Skip to main content

Relax, your smartphone and smartwatch won't — and can't — give you cancer

We in the Mobile Nations family tend to be tech-obsessed. We get the newest smartphones with the biggest batteries and most powerful radios, we strap on the latest in fitness bands and smartwatches, and we spend our days interacting with laptops and tablets and all other manner of technology. And rarely at the front of our minds are the potential health impacts of these devices. Sure, there are things to be said for our psychological state of mind, and our chiropractors probably have something to say about our heads-down smartphone posture. But neurologists, oncologists, engineers, and scientists universally agree: the radios in our gadgets cannot, do not, and will not cause cancer.

That doesn't stop otherwise reputable outlets from publishing fear-mongering pieces, like this one yesterday from the New York Times titled "Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?" (and since retitled to the much less alarmist "Health Concerns in Wearable Tech"). It's not just embarrassing, it's also the latest in a string of pseudo-science quackery about technology and your health.

It's high time we cut down to the science about of radiation, biology, and technology.

Radiation, atoms, electrons, and you

Let's get this out of the way: it's perfectly reasonable to wonder about the health effects of something like a cellphone or smartwatch. After all, we are talking about devices with radios, and radios are designed to emit electromagnetic radiation. That's what the radio waves our devices use to communicate wirelessly are: radiation. Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, LTE… it's all radiation. Also radiation: X-rays, microwaves, sunlight, FM and AM radio. And also emitting radiation: Your TV, the electrical wires in your house, watches with tritium illumination, microwave ovens, the Earth itself.

Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, LTE… it's all radiation.

But not all radiation is created equal. There are many ways to break down types of radiation, but the one most important to this discussion is ionizing versus non-ionizing. Ionizing radiation packs enough energy that it is capable of stripping electrons out of the orbit of an atom, putting the number of negatively-charged electrons out of balance with positively-charged protons in the nucleus, making it a negatively-charged ion (ionizing it, thus the name). Non-ionizing radiation simply does not have that kind of power.

For an individual atom, losing an electron isn't a huge deal. It'll pick up another somewhere, or find another atom to share an electron with and form a molecule. But we humans posses very few lone atoms so unperturbed. Our bodies are composed of complex molecules constructed of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of atoms, including proteins, lipids, metabolites, and others. The atoms that make up these molecules are held together by chemical bonds — many were also ions at some point, and share electrons to balance out their positive and negative charges.

When electrons are stripped away from complex molecules, things stop working the way they're supposed to. Molecules fall apart, or they pick up new atoms to balance their charges and become a different molecule. In biology, the end result is usually that the cell stops working and dies. That's why when you see people afflicted with serious radiation poisoning that they're covered in sores and burns — it's mass cell death through disruption at the atomic level.

That complex molecule that makes us work

There's one incredibly important and incredibly complex molecule in our bodies that if affected by ionizing radiation can cause serious issues: deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. This complex molecule is the set of instructions for how our cells work. When a cell divides through the process of mitosis — this happens nearly two trillion times a day in the average human — the double-helix of DNA unwinds and splits down the middle to replicate itself, passing on that code. When an egg is fertilized by a sperm, the half-code that each cell provides is combined to create a new code.

A single DNA molecule is composed of 204 billion atoms. It's the most complex set of instructions that exists.

Things can and do go wrong with the DNA replication process. Most of the time when the process falters it produces something inert — a dead skin cell that joins the half billion others you shed off every day, or in the case of reproduction a dead zygote. On rare occasion something goes awry and a live but malfunctioning cell is the result. This is where both birth defects and cancers arise — a cell that technically works, but doesn't work how it's supposed to. Then again, things going "wrong" are also where we get the positive mutations that lead to long-term evolutionary changes in a species.

A single DNA molecule is composed of 204 billion atoms. It's the most complex set of instructions that exists, and that it's able to successfully replicate itself two trillion times over every day in a single human is really kind of incredible.

Ionizing radiation can strip electrons away from DNA. Most of the time this results in cell death — the DNA falls apart or the instructions it gives can't be executed, but sometimes, as with botched mitosis, you get a living but malfunctioning cell: a cancer. If that damage is done in just the right way, you get a cell that rapidly multiplies to become a tumor. Left unchecked, that tumor can spread throughout the body. It's not a great way to go.

Therein lies the concern about cell phones, computers, radio towers, and most other forms of human-generated radiation: could this be producing radiation that's going to damage our DNA, leading to birth defects, developmental issues in children, and cancers in adults? If you don't have a grasp of the electromagnetic spectrum, it's reasonable to be concerned that every time you use your smartphone that you're bumping electrons out of your DNA. But that's not happening. It's not possible by the laws of physics for that to be happening.

Ionizing versus non-ionizing radiation

The boundary between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation is fuzzy (different atoms ionize at different energies), but is generally in the extreme ultraviolet range of the electromagnetic spectrum. The spectrum is arranged in order of increasing frequency (and thus decreasing wavelength) and increasing energy. At the bottom you'll find the simply-named "radio frequencies", which includes everything from broadcast television to wireless networking to amateur radio. Radio encompasses the 3kHz to 300Ghz range. The upper reaches of radio includes microwaves, which include both Wi-Fi and the ubiquitous microwave oven. Past that you'll find terahertz radiation, infrared, and then visible light.

What we interpret as "light" is just another form of radiation, just a type for which we have specialized organs designed to collect (our eyes) and a brain with significant capacity designated to process. Visible light is just a narrow slice of the natural electromagnetic spectrum — 400 to 790 terahertz. The low end of reds is closest to infrared radiation, while the upper end of violets is closer to ultraviolet.

After the violet of visible light comes ultraviolet radiation (300 to 30,000 terahertz), then X-rays (30,000 to 30 million terahertz), and then gamma rays (greater than 30 million terahertz). The amount of energy carried by radiation increases linearly with the frequency. The most radioactive elements on the planet produce gamma rays — things that we generally consider to be radioactive like the naturally-occurring elements of uranium and potassium. We also use gamma rays in radiosurgery, focusing a few hundred low-power gamma ray beams on a target tumor. Each beam on its own is too weak to cause damage, but their combined energy at their intersection is enough to kill cells outright without the need for invasive surgery.

The electromagnetic spectrum

The electromagnetic spectrum. Source: NASA

Our cell phones operate across a variety of radio frequencies, ranging from 700MHz up to 2.7GHz. That's well on the low side of radio frequencies. The most-coveted bands are on the lower side, take the 2008 U.S. 700MHz spectrum auction that saw AT&T and Verizon spend a combined $16.3 billion on licenses to operate in the spectrum as evidence of how valuable they are.

The lower frequencies are prized because of their ability to better penetrate structures like walls and their wider propagation in comparison to higher frequencies. A carrier operating on the 1900MHz band will need 2-4 times as many towers to cover the same area as one on 850MHz, and will still see worse indoor performance. This is partly why LTE running on 700MHz has been more successful and spread much faster in the U.S. than Sprint's failed WiMAX initiative running on their 2.5GHz band ever did.

Where low frequency radiation has a longer and harder to disrupt wavelength and lower energies, high frequency radiation's shorter wavelengths are more easily disrupted but also carries significantly more energy.

The reason that 700MHz can better penetrate solid materials than, say 2.5GHz, is due to that wavelength. A lower frequency has a longer wavelength, and is thus more easily able to pass through solid materials without being hindered by the atoms of said solid materials (when we're working at this atomic level, even solid concrete is really just a jumble of atoms with a lot of empty space between them — it's the strength of the atomic bonds that makes solid stuff solid, not the density). Higher frequencies are more likely to be reflected or absorbed.

The ability of radiation to pass through materials decreases as the frequency increases to the point of infrared and visible light. After that, the ability to pass through stuff increases rapidly, but for a different reason. Where low frequency radiation has a longer and harder to disrupt wavelength and lower energies, high frequency radiation's shorter wavelengths may be more easily disrupted, but it also carries significantly more energy. That's why we can use gamma rays for eliminating brain tumors without opening the skull — instead of slipping through like low frequency radiation, they punch through.

When a radio wave is absorbed, the energy imparted is so low the best it can hope to do is generate heat. Same goes for infrared and visible light. Ultraviolet light starts getting strong enough to really impact things, but it's not until we're talking about X-rays and gamma rays that are we start looking at ionizing radiation capable of causing severe damage.

Your microwave oven at 2.45Ghz will rapidly warm your food by imparting concentrated radio waves that are absorbed by the water molecules in it, thus generating heat. A microwave oven is actually a good example of the ability of radio waves to pass through materials — the entire cooking chamber is wrapped in metal that reflects the microwave energy back inside, including the door. While you can see through the door, the perforated metal screen inside the glass has holes significantly smaller than the 12.2cm wavelength of the 2.4GHz radio waves inside. Light can pass through, but microwaves cannot. You can see the same effect when listening to the radio while driving on a metal trussing bridge: AM radio has wavelengths ranging up to 500 meters and can't easily pass through the openings in the metal framework. Homes with walls made of plaster over a metal lath can see the same problem with all manner of radio frequencies — it's called a Faraday cage, if you're interested on going down another tangent of electromagnetic physics.

Radiation and your gadgets

Your smartphone's cellular radio emits radio energy at 700MHz to 2.5GHz. Wi-Fi operates on 2.4GHz and 5GHz. Bluetooth runs on the 2.4GHz band as well. Even the highest frequencies at which our gadgets operate carry 1/1200th the energy of visible light, and 1/9600th the energy of the 2400 terahertz needed to reach barely ionizing radiation. X-rays impart 12 million times as much energy as your phone or your watch, and highly damaging gamma rays at least 120 million times more energy. Granted, you're far more likely to encounter radio waves in your daily life than gamma rays.

For the the better part of the 21st century we've grappled with the question of cellular phones and the potential to cause cancer. And for the better part of the 21st century, doctors and engineers alike have assured us that there is zero scientific evidence to back up such assertions. A handful of studies have said that we cannot conclusively rule out wireless devices as emanating harmful radiation, couching their waffling in terms like "possibly carcinogenic," while not one rigorous scientific study has produced a shred of positive evidence that these gadgets produce harmful radiation, let alone cause cancer.

Calling cell phones "possibly carcinogenic" is like saying that I cannot conclusively rule out salmon as man-eating because salmon swim in the ocean and so do man-eating great white shakes, and even though I've never seen a salmon eat a human, they should be labeled as "possibly man-eating" anyway. Sure, both salmon and sharks are things in the ocean with fins, tails, gills, and teeth, but they're on very different ends of the spectrum of fish-like things in the sea.

LTE, baby, that's radiation

The National Cancer Institute at the U.S. National Institutes of Health agrees that "there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radio frequency energy can cause cancer." The American Cancer Society says that "the RF waves given off by cell phones don't have enough energy to damage DNA directly or to heat body tissues". A 20-year study by The Journal of Epidemiology of cell phone-savvy Scandinavia found no connection or correlation between mobile phone usage and cancer. A 2011 study in Denmark by the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute compared users and non-users of mobile phones dating back to 1990 and found that "there were no increased risks of tumours of the central nervous system, providing little evidence for a causal association."

We live in an era where we've seen mice develop tumors from being force-fed too much peanut butter, but we've not been able to make radio energy cancers happen in any lab experiment or observe a statistically significant increase in the incidence of cancer in a public study.

Yes, your smartphone, smartwatch, wireless headphones, Wi-Fi router, smart TV, laptop, tablet, and every other wireless doodad in your house, car, workplace, and, well, everywhere, are producing electromagnetic radiation. But it's all operating in a frequency that's harmless. Literally, the worst your smartphone's radio can do to you, operating at full power, is to warm things up by a few degrees. But even then, the majority of the heat your phone's transferring onto the side of your face comes from heat generated by running the electronics and discharging the battery, not radio radiation.

Quackery of the highest order

We've been dealing with fears about cellular radiation for well over a decade now, propagated by science so poor we can't even call it shaky, weak anecdotal correlations, and a society that's become so obsessed with health that it's not even funny and almost funny at the same time. That's not to say that eating healthy, getting exercise, and breaking bad habits is a bad thing, but some of us have swung a bit too far on the pendulum to ultra-pure organic foods from heirloom seeds, carbon-positive living in homes made of recycled bottles, and hyper-intense workouts that leave you passed out on the gym floor.

Our age of health concerns is only compounded by the media, which too often is all too eager to pass along the next sensationalist story in hopes of drawing in more viewers or readers. There's no place in a 30-minute evening news broadcast for scientific analysis of the latest report that eggs do or don't cause cancer or heart disease or lupus, just as there's no time for explaining the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation as it pertains to electronics.

Fears about cellular radiation have been propagated by science so poor we can't even call it shaky for well over a decade now.

Instead we get the latest report pushed out without any context, without any explanation of what was actually studied. Of course there is the natural aim of any media outlet to increase the eyeballs on their products. We do what we can to get more readers reading the stuff we've written. It's how we stay in business, and it's how we're able to generate more content like this.

These 60-second news reports never encourage any follow-up, and we're inclined to take the media (or at least our chosen segment of it) at its word on these matters. And if we're not so inclined there's an endless supply of online forums, blogs, and email chains to prey on our suspicions, insecurities, and naivety of things we don't fully understand. And there's nothing wrong with not having a complete grasp of how electronics and electromagnetic radiation work — I don't fully understand most of botany, soccer, the fascination with the Twilight franchise.

But then we're faced with insanity like real doctor turned famous pseduo-doctor Dr. Oz saying that carrying a phone in your bra can cause breast cancer, based solely on anecdotal evidence. Or yesterday's Times article by Nick Bilton about wearable technology and the risk of cancer.

It's the echo chamber repeating onto itself over and over again. As Gizmodo's Leah Finnegan noted in response to the Times editorial, the Dr. Joseph Mercola that Bilton's piece hinges on runs a website with insane proclamations such as fungi and anti-perspirants causing cancer or that steroids, stress, and poor nutrition are the cause of AIDS, not HIV. Bilton, meanwhile, calls Mercola "a physician who focuses on alternative medicine and has written extensively about the potential harmful effects of cellphones on the human body."

Mercola is also anti-vaccine and, paradoxically for somebody who claims to be concerned about the radiation our smartphones produce, pro-tanning bed. Though it's worth noting that his website, Mercola.com, sells tanning beds, vitamins, and other pseudo-medicinal cure-alls with no scientific basis to the tune of around $7 million a year.

Is your smartwatch radioactive? Technically, yes.

The last peak of the "smartphones cause cancer" fear-mongering was a few years ago, though that hasn't stopped both the legitimate and illegitimate media from pushing report after report after report in hopes of capturing some sort of viral headline magic. Which is how we find ourselves with headlines today asking "Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?"

That headline's a small work of brilliance. "Wearable computers" is vague enough, but it's clearly meant to capitalize on the rising attention being paid to the Apple Watch. The Apple Watch isn't the first smartwatch by any stretch, it's bound to launch wearable tech into the mainstream, just like the iPad, iPhone, and iPod before it did for tablets, smartphones, and MP3 players. It also evokes thoughts of Google Glass — a radiation-spewing computer that you strap to your face.

"As harmful as cigarettes" is another genius choice — we've been told for decades by the media, government, and doctors that cigarettes are bad for your health; they cause cancer, chronic lung disease, make you smell bad, and all other manner of nastiness. It's been an effective public health campaign that's seen adult cigarette smoking rates in the U.S. drop from 42% in 1965 to 18% in 2013. That the smartwatch you've been eyeing might be as likely cause cancer as the vilified cigarette, that's some intense imagery. It's on par with comparing an opposition politician to Saddam Hussein (though not quite as bad as a Hitler comparison).

The last bit of brilliance is phrasing that headline as a question. Could smartwatches be as bad as cigarettes? It immediately drags back up the fears of those that questioned the safety of their cellphones years back and still have lingering doubts today. It's an excellent bit of fear-mongering and clickbaiting. As a fellow writer I tip my hat, impressed by the craft and by the gall to put something so purposefully and outrageously inflammatory out there. As somebody who cares about technology and science and education, I'm more than irritated to see such a headline (much less the rest of the article), and am only barely assuaged by the decision of some Times editor to change the headline to the less sickening "The Health Concerns in Wearable Tech".

It's an excellent bit of fear-mongering and clickbaiting. As a writer I tip my hat, impressed by the craft and the gall. As one who cares about technology, science, and education, I'm more than irritated.

That we're facing the same already-answered questions about smartwatches as we did with smartphones is both aggravating and a testament to the strength of our technologies and associated marketing. Open the Apple Watch page on Apple.com and you're presented with its beauty, precision, some of the cool things it can do, and the various models it comes in. Nowhere does it say that it connects to the iPhone with Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. Same with Google's Android Wear page; Microsoft's page on the Microsoft Band buries that it connects over Bluetooth under "See more features and specs".

What specific technologies a smartphone or wearable uses — the radios, the processor, the RAM — is becoming less and less relevant to the average consumer and the marketing of these devices. We live in a time where consumer technology has become so powerful and seamless that for most people it simply doesn't matter what's inside their phone or smartwatch, so long as it works. As it really should be.

But because it's not important to them, it means that they don't know. That's lead to situations like having cars that are so advanced and refined that 99.9% of the time they just work so long as you make sure it's maintained and fueled, but when something goes wrong you have no idea where to start to fix it. And it also means that we have smartphones loaded with buzzwords like octa-core and XLTE and QHD without any real idea what that means. And when we don't know what it means, that opens a void for charlatans, fear-mongers, and opportunists to step in and "educate" us on the supposed dangers of what we had been assuming was safe.

They work smartly to promote their agenda. Things like highlighting studies that hedge around the possibility of cancer, follow that with a mention that there are reports that stand in opposition and note that "some of this was partly funded by cellphone companies or trade groups", and then follow with a set of reports that don't fit that criteria but still refute the main claim of the article. That sort of ordering — saying that some of the opposing reports may be tainted by special interest and then offering up opposing reports that weren't sponsored in such a manner — is specifically designed to acknowledge the existence and awareness of statements to the contrary of what you're trying to promote while simultaneously undercutting it by association.

What's the bottom line here?

When you get down to it, there's little-to-zero scientific evidence that cell phones, smartwatches, face-mounted computers, laptops, tablets, or anything else generating electromagnetic radiation at less than 2400 terahertz — i.e. not ultraviolet, x-ray, or gamma rays — is going to give you cancer, cook your testicles or ovaries, or otherwise mess with your body.

If all of this still worries you, there are things you do to lessen your exposure to harmless cellular radiation. By virtue of how radios work, it is emanating radio waves in all directions, and far more of it passes through your head when on a call than what actually gets to the nearest tower. Use speakerphone, use a Bluetooth headset (that 30-foot range needs far less power than the possibly miles to the next tower), plug in a wired headset, or just use messaging and never talk on the phone. That'll reduce your brain's exposure to non-ionizing radiation by a bit, sure.

If you really want to get away from it all, there's the United States National Radio Quiet Zone, a 13,000 square-mile box (imagine two New Jerseys to get that approximate area) straddling the border between Virginia and West Virginia. It's used for scientific and military radio research and has very tight restrictions on the use of radio frequencies by civilians. Wi-Fi, cell towers, and all but one radio station aren't welcome in the NRQZ. If you want to escape the evil cancer-causing cell phone and smartwatch, this swath of the Virginias might be your best bet.

That's not to say that all this technology hasn't had an effect on our health: it's helping us to be more in tune with our bodies than ever before.

That's not to say that all this technology hasn't had an effect on our health: it's helping us to be more in tune with our bodies than ever before. Devices like the Jawbone UP24 track our movements and our sleep, waking us at the optimal time. Apple's ResearchKit is poised to spark a revolution in remote diagnosis and medical study. And practically every major smartwatch these days packs a heart rate monitor. We're able to collect more data than ever before, and that data can help us and our doctors make better decisions for our continued health.

For all the positive affects, there are negatives, though they are mostly psychological of societal. Go out to a restaurant or bar and you're bound to see at least one family sitting at the table, all pecking away at their phones instead of talking to each other. Being more connected than ever means it's harder for office workers to escape their work when they go home; they're more productive, but it's also harder to relax from the stress of work when it's following you wherever you go. And the arrival of social networks like Facebook and Twitter have made it possible to keep up with your friends — the important ones and just casual acquaintances alike — without actually having to interact with them. For as connected as we are today, many are at risk of becoming more disconnected than before.

This does not cause cancer

On the flip side, this tech does make it easier to get connected and stay connected with people from far-flung locales we never would have met before. I have this very job because of this confluence of technology, and I didn't meet any of my coworkers in person until I'd been at it for over two years, and I consider some of those I've met through the internet to be among my closest friends.

Cigarettes were a major part of Western society for half a century before the first studies linking smoking and lung cancer were published, and it took decades of effort to publicize the health dangers and start crafting and enforcing legislation for the greater good. Mobile technology, however, came into being in an era of regulation. There have long been publicly-set maximum allowable Specific Absorption Rate set by the FCC, set at 1.5W/kg (the Samsung Galaxy S5's SAR rating is 1.2W/kg, the iPhone 6 is 1.18W/kg). Mobile phones have been scrutinized from all angles pertaining to health since they first hit the scene, with no ill effects found.

We'll say it one more time: there's no rational evidence that smartphones, smartwatches, or any other consumer gadget you guy is producing radiation that will give you cancer or cause any other health malady. To suggest otherwise is just bad science.

Derek Kessler is Special Projects Manager for Mobile Nations. He's been writing about tech since 2009, has far more phones than is considered humane, still carries a torch for Palm (the old one), and got a Tesla because it was the biggest gadget he could find. You can follow him on Twitter at @derekakessler.

154 Comments
  • Believe half of what you hear and nothing that you see. Posted via Android Central App on 1+1
  • I can't see radio and microwave radiation!
  • Obviously. Posted via the Android Central App using Chickens
  • Not everything that you can feel in any way doesn't exist.
    If a blind man can't see, it doesn't mean there is no such a thing as light.
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_CgPsGY5Mw
  • Nice ad, but it's not related to what I wrote.
  • Don't believe everything you hear, alot of stuff isn't true.
    Like smartphones causing cancer Posted via Android Central App on 1+1
  • ok, but it's not related to what I wrote, only to the article itself.
  • Great article! I love how AC did the full explanation on this. Although some things being absent, that could be usefull, are what the atmosphere does to all EM rad. If you could see all the EMS with you eyes, almost every square inch of space inside of earth's atmosphere is bathed in EM rad. The ionosphere blocks much of the very harmful radiation from ever entering the livable atmosphere. The stuff that enters gets refracted, absorbed and reflected around all over and through our bodies. Even without our own propogation of the EMS we would still be getting blasted with everything that can get through the outer shells of the atmosphere.
    On a side note. You can intensify the power of the higher end of the EMS and it would mess you up pretty good. But you would need a very large power amplifier to achieve this, thousands of times larger than what we would ever propogate any of our Electro Magnetic waves at for our devices, be it radio in any band or the microwaves used for high speed transfer. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Nice repurposing of a pic from a previous article. Posted via Android Central App
  • Right, because that obviously is the most important thing.
  • Lol I was just teasing. Posted via Android Central App
  • Did you consult Jerry on this? He told me differently on a podcast....
  • If Jerry said otherwise he needs to brush up on his physics - there's simply no way for non-ionizing radiation to cause cancer.
  • It was a joke, relax. Jerry like to say "Trust no one - think for yourself"....
  • Ah, gotcha! I didn't think Jerry would be in the dark on this.
  • The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently conducting the biggest and longest multi year study around the world to come to a concrete conclusion on this issue. Their study isn't set to end until 2016, however their early reports have raised various concerns about the risk of cancer developing or other serious issues related directly to various types of "radiation" coming from mobile devices and other technology over the long term, with some issues even being found in the short term. Their early report is available to the public, as will their full report sometime at the end of this year or early next. Its by far one of the most trustworthy sources that gets their funding from nonpartisan donors, its definitely worth a read, and hopefully their full report will end the debate soon. Posted from my HTC One M8 via Android Central App
  • The WHO previous report said that all cellular devices should be held at 3-4 inches away from the head to be at a safe distance in use because of the microwave transmitters from the antenna's and power amp. Always nice to see newer studies and advancement in research, education, and science. The WHO is a pretty trustworthy source.
  • The thing is that microwaves won't harm the human body. Light is more volatile to the human body than microwaves are. The only reason people freak out when they hear about microwaves is that in most common cases, the devices that emit the microwaves are churning out absurd amounts of them in order to achieve significant results in a short amount of time. If you were to blast a potato with that amount of light in the middle of the visible spectrum, it would fry up approximately 100,000 times faster than the same dose of microwaves. Visible light is WAY more dangerous than microwaves. It's just how you use them. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Won't let me edit, but the whole New York Times article which this one blew away as pseudo science was also conducted by top scientists and doctors at the World Health Organization. Dismissing the article is ok, dismissing the W.H.O report instantly without reading the report and its evidence is alarming and shows a lot of ignorance, while being beyond insulting to those who've dedicated their lives to helping the world in a non bias manner. Posted from my HTC One M8 via Android Central App
  • The WHO report may be accurate, but if you think they're non biased and are just trying to help the world then i have a bridge I'd like to sell you Posted from my Droid Turbo, Kelly and Ozone
  • Source of them being bias? Tdizz
  • Facts are always the best. Here's the report: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/
  • Thanks Posted via the Android Central App
  • The term "electromagnetic radiation" itself is inflammatory. The word radiation carries such negative associations that people can't help but imagine horrible things. However, do you know what is also electromagnetic radiation? Visible light. In fact the frequency of visible light is measured in terahertz (Thz), far more energetic than the radio waves that we use to send communications between devices. The fear mongers are feeding off the ignorance of the masses as to the physics involved.
  • A pitcher also radiates a baseball at a batter. People hear radiation and they immediately think Hiroshima and Three Mile Island. Posted via the Android Central App
  • People are grossly uneducated about a lot of things.
  • +1 Posted via the Android Central App
  • Does it mean that all kinds of electromagnetic radiations that have lower energy of visible light don't do any harm?
  • The short answer is 'yes'. The long one containing some explanation is:
    Going further below visible light in the energy scale, the only radiation that causes a perceivable effect is infrared:
    It will heat just abour any material it incides on. But everyone knows this even before they learn how to walk or talk:
    That is exactly what you feel when you put your hands in front of a heat source, like a fire, or an electric heating plate. You can warm them or you can burn them. If burning your hands to blisters by deliberately ignoring the sensorial warnings is "harm", then, yes, that infrared radiation is definitely harmful, but not as harmful as the brain that took the decision to let them roast... (Below IR, microwaves do more or less the same, but they will heat only some molecules, like water and other substances with similar chemical bonds. The others are just ignore that radiation, like the ceramic that dish plates are made of.) Radiation is all around us. And that's good, otherwise the world would be absolutely cold and dark. And guess what? There would be no one around to notice just how dull it would be... Cheers
    Rui
  • Does microwave's type of radiation do only heat-type of harming living creatures (and meat) ?
    Also, you seem to know much about this topic. Can you please answer this one too :
    http://www.androidcentral.com/relax-your-smartphone-and-smartwatch-wont-...
  • Microwave radiation can only put molecules to rotate, and not all of them. They will heat because of this motion, and that's all microwaves do. It's even less dangerous than the infrared radiation you can *actually* feel by putting you hand near a hot glass. Infrared radiation puts chemical bonds to vibrate, very much like guitar strings.
    It's all in the article: to break chemical bonds you need much higher energy than microwaves, infrared, visible and most uv radiation can carry. The reason for the difficulty in understanding this for most people is that at the atomic level, energy cannot be transferred in arbitrary amounts: let me put it this way: Say that to break one chemical bond in a particular molecule requires 1 million times more energy than to put it to rotate.
    If one microwave ray (photon) excites one molecule by putting it to rotate, one million microwave photons will put one million molecules to rotate. They *cannot* "combine" their individual tiny energy packs into one giant punch 1 million more powerful than a single one, thus breaking that chemical bond in that single molecule. The laws of physics prohibit this. You cannot break molecules with microwaves. It just does not happen. That's the strange and wonderful world of quantum mechanics. Cheers
    Rui
  • Thank you for the professional explanation.
    So no matter how powerful the microwave seem to us, heating things much faster than an oven, it's still weaker in terms of what it does behind the scenes?
    Also, Does the sun emit various types of radiations that are below the visible spectrum ( I know that IR is one of them, but I wonder if others exist too) ?
  • Yes, that is exactly the point. There is no "behind the scenes" with IR or MW. It's all in your face (!).
    The Sun emits just about all radiation there is, some of it is actually particles (just to add to the mess). It just happens that it does not all reach us the same way. Most of it is filtered off or reflected out by the atmosphere. You can find more details about the relative distribution of all its types here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
    Cheers
    Rui PS: I would hardly call my explanations as "professional"; I do it for the sheer pleasure of sharing some knowledge. But thanks for the kindness!
  • About the sun, I meant what we actually receive from it. Most people don't leave Earth nowadays... :)
    Does the sun also emit microwave radiation? Does it pass through all the "defenses" ?
    So all of the below-visual-spectrum radiation that we get doesn't do anything except for heating on some cases ?
    If both IR and microwave cause heat to the meat of our body, I assume that radio waves can too, right?
  • No, they can't.
    Radio waves, meaning by that the radiation used in radio communications, are in the lowest end of the useful electromagnetic spectrum, lower than MW, much lower than IR, much, much lower than visible light, etc.
    Their frequency/energy is just too low to excite any state transition in a molecule on its path.
    If the energy carried by each photon of a particular radiation does not match the energy required to cause a state transition (like in MW: "hey, you molecule: increase your rotation speed from these rpm to these higher rpm, because I happen to pack just the right punch for you to do that."), then nothing happens. That radiation just goes its own way until it finds a matching partner to absorb it. Incidentally, there is still microwave radiation travelling around the cosmos from the BigBang...
    For your reference, it goes on like this, sorted by increasing frequency/energy: Radio waves: zero effect on organic molecules, some effect on electrical conductive materials. Harmless.
    Microwaves: excite rotation motion some organic molecules and other materials. Other than that, harmless.
    Infrared: excite vibration motion in most chemical bonds. Resulting effect: the materials heat.
    Visible light: excite electronic transitions in some molecules like rhodopsin and several photopsins in our eyes' retina, which triggers our vision. Some molecules, like some dyestuffs, can be broken after prolonged exposure. We all have seen that when clothes fade.
    Ultraviolet: can excite the electron transitions in many substances up the point that they leave the molecule breaking it apart.
    X rays: same as above but worse, therefore taking X-ray analysis must be done sensibly.
    Gamma rays: you guessed it: it's mayhem. Virtually no chemical bond is strong enough to resist it. Anyway, even if that RF heated you (which is *does not*), that would hardly be a problem, because you would
    To end this: someone else said in this forum that we are bombed all the time with RF. Partly true, yes, but those bombs are not even blanks to us because they do not explode; our molecules ignore them. These bombs will eventually "explode" when inciding on metals or some material with similar properties, and even they release only a very small amount of energy because that's all they carry. Cheers
    Rui
    PS: Sorry, I'll have to shutdown the PC for today. It's 11 PM here and after a tennis afternoon it's rock-a-bye-baby time. See you.
  • so to summarize: radio waves can't do anything, not even heating things, and we get microwave radiation all the time, from both the sun and the noise out there.
    I don't get then, how come there is so much confusion and also generalization of radiation of all forms into those that cause issues. And if it's so obvious that cell phone radiation cannot harm, how could it be that there were so many tests regarding this?
  • We don't get much microwave radiation, not the one that heats meat, anyway.
    The problem is like someone else put it: words.
    "Radiation" triggers negative responses from the uniformed people. Like it has been explained here exhaustively, radiation is characterized primarily by its frequency. In this respect, visible light is no different from microwaves. Only the frequency/energy per "ray" is different.
    Gamma radiation and X rays are dangerous, yes, because its frequency/energy is very high.
    Radio, TV, radar, are are harmless because their frequency is low.
    The tests, if you allow me, are useless. They are done only to reassure the public. It's the kind of experiment that any chemist of physicist already know the outcome even before starting... for the sheer reason that it was done a gazillion times before. The interaction of radiation with matter is very well characterized. We know how molecules respond, or don't, to radiation.
    Cheers
    Rui
  • Something went wrong with the comments you wrote. Some sentences were cut, and here you got the same comment as before.
    Thank you for all the effort. I appreciate this.
  • Yes, I saw that, too.
    I corrected it but you may have stumbled across the thread in its messed up form, before I finished correcting it.
    I think now it' s OK. It's a pleasure. I did my PhD on the effects of ionizing radiation on DNA and felt the obligation to bring some positive contribution on this.
    Cheers
    Rui
    Now: to sleep!
  • Say, I remember I had this conversation with you, and wanted to ask you what's your opinion on this:
    article:
    http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/
    study:
    http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/research/areas/cellphone/slides_bioem_wyde.pdf
  • I did read the whole of the study because there's quite a lot of data! However, from what I gathered (also from a lot of other studies I've seen), some results seem to be the outcome of the heat generated by the device. It can also be that some emmited radiofrequencies tail a bit into the microwave region, thereby being heating a little what living tissues are in the surroundings. But this is in no way any different from getting heat from any other source. If you accidentally fire up a lighter in your pocket, you immediately take it out. If you stand too close to a fire, and feel your cheeks heating by the infrared radiation (which happens to be of a much higher frequency than any radiation emmited by a phone device), you back off a little, and so on. In the end, it all boils down to the same: the frequency of the radio devices is way too low, in fact, incredibly lower by several orders of magnitude than what is needed to break any molecule apart. And if that were not enough, there's an even more informative experiment going on each day: the millions of people using and carrying phones in all possible ways. Is there any increase in the incidence of tumours or similar? I haven't seen any reports... Or are we willing to believe in some sort of conspiracy hiding "techno-cancers" away from the public opinion. I mean: we can manipulate people and their opinions, but there is absolutely nothing we can do to change the laws of nature...
    If there were any effect, however small but measurable, it would have already come out, because there is no way it could have been concealed from the public.
    Cheers
  • I don't understand what you imply. That heat is the reason for increase in cancer?
  • No, of course not. It there were any cause-effect relationship between heat and cancer, cooks and ironsmiths would have a higher cancer rate than the rest of the population. I don't think that the data from those studies allows any meaningful conclusion. You can cause cancer the chemical reaction of certain substances with DNA (example: pyrenes in smoke, through their metabolites formed in liver, mostly epoxy aromatics) or by creating highly reactive species (example: hydroxyl radicals from water) by inciding ionizing radiation (example: gamma rays) upon living tissues. Not by heating by 2 or 3 degrees Celsius. That's a ridiculously low amount of energy. If that were the case, you would get cancer when you have fever. Which you don't.
    Cheers
  • Good article until the writer started with the criticism of others... Why not just present the facts!? Posted via the Android Central App
  • Because in this day and age you can't just "put the facts out there" and hope that people draw the right conclusion. There are loud voices shouting from the other side.
  • Isn't it because there are no facts? as you wrote, there is no good evidence for getting a worse health state because of cellphones radiation ?
