backtop

Print 31 comment(s) - last by Adam M.. on Jun 19 at 5:21 PM
FCC chairman wants to look into radiation levels from mobile phones

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski plans to ask his fellow commissioners on the FCC panel to approve a notice commencing a formal inquiry on mobile phone radiation safety. Business Week reports that this is a question the FCC hasn't asked in the last 15 years and stems from the increasing use of smartphones in today’s society.
 
The last time the FCC updated its guidelines concerning maximum radiation exposure levels for mobile phones was in 1996.
 
“Our action today is a routine review of our standards,” said FCC spokeswoman Tammy Sun. “We are confident that, as set, the emissions guidelines for devices pose no risks to consumers.”
 
If the investigation leads to any changes in FCC rules it would have affects not only on companies based in the U.S., but also those abroad. "Any changes in the rules will have an impact on handset vendors,” said CW Cheung, the Asia-Pacific head of consulting for telecoms at Ovum. “As most vendors are based outside the U.S., it could also become a trade issue."
 
There have been concerns from various groups that radiation emitted from mobile phones could affect the brain and other tissues close to where the phone is held. However, so far there's been no solid link between extended use of mobile phones and brain tumors of any sort.
 
The U.S. FDA found no evidence linking the use of wireless phones and the incidence of brain tumors when examined by a 2010 World Health Organization study. A separate program was also conducted by the NCI that found no link between mobile phone use and cancer.
 
Despite the fact that no concrete evidence linking mobile phone radiation and cancer has been found, some researchers still believe low-level radiation created by mobile phones may cause cancers of the brain and central nervous system.

Source: Business Week


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What will vs. what should happen
By nafhan on 6/18/2012 11:27:19 AM , Rating: 2
What should happen:
FCC does a study similar to many others showing that there's no problems with cell phone radiation. People accept this and move on.

What WILL happen:
Hypochondriacs who don't understand the word "radiation" will take the fact that they are doing an investigation to be proof that cell phones emit harmful radiation. These people will never follow up to view the results of the study.

I think it's fine that the FCC is revisiting this issue; I just wish they could have waited to announce the study until after it was over and results were in hand.




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/18/2012 11:41:53 AM , Rating: 2
Remind me of this story from a few years back:

http://www.dailytech.com/Radio+Tower+Fearing+Resid...


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2012 11:57:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's a waste of time, taxpayer money, and is political pandering. You simply cannot make an electronic device these days without it being independently tested by various standards organizations for safety beforehand. These studies have been done, ad nausea in fact. If cell phones emitted enough radiation to be harmful, we would damn well know it before the FCC decided to get involved.

But I know I know, there are people who don't think anything is safe until they hear it from the all-knowings up in Washington. Only they can they feel warm and cuddly.


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By chmilz on 6/18/2012 12:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
It'll keep getting researched until someone arrives at the conclusion the tinfoil hat crowd is looking for.


By kattanna on 6/18/2012 1:06:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Only they can they feel warm


you would think all they have to do to feel that way is to hold the cell phone nice and close..

;>)


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By TSS on 6/18/2012 1:35:25 PM , Rating: 3
Now now, there are bigger wastes to worry about. It's not bad to have a timely review of such things, and certainly not a waste of money.

Because there have been so many studies, we know much more now, including up to what level is safe, which might be much higher then we anticipated previously. With new, wider standards we could get more powerfull devices with thus more capabilities. That stuff needs to be gathered by the people who make these rules and that takes time, and thus, money.

Not all government is bad. Even republicans belive in some government.


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By Samus on 6/18/2012 3:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
I remember hearing a story about some crazy German couple suing their government because they both came down with cancer shortly after a Wind-powered generator was installed near their house, citing 'low level frequency radiation'

Of course it must be the wind turbine, not that they both ate the same food, lived around the same mold, and otherwise had environmental similarities.

We live in a radioactive world. It's all around us, and it isn't going to kill you. After all, everyone who has ever drank water has died. So does water kill? Only if you're drowning in it. RIP Rodney King.


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By Samus on 6/18/2012 3:49:28 PM , Rating: 1
I remember hearing a story about some crazy German couple suing their government because they both came down with cancer shortly after a Wind-powered generator was installed near their house, citing 'low level frequency radiation'

Of course it must be the wind turbine, not that they both ate the same food, lived around the same mold, and otherwise had environmental similarities.

