Important Message

You are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login.
The content may be outdated and links may not be functional.


To get the latest in Freelancer news, mods, modding and downloads, go to
The-Starport

Are mobiles dangerous?

This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.

Post Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:44 pm

Are mobiles dangerous?

In an effort to create interesting topics in the Off-Topic forum *looks sidelong at Chips*, I thought that I would post this article about mobile phones. Please see below.


Mobile phones not health risk, says kit
November 8, 2004 - 5:34PM

A new information kit on mobile phones and phone towers has rejected concerns the radiation they emit causes health problems.

The Australian Communications Authority (ACA) and Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) launched information guides and a website setting out the latest research on electromagnetic energy (EME).

"The weight of national and international scientific opinion is that there is no substantiated evidence that using a mobile phone causes harmful health effects," the kit says.

"Although there have been studies reporting biological effects at low levels, there has been no indication that such effects might constitute a human health hazard, even to long-term exposure."

ARPANSA had conducted regular tests of mobile phone base stations throughout the country and found emissions were usually many times lower than allowable limits.

Communications Minister Helen Coonan said the government used the most up-to-date information to set standards for mobile phones and towers.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

"In Australia, ARPANSA sets the standard for public and occupational limits of exposure to radiofrequency emissions," Senator Coonan said.

"The standard is set at a limit thousands of times below the level at which adverse health effects are known to occur."

The website, www.emr.aca.gov.au, and kit also set out how complaints can be made about the placement and operation of mobile phone towers.

ACA acting chairman Dr Bob Horton said as mobile networks expanded the ACA recognised there was community concern about phones and towers.

"The package ... provides a comprehensive reference to facts, details and processes which the community has in the past shown some anxiety over," he said.
Now my question to you is, how much faith can we place in this "kit"? After all, if mobile phones *are* dangerous, the costs to companies ie. the replacement of mobiles to "safe" models, lawsuits, and the replacement of mobile phone towers would run into the billions. Therefore, can we really trust the information that we receive on this issue? The government and the big companies would not tell the public that mobiles are dangerous if it would destroy the whole industry would they? After all, the cover-ups are not unknown. Remember asbestos? That was thought to be safe once. It was however, found to be deadly and its status as a lethal contaminant was allegedly kept secret by the manufacturers in order that they could continue selling it. What about cigarettes? They were still sold for years until they were "found" to be dangerous. How do we know that mobile phones will not be found to be similarly dangerous in the next ten years, and that the big companies were continuing to sell them despite this knowledge? It is a distinct possibility is it not? Thoughts?

Edited by - esquilax on 11/8/2004 7:45:26 PM

Post Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:54 pm

The most recent long-term (5 year) clinical study was reported upon by the British Medical Board, I think (sometime in late fall 2003). This was a double blind survey conducted by what most people agree were disinterested third parties. No clinical link has resulted between the use of cell phones, the weak electro magnetic frequency waves involved, including micro waves, and any discernible health deficits, such as brain cancer etc.

On the other hand, it also is fairly well acknowledged that ANY exposure to emfs may, at the cellular level, cause some amount of damage.

This is one in a very long series of clinical studies in this field. Naturally, however, those who are particularly concerned may want to use the earbud + mic accessory which in the US at least, is a standard part of the sales package.

Post Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:11 pm

You know, it must be tough to be a government or large corporation. Every time you say something could be dangerous you are accused of either scaremongering or sloppiness. Every time you say something isn't in fact dangerous, you're accused of covering something up. Ah, the travails of their existence.

Post Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:12 am

Its possible Esq. However the mobile phone craze took off no that long ago i just think it is not enough time to tell if mobile phones are damaging our health. There were all the reports over hear to use the ear piece when using your mobile but "studies" showed that the ear piece increased the amount of microwaves going directly to your brain. Not a lot of people use them anymore...

Post Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:04 am

4 years ago, my previous employer took on a new technical manager. Previously to that he was head of technical management at a large mobile phone company - which I will call BishBashBosh for legality's sake (email me if you want to know). He was "pushed out" of the company because he disagreed with certain health and safety policies, and settled with an extreeeeemmely large amount of cash.

So of course he told us what his issues were......

To put it simply, back in the hay day of the mobile phone market all of the large companies went around buying up as many frequencies as humanly possible to experiment as to which would be the most cost efficient frequency with the lowest signal to noise ratio (simplified - distortion). BishBashBosh found a certain frequency that was extremely cheap for them to buy and had a very clear signal. So they used it on a wide scale, producing all of their products to use this frequency band.

So much so, BishBashBosh made enormous corporate deals and sold a share of the frequency band to several other large mobile phone companies. The frequency soon became standard and its cost efficiency went a long way to reducing the price of handsets and therefore increasing the mobile phone market.

A couple of years later came the rumours and dodgy newspaper headlines - eg "mobile phones linked to cancer" etc etc. So BishBashBosh were forced to run health and safety risk assessments. What they found horrified my old boss.

They discovered that the frequency they were using, could boil water within 60 minutes.

I don't think I need to say much more than this - consider the amount of water inside your body and imagine how the heat may effect your organs, especially the one that is closest to your ear.