  • Correct.
  • If you don't tell stupid people that they're stupid, how will they know? I educate people all the time, and they just never seem to appreciate it....
  • Stupidity is not the same as ignorance. The first is an attitude; the latter can be a product of the circumstances. An ignorant person can be intelligent if he admits his ignorance and tries to correct it by making questions. Of course, by doing this he will not remain ignorant for long... hopefully!
    Of course, one can be both ignorant and stupid. In that case he will keep his status for many happy years.
  • Whew! I'm glad the Doctors at Android Central cleared this up! ;) Edit: Forgot the smiley face
  • They might not be doctors. But the research presented here was done by real doctors who actually know what they are doing. This is a very comprehensive and well written article on the subject that most people know next to nothing about.
  • Admit it, auto correct had to spell dna for you. Posted via the Android Central App
  • I may have just Googled it rather than try typing it and fail.
  • Deoxyribonucleic really isn't that hard a word to spell, it just tries to trick you into thinking it is lol. Wubba lubba dub dub!
  • It's Acide that is the hard part. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Why do you think I left it out! Wubba lubba dub dub!
  • It's apcide...the p is silent Posted from my Droid Turbo, Kelly and Ozone
  • "Quackery of the highest order" - Much like the pseudo-science used in anti-fracking protests or the flat out lies told by global warming communities who decided to change it climate change in hopes that no one would notice their failure to produce provable data. Just sayin'.
  • Uh, all the peer reviewed studies support Derek's article and the "lies told by global warming communities" Also, some Googling would reveal the term "climate change" was coined by Frank Luntz, a conservative poller who created this verbiage to make global warming sound less scary. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
  • Ease it on the Fox News. Posted via BlackBerry Classic
  • "Global warming" was never changed to "climate change." The two are entirely different phenomena. The former pertains to the gradual increase of the temperature of the earths atmosphere, while the latter is about the changes in climate (snow, rain, clouds, storms, etc.) that result from the former. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Try again: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
  • Perhaps you should try again? http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
  • Did you compare the dates? Because you should. Frank Luntz's memo is from 2003, the NASA article is from 2008.
  • If you'd read the NASA article, you would have seen this in reference to the 1979 Charney Report: "In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's (1975) usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change." "Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect." Luntz didn't coin anything. He merely suggested using one term that had been used for decades in favour of another term that had been used for decades.
  • More like science deniers like yourself and the other ignorant heads up their asses folk.
  • So you think you're covered with all there is to know with man's use of science to investigate the world and everything therein?? Can I have a hit off your bong??? via the beastly note 4
  • And funny enough, you call him ignorant... You're falsely arrogant and I'd choose ignorant over arrogant errrrrrday... via the beastly note 4
  • Yeah yeah yeah, and I'm sure you can tell us all about how the flat planet Earth we live on is only 6000 years old and at the centre of the universe. Edumacate yourself. Wubba lubba dub dub!
  • Lol the undeniable fact is that the fracking is polluting clear water basins tens and even hundreds miles in radius (ruining agriculture and live stock farms, people's health, etc) and for that only it should be regulated heavily and stopped eventually when alternative energy takes place. But what do science and history teach us but to stay ignorant and repeat our mistakes to the point where tragedy becomes farce we can all laugh at via AC App on VZW Moto X DE/N7
  • You got some pretty good bites with this one. Good job. Posted via my Z3 Compact because I have tiny little baby hands
  • Physics is physics. But of course most people don't understand the issues involved, so like many other science issues they usually just decide to believe someone they either already trust, or something that appeals to their self-image, regardless of the facts.
  • Another reason why the radiation from mobile technology won't harm you is because they don't use direct transmission from their antennas Posted via the Android Central App
  • And where did you get that radioactive watchface?
  • The Motorola Connect app lets you create a custom face using images on your device and their selection of hands, ticks, and colors.
  • I love articles like this. Thanks for the long write-up. The grammatical errors get a little tedious on this, my favorite Android/tech site by far, but I'm a little OCD so it's probably just me. Again, great article. Posted via the Android Central App
  • I second this - I want to share this article on social networks, but will not do so with numerous spelling errors as it lessens the credibility of the article. For instance "gadget you guy" in the last paragraph.
  • Yeah, but what about lasers? Posted from my Droid Turbo, Kelly and Ozone
  • They're... Cool. Hope that helped. Wubba lubba dub dub!
  • If you can see the laser, don't worry about it. Unless it's connected to a firearm..... Visible lasers are "mostly" harmless, except for the possibility of eye damage from overexposure, and the occasional higher wattage ones that can cause burns due to heating. IR and NIR ones are a little more dangerous, but again, it's due to the heat caused by higher wattage. Those are the ones used for laser cutting/welding.
  • There is thermo accumulative effect that cell phones have if held close and for prolonged time at the and location on the head. It simply raises the temperature of that specific area, just as your bowl gets hotter with every added second in the microwave. This was published around 10 years by a few eminent European Universities - Institutes for Electro - Technical Sciences. That fact was never disputed and some years later WHO (world health organization) recognized the need to address the concerns about possible negative effect. Now, since it's also proven that keeping it in the pocket for longer periods indeed reduces the sperm count, it's safe to say that people should be cautious of the ways they are using their cell phones. Even though there no specific data to show direct relation between the study and actual brain tumor development, The original recommendation still withstands - to switch sides and keep them a hair bit further from the ears or simply use the headphones or speaker. via AC App on VZW Moto X DE/N7
  • Yeah... I remember that...there was a video on YouTube where they pointed four cellphones at some popcorn kernels and they started popping ...this is some dangerous stuff... Posted from my Droid Turbo, Kelly and Ozone
  • Except not. http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp
  • I thought the sarcastic nature of my comment was pretty clear. I guess it wasn't. Posted from my Droid Turbo, Kelly and Ozone
  • Good to see someone challenge it. Would like to see your credentials, though. Effect is in place, cancer causing relation evidence is not - that simple. My friend was mastering physics at the time his university institute discovered it.
    Love the sarcasm of people when they are taking in their field of scientific study. via AC App on VZW Moto X DE/N7
  • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/ via AC App on VZW Moto X DE/N7
  • Does that mean if I keep it in my back pocket my shit will cook? Posted via the Android Central App
  • Sharply written article Derek.
  • Considering Google is looking into and spending money on the illegal radiation levels phones are emitting during use (which is not when the phones are tested to be approved), it is a very real threat. The iphone is the biggest offender but all phones are guilty of it.
  • No worries, your tin foil hat will protect you.
  • Actually the tin foil will focus and redirect the radiation, so his 29 brain cells are in legitimate danger. Posted from my Droid Turbo, Kelly and Ozone
  • You're right. Google is wasting money on it. Idiot.
  • You shouldn't call Google idiot. That's not nice. Posted from my Droid Turbo, Kelly and Ozone
  • It's called a PR move. Even if it's not a danger, if the majority of the ignorant masses believe it then Google will get positive press by trying to fix the "issue".
  • Google wastes money all the time. *cough*googleglass*cough*
  • Nice article. Though I believe the part about atoms vs ions is a little off. While ions certainly do bond into molecules by receiving donor electrons from other atoms ( electrovalent bonds), it's not correct that all molecules are made from ions. Atoms (with balanced electron and proton counts) can also share electrons in order to bond (covalrnt bonds) such as in molecular hydrogen (H²). Wubba lubba dub dub!
  • I don't see the part where it says all molecules are made from ions. I see where it says many molecules were once ions, but i don't see where it says all were. Maybe i need new glasses. Yabba Dabba Doo Doo Posted from my Droid Turbo, Kelly and Ozone
  • I think it originally said "they were all ions at one point". Either the article was updated to correct the error, or I misread it, both are possible. Meh, hopefully someone will find my expanded description of molecular bonds enlightening anyway. You said "doo doo"! Huhuhuh. Wubba lubba dub dub!
  • Yeah, it's possible they changed it. There needs to be some kind of lasers that let us know when stuff in the articles change. The way it is now is just doo doo Posted from my Droid Turbo, Kelly and Ozone
  • This article makes me feel radiant!
  • Excellent article!
    It has long been the use of fear to sway or even control the masses. Knowledge, however, makes it harder for those who wish to impose such control. It is easy to manipulate the truth and use it to create fear. As mentioned, just the word "radiation" instantly invokes such a fear. However, by dismantling the word, and providing a solid understanding, the fear is also dismantled. We instinctively fear what we don't understand, but when the time is taken to inform and educate, the one word that once instilled fear, now instead leaves one asking "radiation? Can you be more specific, please?" Now we want to know if it is the harmful kind or the every day harmless type. Posted via the Android Central App using my Samsung Galaxy S5
  • Thank you Derek, coming from a physical science background (chemical, biological, physics) I couldn't have said it any better. Posted via the Android Central App
  • I like the article it makes you think. I'm definitely still on the fence about this one. In my profession (cell phone sales rep) I've actually met a few people who have gotten cancer on their thighs where they commonly carry their phone. I know it could be just a coincidence, but there is no refutible evidence that discounts the phone. I think this topic is one that will be up for debate for a long time
  • You do understand what anecdotal means, right? There is no debate. There's no possible way that the frequencies involved could cause cancer. The studies just confirm the physics.
  • In science, definitions ofanecdotal evidence include: "information that is not based on facts or careful study" "reports or observations of usually unscientific observers" "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis" ...You understand what an opinion is right? Posted via the Android Central App
  • Lol no way possible. Sigh.
  • Removes Tin Foil Hat...........slowly Posted via the Android Central App
  • This whole article is bunk. I know this girl who knows a guy, who's friend's ex-girlfriend's BFF's dogs groomer has a son who has two friends that saw the video about three cell phones popping corn, and the subsequent video put out "by the Government" that "proved" it was stop motion photography. They duplicated the experiment in a group, as a joke, by duct taping three cell phones to one of their heads and called all three at the same time. The guys head exploded ... with laughter. Seriously, this is way more info than i would expect, but maybe should, from a mobile site. Very informative, and well written article. Hopefully this alleviates paranoia about cells and cancer(which is no joke). Thanks for the education.
  • Love our Mobile Nations. Such clear and unobstructed views. Also, I don't think There are any man-eating great white Shakes in the ocean. But if you go to Sonic and get a huge 32ozer, you'll probably end up with the fishes ;)
  • Yeah, well, that's the liberal New York Times for you....
  • Excellent article, Derek. Thanks for explaining the physics to me, as I am scientifically handicapped. Articles like this one are one of the many reasons I love AC and Mobile Nations. Posted via my Nexus 5 via the Android Central App
  • Great article, Derek. I feel better using my Moto X now. :)
  • Excellent article! Thank you Derek and AC! I get so tired of the alarmist B.S. that is so prevalent these days and just panders to the masses of ignorant people (lowest common denominator).
  • How many times am I allowed to plus one this?!? Posted via the Android Central App
  • So unless you live in the Virginia radio frequency safezone you're basically getting bombarded with RF anyways. Posted via Android Central App
  • Yes, but those "bombs" go through you just like you were transparent to them. Your body just ignores them. Don't worry, you won't even get scratched...
    Cheers
    Rui
  • Leaving the health topic aside, would it be beneficial to prefer a device with lower SAR value than one with higher SAR value?
    For example, does lower SAR value suggest (or give a clue about) that the device is more efficient in cell-reception ?
  • Hello.
    Personally I wouldn't care much about that parameter alone. It is just one of a million other factors that affect the device performance. It's way more informative to read a thorough review (or better, in a scientific mind frame, read several and compare them!) that describes the ultimate effect. There is just so much into it; what the device does with the radiation it collects, the internal losses, cirtuitry quality, electronic noise, etc, etc, etc...
    (ironically I'm writing in androidcentral and read a lot of reviews before buying a windows phone; I hope I don't get expelled from this forum!..)
    Cheers
    Rui
    PS: And yes, you did well by leaving the health factor out. It is not a variable in this discussion.
  • Suppose you have 2 nearly identical devices, but one has a higher SAR value, isn't it an indication of anything about it, of any type?
    For example, I was thinking that since metallic cover/panel/case (whatever that surrounds the device) could affect the reception (for the worse), it could make the device "try harder" to get a good signal, thus getting a higher SAR value and also probably using more power from the battery.
    If you take 2 identical devices. One with metallic case/cover/panel , and the other one with plastic one, would it make sense that there is a high chance of getting a higher SAR value for the one with the plastic ?
  • Sadly I'll take a shortened life to enjoy my phone... Posted via Serenity
  • The media has people believing that anything can give you cancer. Bottled water, cellphones, you name it. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Now AC, can you do a article on Cell Phones and Airplanes? Posted via my Nexus 6 from the Android Central App
  • The biggest problem with this article is it fails to recognize the undeniable fact that physics will lose out to FUD every single time.
  • Well, this article was very interesting and I've learned a lot. But I still have a doubt. Is SAR (Specifica Absorption Rate) related to this? I've heard years ago when the cell phones began to emerge, that some cell phones were "causing cancer" and other diseases because of radiation (well, this article cleared this of course) but, FCC began to regulate S.A.R in cell phones to make it safe. So, when they say "safe", what are they referring to? Thanks.
  • The danger comes from your smartphone acting as a handheld microwave oven. The SAR maximum set by the FCC is far below the power it would take for your smartphone's radio to actually start cooking you. Not to mention you'd suffer from terrible battery life in the process.
  • I also don't believe that you will get cancer from your Cell Phone. But I do think it does make some people Crazy, I'm basing that on some of the comments I read on this site:) Note 4
  • I have breast cancer. Posted via the Android Central App using Chickens
  • Very well written article, Derek. Thank you.
  • I work with RADAR. The power from EM radiation is loss so quickly, it couldn't harm you unless you were touching it. AC App via Nexus 5
  • It's sad that you even had to write this article. It makes me cringe at how stupid the US has become when it comes to science. Are they teaching science in schools anymore?
  • Most ridiculous article ever written. Derek I'm disappointed, and the article should be asterisked by *you are not a medical doctor. You never reveal your sources. You read biased one sided info but don't quote it. This whole article is bunk. You start this argument by saying your smart watch or phone is not giving you cancer, then end your article with a different argument, stating there is no rational evidence that your cell phone causes cancer. That's like saying the iPhone 6 is the best darn phone, beautiful aesthetically, then saying, "we'll say it again, the galaxy s6 is the best darn phone". How can the sun possibly cause radiation? Is so far away blah b lah. Awful article. The fact that AC posts it here just suggests it should be posted for Huffington Post. Bunch of garbage.
  • See all those blue words scattered throughout the article? Those are links. Links to his sources. The sources you claim he never reveals. Also, the only bias at play here is in favor of reality, since the other side of the argument is little more than fearmongering based in mindless, willful ignorance. They might as well be arguing that the Earth is hollow, or that it was created 6000 years ago. It's /that/ stupid.
  • The point was that Derek did not come up with these "ideas" and information himself. The links you describe above are to articles that have been published pertaining to ideas, not where he learned his information and certainly not clarifying his statements enough to back them up factually. He makes a definite statement, his argument, as if it is factual. Then he changed the headline pertaining to physics. For all you so called scientists in the comments section, you obviously realize what he says is a hypothesis, and must only be proved wrong once for all of this to be inaccurate.
    if he rewrote the article and said, here's my take on it, cellphones probably do not have the capacity to cause cancer, but they also might due to data that is still unknown and the research is still quite young, then stated factually his articles that gave evidence, he would have seemed more knowledgeable instead of looking like the typical Internet douche that makes statements as if he, himself has done the research, countless man hours, gone through the countless studies himself correlating cancerous and non cancerous growth and relation to cell phones, SAR rating usage of the phone, typical hours per day talking, etc. But he didn't. I'm not a fanboy and believe everything that I hear and read on the Internet and praise these editors for being so smart. Data is still way too early to tell. I could just as well compare sperm count to men today versus 1970 and say cell phones are so destructive they are bringing the capacity of biological reproduction at the cellular level down and destroying it. You know what's worse than cancer at the cellular level? Lysis.
  • To be fair there is not enough if any quality studies providing evidence to prove if cellular and connected technology devices do or do not increase the incidence of cancer from regular use and interaction. So I think it's silly either way to make specific statements such as your phone and smart watch will or will not increase the risk of cancer because no one really knows yet. Not to mention the fact that these technologies are rapidly advancing and changing the way these radio waves etc are transmitted and received so it's going to be pretty hard for the research to keep up with the technology. There is nothing wrong with people raising concerns and being cautious on this issue until we have solid evidence. Not so long ago cigarettes were prescribed/recomended by doctors to their patients and look how that turned out. I honestly don't think that radiation from phones and connected devices is actually that bad though, but time will tell.
  • This is why I don't trust the mainstream media... Posted via Android Central App
  • So what's your opinion on this?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2524598/Experiment-finds-...
  • Their findings are not published in any scientific journal so it means nothing. Until they subject this to the scientific method and get their findings published it means zero. They will probably have a difficult time conducting a study like this though. The laws of physics are laws. No one is going to fund a true scientific study which we already know the answers.
  • As a scientist this article makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. Thanks for writing the facts. Great piece.
  • The most common cause of radiation exposure to the masses is indoor radon coming from radon gases in the soil.
  • I'm confused and hopefully someone can help me understand. If longer wavelengths are better at passing through materials, then how does the ability to pass through stuff increases rapidly at higher frequencies? It says because they carry more energy.....but it still seems quite contradictory. This part is confusing me.
  • You have a narrow opening in a concrete wall. A Yugo fits through it easily — it's not fast, it's not powerful, but it slips right through. The wall's fine, the Yugo's fine, everybody's fine. This is your low power long wavelength. A Toyota Camry is bigger, and notably more powerful, but going as fast as the Yugo, it hits that opening and is stopped by the wall. The Camry's energy is dissipated into the wall, but it couldn't apply enough force to do any damage. Medium power, medium wavelength. And then an M1 Abrams tank rolls through. It's huge, it's powerful, it's going just as fast as the other two. The wall is obliterated by sheer force and the Abrams continues forward barely abated. High power, short wavelength. Granted, this is talking about kinetic energy and the power of momentum, but it's an apt visual illustration.
  • So at those high frequencies, the radiation can alter the matter that it's going through, is that a fair assumption?
  • Yes, you're correct. If I remember correctly, there are alpha, beta, and gamma particles in that order of strength.
    Alpha particles can be stopped by a sheet of paper, while beta particles can be stopped by something like a brick wall (or 2, don't remember the specific strength level), and gamma particles need several feet of solid lead to be stopped.
    Any living tissue that gamma particles come into contact with will be affected, as stated in the article.
  • I won't click through your 7 pages of article. The more work I have to put in to reading your posts, the less likely I am to read them. This is a terrible, terrible way of presenting your articles.
  • If you log in, as you had to do to leave this comment, then the article is presented as one continuous page. For an article as long as this one, breaking it into multiple pages is a great way to present it.
  • this post and website gave me cancer
  • What about the whackies that say they needed to move to a area that has no cell or electromagnetic signals because it made them sick? :D
  • Great article! Looking forward to more expository and comprehensive reads like this, and it's pretty sad that the average consumer can be manipulated by snake-oil, junk science narratives in the Information Age; c'mon people look it up!
  • Thank you for such a level-headed article. I've taken some medical classes and have a healthy interest in technology and it astounds me how uneducated and unmotivated a lot of people are when it comes to basic science "issues."
    People have the internet/web at their disposal for fact checking anything, but they haven't been taught how to use it and discern truth from those just looking to make a quick buck.
  • Firstly, thank you Derek for a well reasoned and explained article (though there are some typo's :).
    Secondly, here's the problem I have with the, possibly more generic, 'it's not bad for you' argument:
    Quoting Rui Dias1: "Radio waves: zero effect on organic molecules, some effect on electrical conductive materials."
    We, human beings, are electrical conductive material; We are affected by changes in the weather (positive/negative ions); An epileptic seizure is a disruption of the electrical communication between neurons and it has been shown that "acute exposure to EMW may facilitate epileptic seizures" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3659130/)
    My concern is that we have yet to discover the means by which to measure, accurately, the effects of low level radiation on the body, brain and, indeed, on the heart (sinoatrial node).
    I would like to know more and am open to expert opinion from all sources.
  • These phones won't give you cancer but reading through the comment section of a Galaxy S6 or iPhone 6 article will.
  • Great article. Appreciate the intelligent clearly researched scientific facts. However, before using such statements as this, and I quote ("Then again, things going "wrong" are also where we get the positive mutations that lead to long-term evolutionary changes in a species") I suggest that you do better scientific research on the "theory" of evolution. Evolution has also been debunked many times over. There is simply no way that such a complex biosphere, such as the earth, could ever come into existence without the design and direction of an intelligent creator - God. You even mention how complex DNA is, which is true. And yet you also, through your writing, promote the idea that all this complexity in life just happened by itself! Did the cell phone come into existence by itself, or rather did some intelligent mind bring it into existence. Think about it!
  • I read that an air tube radiation free headset can help, so I did a little research and got one.
    I have to say that it actually helps and is pretty cool.
    I speak on the phone a lot, so I do want to take any chances, besides the radiation the sound is awesome as well.