We live in a radioactive world. It's all around us, and it isn't going to kill you. After all, everyone who has ever drank water has died. So does water kill? Only if you're drowning in it. RIP Rodney King.


By Trisped on 6/18/2012 4:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
While it is good to have watch dog groups, it is also good to have a government commission which does periodic tests to verify that something which was tested as safe, still is safe.


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By danjw1 on 6/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: What will vs. what should happen
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2012 12:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One of the big concerns is children using them from early teens (or even earlier) until they die. There just isn't a large body of research on the long term effects of this. We are talking about 50, 60, 70 even 80 years of long term exposure. Do you really think anyone has done a study that ran that long?


Before we even leave the womb we're being bombarded by radiation and other signals. What are you talking about? The whole planet is awash with RF energy.

Radio-frequency energy, unlike ionizing radiation, doesn't cause DNA damage in cells. If it did, wired headset or not, we would ALL be getting cancer lol.

You can live in fear if you want, but it's pretty simple to research this stuff yourself.


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By ShaolinSoccer on 6/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: What will vs. what should happen
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2012 1:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
The RF energy is not being "concentrated" from a cell phone any more than a radio or wireless router. Do those give cancer?

quote:
There has never been a study of this on the long term effect.


LOL of course there has been. Everyone living in the past 10 generations has taken part in it! Think about it...

So much ignorance on this issue. Just...WOW. The type of emissions a cell phone makes CANNOT mutate or damage our DNA like other types of radiation. This much has been studied and proven long ago.


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By toffty on 6/18/2012 2:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
Wow.... ignorance is bliss isn't it?

RF energy disperses exponentially. When you hold your cell phone at your ear the source of the energy is very close to your brain (a few inches). I doubt you hold your route that close or anything else for that matter. If you're a 20 feet from your router, the energy from that is probably getting close to background radiation.


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2012 3:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
You're ignorant here. There is NO cancer danger from cell phones. That's it. End of discussion. They CANNOT harm tissue or DNA. Hello? I don't care if you hold it to your brain or not, that's not the point. The point is they do not affect our bodies.

And my router sits on the desk here like 2 feet from me. Oh no! Looks like I'm going to get brain, throat, lung, liver, and ass and leg cancer!!!!


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By Etsp on 6/18/2012 3:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
That is blatantly false. There is no doubt that extensive use of cell phones increases the risk of certain types of cancer. The RF energy they use is the same as what Microwave Ovens use, just at lower power levels and frequencies.

What is highly debatable is exactly how muchthe cancer risk increases with cell phone use. Most likely, it's something < 0.001%, but we do need to investigate such things to be certain.

Your claim that the RF energy used by cell phones cannot harm DNA or tissue is absolutely false. It does cause damage, but the damage is minimal.

Please, take a course on RF safety (which is mandatory in some industries) before you continue ranting about a topic you don't have the slightest idea about.


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2012 4:21:04 PM , Rating: 1
Did I have to put into context that I meant at the LEVELS cell phones emit? Seriously?

quote:
There is no doubt that extensive use of cell phones increases the risk of certain types of cancer.


That's just bullshit and everyone knows it.


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By Etsp on 6/18/2012 4:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
See, here, I even put into context the LEVELS of increased cancer risk, and you still ignored it.

Cell phones increase the risk of cancer. However, the increased risk is so minute that it is within the margin of error for the studies that have been run to look for a correlation. What that means is that there is almost no increased risk of cancer. However, almost no increased risk is not ZERO increased risk. You are constantly speaking in absolutes, and as a result are proven wrong over and over.

The lesson you should learn: Put things into context, and don't make absolute statements that are false.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2012 6:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, the increased risk is so minute that it is within the margin of error for the studies that have been run to look for a correlation.


And yet you still think it's THAT relevant to make an argument over? Do you like arguing semantics or just have a problem with me in general?

If the risk is so low it falls within a margin of error, then what do you think that margin is there for in the FIRST place? It's safe to say that there is no proven risk if this is the case, yet you insist on forming an argument on this absurd premise.


