Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday December 16 2017, @10:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the known-by-the-state-of-California dept.

California recommends keeping cellphones/smartphones away from your body, as well as "reducing the use of cell phones to stream audio or video, or to download or upload large files":

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued a warning against the hazards of cellphone radiation this week. Yes, the thing we are all addicted to and can't seem to put down is leaking electromagnetic radiation and now California has some guidance to safeguard the public.

The CDPH asks people to decrease their use of these devices and suggests keeping your distance when possible. "Although the science is still evolving, there are concerns among some public health professionals and members of the public regarding long-term, high use exposure to the energy emitted by cell phones," said CDPH director Dr. Karen Smith.

The warning comes after findings were offered up this week from a 2009 department document, which was published after an order from the Sacramento Superior Court. A year ago, UC Berkeley professor Joel Moskowitz initiated a lawsuit to get the department to release the findings after he started looking into whether mobile phone use increased the risk of tumors. A draft of the document was released in March, but the final release is more extensive.

Separately, a new study has linked non-ionizing radiation to an increased risk of miscarriage:

A study of real-world exposure to non-ionizing radiation from magnetic fields in pregnant women found a significantly higher rate of miscarriage, providing new evidence regarding their potential health risks. The Kaiser Permanente study was published today in the journal Scientific Reports (Nature Publishing Group).

Non-ionizing radiation from magnetic fields is produced when electric devices are in use and electricity is flowing. It can be generated by a number of environmental sources, including electric appliances, power lines and transformers, wireless devices and wireless networks. Humans are exposed to magnetic fields via close proximity to these sources while they are in use.

Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study (open, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-16623-8) (DX)

Also at Environmental Working Group.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 16 2017, @10:47PM (11 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday December 16 2017, @10:47PM (#610803)

    The radiation isn't leaking, it's pouring - on purpose.

    I find the miscarriage correlation plausible, but causation highly improbable - i.e. California moms-to-be who spend a lot of time on their cellphones might have a lot of reasons why they have more miscarriages than moms-to-be who spend less time on their cellphones. However, even a 1W transmitter held in the hand 24x7 wouldn't seem likely to do much.

    EM field effects on health have been heavily studied since the 1960s - non-ionizing radiation is GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) until the heating effects kick in, even if the scientists doing the studies won't allow themselves to come to a conclusion that it is safe, yet.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 17 2017, @03:12AM (5 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 17 2017, @03:12AM (#610841) Journal

    Yep - I was looking for correlation /= causation.

    Despite the truth of your statements, an honest person has to think, and wonder. Just because no one has proven that non-ionizing radiation is harmful to people old enough to use the devices, doesn't indicate that such radiation is harmless to a developing feotus. The fact that there is a correlation should be enough to make women pause, and take notice. A woman who never wanted to be pregnant in the first place may not care. Another woman who really wants a baby might avoid that telephone, and other radiating devices. Call it superstition if you like, but people routinely make far greater sacrfices for their offspring. Avoiding the use of a cellphone isn't a real hardship, after all.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday December 17 2017, @04:17AM (4 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday December 17 2017, @04:17AM (#610852)

      Well, the cop that spent 10 years with a broadcasting radar gun in his lap and developed testicular cancer... gotta go with poetic justice on that one, but also believe that extreme long term exposure might do something (weird heating of susceptible structures, etc.)

      The developing fetus is both very fragile, and very well protected - the amount of non-ionizing radiation reaching into the womb from a cell phone is probably insignificant - or at least much less significant than the other things a mother does while talking on a cell phone, like stressing out.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:05AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:05AM (#610902)

        Lots of people hold to the fallacy that because the radiation is non-ionizing, it's not dangerous.
        The facts are:
        1) 42 degrees C might be enough to cause brain or testicular damage (there's a reason why human males have testicles that are dangling _outside_ ). Just a slight increase in temperature has an effect otherwise our bodies wouldn't bother with fevers and trying so hard to maintain 37C by sweating and other methods.
        2) a microwave oven uses non-ionizing radiation and certainly can cause changes in tissue just by heating alone, but there's also another thing - way it heats is not very even - there are hot spots and overall you get an average (like a chicken that has overcooked and frozen parts ;) ). So similarly a phone might heat your brain by not much on average, but if you're unlucky there might be tiny hot spots hot enough to cause damage.

        BUT yeah I'd go with you that there's so much other tissues between the fetus and the radiation source that it's hard to believe that the fetus would directly be affected by the radiation. In contrast having for hours a radar gun right next to your balls or a mobile phone next to your skull seems more a plausible risk.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @11:01PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @11:01PM (#611137)

          I see you won't let any technical knowledge stand in the way or you speculations.

          First of all, a microwave oven is a resonant chamber, which means there are standing waves, that could the hotter and colder spots in your food. With a single transmitter and no significant reflectors nearby, a cellphone will not do the same. Also, the overcooked and partially frozen food is caused by another effect; liquid water absorbs the microwave energy much more readily than frozen water, therefore the parts that have thawed will heat up much more, while the parts that are still frozen will only thaw slowly.

          A fetus isn't typically anywhere near the place where people generally hold their phones while talking on them, although women might hold it close to their womb if they are watching video and such. Phones are hardly used to make actual phone calls anymore.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @08:11AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @08:11AM (#611313)

            With a single transmitter and no significant reflectors nearby

            Not everyone uses their phone out in the open. Some use them in cars or trains or other stuff with significant reflectors.

            As for the fetus topic, the AC's post stated "it's hard to believe that the fetus would directly be affected by the radiation."

            Lastly you should check this out: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mind-control-by-cell/ [scientificamerican.com]

            A computer controlled the phone's transmissions in a double-blind experimental design, which meant that neither the test subject nor researchers knew whether the cell phone was transmitting or idle while EEG data were collected. The data showed that when the cell phone was transmitting, the power of a characteristic brain-wave pattern called alpha waves in the person's brain was boosted significantly. The increased alpha wave activity was greatest in brain tissue directly beneath to the cell phone, strengthening the case that the phone was responsible for the observed effect.

            Although the test subjects had been sleep-deprived the night before, they could not fall asleep for nearly one hour after the phone had been operating without their knowledge.

            Maybe it's another of those "irreproducible" junk studies, but maybe they did it right.

            BTW babies seem to need a lot of sleep, maybe fetuses too.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 19 2017, @03:02AM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @03:02AM (#611688)

          42C is really quite high, if you've got any movement of fluids at all they'll be dissipating the heat quite quickly - a 5C increase will need more than a cellphone can transfer through the RF transmitter (though you might blister your surface skin if you hold a hot phone there long enough....)

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:21AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:21AM (#610943)

    Quoting: Over the years, a few observational studies in human populations have suggested a possible link between MF exposure during pregnancy and an increased risk of miscarriage6,7,8,9,10,11 including two studies published in 2002 that increased the public awareness of such an association12,13. In addition, one study examined human embryonic tissues to assess the association between EMF exposure and embryonic growth, and observed an increased risk of impaired embryonic bud growth and apoptosis associated with exposure to higher MF level14, providing some direct evidence of adverse biological impact of EMF exposure on embryonic development.e public awareness of such an association12,13. In addition, one study examined human embryonic tissues to assess the association between EMF exposure and embryonic growth, and observed an increased risk of impaired embryonic bud growth and apoptosis associated with exposure to higher MF level14, providing some direct evidence of adverse biological impact of EMF exposure on embryonic development.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday December 17 2017, @03:35PM (3 children)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 17 2017, @03:35PM (#610992)

    I find the miscarriage correlation plausible, but causation highly improbable

    I am not disagreeing with your post which is more or less correct, but its interesting to point out that many generations of almost entirely (white) male EE and electronics techs have been exposed to thousands if not millions of times higher dose with no observed effects, so even if the number of exposed people increases by a mere factor of 100K its not going to appear in the general population.

    What does seem realistic is given the all white male composition of my electronics classes, and frankly, workplaces, IF there is any effect on the human species it would be on something "not white male" like pregnant women or women in general. Maybe megawatts of RF exposure at legacy analog TV transmitter sites make boobs shrink or ovaries oscillate in an inappropriate manner which would never have shown up in the population of all white male broadcast engineer population.

    It is very unlikely. There's no reason for RF to do much of anything interesting biochemically below heating levels. If it did anything interesting, it would be industrially useful to, I donno, hyrocrack crude oil by merely passing a watt or two of HF RF signal or whatever. Or recycle polymerized plastics by merely transmitting a short radar pulse at them. However, in the real world, you can't do anything interesting with RF either chemically or biochemically even at insane levels, so unless you're into creationism and vitalism and all that legacy stuff, if it has no effect in a test tube it has no effect on life in general.

    So I'd echo the plausible, but based on weird demographics, and echo the unlikely, based on RF having no impact chemically or biochemically on anything non-alive and vitalism being out of style scientifically for some centuries now.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:14PM (1 child)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:14PM (#611034)

      I think you misread my intent on correlation - no causation, just correlation.

      Posit a simple scenario: talking on cellphones both exposes you to RF energy AND increases stress levels (maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, just positing here).

      So, was it the RF energy, or the stress that caused the correlated increase in miscarriages.

      Then you can get into complex effects from the withdrawal of cellphone usage, in those who normally use them it actually increases stress even more to take it away, confounding any interventional study results...

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @02:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @02:50PM (#611407)

        FTFA "overall, pregnant women who had higher MF exposure during pregnancy (higher 3 quartiles) had a 48% greater risk of miscarriage than women who had lower MF exposure"

        and table 2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16623-8/tables/2 [nature.com]

        11/106 (10%) mums in lowest quartile of magnetic field dose had miscarriage vs 83/347 had miscarriage (24 %) mums in upper quartile of magnetic field dose.

        Hard to attribute that to confounding factors I would say. I think the "higher dose" mums would have to be alcoholic smokers to get that sort of statistic.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @08:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @08:14AM (#611314)

      There's no reason for RF to do much of anything interesting biochemically below heating levels.

      Has this study been proven wrong? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mind-control-by-cell/ [scientificamerican.com]