# Mobile radiation causes no health risk: WHO expert



## Mr.Kickass (Dec 8, 2013)

The Times of India said:
			
		

> NEW DELHI: Mobile towers and mobile phone radiations have no health risks and do not cause cancer, a World Health Organisation (WHO) expert said.
> 
> "WHO studies have already proven that mobile phones do not affect human health. Cancer or brain tumour apart, it doesn't cause even headaches or sleep disorder," said radiation expert Michael Repacholi, the first co-ordinator of WHO's radiation and environmental health unit.
> 
> ...



(Source)

Some comments,



			
				geeta said:
			
		

> "Cancer or brain tumour apart, it doesn't cause even headaches or sleep disorder". Most cancer sources do not cause headache (or any ache symptoms) or sleep disorder. It is a long term effect and the tumors, once there start causing aches and other symptoms. Telecom companies must have funded this research. Remember when asbestos was safe and cigarette smoke didn't affect a non-smoker ?





			
				ron said:
			
		

> Hopefully, the Indian authorities will now permit mobile operators to transmit signals at full strength so that there are no call drops and related issues.



I don't know WHO did this, but it certainly doesn't seem right. Radiation IS harmful and cell tower radiation is no different. I do not want to investigate further but I think this report is misleading.


----------



## Hrishi (Dec 8, 2013)

biology 101 : exposure to radiation cause changes.


----------



## a_k_s_h_a_y (Dec 8, 2013)

good, some just got paid


----------



## Anorion (Dec 8, 2013)

Knew this for years
Mobile tower has non ionic radiation (not the harmful kind)
If you live in a brick house or sleep next to someone, you get exposed to more radiation than cell phone towers


----------



## bssunilreddy (Dec 8, 2013)

Anorion said:


> Knew this for years
> Mobile tower has non ionic radiation (not the harmful kind)
> If you live in a brick house or sleep next to someone, you get exposed to more radiation than cell phone towers



Then where have to we live, under a straw hut? These cell phone towers are the main cause of radiation.


----------



## kg11sgbg (Dec 8, 2013)

a_k_s_h_a_y said:


> good, *some just got paid*


+1 for this.
Any radiation for prolonged exposure is harmful for humans,animals,plants alike.


----------



## Anorion (Dec 8, 2013)

A banana is more harmful than a phone. A human radiates more towards the phone.
*i.imgur.com/HyrTgYo.png


----------



## Faun (Dec 8, 2013)

I eat banana erryday. OMG, going to die soon. Farewell TDF !


----------



## D@rekills4 (Dec 8, 2013)

Can't believe people are still stupid enough to think cell phone towers and cell phones give out enough radiation to damage them.


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Dec 8, 2013)

Rishi. said:


> biology 101 : exposure to radiation cause changes.



These cellphone waves don't fall under that spectrum 

Has low level infrared ever damaged you? Micro waves and cellphone waves are even higher wavelength. As long as the intensity isn't high enough to actually cause you to absorb the energy (looking at true black bodies here), there is no sub-visible spectrum light that can cause irreversible damage to you.



a_k_s_h_a_y said:


> good, some just got paid



To report the truth. I'm glad.



bavusani said:


> Then where have to we live, under a straw hut? These cell phone towers are the main cause of radiation.



Cellphone towers will not kill you...not even cause brain damage. 



kg11sgbg said:


> +1 for this.
> Any radiation for prolonged exposure is harmful for humans,animals,plants alike.



Not at cellphone tower level intensities, no.


----------



## rijinpk1 (Dec 8, 2013)

if the number of bars which indicates the range is too low, and an incoming or call outgoing call make the phone to emit 1000 times higher radiation than usual which can be /should be dangerous to brain/health for sure.


----------



## Anorion (Dec 8, 2013)

Another myth. Those bars indicate nothing.
Cell Phone Reception Bars Are Meaningless | Gadget Lab | Wired.com


----------



## rijinpk1 (Dec 8, 2013)

Anorion said:


> Another myth. Those bars indicate nothing.
> Cell Phone Reception Bars Are Meaningless | Gadget Lab | Wired.com



6 tips for minimizing cell phone radiation – The Chart - CNN.com Blogs

from one of the comments 


> another important point is that 90-95% of the time exposure from your phone is very low since cellular networks are spread out pretty good... BUT in the remaining 5-10% the exposure to radiation is high and could reach 500-1000 times the normal level.
> 
> for more information check out our website tawkon(dot)com



another one
*www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-126001/How-safe-mobile.html


> Try not to obstruct the antenna, as this will cause the phone to power up.


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Dec 8, 2013)

Anorion said:


> Another myth. Those bars indicate nothing.
> Cell Phone Reception Bars Are Meaningless | Gadget Lab | Wired.com



You mean they don't indicate signal strength? I know that the accuracy is not high, but I'm pretty sure a 1 bar reading would mean a less than stellar performance- something I've experienced at home myself.


----------



## bubusam13 (Dec 8, 2013)

I always knew that.


----------



## Anorion (Dec 8, 2013)

^my understanding is that the actual signal strength fluctuates too wildly and too fast to be a useful indicator. Like the signal could go from zero to five and back to one before the change can be shown on screen. Also, its a one way indicator from tower to phone, not from phone to tower, which again changes wildly. In short, its of no use, would be glad if someone can clear it up more properly with sources.


rijinpk1 said:


> 6 tips for minimizing cell phone radiation – The Chart - CNN.com Blogs





> There haven’t been enough long-term studies to make a clear conclusion if radiation from cell phones is safe, but there was enough data to persuade the WHO of a possible connection to make them upgrade the category in May 2011.
> 
> Cell phones use non-ionizing radiation, which doesn’t damage DNA the way ionizing radiation does. The cell phone radiation operates more like very low power microwaves, but nobody really likes to think of leaning their face on a low-powered microwave.
> 
> If the WHO’s labeling of cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” has you alarmed, here are some quick basic tips to limit your exposure.



 proves my point?


----------



## a_k_s_h_a_y (Dec 8, 2013)

am not worried about cellphone radiation! more concerned if there is a cellphone tower right on top of your house or the next! then you may have a problem.
however at night i avoid keeping cellphone too close.. for reasons such as..

don't want it ring loud right into my ears on call or alaram
heating issues if its charging all night! phone battery catching fire is a real danger!


----------



## rijinpk1 (Dec 8, 2013)

Anorion said:


> ^*my understanding is that the actual signal strength fluctuates too wildly and too fast to be a useful indicator*. Like the signal could go from zero to five and back to one before the change can be shown on screen. Also, its a one way indicator from tower to phone, not from phone to tower, which again changes wildly. In short, its of no use, would be glad if someone can clear it up more properly with sources.
> 
> proves my point?



that could be past when there was less number of towers or so OR I dont know 
this tells something


> On its Web site, the FDA states that "the available scientific evidence does not demonstrate any adverse health effects associated with the use of mobile phones." However, that doesn't mean that the potential for harm doesn't exist. Radiation can damage human tissue if it is exposed to high levels of RF radiation, according to the FCC. RF radiation has the ability to heat human tissue, much like the way microwave ovens heat food. Damage to tissue can be caused by exposure to RF radiation because the body is not equipped to dissipate excessive amounts of heat. The eyes are particularly vulnerable due to the lack of blood flow in that area.


Source HowStuffWorks "How Cell-phone Radiation Works"


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Dec 9, 2013)

Anorion said:


> ^my understanding is that the actual signal strength fluctuates too wildly and too fast to be a useful indicator. Like the signal could go from zero to five and back to one before the change can be shown on screen. Also, its a one way indicator from tower to phone, not from phone to tower, which again changes wildly. In short, its of no use, would be glad if someone can clear it up more properly with sources.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The ultraviolet range is bad (UV rays or higher), though.


----------



## kg11sgbg (Dec 9, 2013)

Extreme Gamer said:


> These cellphone waves don't fall under that spectrum
> 
> Has low level infrared ever damaged you? Micro waves and cellphone waves are even higher wavelength. As long as the intensity isn't high enough to actually cause you to absorb the energy (looking at true black bodies here), there is no sub-visible spectrum light that can cause irreversible damage to you.
> 
> ...


Cellphone/Mobile phone towers causes a great deal of damage to Plants and animals(particularly birds) according to scientific surveys and research.
Humans are not different and so not behind the damage scenario.

Source:
Cell Tower Radiation - emfblues.com

Radiation from cell phone towers linked to over 7,000 cancer deaths - National Healthy Living | Examiner.com

www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/GK-cell-tower-rad-report-DOT-Dec2010.pdf‎

Hope these are also reliable facts to the supporters of WHO news.


----------



## Hrishi (Dec 9, 2013)

How about the damage from high level of radiation emitted from non-standard devices like Chinese phones , ( Lemon , Lime ,Karbon..and whatnot....)  ??


----------



## Mr.Kickass (Dec 9, 2013)

Well, my bad. I never bothered to dig this. I had a relative who kept singing all the time to me, "Beta, don't use cell phone closely as they cause damage due to radiation. Try to use hands-free as much as possible. Put it away while sleeping" and I was like, "Really ?"

Until now.

The comments here piqued my curiosity a bit. So I dug some info. I initially refrained from putting my opinion but its not about opinion. Its facts. Then, conclusion based on the same. I think I was in a bit of a hurry to post this and now I've come up with some insights. I initially thought that radiation was harmful and that cell towers are no different but I guess a lot of conditioning over the years had me believe that , naively assuming that understanding of cancer(and medicine) is beyond my grasp

So here is what I gathered under 2 minutes of Googling, and I see how (fortunately) cell towers or even our cellphones are not that harmful btw  The waves involved here are RF and here I thought it was modulated and imposed upon other stronger but harmful waves to speed up the data transfer

Bad science on my part, given that I had taken a course in Signals and what not 

So here are a reasons why radiations are _*NOT*_ harmful

_First, the energy level of radiofrequency (RF) waves is relatively low, especially when compared with the types of radiation that are known to increase cancer risk, such as gamma rays, x-rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light. The energy of RF waves given off by cell phone towers is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules, which is how these stronger forms of radiation may lead to cancer.

A second issue has to do with wavelength. RF waves have long wavelengths, which can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to affect individual cells in the body.

Third, even if RF waves were somehow able to affect cells in the body at higher doses, the level of RF waves present at ground level is very low – well below the recommended limits. Levels of energy from RF waves near cell phone towers are not significantly different from the background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations.

For these reasons, most scientists agree that cell phone antennas or towers are unlikely to cause cancer._

Source


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Dec 10, 2013)

Mr.Kickass said:


> Well, my bad. I never bothered to dig this. I had a relative who kept singing all the time to me, "Beta, don't use cell phone closely as they cause damage due to radiation. Try to use hands-free as much as possible. Put it away while sleeping" and I was like, "Really ?"
> 
> Until now.
> 
> ...



It really pisses me off when I hear people say "radiation" = bad. Idiots don't know science and then they spew horseshit. Daylight is radiation...GG you noobs.

Good thing you posted something with a source here to clear the matter. These facts were always obvious to me, but I couldn't bring myself to check sources when I knew the science behind my reasoning was strong.



kg11sgbg said:


> Cellphone/Mobile phone towers causes a great deal of damage to Plants and animals(particularly birds) according to scientific surveys and research.
> Humans are not different and so not behind the damage scenario.
> 
> Source:
> ...



Source 1: _EMF blues_ ...'nuff said.

Source 2: From the Examiner's source #2 - the conclusion:



			
				Timothy J. Moynihan said:
			
		

> The bottom line? *For now, no one knows if cellphones are capable of causing cancer.* Although long-term studies are ongoing, *to date there's no convincing evidence* that cellphone use increases the risk of cancer. If you're concerned about the possible link between cellphones and cancer, consider limiting your use of cellphones — or use a speaker or hands-free device that places the cellphone antenna, which is typically in the cellphone itself, away from your head.



I checked Natural News's sources:

www.getmefacts.info - 
www.hellcom.co.za - the site is a front for www.bizcommunity.com 
www.cell-out.org - the domain is for sale 
www.whyfry.org - Bad usage of the study. The emission standards were (or are) not followed properly in Brazil.
*cdn.bizcommunity.com - Link doesn't work 
*www.magdahavas.com - From the video his website links to, they say they found limited evidence. They did not say "it does". There was no definitive "yes".

Source 3: The website says "object not found". 


You need to work on your academic reading. Your sources do not have any or much credibility, especially if they are unverifiable.


----------



## kg11sgbg (Dec 10, 2013)

Rishi. said:


> How about the damage from high level of radiation emitted from non-standard devices like Chinese phones , ( Lemon , Lime ,Karbon..and whatnot....)  ??


Always high damage, Rishi no sceptical about that.



Extreme Gamer said:


> It really pisses me off when I hear people say "radiation" = bad. Idiots don't know science and then they spew horseshit. Daylight is radiation...GG you noobs.
> 
> Good thing you posted something with a source here to clear the matter. These facts were always obvious to me, but I couldn't bring myself to check sources when I knew the science behind my reasoning was strong.
> 
> ...


My bad,as it is in the form of a pdf .


----------



## Extreme Gamer (Dec 10, 2013)

kg11sgbg said:


> Always high damage, Rishi no sceptical about that.
> 
> 
> My bad,as it is in the form of a pdf .



I hope my rebuttal convinces you that "cellphone radiation causing cancer" is bull****.


----------

