Re: Your cellphones are more dangerous than my smoke

From: Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert_at_wagner.net>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 15:59:57 GMT

On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:33:13 -0500, VietnamVet49_at_Notmail.com wrote:

>On Fri, 13 May 2005 23:20:51 GMT, Robert Wagner
><spamblocker-robert_at_wagner.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:32:00 -0500, VietnamVet49_at_Notmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As for the cell phone radiation, everyone keeps saying the radiation
>>>health risks are not proven. Yet there have been studies done that
>>>say it IS a risk. Of course well all know how much money these phone
>>>companies have, and they got their lawyers who protect their
>>>businesses, even if there is harmful radiation. It's the same way the
>>>tobacco companies stay in business. That's just the way things work
>>>in our society. Driving a car is risky too, so maybe they should
>>>outlaw cars. If you dont think that cellphone radiation is dangerous,
>>>stick your head in your microwave oven and turn it on for a minute.
>>>It's the same difference, just works faster.
>>
>>Do you understand the concept of dosage? A microwave oven emits
>>hundreds of watts, at a frequency (2.45 GHz) specially tuned to affect
>>water and fat. A cellphone emits .2 watt at a frequency (1.9 GHz) that
>>isn't absorbed by all that water in your brain.
>>
>>If you're so upset by microwaves, consider shooting down communication
>>satellites, blowing up radar sites, outlawing wireless LAN such as
>>IEEE 802.11g and Bluetooth (avoid airport terminals, hotel lobbies and
>>Starbucks), banning leaky CATV coax and cellphone relay stations. They
>>all operate in the 2GHz band.
>>
>>Is there a newsgroup alt.luddite better suited to such nescience?
>>
>
>Well, you ALMOST made the connection. In theory, what you are saying
>is that the radiation from a cell phone compered to a microwave oven
>is very minimal. However, it is in a similar frequency range. So,
>instead of boiling a cup of water in one minute, it would take days if
>not weeks. So, if you stuck your hand in the microwave, it would
>destroy all the cells in your hand in a minute or so. But, in effect
>a cell phone is then only destroying one or two cells at a time.

A cup of water exposed to cellphone radiation would never boil. The slight heat gain caused by radiation would dissipate to the environment faster than it's coming in, according to the second law of thermodynamics.

If someone poked your arm with his finger every minute for a twenty years, it wouldn't punch a hole in your skin. A bullet moving at 1,000 ft/sec would make a hole. A researcher might add up the cumulative energy in finger pokes and find it is several times higher than the energy carried by the bullet. Why does speed make a difference?

High-frequency radiation causes molecular damage by splitting water molecules into free radicals (ions) of O and H. Waves with frequency above visible light (500 GHz) are ionizing; those below the frequency of light, such as microwaves, are non-ionizing. That's ONE reason you can't measure risk by watts alone.

Some scientists postulate that, although radio-frequency waves do not cause cancer directly by modifying genes or delivering radicals, they 'stress' proteins so as to promote the action of natural carcinogens. This is in dispute. Even if true, the dose/response (Q factor) of non-ionizing waves is sure to be below the weakest ionizing ones: alpha particles.

>Is this not about the same as second hand smoke. The person actually
>inhaling on the cigarette is getting the "microwave effect", or full
>effect of the smoke. The SHS is only a very tiny amount, just like
>the "cellphone effect".
>
>Thus my original message comes back to life.
>If people want to bug me about my SHS possibly hurting one cell in
>their lungs, I have a valid excuse to complain about their phone
>possibly harming one cell in my body.

Good analogy. It shows why both fears are irrational.

>If a non-smoker sits in a smoky bar for hours each day, even I (as a
>smoker) agree that the smoke will at least cause them to cough.
>Expose a non-cellphone user to other people's cellphones everywhere
>they go, in stores, at work, outdoors, at public events, etc. And
>those phones WILL have an effect on others.

>,,,, It's one in the same ,,,,,

The 'assaults' of background radiation, sunlight, airborne hydrocarbons, dust, etc. have been present since life began, a billion years ago. Our bodies are designed to handle them in small doses.

But we're not designed to live at 30,000 feet, where cosmic rays average 1.6 watts (1.6 Joules/s). An hour in an airplane exposes you to the same energy as 16 hours talking on a cellphone (assuming it transmits 50% of the time), but the biological risk is many times higher because high-energy protons are ionizing whereas radio waves aren't. During sunspot flares, the cosmic ray level increases 20 times.

Suppose an employer required workers to take a chest X-ray every day. Most people would consider that an outrageous exposure to radiation, and gladly vote for a law banning the practice. They don't realize airline pilots and flight attendants are exposed every day to that much radiation -- about 70 micro Sieverts (uSv). If you think that's bad, a CAT scan delivers 40,000 uSv.

Why aren't they worried? Because the dose required to increase the risk of cancer by 1% is 250,000 uSv. Hypothetically, if a cellphone transmitted alpha particles, an hour on a cellphone would deliver .1 uSv. You'd have to spend 287 years on the hypothetical cellphone, talking 24 hours/day, to increase the risk of cancer 1%. Because real cellphones don't cause ionization, my common sense says their danger should be lower.

Reference:
http://hypertextbook.com/physics/modern/radiobiology/ http://www.emraa.org.au/mobphones/DrFrench.htm Received on Sat May 14 2005 - 08:59:57 PDT