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By Trisped on 6/18/2012 4:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They CANNOT harm tissue or DNA. Hello? I don't care if you hold it to your brain or not, that's not the point. The point is they do not affect our bodies.
This statement is inaccurate.
From http://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/rfradiatio...
quote:
It has been known for many years that exposure to very high levels of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to rapidly heat biological tissue.
...
At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, that is, levels lower than those that would produce significant heating, the evidence for harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven. Such effects have sometimes been referred to as "nonthermal" effects. It is generally agreed that further research is needed to determine the effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health.
From http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/wsi... (bold from original text)
quote:
Health effects
RF radiation heats in the same way that microwave ovens heat food. Harmful heating of body tissue is a possibility where there is exposure to RF fields above the maximum recommended exposure levels. Shocks, similar to electric shocks, due to touching or receiving arcs from RF devices are also possible from over-exposure to RF radiation.
Currently there is no known link between exposure to RF radiation and an increased risk of cancer.
From these quotes it is clear that RF signals can damage tissue (though this would require more power then the typical cell phone has), there is currently no evidence of RF causing cancer, and there is no evidence of low power RF causing adverse medical conditions in people. These quotes should not be miss interpreted either, as they are stating that a link is not known. They are not stating that the link is impossible.

The amount of radiation from a WiFi router at 2 feet will be drastically less then a cell phone at 1-2 inches. In fact, since WiFi routers are designed for lower range communication I expect that there would be less radiation from a WiFi router at 2 inches then a cell phone at 2 inches.


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By chripuck on 6/18/2012 5:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
You are fear mongering plain and simple. RF energy waves are a broad spectrum of non-ionizing radiation (meaning it can't harm DNA) and encompasses all radiation below infrared.

Yes, technically radio waves used in Cell Phones are in the bandwidth of microwaves but microwaves go from 300 MHZ to 300,000 MHZ. You're clearly invoking the image of cooking our brain a la microwave oven style, but a microwave oven uses 245,000 MHZ while a cell phone uses, at most, 2100 MHZ.

To summarize, you could plant a cell phone radio INSIDE your brain and you wouldn't get brain cancer from it. If through some miracle the radio was able to increase its transmission power by a factor of 1000 you could cook your brain, but come on, really?

And to note Reclaimer's post about Wifi, even at logarithmic dissipation levels, a 2.4 GHZ router (yes, the same frequency as microwave ovens) at 2 feet will give off vast amounts more radiation than a cell phone held up to your head.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2012 6:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you chripuck. His post just blew my mind with all the false assumptions. Like he's just determined to fear monger. We learned about RF back in the day, wtf is wrong with these people?


By Solandri on 6/18/2012 5:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
If heating is what you're worried about, the world is full of many other much bigger heat sources. Have you ever used a candle? That puts off about 10,000 times more heat than a cell phone.

The microwave comparison is deceiving too. Microwave oven frequencies are carefully selected to resonate with water molecules, which lead to the heating. In a microwave oven, nearly all of the energy goes into heating. Away from that frequency (~2.45 GHz), resonance and thus heating drops off very quickly. Cell phones are typically 1.7-1.9 GHz and 700-900 MHz. Very far from the absorptive frequency of water (in fact the whole reason 2.4 GHz was made open was because it was too close, and was considered too crappy for dedicated long-range commercial use).

Their power levels are also about 150,000 times lower than what you get from a microwave oven (typically 1500 Watts). Think of the heating you get from running a microwave oven for 1 minute. Even if the cell phone were putting out RF at the ideal 2.45 GHz frequency, using it for one minute would be equivalent to running the microwave oven for 0.0004 seconds. The amount of heating is trivial.

quote:
The amount of radiation from a WiFi router at 2 feet will be drastically less then a cell phone at 1-2 inches. In fact, since WiFi routers are designed for lower range communication I expect that there would be less radiation from a WiFi router at 2 inches then a cell phone at 2 inches.

A wifi router operates in the open 2.4 GHz band and has to contend with a lot more noise than cell phones. That's why their range is shorter. Typically they put out over 100 mW of signal (FCC limit is 500 mW omnidirectional). With a highly directional antenna (thus eliminating much of the noise), you can get them to communicate over tens of km at these power levels.

Cell phones are the only devices operating at their frequencies, and typically put out about 10 mW of signal. Exact amount depends on how many bars you have - fewer bars = more power. Most can range from 1-100 mW.

So due to the inverse square law, a cell phone at 2 inches will typically expose you to about 14x as much RF as a wifi router at 2 feet. However with both devices at 2 inches, the wifi router will expose you to about 10x as much RF signal as a cell phone. The sun however puts out about 100,000x as much RF signal as either of these. Better stay indoors if you're worried about this. ;)


By chripuck on 6/18/2012 5:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
And to further add to your ridiculous assertions, a Wifi router runs at 70 watts at 2,450 MHZ, a microwave oven runs at 1000-1500 watts and 2,500 MHZ and a cell phone runs at 2 watts and 2,100 MHZ. Again, you'd have to boost the wattage by 10000% to achieve the same energy density.

