# Forum More Stuff Debate & Technical Discussion  Cordless Phones radiation danger

## Marc

We have long known the dangers of radiation from mobile phones and their towers, and despite assurance from authorities, telecommunication "independent" research  and the World Health Organisation's mercenary "conclusions" we all know they are dangerous and use them short term or on speaker. (That I hope anyway) 
One device however has invaded our homes unchecked and sits on every kitchen table, night table, living room or home office and that is the cordless phone. 
Very convenient and deemed to be safer than a mobile phone.
Yet is it?  http://www.electricsense.com/815/cor...n-cell-phones/ Cordless phones: the unspoken DECT hazard at home and at work from the national research-based TETRA Airwave safety campaign  
The above article points to the main problem cordless phone with DECT technology. The base emits radiation constantly 24/7 regardless if the phone is in use or not. 
Low radiation cordless phone like the siemens gigaset, emit a bit less radiation when in use but when not in use go into sleep mode. 
I did not know this. I had a dual handset Panasonic cordless at home one in the living room and one in the bedroom. Also had a dual handset at my holiday house with a repeater station out on the deck that gave me 200 meters coverage. 
I have thrown all of them out (I wanted to put them on e-bay but my wife did not let me) and replaced them with Siemens Gigaset A510A Cordless Phone Radiation - Low Radiation Cordless Phones
I hope to have done the right thing, not because of any "green" concern but because of the health hazard of electromagnetic radiation. 
Next thing I'll turn my attention to the wireless internet connection. See how bad that is and if it can be addressed at all. 
Hooroo
Marc

----------


## OBBob

Good luck with your cause ... there is sooo much background radiation (and not just made by humans) I think you have a fair challenge on your hands. Hopefully you don't fly too much, cosmic radiation will ruin your holiday.  :Smilie:   
On the upside, landline phones are becoming a thing of the past ... more and more people now only rely on their mobiles.

----------


## Marc

Sorry Bob but this is not a "cause" much less "my" cause, rather some facts. Electromagnetic radiation is known to cause illness. If we know a very large source very easy to overcome I don't know about you but I choose to block it off. If you live next to a mobile phone tower you move. if you use your mobile a lot, you minimise your calls or use speaker. Air travel is a choice and not comparable to the level of radiation from a cordless phone station 24/7.There are million of cordless phones in use.

----------


## OBBob

Just stirring,  sorry. I agree that anything you can reduce easily without too much consequence is worth considering whether it be radiation related, or pollution, or chemicals in food,  the list goes on.  
Every little bit should help but with so much background radiation it isn't clear how much of an impact it'll have.  
The WiFi one is an interesting one...

----------


## PhilT2

Lewandowsky confirmed again.

----------


## Random Username

> Lewandowsky confirmed again.

   :2thumbsup:

----------


## METRIX

You can't get away from it, you might throw away your cordless phone, but all your neighbors still have theirs emitting background radiation into your house.
There are so many WiFi networks in every neighborhood, and it doesn't matter if you don't live next to a mobile tower, if your mobile works in your house then the signal is there. 
All you can do is build a Faraday cage around your house and hide in it, but the moment you step outside you will be exposed to everything from mobiles, Bluetooth, WiFi, garage openers, baby monitors, and the million other signals floating around. 
We are all going to die, and if these things are giving us cancers etc, then it's already too late there everywhere, you cannot escape them, it's part of modern life and only going to get worse.  *Low radiation cordless, sounds a bit like a scare monger marketing campaign to sell you a new product to extend your life.* 
Think about this, as of a few seconds ago there were, 7,279,612,145 people in the world, and there are more than 7.3 Billion active mobile phone subscriptions out there, so forget trying to get away from that amount of background signals. 
How many people have really died from cancers to the brain, nobody really knows, but with 7.3 billion subscriptions out there, I would expect if there really is a problem with these sort's of things we would all know someone who has died from this, I only know of ONE person who was told to never use a mobile phone as she had a brain cancer. 
More than 300,000 people were born today, and 124,000 died, by the time I finished typing this, the population has gone up to 7,279,616,413 
Below is from the Cancer council of Australia             *Cancer Myth: Mobile phones and cancer*  *Origin of the misconception* 
 Over the past 20 years, mobile phone use has become an everyday part  of many people’s lives.  In 2014, it is estimated that there are more  than 7 billion mobile phones in use worldwide.
 Mobile phones are low-powered radio devices that transmit and receive  microwave radiation. They operate at frequencies between 450 and 2,700  MHz with peak powers in the range of 0.1 to 2 watts.1   Concerns have been raised that mobile phones cause cancer – specifically  brain tumours, as they are held close to the head when they are used.
 There is clear evidence that high-energy (ionising) radiation – such  as x-rays, and (gamma) γ-rays – cause cancer, genetic defects and weaken  our immune system.  So it makes sense that the media and public has  extended this bad reputation to low-energy radiation such as  extremely-low-frequency (ELF) radiation (electricity), radiofrequency  (RF) radiation and microwaves.  As a result, mobile phones and their  base stations, as well as power lines, are major areas of public  concern.2
 High-energy radiation (ionising radiation) alters (ionises) chemical  and molecular bonds and can damage molecules such as DNA (genetic  material in cells).  It is this damage that can lead to cancer and  genetic defects.  By contrast, low-energy radiation (non-ionising  radiation) does not have the right frequency or sufficient energy to  ionise molecules.  There is little basis for the theory that low-energy  radiation can damage DNA.2 *Current evidence*  *Mobile phones* 
 In the last 20 years, a large number of studies have investigated  whether mobile phones are a health risk.  Many studies have been  conducted on mobile phone use and its link to cancers of the head and  brain – such as meningioma, glioma and acoustic neuroma.  Brain function  – such as changes in cognitive performance or brain activity – has also  been examined.
 Case-control Studies
 Most studies to date have been case-control studies, where  researchers look for people who have cancer and compare their mobile  phone use with people who don’t.  These studies rely on people  remembering how often and for how long they used their mobile phone in  the past.
 The largest case-control study to date is the INTERPHONE study, which  included over 5,000 people with head and neck cancer from 13  countries.  The study started in 2000 and results were published in 2010  and 2011.3, 4 The researchers found that mobile phone users  had no increased risk of glioma or meningioma.  There was some  suggestion that glioma risk was increased amongst the heaviest users of  mobile phones but this evidence did not conclusively show a causal link  between mobile phone use and cancer. Similar results were found by a  smaller French case-control study in 2014.5
 Cohort (Prospective) Studies
 Prospective studies are considered more reliable than case-control  studies because they don’t rely on people’s memories about their  exposure.
 In October 2011, a very large Danish study of over 350,000 people  found no link between mobile phone use and risk of any type of brain  tumour.6  This study followed healthy mobile phone  subscribers from 1982, the year mobile phones were introduced into  Denmark, to see how many developed cancer.  People were followed for an  average of around 10 years.   This result was confirmed in 2014 by a  prospective study of nearly 800,000 UK women, which found that mobile  phone use was not associated with an increased incidence of brain  cancers.7
