Thread: Experts say cellphones are possibly carcinogenic

seems to be a lot of conflicting info on this topic. some say yes there are dangers and to limit cell phone use in kids (due to size of skull/brain matter thickness, etc.) and adults have no worries.

I mainly use my BT headset these days even when at home, I'm addicted to it. holding a phone up to my ear seems so 90's now...lol

Yup

Did you know Blackberry actually states its users should hold the phone at least 1in away from you head when you talk in order to be in health compliance with the FDA radiation limit.

Originally Posted by lnvanry

Did you know Blackberry actually states its users should hold the phone at least 1in away from you head when you talk in order to be in health compliance with the FDA radiation limit.

I was under the impression that the type of radiation that is emitted by phones was an inert type that does not attack the body.

New doubts raised over mobile phone safety - Telegraph

But apparently they can trigger cell division...and this was from 2007.

Prof Rony Seger, a cancer researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and colleagues exposed rat and human cells to electromagnetic radiation at a similar frequency to that emitted by mobiles. The power of the signal was around 1/10th of that from a mobile.
After just five minutes the researchers identified the production of extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERK1/2) – natural chemicals that stimulate cell division and growth.
Cancers develop when the body is unable to prevent excessive growth and division of cells in the wrong place.
Prof Seger said: "The real significance of our findings is that cells are not inert to non-thermal mobile phone radiation.

Not good. I guess I finally have the upper hand in life for not being the popular guy on his phone.

Originally Posted by lnvanry

Did you know Blackberry actually states its users should hold the phone at least 1in away from you head when you talk in order to be in health compliance with the FDA radiation limit.

I do remember hearing about that. I also wonder what the diff is in RF levels when comparing internal/external antenna types? high and low gain antennas?

A very informative post I found on the topic:

I heard this on NPR and they did a better job of putting this new classification into context (and probably detoothing the newsworthiness). It's classified by the IARC as Group 2B, not even Group 2A. The serious list is Group 1 [wikipedia.org] which indicates they are carcinogenic to humans. Group 2B [wikipedia.org] simply means "possibly carcinogenic to humans."

I would like to point out that also in Group 2B are Magnetic fields (extremely low frequency), pickled vegetables, coffee, nickel and the occupation of carpentry and joinery. And you know what else? Citrus Red No. 2 which is used to color the oranges you buy in supermarkets.

So they've put it next to coffee, coinage and food coloring. Why doesn't everyone flip out when things like those are added to Group 2B?

Originally Posted by DOMS

A very informative post I found on the topic:

I had an allergic reaction to something in middle school the Dr. wasn't sure if it was from aspirin or red dye no. 2. for some reason I think Citrus Red 2. is nothing more than red dye no. 2 renamed.

Originally Posted by LAM

I had an allergic reaction to something in middle school the Dr. wasn't sure if it was from aspirin or red dye no. 2. for some reason I think Citrus Red 2. is nothing more than red dye no. 2 renamed.

They're actually very different. Citrus Red 2 isn't soluble in water while Red No. 2 is, and Red No. 2 has a molar mass about twice that of Citrus Red 2.