Mobile phones dangers when used inside cars
Discussion
Lowtimer said:
Do you even know how a Faraday cage works?
If so perhaps you could start by showing us your calculations as to how a car acts as a Faraday cage, with reference to the wavelengths in use, and the aperture size a Faraday cage requires in order to block those wavelengths.
Thanks for saving me the bother!If so perhaps you could start by showing us your calculations as to how a car acts as a Faraday cage, with reference to the wavelengths in use, and the aperture size a Faraday cage requires in order to block those wavelengths.
rikNorad said:
Inertiatic said:
Lightning is massively different to microwave radiation. It doesnt radiate, for a start.
How is a phone carcinogenic?
I used the lightning as an example just to make clear that a car actually IS a faraday cage, an imperfect cage that even if let the mobile phone signal go through, part of these radiations keep bouncing inside the car and end absorbed by the bodies of occupants.How is a phone carcinogenic?
Many people spend a lot of time inside their cars: the fact that we spend a lot of time with these devices very close to our body should not justify having them also in the car but instead keep them off the body always.
rikNorad said:
I used the lightning as an example just to make clear that a car actually IS a faraday cage, an imperfect cage that even if let the mobile phone signal go through, part of these radiations keep bouncing inside the car and end absorbed by the bodies of occupants.
Many people spend a lot of time inside their cars: the fact that we spend a lot of time with these devices very close to our body should not justify having them also in the car but instead keep them off the body always.
Lighting is conducted DC power. Mobile phones transmissions are electromagnetic waves, radiated, up in the ghz range. Completely different kettle of fish. Things that are conductors at DC are no way guaranteed to be conductive at high AC frequencies.Many people spend a lot of time inside their cars: the fact that we spend a lot of time with these devices very close to our body should not justify having them also in the car but instead keep them off the body always.
rikNorad said:
I made tests and i can confirm that the radiation iside the car, in the same spot, is more. That said, consider that beside the faraday cage effect, a mobile phone inside a car is always working at maximum power seeking for the best cell to connect.
Please read the Bioinitiative reports and then decide. Also consider that all the earlier studies that have been made on mobile phone radiation and consequent dangers, are related to a very different use of mobile phones: consider as an example, how much the use of mobile phones spread in the last 10 years and how much the price of calls dropped making mobile calls much longer than in past. That's why often international agencies can't give (and maybe will never give) clear answers: not enought long term experimentation.
I have read their report, it is very out of date (but with a few less out of date comments added several year ago. SAR testing with human phantoms is always performed at MAX RF power. Dropped calls is not an issue, the issue these days is the battery capacity so that people have hours of talk time. Long term experiments are being continued and have been since prior to the Bio report as recommended by WHO and ICNRP. In any case most EU limits are lower than the US values cited by Bio.Please read the Bioinitiative reports and then decide. Also consider that all the earlier studies that have been made on mobile phone radiation and consequent dangers, are related to a very different use of mobile phones: consider as an example, how much the use of mobile phones spread in the last 10 years and how much the price of calls dropped making mobile calls much longer than in past. That's why often international agencies can't give (and maybe will never give) clear answers: not enought long term experimentation.
Interested that you have reproduceable homogenous field in your car. What is your validation process?
The report is 2007 with some annexes added in 2012/2014.
In essence they state that an A scientific benchmark of 0.003 uW/cm2 or three nanowatts per centimeter squared for ‘lowest observed effect' level for RF radiation.
They then want a safety factor of 10 so that becomes 300 pW/cm2.
Small issue here is that the Earth itself radiates RF naturally (black body).
In the RF range, the black-body radiation follows the Rayleigh-Jeans law and the thermal noise from the earth (T about 300° K) is 0.003 W/m2 (0.3 µW/cm2) if we integrate through all currently used bandwidth.
So they have a 'lowest observed effect' level that is 1000 times lower than background RF noise
In any case the revised ICNIRP recommendation on RF exposure has just been through review and should be published soon.
In essence they state that an A scientific benchmark of 0.003 uW/cm2 or three nanowatts per centimeter squared for ‘lowest observed effect' level for RF radiation.
They then want a safety factor of 10 so that becomes 300 pW/cm2.
Small issue here is that the Earth itself radiates RF naturally (black body).
In the RF range, the black-body radiation follows the Rayleigh-Jeans law and the thermal noise from the earth (T about 300° K) is 0.003 W/m2 (0.3 µW/cm2) if we integrate through all currently used bandwidth.
So they have a 'lowest observed effect' level that is 1000 times lower than background RF noise
In any case the revised ICNIRP recommendation on RF exposure has just been through review and should be published soon.
Le TVR said:
In any case the revised ICNIRP recommendation on RF exposure has just been through review and should be published soon.
