Vintage mobile phone and thoughts regarding operator RF safety

neazoi · Dec 4, 2017

I happen to have a sony cmd-z1 gsm phone. This is a single band (900MHz) phone, like many old ones, see the specs attached.
1. Is it better in terms of safety, in the sense that because of hardware limitation it transmits only on this lower band?
I tend to think higher frequencies as more "dangerous" for the operator, so the lower the better, that is why I am asking, but note that I have no idea about the SAR of this phone.
2. Also, I know (correct me) that dual or tri-band phones can switch from one band to the other, even if you use just one telco provider.
3. Also, is the mini retractable whip antenna of this phone a "safer" antenna (antenna is not directly into the ear but a few cm away of the head)

I would like your comments please, especially at the first point.

pjmelect · Dec 4, 2017

Why should RF radiation have any safety concerns (other than heating effects). Mobile phones have been about for more than twenty years with no recorded increases of cancer or any other illness attributable to mobile phone use. Before mobile phones some radio amateurs used to carry about on their waist belts powerful transmitters that gave them very deep RF burns, there has been no study of radio amateurs that shows them to be more susceptible to cancer or other illnesses than any other member of the population.
Heating of the brain is considered a bad thing, but the only side effect found by heating the brain by a mobile phone (worse case) is a slight rise in intelligence.

KlausST · Dec 4, 2017

Hi,

There is an chemical production plant (I work some times). It works with high power 6000A/2500V RMS switching signals.
More than 40 of these systems within one building.
And there are workers in this building ...more than 6 hours per day...since the 1970ies. Without any health problems.

And...
There were the analog TV broadcasting stations. The one next to us worked with about 500,000 W of RF power in the frequency range of a couple of 100MHz.

But now we discuss about some 100W of RF of the of the cellular phone statiins and a couple of W of the cellular phones..

For sure HF has the heating effect ... and thus it may harm in close proximity. It surely is dangerous.
And I'm sure there are a couple of people they are sensitive to this RF. But only a couple of millions.

We are doing studies that show a temperature rise in the range of 1/10 °C inside a human body.
On the other side there are people sweating in a hot sauna...or swimming in ice cold water..

In my eyes most of the HF discussion just fans fears and causes hysteria.

There are many other doubtful examples with food, lifestyle, sports, pharmaceuticals....

****
Back to your question:
I don't know if there are double blind studies about the influence of different cellular phone HF frequencies....but - for me - this is the only way to get objective values. Rely on them - if they exist.

Klaus

betwixt · Dec 4, 2017

Regarding the pull-out antenna: If that is the top of a dipole and the phone body makes the bottom, just think where the radiation pattern points!

It is wrong to associate higher frequencies with greater danger. It has more to do with certain substances, including body parts, absorbing more at particular frequencies. That tends to produce heating but no other side effects through. Speaking from experience, placing a hand in front of a waveguide emitting less than 1mW at 10.5GHz is clearly noticeable although it's difficult to describe exactly what you can feel.

Yes, multi-band phones can switch band on-the-fly in the same way and maybe at the same time as they switch from one cell station mast to another without you noticing.

Brian.

volker@muehlhaus · Dec 4, 2017

neazoi said:
3. Also, is the mini retractable whip antenna of this phone a "safer" antenna (antenna is not directly into the ear but a few cm away of the head)

This is omnidirectional. Modern phone antennas are specifically designed for low radiation to the user's head (keyword: SAR).

neazoi · Dec 4, 2017

betwixt said:
Speaking from experience, placing a hand in front of a waveguide emitting less than 1mW at 10.5GHz is clearly noticeable although it's difficult to describe exactly what you can feel.

Yes, multi-band phones can switch band on-the-fly in the same way and maybe at the same time as they switch from one cell station mast to another without you noticing.

Brian.

Thank you all for the replies.

