0
\$\begingroup\$

What is the current state of independent (of producers) studies about the correlation between EMF (with particular reference to mobile devices) and interruption of human DNA? Are the declared SAR by devices manufacturers reliable?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ First off, your going to have a really really tough sell on any paper that suggests EM waves affect DNA because EM waves attenuate as soon as they hit a solid object and second, the activation energy for DNA to change chemically is going to be much much higher than what an EM from consumer devices can deliver. Thirdly, this is a site about circuit theory not speculation, this question is off topic. There is one type of EM wave that can affect DNA, it's called ultraviolet light. \$\endgroup\$ – Voltage Spike Sep 1 '18 at 0:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ Magnetic fields do penetrate the skull; its been shown the calcium ion channels are "upset" by 60Hz fields. \$\endgroup\$ – analogsystemsrf Sep 1 '18 at 4:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ @lapt Among the rare independent studies there was that of Professor Henry Lay from Seattle University, who conducted experiments with electromagnetic waves on laboratory mice. Demonstrating that the rats exposed for only two hours to cell radiation showed broken DNA. Only two years later Professor Jerry Phillips came to the same conclusions regarding human DNA. Among the diseases produced by the interruption of DNA there would also be different types of cancer. And according to Gabanelli (a tv journalist), Motorola would try to hide this research in order to silence the echo in public opinion \$\endgroup\$ – Bento Sep 2 '18 at 4:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ Finally, why would I be OT? Isn't this belonging to circuits theory, their effects on external environment..? \$\endgroup\$ – Bento Sep 2 '18 at 4:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yep, DNA gets broken all the time in cells. You need a mechanism (or a reason cell radiation will break DNA) cell phone radiation does not have enough energy to do this. Come back when you have a mechanism. \$\endgroup\$ – Voltage Spike Sep 2 '18 at 5:39
1
\$\begingroup\$

The best papers I have seen on the subject are this:

enter image description here Source: https://xkcd.com/radiation/

And if you look closely at the chart you'll see this: enter image description here

If your are really concerned about radiation, you should stop eating banannas, not be concerned about cell phones.

Your body also generates antimatter:

When Potassium-40 decays, it releases a positron, the electron’s antimatter twin, so you also contain a small amount of antimatter. The average human produces more than 4000 positrons per day, about 180 per hour. But it’s not long before these positrons bump into your electrons and annihilate into radiation in the form of gamma rays.
Source: https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-particle-physics-of-you

So why doesn't everyone get cancer? Because your body can stop cancer in dozens of ways and repair DNA.

The next one is this:

enter image description here Source: https://xkcd.com/925/

If cell phones did really cause cancer in humans, then you would have seen the cancer rate go up substantially. The last thing is, people are wierd when it comes to cancer, because they don't understand how it works and they hate the unknown.

These two charts show conclusively that cellphones do not cause cancer.

EDIT

Just to re-iterate the cancer chart, if you look at the CDC brain cancer rates have not gone up since the advent of cell phones. I would expect that if cell phones did cause brain cancer, the rate would have gone up mirrored with the rate of cell phone usage.

enter image description here Source: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/cancer_2020_figures.htm

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The XKCD radiation chart is referring to nuclear radiation, not electromagnetic radiation. It isn't particularly relevant here, and it certainly doesn't show anything "conclusively". \$\endgroup\$ – duskwuff Sep 4 '18 at 19:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ You didn't see the box for cell phone radiation then \$\endgroup\$ – Voltage Spike Sep 4 '18 at 19:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ Edited for the cell phone part \$\endgroup\$ – Voltage Spike Sep 4 '18 at 19:30
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ No, I'm quite aware of that part. The fact remains that the only thing that implies is that cell phones don't emit radioactivity. This doesn't mean that electromagnetic radiation is harmless -- the emissions from a laser cutter are purely electromagnetic as well, but that doesn't mean you should stick your hand in it. \$\endgroup\$ – duskwuff Sep 4 '18 at 19:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm pretty sure that low levels of 1.7-2.4GHz are harmless, otherwise with the advent of cellphones the cancer rate would have gone up, as shown in the last graph \$\endgroup\$ – Voltage Spike Sep 4 '18 at 19:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.