BILLY MCCLELLAN Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 We use them in communication, medical treatment, medical test, and many others ways.I believe that our technology has to change drastically or we the people whom develop it and use it will pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiveworlds Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) Some electromagnetic fields are dangerous such as a computed tomography brain scans and x-rays however doctors are well aware of the risks and impose stringent regulations on exposure to such fields. Can you explain where you might have a concern? In communication i.e. mobile phones a mobile phone is not dangerous to human health unless it makes/receives a call. During a phone call the amount of electricity used by a phone increases and the phone may emit some dangerous radiation. The solution to this would be to use a land-line phone or a headset as used by most taxi drivers. According to the world health organisation 2010 mobile phones may "possibly carcinogenic to humans" http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf I know in physics class we tested the radiation spikes given out by various mobile phones in the class with a Geiger counter and there was a spike on all of the phones tested. Edited June 13, 2015 by fiveworlds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Canyou establish the premise of the thread title with some research citations? Preferably ones that haven't been shown to be wrong? During a phone call the amount of electricity used by a phone increases and the phone may emit some dangerous radiation. reference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiveworlds Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 reference? Me and the ongoing who research http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf Me and my classmates tested phones with a Geiger counter. Geiger counters test for the presence of ionising radiation. As to weather the levels of radiation prove to actually harmful remains to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Me and my classmates tested phones with a Geiger counter. Did you put a Faraday cage between the 'phone and the Geiger counter to make sure that you screened out radio frequency interference? If not, do you realise that the experiment was meaningless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiveworlds Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Did you put a Faraday cage between the 'phone and the Geiger counter to make sure that you screened out radio frequency interference? If not, do you realise that the experiment was meaningless? Obviously not because a faraday cage would stop the phone from connecting to the network and therefore you wouldn't be able to call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Obviously not because a faraday cage would stop the phone from connecting to the network and therefore you wouldn't be able to call it. You might want to think a little harder about that. Edited June 14, 2015 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiveworlds Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 You might want to think a little harder about that. It would also stop electrons which are a form of beta radiation. Geiger counters detect electrons with sufficient energy i.e. beta radiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 It would also stop electrons which are a form of beta radiation. Geiger counters detect electrons with sufficient energy i.e. beta radiation. Perhaps you should stop embarrassing yourself; Farrady cages can have holes in as long as they are small compared to the wavelength of the radiation. Did you think things through, and enclose the Geiger counter in a metal mesh cage to stop RF interference? If not, do you realise that the experiment was meaningless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiveworlds Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Did you think things through, and enclose the Geiger counter in a metal mesh cage to stop RF interference? At the time no I was 15 and didn't realise that it would be necessary and even if I did realise it was necessary at the time I was in school and only had the limited resources on hand which did not include a metal mesh faraday cage for the geiger counter that we only had because our lecturer was a retired miner. Though the geiger counter like most geiger counters was made of metal with a mica window. Edited June 14, 2015 by fiveworlds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 So, because you didn't realise that some chicken wire or a kitchen sieve would improve the set-up you didn't realise that the experiment was pointless. Back at the original question; is there any evidence that mobile 'phones produce ionising radiation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiveworlds Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Back at the original question; is there any evidence that mobile 'phones produce ionising radiation? Okay well excluding the pointless experiment most of the evidence seems to point to mobile phone producing non-ionising radiation. But they also state that while phones are not known to be ionizing the long term effects of phone use is still largely unknown. Edited June 14, 2015 by fiveworlds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 And, as every day where people use their 'phones but don't drop dead passes, the evidence mounts that they certainly don't cause much harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiveworlds Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 And, as every day where people use their 'phones but don't drop dead passes, the evidence mounts that they certainly don't cause much harm. Well yeah but small amounts of ionizing radiation won't kill you either. I would have got more clicks off a banana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Me and the ongoing who research http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf Me and my classmates tested phones with a Geiger counter. Geiger counters test for the presence of ionising radiation. As to weather the levels of radiation prove to actually harmful remains to be seen. The radiation from a phone is about a million times smaller energy than ionizing radiation. You detected the background and/or noise. Okay well excluding the pointless experiment most of the evidence seems to point to mobile phone producing non-ionising radiation. But they also state that while phones are not known to be ionizing the long term effects of phone use is still largely unknown. Using them causes car accidents, but that's not due to the radiation, per se. Has anyone checked to see the effect of people on people? People radiate about 100 watts more than they absorb from the background. And the photons are generally higher energy than from phones. True, we tend not to hold them up to our heads, though when we do I suspect there are biological effects that are more significant that any radiological ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiveworlds Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 You detected the background and/or noise. We tested that also. We also closed the shutters on the classroom windows to show that the radiation was indeed coming through the windows and eliminating a large percentage of the clicks caused by background radiation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts