According to the Food and Drug Administration, the bulk of scientific evidence says that cellphone radiation does not harm humans; our cellphones are much more likely to kill us when we glance down at them while driving. But people are bad at judging risk. And the word “radiation” combined with the fact that we can not see or control the invisible forces emanating from our cellphones becomes a perfect recipe for fear.
Cellphones do indeed emit radiation. And radiation is a scary word for many people, thanks in part to the horrific aftermath of nuclear accidents and photographs of victims of the nuclear bombs the US dropped on Japan in World War 2. People hear radiation and associate it with nuclear radiation and the bomb, says Geoffrey Kabat, a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and author of the book Getting Risk Right. “There are all these associations, and those are deeply ingrained in people. But it does not apply here.”
According to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, there is a broad range of radiation types, and lots of harmless things emit radiation — like bananas, Brazil nuts, and granite countertops. The type of radiation that comes out of our cellphones is not the same radiation released by nuclear fallout or X-rays. Cellphone radiation, also known as radiofrequency radiation, is much weaker — so it can not cause the same cell damage that can lead to cancer.
Nobody can explain how cellphone radiation could cause cancer, says Christopher Labos, a cardiologist and biostatistician at McGill University. “You do not necessarily have to understand how something works to prove that it’s dangerous, but it would certainly make the case more compelling,” says Labos. They wrote a detailed analysis for Science-Based Medicine about the recent government cellphone radiation study.
That mystery probably stokes fears about cellphone radiation instead of soothing them, though partly because of how we in the media cover the rare and frightening. According to a paper published in Science in the 1980s by psychologist Paul Slovic, we’ve seen the same thing with fear over nuclear power plants. “Because nuclear risks are perceived as unknown and potentially catastrophic, even small accidents will be highly publicized and may produce large ripple effects,” Slovic wrote.
As a result, stories about a single nuclear meltdown or possible link between cellphone radiation and cancer will be amplified much more than news about the nine people who probably died today in the US from distracted driving. “This possible health effect from radiation is pretty esoteric at this point. If there is anything there, it seems to me like it is going to be very, very small,” says Kenneth R. Foster, a bioengineering professor at the University of Pennsylvania. The latter has been investigating whether there are biological effects from radio waves since the 1970s. “Driving and texting, people get killed doing that – but it is not a very exciting risk to worry about.”
The dangers of driving and texting are old news; if someone were to be harmed by their cellphone’s radiation, though, that would make headlines because novelty grabs people’s attention. In psychological experiments where people choose images, they gravitate towards ones they have not seen before – a phenomenon known as the novelty bonus. So if I wanted to grab a reader’s attention, I’d bet on a hypothetical headline that said, “For the first time, cellphone radiation causes brain cancer in humans” over “Another person has died today from driving and texting.”
Still, despite the odds, these fears could be around for a while — because it is hard to prove that cellphone radiation does not cause harm. There are just too many combinations of genes, environmental exposures, cellphone use patterns, and a healthy helping of random chance to consider.
It is why we’re still having the conversation about whether coffee, for example, is good or bad for us. So while the bulk of evidence points to no health effects from cellphone radiation, Foster says the scientific literature is still somewhat mixed. “Someone who wants to worry can pick and choose and find a lot of evidence that would support their theories.”
In the end, no matter how much is invested in investigating the unlikely dangers of cellphone radiation, Kabat says, “there is never an ‘all clear’ sounded for any of these borderline risks out there.”
asus smartphone radiation all list alert detector app anti case chip for rf safe anti-radiation basic phone vs best less low 2019 with least under 10000 in india without blocker chicago tribune check cell classement chart code comparison danger of does cause cancer distance can a detect have what type emit dumb your effects exposure to effect which emits the emitting most more electromagnetic highest flip feature fcc forbes facts about free german federal office protection flight mode from gives off how avoid level bad is protect yourself prevent honor reduce harmful dangerous lowest has keypad latest lenovo mi airplane nokia new normal news18 news oppo amount redmi range research on report ranking rank ratings reddit safest side samsung sleeping steel wool statista shield top 10 ultraviolet vivo video xiaomi levels 2018 and display dangers due emission high brand highly microwave measure release sar scale screen smartphones baby brain block brands huawei health 2020 limit meter sensor sleep study symptoms sticker test wifi