Radiation During Airplane Flight

[Sirrobert]

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

http://i5.asn.im/korean-subway-jpg-_tzsi.jpg

And social life.

Yea, we were all so much more social back in the day

Show me those research

Here you go

The GIGANTIC block of links at the bottom are links to scientific research that is used to support the writing of that wiki page. Knock yourself out

[radonek]

Darnok, there is a story you might be interested in:

Just before world war two, some british government official decided that no venue should go unexplored and started science project to develop a Death Ray. For real. So you had bunch of real scientists, with a budget, and objective of devising ANY way to make EM radiation inconvenient to humans. Or, more specificaly, nazis. And, as should be of special importance to you, with no cellphone manufacturere or whoever influencing them. So, boffins made some calculations and experiments and decided that no, it can't be done. Not even if fate of british empire was at stake.

Just so you know we are talking smart people here, those same scientists decided it would be a shame to let that money go to waste (read: to nonscience) so they used it for what would be today called "a major misappropriation of funds". Back then, they called it "invention of radar".

[PakledHostage]

I brought my radiation detector on a airplane flight from Phoenix to Seattle last weekend. Below for your amusement and edification is a plot of the radiation level vs. time during the flight. The cruising altitude was supposedly 40,000 feet (as announced by the pilot).

Back on topic, I'd be very interested to see how the results change at lower altitudes. 40,000 feet is on the high side of normal for a cruising altitude. Flight crew that I've talked to about the problem of radiation exposure at high altitude say that they try to request lower altitudes (if at all possible) to mitigate the effect. Anecdotally, a few thousand feet can make a big difference to the cumulative radiation exposure. I wonder to what extent the data backs it up?

As it is, the jet streams have been persistently tracking in a southerly direction over the western states (all the way down to New Mexico) for the past few weeks. In the absence of any other information, I'd guess that your flight was flying as high as it was to get above the jet streams, and thereby save fuel by not having to fly into a roughly 100 knot headwind on your northbound flight. Did you record data for the return flight as well? They may have flown lower on the return trip to take advantage of the jet stream tail winds.

[Darnok]

Yea, we were all so much more social back in the day

http://i.imgur.com/WkHHpZ1.jpg

Here you go

The GIGANTIC block of links at the bottom are links to scientific research that is used to support the writing of that wiki page. Knock yourself out

Did you read anything from that list?

Random link from wiki site you posted http://www.ewg.org/cell-phone-radiation-damages-sperm-studies-find

Collectively, the research indicates that exposure to cell phone radiation may lead to decreases in sperm count, sperm motility and vitality, as well as increases in indicators of sperm damage such as higher levels of reactive oxygen species (chemically reactive molecules containing oxygen), oxidative stress, DNA damage and changes in sperm morphology (see summary below).

Thank you for proof of things I said... it does affecting children after all.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Darnok

[Sirrobert]

Do you even know what sperm morphology MEANS? Cause that is not a factor in children

[Darnok]

Do you even know what sperm morphology MEANS? Cause that is not a factor in children

I know what DNA damage means.

[Brotoro]

Back on topic, I'd be very interested to see how the results change at lower altitudes. 40,000 feet is on the high side of normal for a cruising altitude. Flight crew that I've talked to about the problem of radiation exposure at high altitude say that they try to request lower altitudes (if at all possible) to mitigate the effect. Anecdotally, a few thousand feet can make a big difference to the cumulative radiation exposure. I wonder to what extent the data backs it up?

As it is, the jet streams have been persistently tracking in a southerly direction over the western states (all the way down to New Mexico) for the past few weeks. In the absence of any other information, I'd guess that your flight was flying as high as it was to get above the jet streams, and thereby save fuel by not having to fly into a roughly 100 knot headwind on your northbound flight. Did you record data for the return flight as well? They may have flown lower on the return trip to take advantage of the jet stream tail winds.

My flights during my Seattle trip had three legs, all on Southwest: Albuquerque to Phoenix, Phoenix to Seattle, and a few days later Seattle to Albuquerque.

Although the RADEX RD1212 supposedly has some kind of recording feature, I haven't tried figuring it out yet, so I was just noting the measurements manually.

From ABQ to PHX, the flight had a cruising altitude of 30,000 feet (I think). I did not take time-correlated measurements during that flight, but I have the following radiation measurements:

2.76

2.93

2.88

2.72

2.49

2.21

1.64

0.95

0.74

On the flight back from SEA to ABQ, which I think was again announced as crusing at 40,000 feet, I was only haphazardly monitoring the readings, which were in the high 3-point-something and low 4-point-something values. I did note that the maximum measurement was 4.46 µSv/h ...so fairly similar to the flight from PHX to SEA, but perhaps a little lower average.

[RainDreamer]

Here are some more research to the cellphone thing: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes-prevention/risk-factors/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

This is what I understand: The cellphone research conclusion is this: We have no proof yet, either way. It could harm us. It could be harmless.

Cellphone uses radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing radiation, and this haven't been doing much to us, as far as we know. We are even surrounded by it everyday with wifi, microwave and other things, even if we are not using cellphones. The only biological effect that it has on us, and that we have seen so far, is simply cells around contact area getting heat up by a fraction of a degree, which is something our blood circulation can easily handle.

The research is still going on after decades, and while they haven't seen any conclusive evidences, they do not want to eliminate the possibilities that there are complication from much longer, extended uses, like, 30,40,50 years in the future.

So, governments and other bodies decide to just enact preventive policies, and warn about cell phones uses, incase it does harm us. But there is no proof that it does yet.

Now, what you do with that information is up to you. You can be preventive and protect children from cellphones and such devices if you wish, that is fully understandable. We shouldn't let a chance of preventable harm to affect our children and minimize that risk, and that is a perfectly good rational response.

That said, don't ever buy bogus stuff like this thing:

This is just modern day snake oil peddling.

[Darnok]

While I doubt it cell phones can cause in short time terrifying brain cancer... this one thing bothers me

exposure to cell phone radiation may lead to decreases in sperm count, sperm motility and vitality

If it can decrease cells production if you put cell phone on your belt, then it is possible that using phone (talking) for very long time and very often can do exactly same thing with brain cells.

Decrease neurons reaction time, decrease neurons ability to create new connections or even destroy connections between neurons.

So it would affect out memory, it's capacity and sustainability (how long we can remember things) and ability to learn faster?

I hope someone will do some research about this in future.

Going to build some rockets, it was nice to make some science

[Kryten]

If it can decrease cells production if you put cell phone on your belt, then it is possible that using phone (talking) for very long time and very often can do exactly same thing with brain cells.

You haven't even demonstrated the first part of this statement! All you have is a study that showed effects in rats that were unable to move, there's no evidence that such effects would show up in larger animals at all. Assuming hotspots would show up in larger animals with better thermoregulatory mechanisms and assuming that the hotspots could form in something that could actually move and assuming that the hotspots could reach temperatures high enough to be harmful in areas that are much less vulnerable to thermal effects all without evidence is not science. You've already admitted you don't even know how the scientific method works, the least you could do is look it up; I don't see any point trying to help somebody who is willfully ignorant.

[Darnok]

You haven't even demonstrated the first part of this statement! All you have is a study that showed effects in rats that were unable to move, there's no evidence that such effects would show up in larger animals at all. Assuming hotspots would show up in larger animals with better thermoregulatory mechanisms and assuming that the hotspots could form in something that could actually move and assuming that the hotspots could reach temperatures high enough to be harmful in areas that are much less vulnerable to thermal effects all without evidence is not science. You've already admitted you don't even know how the scientific method works, the least you could do is look it up; I don't see any point trying to help somebody who is willfully ignorant.

I did thank to Sirrobert, he posted wiki site with lots of research about this and I found experiments on humans that are saying same thing I posted about rats. Cell phones are affecting cells of our body.

Just look up "willfully ignorant" and read some post from this page

[Kryten]

I did thank to Sirrobert, he posted wiki site with lots of research about this and I found experiments on humans that are saying same thing I posted about rats. Cell phones are affecting cells of our body.

Darnok, that site doesn't contain any actual studies and is run by somebody hawking 'health guides' and cosmetics. There's a huge difference between a real study in a peer-reviewed journal and a random website.

[Jouni]

I'm seeing a lot of this in this thread.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Jouni

[Darnok]

Darnok, that site doesn't contain any actual studies and is run by somebody hawking 'health guides' and cosmetics. There's a huge difference between a real study in a peer-reviewed journal and a random website.

What are you? Stop using TV for science, I know they are saying cell phones are good, but that isn't true

Just scroll down http://www.ewg.org/cell-phone-radiation-damages-sperm-studies-find and you will see table with different experiments on different groups sizes etc etc.

If you got objections blame Sirrobert not me, he posted this as "scientific proof" against my statements.

Now you should back up your statements with some links, show me research that is denying data from that site.

WHO data http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf for some group using cell phones cause brain cancer. They are still making research because they blame radio frequency.

Now where are your links?

Edited February 26, 2015 by Darnok

[RainDreamer]

I did thank to Sirrobert, he posted wiki site with lots of research about this and I found experiments on humans that are saying same thing I posted about rats. Cell phones are affecting cells of our body.

Yeah, radiofrequency energy from a cellphone does heat up cells near contact area of a cellphone by a fraction of a degree. Blood circulation deal with this easily. Ultraviolet rays from the Sun that you get everyday are actually more dangerous than that. Also, we live in Wifi. All the time. Give it 20-30 years and we will be able to see the effects on children growing up within this environment constantly bombard with several kind of radiation and conclude our research at last.

If you want to be better safe than sorry, I think it is fine though. We should be skeptical. Both about what other says, and also about what we believe too.

[Kryten]

Well, for a start here's the one single paper cited for 'DNA damage' claim you were harping on about; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714176/

Note it's not even an animal study, it's in vitro. And not only that, but it's in vitro study that is flatly contradicted by later studies with larger sample sizes.

[dharak1]

Aren't the signals phones use just omnidirectional? Meaning they are there whether you own a phone or not? I know that's the case for inbound waves but my phone constantly has outbound waves too because it is always updating apps. It's pointless to be against wireless tech because you'll always be within range of some source. Isn't there just one tiny spot in the middle of some desert in the US that's free of radio and stuff? If any of it is harmful I'm screwed with my wireless keyboard+mouse, headphones and internet to more than 5 devices with the router less than 3 feet away. I don't mind though. I'm never going back to wired headsets again.

[Darnok]

Well, for a start here's the one single paper cited for 'DNA damage' claim you were harping on about; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714176/

Note it's not even an animal study, it's in vitro. And not only that, but it's in vitro study that is flatly contradicted by later studies with larger sample sizes.

Studies I read and quote said about few groups size 20-300 people using cell phones for 6+ days constantly, so that is not in vitro or small animal experiment

Interesting your first link confirms what I am saying:

This study clearly demonstrates that RF-EMR can damage sperm function via mechanisms that involve the leakage of electrons from the mitochondria and the creation of oxidative stress. These findings have immediate implications for the high rates of male infertility seen in our species, a majority of which is idiopathic. Furthermore, the fact that sperm DNA is damaged by this form of radiation has additional implications for the health and wellbeing of children born to fathers who have experienced high levels of occupational or environmental exposure to RF-EMR around the time of conception. Overall, these finding raise a number of related health policy and patient management issues that deserve our immediate attention. Specifically we recommend that men of reproductive age who engage in high levels of mobile phone use, do not keep their phones in receiving mode below waist level.

and second is super short, did I missed something?

[Kryten]

Try actually reading my post.

[Jouni]

and second is super short, did I missed something?

The second link is to the abtract and the bibliographic information of an 8-page article at http://dx.doi.org/10.1667/RR2091.1. Of course, with scientific publishing being what it is, you probably can't read the article without paying a ridiculous sum for it.

[Sirrobert]

Guys, we are discussing against what apears to be the equivilant of an anti-vaccination nut. He doesn't read anything, he only picks quotes that fit his own view and ignores the rest

Please give up, spare your blood pressure

Edited February 26, 2015 by Sirrobert

[Darnok]

Try actually reading my post.

Would be nice if you would do same thing... you posted link where I was able to find same information about "DNA damaged by cell phones" as in one of many sites found on list posted by Sirrobert.

Here are brain cancer studies http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf also false?

Guys, we are discussing against what apears to be the equivilant of an anti-vaccination nut. He doesn't read anything, he only picks quotes that fit his own view and ignores the rest

Please give up, spare your blood pressure

You shouldn't post things like that, since you didn't even read your own links.

[Sirrobert]

You shouldn't post things like that, since you didn't even read your own links.

I pointed you to wikipedia. The very fact that you hadn't found that yourself says more than I possibly could

[Brotoro]

Guys, we are discussing against what apears to be the equivilant of an anti-vaccination nut. He doesn't read anything, he only picks quotes that fit his own view and ignores the rest

Please give up, spare your blood pressure

No, no. Anti-vaccination nuts are MUCH worse. They want to put people into a known and proven danger because of some tiny tiny possibility they imagine of something bad happening.

If people afraid of the tiny possibility that cell phone microwaves will cause harm want to not use cell phones, that won't hurt others at all. In fact, it could decrease the REAL dangers of cell phones (such as causing traffic accidents) by decreasing the number of foolish users of cell phones.

[Kryten]

Would be nice if you would do same thing... you posted link where I was able to find same information about "DNA damaged by cell phones" as in one of many sites found on list posted by Sirrobert.

And I pointed out they had been superseded by later studies with larger sample sizes. If you have a small enough sample size, and enough people do similar experiments, then seemingly significant results will occur by chance, this is basic statistics.

Here are brain cancer studies http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf also false?

Under systematic review, yes.