 In 2013, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)  evaluated all scientific research investigating the health effects of  mobile phones classified mobile phone use – and other radiofrequency  electromagnetic fields – as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’ (IARC  Group 2B).8 This means there is limited evidence that radiofrequency radiation causes cancer in humans and animals.
 Ongoing Research
 As the prospective studies to date have only looked at mobile phone  use for about 10 years, we don’t know if using a mobile phone for longer  has any effect on brain cancer risk.  COSMOS is a large study that has  been set up to look at the long term effects of mobile phone use after  20 to 30 years.  It includes researchers from the UK and four other  countries and will monitor 250,000 people who regularly use mobile  phones.  The MOBI-KIDS study, involving 13 countries, has been set up to  look at health effects in children. *Base stations* 
 Mobile phones communicate by transmitting radio waves through a  network of fixed antennas called base stations.  Base stations emit  radio frequency (RF) waves at high power levels.   The strength of the  RF field is the greatest near its source, and drops off greatly with  distance. Hence the antennas are positioned high up and surrounds are  often fenced off.  Public access is highly regulated where field  strength may exceed safety limits.9
 The strength of the RF fields must comply with safety limits imposed  by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).  These  limits are based on Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety  Agency (ARPANSA) recommendations. RF signal levels in all areas of  public access are within guidelines, by a factor of 100 or more.10
 A review by the World Health Organization on the effects of RF fields  from base stations showed no increase in the incidence of cancer in  both animals and humans.11 *Summary* 
 Although there remains some uncertainty, current scientific evidence  indicates that a link between mobile phone use or base stations and  cancer is unlikely.  Research to date has not been able to examine the  long-term effects of mobile phone use, as mobile technology is  relatively new. The possibility of adverse effects arising from this  technology cannot be ruled out, but is looking less likely as the  research accumulates. *Further reading*   Mobile telephones and health. Radiation Protection, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency ARPANSA - Mobile Telephones and Health Effects#Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones, World Health Organization, WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones  *References* 
 1. World Health Organization (WHO). Electromagnetic fields and public  health: mobile phones. 2011  [cited 11 August 2014]; Fact sheet N°193].  Available from: WHO | Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones.
2. Australian  Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). Radiation  basics - ionising and non-ionising radiation. 2012  [cited 2014  11/08/2014]; Available from: ARPANSA - Ionising and Non Ionising Radiation.
3. Group,  T.I.S., Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results  of the INTERPHONE international case–control study. International  Journal of Epidemiology, 2010. 39(3): p. 675-694.
4. Group, T.I.S.,  Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: Results of  the INTERPHONE international case–control study. Cancer Epidemiology,  2011. 35(5): p. 453-464.
5. Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P et al.  Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study.  Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2014; 71:514-522.
6. Frei, P., et al., Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study. BMJ, 2011. 343. 
7. Benson  V, Pirie K, Schuz J et al. Mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms  and other cancers: prospective study. International Journal of  Epidemiology. 2013; 42:792-802.
8. Baan, R., et al., Carcinogenicity  of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The Lancet Oncology, 2011.  12(7): p. 624-626. See also International Agency for Cancer Research  (IARC) Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic  Fields. Volume 102. 2013. Lyon, France.
9. Australian Radiation  Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). Are Mobile Telephone  Communication Antennas a Health Hazard? 2007; [cited 11/08/2014]  Available from: ARPANSA - Mobile Telephone Communication Antennas and Health Effects.
10. Australian  Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). Mobile  Telephones and Health Effects. 2007 [cited 11/08/2014] Available from: ARPANSA - Mobile Telephones and Health Effects.
11. World Health Organization (WHO). Electromagnetic fields and public health. 2006  [cited 11/08/2014]; Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/facts.../en/index.html. Return to cancer myths page    
See the scary figures below.   World Population Clock: 7 Billion People (2014) - Worldometers

----------


## OBBob

That's a lot of phone batteries...

----------


## phild01

> That's a lot of phone batteries...

  yeah, but what about all those extra people!

----------


## Random Username

> yeah, but what about all those extra people!

  They are simply going to have to buy their own mobiles!

----------


## woodbe

Did you come here on a plane Marc? 
lol.

----------


## Random Username

Having a read of that electricsense site, one of the "case studies" (of a woman who claims she has electrosensistivity) had the following quote in it: _
"My thought was I never wanted to work for dollars. I always wanted dollars to work for me._"  Fits right into one of the common belief patterns (strong free market ideology) listed by Lewandowsky's research on conspiracist ideation.  Hold on now, it's only a short hop to the moon landing was a hoax, the FBI killed Martin Luther King, and we are all in danger from the new world order (who are possibly reptilian aliens). 
According to the electrosense site, we should watch out for "dirty electricity" as well. (I'm safe, mine gets put through a quick wash cycle in the washing machine before use!)

----------


## OBBob

Gee ... had never heard that one.    
Reminds me of this ...

----------


## METRIX



----------


## Random Username

Well, I will say that video explains why Monster Energy Drink tastes like Satan's wee!

----------


## Marc

All very entertaining however i was not talking about mobile phones but cordless. 
If you know, and now you know, that the base station of your cordless phone emits a high dose of radiation continuously, you wouldn't place it in your kids bedroom and if you can replace it with one that shuts down when not in use, you would, any rational person would I believe. 
Your logic is very close to a smoker's logic, but hei, information is not obligation.
PS
There are a lot of people whose interest in healthy living gets mixed up with interest in who killed JFK, moon landing, the Yeti, vegetarian diets the Lock Ness monster and save the planet from the bad rich, not necessarily in that order. That does not mean you can not take selectively information about radiation emissions from cordless phones and leave the rest be. Such is the nature of the internet. There is a lot of rubbish and some good stuff. You pick and choose, the rest is irrelevant. It's called mature attitude.

----------


## woodbe

METRIX is on the money. If you want to get away from it, you need to pack up and head out into the bush. 
The difference between Mobile phones and Cordless phones is very little and probably depends on the brand you buy of each rather than whether they are mobile or cordless.  Wireless electronic devices and health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Both mobile and cordless phones (and wireless networking devices) live in the WHO Group 2B   

> _Group 2B: The agent (mixture) is possibly carcinogenic to  humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are possibly  carcinogenic to humans._ This category is used for agents, mixtures  and exposure circumstances for which there is limited evidence of  carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of  carcinogenicity in experimental animals.

----------


## Marc

> METRIX is on the money. If you want to get away from it, you need to pack up and head out into the bush.

  Yes and no.The ill effects of radiation depends from the distance of your body to the source and from the time of exposure. The power reduces in a quadratic way not lineal so a small distance make a lot of difference. A source that is close and is on 24/7 is more dangerous than a source that is remote, or one that is only on when in use. Yes, we are in a soup of microwave radiation, if you can eliminate one that is close and on all the time you do something meaningful for yourself and your family.The denial of the WHO and other official bodies of the harm from mobile phones is purely corporate protectionism similar to the denial of harm from smoking paraded around for decades before it was undeniable, "safe" levels of mercury and pesticides in food an other niceties.

----------


## woodbe

> The denial of the WHO and other official bodies of the harm from mobile phones is purely corporate protectionism similar to the denial of harm from smoking paraded around for decades before it was undeniable, "safe" levels of mercury and pesticides in food an other niceties.

  There is a lot of denial about Marc. WHO is not in denial, they are rating wireless communication as an unconfirmed but possible risk. With more study that may or may not move into a higher risk category. That puts it at a level of risk less than smoking or dare I say it,  climate change. I'm quite sure if the corporate protectionism was working for wireless, it would work for climate change but it isn't, is it? WHO | Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability 
You can choose your own opinion, but not your own facts.

----------


## woodbe

WHO on Smoking FYI: WHO - The Third ten years - 1968-1977 (p222)   

> The recommendations of a scientific group on the diagnosis of acute ischaemic heart 
> disease that met in 1969 led to a pilot study in collaborating laboratories in Belgium,
> Czechoslovakia, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. The study involved radiological and
> histochemical examination of the heart, as well as microscopic evaluation of histological
> slides prepared in a central laboratory in Switzerland. Analysis of the material, completed
> in 1971, showed that the major predisposing factors were elevated blood lipids, heavy
> smoking, unhealthy nutritional habits, a sedentary life and mental strain, all of which were
> found among persons aged 2030 years or younger, suggesting that prevention programmes
> should target these age groups.  
> ...

----------


## Marc

Your particular affection for international bodies with long strings attached is noted.
The question is, are you going to remove the hazards you know or the one you can or are you going to wait for some political pseudo scientific body to decide it is time to make a move?  
I was glad to find that I could do something to reduce the electromagnetic radiation in my home and so I did. 
The general consensus seems to be that it is some form of conspiracy theory to be ridiculed. 
That's OK I am all for jokes and laughs.  
To try to graft a climate change controversy to this thread is rather lame.

----------


## phild01

Marc, who knows.  Studies into Telomeres might reveal something too.

----------


## woodbe

> To try to graft a climate change controversy to this thread is rather lame.

  No graft. I'm just pointing out that the body you disrespect with regard to climate change supports your view of _possible_ radiation damage. 
The facts haven't changed, but your opinion varies. I know that is not what you want to hear, but you can't be a bleeding heart for the less risky radiation damage while ignoring something that is higher risk, better researched and identified. 
We have cordless phones and wifi in the house. They are purposely concentrated away from the areas the kids spend the most time. Our bedroom is the closest to the access point (5+ metres) but we are well into the age where in a few short years every year will be a bonus.

----------


## Random Username

There's probably more health risk in reading websites like that electricsense site than in actual exposure to cordless phones. 
But don't worry, one of the other articles on that very site tells you (for a small investment by way of purchasing a book) how, by simply moving your hands around, you can activate your body's 'healing code' to cure all your diseases.  It'll even cure Lou Gehrig's disease (actual testimonial for this on the site), y'know, that disease the Ice Bucket Challenge raised more than US$100 million to fund research into.   
Gee, that fund raising was all such a waste, as it can obviously be cured in three months of hand-waving! "The Healing Codes enables you “to activate a physical function built  into the body that consistently and predictably removes the source of  95% of all illness and disease so that the neuro-immune system takes  over its job of healing whatever is wrong with the body.”  
As for the Tetrawatch site, much of their cited 'research' comes from two researchers (using that term loosely) who have had this said about them: "They have done a good job at one thing:� Making themselves seem  credible.�� A professional looking website, a very legitimate-sounding  name and the implied association with respected scientific bodies makes  them appear, on the surface, to be a legitimate authority on the  subject.�� The reality is much different:� They are a$$clowns." Depleted Cranium Â» Blog Archive Â» This does not qualify as a “Study”  It's interesting that you perceive those two sites to be valid and truthful sources of reasoned scientific investigation, while dismissing the opinion of an actual peak health body such as the World Health Organisation.  Based on that (and Lewandowsky's research), it wouldn't surprise me if you felt that anthropomorphic global warming was a great big scam that existed to line the pockets of climate Ph.D undergrads the world over. 
Can I ask how you came to trust the information presented on those two sites?   
Was it because it confirmed your existing (yet possibly nascent) beliefs, or because the sites provided such an overwhelming abundance of well researched data that you could not help but be swayed by their arguments, or was it something else entirely?  (seriously, I am interested to find out what it was in their content that made you say "Aha!  These people know what they are talking about and they have it right!").

----------


## Marc

This is getting better by the day.
Why would a post that states undeniable facts (Electromagnetic radiation can be measured with a cheap gadget used to see if your microwave oven leaks) stir up so many nasty replies and so many personal attacks? 
Answer: because the facts are uncomfortable. They imply you have to act, do something or you are neglecting yourself or your family. Note I say imply, I don't say you have to do anything,  I only suggested this because I recently found out the amount of radiation from cordless phones to be potentially dangerous, and thought you guys may be in the dark as I was. Id did something about it. Just a small action for a few hundred dollars. I am well aware of the rest of radiation sources. 
As far as the sites chosen to find a description of the problem, I don't think there is much difference in which one you bring up. None of them does their own research, they all copy from other sources and post them. And if they also happen to post sighting of the Yeti, so what? Do you believe in the Yeti? Well good for you, what does it matter? Aren't you capable of discerning between one and the other? 
Not too long ago, to use earplugs at the firing range was for wimps, smoking was good for "nervous" people and helped them relax, thalidomide was a wonder drug to help sleep, when the "safe" amount of mercury in food excluded older fish like sword fish from restaurant, the health authorities, lowered the threshold so that swordfish can again be sold in restaurants, every chef on TV today cooks with Honey yet this is known to turn honey into a toxin called HMF. When I asked our health authorities why HMF was not measured in our honey yet Germany bans imports of Honey with traces of HMF they asked me what HMF was ... And we can go on for pages on this note, discrediting health authorities is so easy because they are political arms of government and are used and manipulated for political and economical reasons with the health as their very last concern. If then we take an "authority" that is in the shade of the UN, we then have an even worst mercenary lackey task force.   
The Australian Government has a small page on the subject that as all other official sites starts with a disclaimer "There is no scientific evidence that smoking poses any danger ... oops, I mean to say lead in paint ... no that is another one, radiation from mobile phones..." etc. 
However it does make a limp noncommittal small effort to say something on the subject. ARPANSA - How to Reduce Exposure from Mobile Phones and other Wireless Devices 
As far as the last random post, I find the post to be a personal attack and that does not contribute to the subject of the thread and that it should be deleted.

----------


## Random Username

Are you concerned about hydroxymethylfurfural just in honey (where it is an indicator of storage temperatures and therefore possibly of honey quality) or in all cooked/heated foods where there's been some conversion of natural sugars due to either heat or time? 
Do you worry about the content of HMF in toast? In the ever-present Bunnings sausage and onion sanger (in the sausage, onion and the bread)?  In wine? 
The only mention I've been able to find of honey in relation to HMF and Germany is that there is a European trade regulation limiting HMF in honey to 40mg/kilo (which apparently is a problem for tropical honey producing countries, where the HMF content may naturally rise to 80mg/kg).    
Searches for strings like 'germany bans HMF', 'HMF in honey banned' 'germany bans honey' all come back with "No results found".  Even doing a search translating keywords to German didn't turn up anything bar the 40mg/kilo EU regulation. (but that could just be because auto-translation is rubbish!) 
And...undeniable facts on phone radiation?   
The only undeniable fact that I've been able to find is that despite mobile and cordless phones being on the market for a good 20 years, there are no reliable studies that are able to find a causal link between phone use and (insert sickness here) that have results significantly above the 'statistical noise' level of the data.  It can't be ruled out, because generally proving a negative is pretty much considered to be impossible, but, if there is a risk, it's so small it can easily hide itself among every other possible cause. 
Or are you suggesting that essentially every publicly funded health body/every health research group in the world is falsfying data and colluding to hide the evidence of a phone/cancer link?   
That's putting governments at a level of competence and efficiency that's way, way, way above all the indications of government competence that I've ever seen.  (case in point - the current government wants to bring in mandatory ISP data logging for law enforcement purposes, but at the same time wants to bring in an anti-piracy scheme that will drive (even more) downloaders onto secure VPN's, which makes data logging by ISPs effectively useless).

----------


## Bloss

> Originally Posted by *PhilT2* _Lewandowsky confirmed again._

   :2thumbsup:   :2thumbsup:  
But the solution is at hand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat and for those who need the visuals https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS8dNzRhMgk

----------


## UseByDate

> That's putting governments at a level of competence and efficiency that's way, way, way above all the indications of government competence that I've ever seen.  (case in point - the current government wants to bring in mandatory ISP data logging for law enforcement purposes, but at the same time wants to bring in an anti-piracy scheme that will drive (even more) downloaders onto secure VPN's, which makes data logging by ISPs effectively useless).

  The original justification for the ISP mega-data logging was the war on terror.
 My thoughts....
 Terrorists generally tend to be highly sophisticated. At least those co-ordinating attacks. They are probably already using secure VPMs.  
 The next step by the government will be to ban, or most probably license, the use of data encryption on the internet. Maybe the government has already instructed ISPs to install man in the middle software to intercept encrypted communication. Or maybe all computers are built with hardware key loggers that governments can enable at any time to spy on suspected law breakers.

----------