It's been a dozen years since I did any radiation testing, and I've not done that much, but the general feeling of those I talked to back then was that in an office environment, it would make sense to keep levels 10dB below the ICNIRP levels as their had been very little long term testing on humans in a controlled manner at the ICNIRP limits.What we do know is that mobile phones have been using much lower powers since the phase out of the initial analogue systems which started to be used extensively in Scandinavia in the early 80's. Had mobile phone use been a real issue we would have seen an increase in tumours in our viking friends as they've had over thirty years of exposure, much of it at higher levels than is now realizable even if a car really were a faraday cage. Given the lack of tumour increase, I think it's safe to say that the OP has been over exposed to Dizzy Rascal.
This is deja vu all over again! We went through all this hand-wringing with microwave ovens in the 1970s. I went to a conference at King's College London in about 1978 and the doom, gloom, and Armageddon that we'd all suffer was fantastic! In fact my company made a home microwave leakage detector for a while (The 'Canary') and Harrod's sold them as an exclusive outlet for a while. After a while and no blindness nor sterility and it all blew over...
rikNorad said:
the same can't be said about the EMR of the mobile phones powerful enought to warm up a skull
Lets say you could feel a 1°C difference. That would need 4W/kg for 30 minutes average.
Take an iPhone typically 0,4W/kg and the battery would be dead long before you felt anything.
[Bannatyne]
Ahhm oot
[/Bannatyne]
Edited by Le TVR on Monday 4th May 15:50
Edited by Le TVR on Monday 4th May 15:50
rikNorad said:
spikeyhead said:
It's been a dozen years since I did any radiation testing, and I've not done that much, but the general feeling of those I talked to back then was that in an office environment, it would make sense to keep levels 10dB below the ICNIRP levels as their had been very little long term testing on humans in a controlled manner at the ICNIRP limits.
What we do know is that mobile phones have been using much lower powers since the phase out of the initial analogue systems which started to be used extensively in Scandinavia in the early 80's. Had mobile phone use been a real issue we would have seen an increase in tumours in our viking friends as they've had over thirty years of exposure, much of it at higher levels than is now realizable even if a car really were a faraday cage. Given the lack of tumour increase, I think it's safe to say that the OP has been over exposed to Dizzy Rascal.
If you think that 30 years of exposure by few thousands persons that could afford a mobile phone and a 2/3 minute call once a day can return an observable statistical data i'd say that you have been over exposed to dizzy rascal.What we do know is that mobile phones have been using much lower powers since the phase out of the initial analogue systems which started to be used extensively in Scandinavia in the early 80's. Had mobile phone use been a real issue we would have seen an increase in tumours in our viking friends as they've had over thirty years of exposure, much of it at higher levels than is now realizable even if a car really were a faraday cage. Given the lack of tumour increase, I think it's safe to say that the OP has been over exposed to Dizzy Rascal.
BTW: there are quite a few videos on youtube about radiation meseurements on mobiles......measurements in V: far from being "low power". But hey......everybody is free to expose himself or his children to what ever.
Edited by rikNorad on Monday 4th May 15:05
I've had my mobile for twenty years, as have most of my mates, and we've been using them regularly and for long calls for a long time, as have so many others. Of course the rise in tumours would have been picked up by the NHS a few years ago if it were an issue, and that would have been reported on. As you're convinced it's an issue then show me where these reports are.
Alternatively, listen to more Dizzy Rascal.
rikNorad said:
I guess this might give you an answer....don't know if you will accept it, of course.
Easily explained here: http://www.saferphonezone.com/site/wp-content/uplo...
And to complete the info, have a look at Devra Davis related videos on youtube......and stop listening at Dizzy....it's affecting you!
So let me get this right, mobile phones are the only cause of brain cancer?Easily explained here: http://www.saferphonezone.com/site/wp-content/uplo...
And to complete the info, have a look at Devra Davis related videos on youtube......and stop listening at Dizzy....it's affecting you!
Looking at the mortality graphs, there's been no real change between present day and 1960...?
rikNorad said:
And yes, long term experiments are being continued but, sadly, already happened that some of these studies have been funded by mobile carriers.
so what your saying is mobile phone usage is the new smoking and your saying mobile carriers are acting in the same way as big tobacco.dude if anyone needs to see a doctor its you
this is what I love about the internet fruitloops are allowed to entertain us with out the inconvenience of having to visit institutions for the bat s
t crazy rikNorad said:
Only cause? Sure not, but answering to an earlier post YES, in Scandinavian countries, early mobile phones adopters, in fact there is an increase of brain tumors, coincidence?
Mortality didn't change? This is called better treatments and early detection.
Do you know what radiation actually is? And how you can isolate cancer clusters from population migrations rather than radiation.Mortality didn't change? This is called better treatments and early detection.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff