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.
Related Stories
Coffee sold in California must carry cancer warning, judge rules
Coffee sold in California must carry a cancer warning, a court has ruled. The judge in Los Angeles said Starbucks and about 90 other coffee sellers had failed to warn customers about a potentially toxic compound that is produced during the roasting process.
The firms were sued by a California-based non profit-group over the chemical acrylamide. The group argued that as acrylamide is regarded as carcinogenic under state law, it should be sold with a warning.
Ruling in favour of the Council for Education and Research on Toxics, Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said the companies should not be exempt from the law, as they had failed to prove that the "consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health". The companies have until 10 April to appeal the decision.
Also at The San Diego Union-Tribune.
Related: California Issues Warning Over Cellphones; Study Links Non-Ionizing Radiation to Miscarriage
This week, following three days of live-broadcast peer review sessions, experts concluded that a pair of federal studies show “clear evidence” that cell phone radiation caused heart cancer in male rats.
This substantially changes the debate on whether cell phone use is a cancer risk. Up until this point, the federal government and cell phone manufacturers operated on the assumption that cell phones cannot by their very nature cause cancer, because they emit non-ionizing radiation. Whereas ionizing radiation—the kind associated with x-rays, CT scans, and nuclear power plants, among others—definitely causes cancer at high enough doses, non-ionizing radiation was believed to not emit enough energy to break chemical bonds. That meant it couldn’t damage DNA, and therefore couldn’t lead to mutations that cause cancer.
But the pair of studies by the US National Toxicology Program found “clear evidence” that exposure to radiation caused heart tumors in male rats, and found “some evidence” that it caused tumors in the brains of male rats. (Both are positive results; the NTP uses the labels “clear evidence,” “some evidence,” “equivocal evidence” and “no evidence” when making conclusions.)
Tumors were found in the hearts of female rats, too, but they didn’t rise to the level of statistical significance and the results were labeled “equivocal;” in other words, the researchers couldn’t be sure the radiation is what caused the tumors.
The next scientific step will be to determine what this means for humans. The peer-reviewed papers will be passed on to the US Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for determining human risk and issuing any guidelines to the public, and the Federal Communications Commission, which develops safety standards for cell phones. The FDA was part of the group of federal agencies who commissioned the studies back in the early 2000s.
Study of Cellphone Risks Finds 'Some Evidence' of Link to Cancer, at Least in Male Rats
For decades, health experts have struggled to determine whether or not cellphones can cause cancer. On Thursday, a federal agency released the final results of what experts call the world's largest and most costly experiment to look into the question. The study originated in the Clinton administration, cost $30 million and involved some 3,000 rodents.
The experiment, by the National Toxicology Program, found positive but relatively modest evidence that radio waves from some types of cellphones could raise the risk that male rats develop brain cancer. "We believe that the link between radio-frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real," John Bucher, a senior scientist at the National Toxicology Program, said in a statement.
But he cautioned that the exposure levels and durations were far greater than what people typically encounter, and thus cannot "be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience." Moreover, the rat study examined the effects of a radio frequency associated with an early generation of cellphone technology, one that fell out of routine use years ago. Any concerns arising from the study thus would seem to apply mainly to early adopters who used those bygone devices, not to users of current models.
[...] The rats were exposed to radiation at a frequency of 900 megahertz — typical of the second generation of cellphones that prevailed in the 1990s, when the study was first conceived. Current cellphones represent a fourth generation, known as 4G, and 5G phones are expected to debut around 2020. They employ much higher frequencies, and these radio waves are far less successful at penetrating the bodies of humans and rats, scientists say.