Brian your first comment shows me increased heating effects with increasing frequency indeed. 1mW on 10GHz enough to heat the body.
Now 900MHz is not very far than 1800MHz or 13cm, but it IS double the frequency. and 900MHz is about double the PMR446 frequency we use on a daily basis. But this is CW and the phone is pulsed and it does not transmit all the time at 2W but only far away from the tower (correct me on this).

About your monopole comment, I agree as the same scheme is used in the V/U transceivers HAMs use. Without any measurements, would you prefer such a "dipole" antenna which sits a few cm away from the head instead of an embedded (in the phone) antenna just below the phone speaker that sits just next to your ear? This is my concern. What do you suspect?

About the multi-band phones, that is what I have thought, so some may think of a low band single band phone to be "safer" if they insist on the lower frequency-less harm aspect.
However note that for example at 70cm a child may absorb the whole radiation (resonant length) but the whole buddy absorbs it, not just a single point in the brain. Who knows if this is safer or not....

I am talking only about the RF safety, I am not comparing it with other things, like the mgos and all the bad things we eat.

- - - Updated - - -

volker@muehlhaus said:
This is omnidirectional. Modern phone antennas are specifically designed for low radiation to the user's head (keyword: SAR).

I just saw your reply. Are you sure that all phones comply with this or you just suspect it? It is hard to do this and at the same time try to achieve max signal reception based on the operator's position. For example what happens when the operator browses the internet with the phone parallel to the plane of the earth? I wonder how effectively anyway RF screening on on one side of the phone will work.

volker@muehlhaus · Dec 4, 2017

neazoi said:
I just saw your reply. Are you sure that all phones comply with this or you just suspect it? It is hard to do this and at the same time try to achieve max signal reception based on the operator's position.

SAR tests are part of phone qualification, and there are certain limits enforced by law in Europe, US etc.

https://www.cnet.com/pictures/lowest-cell-phone-radiation/

neazoi · Dec 4, 2017

volker@muehlhaus said:
SAR tests are part of phone qualification, and there are certain limits enforced by law in Europe, US etc.

https://www.cnet.com/pictures/lowest-cell-phone-radiation/

I have seen these limits in various websites in 2W/kg for EU. So it is not a matter of if phones comply with this, they should hopefully. However, I ask myself from the RF point of view and knowing only basics about antennas, what is the optimum in operator safety terms.
An isotropic antenna a few cm away from the head, is worse or better than an embedded (PCB) antenna located directly after the ear?
I suspect these latest antennas are not isotropic, and like you say, sometimes they may radiate less towards the operator. Without being able to do any tests, I think myself, that this "advantage" may be lost many times. If the tower is at the side the earphone points (opposite to the antenna main lobe) then the phone may transmit in higher power to do reliable communication. But if it faces towards the tower it will transmit less on the main lobe indeed, so it will be even less on the side of the operator.
On the other hand, an isotropic antenna may transmit with modest power all the time because there is no gain, so the power will depend on the antenna distance to the tower and of course the polarization. Being isotropic, one could physically locate the phone a few cm of 10s of cm away (and still hear the conversation) so that he receives less angular fraction of the signal (ignoring reflections by nearby objects).

There so many factors there that I do not think one can say for sure, but I would like your opinion to see if we can learn something useful out of this.

E Kafeman · Dec 14, 2017

I suspect these latest antennas are not isotropic, and like you say, sometimes they may radiate less towards the operator.

An isotropic antenna a few cm away from the head, is worse or better than an embedded (PCB) antenna located directly after the ear?

Near-field radiation pattern is not same as fare-field radiation pattern.
Isotropic radiation pattern is an theoretical thing. it do not exist any real antenna with isotropic radiation pattern.

Main body heating effect due to use of a cellphone is caused by electronic internal heat losses and display background light, radiated RF is just a minor part. Even a completely dead phone causes measurable increased temperature when hold against an ear as else naturally dissipated heat from ear is blocked. Phone acts as an heat-isolating barrier between ear and free air. Same principle as for knitted ear warmers. As an ear at room temperature normally is emitting more heat then a standard cellphone emits, is ear by it self the main heat source in head region causing increased head temperature when holding a phone against ear.

