is this real?
Table of Contents
- Why children are at higher risk
- Do Telecommunication companies agree that cell phones can be harmful?
- What's a safe distance for a phone?
- Why have I not heard of this?
Cigarette ad from the 1940s. Our view on cigarettes and health has changed a lot since then.
Why children are at higher risk
The FCC safety exposure limit to cell phones is 1.6 watts/kg in 1 g of tissue. This is an amount of energy (watts/kg) measured over a specific mass (g). According to the FCC, this is the amount of energy your body can absorb from a cell phone before it starts to heat up. This rate is referred to as the SAR or Specific Absorption Rate. Right now, this is really the only law implemented for cell phone design, that protects us from its harmful effects, and it was set for a 6’2” 200 lb mam.
Does a 6’2” 220lb man have the same body type and therefore SAR as your child? The answer is, absolutely not.
Om P. Gandhi says that the SAR of your average 10-year-old is up to 153% higher than the males that where tested for the original SAR. Telling us that this 1.6 watts/kg in 1 g of tissue is out of date for children.
The developmental stage that a child’s body is in, gives them a higher SAR. Male children also have an organ that is exposed not protected by our body’s natural barriers, such as skin tissue, bone and muscle. Therefore, children are at higher risk, specifically for the well-known, recognized and studied harmful thermal effects. Below are three problems with the current SAR of 1.6 watts/kg in 1g of tissue
- It does not consider the non-thermal biological effects, specifically the effects of non-ionizing radiation. See harmful effects of EMF page for more details.
- This study was only done on brain tissue not that of the “family jewels” or other body parts.
It is important to understand that most species on this planet, humans included, have some natural protection to EMF radiation. This was to protect the body from the sun’s harmful EMF waves. Different body parts on your body have different SARs. Skin tissue, bone and even our muscles can help protect our vital organs from exposure. Most of our origins are behind these natural barriers. Except one, the reproductive organ of a male, the “family jewels”.
- This rate of absorption was set in 1996 and was based off testing done on men with an average size of 6’2” 220 lb.
This testing in 1996 was done to protect us from the thermal effects a cell phone can cause. Thermal effects are harmful to the human body. This is how a microwave works. Microwaves use EMF to heat up your food. The FCC did not want a cell phone heating up human tissue; hence why a SAR limit was implemented for the cell phone. 5G will have the ability to operate on frequencies up to 40Ghz. A microwave operates on 40GHz.
Do Telecommunication companies agree that cell phones can be harmful?
In short, yes! However, you may want to hear this directly from the horse’s mouth. To do so on an iPhone, go to:
Settings>General>Legal & Regulatory>RF Exposure.
Buried within the legalese is a noticeably clear warning from Apple: use hands free options. This acknowledgement by telecommunication companies raises a few questions. It’s important to note, the cell phone frequently ends up in a pocket when using a hands free option.
Are they implying that a cell phone could be harmful to my head? If it is not safe for my head, is it safe for you or a loved one to put the phone in the front pocket during a call? Is your phone harmful when it is in an idle state in your pocket? Does this legal and regulatory page warrant enough to say that telecommunication companies agree that cell phones can be harmful?
At Three Oxygen, we’ve done our research and believe the answer to be yes, cell phones can be harmful. The answer is contained within the “RF exposure” section of their own terms & conditions!
What's a safe distance for a phone?
Simply put, the further away from EMF radiation the better. This is true for both ionizing radiation such as an x-ray machine and for non-ionizing radiation like your cell phone.
Sir Isaac Newton himself articulated this best in his inverse square law, which says that the intensity is proportional to the inverse distance squared, or in layman’s terms, the further away you are, the less intense any exposure is.
If you are touching you get full exposure, one foot away ¼ the exposure, two feet away 1/16 the exposure.
Why have I not heard of this?
Like many things before, cell phone technology is relatively new. With any new technology, the euphoria of progress and advancement can cloud the judgement in evaluating costs and dangers associated with the new technology. In fact, there very well could be uncertainties with adverse side effects.
However, a look back to recent history can help us develop a better understanding of why these dangers are not immediately front-page news!
30 years for Cigarettes
In 1946, a famous advertising campaign debuted touting the claim that “More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette.” With a classic appeal to authority, the advertisers sold consumers on the notion that if a cigarette is safe and good for a doctor, then it must be safe for the public!
Au contraire! As early as the 1920’s, doctors & researchers had established a link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer. Yet nearly 30 years later, ads were being run deceptively suggesting that cigarettes are endorsed by doctors and are therefore safe.
With the benefit of hindsight, we acknowledge cigarettes as being unsafe, but this was not always the prevailing consensus.
60 years for Cars
Henry Ford changed the world in 1896 with his unique version of the combustible engine. His technology ushered out the era of the horse & buggy and changed the world. Cars powered by his combustible engine created new frontiers and new possibilities and the world adopted the car without hesitation.
With the rapid adoption of cars, safety & security were not front of mind. It took nearly 60 years to install basic safety measures into vehicles, and in 1955, Dr. C. Hunter Shelden proposed the idea of a seat belt.
50 Years for X-Ray
The benefits of X-Ray technology cannot be understated. From the inception in 1895 by Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, the impact of x-rays is enormous. From standard use in the health care industry to modern use in airport security, x-rays have proven to be an enormous technological advancement.
However, in infancy, x-ray technology was not fully comprehended. In fact, x-ray technology was deployed for entertainment in opera houses and shoes stores. Customers happily lined up to use the x-ray without fully understanding that use in a non-controlled environment and prolonged exposure posed risks to their health! It wasn’t until the 1950s that we determined this type of EMF is harmful and started limiting our exposure time.
47+ Years for Cell phones
So far, we’ve seen that cigarettes, cars, and x-rays were all happily used prior to a full understanding of any adverse side effects was uncovered. Is it possible that the same may be true with cell phones?
The first cell phone call was made in 1973 by inventor Martin Cooper. Since then, cell phones have evolved from bag phones in the car to a personal computer in your pocket. Each advancement is exciting and creates new frontiers to be explored. With the introduction of 5G technology, cell phones will again experience a transformation. 5G will benefit virtually all of society, but might it have adverse, unknown side effects?
At Three Oxygen, we believe in and support technological advancements, especially 5G. We simply want to acknowledge history before and accept this new technology with a full recognition of past mistakes made. We want to learn from these mistakes, and we want to protect those we love most. We welcome new technology with open arms, but we also prioritize the well-being and safety of our loved ones!