Your cellphone is killing you -- L-O-N-G article

[Thad Floryan]

Your cellphone is killing you -- L-O-N-G article

Earlier this year, 15 April 2014, I read this article on SFGate which
caught my eye because I live in Los Altos CA:

Cell-phones' link to health problems debated - SFGate
http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Cell-phones-link-to-health-problems-debated-5091712.php

which begins:

" Every weekday morning, Bret Bocook sits in a cozy Starbucks in
" downtown Los Altos. He sips coffee and reads the paper. But
" mostly, he watches people as they chat on their cell phones.
"
" Then he walks over to deliver a message.
"
" "I was observing you on your cell phone," Bocook told a woman
" after she wrapped up a lengthy call on a recent morning. "I used
" a cell phone and I got a brain tumor."
"
" Startled, the woman politely listened. Bocook tends to command
" attention, and not just because he has the tall, broad build of a
" former competitive rower. The 49-year-old Los Altos man limps
" with a cane, the result of a surgery that removed a malignant
" brain tumor about four years ago but left him with shaky motor
" skills.
"
" His right temple is indented where the tumor had once been. It's
" also, he says, where he held his cell phone when he was a real
" estate agent, racking up an estimated 1 million minutes over two
" decades as he talked to clients.
"
" Bocook is now among a growing number of people who believe beyond
" doubt that cell phones are a life-threatening health hazard. Some
" medical experts have also begun to raise concerns about the
" devices.
" [...]

This URL appeared in the comp.dcom.telecom group today 23 August 2014:

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/12/your_cellphone_is_killing_you_what_people_dont_want_you_to_know_about_electromagnetic_fields/

I believe the statements in the above Salon article given the additional
articles I found Googing using this bracketed search term based on the
above SFgate article:

[ guy who used cellphone has cancer where he held cellphone to his head ]

which found the following among many other results:

Fact or Fiction?: Cell Phones Can Cause Brain Cancer ...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-cell-phones-can-cause-brain-cancer/

Cell Phone Gave Man a Tumor, According to Major Court ...
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/11/07/heavy-cell-phone-use.aspx

Are Cell Phones Causing Cancer? - EMF-Health.com Articles
http://www.emf-health.com/articles-cellphones-cancer.htm

Cell phone radiation: Harmless or health risk? - CNET
http://www.cnet.com/news/cell-phone-radiation-harmless-or-health-risk/

Cell phones, Cancer and Brain Tumors - EHSO.com
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/cellphonecancer.php

Can Cell Phones Harm Our Health? | Cancer Prevention ...
http://www.stopcancerfund.org/p-brain-cancer/can-cell-phones-harm-our-health-2/

Keep mobile phones, tablets or laptops away from your body
http://peperperspective.com/2013/04/27/keep-mobile-phones-tablets-or-laptops-away-from-your-body-wireless-devices-may-cause-harm/

Mobile phone safety. The real truth about the hazards ...
http://www.psrast.org/mobileng/mobilstarteng.htm

Guys, I Have Brain Tumors - HelloGiggles
http://hellogiggles.com/guys-i-have-brain-tumors

And then there's this interesting article regarding folks who have
appeared on the Larry King show discussing cell phones and cancer:

http://boonsrid.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/cell-phone-story.pdf

with these extracted tidbits:

[...]
Siegal Sadetzki, a physician and epidemiologist at Sheba Medical
Center and Tel Aviv University in Israel, published her results
ahead of the final report of the Interphone study. Like Hardell,
Sadetzki found a side-of-the-head correlation, with heavy phone
users facing a 50 percent higher risk for developing a salivary
gland tumor on the side where the phone was placed. "I don't see
my results as conclusive but as a red light to be careful,"
Sadetzki says. "It's premature to make conclusions; it takes 20
to 40 years for cancer to develop."

"We don't know the long-term risk of heating up your brain in
those areas over 20 to 30 years," says Keith Black, neurosurgery
department chairman at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
"All these studies have flaws."
[...]
He suggested that cell phones could have far broader health
ramifications than smoking cigarettes, due in part to the fact
that nearly three billion people talk on cell phones and only one
billion smoke.
[...]
Larry King brought two oncologists and a neurosurgeon back to his
show in July to address the subject. One of them, Keith Black,
later said in a phone interview that "even if cell phones don't
cause cancer, microwave energy heats up the tissue."
[...]

Reflect upon what a microwave oven does to food and how warm both a
cellphone and the side of the head become after a long cellphone call.

That's one of the reasons I installed Ooma VoIP in April 2014 as my
home phone after abandoning landlines in 2002 becoming cellphone-only
and why I now seldom use my cellphone.

Thad

[Keith Keller]

Post by Thad Floryan
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/12/your_cellphone_is_killing_you_what_people_dont_want_you_to_know_about_electromagnetic_fields/

I love this line from the column:

"As with all findings published in such journals, our data and
conclusions were peer reviewed."

If you have been following developments in academic journals, you know
that there has been a startling increase in the number of papers which
have either inadvertently or intentionally used faulty methods, bad
data, or both, to come to their conclusions. These papers were ''peer
reviewed'' yet these errors and lies were not caught.

I'm not suggesting that the author is incorrect, merely that being "peer
reviewed" is not evidence that he's correct.

Post by Thad Floryan
That's one of the reasons I installed Ooma VoIP in April 2014 as my
home phone after abandoning landlines in 2002 becoming cellphone-only
and why I now seldom use my cellphone.

Define "use". Do you have it with you? It's still generating an
electromagnetic field even if you're not talking on it. Are you playing
Angry Birds? Then your hands are closer to this EMF, so maybe the tumor
will appear there instead of on one side of your head. Hell, even your
handset is generating an EMF, just not nearly as strong as your cell
phone (probably).

"If EMF levels were regulated just as automobile carbon emissions are
regulated, this would force manufacturers to design, create, and sell
devices that generate much lower levels of EMF."

That's a very good parallel, considering the strong opposition the
automobile industry put up against regulating carbon emissions. If the
electronics industry puts up similar opposition (and judging from
Blank's article they already are) it will be many years before there is
any such regulation. So if there is a link between electronics use and
various diseases, we and our kids are going to be hardest hit.

--keith

[Thad Floryan]

Post by Keith Keller

Post by Thad Floryan
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/12/your_cellphone_is_killing_you_what_people_dont_want_you_to_know_about_electromagnetic_fields/

"As with all findings published in such journals, our data and
conclusions were peer reviewed."
If you have been following developments in academic journals, you know
that there has been a startling increase in the number of papers which
have either inadvertently or intentionally used faulty methods, bad
data, or both, to come to their conclusions. These papers were ''peer
reviewed'' yet these errors and lies were not caught.
I'm not suggesting that the author is incorrect, merely that being "peer
reviewed" is not evidence that he's correct.

Hi Keith,

Very true and one reason I look at most published reports (esp. re: climate
change) with a jaundiced eye. Except for the PNAS and ArXiv whose reports
are free:

http://www.pnas.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences_of_the_United_States_of_America

http://arxiv.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv

all the rest (SCIENCE, NATURE, and 1000s more) are profit-making ventures
often promoting private interests who support their funded "research" --
i.e., major conflicts of interest. And fraud in the science community is
common because unethical researchers need/want money to live.

Post by Keith Keller

Post by Thad Floryan
That's one of the reasons I installed Ooma VoIP in April 2014 as my
home phone after abandoning landlines in 2002 becoming cellphone-only
and why I now seldom use my cellphone.

Define "use". Do you have it with you? It's still generating an
electromagnetic field even if you're not talking on it. Are you playing
Angry Birds? Then your hands are closer to this EMF, so maybe the tumor
will appear there instead of on one side of your head. Hell, even your
handset is generating an EMF, just not nearly as strong as your cell
phone (probably).

At home my cellphone (Motorola RAZR V3 which can generate up to 2.5Watte
of RF) is kept 20 feet away from where I work at my desk to prevent GSM
interference (a different issue). In my car it's on the passenger seat
in case of an emergency; with passenger(s) I turn it off and put it in
the glovebox. I now use the cellphone so infrequently I probably need
to re-evaluate my AT&T contract -- I do not need 5000+ rollover minutes
every month especially now that I'm retired and don't need to be on call
24/7/365 or when a cellphone was the only way I could contact people when
I worked in colo cages such as Equinix's at 11 Great Oaks Blvd, San Jose.

Post by Keith Keller
"If EMF levels were regulated just as automobile carbon emissions are
regulated, this would force manufacturers to design, create, and sell
devices that generate much lower levels of EMF."

Uh, that doesn't make sense in general. Many of the devices, by their
intended use and nature, NEED to generate RF and EMF to perform their
tasks, e.g., cellphones, WiFi, wireless security cams, and more.

Microwave ovens are an interesting example. As a microwave engineer
at the Electronic Defense Labs in Mountain View, I was probably the
last person on Earth to buy a microwave oven for home, and, ironically,
it's an Amana Radar Range. RADARs I operated at White Sands Missile
Range before I moved to Silicon Valley in 1966 frequently would cook
jackrabbits down range -- those frequencies in many cases were not
much different from those used by cellphones, WiFi gear, and more. I
also physically power-off my WiFi gear unless I need to use it/them
for some specific purpose (i.e., laptop in unwired rooms at home).

Point being: consumer microwave ovens are very well shielded (until
some moron misuses the appliance) and I cannot recall any incidence
of eyeballs or testicles getting fried from consumer microwaves which
was my original concern about the ovens and why I hesitated so long
before buying one. Now my microwave oven is in daily use and I even
use it to cook rice perfectly since I have rice with many dinners I
prepare (e.g., using rice instead of pasta for shrimp scampi).

Thad

[Keith Keller]

Post by Thad Floryan
Very true and one reason I look at most published reports (esp. re: climate
change) with a jaundiced eye. Except for the PNAS and ArXiv whose reports

I know of PNAS; I am not familiar with arXiv, I'll have to check it out.

Post by Thad Floryan
all the rest (SCIENCE, NATURE, and 1000s more) are profit-making ventures
often promoting private interests who support their funded "research" --
i.e., major conflicts of interest. And fraud in the science community is
common because unethical researchers need/want money to live.

Of course, Science and Nature would have you believe that their review
process is sound; they defend themselves every time a breach in ethics
or blatant errors are found. But they remain popular, presumably
because it's a self-sustaining cycle.

Post by Thad Floryan
I now use the cellphone so infrequently I probably need
to re-evaluate my AT&T contract -- I do not need 5000+ rollover minutes
every month especially now that I'm retired and don't need to be on call
24/7/365

I just switched to Virgin's $35 plan, which is unlimited text and data
(which is my primary use) and 300 monthly minutes (which I will almost
never use).

Post by Thad Floryan

Post by Keith Keller
"If EMF levels were regulated just as automobile carbon emissions are
regulated, this would force manufacturers to design, create, and sell
devices that generate much lower levels of EMF."

Uh, that doesn't make sense in general. Many of the devices, by their
intended use and nature, NEED to generate RF and EMF to perform their
tasks, e.g., cellphones, WiFi, wireless security cams, and more.

I think his point was that the amount might be reducible with different
technologies, and that electronics manufacturers won't bother trying
unless they're mandated to do so.

--keith

[Steve Pope]

Post by Keith Keller
I think his point was that the amount might be reducible with different
technologies, and that electronics manufacturers won't bother trying
unless they're mandated to do so.

No kidding ... any engineer who designs a device that is more
expensive to manufacture because it voluntarily undershoots the legally
allowed levels of harmful emissions loses his/her job.

"Won't bother trying" is an understatement.

Steve

[sms]

Post by Steve Pope

Post by Keith Keller
I think his point was that the amount might be reducible with different
technologies, and that electronics manufacturers won't bother trying
unless they're mandated to do so.

No kidding ... any engineer who designs a device that is more
expensive to manufacture because it voluntarily undershoots the legally
allowed levels of harmful emissions loses his/her job.
"Won't bother trying" is an understatement.

