The Human Thirst for Knowledge - Blessing or Curse?

[Dotini]

Foolkiller, I actually agree with all your points. I use a cellphone, too, and accept any risks because of the benefit it gives to me. I would feel very guilty giving a cellphone to a young person whose bones and brain were still in development. Accordingly, I value my friends here at GTP, and wanted to put us all on alert for health threats. I will take it that everyone is sufficiently warned, and will desist from future posts on the topic of cellphones.

Respectfully,
Dotini

After a number of years, warnings about cellphones are back...
“When you sleep, you keep the cellphone at least arm’s length away from your body. And also, not carrying your cellphone in your pocket, having it either in your purse or not carrying it with you.”
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/12/14/california-cellphone-radiation-guidelines/

Caveat: We should not worry about radiation or cancer, nor take any precautions. Technology will cure us from cancer, and always save us from any other problems that technology has caused.

 

[Imari]

After a number of years, warnings about cellphones are back...
“When you sleep, you keep the cellphone at least arm’s length away from your body. And also, not carrying your cellphone in your pocket, having it either in your purse or not carrying it with you.”
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/12/14/california-cellphone-radiation-guidelines/

Caveat: We should not worry about radiation or cancer, nor take any precautions. Technology will cure save us from cancer, and always save us from any other problems that technology has caused.

Do the math on how much actual radiation comes out of your phone.

Then do the same for...I don't know, THE SUN.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Do the math on how much actual radiation comes out of your phone.

Then do the same for...I don't know, THE SUN.

Some interesting comments here that bear some more investigation. Also, we know how harmful the sun's radiation is, that's why it kills so many people.

 

[Imari]

Some interesting comments here that bear some more investigation. Also, we know how harmful the sun's radiation is, that's why it kills so many people.

Don't get me wrong, using cell phones almost certainly causes more cancer than not. However, because of the power and the frequencies of radiation used, it's probably orders of magnitude less than other major radiation sources in our lives that we take for granted. The sun being the obvious one that we know is actually pretty dangerous, but also x-rays, smoking, television, plane trips, and bananas.

Cell phones are pretty far down the list, so when someone like Dotini who is a known member of the tin foil hat brigade brings it up I can't help but point out just how asinine it is to be worried about cell phones when there's literally dozens of other sources of exposure that are significantly worse.

Any technology comes with trade offs, and we make judgements based on whether the positive effects of those technologies are worth the negatives.

 

[Danoff]

Don't get me wrong, using cell phones almost certainly causes more cancer than not. However, because of the power and the frequencies of radiation used, it's probably orders of magnitude less than other major radiation sources in our lives that we take for granted. The sun being the obvious one that we know is actually pretty dangerous, but also x-rays, smoking, television, plane trips, and bananas.

Cell phones are pretty far down the list, so when someone like Dotini who is a known member of the tin foil hat brigade brings it up I can't help but point out just how asinine it is to be worried about cell phones when there's literally dozens of other sources of exposure that are significantly worse.

Any technology comes with trade offs, and we make judgements based on whether the positive effects of those technologies are worth the negatives.

Got interested. Went searching for the numbers.

In general, the lower the SAR the better the phone, from a potential health hazard point of view. For instance, Apple’s iPhone 3G has a maximum SAR of 1.39 W/kg when held at the ear. Compare that to the 1.19 W/kg SAR for the iPhone 3G S.

The best phone on EWG’s list, the Samsung Impression, has a maximum radiation of just 0.35 W/kg.

It turns out (and I did not know this) that the Banana equivalent dose of ionizing radiation (measured in sieverts) is not comparable RF absorption rates measured in W/kg SAR.

Here are some SAR limits for a 15-minute MRI

FDA SAR limits:

Whole body: 4W/kg/15-minute exposure averaged;

Head: 3W/kg/10-minute exposure averaged;

Head or torso: 8W/kg/5 minute exposure per gram of tissue;

Extremities: 12W/kg/5 minute exposure per gram of tissue.
IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) SAR limits of some European countries:
All limits are averaged over 6 minutes.

Level 0 (normal operating mode): Whole body 2W/kg; Head 3.2W/kg; Head or Torso (local) 10W/kg; Extremities (local) 20W/kg;

Level I (first level controlled operating mode): Whole body 4W/kg; Head 3.2W/kg; Head or Torso (local) 10W/kg; Extremities (local) 20W/kg;

Level II (second level controlled operating mode): All values are over Level I values.

