Dramatic rise in cancer in people under 50

Re:Dramatic rise in cancer in people under 50 by Turskarama on Friday August 11, 2023 @07:03AM (#37087283)

If you actually look at how strong the radiation phones put out is, you'd realize there's basically no way.

The power is at a maximum 3 watts, and is usually measured in milliwatts if you're somewhere with excellent reception.

This is roughly on par with the amount of heat released while charging. Not fast charging mind you, charging with an old micro usb 5v charger.

Compare this to a radio station which can transmit tens of kilowatts of power. If radio waves could cause cancer, people who work at radio stations would be riddled with it, and radio stations have been around a lot longer than phones.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dramatic rise in cancer in people under 50 by delhanty on Friday August 11, 2023 @07:10AM (#37087325)

Your analysis doesn’t account for the inverse square law.

That is, wouldn’t we want to compare the radiant flux rather than the power?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dramatic rise in cancer in people under 50 by Turskarama on Friday August 11, 2023 @08:23AM (#37087882)

You would yes, but I think you'll find that with with 4 orders of magnitude to play with the radio tower still comes out on top.

Also how much time do you actually spend with the phone against your head on any given day? A few minutes maybe. Someone working at the radio station is there for 8 hours.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dramatic rise in cancer in people under 50 by delhanty on Friday August 11, 2023 @08:48AM (#37088104)

My only point was that it’s misleading to compare power.

I don’t have an opinion on whether mobile phone usage is more or less likely to cause cancer than working in a radio station.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dramatic rise in cancer in people under 50 by nonethewiser on Friday August 11, 2023 @07:11AM (#37087335)

Is power the only relevant variable? What about wavelength?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dramatic rise in cancer in people under 50 by jdietrich on Friday August 11, 2023 @07:25AM (#37087424)

A photon emitted from a mobile phone antenna has about five orders of magnitude less energy than a photon of visible light. It just isn't plausible that such a relatively small number of relatively low-energy photons could have a meaningful impact on human heath, considering our overall exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dramatic rise in cancer in people under 50 by pletnes on Friday August 11, 2023 @07:29AM (#37087454)

Sure. 3 Watts of gamma rays will do a different job. But a cell phone works in the microwave range - visible light, infrared, UV are all more dangerous - and the sun will blast you with 1 kW on a nice sunny day.

Cell phones are not the problem (well, not the microwaves at least).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dramatic rise in cancer in people under 50 by refurb on Friday August 11, 2023 @08:08AM (#37087752)

E = hf

You can measure the energy of one photo using this equation.

Microwaves at 2.45 Ghz = 1.6243499999999998e-24 eV

Gamma radiation at 3 x 10(19) Hz = 1.9889999999999998e-14 eV

So about 10(10) more energy per gamma ray photo or about 10 billion times more energy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dramatic rise in cancer in people under 50 by aintgonnatakeit on Friday August 11, 2023 @07:26AM (#37087431)

Super important https://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csa...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dramatic rise in cancer in people under 50 by Findecanor on Friday August 11, 2023 @08:40AM (#37088037)

Cancer risk is a complex issue. I once came across a study that claimed that while the class of electromagnetic radiation associated with cell phones isn't able to cause a cancer mutation itself, there were indications that it could have the effect of suppressing the immune system's ability to fight cancers from other causes.

I'm sorry I have lost the paper when upgrading my home PC over the years. I would like to search for follow-up studies myself.

[ Parent | on HN ]