You either a) end up over the limit and add expense to get just under
the limit with just enough margin to be safe or b) end up way under the
limit and remove expense (shielding and filters) in order to get just
under the limit with enough margin to be safe.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Thad Floryan
Very true and one reason I look at most published reports (esp. re: climate
change) with a jaundiced eye. Except for the PNAS and ArXiv whose reports
http://www.pnas.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences_of_the_United_States_of_America

PNAS wants $235/year for an individual online-only subscription for
current (less than 6 month old) articles:
<http://www.pnas.org/site/subscriptions/rates2015.xhtml>
For anything older than 6 months, it's free:

How to Use PNAS Online Without a Subscription:
Access to the complete PNAS Online (full text and graphics of
recent papers and papers published online before print in PNAS
Early Edition) is limited to paid subscribers and to NAS members.
Without a subscription to PNAS Online, you still have access to
tables of contents, abstracts, full-text searching, and all content
older than 6 months at no cost and without having to register.

Of course, the interesting stuff is the recent articles. Grumble.

Post by Thad Floryan
http://arxiv.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv

ArXiv is free.

[Steve Pope]

Post by Keith Keller
"If EMF levels were regulated just as automobile carbon emissions are
regulated, this would force manufacturers to design, create, and sell
devices that generate much lower levels of EMF."

"Much lower" is going to be difficult, but somewhat lower is
achievable. Nanocells, seamless default to Wifi VoIP, and disabling
high-speed data when the device is in proximity to the user's
head (and maybe, testicles) are all do-able.

Steve

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Thad Floryan
" "I was observing you on your cell phone," Bocook told a woman
" after she wrapped up a lengthy call on a recent morning. "I used
" a cell phone and I got a brain tumor."

Rubbish. See:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cellular%20and%20cancer.pdf>
The incidence of new cases of brain and central nervous system cancers
have been roughly flat since 1975. If there were a connection between
cell phone use and brain cancers, there would have been a huge
increase in new cases starting in about 1990, when cell phone use
started to grow rapidly.

<Loading Image...>
Link to original data:
<http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?run=runit&output=1&data=1&statistic=1&year=201401&race=1&sex=1&age=1&series=cancer&cancer=76>

Note the brain cancer incidence increases rapidly after about age=50.
Below that, it's relatively rare. The use of cell phones by seniors
is fairly minimal, although seniors account for the bulk of brain
cancer cases:
<Loading Image...>

More, if anyone is interested.

Incidentally, the aforementioned anecdote seems to have been lifted
directly from Devera Davis's book "Disconnect".
<http://www.disconnectbook.com>

[Roy]

For those that are worried about it, there are lots of radiation free
cellphones. No charging either.

Example

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Non-Working-Display-Sample-Dummy-Phone-for-Nokia-X6/390252082275

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Thad Floryan
" "I was observing you on your cell phone," Bocook told a woman
" after she wrapped up a lengthy call on a recent morning. "I used
" a cell phone and I got a brain tumor."

<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cellular%20and%20cancer.pdf>
The incidence of new cases of brain and central nervous system cancers
have been roughly flat since 1975. If there were a connection between
cell phone use and brain cancers, there would have been a huge
increase in new cases starting in about 1990, when cell phone use
started to grow rapidly.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/brain-CNS-cancer.jpg>
<http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php?run=runit&output=1&data=1&statistic=1&year=201401&race=1&sex=1&age=1&series=cancer&cancer=76>
Note the brain cancer incidence increases rapidly after about age=50.
Below that, it's relatively rare. The use of cell phones by seniors
is fairly minimal, although seniors account for the bulk of brain
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/brain-CNS-cancer-by-age-1992-2006.jpg>
More, if anyone is interested.
Incidentally, the aforementioned anecdote seems to have been lifted
directly from Devera Davis's book "Disconnect".
<http://www.disconnectbook.com>

[Thad Floryan]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Thad Floryan
" "I was observing you on your cell phone," Bocook told a woman
" after she wrapped up a lengthy call on a recent morning. "I used
" a cell phone and I got a brain tumor."

<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cellular%20and%20cancer.pdf>

Oh? The doctors admit it can take 20 to 30 years for the cancer(s)
to appear as happened in the Bocook case (two decades = 20 years).

Though you're in Santa Cruz, take a drive to Los Altos and speak
with the guy in person.

There are 1000s of cases of cancers associated with cellphone use.
To ignore those is closing your eyes and plugging your ears out of
ignorance.

