S. Florida Attorney Dies From Cell Phone Induced Cancer

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

It is very well known that the discovery was accidental...It doesn't take much heat to melt a candy bar last I checked...

The story about the candy is very well known, but again, it's considered apocryphal. And you'd heat up faster than the candy.

There are lots of more accurate stories about microwaves and cooking. Try googling "microwave candy bar spencer apocryphal", there are a number of nice articles, "handout 2" from Rutgers is a good one.

Linky...warning: pdf

If microwaves don't heat without a cavity then why does this study say that tissue was in fact heated by microwave radiation caused by a cell phone?

METHODS:
We studied FN conduction rate and compound muscle action potentials (CMAP) on 12 rabbits before exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted from a mobile phone. Also, the temperature change in the soft tissues around the FN was investigated by a four channel Luxtron fiber optic system. A mobile phone with 1900 MHz frequency was placed over the ipsilateral ear of the rabbit for 25 minutes, and FN and surrounding tissues were exposed to a 1.5 watts pulse modulated (217 packets/s) electromagnetic field. During exposure to RFR, immediately after turning off the mobile phone, and 25 minutes after the exposure temperature change in the surrounding tissue of the FN was recorded and compared to preexposure values. Additionally, another recording regarding the FN functions was done and the data were compared to preexposure values.
RESULTS:
The average temperature of the surrounding soft tissues was 0.39 K higher than the preexposure values during the exposure and immediately after turning off the mobile phone, and decreased to normal levels 25 minutes after the exposure, which was statistically significant. The amplitudes of FN CMAP after radiofrequency radiation exposure were significantly smaller than the preexposure amplitudes and the amplitudes were normal in the 25 minute measurement.
CONCLUSION:
The RFR emitted from a mobile phone can cause temporary FN dysfunction that can be due to temporary temperature increase in the soft tissue around the FN.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: IntastellaBurst

There is a long latency in the disease which is why you aren't seeing everyone come down with brain tumors just yet..

The most studied disease in human subjects is brain tumors. Several large epidemiological studies, including case-control and cohort studies, were carried out on hundreds of thousands of human subjects to determine if a link exists between cell phone use and brain tumors. The results were mixed, which is not surprising due to the complexity and generic limitations of epidemiological studies, the long-latency nature of the disease (10-30 years and longer), and the relatively short elapsed time since the inception of wide-spread cell phone use (15-20 years). Study results also tend to correlate to the funding sources – industry sponsored research is more likely to show no-link than independently funded studies.

Long-term use of both mobile and cordless phones is associated with an increased risk for glioma, the most common type of brain tumor, the latest research on the subject concludes.

The new study shows that the risk for glioma was tripled among those using a wireless phone for more than 25 years and that the risk was also greater for those who had started using mobile or cordless phones before age 20 years.

"Doctors should be very concerned by this and discuss precautions with their patients," study author Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, professor, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

Such precautions, he said, include using hands-free phones with the "loud speaker" feature and text messaging instead of phoning.

The study was published online October 28 in Pathophysiology.

So why take a risk with your life? Why not get yourself an air-tube headset or use the speakerphone? I am not advocating we go back to the stone age era..What I am saying is take precautions..Also there are cases that block the radiation from hitting your body.(for certain models) Also look for cell phones that have a low sar rating.(specific absorption rate) Samsung seems to have the phones with the lowest sar ratings.. Here is a list:

www.phonerated.com...

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
If microwaves don't heat without a cavity then why does this study say that surrounding tissue in the face is heated by microwave radiation caused by a cell phone?

From upthread: He'd have to have been (right at the feedhorn). Square of the distance is a harsh task master.

The reason you don't have microwave whole-table heaters is because inside the cavity, you tend to recycle the energy that's not absorbed, since the load is inside the waveguide. You don't get square of distance fall off.

As propagating waves, especially if it's not particularly aimed in one direction, the power density is going to fall off as the square of the distance. And that's going to take it down to "I don't feel any heat" pretty fast.

In order to raise the rabbit's ear 0.4 K, they put the antenna on the ear at full power (1.5W!) for 25 minutes.

Now, that's about 0.7 F, and it took 25 minutes to get there. A normal person's temperature will vary a lot more than that during the day, and if you stroll out into the sun, or jump in a sauna, or a hot tub, or a hot shower, the skin on your ear will warm a lot more than 0.4K, and in less than 25 minutes.

So it sounds horrifying, but it's a "Nu?" sort of result.

One reason it's not more, is that the antenna on a cell phone radiates in a pattern something like a donut shoved over the phone. Most of it is going elsewhere. You'll also note that they measured the rabbit's ear, instead of, say, the rabbit's dura mater, because you wouldn't have seen anything. They wanted to instrument the thin layer of skin on the ear. Now, I didn't cough up the money for the entire article, and I assume you didn't either, but I don't see anything in the abstract about insulating the ear from the heat produced by the phone. I would hope they used a piece of coax to get the phone back from the rabbit but I can't tell.

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: IntastellaBurst

There is a long latency in the disease which is why you aren't seeing everyone come down with brain tumors just yet..

Or maybe it doesn't cause tumors, which is why you aren't seeing everyone come down with brain tumors just yet.

a reply to: Bedlam

Consider the microwave oven.Many of us have heard how a Raytheon engineer walked past a microwave tube one day,noticed that a candy bar in his pocket had melted,and was struck with the idea of using microwaves to cook food. This incident or something like that, may have occurred,But there is a lot more to the story then that.


The article you linked to me does not say that the candy bar did not melt in the engineers pocket..

www.inspirationgreen.com...

Picture of the thermal effects of cell phone usage after only 15 minutes of use..As you can see from the picture cell phones due in fact cause heating of the tissues..

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: IntastellaBurst

There is a long latency in the disease which is why you aren't seeing everyone come down with brain tumors just yet..

Or maybe it doesn't cause tumors, which is why you aren't seeing everyone come down with brain tumors just yet.

Or, just like smoking, not that many (number-wise vs total smokers) actually come down with lung cancer.

As an RF engineer, I would agree that holding a phone several inches away would be far less of a risk (if there is one) than holding a phone to your head for several hours a day. It is really hard to definitively blame a given risk for a given cancer, especially one that can take decades to manifest.

I certainly wouldn't be so quick to dismiss long-term cellphone use against the head as "harmless" because people aren't dropping like flies.

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

The article you linked to me does not say that the candy bar did not melt in the engineers pocket..

You'll note that it said "may have occurred", however...

me: "Not only is it considered apocryphal, he would have had to be standing with his leg against the feed horn."

the article: "During the war it was common in winter for Raytheon engineers to walk past banks of magnetrons operating in the open air and warm their hands on the heat they emitted"

So either way, that's that.

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
Picture of the thermal effects of cell phone usage after only 15 minutes of use..As you can see from the picture cell phones due in fact cause heating of the tissues..

Look at the temperature scale on the left. How much increase in temperature does it take to change the colors from what they were to what they ended up? And was the phone itself warm? Bad example.

eta: Did they do nice pictures on the same person before and after a hot shower? Or sitting in the sauna vs not? Or the pillow side of her face when she wakes vs the room side? Lots of things cause heating of the tissues. Lots of things don't cause cancer.

originally posted by: Halfswede
I certainly wouldn't be so quick to dismiss long-term cellphone use against the head as "harmless" because people aren't dropping like flies.

Yet, we've been using radio since the late 1800s. You'd think we'd have seen something less ambiguous and chancy by now. Or that the tests would show something a lot less ambiguous.

eta: Medicine uses microwaves at MUCH higher power than a cell phone to intentionally heat tissue many degrees. I'm wondering what the post-diathermy history shows. Do they all look like Toxie a couple of years down the road, or is it business as usual?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
Picture of the thermal effects of cell phone usage after only 15 minutes of use..As you can see from the picture cell phones due in fact cause heating of the tissues..

Look at the temperature scale on the left. How much increase in temperature does it take to change the colors from what they were to what they ended up? And was the phone itself warm? Bad example.

Most cell phones don't get warm anymore and even if they did I seriously doubt regular heat would penetrate the skull that deep..Also note that the cell phone was only used for 15 minutes....

Even if it is a slight increase in temperature it proves that the radiation does in fact heat the tissue(and the most fragile tissue in the body). You don't need a cavity for microwaves to heat...

a reply to: Bedlam

That really makes sense..Take a thermal imaging picture right after going into a sauna..Wow

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

Most cell phones don't get warm anymore and even if they did I seriously doubt regular heat would penetrate the skull that deep..Also note that the cell phone was only used for 15 minutes....

How do you judge penetration by that photo?

Even if it is a slight increase in temperature it proves that the radiation does in fact heat the tissue(and the most fragile tissue in the body). You don't need a cavity for microwaves to heat...

If it's a temperature increase that's well within what you see that tissue do all the time, then how is it an issue?

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Bedlam

That's really makes sense..Take a thermal imaging picture right after going into a sauna..Wow

That's really makes sense.. Take a thermal imaging picture right after using a cell phone.. Wow

So. Back to the issue - you think that warming of very small degree is bad. Yet you are ok with it if it's not from a phone. Discuss! Heat is heat. Small is small. Within normal range is normal.

And yet, the particular frequencies, duration and exposure location may have a totally different effect than an infrequent acute blast from medical imaging devices. It is like saying small, regular exposure to second-hand smoke is ok because sitting around a campfire once a year is a much higher dose and nobody is declaring a camping/cancer risk.

Cell phone use as far as the duration and methods (lots don't hold their phone to the ear) used has simply not been around long enough to declare "no risk". I can't understand what the point is of championing that stance.

Some people develop mesothelioma from a single exposure to asbestos, while others had continual and prolonged exposure without any cancer. Cancer is not a 'you do this and you will get that' kind of thing. It could easily be that some already have precancerous cell division that just needs a nudge from chronic low-level radiation to take off.

This one needs a couple more decades to play out. With a 10-fold increase in usage in the last 20 years, it is just too soon to say.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Bedlam

That's really makes sense..Take a thermal imaging picture right after going into a sauna..Wow

That's really makes sense.. Take a thermal imaging picture right after using a cell phone.. Wow

So. Back to the issue - you think that warming of very small degree is bad. Yet you are ok with it if it's not from a phone. Discuss! Heat is heat. Small is small. Within normal range is normal.

Ok this isn't going anywhere..Looks like you would make up any excuse to avoid all evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived notions on cell phone safety.. Like saying body microwaves are similar to cell phones and that the subject in the thermal picture I posted went into a sauna before they took the picture please. Microwaves due in fact heat without the use of a cavity..

And ignore the fact the FCC has a specific absorption rate limit of 1.6 W/kg and that manufactures tell customers to keep phones away from the body in order to meet the standards of there SAR ratings..

You can try to spin that all you want but you can't because the truth is there for all to see..

originally posted by: Halfswede
And yet, the particular frequencies, duration and exposure location may have a totally different effect than an infrequent acute blast from medical imaging devices.

Diathermy isn't imaging. It's heating the tissue several degrees for a few hours, and the microwave versions use 915MHz or 2.45GHz, which is pretty much the same as a cell phone or microwave oven. And it's at 25W, with a directional antenna aimed at the patient.

Cell phone use as far as the duration and methods (lots don't hold their phone to the ear) used has simply not been around long enough to declare "no risk". I can't understand what the point is of championing that stance.

Hell, even drinking water is not "no risk", but I don't understand the apparent panic over what is not coming back with any clear data pro or con.

This one needs a couple more decades to play out. With a 10-fold increase in usage in the last 20 years, it is just too soon to say.

I don't disagree.

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
Ok this isn't going anywhere..Looks like you would make up any excuse to avoid all evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived notions on cell phone safety.. Like saying body microwaves are similar to cell phones and that the subject in the thermal picture I posted went into a sauna before they took the picture please. Microwaves due in fact heat without the use of a cavity..

I'm not making excuses for anything. YOU haven't presented any clear data that cell phones are dangerous. And now you're saying that heating a few degrees is the end of the world, yet clearly other things heat tissues just as fast and to a greater degree, and that doesn't bother you. In fact, it looks like you're trying hard as you can to avoid even thinking about it.

Let's try again. You think that heating a few degrees (less than 1 degree F in the study you first posted) is bad. Yes/no.

You also think that it's only bad if it's caused by RF. Yes/no

Give those a try.

And ignore the fact the FCC has a specific absorption rate limit of 1.6 W/kg and that manufactures tell customers to keep phones away from the body in order to meet the standards of there SAR ratings..

You can try to spin that all you want but you can't because the truth is there for all to see..

1.6 W/kg is a good bit of power. But speaking of truth, back to the heat issue. You were skipping all over before, now you've sort of planted a flag on warming. So let's discuss it - you take cold showers, do you? Or are you afraid of the tissue heating you're going to get from hot water? Hot water can be used to cook food, you know.

a reply to: Bedlam

My bad. I didn't originally catch where you said diathermy. I saw medicine and just assumed general medical radiation devices.

Regardless, those are again acute dosages, and many things can be tolerated in acute doses that can be detrimental in smaller chronic doses and vice versa, so I wouldn't use that as a gauge of safety.

