World Health Organisation:
> A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use
> the current safety limits are set to include a 50-fold safety margin from observed effects of radiofrequency energy exposure
> There is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other problems
National Cancer Institute:
> Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers
Atomic vs. Electromagnetic
The radiation from phones is non-ionizing and from my previous comment you'll see even the most cautious health agencies in the world aren't willing to claim it's harmful.
Suggest you look at the xkcd chart.
The illuminance in direct sunlight is two or three orders of magnitude greater than in an artificially lit room; sunlight also contains photons at UV wavelengths, which can carry up to two orders of magnitude more energy than visible photons.
Sunscreen is opaque at UV wavelengths but effectively transparent at visible wavelengths, partly for aesthetic reasons but mainly because the lower-energy visible photons cause negligible damage to skin. UV photons are sufficiently energetic to break apart bonds in DNA, but visible photons only carry enough energy to heat the skin.
Mobile phones are utterly feeble radiators, both in terms of photon energy and the quantity of photons. In terms of your exposure to electromagnetic radiation, they're a rounding error.
I'm not worried about non-ionizing radiation. I'm not even worried enough about actual ionizing radiation sometimes. I'm just interested in the details behind the typical phone antenna.
The photon has the same energy regardless of where it is measured, but the total intensity of the radiation (of all the photons reaching a unit of area normal to the source) decreases with the inverse square of the distance because the photons move generally (except insofar as they are acted upon by forces like the gravitational and electromagnetic) in straight lines at diverging angles.
The maximum allowed intensity in the ISM band is a known value, 1W; but the energy of the photon is what you should generally be concerned with.
Ionizing radiation isn't a "kind" like microwave or visible. "Ionizing" is a label you apply to all radiation for which any single particle has enough energy to kick out electrons from the atom it impacts. The only other "kind" of radiation is non-ionizing radiation.
Ok I cannot reply further. My point that cell phone radiation can harm living tissue isn’t untested
Look 1 watt doesn’t sound like a lot but touch a one watt resistor sometime. Depending on the size it can burn you. The whole brain only uses about 70 watts.
> 1 watt at close range at 2.4ghz is lethal given enough time.
Well, I'm curious as to how you determined this. It's plausible, so long as the target absorbs everything, radiates nothing, and is incapable of healing. Source?
I dont see how you could realistically call it cooking to warm the skin ever so slightly.
I never saw the discussion before but I thought to google it for myself
Was in first page of results
I am mentally ill but on this I’m not imagining “things”
And no this isn’t cool at all.
The tower in question is about 8 miles away. We have few towers where I live. It’s sprint which few of my contacts use.
You would need a lot more power, or an antenna pattern much more focused, and for it to be continuously emitting for a long time while very close to your skin to actually get hot enough to cause burns or denature proteins (which is about the only thing non-ionising radiation can do).
But phones don’t transmit all the time, but in bursts, and the antenna pattern spreads the radiation out.
Our company builds satellite antennas that focus 25-100W of RF power (in various bands from L band at 1-2GHz up to Ka at 29-31GHz) into about a 1 degree or so beam (big parabolic dish reflector), and at that point you need to take some precautions. I don’t have a single worry about phones.
> Radio-frequency radiation
> Biological effects
> Heating of body tissue, raised body temperature
Some other frequencies of non-ionizing radiation like UV, microwave and visible light have health implications, mainly for the eyes and skin.
On a personal level are you actually staying away from mobile phones given the risk that some commentators seem to imply?
However, per my arc lamp analogy above, I would certainly not like to find myself in an industrial microwave oven while it is on. Even if it's non-ionising, being cooked while alive is likely to be quite harmful to my health. But then again, if that microwave had the same power my mobile has - it'd be rather a rubbish microwave and I'd be perfectly fine.
It's the difference between staring at an LED light and a Class 3B or Class 4 laser.
That laser will burn right through your cornea but you could affix the LED directly to the surface of your eye without any measurable ill effect.
As an example, you could spend 14 hours a day in the sun to no ill effect, but only about two minutes with a magnifying glass focusing sun rays onto your forehead.
I think the truth is more complicated than "nah, it's fine..."
- also, bear in mind a class 1 mobile phone (3g) could be putting out 2 watts of power 
They put rats and mice through 9 hours of 10m on, 10m off high power radio exposure over their entire body. For the rats, the exposure started from when they were in the womb.
After all of that, only the male rats were found to have a higher incidence of heart tumours. The male rats also lived longer due apparently to fewer kidney problems.
In female rats and the mice of both sexes, evidence of any cancers were "described as "equivocal", meaning there were measurable increases in molecules sometimes linked to cancer but no actual evidence."
I'm not trying to start anything and I think more research is always good, but based on those linked articles the substantive conclusion still seems to be that it's fine? I don't understand how the conclusion from those articles is that there is "clear evidence" that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer. Can someone explain this to me?
So now that we know there is a relationship, the task is to dial down the RF radiation and see at what levels it’s not safe.
Also from the FDA quoted in the article,
"We reviewed the recently finalized research conducted by our colleagues at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences within the National Institutes of Health, on radiofrequency energy exposure. After reviewing the study, we disagree, however, with the conclusions of their final report regarding 'clear evidence' of carcinogenic activity in rodents exposed to radiofrequency energy."
> Radiation exposure in the trial was well above the levels most humans would experience
I don't think anybody ever denies that large intensity microwave signals are harmful. This fact looks evident and undeniable after examining some meat exposed to a microwave oven.
Right now everyone on HN is saying “RF is non-ionizing, it’s impossible to cause tumors!” when in fact it looks like RF does interact with biological systems in a non-ionizing method to produce tumors.
Doubled rates of very rare brain tumors? Do they not know statistics or are they being deliberately misleading? Because double a very small number is not significant. It is like worrying about getting shot by a dog with a handgun in his mouth at the beach. https://xkcd.com/1252/
NIH is a government body not at the behest of funding from sponsors.
E-M radiation is non-ionizing, but you can still get burned by it. One of the few major safety topics you'll learn in getting an HAM radio license is about RF burns. However, you have to use a fairly large amount of wattage (like more energy than a cell phone can even hold), and you have to stay located very close to the antenna. So it is _possible_ to receive a burn from a device emitting non-ionizing radiation, but you will not develop cancer from it. The wavelength is just too low to damage your DNA.
The things people are afraid of. Makes me sad.
Huawei P8 Lite 0.39, Huawei P8 - 1.72.
It doesn't seem to be a manufacturing requirement for some, as long as it is below a certain threshold. Pricing, release dates, amounts of SIM cards supported have little correlation at a glance.
Why does the weight of the phone have anything to do with radiation emitted?
By this measure, you could have an extremely heavy phone that emitted a high amount of radiation, but it would be on the end of the list?