Comments on: Should we review cellphone radiation emission standards? http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/ The voice of the BlackBerry community. Sat, 25 May 2013 13:02:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: maarsel atallah http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-470588 maarsel atallah Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:37:28 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-470588 hey can you tell me the right amount of radiation in ghz the blackberry transmits?

]]> By: maarsel atallah http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-467648 maarsel atallah Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:37:28 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-467648 hey can you tell me the right amount of radiation in ghz the blackberry transmits?

]]> By: Webru http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-405419 Webru Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:22:51 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-405419 Don’t wait for the WHO… the Interphone study keeps getting delayed because there are only 2 ways to interpret the results: cell phones cause cancer on the close ear, or they protect from cancer on the other ear. Which makes sense?

It was already shown by William Bise in 1978 that very weak pulsed microwaves can alter human EEG:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/751078
The reason that study is never considered is that it’s just not possible to make phones that work and stay below levels he showed are disruptive to the brain. The only hope is to go well above 10 GHz, because then the microwaves will not penetrate the skull efficiently:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4719908

]]> By: Webru http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-505593 Webru Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:22:00 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-505593 Don’t wait for the WHO… the Interphone study keeps getting delayed because there are only 2 ways to interpret the results: cell phones cause cancer on the close ear, or they protect from cancer on the other ear. Which makes sense?

It was already shown by William Bise in 1978 that very weak pulsed microwaves can alter human EEG:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/751078
The reason that study is never considered is that it’s just not possible to make phones that work and stay below levels he showed are disruptive to the brain. The only hope is to go well above 10 GHz, because then the microwaves will not penetrate the skull efficiently:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4719908

]]> By: Michael K http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-405278 Michael K Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:43:06 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-405278 To answer Mike above, the beauty about studies is that there are new ones that come out and refute old findings. Better to be skeptical than delusional. It also makes you wonder about laptop radiation and its effect on our naughty bits.

]]> By: Michael K http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-505591 Michael K Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:43:00 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-505591 To answer Mike above, the beauty about studies is that there are new ones that come out and refute old findings. Better to be skeptical than delusional. It also makes you wonder about laptop radiation and its effect on our naughty bits.

]]> By: Michael K http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-505592 Michael K Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:43:00 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-505592 To answer Mike above, the beauty about studies is that there are new ones that come out and refute old findings. Better to be skeptical than delusional. It also makes you wonder about laptop radiation and its effect on our naughty bits.

]]> By: Lee http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-405220 Lee Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:41:51 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-405220 You don’t test radiation emissions by taking IR photos of someone’s head – you test it by using instrumentation designed to test radiation. This photo shows us nothing.

Turn your phone completely off and hold it to your ear for 15 minutes. Pretend to talk. Then tell me the side of the head your phone was on doesn’t feel hotter. You’re putting a hunk of plastic ON your head – of course the temperature is going to increase!

]]> By: Lee http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-505589 Lee Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:41:00 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-505589 You don’t test radiation emissions by taking IR photos of someone’s head – you test it by using instrumentation designed to test radiation. This photo shows us nothing.

Turn your phone completely off and hold it to your ear for 15 minutes. Pretend to talk. Then tell me the side of the head your phone was on doesn’t feel hotter. You’re putting a hunk of plastic ON your head – of course the temperature is going to increase!

]]> By: Lee http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-505590 Lee Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:41:00 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-505590 You don’t test radiation emissions by taking IR photos of someone’s head – you test it by using instrumentation designed to test radiation. This photo shows us nothing.

Turn your phone completely off and hold it to your ear for 15 minutes. Pretend to talk. Then tell me the side of the head your phone was on doesn’t feel hotter. You’re putting a hunk of plastic ON your head – of course the temperature is going to increase!

]]> By: TellasWoods (Tellas Woods) http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-405126 TellasWoods (Tellas Woods) Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:06:15 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-405126 Yes because I want to be informed – RT @BlackBerryCool: Should we review cellphone radiation emission standards? http://bit.ly/3ZjQcB

]]> By: TellasWoods (Tellas Woods) http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-505585 TellasWoods (Tellas Woods) Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:06:00 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-505585 Yes because I want to be informed – RT @BlackBerryCool: Should we review cellphone radiation emission standards? http://bit.ly/3ZjQcB

]]> By: CoolBBThemes (Jennifer ) http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-405127 CoolBBThemes (Jennifer ) Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:47:15 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-405127 RT @BlackBerryCool: Should we review cellphone radiation emission standards? http://bit.ly/3ZjQcB

]]> By: CoolBBThemes (Jennifer ) http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-505586 CoolBBThemes (Jennifer ) Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:47:00 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-505586 RT @BlackBerryCool: Should we review cellphone radiation emission standards? http://bit.ly/3ZjQcB

]]> By: davidvhammond (Dave Hammond) http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-405128 davidvhammond (Dave Hammond) Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:32:10 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-405128 Popcorn? @alexandrabaird @heatherdownen RT @BlackBerryCool Should we review cellphone radiation emission standards? http://bit.ly/3ZjQcB

]]> By: davidvhammond (Dave Hammond) http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-505587 davidvhammond (Dave Hammond) Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:32:00 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-505587 Popcorn? @alexandrabaird @heatherdownen RT @BlackBerryCool Should we review cellphone radiation emission standards? http://bit.ly/3ZjQcB

]]> By: BlackBerryCool (BlackBerry Cool) http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-405129 BlackBerryCool (BlackBerry Cool) Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:18:21 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-405129 Should we review cellphone radiation emission standards? http://bit.ly/3ZjQcB

]]> By: BlackBerryCool (BlackBerry Coo http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-505588 BlackBerryCool (BlackBerry Coo Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:18:00 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-505588 Should we review cellphone radiation emission standards? http://bit.ly/3ZjQcB

]]> By: mike http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-405124 mike Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:16:55 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-405124 You are amazing. Every long term study of the purported danger of cell phones has found none. Insisting there is no consensus is as absurd as pushing abstinence only classes over comprehensize sexual education.

]]> By: mike http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/09/10/should-we-review-cellphone-radiation-emission-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-505584 mike Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:16:00 +0000 http://www.blackberrycool.com/?p=15529#comment-505584 You are amazing. Every long term study of the purported danger of cell phones has found none. Insisting there is no consensus is as absurd as pushing abstinence only classes over comprehensize sexual education.

]]>