohort of 340 police officers, six incident cases of testicular cancer occurred between 1979 and 1991 (O/E 6.9; p < 0.001, Poisson distribution). Occupational use of hand-held radar was the only shared risk factor among all six officers, and all routinely held the radar gun directly in close proximity to their testicles. Health effects of occupational radar use have not been widely studied, and further research into a possible association with testicular cancer is warranted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8213849

Were they trying to measure the speed of their ....
The radiation comes out the feed horn end.
More likely there was some chemical in the plastic of the hand held unit.

No, Gary, they were not measuring the speed of their wangs....

My understanding is that the (at the time new) handheld radar guns that replaced the vehicle mounted radar units were kept on hot-standby in the officer's laps to hide them from view, only being held up and out the window to clock a car the officer suspected of speeding.

Well if you put the family jewels into a microwave oven .... I have a feeling the ERP was a few orders of magnitude higher than a cell phone if they pointed the working end .... and the inside of a car could act as the walls of a microwave oven and reflect the signal all over inside.

---

I was just about to respond but I think Bobby hit the nail on the head better than I could. And yes, sorry, it is non-ionizing, not non-ionized. My bad.

I long ago learned that Bobby almost exclusively disagrees for the sake of disagreeing.

I'd say no he doesn't, but that'd look contrarian.

BTW, BOTH papers were linked off of an nih.gov website, both being originally published in peer-reviewed journals...

Papers linked from nih.gov merely indicate that tests were conduced and hypothesis were tested/investigated, as all claims rightly should.

However, both you and I somewhat agree, I think, about the potential of thermal effects, however slight they might be...

Your thoughts on that 2nd paper I found, about *non-thermal* effects of microwaves on the lenses of the eyes, possibly being a cause of cataracts?

I await your thoughts...

A skimming of the reading indicates that these lenses received rapid doses of radiation, more than what a human would encounter at any one time. This testing seems fundamentally flawed when considering harm to humans as average use of cell phones for talking is considerably lower than the study exposes test samples to. The study states that the effects on live lenses (along with the ability to naturally heal) would probably take much longer for adverse effects to show up when compared to their cultured samples, up to 20 years.

Of course, like all sciences, nothing can be confirmed 100%, so the usual disclaimers apply, including uses of the words "may cause damage" and "current effects unknown at present". Since there's a chance, they must include the usual disclaimers about levels of usage, no matter how minimal. And like any good scientist that wants to continue studying, they state their findings warrant additional study.

It would also seem the World Health Organization has dismissed the possibility for harm specifically for police radars:

Speed control radars are hand-held by police in many countries. The average output power is very low, a few milliwatts, and so the units are not considered hazardous to health, even when used in very close proximity to the body.

and:

Non-thermal effects: Exposure to RF levels too low to involve heating, (i.e., very low SARs), has been reported by several groups to alter calcium ion mobility, which is responsible for transmitting information in tissue cells. However, these effects are not sufficiently established to provide a basis for restricting human exposure.

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs226/en/

A skimming of the reading indicates that these lenses received rapid doses of radiation, more than what a human would encounter at any one time. This testing seems fundamentally flawed when considering harm to humans as average use of cell phones for talking is considerably lower than the study exposes test samples to. The study states that the effects on live lenses (along with the ability to naturally heal) would probably take much longer for adverse effects to show up when compared to their cultured samples, up to 20 years.

That would depend entirely on what one's definition of 'rapid' would be.

Granted, the lenses received cycles of doses of microwaves of 50 minutes on, 10 minutes off, for a few days. So, in that sense it might be considered 'rapid'...

However the power levels involved....

I see that Cell phones will have maximum power output levels of between 0.5 Wstts (500 milliwatts) and 3 Watts (3000 milliwatts).

In the study, a power output level of 0.0022 Watts (2.2 milliwatts) was used... at least 2 orders of magnitude LOWER... Hardly what I would call 'rapid'.

Furthermore:

Discussion:

Environmental stress, including electromagnetic radiation, has a negative impact on the lens and is considered a risk factor for cataracts [3,6]. In this study we show non-thermal effects of microwaves at the same frequency that is used in cellular phones on the intact lens in organ culture. Microwaves damaged the lens optical quality, as measured by focal length variability. Microwave damage was dose-dependent and at the doses tested was reversible when exposure stopped. Lens morphology was strikingly different in microwave-exposed and conductive heat-exposed lenses, indicating that the effects due to microwaves are different from thermal effects. Remarkably, microwave damage was seen in each of the parameter analyzed. Our results demonstrate that while microwave damage to optical quality was reversed when the exposure was stopped, morphological changes to the epithelium were irreversible.

The doses we used are similar to those the lens receives when we speak on a cell phone; however, cell phone use is never continuous for a period of 8 days and nights. On the other hand, the damage by intermittent use of cell phones can be cumulative. It is also important to consider that the lens in vivo likely has better repair mechanisms than the lens under the culture conditions used in our study. The damage that we are seeing in culture conditions after 15 days of exposure is likely to appear in vivo much later- even 10 or 20 years later. It is recommended to use cell phones from a distance to minimize exposure, thus reducing any potential harmful effects of cell phone use on the lens.

Now then, while I am not well versed in ALL of Jill Stein's attitudes and views on science, and I will likely disagree with some/many/most of them, *IF* she is, in fact, questioning the long term safety of cellphones I think she is correct to do so.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

She has talked about "wi-fi radiation", but not cell phones to my knowledge.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

I see that Cell phones will have maximum power output levels of between 0.5 Wstts (500 milliwatts) and 3 Watts (3000 milliwatts).

I see there is some difference http://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/cell-phone-output-power.214211/.

Remember that is the cell signal. Not the bluetooth. Not the wi-fi. Just the cell transmitter.

---

A skimming of the reading indicates that these lenses received rapid doses of radiation, more than what a human would encounter at any one time. This testing seems fundamentally flawed when considering harm to humans as average use of cell phones for talking is considerably lower than the study exposes test samples to. The study states that the effects on live lenses (along with the ability to naturally heal) would probably take much longer for adverse effects to show up when compared to their cultured samples, up to 20 years.

That would depend entirely on what one's definition of 'rapid' would be.

Granted, the lenses received cycles of doses of microwaves of 50 minutes on, 10 minutes off, for a few days. So, in that sense it might be considered 'rapid'...

Yes, by rapid I was referring to exposure over time. 'Rapid' typically doesn't denote power levels themselves.

However the power levels involved....

I see that Cell phones will have maximum power output levels of between 0.5 Wstts (500 milliwatts) and 3 Watts (3000 milliwatts).

In the study, a power output level of 0.0022 Watts (2.2 milliwatts) was used... at least 2 orders of magnitude LOWER... Hardly what I would call 'rapid'.

...and as hands-free and voice-activated devices become more popular? And again, the study indicated it would take more than 20 years of similar exposure, but that there are various unknowns from that statement being verified to be accurate.

Now then, while I am not well versed in ALL of Jill Stein's attitudes and views on science, and I will likely disagree with some/many/most of them, *IF* she is, in fact, questioning the long term safety of cellphones I think she is correct to do so.

As stated, she doesn't seem to be questioning cell phone exposure/usage specifically. She seems to be questioning Wi-Fi radiation unless I'm mistaken.

I was just about to respond but I think Bobby hit the nail on the head better than I could. And yes, sorry, it is non-ionizing, not non-ionized. My bad.

I long ago learned that Bobby almost exclusively disagrees for the sake of disagreeing.

Did I disagree with anything you posted? I thought I added some information to the discussion.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I was just about to respond but I think Bobby hit the nail on the head better than I could. And yes, sorry, it is non-ionizing, not non-ionized. My bad.

I long ago learned that Bobby almost exclusively disagrees for the sake of disagreeing.

Did I disagree with anything you posted? I thought I added some information to the discussion.

(Being sarcastically contrarian): Did you? DID YOU? :)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Yes, by rapid I was referring to exposure over time. 'Rapid' typically doesn't denote power levels themselves.