Our main external radiations source is the Sun. Can add 1kW/m² radiation to your body a clear day and a bit less during nighttime, emitted by sun indirect heated sources. Due to sun primary and secondary radiation sources will it keep earth average temperature at an reasonable temperature range even at night and in sun-shadow. At moon is that effect much less, temperature difference between direct sunlight and shadow can be 300 degrees C at moon. Earth have also an internal heat-source, but heat due to sunlight is just as important to make earth having a habitable temperature.

Many unhealthy effects due to use of cellphone are known. Impacts becomes serious when combined with known possible deadly activities such as driving a car. If using a cellphone for an hour had been nearly as dangerous as driving a car for an minute had cellphones probably been total forbidden. 2016 was 2.000.000 people injured and 40.000 died in traffic accidents in US. Some of them while holding a cellphone, a behavior which is known to act as a multiplicand for risk of being involved in accidents.

Increased risk for cancer due to using a cellphone as a harmful radiation source is not existing as only non-ionizing radiations is emitted from the phone.
Such radiation does not cause cancer even from much stronger non-ionizing radiating sources such as a kitchen stove witch emit power in range 1-2 kW or a microwave oven ~1000 Watt. A typical cellphone can emit up to 10 Watt when all internal functions are active and display is fully lit. Heating and burn effect are of course possible from these sources but that is not related to cancer. Even hardly burnt people, due to house fire and similar, do not later show increased risk for cancer. Risk of permanent heating and burn wounds due to use of cellphone is negligible compared to many much more powerful heating sources we have in our daily surrounding.
Dangerous indirect exceptions exist, as exploding cellphone battery can cause body wounds, faulty cellphone chargers can cause electrocution or put houses on fire.

The Sun is a much needed heat source but is also partly emitting ionized radiation from UV range and higher frequencies, with energy levels high enough to move an electron to another energy level (=1eV), which is a minimum cell affection needed to cause a cell modification, which in rare cases develops to cancer.
Such ionized radiation hits constantly every second your body and at increased levels when travel by fly or x-raying or by just being outside in the sun, especially when ozone layer is thin. Such exposure is known to increase risk of cancer.
Cellphone transmitter RF radiation is too weak to be able to emit photons of similar energy levels as sun-rays and is also limited by using too low frequencies.
Practical limits gives that minimum needed frequency to create a photon with energy level 1eV is 240 THz which is in near infrared wavelength range.
Cellphone radiation is not strong enough to change energy level of an electron, its radiation only cause the electron to vibrate a bit faster (=heat).
Such heat do not care what frequency or modulation its origin had as a traveling photon not carries that information when it hits an electron cloud.

Too much use of cellphone can cause or increase social related illness and stress, which is a source to bad eating/sleeping/living habits which can increase risk of other types of sickness, heart diseases and similar which will shorten your life.
Best cure is to leave cellphone at home and take a walk in the sunshine. Avoid US roads.

neazoi · Dec 14, 2017

E Kafeman said:
Near-field radiation pattern is not same as fare-field radiation pattern.
Isotropic radiation pattern is an theoretical thing. it do not exist any real antenna with isotropic radiation pattern.

Main body heating effect due to use of a cellphone is caused by electronic internal heat losses and display background light, radiated RF is just a minor part. Even a completely dead phone causes measurable increased temperature when hold against an ear as else naturally dissipated heat from ear is blocked. Phone acts as an heat-isolating barrier between ear and free air. Same principle as for knitted ear warmers. As an ear at room temperature normally is emitting more heat then a standard cellphone emits, is ear by it self the main heat source in head region causing increased head temperature when holding a phone against ear.

Our main external radiations source is the Sun. Can add 1kW/m² radiation to your body a clear day and a bit less during nighttime, emitted by sun indirect heated sources. Due to sun primary and secondary radiation sources will it keep earth average temperature at an reasonable temperature range even at night and in sun-shadow. At moon is that effect much less, temperature difference between direct sunlight and shadow can be 300 degrees C at moon. Earth have also an internal heat-source, but heat due to sunlight is just as important to make earth having a habitable temperature.

Many unhealthy effects due to use of cellphone are known. Impacts becomes serious when combined with known possible deadly activities such as driving a car. If using a cellphone for an hour had been nearly as dangerous as driving a car for an minute had cellphones probably been total forbidden. 2016 was 2.000.000 people injured and 40.000 died in traffic accidents in US. Some of them while holding a cellphone, a behavior which is known to act as a multiplicand for risk of being involved in accidents.

Increased risk for cancer due to using a cellphone as a harmful radiation source is not existing as only non-ionizing radiations is emitted from the phone.
Such radiation does not cause cancer even from much stronger non-ionizing radiating sources such as a kitchen stove witch emit power in range 1-2 kW or a microwave oven ~1000 Watt. A typical cellphone can emit up to 10 Watt when all internal functions are active and display is fully lit. Heating and burn effect are of course possible from these sources but that is not related to cancer. Even hardly burnt people, due to house fire and similar, do not later show increased risk for cancer. Risk of permanent heating and burn wounds due to use of cellphone is negligible compared to many much more powerful heating sources we have in our daily surrounding.
Dangerous indirect exceptions exist, as exploding cellphone battery can cause body wounds, faulty cellphone chargers can cause electrocution or put houses on fire.

The Sun is a much needed heat source but is also partly emitting ionized radiation from UV range and higher frequencies, with energy levels high enough to move an electron to another energy level (=1eV), which is a minimum cell affection needed to cause a cell modification, which in rare cases develops to cancer.
Such ionized radiation hits constantly every second your body and at increased levels when travel by fly or x-raying or by just being outside in the sun, especially when ozone layer is thin. Such exposure is known to increase risk of cancer.
Cellphone transmitter RF radiation is too weak to be able to emit photons of similar energy levels as sun-rays and is also limited by using too low frequencies.
Practical limits gives that minimum needed frequency to create a photon with energy level 1eV is 240 THz which is in near infrared wavelength range.
Cellphone radiation is not strong enough to change energy level of an electron, its radiation only cause the electron to vibrate a bit faster (=heat).
Such heat do not care what frequency or modulation its origin had as a traveling photon not carries that information when it hits an electron cloud.

Too much use of cellphone can cause or increase social related illness and stress, which is a source to bad eating/sleeping/living habits which can increase risk of other types of sickness, heart diseases and similar which will shorten your life.
Best cure is to leave cellphone at home and take a walk in the sunshine. Avoid US roads.

So many things here to reply to. I will stay on a few points. Most of the message relates to the thermal effects, but I consider more the non-thermal effects as I don't think that the thermal effects are that serious from a mobile phone if you do not talk for lots of time continuously per day (this is my belief of course). It is not ionizing radiation of course causing direct dna damage (they say human body can cope with SOME dna damage and repair it by itself) but the fact is that we do not know yet, because some researches say no worry and some others say to do so. Recently I read somewhere that quite a few politicians in US developed brain cancers and although they cannot relate it to the phone use direcly, these people did lots of phone use per day. So some authorities started to worry about it. I do not remember where I read about it it might be an online video, but it was in a council meeting.
I disagree about the microwave oven due to the shielding, but I agree about the inductive heaters. I also agree that the mobile is much dangerous when driving rather than it's actual radiation. Anyone that has used a phone in car knows that and it can be very dangerous.

E Kafeman · Dec 14, 2017

Most of the message relates to the thermal effects

That is what it is about. Nothing else.

but I consider more the non-thermal effects

Non thermal effect is an hoax and by definition no effect at all.
Any produced work have thermal loss if it not is a perpetual machine.

"Non thermal effect" was invented by a Swedish researcher which found that the lower radiated energy level, the bigger was brain damage.
A conclusion must be that a cellphone is as most harmful when it is turned of.

the fact is that we do not know yet, because some researches say no worry and some others say to do so.

Here is your "fact": Some researches says that after 20 years hard research without finding any significant statistical data, are now exceptional data finally found but it need a few years more of funding to be presented.
That is not likely to happen and they will regularly say same thing next 20 years, every time they need more founding.

National Research Council (NRC) spent more than three years reviewing more than 500 scientific studies that had been conducted over a 20-year period and found "no conclusive and consistent evidence" that electromagnetic fields harm humans.

I disagree about the microwave oven due to the shielding,

You is wrong. By microwave oven radiated energy is 100% absorbed as heat inside oven and partly outside due to minor leakage. That heat is then dissolving in surrounding mass until all mass have equal temperature.

Recently I read somewhere that quite a few politicians in US developed brain cancers and although they cannot relate it to the phone use direcly,

As significant proof that brain-cancer was related to use of cellphone as that they all was wearing dark colored ties.

Existing accepted white papers, including reports from alarm-researchers shows just because of its low significant findings that getting cancer due to use of cellphone is an infinite small risk compared to risk of being hurt in an car accident. For car-accidents is statistical data very reliable as it seldom is hard to judge if it really was the car accident that caused the actual wound and not due the use of dark ties.

Keep physics simple, be critical if a report tries to bend and modify thermodynamic laws to create BS. Non thermal, is just as much science as hysteria (a Greece invention). Hysteria was during late 1800 assumed to be due to that women had a weaker body and mind which was overwhelmed by modern technology, such as extreme fast moving vehicles. Traveling more then 30km/h was assumed to be above critical limit what their body could handle.
However did modern technology also create a cure with introduction of electric vibrators.

Every next future technology will be dangerous according to some researchers as it always have been.
During early 1900 was it said that a visible receiving broadcast radio antenna could be harmful if visible. In some countries was it a special tax for visible antennas.

I remember when color TV was new technology. It was then researchers that reported that color TV will make men infertile in opposite if they looked at older non color TV.
With introduction of GSM was it said that digital radiation was more dangerous then analog radiation. Later when these researchers did understand that it not existed "digital radiation", was the problem due to that the analog GSM radiation was pulsing in resonance with human body. Same problem when Tetra was introduced, it caused headache in great amount as it was resonant with brain waves.
DECT and WiFi have also been found to be special problematic.

A lot of people did became hypersensitive (all self-diagnosed EHS) against these radio-waves with a peak around 10 years ago. James Randi offered 1million dollar to anyone that could detect RF-radiation in a double blind-test. No one tried. Maybe due to that EHS people are wealthy and not need more money.
Many serious blind test was done to find out if anyone really was EHS sensitive. All tests was negative.

A try to summarize all current exiting research results was done by the Interphone report. Its conclusion:
Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.

Last sentence about "in need of further investigations" is a must in all research reports. Funding for next report are always needed as researchers else will be unemployed.

Proof that power from cellphone emitted radiation can be used to popping popcorn. With 11 millions views must it be truth.

neazoi · Dec 14, 2017

E Kafeman said:
That is what it is about. Nothing else.

Non thermal effect is an hoax and by definition no effect at all.
Any produced work have thermal loss if it not is a perpetual machine.

"Non thermal effect" was invented by a Swedish researcher which found that the lower radiated energy level, the bigger was brain damage.
A conclusion must be that a cellphone is as most harmful when it is turned of.

Here is your "fact": Some researches says that after 20 years hard research without finding any significant statistical data, are now exceptional data finally found but it need a few years more of funding to be presented.
That is not likely to happen and they will regularly say same thing next 20 years, every time they need more founding.

National Research Council (NRC) spent more than three years reviewing more than 500 scientific studies that had been conducted over a 20-year period and found "no conclusive and consistent evidence" that electromagnetic fields harm humans.

You is wrong. By microwave oven radiated energy is 100% absorbed as heat inside oven and partly outside due to minor leakage. That heat is then dissolving in surrounding mass until all mass have equal temperature.

As significant proof that brain-cancer was related to use of cellphone as that they all was wearing dark colored ties.

Existing accepted white papers, including reports from alarm-researchers shows just because of its low significant findings that getting cancer due to use of cellphone is an infinite small risk compared to risk of being hurt in an car accident. For car-accidents is statistical data very reliable as it seldom is hard to judge if it really was the car accident that caused the actual wound and not due the use of dark ties.

Keep physics simple, be critical if a report tries to bend and modify thermodynamic laws to create BS. Non thermal, is just as much science as hysteria (a Greece invention). Hysteria was during late 1800 assumed to be due to that women had a weaker body and mind which was overwhelmed by modern technology, such as extreme fast moving vehicles. Traveling more then 30km/h was assumed to be above critical limit what their body could handle.
However did modern technology also create a cure with introduction of electric vibrators.

Every next future technology will be dangerous according to some researchers as it always have been.
During early 1900 was it said that a visible receiving broadcast radio antenna could be harmful if visible. In some countries was it a special tax for visible antennas.

I remember when color TV was new technology. It was then researchers that reported that color TV will make men infertile in opposite if they looked at older non color TV.
With introduction of GSM was it said that digital radiation was more dangerous then analog radiation. Later when these researchers did understand that it not existed "digital radiation", was the problem due to that the analog GSM radiation was pulsing in resonance with human body. Same problem when Tetra was introduced, it caused headache in great amount as it was resonant with brain waves.
DECT and WiFi have also been found to be special problematic.

A lot of people did became hypersensitive (all self-diagnosed EHS) against these radio-waves with a peak around 10 years ago. James Randi offered 1million dollar to anyone that could detect RF-radiation in a double blind-test. No one tried. Maybe due to that EHS people are wealthy and not need more money.
Many serious blind test was done to find out if anyone really was EHS sensitive. All tests was negative.

A try to summarize all current exiting research results was done by the Interphone report. Its conclusion:
Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.

Last sentence about "in need of further investigations" is a must in all research reports. Funding for next report are always needed as researchers else will be unemployed.

Proof that power from cellphone emitted radiation can be used to popping popcorn. With 11 millions views must it be truth.

Many thanks for the information you presented, it has been very interesting!

However I am confused a bit about a part of it. You say
"Later when these researchers did understand that it not existed "digital radiation", was the problem due to that the analog GSM radiation was pulsing in resonance with human body. Same problem when Tetra was introduced, it caused headache in great amount as it was resonant with brain waves.
DECT and WiFi have also been found to be special problematic."

Now you refer to resonance, is it still thermal effect? So DECT and Wifi Does impose a risk compared to digital GSM? I would like to know more info about it.

I tend to believe these researches, who can disagree without own knowledge after all. However, some thoughts come in mind and I do not require you to answer, these are just thoughts.

Are all these researches independent? I mean who is funding them? The industry, which supports the technology? Someone with good amount of money has to fund them and most of these companies support the industry. If someone wants to gain money from a technology, wouldn't he hide the bad things about this technology if he was not caring about the common good?

During technology history we see scientists/engineers and business people that are so sure about their inventions (or they care only about money) that do not have "open minds" to search enough for the disadvantages or bad things that could happen with them. They just release a product without enough (especially long term) testing. A very good example that comes in mind is the asbestos fibers. They released a huge amount of products with them, poisoning the houses of everyone's and then, after extended research probably, they banned this material from production of house things. In Greece, they knew this from at least the early 90s, even before and they were still producing these things until the government took the decision to prohibit this material. I tell you what, after 30 years till now, many houses still have these components in vast amounts and in most cases people do not know. I am telling you this as an example, to show that engineers must have open minds and don't just say that a technology is safe until it is proven really safe after long term use. It does not necessarily apply to mobile phones, but I would not be comfortable to browse the web with a phone close to a pregnant woman's belly, no matter what the researches say and no matter if they have judged the car accidents as a higher risk. And I surely do not feel comfortable with the wifi at school, as there is something there that a few decades ago the human body have not used to. But this of course applies to the electrical wiring radiation, one would say...

Oh, this pop-corn video is totally ridiculous, but do you know how many people will really believe this?

Now we are taking this conversation too far maybe, these are just some thoughts

It all started with the antenna radiation comparison

KlausST · Dec 14, 2017

Hi,

Are the researches independent?
--> I doubt they are independent. Usually the result depends on who paid them...

Asbestos:
--> It is widly used since the early 20th century. I doubt that they had the measurement tools to detect the fiber size in nanometers range --- and they didn´t know about the dependency with cancer.
Cancer that may occur many many years later...

The problem is that about any invention has it´s drawbacks. Fire, antibiotic, cars, electricity, plastics, atomic plant, artificial fertilizer ...
And often the disadvantage becomes visible after decades of years.
Is there the possibility to test all inventions for decades (on what or whom?) before they are allowed to be sold. And if so, then there still will be any risk remaining.

But for sure one must treat new things with care. And if there is the chance of a disadvantage then one should test it...but with a neutral reliable test. Blind studies for example.
And the users themselfes need to treat new things with care. Any overdose may harm: electric fields, alcohol and even salt.

Klaus

E Kafeman · Dec 14, 2017

Now you refer to resonance

No. It was researchers that did found a non existing phenomena.

So DECT and Wifi Does impose a risk compared to digital GSM? I would like to know more info about it.

Use Google, search for the terms DECT radiation health. You have already got some links from me.

who is funding them?

Mainly tax payers. Not hard to Google for where a researcher works. If an university or any government organization is it probably in the end paid by tax.
Private industry have no gain to participate in something they know is crap and collaborate with researches whose main agenda is to create something alarming, to be able to get funding next year.
A researcher which from year to year never produce any upsetting reports is less interesting to fund.
Researchers working for cellphone industry are fully occupied creating next year phone-improvement, as that is from where money comes. They are not tax-funded.

no matter if they have judged the car accidents as a higher risk.

You must use some logic to evaluate the risks you take in your daily life.
Sun, coffee , milk, air meat fish are all from time to time dangerous according to the latest alarm-report.
There are many cellphone researchers that says in each report: this must be deeper investigated, long term effect are unknown.
20 years is not long enough do they say, further investigation must be done at least 40 years to really find out long therm effect.
And you agree???

Such researchers are misusing funding. These money could be spent on research on diseases that NOW takes million of lives or causes big suffer each year as even minimal improved treatment would make difference.
Where is funding is anything worth?
Your cellphone or WiFi problem is a luxory problem due to lack of knowledge, where it since many years exist real knowledge how this radiation affects human body.
Yellow fever is NOW killing 60.000 each year. 440,000 children dies every year due to rotavirus.
You is worried about a hypothetical risk that your phone emits radiation, already known by real scientist to not being able to create any real problem as nature of this radiation and its energy level is known to be a extremely marginal compared to other sources we have around us.

Are you able to estimate risks at an intelligent level?
Does it make you upset knowing useless research is done on a luxory problem, while millions dies due to lack of fundings.
Rotavirus is a typical case where it is known that increased funding would save lives next month.

Oh, this pop-corn video is totally ridiculous, but do you know how many people will really believe this?

Too many. None of them are suffering any real disease as else would they not be worried by a non existing problem.
If suffering from Ebola or Rotavirus is it a real problems that worries.

Welcome to EDAboard.com

Vintage mobile phone and thoughts regarding operator RF safety

Advanced Member level 6

Attachments

Advanced Member level 2

Advanced Member level 7

Super Moderator

Advanced Member level 6

Advanced Member level 6

Advanced Member level 6

Advanced Member level 6

Advanced Member level 2

Advanced Member level 6

Advanced Member level 2

Advanced Member level 6

Advanced Member level 7

Advanced Member level 2

Similar threads

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor