Radiation in New tech., Where is the research? Options

[alexdtree]

Hey Atomicans.
There is so much new tech coming out constantly, soon i will likely be buying a pebble watch.
and it kind of brings to mind just how much tech we could potentially have on our bodies in the near future.
And the implications of that on the radiation that will get pumped into our bodies.

The question in my mind is how much research has been done into the effects of the radiation of tech devices that are kept normally right next to our genitals or heads for hours a day?
Also is there any regulations that make sure these devices don't output to much radiation?

[A Hitman]

There is lots of research, lots and LOTS of research.
There also are many regulations.

[Dasa]

the more power the device uses and if its made to transmit a signal the higher the chance that it will increase your chance of cancer over long exposure
but you should probably be more worried about all the imported food your eating

[nesquick]

depends if its ionizing radiation or not, like short wave infrared, visible light and long wave infra red (aside from making you hot) are all pretty well harmless to people.

if the question was more about EMF afaik these are pretty much harmless to humans as well (ever been in an MRI scanner?)

This post has been edited by nesquick: May 24 2012, 10:20 AM

[Dasa]

if the question was more about EMF afaik these are pretty much harmless to humans as well (ever been in an MRI scanner?)

fairly sure they dont like to use them several times in a row on a person due to concerns about the radiation

[nesquick]

yea they don't, research on it afaik is hit and miss though some things support it causes damage others claim it doesn't, Im thinking it doesn't though since Earth itself is within a giant magnetic field.

[Dasa]

yep its hard to research something that can take 50 years to appear and then how do you know what was really the coarse
the fact remains though that cancer is going threw the roof in western style civilization so we are exposing ourselves to some things we shouldnt be

This post has been edited by Dasa: May 24 2012, 11:22 AM

[A Hitman]

the fact remains though that cancer is going threw the roof in western style civilization so we are exposing ourselves to some things we shouldnt be

Or are we just correctly diagnosing it now?

[philo-sofa]

the fact remains though that cancer is going threw the roof in western style civilization so we are exposing ourselves to some things we shouldnt be

Or are we just correctly diagnosing it now?

Or just living long enough to die from it.

[Dasa]

the fact remains though that cancer is going threw the roof in western style civilization so we are exposing ourselves to some things we shouldnt be

Or are we just correctly diagnosing it now?

Or just living long enough to die from it.

all three
in the end we have to die from something

[alexdtree]

Do you guys see this as an issue?
or do you think other more important things are killing us before radiation has a chance?

[Dasa]

Do you guys see this as an issue?
or do you think other more important things are killing us before radiation has a chance?

if you live under large power lines or your building has a bunch of high voltage power transformers attached to its wall or maybe mobile phone equipment is strapped to your building instead of being up a tower
all these things have been done and have proven dangerous
imo typical exposure with low current devices are extremely unlikely to do you any harm there is far more dangerous things we live with every day in our houses (flame retardants) or in the things we eat
things that other countries like japan have banned years ago

This post has been edited by Dasa: May 24 2012, 03:28 PM

[Antraman]

I once went for some X-rays at a medical imaging centre. The assistant put on a lead apron and told me to position myself under the camera. I asked if I get a lead apron too for protection, and was told no, its safe. I asked him why was he wearing one then, and he said "You are getting only one dose, I get many doses everyday.".

Anything that interrupts the normal functioning of the human body, be it mechanical, electrical, magnetic or radioactive, is going to cause problems, its just a matter of degree, and length of exposure.

[fabman_uk]

When you are in an aeroplane you expose yourself to a greater amount of radiation. With more people flying, more exposure across the population. Just adding to the fear.

[ArcaneMagik]

We have studied radiation for a long time. We understand the effects of it rather well, with the obvious exception of high power radiation on the human body in low doses.

Nothing in the statistics points to low power EMR causing cancer.

There is probably not even EMF sensitivity in people.

People have been dying of cancers for a long time, and will sadly be dying of them for a long time still.

Anyone claiming your mobile phone or the wireless router in your house is giving you cancer is trying to sell something (and it is not the truth).

[stadl]

Basically, the theory is that a given size and shaped lump of tissue can safely absorb up to a certain amount of radiation without any adverse results. Beyond that is the area of concern - of course, noone really agrees where exactly that limit is, and the limit depends on whuich tissue, how strong the field is, peak vs average power, duration of the exposure, regularity etc.

There's no practical or ethically acceptable method to perform conclusive research, so instead, mice etc are exposed to different fields strengths, and people extrapolate/model how a larger organsim will respond.

As said, lots of research has been done, and the results vary in where they set the risk points are, but all the international standards are way below the range of risk points from credible findings to be extra safe.

Google SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) It is the standard measure for the rate at which your body absorbs radiation. In most regions of the world, manufacturers of radiating devices are also required to publish SAR results, but test conditions can vary, so I wouldn't be splitting hairs - you need to know how the environment for the test compares to how you are using it (location, network, how you hold it, your physical characteristics etc - even something as simple as having 'big ears' could skew the results, because you hold the phone a couple of mm further away, and that couple of mm = twice the distance).

[Nich...]

It depends what kind of radiation you're talking about. Radiation is a pretty broad term with a lot of baggage.

[Statik X]

Hey Atomicans.
There is so much new tech coming out constantly, soon i will likely be buying a pebble watch.
and it kind of brings to mind just how much tech we could potentially have on our bodies in the near future.
And the implications of that on the radiation that will get pumped into our bodies.

The question in my mind is how much research has been done into the effects of the radiation of tech devices that are kept normally right next to our genitals or heads for hours a day?
Also is there any regulations that make sure these devices don't output to much radiation?

There are constant studies concerning electronics and electromagnetic fields done everyday.
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/emr/spectrum.pdf

Apart from that there are two types or radiation:
1) ionising radiation [bad for humans]
This type of high frequency electromagnetic wave. Where a radioactive reaction occurs that basically 'knocks' an electron out of an atom producing some items like: alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays & X-rays oh and cosmic rays and the very "tip" of the uv spectrum UVA & UVB. (black lights are UVC)?
This can alter DNA by breaking DNA strands or ionising them, alter molecules, cells


2) non-ionising radiation [apart from heat not bad]
Non-ionising radiation is in the low range of the electromagnetic spectrum where there is insufficient energy to cause ionisation. Really there's only enough radiation to eject the electron. It includes electric and magnetic fields, radio waves, microwaves, infrared, ultraviolet, and visible radiation. (note microwaves, people always think this causes ionizing radiation, it doesn't microwaves basically make h2o vibrate at crazy speeds causing heat, does goes deeper but that's a diff topic) these can not alter molecules or alter DNA not even close

Your ionising radiation dose is measured in sieverts (Sv), we're nerds here so we know what milli and micro are etc, also I'm not going to go into rads, rems, grays, roentgens
Note: the Australian legal background radiation is 2msv (each country is dif this is radiation from minerals etc in the area around you ie clay in bricks)
If you were to fly from Perth to Darwin you'll have to take 62 trips to get 1msv dose
Ocupational workers in Australia can have up to 20msv in one year but no more then 50smv in 5 years. (ie radiologist, pilots get comics radiation avg 2-4 msv a year when flying above 12000m)
Public is 1msv (all this goes out the window if a doctor states its medically nessicary)

Effects: these come in two as well
1) Deterministic effects: these effects only occur once a threshold of exposure has been exceeded. (instant)
Radiation sickness,
Basiclly higher the dose over shorter time ie 6msv to the nuts in one hit will make you sterile permanently.

2) Stochastic (probabilistic) effects: This is independent of the absorbed dose. these effects may or may not occur. (over time)
Ie genetic disorders, radiation induced cancers, tumours

MRIs (magnetic resonance imaging) can be preformed constantly on a person, this is basically static fields it's done with magnets and radio waves. You get left over static and some nausea these scans can take forever, over 30 minutes usually. Remember this is non ionising

Cat (computer axial tomography) this can be very bad, this is ionising radiation, docs will always think before doing this it's stronger and your exposed for longer. I.e. chest X-ray = 0.1 msv , CT Abdominal scan = 5 - 20msv. Huge difference

Effects in single exposure:
0.5 - 1 Sv = risk of infections, headaches
1 - 2 Sv = mild radiation sickness, nausea, fatigue.
2 - 3 Sv = light radiation poisoning, hair loss, vomiting, permenantly sterile
3 - 4 Sv = Severe radiation poisoning, Bleeding under the skin, in the mouth, 50% risk of death after 30 days
4 - 6 Sv = acute poisoning 60% risk of death after 30 days
6 - 10 Sv = Bone marrow destroyed, 100% death after 14 days
10 - 50 Sv = Within 30 minutes; Diarrhea, internal bleeding, coma
I shouldn't need to explain above but:
50 - 80 Sv = coma and death within seconds to minutes
80sv = your fkd!!! Instant death



I hope that helps a little; I know there is a lot of other stuff to take into account like source activities etc, but this should help clear some of it up , also I'm a radiation saftey officer that's were I acquired my knowledge about this just incase someone wondered, however alot of this info can be found through http://www.arpansa.gov.au/ which is the australian radiation protection and nuclear saftey agency


So after all that: electronics, mobile phones, microwaves, powerlines, radios etc they fall at the low end of the electromagnetic spectrum and can't be harmful (not taking into count heat, or throwing it at people!) because they can alter cells or DNA strands, the chart up top gives an idea where these items fall on the wavelength.

This post has been edited by Statik X: Jun 2 2012, 10:54 PM

[Cummings]

Just so you get an idea of the level of research that goes on in the world, I did a quick search for "non ionising radiation exposure" in one of the many research databases that are on the web. I got 3,000+ individual research articles just on that, with 78 ones already accepted in 2012.



Additionally, the citation column (number of people who recognise the research and publish their own work related to it), far right, gives a good amount of insight into the importance of the research. Sorting the results by citations gives:



The search throws up a number of results unrelated to the full search, but are included because of keyword matching. Regardless, a number of pieces of research can be seen that clearly relate to the effects of radiation exposure, and clearly there are many hundreds of other individual researchers that are very interested in that research. A more rigorous search with keywords targeted to technology would yield better results ("mobile phone radiation" yields 2000+ results, 58 from 2012). The point was to show you that there is much, much, much more research that goes on in the world outside of what the media reports.

This post has been edited by Cummings: Jun 3 2012, 03:15 PM