Emitted power of RF signal is the cause to suspect carcinogenic properties. RF energy affecting living tissue depends on power level and distance. Cell phones adopted power level variation scheme as a mean to save battery energy at the same time lowering power dissipated in tissue. If you look at receiving power level indicator and there is good reception means little power emitted will reach the tower. Cell phone will adjust this power itself.
Second power emitted in time is the energy; so if you have to keep a cell phone to your ear make this conversation short and switch to Bluetooth or speakerphone and keep the phone at distance. Every inch of distance lowers energy incident by square of distance. Bluetooth devices have very low power emission compare to tower communication transceiver. Wi-Fi transceiver is also short distance and has a low power with spread spectrum technology making the tissue-heating problem easily corrected by blood flow just like normal variations of surrounding temperature. These remedies are not verifiable, but just common sense.
WHO report is a new one about RF / cellulars' usage risks in terms of health impact. It is quite curious that several studies before have sustained the opposite. In addition, even RF impact on health is definitely important to consider, maybe other risks are so serious, for example plastic drama for oceans or power batteries digest and so on. I was wondering why similar rumors are not in place for them.
Bolaji, I don't really have a solution. I do recall hearing theories about the damage caused by cell phones already years ago. I was a very late adopters of mobile phones and I use mine rarely. I do, however, try to remember to take it with me in case there is an emergency involving my family or in case there is a problem with my car on the road. But sometimes I will not take it along on a walk or bike ride because I really do not feel as attached to the phone as most people do.
But Bolaji, in your post you indicate that red wine is bad for you. I thought that studies indicates a glass a day is good for your heart. Grape juice also has that health benefit (without the alcohol, of course) as the bottles proudly proclaim.
Look, there are so many risk factors that it is virtually impossible to avoid them all. Going out in the sun increases your risk of skin cancer. Almost everything out there can kill you, but then a person may just get killed in a freak accident. You could be the healthiest person on earth, but if a tornado strikes your area, and you are crushed by a tree, that doesn't help you.
Everything boils down to risk/benefit ratio. If the benefits of a cell phone for your outweigh the potential risk, then you can hold on to it.
Parser's Bluetooth solution sounds great. I'm more like Ariella--I only use my cell phone when absolutely necessary, although I do understand people like Bolaji who are literally joined at the hip with their mobile. So far, it's still a matter of preference, although something like proof of carcinogens could take the choice away and become a matter or regulation, warning labels (such as those on cigarettes) or worse. Banning things that are bad for you--like trans fats--is the popular approach these days, rather than trusting consumers to make the right choices for their health.
I am more in Bolaji's camp. Everything wireless all the time. I use my cell phone constantly for texting, email, GPS, web browsing etc. It is always by my side, in my purse, in my car, sometimes even by my bedside if I was texting too late into the night. I have everything wireless in my home (including my Tivo). I don't think the answer is how we can use the technology less - lets face it, that problem will get much bigger with new generations, its how can we adapt the technology to make it safer for such wide and prevalent use. I don't have the answer either, but if I did, I'm sure I'd be a lot richer.
The problem is, I don't think those that SHOULD know know what the solutions are. It usually takes years of research and data points for researchers to come to a conclusion that something is 'bad' for us. Then solutions begin to get churned out. I am not sure we've reached that point yet with wireless (electromagnetic frequencies, etc).
Whether such reports sound and alarm bells to the heavy users or not is debatable but one thing is for sure that the money-hungry lawers will definitely use such reports to file the lawsuits against mobile companies to claim millions of dollars in damages to the lives of their carelss clients who did not heed to such potential dangers, the way the cases are filed for the victims of lung cancer due to heavy smoking.
Dr. Jonathan Samet, Chairman of the IARC, stated that “the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.”
This same nutcase samet is the father of many a junk science study and a major ring leader in so many shake downs of industry its pathetic and it appears the cell phone carriers didnt contribut to the WORLD HEALTH ORGINIZATION so now we see this study come out after all previous studies say nope it aint causing cancer....
WHO funding for the next two years is currently $3 billion short of its roughly $4 billion goal, most of which comes from the United States and other developed Western countries.
And, all their so-called "independent" reports were ring-led by the same guy, Jonathan M. Samet, including the Surgeon General Reports, the EPA report, the IARC report, and the ASHRAE report, and he's now the chairman of the FDA Committee on Tobacco. He and his politically privileged clique exclude all the REAL scientists from their echo chamber. That's how they make their reports "unanimous!"
They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’ World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
Warning: junk reporting of junk science threatens individual freedom Friday May 6, 2011 Another day another scary health study, says Brian Monteith. But that’s the way of the bully state: junk science, junk reporting followed by junk laws.
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.
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.
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.