Granted, I should defer to the opinion of people smarter than me. Question though MB. Europe has banned the use of cellphones for children 8 and younger if I'm not mistaken.
Not smarter - just educated further. Education doesn't make you smarter.
Europe tends to ban anything and everything that hints at risk of anything. The big "C" word tends to scare the crap out of people - and politicians can use that to their advantage. Just sayin', the US and Europe alike are not good sources of reason if by reason you tend to look at the laws they produce.
What's so special about children 8 and younger? Are we assuming that older people, longer exposed to E&M waves are more sturdy?
Cancers usually take years to show up. Cellphone testing is usually conducted by laboratories paid for by cellphone companies.
And sometimes it takes months. The increase in cancer rates is nothing at all, compared to the increase of cell phone users, and again, that's for cancer in general. No one can even seem to pin down what kind of cancer could be increasing with cell phone use. If its all coming from the same source, the same cancer would be re-occurring as a result from the same cause. The problem is, any/all cancers have been claimed to be "caused" by the same source. This is ridiculous. Sun-tanning does not cause leukemia or brain cancer or breast cancer. A single cause, tends to lead to only one result, not many, and definitely not all.
No one single type of cancer seems to be correlated. Only "cancer" in general seems to be the big fear, no matter what type it is. That's a big problem.
Lots of studies were paid for by larger companies, but a common misconception here is that people seem to think that the source of funding somehow nullifies the legitimacy of the results of the experiment. People were outraged by this cell phone cancer possibility 10 years ago, and the ones who responded to the scare at all - were in fact wireless carriers, and companies like Motorola. And why wouldn't they? They would be some of the few actually able and willing to fund the research, and they have interests to keep! If it is indeed necessary and possible, they would be the first ones who would love to sell you their next generation "safe" cell phones. "Caged" and "protective" phones would have flown off the shelves if there had been a causation found.
DNA damage at the molecular level. Free radicals from microwaved foods.
DNA damage is normal. It happens regularly, and mostly by reproduction failure and ionizing radiation. Those damaged cells are "mutant" and are selectively destroyed by your immune system. The ones that happen to go a-wall are called cancerous. Damage occurs regularly, but cancer is much more of a rarity. Consider that you have some 6 trillion cells in your body, most of which goes through mitosis regularly.
Free radicals can be found everywhere. They are not exclusive to micro-waved food. Remember, it is the water molecule that is in resonance with the micro-waves of a very particular size. This regular oscillation is what adds kinetic energy to the water molecules which is in contact with other molecules - the kinetic energy spreads on from there. No chemical changes are taking place until the heat becomes high enough to actually break bonds and burn food. When you start burning stuff, yeah stay away. Carbon black is actually a well documented carcinogen.
Microwaves are not "heat" waves, they are not ionizing radiation, and they are not inherently dangerous. The scenario setup by the kitchen appliance is such that a resonant cavity is produced, causing hot spots to appear throughout the chamber, and cold spots left in the food sample. That's why microwaves now-days rotate the food through these varying hot and cold spots, to share the load a bit.
Consider that the very SAME waves are continually flying in from space and bombard your body all the time - causing your water molecules to rotate even if only slightly. There is nothing carcinogenic about it. You can "see" that radiation for yourself by turning on the TV and unplugging the antenna. That "White noise" buzz and snowy image is exactly what I'm talking about. If it comes in strongly enough for your TV set to pick it up wherever you go, what makes someone think that UHF, VHF, shortband, and EHF waves are any more harmful? They
barely broadcast with enough power to even make a clear signal! But TV from space has no problem.
Cell towers also causing cancer. The documentation and cancer rates grow right along with the increasing number of cell phone users. and what about wifi... ?
If I strap myself to a 100,000 Watt tower, yeah. I'll get rf burn for sure. But that's only because of the raw power put out by the tower. If I sat on a 100,000 Watt light bulb, or stood in front of a 100,000 Watt laser beam - hell. I'd rather take the radio waves!
As the signal spreads out, the intensity of the waves decreases with inverse square law. So if 'i' is intensity, and 'r' is distance away from the source,
i = 1 / r^2
So as I get twice the distance away from point 'A', I receive only 1/4th of the intensity as before.
