Software to Reduce Cell Phone Radiation Emissions Which Cause Cancer To Improve Safety.

Everyone who is smart knows that cell phone increases the likelihood of you getting cancer the more you use it.

Even having a cell phone near you without being used increases that risk.

Cancer is a terrible disease and chemo only has about a 2% success rate over 5 years.
Here is a chart:-
www.oasisadvancedwellness.com...


Now everyone knows there are thousands of apps and hacks and software to control many aspects of a cellphone or to improve functionality.

The question is there any software that allows the user to control the amount of radiation being emitted as it maintains contact with the cellphone tower.

what we need is an app or software that allows the user to control the number of times it communicates with the cell phone tower and the strength of that signal.

we already know that already the manufacturer software can increase/decrease signal emission depending on signal strength and receiving conditions.

we also know when the cell phone is next to your head at night it will continue to emit handshake signals.

we need to control the frequency of these handshakes to a custom level.

so is there software which let us control the emission of these harmful cell phone signals?

hi op

back in the early 90s
one of the tabloids (forgot which one maybe the mail)
printed an interesting article

it was about cancer and mobiles
a lot of executives persons and builder trades like serveyers
were increasingly reporting of tumours growing where they most often carried their phone

my phone for some reason even if the battery is flat
will turn itself on to sound my morning alarm

maybe if a sort of feature like that is implemented
that could cut down rads by a hell of a lot (and save bat power)

Good thing rick simpson is my neighbor.

If you are within a city or town the mobile will already be operating at a minimal output, The cells are very close together in city's and towns. Out in the sticks... Well that's a bit different. Remember when your phone is showing full signal it is operating at minimal power. Even at high power (low signal strength/only one or two bars) your only talking about 35 milliwatts. A very small amount of power.

reply to post by nobodysavedme


easy, no software required., just your brain, eyes and feet. Just walk to a point where you see a cellphone tower, and use your cellphone there (it will save your battery too)...

Don't use those shields that I have seen on some more nefarious web-sites. The weaker the link is between your cellphone, the higher your cellphone will tune up its power. So, it works the other way too, the stronger the link is between your cell phone and the tower, the lower power your cell-phone will transmit. (Of course, then you are in closer proximity of the cell tower, and for some people that is the greater evil, lol)

Originally posted by Anon77
If you are within a city or town the mobile will already be operating at a minimal output, The cells are very close together in city's and towns. Out in the sticks... Well that's a bit different. Remember when your phone is showing full signal it is operating at minimal power. Even at high power (low signal strength/only one or two bars) your only talking about 35 milliwatts. A very small amount of power.

erm no, your cellphone puts out in the region of 2 watts at full power, lol.... which is still small in relationship to a TV/Radio transmitter, or a CB, or your microwave oven, or a RADAR transmitter ....

(Class 2 Bluetooth is 2.5 milliwatts (they typical bluetooth headsets), and class 1 (long range, i.e. your laptop) is limited to 100mW))

Originally posted by Hellhound604

Originally posted by Anon77
If you are within a city or town the mobile will already be operating at a minimal output, The cells are very close together in city's and towns. Out in the sticks... Well that's a bit different. Remember when your phone is showing full signal it is operating at minimal power. Even at high power (low signal strength/only one or two bars) your only talking about 35 milliwatts. A very small amount of power.

erm no, your cellphone puts out in the region of 2 watts at full power, lol.... which is still small in relationship to a TV/Radio transmitter, or a CB, or your microwave oven, or a RADAR transmitter ....

(Class 2 Bluetooth is 2.5 milliwatts (they typical bluetooth headsets), and class 1 (long range, i.e. your laptop) is limited to 100mW))

Ooops, Lol, Thanks for pointing that out. I was typing faster than I was thinking. 2 watts is still a low power though, And it only produces that in very low signal areas, in a town or city your only talking milliwatts (because of the cell spacing). The older US analogue phones were producing 3.6 watts at peak. I think the newer digital CDMA ones are better. They max out at about 1 watt. I'm still not convinced that this is enough to cause cancer unless you happen to live in the middle of nowhere and have the phone in use 24/7 and glued to the side of your head!

Originally posted by Anon77

Originally posted by Hellhound604

Originally posted by Anon77
If you are within a city or town the mobile will already be operating at a minimal output, The cells are very close together in city's and towns. Out in the sticks... Well that's a bit different. Remember when your phone is showing full signal it is operating at minimal power. Even at high power (low signal strength/only one or two bars) your only talking about 35 milliwatts. A very small amount of power.

erm no, your cellphone puts out in the region of 2 watts at full power, lol.... which is still small in relationship to a TV/Radio transmitter, or a CB, or your microwave oven, or a RADAR transmitter ....

(Class 2 Bluetooth is 2.5 milliwatts (they typical bluetooth headsets), and class 1 (long range, i.e. your laptop) is limited to 100mW))

Ooops, Lol, Thanks for pointing that out. I was typing faster than I was thinking. 2 watts is still a low power though, And it only produces that in very low signal areas, in a town or city your only talking milliwatts (because of the cell spacing). The older US analogue phones were producing 3.6 watts at peak. I think the newer digital CDMA ones are better. They max out at about 1 watt. I'm still not convinced that this is enough to cause cancer unless you happen to live in the middle of nowhere and have the phone in use 24/7 and glued to the side of your head!

NP mate, thought as much, or that you thought of Bluetooth instead. The fact is that I have been in RF development for 20+ years, and yes, I have known a couple of RF engineers that have died from brain-cancer, but then, we all worked on high-powered systems (100kW and higher, I myself can show you a couple of serious burns I picked up from RF). I also know a lot of sales-people, that spend like 15++ hours a day with their cell phones glued to their heads, and not a single one of them has developed brain cancer. Us developers always joked that if those sales-guys developed brain cancer, then we will know for sure cell-phones do cause brain cancer.
We accepted is a fact, that some of us, working with very high power systems would develop brain cancer, that is well documented, but no proof for the low powers, like cell phones.

The recent doc that came out, that stated cell phones "might" be carcinogenic, placed it in Cat. 2B, which is the same category as wooden furniture!!!!, petrol, diesel, many antibiotics, etc (AND oh yes, Pickled vegetables!!!)..... I am too lazy to look up the links now, but you can do a search over here on ATS, where I referred to the actual statements, and not an overhyped newspaper article.

here is the IARC statement of what constitutes Category IIB carcinogens :

Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans. This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data may be placed in this group. An agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data.

the PDF doc is here :
www.iarc.fr...

Wikipedia list of Cat. II carcinogens
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Hellhound604

Originally posted by Anon77

Originally posted by Hellhound604

Originally posted by Anon77
If you are within a city or town the mobile will already be operating at a minimal output, The cells are very close together in city's and towns. Out in the sticks... Well that's a bit different. Remember when your phone is showing full signal it is operating at minimal power. Even at high power (low signal strength/only one or two bars) your only talking about 35 milliwatts. A very small amount of power.

erm no, your cellphone puts out in the region of 2 watts at full power, lol.... which is still small in relationship to a TV/Radio transmitter, or a CB, or your microwave oven, or a RADAR transmitter ....

(Class 2 Bluetooth is 2.5 milliwatts (they typical bluetooth headsets), and class 1 (long range, i.e. your laptop) is limited to 100mW))

Ooops, Lol, Thanks for pointing that out. I was typing faster than I was thinking. 2 watts is still a low power though, And it only produces that in very low signal areas, in a town or city your only talking milliwatts (because of the cell spacing). The older US analogue phones were producing 3.6 watts at peak. I think the newer digital CDMA ones are better. They max out at about 1 watt. I'm still not convinced that this is enough to cause cancer unless you happen to live in the middle of nowhere and have the phone in use 24/7 and glued to the side of your head!