Here's a white paper on MRI SAR levels. It seems like they're mostly interested in the body's ability to dissipate heat generated from RF absorption. They seem to think that there is no patient (and this includes super sick people) that can't handle 2 W/kg SAR (see page 2). 4 W/kg SAR may make some patients uncomfortable, depends on how healthy they are I imagine.

I'm actually completely missing the link between RF absorption and cancer. Is that a thing?

Edit: @TenEightyOne, @Imari

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm actually completely missing the link between RF absorption and cancer. Is that a thing?

WHO says:

Many epidemiological studies have addressed possible links between exposure to RF and excess risk of cancer. However, because of differences in the design and execution of these studies, their results are difficult to interpret. A number of national and international peer review groups have concluded that there is no clear evidence of links between RF exposure and excess risk of cancer. WHO has also concluded that there is no convincing scientific evidence that exposure to RF shortens the life span of humans, or that RF is an inducer or promoter of cancer. However, further studies are necessary.

 

[UKMikey]

Don't get me wrong, using cell phones almost certainly causes more cancer than not. However, because of the power and the frequencies of radiation used, it's probably orders of magnitude less than other major radiation sources in our lives that we take for granted. The sun being the obvious one that we know is actually pretty dangerous, but also x-rays, smoking, television, plane trips, and bananas.

I don't disagree with your post but is TV radiation still a thing nowadays since we switched from CRTs?

[EDIT] Looks like the electromagnetic field from the power supply is still a radiation source.

http://emwatch.com/tv-radiation/

 

[Dotini]

Recently some airline flights had to land due to crew sickness. Radiation poisoning?

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/...mass-sicknesses-following-radiation-warnings/
Throughout 2017, radiation levels were observed to spike suddenly on flights around the world, prompting NASA to launch a new RadX satellite to track ‘clouds’ of cosmic radiationto help protect flight crews. More recently, several flights over the last month have been grounded around the world for mass illnesses with oddly familar-sounding symptoms. On December 20th, a Jetstar Airbus flying from Cairns to Coolangatta in Queensland, Australia had to make an emergency landing when all six crew became stricken by dizziness, nausea, and lightheadedness. The six crew members were taken to a hospital for treatment. A similar incident happened weeks ago when a United flight from Munich to New Jersey had to make an emergency landing at London Heathrow due to similar unexplained illnesses. Over the last three months, incidents of nausea and other similar radiation symptoms have been increasing in regularity according to a search of aviation watchdog blog AVHerald.com which tracks in-flight incidents.



This plot displays radiation measurements not only in the stratosphere, but also at aviation altitudes. Dose rates are expessed as multiples of sea level. For instance, we see that boarding a plane that flies at 25,000 feet exposes passengers to dose rates ~10x higher than sea level. At 40,000 feet, the multiplier is closer to 50x. These measurements are made by our usual cosmic ray payload as it passes through aviation altitudes en route to the stratosphere over California.

What is this all about? Approximately once a week, Spaceweather.com and the students of Earth to Sky Calculus fly space weather balloons to the stratosphere over California. These balloons are equipped with radiation sensors that detect cosmic rays, a surprisingly "down to Earth" form of space weather. Cosmic rays can seed clouds, trigger lightning, and penetrate commercial airplanes. Furthermore, there are studies ( #1, #2, #3, #4) linking cosmic rays with cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in the general population. Our latest measurements show that cosmic rays are intensifying, with an increase of more than 13% since 2015:



Why are cosmic rays intensifying? The main reason is the sun. Solar storm clouds such as coronal mass ejections (CMEs) sweep aside cosmic rays when they pass by Earth. During Solar Maximum, CMEs are abundant and cosmic rays are held at bay. Now, however, the solar cycle is swinging toward Solar Minimum, allowing cosmic rays to return. Another reason could be the weakening of Earth's magnetic field, which helps protect us from deep-space radiation.

The radiation sensors onboard our helium balloons detect X-rays and gamma-rays in the energy range 10 keV to 20 MeV. These energies span the range of medical X-ray machines and airport security scanners.

The data points in the graph above correspond to the peak of the Reneger-Pfotzer maximum, which lies about 67,000 feet above central California. When cosmic rays crash into Earth's atmosphere, they produce a spray of secondary particles that is most intense at the entrance to the stratosphere. Physicists Eric Reneger and Georg Pfotzer discovered the maximum using balloons in the 1930s and it is what we are measuring today.

 

[Famine]

Radiation poisoning?

No.

At the stratospheric peak on your chart of 4.5uGy/hr (well above normal flight corridors) you'd need to be airborne for slightly less than 9 years to accumulate enough absorbed equivalent dose (0.35Gy) to begin to exhibit any ARS symptoms.

As for:

Recently some airline flights had to land due to crew sickness.

More recently, several flights over the last month have been grounded around the world for mass illnesses with oddly familar-sounding symptoms. On December 20th, a Jetstar Airbus flying from Cairns to Coolangatta in Queensland, Australia had to make an emergency landing when all six crew became stricken by dizziness, nausea, and lightheadedness. The six crew members were taken to a hospital for treatment. A similar incident happened weeks ago when a United flight from Munich to New Jersey had to make an emergency landing at London Heathrow due to similar unexplained illnesses.

Jetstar JQ-967 made an emergency landing when fumes were noticed on board... on approach. There's no word on the issue with United UA-31 yet, but only one passenger was still unwell on landing and the plane was withdrawn from service for an investigation.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Recently some airline flights had to land due to crew sickness. Radiation poisoning?

If you go back through those AVHerald archives you'll see many cabin atmosphere events and you'll also see that the most common cause (by a huge margin) is bleed air events with a contaminant in the engine air that is used to heat the cabin. In extreme icing (and on approach) there's an increased risk of contamination as the APU is run.

 

[Dotini]

If you go back through those AVHerald archives you'll see many cabin atmosphere events and you'll also see that the most common cause (by a huge margin) is bleed air events with a contaminant in the engine air that is used to heat the cabin. In extreme icing (and on approach) there's an increased risk of contamination as the APU is run.

I'd noticed a handful of reports recently about radiation clouds appearing here and there over Europe; and some speculation perhaps of troubles in a Russian or Ukrainian reactor.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'd noticed a handful of reports recently about radiation clouds appearing here and there over Europe; and some speculation perhaps of troubles in a Russian or Ukrainian reactor.

Why would that reduce the normal rate of bleed-air issues while causing identical issues through new means, and why would there be no radiation evidence? You can bet your bottom dollar that incidences of radiation in aircraft cabins would be thoroughly investigated, at least by large first-world states.

 

[Dotini]

Why would that reduce the normal rate of bleed-air issues while causing identical issues through new means, and why would there be no radiation evidence? You can bet your bottom dollar that incidences of radiation in aircraft cabins would be thoroughly investigated, at least by large first-world states.

Harmless Ruthenium.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...from-russia-after-all/?utm_term=.5c7f7fbb2141

 

[TenEightyOne]

Harmless Ruthenium.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...from-russia-after-all/?utm_term=.5c7f7fbb2141

That article is pay-per-view but I remember that we covered the subject in another thread (Europe?), the levels were insignificant to human health and certainly not concentrated enough to penetrate aircraft and cause issues in the cabin. Besides that neither of the aircraft whose incidents you linked were on a flightpath that took them through that area.

 

[Dotini]

Plastics (bisphenol A (BPA)) in our food packaging, water bottles and shopping receipts may be both a blessing of technology and a curse.
They are associated with low fertility in males, and other gender-bending mutations.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alert-as-oestrogen-mimicking-bpa-found-in-teens-ch82zvjz7

 

[Johnnypenso]

Why would that reduce the normal rate of bleed-air issues while causing identical issues through new means, and why would there be no radiation evidence? You can bet your bottom dollar that incidences of radiation in aircraft cabins would be thoroughly investigated, at least by large first-world states.

You mean like,"You can bet your bottom dollar that if cigarettes caused cancer we'd all know about it"?. The 1950''s say hello

 

[Danoff]

Plastics (bisphenol A (BPA)) in our food packaging, water bottles and shopping receipts may be both a blessing of technology and a curse.
They are associated with low fertility in males, and other gender-bending mutations.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alert-as-oestrogen-mimicking-bpa-found-in-teens-ch82zvjz7

Every piece of technology can be considered a blessing and a curse (which are strange supernatural terms to associate with what is a very tangible, natural process) unless it literally has no downside. And I can think of a downside to just about every human invention. Fire, the wheel, vaccines, soap... for example, if we didn't invent soap, we wouldn't have byproducts from soap manufacturing, transport, and packaging.

I think, though, that the interesting find would be an area of technology that is detrimental on-the-whole. So, on balance, do you think plastic is detrimental?

 

[Dotini]

So, on balance, do you think plastic is detrimental?

For me personally, it's hard to say. Back in the 1940's and 50's, there was no such thing as plastic, at least not where I lived. As I got older, plastic became more and more prevalent in daily life, and I reluctantly got used to it, but have always preferred wood, metal, ceramic, glass and other materials for some reason. It has not affected my sperm - even unto this very day!! Wahoo!

But, if the research into plastics dropping fertility and causing other morphological defects are actual true, then I'd say plastic may have the potential to cause real serious problems for the human race. It's certainly already caused a lot of problems for fish, marine mammals and aquatic organisms. So yeah, maybe on the whole it's detrimental to the health of living creatures. But, on the other hand, health and safety isn't everything. Fun, entertainment, convenience, economic advantage, all that means something too. For you, it's probably a net gain. But who knows? Since plastic is derived from petroleum, and I have benefited greatly from oil and gas royalties for a substantial portion of my income since the 70's, it's at least true that I have profited from other people buying my oil and gas to make plastics.

 

[Danoff]

For me personally, it's hard to say. Back in the 1940's and 50's, there was no such thing as plastic, at least not where I lived. As I got older, plastic became more and more prevalent in daily life, and I reluctantly got used to it, but have always preferred wood, metal, ceramic, glass and other materials for some reason. It has not affected my sperm - even unto this very day!! Wahoo!

But, if the research into plastics dropping fertility and causing other morphological defects are actual true, then I'd say plastic may have the potential to cause real serious problems for the human race. It's certainly already caused a lot of problems for fish, marine mammals and aquatic organisms. So yeah, maybe on the whole it's detrimental to the health of living creatures. But, on the other hand, health and safety isn't everything. Fun, entertainment, convenience, economic advantage, all that means something too. For you, it's probably a net gain. But who knows? Since plastic is derived from petroleum, and I have benefited greatly from oil and gas royalties for a substantial portion of my income since the 70's, it's at least true that I have profited from other people buying my oil and gas to make plastics.

On the otherhand, plastics reduce oil consumption by improving fuel economy in vehicles - which has a whole host of benefits to humanity. If it costs a little oil to save a ton of oil, that's no problem. Especially given that the oil used to make plastics isn't being burned.

There are also about 100,000 medical devices that can't exist without plastic. Quick, count the plastic bits:

 

[Dotini]

More clear evidence cellphones & wireless technology and infrastructure cause brain tumors, and are particularly dangerous to children.
(I expect to be almost unanimously condemned and ignored for this post, but my possibly misplaced concern for humanity forces me to post it anyway.)

 

[Dotini]

Apparently 95% of Brits believe patience is a virtue. But most also believe technology has made them incredibly impatient. It seems the moral of the story is too much luxury and technology is bad for you.

https://www.studyfinds.org/hurry-up-modern-patience-thresholds-lower-than-ever-before-survey-finds/

 

[Rallywagon]

Is it to blame, or is it a scape goat? The ol "I dont want to except my failings and shortcomings and here is this convenient excuse I can use rather than work on fixing my problems..."

 

[Dotini]

Is it to blame, or is it a scape goat? The ol "I dont want to except my failings and shortcomings and here is this convenient excuse I can use rather than work on fixing my problems..."

Good question. Perhaps it is a moral failure common only to the British, and does not apply to us and other high tech societies around the world?

 

[TenEightyOne]

There are also about 100,000 medical devices that can't exist without plastic. Quick, count the plastic bits:

I quite agree. Where we fail is in our understanding of the damage caused by uncontrolled disposal of plastic into the ecosystem. In many ways we need plastic for healthy lives but we need to recycle it far more efficiently. The plastics producers have a lot of work to do in that regard.

 

[Danoff]

Apparently 95% of Brits believe patience is a virtue.

They're wrong. Sometimes patience is the worst thing you can practice. Sometimes it is the best. Patience is a choice and a tool.

 

[Dotini]

Patience is a choice and a tool.

In your zeal, you are getting a bit ahead of yourself. Patience is not a tool or a choice. It is firstly a capacity, and then a skill.

Patience is defined as “the capacity to accept or tolerate delay, trouble or suffering without getting angry or upset,” a definition with several important components. Patience is also a skill. We can work on increasing our ability to be patient and engage in practices to become a more patient person.

 

[Danoff]

In your zeal, you are getting a bit ahead of yourself. Patience is not a tool or a choice. It is firstly a capacity, and then a skill.

It is also a skill.

 

[TVR27]

I think knowledge is a blessing and a curse.

 

[zzz_pt]

It's a non question in my opinion.

Regardless of the amount of knowledge humans have, their propensity to do good and evil will always be there. It doesn't matter if they have the knowledge of how to build a nuclear bomb, of they know how to invent vaccines or how combustion engines works. We don't need that do be cruel or to be kind.