There's just not enough energy there, period.


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By nafhan on 6/18/2012 5:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
1.01 ^ 50 = 1.64...
Those numbers are not related to what you're talking about, but they are an illustration of the fact that bringing up "disperses exponentially" doesn't necessarily prove anything. If you start with extremely small numbers and increase exponentially, you may end up with a very small number.

If you're 2 inches from a router, the energy is pretty close to background, but, really, that depends on what you mean by "background" and "pretty close". I'll define "close to background" to mean "not harmful". Therefore you're close to background radiation numbers at any distance from your router.


By Solandri on 6/18/2012 1:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
There was a "study" in the 1980s. The old analog cell phones and wireless phones put out 1-10 Watts right next to your head, vs. the 1-100 milliwatts digital phones produce. If RF energy from those old analog phones were harmful, we'd be seeing a huge cluster of health problems among their users 30 years later.

quote:
There's a big difference between RF energy that is dispersed and RF energy that is concentrated right next to your brain as you hold a cell phone to your ear.

They're exactly the same. The only difference is the power level, which drops off following the inverse square law. A cell phone ~2 cm from your brain putting off 10 mW is hitting you with as much radiation as being about 50 meters from the big 50 kW radio transmitters used by radio stations. If it caused brain tumors, we'd have noticed a huge cluster of them by now among disc jockeys and radio station workers.

If you're going to be paranoid about invisible rays affecting your health, then don't click this video. It's a cloud chamber showing the cosmic rays (high-energy particles) from space which bombard us all the time. And unlike RF, they are ionizing radiation which will damage your DNA. Heaven forbid you ever fly on a plane -- the dose you receive at altitude can be 10x as much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QWbvkbCQyM


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By nafhan on 6/18/2012 2:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
Electromagnetic energy that's "dispersed" is exactly the same as non-dispersed. All that matters is the intensity of the radiation at the point being measured. You have to know things like the distance which the signal has traveled and transmitted power for "dispersed" to mean anything.

The most relevant info here is that your transmitted power from a phone is EXTREMELY small. It's also notable that built in cell phone antennas are omnidirectional. So, unless you've done something very naughty with your phone, you'll be "dispersing" a significant percentage of that power no matter what.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing that speaker phone usage will help minimize RF exposure. Just noting that there's more to it than distance.


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By nafhan on 6/18/2012 1:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
So... some people believe that cell phones cause cancer. We do not have:
1) A proven method by which the damage could occur
2) Any evidence showing it has actually caused cancer in anyone

Since we don't know how or why or if cell phones actually do anything, it's entirely possible that you're causing more harm to yourself by having the phone at your waist while you use a wired headset. Again, the likely scenario is that you're fine either way.

As far as the long term testing... did you notice that you're proposing some tests where one of the primary issues that needs to be controlled for is dying of old age? If it takes 80 years for effects to manifest, I'm not going to be that concerned. Also, cell phones today use less power and different radio frequencies than phones from 20 years ago. It's very likely that in 20 years, those things (and more) will have shifted again. Any studies done now will probably be inapplicable to future tech except in a very general sense.


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By kattanna on 6/18/2012 1:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just wish they could have waited to announce the study until after it was over and results were in hand.


No. Studies of this nature should be completely open and public to help remove doubt of that manner.

quote:
Hypochondriacs who don't understand the word "radiation"


people of this manner will never "see" their errors, so why even bother?


RE: What will vs. what should happen
By nafhan on 6/18/2012 2:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all for openness. However, I don't think disclosure after the fact is really a problem with things like FCC testing. "Open and public" by means of providing details of the testing and results is pretty reasonable for this type of thing. They're acquiring info that may be used to make decisions, not making decisions.

In what way would the public be harmed by receiving the results of the testing without knowing about the testing ahead of time?


Isn't it a bit late....
By Adam M on 6/19/2012 5:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
So there are millions of data intensive wireless devices out there all of which radiating various forms of radio waves to vast networks built by multi billion dollar, multi national companies and we haven't made explicitly sure said radiation isn't harmful? And if it is found to be harmful, what then? Do we say "sorry everyone", turn off the switch, and ask everyone to turn in their devices?




"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki