Radiation During Airplane Flight

[Kryten]

Darnok, do you know how the process of science works?

[Brotoro]

Why was Dichlorodifluoromethane released on the marketplace? Because early refrigeration systems that used ammonia would spring leaks that killed people. Freon-12 was a MUCH less toxic material...and you want your refrigerant to be as safe as possible. It's only after Dichlorodifluoromethane's ability to deplete the ozone layer over time was discovered that it was removed from the marketplace.

Tetraethyllead was added to gasoline because it reduced engine knocking in a very inexpensive way. And because it made the companies that produced it HUGE amounts of money, it was not difficult to find experts who would make claims about it being safe (since the only scientists we have available are human beings, and therefore subject to bribery like any other human beings). Happily, other scientists demonstrated that it was unsafe to use lead this way, so it was removed from gasoline.

But there are no scientists who have any data showing that low-power microwave emissions are harmful to you. And we have been conducting a massive unplanned 'experiment' for many years now to see what happens when hundreds of millions of people expose themselves to cell phone emissions over a period of many years. Has there been a resulting increase in brain cancer? No.

[Darnok]

Darnok, do you know how the process of science works?

Yes, one person is asking questions like I did in one post... and second is looking for answers

You have statements from cell phone manufacturer it can be harmful if you are using it for too long.

Now tell me why fuel with lead and freons where ever released on world wide markets?

- - - Updated - - -

But there are no scientists who have any data showing that low-power microwave emissions are harmful to you. And we have been conducting a massive unplanned 'experiment' for many years now to see what happens when hundreds of millions of people expose themselves to cell phone emissions over a period of many years. Has there been a resulting increase in brain cancer? No.

Who told you it has to be brain cancer?

Did you missed my links?

[Kryten]

Yes, one person is asking questions like I did in one post... and second is looking for answers

No. Here's a clue; it isn't news storeis and corporate press releases.

You have statements from cell phone manufacturer it can be harmful if you are using it for too long.

A statement not backed by the evidence.

Now tell me why fuel with lead and freons where ever released on world wide markets?

Because it was the 1920s and nobody gave a toss about environmental hazards.

[Darnok]

No. Here's a clue; it isn't news storeis and corporate press releases.

A statement not backed by the evidence.

Evidence like what? http://www.cnet.com/news/report-cell-phone-use-could-reduce-sperm-count/

In one animal study, researchers put rats in special Plexiglas cages with cell phones just 0.2 inch underneath the cage bottom. After the rats were exposed to cell phone emissions for 6 hours per day for more than four months, the researchers found a 25 percent drop in the rats' percentage of live sperm. Their sperm also had the tendency to stick together, reducing the chance of fertilizing an egg.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Darnok

[Kryten]

Again, science is made up of news reports. The link in that report doesn't work and it doesn't give a paper title or reference, so it can't be seen if it's been retracted or is otherwise dubious. Even if it isn't, it doesn't exactly represent normal use conditions, and it does involve a plausible mechanism; we know microwave signals can cause heating, we know small levels of heat can severely effect sperm count (hence why the ....... is where it is in the first place rather than safely ensconced in the abdomen), and the long times and complete lack of movement could allow the heat to build up.

You haven't been ranting about sperm count though, you've been ranting about real harm. You're talking about something that would have to involve higher heat levels (or some unknown BS EM mechanism), on something much larger than a mouse, and which would have sufficient movement to prevent the buildup of these kind of hotspots.

[Brotoro]

...Who told you it has to be brain cancer?...

The people who wanted to sue cell phone manufacturers because they developed brain tumors. It was their claim. The data did not support their claim.

Also, because you hold the phone up to the side of your head when it's transmitting, so if you expect microwaves can cause biological effects, you would expect those effects to occur where the microwave radiation is most intense.

[Darnok]

You missed the point, if it can kill 25% of cells, how it will affect 75% of cells that didn't died?

Does next generations of rats are going to have cancer? That would be real harm or not?

Use google maybe you will find that PDF file

[Kryten]

Thermal effects on sperm count are on the actual production of sperm, it doesn't kill the cells.

[worir4]

They let you take a radiation detector onto a plane, and i can't bring my toothpaste.....

[Darnok]

The people who wanted to sue cell phone manufacturers because they developed brain tumors. It was their claim. The data did not support their claim.

Also, because you hold the phone up to the side of your head when it's transmitting, so if you expect microwaves can cause biological effects, you would expect those effects to occur where the microwave radiation is most intense.

I like part when he is saying we shouldn't pre decide what we are looking for, just observe to find out more about it. That is scientific way of thinking.

[Kryten]

Darnok, do you know what the process of science is?

[Jouni]

You missed the point, if it can kill 25% of cells, how it will affect 75% of cells that didn't died?

It didn't kill 25% of the cells. The text you quoted said that "the researchers found a 25 percent drop in the rats' percentage of live sperm". Those two mean completely different things. (And the truth was probably also something completely different, because the quote seems to be from a third-hand source instead of the original research paper.)

If you're interested in science, you should learn that the precise wording matters. When someone expresses a reseach finding in their own words, they almost always get it wrong, unless they're also an expert in the same field.

[Brotoro]

I like part when he is saying we shouldn't pre decide what we are looking for, just observe to find out more about it. That is scientific way of thinking.

OK, I watched that. He does NOT say what you said. He specifically says we make a guess (we pre-decide what COULD be an explanation)...and then we calculate the results of what would happen if that guess were true...and then we compare those results with observations. We DON'T just look at stuff. We look at stuff with the intention of seeing if our hypotheses are correct or not. THAT is science.

[Darnok]

Darnok, do you know what the process of science is?

I have no idea

Because it was the 1920s and nobody gave a toss about environmental hazards.

Leaded-fuel bans for road vehicles came into effect as follows:

Canada: 1993

USA: 1 January 1996

California: 1992

EU: 1 January 2000

- - - Updated - - -

OK, I watched that. He does NOT say what you said. He specifically says we make a guess (we pre-decide what COULD be an explanation)...and then we calculate the results of what would happen if that guess were true...and then we compare those results with observations. We DON'T just look at stuff. We look at stuff with the intention of seeing if our hypotheses are correct or not. THAT is science.

No you messed this one, that is not science that is mistake.

He is saying something else listen again and I gave you this because you were looking for harmful effect pre deciding it has to be brain cancer.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Darnok

[Technical Ben]

Evidence like what? http://www.cnet.com/news/report-cell-phone-use-could-reduce-sperm-count/

Where is the control group. Where?

That's not how science is done properly. You need a control group. We need specific testing parameters. We need to rule out external mistakes (putting the rat cage near the heater as thats where the plug socket is) etc.

There are many things that are dangerous (lead in petrol), and many things that are safe (magnets). There is also a lot in between. By all means be cautious, but don't pass it off as evidence until it is.

[Darnok]

Where is the control group. Where?

That's not how science is done properly. You need a control group. We need specific testing parameters. We need to rule out external mistakes (putting the rat cage near the heater as thats where the plug socket is) etc.

There are many things that are dangerous (lead in petrol), and many things that are safe (magnets). There is also a lot in between. By all means be cautious, but don't pass it off as evidence until it is.

Where is control group for studies showing that cell phones are safe?

[Sirrobert]

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:

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?

We know it's not harmfull BECAUSE of those statistics and research.

It's not 'o it's not safe/safe let's do some research' it's 'we don't know if this is dangerous, let's research that'.

It is indeed cheaper to just release your stuf and see what happends. That's what used to happen. Not anymore. The world has changed. You can't base your arguments in science on stuf that happened 50 years ago.

We are STILL discovering new ways stuf can damage us, or stuf around us. Epigenetics for example studies how things can modify the way our body reads DNA, without actually changing the DNA. This is a relatively new field. 50 years ago people thought that wasn't even possible.

I have no idea

Leaded-fuel bans for road vehicles came into effect as follows:

Canada: 1993

USA: 1 January 1996

California: 1992

EU: 1 January 2000

- - - Updated - - -

No you messed this one, that is not science that is mistake.

He is saying something else listen again and I gave you this because you were looking for harmful effect pre deciding it has to be brain cancer.

You can't blame science for for fact that goverments are slow to react.

Where is control group for studies showing that cell phones are safe?

EVERYWHERE AROUND YOU.

Statistical annalasis of the entire world has shown no increase in health risks linked to cell phones.

Or to put it in scientific terms: The point of the research was to show that sperm count would go down in the presence of cell phones. The study only tests that SPECIFIC question. That's how science works, 1 small question at a time.

So for the study, there needs to be a control group in the exact same cages, given the exact same food, breathing the exact same air, ect ect ect. Just without cell phones.

There is also no such thing as a study proving that something is safe. You can only prove that there is no health risk.

And you have to do a study for every single possible health risk. If all plausable ways have been tested, something is deemed safe (if those ways aren't dangerous)

Edited February 25, 2015 by Sirrobert

[Technical Ben]

Where is control group for studies showing that cell phones are safe?

That's not how a control group works.

But I think you mean "where is our default understanding that cellphones are safe". Or more precisely, your asking me "why do you think cellphones are safe"?

Is that correct? Well, I believe cell phones are safe, because I know magnets and radiation, microwaves and radio waves, heat and warmth are safe in moderation. I know they are dangerous in high doses, in fires, cookers, wielders and other devices.

I know that ionizing radiation is easy to detect, quick to cause harm, and has many people ready to point fingers if a device gives it off. Mobile phones do not.

I know that microwaves are dangerous in high doses/power uses, such as my microwave oven. If used incorrectly it could kill me. But...

I know that radio waves (including microwaves) are safe in low doses/power uses. Such as the sun, the air and my tv and my mobile phone.

Hope that helps.

[PB666]

This thread is dead. Has nothing to do with ionizing radiation, it has become a mouthpiece for activisim.

[WestAir]

There's no doubt Cell Phones have an irreversible effect on the human brain.

And social life.

[Bill Phil]

Where is control group for studies showing that cell phones are safe?

People that don't use cell phones.

[dryer_lint]

Using a phone and being in range of its radiation does not increase cancer risk.

What if I keep a piece of plutonium in my phone at all times?

I heard it helps you get better reception.

This is a good plan.

[Darnok]

We know it's not harmfull BECAUSE of those statistics and research.

Show me those research

It is indeed cheaper to just release your stuf and see what happends. That's what used to happen. Not anymore. The world has changed. You can't base your arguments in science on stuf that happened 50 years ago.

I can, because it hasn't changed at all... as long as technology is profitable it is used on global scale because nobody cares about life. Corporations cares about money and common office slave cares about convenience and job more than about his life. If in 1920 neighbor would discover you are posisoning him or his children he would start to shoot at you, but today people don't care about their kids life, more value have modern phone, TV and admiration of friends.

You can't blame science for for fact that goverments are slow to react.

I blame corporations and human greed.

EVERYWHERE AROUND YOU.

Statistical annalasis of the entire world has shown no increase in health risks linked to cell phones.

Show me links not your words.

That's not how a control group works.

But I think you mean "where is our default understanding that cellphones are safe". Or more precisely, your asking me "why do you think cellphones are safe"?

Is that correct? Well, I believe cell phones are safe, because I know magnets and radiation, microwaves and radio waves, heat and warmth are safe in moderation. I know they are dangerous in high doses, in fires, cookers, wielders and other devices.

I know that ionizing radiation is easy to detect, quick to cause harm, and has many people ready to point fingers if a device gives it off. Mobile phones do not.

I know that microwaves are dangerous in high doses/power uses, such as my microwave oven. If used incorrectly it could kill me. But...

I know that radio waves (including microwaves) are safe in low doses/power uses. Such as the sun, the air and my tv and my mobile phone.

Hope that helps.

From your post I can only say microwaves, radio waves, radiation are safe separately, but on the basis of this information you can not be assume that after the closure of 50 people on one floor of a skyscraper amount and strength of the various impacts will continue to be not harmful.

Anyone ever did research on iphones or any other smartphone like that? And how it will affect people (and their kids) after 20 years of work in that office?

People that don't use cell phones.

Are those people beyond the reach of the radiation, from phones of people that use them, and masts transmitting and reciving signals from phones?

[magnemoe]

Leaded-fuel bans for road vehicles came into effect as follows:

Canada: 1993

USA: 1 January 1996

California: 1992

EU: 1 January 2000

Also remember that then they start using this pollution from cars was an non issue anyway, 50 years later it was the main pollution source.

They started to phasing out lead in fuel long before the ban, remember they started moving to lead free gas then I was a teen back in 1980. Main issue was engines on older cars who was designed to us it at lubricate, the original reason was not an issue anymore. Later on the gas with lead did not contain lead but an substitute probably an lubricating oil who was then removed from pumps as too few cars used it.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not how a control group works.

But I think you mean "where is our default understanding that cellphones are safe". Or more precisely, your asking me "why do you think cellphones are safe"?

Is that correct? Well, I believe cell phones are safe, because I know magnets and radiation, microwaves and radio waves, heat and warmth are safe in moderation. I know they are dangerous in high doses, in fires, cookers, wielders and other devices.

I know that ionizing radiation is easy to detect, quick to cause harm, and has many people ready to point fingers if a device gives it off. Mobile phones do not.

I know that microwaves are dangerous in high doses/power uses, such as my microwave oven. If used incorrectly it could kill me. But...

I know that radio waves (including microwaves) are safe in low doses/power uses. Such as the sun, the air and my tv and my mobile phone.

Hope that helps.

The basic rule for testing is something is safe is to test if large amounts are harmful, you here have to use reasonable amounts as anything including oxygen and water is harmful if enough of it.

You can now look at groups who is exposed to far more than the normal population, you can also do animal experiments both will show if large exposure is dangerous.

If you don't find anything here its no risk, this is true for any chemical and ionizing radiation. In fact the limits tend to be on the safe side, for chemicals getting 1/4 of the dose don't give you 1/4 of the effect but far less. Drinking a bottle of wine every day is bad for your health, a glass might even be good for you.

I can, because it hasn't changed at all... as long as technology is profitable it is used on global scale because nobody cares about life. Corporations cares about money and common office slave cares about convenience and job more than about his life. If in 1920 neighbor would discover you are posisoning him or his children he would start to shoot at you, but today people don't care about their kids life, more value have modern phone, TV and admiration of friends.

it was magnitudes easier to get away with stuff 50 years ago or earlier, or do you seriously claim its easier to pollute today than in 1960?

People 100 years ago also had far more important issues than minor health risks. Look up that people died of.

From your post I can only say microwaves, radio waves, radiation are safe separately, but on the basis of this information you can not be assume that after the closure of 50 people on one floor of a skyscraper amount and strength of the various impacts will continue to be not harmful.

Anyone ever did research on iphones or any other smartphone like that? And how it will affect people (and their kids) after 20 years of work in that office?

Are those people beyond the reach of the radiation, from phones of people that use them, and masts transmitting and reciving signals from phones?

Ever heard about the inverse square law? the power of any non directed transmitter falls by the inverse square of the distance. so if you are 2 meter away you get 1/8 of the signal from 1 meter.

Cell phones only drew attention as you hold them to your ear.

Look above on how to find dangerous effects.

Note that lots of health advices come from bad tests, effects is to small to show up, hard to do double blind tests regarding eating more fish and so on.

Add agendas as promoting an lifestyle or selling an product.

In short if the effect is to small to show up clearly then trying hard it probably don't exist.

Edited February 26, 2015 by goldenpeach