NP mate, thought as much, or that you thought of Bluetooth instead. The fact is that I have been in RF development for 20+ years, and yes, I have known a couple of RF engineers that have died from brain-cancer, but then, we all worked on high-powered systems (100kW and higher, I myself can show you a couple of serious burns I picked up from RF). I also know a lot of sales-people, that spend like 15++ hours a day with their cell phones glued to their heads, and not a single one of them has developed brain cancer. Us developers always joked that if those sales-guys developed brain cancer, then we will know for sure cell-phones do cause brain cancer.
We accepted is a fact, that some of us, working with very high power systems would develop brain cancer, that is well documented, but no proof for the low powers, like cell phones.

The recent doc that came out, that stated cell phones "might" be carcinogenic, placed it in Cat. 2A, which is the same category as wooden furniture!!!!, petrol, diesel, etc..... I am too lazy to look up the links now, but you can do a search over here on ATS, where I referred to the actual statements, and not an overhyped newspaper article.

I too have worked on some RF stuff (mostly short range microwave data links and a little PMR446 stuff) nothing even approaching the power levels you've worked on though!, Thankfully no RF burns, but my father (like me) is an electronics engineer that also occasionally worked on some high power TV transmitters up in Scotland (50 -- 100kw I think). He got a nasty burn from one of those, putting his hand on an antenna which should have been switched off. It wasn't...

Anyway back to the subject. I know what you mean about the sales staff with mobiles glued to their ears 15 hours a day, they never seem to be affected by any health problems stemming from phone use. The data is not really consistent across the world anyway because every government has different standards where it comes to SAR, I think Europe has a higher one than the US? I can believe in a small amount of localized heating maybe, But cancer causing... I'm just not convinced. I have read some of the studies done in the past and there's just no repeatable, conclusive evidence that the low RF output from a phone is any more (like you said) carcinogenic than a wooden chair!

Originally posted by Anon77
I can believe in a small amount of localized heating maybe...

Yes, the localized heating from RF is fairly well documented.

Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RFEMF) on the pituitary adrenocortical (ACTH), growth (GH), and thyroid (TSH) hormones have been extensively studied, and there is coherent research on reproductive hormones (FSH and LH). Those effects which have been identified are clearly caused by heating. The exposure thresholds for these effects in living mammals, including primates, have been established. There is limited evidence that indicates no interaction between RFEMF and the pineal gland or an effect on prolactin from the pituitary gland. Studies of RFEMF exposed blood cells have shown that changes or damage do not occur unless the cells are heated. White cells (leukocytes) are much more sensitive than red cells (erythrocytes) but white cell effects remain consistent with normal physiological responses to systemic temperature fluctuation. Lifetime studies of RFEMF exposed animals show no cumulative adverse effects in their endocrine, hematological, or immune systems. Cardiovascular tissue is not directly affected adversely in the absence of significant RFEMF heating or electric currents. The regulation of blood pressure is not influenced by ultra high frequency (UHF) RFEMF at levels commonly encountered in the use of mobile communication devices

RF is even used in surgery to cauterize, and other procedures, like RFA, etc.

Radio frequency ablation (RFA) is a medical procedure where part of the electrical conduction system of the heart, tumor or other dysfunctional tissue is ablated using the heat generated from the high frequency alternating current to treat a medical disorder. An important advantage of RF current (over previously used low frequency AC or pulses of DC) is that it does not directly stimulate nerves or heart muscle and can therefore often be used without the need for general anesthetic. RFA has become increasingly accepted in the last 15 years with promising results.[1][2] RFA procedures are performed under image guidance (such as X-ray screening, CT scan or ultrasound) by an interventional pain specialist (such as an anesthesiologist), interventional radiologist or a cardiac electrophysiologist, a subspecialty of cardiologists.

The incorporation of RF coils into the tips of intravascular devices has been shown to enable the localization of catheters and guidewires under MR guidance. Furthermore, such coils can be used for endoluminal imaging. The long cable required to connect the coil with the scanner input inadvertently acts as a dipole antenna which picks up RF energy from the body coil during transmit. Currents are induced on the cable which can lead to localized heating of surrounding tissue. Cables of various lengths were measured to determine if a resonance in the heating as a function of cable length could be found. Coaxial chokes with a length of lambda/4 were added to coaxial cables to reduce the amplitude of the currents induced on the cable shield. A 0.7-mm diameter triaxial cable, small enough to fit into a standard intravascular device, was developed and measured both with and without a coaxial choke. It is demonstrated that resonant heating does occur and that it can be significantly reduced by avoiding a resonant length of cable and by including coaxial chokes on the cable.

from wiki :
en.wikipedia.org...

but people should realize there is a difference between high RF levels and low RF levels, and common sense.

here are some RF safety guidelines for people working with it.
www.labour.gov.on.ca...
www.rfsafetysolutions.com...

reply to post by Anon77


Sorry for your dad's RF burn. On an antenna, it just depends where you touch. The weird thing with RF burns is that you don't feel a thing, you just smell something burning. Afterwards it becomes extremely painful, lol....

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
Everyone who is smart knows that cell phone increases the likelihood of you getting cancer the more you use it.
...

I must be dumb then.

I've worked on cell sites for 15 years. I have worked in front of live antennae, some of which radiate upwards of 100 watts, for several hours a day, several days a week nearly every week over my 15 years in the field. Your cell phone radiates less than 4W PEP on 2G (TDMA, GSM, EDGE) networks and typically less than 2W on other 2G+ (CDMA) and 3G/4G (UMTS, LTE, advanced CDMA).

To make a physical comparison: typical incadescent headlights on a car operate in much the same manner as the antenna on a typical cell site. The light is much like the radio signal from the tower, though at a much higher frequency. Turn your lights on low and you have approximately 45-55 watts being focused in front of the light. See how far that goes? Now, take your typical incadescent penlight (approximately 4 watts) and shine it out: how far does that go?

TV / FM stations can broadcast in excess of 5000 watts; AM radio can reach 50,000 watts.


The only thing I've developed as a result of working on cell sites seems to be a mild form of Tourette's that is triggered by people spreading rumor as fact.



To answer you question about software: no, there really is none.
However, the firmware / hardware of your phones do vary the strength of the signal automatically. They usually limit the power to the lowest level necessary to communicate with the cell site, and the closer you are to the tower, the lower the power necessary will be.

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
Everyone who is smart knows that cell phone increases the likelihood of you getting cancer the more you use it.
...

I must be dumb then.

I've worked on cell sites for 15 years. I have worked in front of live antennae, some of which radiate upwards of 100 watts, for several hours a day, several days a week nearly every week over my 15 years in the field. Your cell phone radiates less than 4W PEP on 2G (TDMA, GSM, EDGE) networks and typically less than 2W on other 2G+ (CDMA) and 3G/4G (UMTS, LTE, advanced CDMA).

To make a physical comparison: typical incadescent headlights on a car operate in much the same manner as the antenna on a typical cell site. The light is much like the radio signal from the tower, though at a much higher frequency. Turn your lights on low and you have approximately 45-55 watts being focused in front of the light. See how far that goes? Now, take your typical incadescent penlight (approximately 4 watts) and shine it out: how far does that go?

TV / FM stations can broadcast in excess of 5000 watts; AM radio can reach 50,000 watts.


The only thing I've developed as a result of working on cell sites seems to be a mild form of Tourette's that is triggered by people spreading rumor as fact.



To answer you question about software: no, there really is none.
However, the firmware / hardware of your phones do vary the strength of the signal automatically. They usually limit the power to the lowest level necessary to communicate with the cell site, and the closer you are to the tower, the lower the power necessary will be.

edit on 2/24/2012 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)

Never worked in front of live links myself. Provided your not working 3 mm in front of it I suspect it doesn't matter at 100 watts on a cell tower because of the fact that the antenna would probably be a sector antenna (not a point source since it's about 120 degree horizontal and +/- 5 - 10 degrees vertical coverage i think?) I'd be more concerned working in front of a powerful point source antenna because of the attenuation of power with the square of distance.

Didn't realize there were so many RF engineers on ATS.

reply to post by Anon77


ok, I count 3 RF engineers working with relatively high RF powers, and not one of us has developed brain cancer yet???? Of course, not a lot of people with wooden furniture in their homes, or driving cars (which are also in the Cat. 2B classification) develop cancer either...

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by Anon77

 

Sorry for your dad's RF burn. On an antenna, it just depends where you touch. The weird thing with RF burns is that you don't feel a thing, you just smell something burning. Afterwards it becomes extremely painful, lol....

Thanks, That's pretty much what he said too. I don't think he noticed it getting painful and the skin going red until and hour or so later. Had my share of electric shocks, but no RF burns yet... hmmm possibly I shouldn't temp fate.

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by Anon77

 

ok, I count 3 RF engineers working with relatively high RF powers, and not one of us has developed brain cancer yet???? Of course, not a lot of people with wooden furniture in their homes, or driving cars (which are also in the Cat. 2B classification) develop cancer either...

edit on 24/2/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)

Exactly! It seems everyday they find something new that might, possibly, perhaps, maybe cause cancer. I think it's yet another case of the MSM blowing the scant evidence there is out of proportion. Helps to sell newspapers, get viewers to news stations and get people to buy those crappy stick on 'Radiation shields' for their phones...

Originally posted by Anon77Never worked in front of live links myself. Provided your not working 3 mm in front of it I suspect it doesn't matter at 100 watts on a cell tower because of the fact that the antenna would probably be a sector antenna (not a point source since it's about 120 degree horizontal and +/- 5 - 10 degrees vertical coverage i think?) I'd be more concerned working in front of a powerful point source antenna because of the attenuation of power with the square of distance.

Didn't realize there were so many RF engineers on ATS.

Most of the antennae I work around are spec'd at 60-90 deg horiz beamwidth and around 5-15 vert and I'm often within 12-24" proximity to the front of it; obviously, the beams aren't that tight, though- the signal just drops off outside the antenna centerline. Occasionally, the odd omni comes around. My comment about the wattage can be per antenna, not total ERP from the tower itself.

Sectorized systems can deliver up 100W per "technology", often they're around 25-50 though, per antenna, and some antenna have 3-4 technologies on them. For instance, I've installed single panels that support UMTS 850, UMTS 1900 and LTE 700 / AWS bands, simultaneously. That's 4 different systems on 6 coaxial cables, with each cable capable of carrying multiple 100W signals. Some sites may have multiple panels of similar configuration per sector.

Originally posted by Anon77

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by Anon77

 

Sorry for your dad's RF burn. On an antenna, it just depends where you touch. The weird thing with RF burns is that you don't feel a thing, you just smell something burning. Afterwards it becomes extremely painful, lol....

Thanks, That's pretty much what he said too. I don't think he noticed it getting painful and the skin going red until and hour or so later. Had my share of electric shocks, but no RF burns yet... hmmm possibly I shouldn't temp fate.

I've yet to be seriously burned by anything but have experienced a bite, no marks left, from an old AT&T / Ericsson 882 TDMA 850 cabinet: the radio tried to key up while I was repairing a connector on a sector that was supposed to be control blocked... NOC tech brought down the wrong sector. And burned once on a GSM 1900 cabinet that a NOC tech tried bringing online before I was done- my hand was on the top of the bulkhead connector when that happened. I felt that one instantly and it left a small, annular burn in the palm of my hand which took about 7 weeks to heal. If you know the 7/16 DIN connector type, you know what the center conductor / pin looks like.

Any time I'm near anything if even remotely, possibly online, RF monitors are in use; when around radome or similar, it's either off (I power the cabinet down completely) or am in an RF suit; and in an RF suit around any UHF/VHF/FM/AM/TV antennas or anything whose power is questionable.

reply to post by abecedarian


You guys work with RF suits???? lol, in Africa we had no such luxuries, so a lot of youngsters were quite scared to go in front of antennas, or always kept their nuts covered, lol....

But seriously, what is a RF suit? I guess some coverall with metal fibers embedded?

Reminds me when I came to Europe, and saw workers with all sorts of protection, hearing protection, face masks, RF monitors, etc. I guess I now know one of the reasons why the average life-span is so much shorter in certain parts of the world.