BishBashBosh covered their finds using legal loopholes, and "let go" of any member of staff that knew about the findings and disagreed with them not being made public. These men and women were discredited on a grand scale, reminiscent of ex tobacco company employees. Some of you may be sceptical about what I am telling you, as I was about my old manager at first, however this guy was very serious. He was a massively important man in london, demanding a high six figure sum early on his career....I believe him wholeheartedly....so much so, I never use a mobile phone anymore to make out going calls. Incoming calls I transfer to a landline asap. I text at arms length.

Seriously consider what I've told you.

Post Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:29 am

Ham radio Operators have known this for years. That is the main reason they favor the base units. Your putting a RF source next to your brain. Like a microwave, just real low power source. If you cold get the antena away from your head, it would be better, but, as they are making them built nside the unit, it gets worse. It's like smoking a quarter of a sig a day. You can still get cancer, just takes longer. except, the brain can be fried sooner. Those who say it's safe, are lieing. ANY RF can harm you, some just takes more time.

Post Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:53 am

The same issue has been in play for several decades on overhead power lines, people who live close to them and the crews that work on them.

There are some statistics that indicate that power line workers, especially, have a somewhat higher rate of developing a brain tumor than the main population.

Also, for most people living in developed economies, they really and truly are swimming in many different emfs and rfs every moment of every day and if you've recently installed a wireless network in your home, even more so than most.

Cell / mobile phones may indeed expose the user to what may turn out to be harmful rf irradiation but the question still remains whether such exposure alone, to the exclusion of any other source of exposure, is the root cause of anyone's illness.

Post Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:04 am


ANY RF can harm you

Then we are all doomed to death, as there are hundreds of radio signals travelling in radio waves around the world.........everywhere. The air is filled with them - thats how you can turn your radio on, move about and pick up a signal.........

Surely its to do with the handset itself, and not radio waves...

Post Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:11 am

The radio wave pattern, the further it gets from you, the weaker it is, the closer, the stronger. Strengthen them and condence them and you can cook your food. But, like any poison, the body can tolarate some and continue to work normal. It just was not designed to. Thats why they insulate microwaves as much as they do, the radiation would effect you, while cooking your food. The headset, antena is the transmistin oint. That it where the bulk of the problem is. Back when they had mobile phones, the antena was away from the person, making it safer, but costing more.

Edited by - Finalday on 11/9/2004 10:12:09 AM

Post Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:23 am

wouldn't it be ironic if in the search for the cure for cancer, they found out that the cause is actually our advancement in technology over the past 100 years. Humanity slowly killing itself off in the pursuit of knowledge. The only way to save the race is to ditch all communication devices as we know it.

There's a book in that somewhere

Post Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:27 am

Well, in a way the cause of cancer is our technological advancement. Medical technology allows people to live longer and survive diseases that would have killed us in the past. Also modern technology and society as a whole often will put people in positions where they are exposed to potential carcinogens that they otherwise would not need to worry about.

Post Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:42 am

Like Code said:

Cancer normally is a very slow killer although there are some horribly fast kinds of cancer as well. It only is becoming a frequent killer in modern societies because other, faster killer diseases have been eradicated.

Generally, even with all of the nasty things we are doing to our environments, both public and private spaces, our overall life expectancy continues to grow older and the general growth in size of each developed nation's senior generation tends to prove this out.

And, according to my sister who just bombarded me with her latest health warning : Let's not forget folks that using plastic containers in the microwave, including clear plastic wraps to cover the tops of bowls, etc., will release carcinogenic dioxins into the food you are cooking.

Likewise, if you freeze a plastic bottled beverage, the freezing of plastic again
will release carcinogenic dioxin into your beverage or frozen food.

Post Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:01 pm

But radio, micro, visible, IR, UV, Gamma rays are all the same. They are all photons of energy travelling in wave like patterns. Radio waves have alot less energy per photon than the others. So strictly speaking, they can all cook us....however, the energy possessed is so small that it would most likely be disappaited by your body instead of cooking you inside out.....however, I am definately no expert..........so I wouldn't take my word

I think this image is perfect for it though


The magnitude of the waves near a transmitter is alot higher than anywhere else you are likely to be though - so perhaps it could cause some problems, but I really dunno if it causes cancer, as we all know - cancer is basically deformation of the genetic codes inside a cell. Its when those cells manage to replicate faster than any others, and take over the space that cancers become a problem (afaik anyway, so if anyone knows more - speak up!).

Post Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:48 pm

@Chips,

That's what the problem has been. I don't think anyone questions that at the cellular level, some form of biological reaction (anti mobile phone people say damage) on the cell structure may be effected by bombarding it with an rf.

The question has been whether such reaction will develop into a medical issue. Mobile phones IF they are to be the problem that is feared, have been around for barely a decade. So there hasn't been all that much time to be able to see what the "ultimate" effect may be. AND, as you pointed out, with all the other rfs surrounding us, who is to say that one may adequately isolate rf irradiation as generated by a mobile phone actually is the proven cause of what is clinically detected over time?

Those who are prudent minded should use earbuds and mics. That should eliminate the "cranial" concern..... though there are those who also stress not carrying the transceiver exclusively in any one place on the anatomy.

Personally, I don't think I use the mobile long enough or frequently enough to really be concerned. Maybe once a day and usually for not more than a 10 minute conversation if that. And when not in use, I keep it shut down because I use it for my convenience in reaching others by phone, and not for them them reach me.

Edited by - Indy11 on 11/9/2004 12:48:52 PM

Post Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:03 pm

Are Mobiles dangerous? Only if one hits you during this event

Return to Off Topic