The ripple effect of the WHO report is echoing on many level and by several prestigious organizations.
Here i saw IEEE article: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/wireless/what-the-whos-cellphone-cancer-statement-really-means?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IeeeSpectrum+%28IEEE+Spectrum%29
This is a great debate, and I think the most important thing is that consumers be able to make an educated decision regarding their cellphones. People choose to smoke (let's put aside the addiction argument for the moment) despite the well-documented health risks. At least the science is there -- there is no doubt that smoking and certain kinds of cancers are linked. Until similar data is available for cell phones (if it ever is) people will opt for their phones.
What about the radiation levels from cell towers in residential areas ?
To be safe you need to be a good 50-75m away from the Antenna array, which does not say much for all the people on the top floor with arrays above them.
The building structure gives a reasonable amount of protection...... as long as you do not sit near a window.
You sound like a public health educator for a minute. You clearly shared the information as documented by WHO and you went a step further to challenge its authors on suggestions on risk reduction. I am in support of this challenge, because it is a better option. It is WHO's responsibility to sound awareness warning and to spread the news of potential dangers that the RFs may have on humans, especially people who use a lot of equipments that radiate these frequencies.
There are two iasues at stake; one is the importance of bringing the awareness of the potential danger to th people, but must be backed with good science that does not just create fear, but explains the facts as known to date. The other part is the need to share with both manufacturers and consumers opportunites for risk reducion. Health education propagandas such as "Teen pregnancy preventions" failed because of bad strategies and fear mongering to teens couipled with the unrealistic expectation of abstinence, instead of simple realistic prevention strategies of risk reduction/lifestyle changes that could work.
In this regard, your call for risk reduction for high users of gadgets that emit RFs is an important one. It must be to find means of reducing possible "high dose" of radiation recieved daily. A simple conscious effort at mininmizing direct contact with these gadgets may be a start. More importantly is the role the manufacturers have to actually document the level of RFs emitted by each gaddget and their suggesting a possible safe amount for humans.
Independent studies may be the solution to determining what is safe, but who has the money but the manufacturers whose goal is to make profit. We cannot continue to pretend that these emissions will not impact us one way or another. Even if RFs are emitted in nature, the concentration of it in our homes and offices is not normal and we do not know what level is safe yet. But ignoring potential danger does not remove its impact, its just a delay in realizing its consequence.
What about the radiation levels from cell towers in residential areas ? Those radiations also pose risk to the people staying close to those towers. Governments should implement Stricter radiation norms to tackle this problem.
What about television and radio transmission towers!
What about color tvs that gave off low level x-rays to viewers within 6-7 feet of them before lcd and plasma came along!
What about high volatage transmission lines that bring your electricity into your home.......what about all that radiation from all those electrical wires in the walls of your home.........
Weve lived with so called radiation healthscares for decades.....where ya been!
Those communications towers that ma bell has everywhere are in the microwave range.......theyve been up on towers for decades
What about your satelite tv dish,collecting radiated signals from satelites in space........
Youve been around it all your whole life and your still here>amazing isnt it. ehh!
I cannot believe anyone would take anything the WHO or the IARC say seriously. They have a long history of creating JUNK SCIENCE to further political and legal action against industries. The democrats recently robbed billions from the foodstamp program to pay for more junk studies this time on obesity so Michelle can harp and have something to say in her anti-obesity agenda!
Theyve done the same thing with second hand smoke.
Now the activists in the global warming/climate change movement are fixing to use epidemiology as their next so called weapon to get their debunked movement back on track. Its the same epidemiology that the IARC and THE WHO are using to create a cell phone healthscare!
So with specially designed epidemiology studies with relative risk ratios so low they are called insignificant they now want to claim a carcinogenic effect!
Interesting to read yet again an on going controversy surrounding the use of cellphones and the implications as a result of heavy usage.
Bolaji, I do agree with you, the scientists ( I would think) should be working with high tech industry to put forward helpful solutions to reduce radiation emissions from cellphones and associated devices usage. This I think should be a sensible way forward.
This is what I hope to read about, along with WHO's findings when this is published in July.
Dr. Pagnini, I believe many in the electronics industry will similarly disagree with the WHO conclusion. While we await publication of the actual WHO report on July 1 it is imperative that further attempts be made to clarify the facts and I appreciate your insight into this.
My position in the article is not far off from yours: I have read too many reports (most insisting there are no dangers to humans from cell phones and a few others hinting about negative side effects) and I suspect the controversy will continue for a while, flaring up occasionally as more evidence emerge. Since the scientific community is not totally in agreement and because wireless devices have become such a major part of all our lives, my suggestion is that the industry demonstrate clearly what can be done to limit exposure or better manage the situation. The same responsibility falls on the WHO. It's not enough to simply point out the (potential) problem; suggest solutions because we aren't all going to dump our phones.
What about the radiation levels from cell towers in residential areas ? Those radiations also pose risk to the people staying close to those towers. Governments should implement Stricter radiation norms to tackle this problem.
Sometimes i feel very uncomfortable with the heat generate from my laptop. This is also giving me worrisome mind and RF baseband of the wireless adapter contributes immense to this coupled with electromagnetic radiation.
As most EBN readers have pointed at - many more technologies with RF based will set to emerge, looking critically at RF should be addressed quickly. Meanwhile, i still believe this issue has to do with crystal clock of radio that transmit electromagnetic waves. Reducing RF power consumption should be primarily focused on by the telecommunication equipment manufactures, and am also opinion that they could profer solution to the problem now rather than pretend as if health and safety of consumers not important.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