I guess I don't see it as "panic" when the inconclusive question is raised. Maybe some are panicking. I don't intend on changing my cell phone habits, but they are infrequent anyway. I would not, however, be comfortable telling someone that daily hours of ear-pressed cell phone use is a non-issue.

I am also curious to see what long-term effect there may be from baby/toddler aged kids growing up holding the devices in their lap from both an RF perspective as well as from long-term focal-point stability on vision development or degeneration.

That said, you are probably more likely to have a physical accident (car or walking) from the distraction of your cell phone use in those circumstances.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
Ok this isn't going anywhere..Looks like you would make up any excuse to avoid all evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived notions on cell phone safety.. Like saying body microwaves are similar to cell phones and that the subject in the thermal picture I posted went into a sauna before they took the picture please. Microwaves due in fact heat without the use of a cavity..

I'm not making excuses for anything. YOU haven't presented any clear data that cell phones are dangerous. And now you're saying that heating a few degrees is the end of the world, yet clearly other things heat tissues just as fast and to a greater degree, and that doesn't bother you. In fact, it looks like you're trying hard as you can to avoid even thinking about it.

Let's try again. You think that heating a few degrees (less than 1 degree F in the study you first posted) is bad. Yes/no.

You also think that it's only bad if it's caused by RF. Yes/no

Give those a try.

And ignore the fact the FCC has a specific absorption rate limit of 1.6 W/kg and that manufactures tell customers to keep phones away from the body in order to meet the standards of there SAR ratings..

You can try to spin that all you want but you can't because the truth is there for all to see..

1.6 W/kg is a good bit of power. But speaking of truth, back to the heat issue. You were skipping all over before, now you've sort of planted a flag on warming. So let's discuss it - you take cold showers, do you? Or are you afraid of the tissue heating you're going to get from hot water? Hot water can be used to cook food, you know.

Many phones hit close to 1.6 WKG here a the list:
1. Motorola Droid Maxx 1.54 Verizon
1a. Motorola Droid Ultra 1.54 Verizon
3. Alcatel One Touch Evolve 1.49 T-Mobile
3a. Huawei Vitria 1.49 Metro PCS
5. Kyocera Hydro Edge 1.48 Sprint
6. Kyocera Kona 1.45 Sprint
7. Kyocera Hydro XTRM 1.44 Metro PCS
8. BlackBerry Z10 1.42 Verizon
9. BlackBerry Z30 1.41 Verizon
9a. ZTE Source 1.41 Cricket
9b. ZTE Warp 4G 1.41 Boost
12. Nokia Lumia 925 1.4 T-Mobile
12a. Nokia Lumia 928 1.4 Verizon
14. Sonim XP Strike 1.39 Sprint
14a. Kyocera Hydro Elite 1.39 Verizon
16. T-Mobile Prism 2 1.385 T-Mobile
17. Virgin Mobile Supreme 1.38 Virgin
17a. Sprint Vital 1.38 Sprint
19. Sprint Force 1.37 Sprint
20. Huawei Pal 1.33 Metro PCS
Top 20 Lowest Radiation Cell Phones
(maximum possible SAR level from phone)
Cell phone brand and type SAR level Carrier
1. Verkool Vortext RS90 0.18 Unlocked
2. Samsung Galaxy Note 0.19 T-Mobile
3. ZTE Nubia 5 0.225 Unlocked
4. Samsung Galaxy Note 2 0.28 Verizon
5. Samsung Galaxy Mega 0.321 AT&T
6. Kyocera Dura XT 0.328 Sprint
7. Pantech Discover 0.35 AT&T
8. Samsung Galaxy Beam 0.36 Unlocked
9. Samsung Galaxy Stratosphere II 0.37 Verizon
10. Pantech Swift 0.386 AT&T
11. Samsung Jitterbug Plus 0.4 Great Call
11a. Jitterbug Plus 0.4 Great Call
13. LG Exalt 0.43 Verizon
13a. Samsung Galaxy Note 2 0.43 Sprint
15. HTC One V 0.455 US Cellular
16. LG Optimus Vu 0.462 Unlocked
17. Samsung Galaxy S Relay 4G 0.47 T-Mobile
17a. Samsung Rugby 3 0.47 AT&T
19. HTC One Max 0.5 Sprint
20. LG G2 0.51 T-Mobile


Glad that you admitted that 1.6 WKG is allot of power..
cellphones.procon.org...