Radiation During Airplane Flight

[PB666]

You have very strong FAITH in science... that is irony

Science is extensible, I don't have faith in science but in progression of science and sometimes to make step forward you have to first make few steps back.

So putting your life on current science is naive for me.

Simplest way to explain it... look at speed v = d/t it is simple and everyone know this. It is correct for bikes, cars and even planes.

Does that means it solves every movement we can observe? Is it also correct for planets, stars and satellites in high orbit?

Well I am pretty sure, if at the time when this equation was first wrote there would be a Nobel prize then guy who wrote this equation would get it but since then people extended this equation a bit.

Same way I am thinking about every aspect of science... I don't have faith in current discoveries and equations, because in near future they will be extended or even replaced.

It is very naive to say FOR SURE what kind of radiation does and what doesn't harm life since we have no idea how to create life, we are missing something then.

When we learn it, when we gather all puzzles and answer all questions starting with "how..." and "why..." then saying it is stupid to doubt it, will be reasonable for me.

You didn't fixed it, you refused to think other way. I know how statistics works, that is why I doubt it so much... I don't doubt in equations but in human interpretations.

And your post just proves my point, most people using statistics are making mistakes.

If you can't distinguish cause of cancer you are accepting it as natural, that is mistake, because there is chance it is not natural and you are responsible for this one person getting cancer.

As for your castles, can you check on lab rat how cell phone is going to affect for him if he is using it for 40+ years?

You can't because 40 years ago there was no cell phones with touch screens, with batteries build like today and there was no satellites or poles sending waves to cell phones.

Companies can't check every new piece of their smartphones or tablets for few years in laboratory it would be obsolete if they would do that

so they are using statistics and us as test subjects.

That is my point, we are all test subjects of experiments for large corporations.

There is no way to check how cell phones or flying planes is affecting humans in laboratory, you have to sell it and use statistics to decide... are we investing to make this technology less harmful or it is acceptable or indistinguishable from natural causes.

Well if you want to know this information you have to get society to invest more into epidemiological sciences instead of into brain-dead politicians who defund these sciences in order to give the richest donors (those corporations) tax-breaks. I don't think cell phones cause brain cancer, not so much as car accidents, neck injuries, attention deficit issues, and the occasional tag attack on someones face-book page. Society gets exactly what they elect, the per-GDP spending on space science and medical sciences has gone down since Reagan took office, he was a very popular guy, but popularity does not help you stay on top of the foreign competitors (growing in Asia). The problem is not the corporations, the problem is the people are easily persuaded by heavily propogandized arguments to do that which is not in their self interest.

I want to add something here with an emphasis. Chemical risk in the environment greatly supercede any risk we have regarding radiation except risk to sun-bathers from UV exposure. We talk about the risk associated with 3-mile Island, or even Chernobyl, Fukushima. Every year dozens of people die as a direct consequence to chemical exposure in the work place, every decade 100s die from industrial accidents or explosions within the US. Just look at the number of deadly accidents in the refining industry, chemical handling of the US over the last 100 years (e.g Texas City - 500). Direct deaths from nuclear accidents (2) in 1961 from an isolated reactor in Idaho that were primarily caused by impactors, not radioactivity. Just look at the increased risk of cancer in communities around refineries and plastic synthesis in the SW Louisiana and E Texas (not called the cancer triangle for nothing).

For some odd reason people are scared about radiation that they can't see, smell, or hear, but have no problem living right next to a facility that is both immediately risky, smells, shows visible off-color plumes, frequently burn unknowns, dump pollutants on cloudy days to avoid detection, etc. What about the tons of lead we used to put in automobiles and spew out in schoolyards waiting to pick up children. What about the tons of mercury that are emitted from coal burning plants that are situated in some of the most densely populated areas of the world and tends to accumulate up the food chain.

In Japan there was fear about radiation, but this we obsess about but 25,000 people died from the lack of adequate protections, civil code and information as a consequence of the same event that cause the reactor mishap. Many more people in Japan have already gotten sick and died from Mercury poisoning because of corporate malfeasance. Not to mention the fact that oil, gas and many other kinds of leakages occurred after the tsunami that will eventually end back into the food chain. Oil and gas industry-world wide will kill more people in a year than Fukushima will kill even under the most catastrophic scenarios.

In Russia Chernobyl was a nightmare, but the exposure would have been far less if the government inacted iodine therapies for children exposed to the fall-out and imported milk from the east. Even worse incidences of exposure occurred simply because the RF governments did not stop people from burning chaff (which also included soil particles, that they promptly inhaled) instead of the more environmentally friendly process of composting. In essence the most at-risk people were affected by bad chemical hygiene that was exacerbated by radiation fall-out. And I should add, having known someone who worked in the Soviet chemical industries, they had, for the most, part ignored chemical safety for generations, people living around some of their 'production' sites were often sent to the hospital after a good wind blew or a creek overflowed its banks. There are places in Russia outside of Chernobyl that are abandoned simply because these places are now too dangerous to live. I would argue that nuclear industry is properly regulated, the chemicals industry is greatly under-regulated.

Any expenditure the government places on environmental risk really needs to be directed at the chemical environment not cell-phone emmisions. That is something that can be evaluated after the other risks have been factored in.

[Darnok]

Wouldn't it be enough to know that the limit on the cancer deaths they can cause without the link showing up in the studies that have been done, is lower than the number of people who would die for lack of the ability to call for help if mobile phones were banned? The ability for a bystander to call an ambulance immediately rather than after dashing to a phone box can make the difference, the ability for lost people to call for directions can make the difference, call for help performing first aid or let rescuers triangulate your position using the cell phone network.

You should exclude people that died in car crash or killed someone because they were using phone while driving.

Where is statistics now? Isn't most accidents happen in houses or in offices where is old cable phone?

Those are excuses because you want to choose lesser evil, but you think only for your self.

Think about this... what if cell phone would damage your cells in way your kids would pay for that, would that makes it still worth it?

I am not saying it does damage genes, but we can't say it doesn't, there is no way to check it and be 100% sure and most of you agree with this

Sad thing is kids that were using phones since they learned how to read are still kids and to get any reasonable statistics we have to wait until next generation (until they will have kids).

More experiments on humans :/

Edited February 25, 2015 by Darnok

[Kryten]

Darnok, biological effects require a mechanism. Through what mechanism could cell phone signals possibly effect biological systems?

[Darnok]

Darnok, biological effects require a mechanism. Through what mechanism could cell phone signals possibly effect biological systems?

Strong magnetic field and radiation isn't enough?

[Kryten]

Phones don't produce 'strong magnetic fields', and 'radiation' isn't in itself a mechanism. Radiation can cause biological effects through ionisation or photoismoresation, but neither are possible with the wavelengths involved in a mobile phone.

[Darnok]

Phones don't produce 'strong magnetic fields', and 'radiation' isn't in itself a mechanism. Radiation can cause biological effects through ionisation or photoismoresation, but neither are possible with the wavelengths involved in a mobile phone.

Right and that is why you have to turn off phone in plane and in hospital.

[Kryten]

Last time I checked, neither aircraft nor medical equipment were biological systems.

[Darnok]

Last time I checked, neither aircraft nor medical equipment were biological systems.

Last time I checked human brain was composed of neurons that transmit electrical signals and magnetic fields does affect electricity.

[Kryten]

There aren't any strong magnetic fields, and fields of any plausible strength would not effect neuronal signals. An action potential in a neuron is not the same as a signal in some copper wire. Restrictions in aircraft and hospitals are in place because both contain plenty of electronics that could be affected by radio signals; there's no plausible mechanism for a biological system to be affected by the radio part of the spectrum.

[Brotoro]

Have you noticed that your brain has stopped functioning well while you use a cell phone?

[magnemoe]

There aren't any strong magnetic fields, and fields of any plausible strength would not effect neuronal signals. An action potential in a neuron is not the same as a signal in some copper wire. Restrictions in aircraft and hospitals are in place because both contain plenty of electronics that could be affected by radio signals; there's no plausible mechanism for a biological system to be affected by the radio part of the spectrum.

This, MR scanners has an strong magnetic field. They and some other equipment used on hospitals are also very sensitive they are also used in critical settings.

Lots of strong magnetic fields used in industry, workers are also tested for health for for other reasons like safety and pollution and no ill effects has been found over 50+ years.

Now strong radio signals like broadcast antennas and radars are dangerous simply because they give out lots of energy, no different from an KW laser being dangerous while an flashlight is not.

[moronwrocket]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft

[Darnok]

There aren't any strong magnetic fields, and fields of any plausible strength would not effect neuronal signals. An action potential in a neuron is not the same as a signal in some copper wire. Restrictions in aircraft and hospitals are in place because both contain plenty of electronics that could be affected by radio signals; there's no plausible mechanism for a biological system to be affected by the radio part of the spectrum.

Of course magnetic field won't affect your brain in same way it affects copper wire, because neurons are not made with copper, but that doesn't mean it won't affect your brain at all.

[SuperFastJellyfish]

I am saying we shouldn't say we are absolutely sure that cell phones are 100% safe and they won't harm our bodies.

Ahh, I see. I was misreading what you were saying.

[Kryten]

Of course magnetic field won't affect your brain in same way it affects copper wire, because neurons are not made with copper, but that doesn't mean it won't affect your brain at all.

It's a completely different process; electrochemical, not electrical. And again, mobile phones do not produce strong magnetic fields. And when I say 'strong' I mean 'the same order of magnitude as a bloody fridge magnet'. If the kind of magnetic field you'd get off a phone had a significant biological effect, earphones would be lethal and NMR machines weapons of mass destruction.

[Sirrobert]

Of course magnetic field won't affect your brain in same way it affects copper wire, because neurons are not made with copper, but that doesn't mean it won't affect your brain at all.

This here is the SCIENCE forum.

If you want to convince people here, you do it with science.

There are plenty of people here that have already used science to explain why cell phones don't produce any kind of radiation that can cause harm, and why it's magnetic field doesn't effect the body.

All you have done so far is claimed they are not safe, without ANY sources backing you up. If you want to convince people here, provide some research claiming it. Until you do, your claims will be taken as seriously as all other conspiracy theories (as in: not)

[Excalibur]

Cool post Brotoro.

I think it would be interesting to take the same equipment on different aircraft to see which provide the best (or worst) shielding. I imagine there would be far too many variables on commercial flights to produce any useful results though.

I wonder what your graph would look like if you made a trans-polar (magnetic pole) flight at the same altitude? Would you see a large spike as you approached the pole?

Ever-so-slightly off-topic I was once a long haul flight from Melbourne to Abu Dhabi and gently snoozing away. Suddenly saw a flash of light in my right eye accompanied by a feeling as if I'd poked myself in the eye. First thought was I had done just that due to my sleepiness but I did wonder if I'd just been hit by an Oh-My-God particle.....

[Darnok]

This here is the SCIENCE forum.

If you want to convince people here, you do it with science.

There are plenty of people here that have already used science to explain why cell phones don't produce any kind of radiation that can cause harm, and why it's magnetic field doesn't effect the body.

All you have done so far is claimed they are not safe, without ANY sources backing you up. If you want to convince people here, provide some research claiming it. Until you do, your claims will be taken as seriously as all other conspiracy theories (as in: not)

I am doing science here just on different layer you and few other people in here.

If cell phones and flying on high altitudes is so safe why there are gathered informations and data for statistics about cancer or any other harmful effects?

Only reason to spend money and waste scientists time on that kind of scientific experiments is that nobody is 100% sure those things are 100% safe.

That is why they need to constantly gather data and monitor their lab rats... I mean consumers. You can find plenty of sources backing up this one

It is cheaper to produce and study things (something that is not lethal) after you release it on market and then make experiments and gather data about humans in real environment and environment itself, than simulate real environment in lab and try to find harmful effects.

Well and I doubt it you can simulate all effects in lab, for example simulate passengers using cell phones on a plane at 10km without taking your hands off the ground

As for things being harmful, I said about lead in fuel and toys, are you deny that lead is harmul? Or that lead was being used in fuel for common cars?

If you agree with things I said then please use science to explain to me how lead was added to fuel on global scale, while simple lab experiment should show how harmful it is?

Does freon is harmful?

Wiki says:

According to their material safety data sheets, CFCs and HCFCs are colourless, volatile, toxic liquids and gases with a faintly sweet ethereal odour. Overexposure at concentrations of 11% or more may cause dizziness, loss of concentration, central nervous system depression, and/or cardiac arrhythmia. Vapors displace air and can cause asphyxiation in confined spaces. Although non-flammable, their combustion products include hydrofluoric acid and related compounds.

Who? Why? How that poison was mass produced and used in almost EVERY house?

It is not only harmful for humans, but it also was able to destroy ozone layer and we still are harmed by lack of protection against UV.

Those things should be checked in lab? Why they weren't? Why anyone released it on market?

Yet another "conspiracy theory" not historical fact?

Edited February 25, 2015 by Darnok

[Kryten]

You're completely missing what people are saying to you. We know there's a mechanism for lead to be neurotoxic, we know there's a mechanism for CFC's to produce ozone-destroying free radicals; you haven't come up with any plaussible mechanism for mobile phones being harmful. Just making analogies is not an argument, and it certainly isn't scientific.

[Jouni]

I am doing science here just on different layer you and few other people in here.

You're not doing science, you're just expressing opinions and talking about things you heard somewhere. Science is repetitive and grindy work that some of us do, because we're masochists and addicted to the 1% of time when we're actually figuring out something new.

[Darnok]

You're completely missing what people are saying to you. We know there's a mechanism for lead to be neurotoxic, we know there's a mechanism for CFC's to produce ozone-destroying free radicals; you haven't come up with any plaussible mechanism for mobile phones being harmful. Just making analogies is not an argument, and it certainly isn't scientific.

You didn't answered my questions, if we know it was harmful why it was released on world wide market?

Those are not analogies, those are correlations and that is scientific

[Kryten]

That's not what 'correlation' means. Give a mechanism by which this could be harmful.

[Darnok]

You're not doing science, you're just expressing opinions and talking about things you heard somewhere. Science is repetitive and grindy work that some of us do, because we're masochists and addicted to the 1% of time when we're actually figuring out something new.

So you are suggesting that Kryten accually made experiments with magnetic fields affecting human brain and now he is saying about it, not about something he read somewhere?

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what 'correlation' means. Give a mechanism by which this could be harmful.

You are looking too close to science and experiments results and you can't see big picture.

I did You didn't answered my question, look for answer and you will understand that correlation.

[Kryten]

I'm doing an experiment with magnets and the human brain right now; I'm wearing in-ear earphones. Given the strength of the magnets and the proximity to the brain, the field strength is going to be dozens of times higher than could be achieved from a phone (almost all of which would be from the magnets in the speakers BTW), but nothing significant is happening.

[Darnok]

https://www.apple.com/legal/rfexposure/iphone5,1/en/

http://consumers4safephones.com/apple-warns-customers-to-never-use-or-carry-an-iphone-in-your-pocket/

I'm doing an experiment with magnets and the human brain right now; I'm wearing in-ear earphones. Given the strength of the magnets and the proximity to the brain, the field strength is going to be dozens of times higher than could be achieved from a phone (almost all of which would be from the magnets in the speakers BTW), but nothing significant is happening.

Very scientific way of thinking

Well not brain cells, but they are in our bodies http://www.cnet.com/news/report-cell-phone-use-could-reduce-sperm-count/

Edited February 25, 2015 by Darnok