Mobile phones and cancer; yes really

[Benko]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/96195 ... ules..html

It is certainly not like using a cell phone causes immediate severe harm, but the jury is still out (in my mind) and long term cumulative exposure e.g.

"using a handset at work for up to six hours every day for 12 years."

might very well cause problems.  The fact that huge numbers of young people are spending MANY MANY cumulative hours on these things is concerning.  Also as I recently learned from an old girlfriend (are there any women on this board?), many women apparently keep their cellphone in their bras, which is a really bad idea (since breast tissue is particularly sensitive to radioactivity).

[craigr]

My research into the general issue of Radio Frequency (RF) exposure for various projects through the years has always lead me to conclude it's a good idea to limit the amount.

With cellphones I have always tried to limit my exposure by using a wired head phone, occasionally bluetooth, or hands free in the car where I place the phone away from me as best I can. Even then this is not complete as I still use it from my head for short periods. Not to mention carrying it in your pocket all day when it is pinging. BTW, I carry mine in my rear pocket if I have to, or in my laptop bag otherwise.

Even then, the wired headset can act as an antenna if you just happen to get the right length, bend, etc. So you could increase exposure to your ear ironically. Bluetooth is probably too low power to get in a big twist about (compared to the cellphone at least). Nothing is perfect.

I use a Pong Case for my phone. It is FCC tested to reduce RF exposure towards the user, at least that's the theory, but I figure anything helps:

http://www.pongresearch.com

Also, the inverse square law is your friend. Keep the phone away from your head and body as best you can when you are using it, especially for protracted periods.

[Benko]

I was going to add a few suggestions for decreasing exposure, but Craig already covered almost all.

The only thing I can think to add are if possible don't use cellphones in areas where the phone has to try harder=put out more radiation to connect.  This would include elevators and remote locations.

Oh and Craig if I'm rememberng correctly, you really are the voice of sanity on...many things.

[Pointedstick]

I tend to hold my phone up to my ear for less than 10 minutes a day, if that. Is such a low amount of exposure likely to be a problem? What about the 8+ hours it spends in my front pocket? What if it's camping on WiFi nearly all the time?

[craigr]

Oh and Craig if I'm rememberng correctly, you really are the voice of sanity on...many things.

First time I've ever been called sane! Thanks...

[craigr]

I tend to hold my phone up to my ear for less than 10 minutes a day, if that. Is such a low amount of exposure likely to be a problem?

Probably not, but one other weird thing I do is I actually try to swap my phone between sides when using it. I know, strange. But I feel like I'm better off baking my head evenly.

But really I try to just not use it near my head much. Short calls though I do use it near my head as a convenience factor. But any call that will be long I really try not to do that. I want the phone away from me.

Also what Benko said is true about phone power. If you only have a couple bars of strength, the phone will go much higher power to maintain signal. So keep that in mind. With solid full strength bars the phone is much lower power.

What about the 8+ hours it spends in my front pocket? What if it's camping on WiFi nearly all the time?

I wouldn't carry a cellphone in my front pocket as a guy. Just sayin'.

I carry mine in my back pocket, or in my backpack where it at least is somewhat away from my body.

Again it's all about inverse square law. 1/r^2

A phone that is right next to your head is full power. Let's call that exposure distance of 1:

1/1^2 = 1 = 100% power

Take that phone and move it a foot away (doubling the distance in this example for exposure distance of 2):

1/2^2 = 1/4 = 25% of the power

Now move that phone two feet away for exposure distance of 3:

1/2^3 = 1/6 = ~17% of the power

Now put it three feet away for exposure distance of 4:

1/2^4 = 1/16 = ~6.2% of the power

Etc.

You can see how quickly the exposure decreases with distance.

Same thing for things like ionizing radiation. Say a nuclear incident in your area, etc. The best thing you can do is not a lead suit, etc. It's to get the heck out of there and put distance between you and the source!

[MediumTex]

I also have a Pong case, which is a neat piece of technology.

The creative use of "Airplane" mode can also be a good tool for limiting radiation exposure.  Instead of turning off the ringer when you're busy, use Airplane mode.  It will make your battery last longer too.

Also, don't sleep with your phone on a table right next to your head.  Move it at least 2-3 feet (or farther) away if you can.

[Xan]

With many carriers, it's possible to get a miniature cell tower in your house.  It plugs into your Internet connection, and your phone calls go out over that.  It seems counter-intuitive that adding a receiver and transmitter in your house can lower your exposure, but I believe it does just that thanks to Craig's inverse square law.  If you can get the thing that's right near you to emit less power, then that's a win, even if you've added another transmitter somewhere else.

[MachineGhost]

I have both the pendant and the Nimbus:

http://www.q-linkproducts.com/Scripts/default.asp

When I plugged in the Nimbus, I felt it working instantly!

[gizmo_rat]

When I plugged in the Nimbus, I felt it working instantly!

[MediumTex]

I have both the pendant and the Nimbus:

http://www.q-linkproducts.com/Scripts/default.asp

When I plugged in the Nimbus, I felt it working instantly!

I wonder if the Nimbus also disrupts the energy field that causes my BS meter to redline?

"In an increasingly wireless & stressful modern day world, Nimbus helps create order out of chaos. Representing the latest generation of scientifically validated 'Active' Q-Link SRT products, Nimbus is designed to help clarify and support the users biofield by enhancing the environment in which the user works, lives and otherwise occupies.

Plug Nimbus in to any USB port or hub to effortlessly & instantly generate a 30' omnidirectional radius of SRT-3 you can use to reduce the negative effects of EMF on your body and mind - and enhance your well-being, performance and quality of life. An essential companion to every workstation and perfect for larger home, office, retail environments and other spaces where others can as well benefit. Nimbus is also an ideal compliment to anyone already utilizing a wearable Q-Link SRT product."

I'm certainly open to new ideas, but how in the world do you quantify the benefit of something like this?  And how do you distinguish it from the gazillion other products just like it that do nothing but thin your wallet?

"The Q-Link is a technology that amplifies and clarifies the body's energies. By reducing the noise in any energy field, this technology strengthens and purifies the body's own energies. This technology has been scientifically demonstrated to enhance the body's ability to protect itself from harmful environmental radiation, and thus it helps to remove harmful influences on the organism's health and well being. This technology therefore removes some of the blocks to inner transformation to higher and healthier states of being."

I want to believe, but I've been hurt so many times before.

[Benko]

MT you raise a REALLY good question which is applicable to this discussion and a lot of other areas e.g. alternative medicine that I believe in.  You motivated me to dig up the one thing that I know of relative to this discussion that I had not mentioned: a ferrite bead.  It was suggested to me by someone I consider reliable, and a quick google search turned up one you can snap on the I think it is headphone wire and it only costs $5.  I probably use my cellphone a few hours per year, but if I used it more frequently I'd probably splurge for the bead.  No harm done and it is cheap, so the possible risk/benefit ratio is good.