Now consider the FCC regulation for cell phone radiation exposure:
The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg). Now consider that cell phones (by law) do not exceed .25 Watts during operation. Any more and the battery wouldn't even be worth anything at all. Now assuming that we take the mass of your head, and weigh it against the .25 Watt from a cell phone (assuming ALL of your cell signal get absorbed into your head, which it doesn't), does it even come close to 1.6W/kg? Not even. Your head would have to much less than one kg!
The fact is, digital radio communication require so much less power, and signal "frames" for a given amount of information, than over an analog protocol.
Think about it. If cell phones were heating your brain, you would first notice the huge frequency of dropped calls you had all because you turned your head the wrong direction and you blocked nearest cell tower. Our heads are pretty transparent to even a weak little .25 Watt signal.
Again, think about your typical light bulb - pulling 60W of energy in from the wall and converting it to light waves and heat waves! That's a lot! The cell phone claim is like saying my keychain LED light is cooking whatever I put real close to it.
Of Wifi and growing cancer numbers - there is a common logical fallacy committed by many people who interpret these "studies" and "reports". Here's the thing:
Correlation does not equal causation. I can frankly show any number of things that are increasing along with cancer numbers, and cell phone users. I could show that cancer growth is increasing along WITH kids who play football, and women that write with their left hand.
Correlation in some of these "studies" fail to report the similar changing diets, and other actual health related habits that go along with recent decade changes.
We know this is mere correlation and not a causation, because an actual mechanism for causation has not ever been found. No one has come forward, with all of their research and passion for the health of the public - to report on HOW and WHY there is a correlation that would explicitly link cell phones to cancer. What kind of cancer does it cause? (Nothing causes all cancers to occur like some might like you to believe cell phones do) What's the cellular mechanism behind cancer cell generation by a cell phone? Why has this not occurred for pretty much everyone - except for those that blame cell phones?
No one has stepped forward to explain these things with any legitimate research whatsoever. Someone, someday is bound to get another "antenna shaped" tumor on their face - and naturally, they will blame the cell phone and then forget about all the people out there with cancer in all the other places of their body which do not blame cell phones.
By the way, the actually wave nodes that come off a cell phone antenna are NOT shaped like the antenna as some of these people assume when they see a stick like tumor. This also stems from a basic understanding of how cancer develops once it starts development from only one cell.
Now I'm not saying I'm going to stop using wifi and there is no way to avoid the reality of living in our modern age outside of living in the middle of nowhere. There is a lot of documentation though, a lot of pockets of cancer suffers, that seem very much tied to the existence of some form of electosmog pollution, Cell phone towers, power lines etc. :tinfoil:
Well I'm glad you won't let it ruin your life. I hope you continue to dig through these documentations and ask yourself, "did they provide a mechanism?"
"Or did they just neatly 'tie things together' themselves?"
Bottom line is, humans have been exposed to this stuff have longer than we have even known that its been around, and the addition of manmade sources do not change their nature. For every study you find that shows a correlation, I can find one that finds the opposite or no correlation. Also, do not be afraid of the word "radiation". It does not imply anything dangerous at all. Anything at all that radiates anything at all is a source of radiation.
Hell, humans radiate all kinds of stuff. (heat, IR, alpha, beta particles, bad breath)
I don't mean to stomp your questions into the ground. Its just that I've done a fair amount of research on the matter myself. I lost a nice girlfriend on the matter.
She was freaking afraid to keep her phone on her, or even her bedroom. If she was out and not to be found, she could not be called because she would have her phone off if she took it anywhere. She refused to skype (because that would put a laptop on her lap), and she annoyed the heck out of her friends for the same reasons. So communication greatly suffered. I did butt loads of research and found her some remedies so she wouldn't have to worry anymore and she just turned a blind eye to it. Meatball was not appeased to say the least.
I asked myself, If she Really believes all this stuff - that she will get cancer from her cell phone, why hasn't she tried to stop me, or warn me about it? Would a true believer not care enough about those around her for the same matters she fears for own well being?
Considering all that technology DOES do for us, and does very well... Even if you are never convinced that it is ever safe (which I hope doesn't happen to you), consider the overall cost vs benefit relationship. Weigh the two and consider, even IF everything were so dangerous, does all the good it does become meaningless in the end?
Its ok to question technology as its always changing. But I always check myself with this question:
Is there money to be made through a miracle product or a series of economy altering lawsuits?
If yes: Then its probably a money driven idea
If no: Could be worth questioning further
Take care dear LPF user. I only mean well for you!
Because of that, you won't find them reported in the media.