Previously: Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions
First Clear Evidence Cell Phone Radiation Can Cause Cancer In Rats
Related: Dim-Bulb Politician Wants Warning on Cell Phones
California Issues Warning Over Cellphones; Study Links Non-Ionizing Radiation to Miscarriage
Mill Valley, California Blocks 5G Over Health Concerns
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 16 2017, @10:47PM (2 children)
someone mentions that high school experiments with wifi effects on sprouting plants
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 16 2017, @11:51PM (1 child)
I put my pot plant next to my wireless router, and now I get twice as high.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 17 2017, @12:00AM
| World Health Organization Clashes With DEA on CBD; CBD May be an Effective Treatment for Psychosis [soylentnews.org] »
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 16 2017, @10:47PM (11 children)
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]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 17 2017, @03:12AM (5 children)
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)
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)
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)
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
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]
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
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
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)
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)
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
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
Has this study been proven wrong? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mind-control-by-cell/ [scientificamerican.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 16 2017, @10:51PM (3 children)
The study measured low frequency magnetic fields: the monitoring device used could only measure up to 1000 Hz.
Mobile phones use frequencies that are 10,000 times higher. The physical effects of the two are as different as night and day. Using this study to claim that mobile phones are harmful is the pinnacle of incompetence.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 16 2017, @11:12PM
Apparently you don't live in California, as you would know that Kaiser Permanente is synonymous with incompetence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @12:30AM
I slipped a decimal place. Make that a million times higher.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday December 17 2017, @02:25AM
Who who was the fucking guy who decided that a shit-ton of gadgets and protocols use 2.4 Ghz, the same frequency used to cook shit in the microwave oven, anyway?!
Yeah, no shit constant exposure to Microwave radiation is a bad thing. Imagine the people who sleep with their phones on and right by their heads.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 16 2017, @11:01PM (5 children)
The mental health effects are probably more significant than the physical ones.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by frojack on Saturday December 16 2017, @11:07PM (4 children)
You mean too bloated to take selfies?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 17 2017, @02:24AM (3 children)
Wait, I thought the obesity capitals of the US were all in that pocket of incest, idiocy, and constant political masochism known collectively as the Southeast. Aren't Californians generally thinner than the US average?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @05:43AM (2 children)
didn't realize you were from the southeast - if you leave the obesity won't be so bad
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:45AM (1 child)
I'm from NYC actually, currently in Milwaukee, and last I checked have a BMI of under 23 and still going down. Sorry. Try again later maybe?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @03:50PM
How did they move NYC to Milwaukee?
Is it like a sort of cybertron module?
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Saturday December 16 2017, @11:28PM
Now, if only they would issue a warning against blue LEDs! (LightDims will save the world!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @12:15AM
But every sold cell phone has an indemnity clause.
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Sunday December 17 2017, @12:17AM
As every social media platform, newspaper, TV channel, and clickbait web site screams "CEL PHONES KILL BABIES!"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @01:35AM
The participants only wore the monitor for one day.
Also it seems that the participants had about twice as many miscarriages than average.
The study is closer to proving that it caused miscarriages itself than that magnetic fields do.
(Score: 1) by mobydisk on Monday December 18 2017, @03:04AM
This headline is wrong. In Soylent's defense, this is how everyone is reporting it.
California issued no warning. California was sued, and as a result of a local "Right to Know" ordinance they agreed to release information about how to keep your cell phone away from you. But they did not issue a "warning" of any kind. The professor who sued them claimed that "If you keep the device by your body you will exceed the safety limits provided by the FCC" even though the FCC has no such limit. In fact, the research continues to show that radiation at these ridiculously low levels has no biological effect at all. Heck, The EPA, OSHA, and the CDC all have articles about non-ionizing radiation. So this is really much ado about nothing, but it will probably feed the ambient paranoia about the topic.
Funny note: Some years ago we found a correlation between hip cancer and people who kept their cell phones on their belt. It turned out that it was caused by the constant bumping of the weight against your hip: the problem happened even if the people wore other non-electronic devices on their belt clips.
Another one: There was a study that correlated living near power lines to childhood leukemia in Europe. The meta-analysis knew that there would be a certain amount of random correlations - the study was just intended to find areas worth performing real studies on. But laws and guidelines spread throughout Europe, then overseas, because who was going to vote against a law that saves children from leukemia? It took a decade before the real studies came out showing there was no connection.