This is the first time we've disagreed on anything in ba.internet

Thad

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Thad Floryan

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Thad Floryan
" "I was observing you on your cell phone," Bocook told a woman
" after she wrapped up a lengthy call on a recent morning. "I used
" a cell phone and I got a brain tumor."

<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cellular%20and%20cancer.pdf>

Oh? The doctors admit it can take 20 to 30 years for the cancer(s)
to appear as happened in the Bocook case (two decades = 20 years).

I give occasional 15 min talks on the topic to various interested
groups from the perspective of an RF engineer. The delay between
exposure and onset comes up frequently. I had the opportunity to ask
a group of doctors about how it works. The delay is not instantaneous
and at a fixed time delay. Everyone doesn't magically have a cancer
at exactly the same time. There's a bell curve involved and it's
quite wide. Some people are more sensitive and show symptoms
immediately. Others might be well into old age before anything
appears. If you look at the graph:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/brain-CNS-cancer.jpg>
you will not find a bell curve, the beginning of a bell curve, or even
a hint of an increase. What it does show is a fairly constant 6.5 new
cases per 100,000 per year. For a US population of 300 million,
that's about 20,000 expected cases of brain and CNS cancers each year.

Look again at the age graph.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/brain-CNS-cancer-by-age-1992-2006.jpg>
Notice that a fairly consistent number of people under the age of 30
are getting brain cancer. If there were a 30 year delay between
exposure and incidence, the incidence for those under 30 should be
nearly zero. I picked 30 years because that's the current figure.
It's an ever increasing number based on the explosive increase in cell
phone use starting in about 1990, to today. I've watched it climb
from 20 years to 30 years. In another 5 years, it will probably be
increased to 40 years. In all cases, the delay conveniently "starts"
a few years into the future, where the anticipated deluge of cancer
victims are expected to appear.

Drivel: If you look at the graph, you'll notice a peak in about 1986,
followed by a slow decrease in new cases. That was caused the
introduction of PET (positron emission tomography) for diagnosing
cancers. Prior to that, cases were often diagnosed far too late to do
anything to save the victim. PET allowed for earlier diagnosis. The
effect of earlier diagnosis was that it found an increased number of
cancer victims at an earlier time, resulting in a temporary increase
in incidence.

Post by Thad Floryan
Though you're in Santa Cruz, take a drive to Los Altos and speak
with the guy in person.

This person?
<http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Cell-phones-link-to-health-problems-debated-5091712.php>

I try not to get tangled up with individual cases. It may very well
be that some people are more sensitive to RF than others. I don't
know and I don't have any research on the topic. What I do find is
just one key item that is missing. I don't see an epidemic of
cancers, or the beginnings of a bell curve showing a future epidemic,
that correlates with the increased use of cell phones. I also find
that the main factor in brain cancer seems to be age, not exposure.
These consistency failures and a history of inconclusive research on
the topic, seems to have been ignored by many researchers.

Post by Thad Floryan
There are 1000s of cases of cancers associated with cellphone use.

Sure. Just about everyone uses a cell phone. Therefore if someone is
diagnosed with cancer, it's highly likely that they have used a cell
phone. Correlation does not prove causation.
<http://www.tylervigen.com>
Please look again at the age graph:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/brain-CNS-cancer-by-age-1992-2006.jpg>
What are the ages of those getting brain cancers? They're mostly
senior citizens, who do not use cell phones very much. See a problem
perhaps?

One of the problems with giving my song and dance on the topic is that
almost everyone I meet knows someone with a relative that has some
form of brain (benign and cancer) tumor. Eventually, my home phone
rings and a discussion starts on the dangers of cell phone use. I'll
guess about 40 such calls in the last 8 year. Everyone is looking for
an answer to the classic questions "why did this happen to me?" A few
seemed to be fishing for someone to sue in order to help pay the
medical costs. Some are extremely well read on the topic. It's
difficult for me to maintain an unemotional position on the topic and
to NOT offer personal or medical advice. Most are not so much
interested in their own condition, as they are at protecting their
younger relatives from the dangers of cell phone use. It's difficult
to tell, but I doubt if I've convinced any of these callers.

Post by Thad Floryan
To ignore those is closing your eyes and plugging your ears out of
ignorance.

To ignore the absence of a predictable increase in brain cancer
incidence is just as bad. I take it by you're removing the links and
details from my posting that you find them somehow irrelevant? Not to
worry, because you're in good company along with many authors and
researchers. All I can suggest is you take another look at my
comments.

Post by Thad Floryan
This is the first time we've disagreed on anything in ba.internet

Oh, there's plenty more with which we can disagree. The world would
be a dull and boring place if everyone agreed.

[David Kaye]

Post by Thad Floryan
Your cellphone is killing you -- L-O-N-G article

I don'c agree. Cell phones are high-band UHF in the 800 MHz to 1200 MHz
range. But they don't put out much wattage because power output is directly
related to how big the battery must be. The most power a cell phone puts
out is about 1/2 a watt, but that's the maximum. To conserve power, cell
phones reduce their output to the minimum needed to reach the best nearby
cell tower. Since most cell phones are very close to the cell towers, most
cell phones typically put out about 1/10th watt on typical calls.

UHF TV stations (also in the 500 to 800+ MHz spectrum) typically put out an
actual power output (not ERP) of about 200,000 to 300,000 watts. TV
engineers work around these high-powered, high-band UHF transmitters while
they're powered on. In fact, engineers work around live antennas, which
have a gain of 5 times, giving an ERP (effective radiated power, or
magnified power) of up to 1 million watts.

If microwave (800 MHz on up) exposure from cell phones is causing cancer,
certainly most TV engineers should be DEAD by now. But on the other hand,
we're finding TV engineer living quite nicely into old age. In fact, one of
the things about the SBE (Society of Broadcast Engineers, a trade group) is
that MOST of the member engineers are over at least age 50, with a good
portion being age 70 or more.

There is no evidence I'm aware of showing that TV engineers have a higher
cancer rate than the general population.

This is a good time for the broadcast engineers who read this newsgroup to
chime in about this issue.

There was a study several years ago suggesting that cell phones mounted on
the backs of rats produced a faster metabolism of glucose and a decrease in
atherial plaque in cell walls. I can't find the article at the moment,
though.




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 02:28:09 -0700, "David Kaye"

Post by David Kaye
I don'c agree. Cell phones are high-band UHF in the 800 MHz to 1200 MHz
range. But they don't put out much wattage because power output is directly
related to how big the battery must be. The most power a cell phone puts
out is about 1/2 a watt, but that's the maximum. To conserve power, cell
phones reduce their output to the minimum needed to reach the best nearby
cell tower. Since most cell phones are very close to the cell towers, most
cell phones typically put out about 1/10th watt on typical calls.

Yep. Let me fill in a few details.

The FCC limits the power peak output on handsets to 1 watt on 800Mhz
and 2 watts on 1900MHz . GSM phones are time sliced to only transmit
during 1 of the 8 TDMA time slots (which is where the GSM buzz comes
from). Since it only transmits 1/8th of the time, GSM average power
is 125 milliwatts on 800MHz and 250 milliwatts on 1900 MHz average
power. Average power is what the handset shows when in the "field
test mode".
<http://www.wilsonelectronics.com/uploads/docs/FieldTestModes06142010%20wilson004.pdf>

For FCC testing, the peak power is used. I looked up the FCC data on
the RAZR V3
(FCCID = Grantee Code: IHD Product Code: T56EU2)
<http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/fcc_query.php?gc=IHD&pc=T56EU2>
and found in the "report" PDF that it was tested at +30dBm (1 watt)
and +33dBm (2 watts) respectively. That's the peak power.

As you mentioned, the tx power is reduced when in close proximity to a
cell site, thus saving battery power. I once played with a RAZR flip
phone in test mode and vaguely recall that it typically was
transmitting at about 40-50 milliwatt level in my office (medium
signal level area).

Note that the RAZR series of phones was the first to have the antenna
at the base of the phone instead of the top. The result is a much
slimmer and more elegant phone, but at the cost of antenna gain
efficiency. It also provided a reduction in SAR (specific absorption
rate) putting most of the RF away from the users head. Most users
cover this area with their hand, thus reducing the signal strength.
That leads me to wonder why we don't have an epidemic of skin cancer
on the hand or other cancers in the hand area allegedly from the RF
radiation, which would be much higher than exposure to the brain.

[b***@MIX.COM]

Post by David Kaye
UHF TV stations (also in the 500 to 800+ MHz spectrum) typically put out
an actual power output (not ERP) of about 200,000 to 300,000 watts. TV
engineers work around these high-powered, high-band UHF transmitters while
they're powered on. In fact, engineers work around live antennas, which
have a gain of 5 times, giving an ERP (effective radiated power, or
magnified power) of up to 1 million watts.

Well, there's not that much radiated power directly under the antenna,
nor that much leakage from the transmitter and transmission line. But,
although I never measured it, I'd guess there's more energy present
there than from any cell phone. Probably a lot more.

Post by David Kaye
There was a study several years ago suggesting that cell phones mounted on
the backs of rats produced a faster metabolism of glucose and a decrease
in atherial plaque in cell walls. I can't find the article at the moment,
though.

Probably because the little guys had to expend some energy to schlep them
around.

Billy Y..

[David Kaye]

Post by b***@MIX.COM
Well, there's not that much radiated power directly under the antenna,
nor that much leakage from the transmitter and transmission line. But,
although I never measured it, I'd guess there's more energy present
there than from any cell phone. Probably a lot more.

Well, whether or not an engineer is standing under under a transmitting
antenna or not, we're talking a TV transmitter putting out 200,000 to
300,000 watts versus a cell phone putting out maybe 1/5 of a watt in normal
usage in the SAME part of the radio spectrum.

Once again I say, I don't know of ANY reports of TV transmitter engineers
getting cancers or other disorders to any greater extent than the general
population. And for anybody who has been to SBE or Bay Area Radio Museum
luncheons, most radio and TV engineers are UP THERE in years.




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[b***@MIX.COM]

Speaking of cell phone bullshit, here's something one of my crew dug up -

They Put Popcorn Kernels Near Cell Phones.
We Still Can't Believe What Happened.
https://sfglobe.com/?id=1077

Heh.

Billy Y..

[sms]

Post by Thad Floryan
Your cellphone is killing you -- L-O-N-G article
Earlier this year, 15 April 2014, I read this article on SFGate which

<snip>

I'm surprised that Verizon and Sprint have not been touting the fact
that CDMA emits significantly lower radiation than GSM.

"The radiation spikes at the beginning of GSM phone calls means that
they emit, overall, up to 28 times more radiation than CDMA phones,..."

<http://www.livescience.com/14755-radiation-risk-cellphones-dangerous.html>

Of course by using a wired headset you would significantly lower the
exposure.

Voice call usage is falling so that will lower the exposure as well. If
the U.S. adopted the crazy European model of charging for wireless calls
then voice minutes would drop much more significantly.

[poldy]

Post by sms
Voice call usage is falling so that will lower the exposure as well. If
the U.S. adopted the crazy European model of charging for wireless calls
then voice minutes would drop much more significantly.

That's why you see a lot of unlimited voice plans now.

Carriers are depending on data.

At that point, phones are used as much or more as pocket computers by
people.

These days, you can't go online without some kind of wireless tech.
Buses will use a WLAN to Wifi router to offer connectivity to riders.

Even people who don't use Wifi in their homes are getting Wifi signals
from their neighbors.

Not to mention all kinds of radio signals from mobile networks.

You can certainly drop out and go live out in the wilderness though a
few decades ago, there were concerns about health problems caused by
electric transmission wires.

How many are willing to live without electricity?

[Roy]

In a similar vein

---------------

Is Wi-Fi killing us...slowly?

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2466509/wireless/is-wifi-killing-us-slowly.html

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by sms

Post by Thad Floryan
Your cellphone is killing you -- L-O-N-G article
Earlier this year, 15 April 2014, I read this article on SFGate which

<snip>
I'm surprised that Verizon and Sprint have not been touting the fact
that CDMA emits significantly lower radiation than GSM.
"The radiation spikes at the beginning of GSM phone calls means that
they emit, overall, up to 28 times more radiation than CDMA phones,..."
<http://www.livescience.com/14755-radiation-risk-cellphones-dangerous.html>

Confused author caused by a failure to distinguish between peak and
average RF power. If you look at GSM and CDMA on a spectrum analyzer,
you'll see that the peak RF power for GSM is much higher than that of
CDMA. That's because GSM has all its power crammed into about 30 Khz
of bandwidth, while CDMA spreads it over 1.5 MHz of bandwidth. For
the same average power, that's a
10 log (1500/30) = 17dB
difference as viewed on the spectrum analyzer. However, take the same
two signals, and cram them into a thermal type RF wattmeter (dummy
load and thermistor or bolometer), and the average power output would
be the same. I can't tell where the "28x more radiation" number came
from.

Post by sms
Of course by using a wired headset you would significantly lower the
exposure.

Yes, but the incidence of people tripping over phone and ethernet
cables is on the rise. Hospital admissions and subsequent litigation
for slip and fall incidents are on the rise. Safety helmets should be
mandated for users of corded devices.... oh wait, wrong newsgroup,
never mind.

Post by sms
Voice call usage is falling so that will lower the exposure as well. If
the U.S. adopted the crazy European model of charging for wireless calls
then voice minutes would drop much more significantly.

It's the "caller pays" model which has some major advantages for
reducing SMS spam. In the US, it's the person being called who pays
for the spam. I would think that we're the crazy ones, not Europe.

[Steve Pope]

I can't tell where the "28x more radiation" number came from.

The verbiage quoted in the article accompanying this claim
strikes me as the same generic pro-CDMA, anti-GSM arguments from
the distant past.

Even if true, it is much less significant with modern cellular
networks which are shifting to using IP even for voice calls, thus
are usually using higher-speed data modes (at low duty cycles)
which use similar signal designs for both GSM and CDMA. (By
the time you get to LTE, are identical.)

Steve

[Steve Pope]

Post by sms
"The radiation spikes at the beginning of GSM phone calls means that
they emit, overall, up to 28 times more radiation than CDMA phones,..."
<http://www.livescience.com/14755-radiation-risk-cellphones-dangerous.html>

I don't believe this for a minute.

Steve

[David Kaye]

I'm surprised that Verizon and Sprint have not been touting the fact that
CDMA emits significantly lower radiation than GSM.

Think about it. What cigarette company would say, "Chesterfield Cigarettes
are less likely to give you lung cancer." No company wants to remind people
of the cell phone cancer scare.




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[sms]

Post by David Kaye

I'm surprised that Verizon and Sprint have not been touting the fact that
CDMA emits significantly lower radiation than GSM.

Think about it. What cigarette company would say, "Chesterfield Cigarettes
are less likely to give you lung cancer." No company wants to remind people
of the cell phone cancer scare.

Cigarette companies promoted low tar cigarettes and filtered cigarettes
without saying anything about cancer, or claiming any benefit.

The big difference in radiation levels between CDMA and GSM has been
known for decades. There is no evidence that the higher radiation levels
of GSM have any negative effects but the CDMA carriers don't have to
claim any benefit.

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20551994> (summary, article is not
free).

[John Slade]

Post by Thad Floryan
Your cellphone is killing you -- L-O-N-G article
Earlier this year, 15 April 2014, I read this article on SFGate which
Cell-phones' link to health problems debated - SFGate
That's one of the reasons I installed Ooma VoIP in April 2014 as my
home phone after abandoning landlines in 2002 becoming cellphone-only
and why I now seldom use my cellphone.

I love a good conspiracy theory. Chances are cell phones
won't kill you. It's far more likely that you'll get killed
while someone is texting and they slam into you.

Not too long ago I was in a conversation with a hacker
who told me a tale of how a hacker can kill you. He said they
can hack into your cell phone and cause it to broadcast at high
power all the time instead of only when high power is needed. He
told me this happens all the time and as a result of the
widespread use of cell phones, brain cancer is now the number
one cause of death in the world. Of course that was total BS
since cancer is not even in the top ten causes of death. Brain
cancer deaths are actually only 1% of all cancer deaths.

You are far more likely to die from breathing polluted air
than you are from a cell phone's radiation giving you cancer.
You get far more harmful radiation from The Sun. You should also
know that if you have computers, stereo systems and various
other gadgets, they give off radiation too.

John


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com