Exposure over time...

The higher the power level, the greater the exposure per unit time. Hence the rapidity of the dose received.

As to WiFi & Stein... I would be equally as concerned about the WiFi if the user was located in the near-field of the WiFi transmitters. They use microwaves too (2.4GHz, 3.6GHz, 4.9GHz, etc.) at a maximum power (usually) of 100 mW (20 dBm)...

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Yes, by rapid I was referring to exposure over time. 'Rapid' typically doesn't denote power levels themselves.

Exposure over time...

The higher the power level, the greater the exposure per unit time. Hence the rapidity of the dose received.

But the duration of exposure given in the test isn't indicative of actual exposure duration dosage in real life. I understand the constraints of scientific testing, funding, public interest, and the rush to publish results, but I stand by my original statement that I think the testing was fundamentally flawed due to these unrealistic exposure durations.

As to WiFi & Stein... I would be equally as concerned about the WiFi if the user was located in the near-field of the WiFi transmitters. They use microwaves too (2.4GHz, 3.6GHz, 4.9GHz, etc.) at a maximum power (usually) of 100 mW (20 dBm)...

Even the report you linked to said your eyes had to have very close proximity to the transmitter to even see the detrimental effects. I'd agree to the cell phone argument before I'd ever agree that Wi-Fi poses any real risks.

Yes, by rapid I was referring to exposure over time. 'Rapid' typically doesn't denote power levels themselves.

Exposure over time...

The higher the power level, the greater the exposure per unit time. Hence the rapidity of the dose received.

But the duration of exposure given in the test isn't indicative of actual exposure duration dosage in real life. I understand the constraints of scientific testing, funding, public interest, and the rush to publish results, but I stand by my original statement that I think the testing was fundamentally flawed due to these unrealistic exposure durations.

As to WiFi & Stein... I would be equally as concerned about the WiFi if the user was located in the near-field of the WiFi transmitters. They use microwaves too (2.4GHz, 3.6GHz, 4.9GHz, etc.) at a maximum power (usually) of 100 mW (20 dBm)...

Even the report you linked to said your eyes had to have very close proximity to the transmitter to even see the detrimental effects. I'd agree to the cell phone argument before I'd ever agree that Wi-Fi poses any real risks.

Like the WiFi unit inside many modern cell-phones?

And as to 'unrealistic exposure durations'... I know more than a few people that more often than not have their cell phones up to their ears... even when it is plugged in charging... bloody addicts.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_May

Canada's Green Party leader. One of your more
impressive contributions to our nation!

---

As to WiFi & Stein... I would be equally as concerned about the WiFi if the user was located in the near-field of the WiFi transmitters. They use microwaves too (2.4GHz, 3.6GHz, 4.9GHz, etc.) at a maximum power (usually) of 100 mW (20 dBm)...

Even the report you linked to said your eyes had to have very close proximity to the transmitter to even see the detrimental effects. I'd agree to the cell phone argument before I'd ever agree that Wi-Fi poses any real risks.

Like the WiFi unit inside many modern cell-phones?

Touche. And do we know that there aren't other reasons for the non-thermal reactions observed? It seems Edition Wissenschaft thinks there might be. (PDF)

And as to 'unrealistic exposure durations'... I know more than a few people that more often than not have their cell phones up to their ears... even when it is plugged in charging... bloody addicts.

As much as we like to moan about cell phone use during these times, I don't think actual usage is equivalent to the test methodology usage.

(Being sarcastically contrarian): Did you? DID YOU? :)

I suspect that when other posters ignore you, in a thread that you started,
even when you are responding to a poster responding to another poster,
that,
"Your post is a Contradiction in Terms". :)

(Being sarcastically contrarian): Did you? DID YOU? :)

I suspect that when other posters ignore you, in a thread that you started,
even when you are responding to a poster responding to another poster,
that,
"Your post is a Contradiction in Terms". :)

You are coming up sorely lacking. It is you that should stand down. BUH BYE!

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.