Related
Just a little cautionary tale:
Tim Ferriss' "4 Hour Body" (totally recommended btw) has an interesting finding about keeping your mobile phone in your pants pocket vis-a-vis male *erhm* fertility.
It turns out that "efficiency" is lowered by up to two-thirds from the radiation - The solution is apparently to keep it somewhere on the upper body (jacket pocket etc.) - This led to drastically improved test results in 10-12 weeks.
I'm danish - And come to think of it we're both one of the nations with the lowest fertility rates and one of the earliest adopters of mobile technology (used to be 5-10 years ahead of the rest of europe + uk) - Maybe there's a correlation there?
Does anyone call bogus on this? I'm now keeping my phone in my jacket pocket - But when the spring and t-shirts arrive, what will I do?
gens6200 said:
Just a little cautionary tale:
Tim Ferriss' "4 Hour Body" (totally recommended btw) has an interesting finding about keeping your mobile phone in your pants pocket vis-a-vis male *erhm* fertility.
It turns out that "efficiency" is lowered by up to two-thirds from the radiation - The solution is apparently to keep it somewhere on the upper body (jacket pocket etc.) - This led to drastically improved test results in 10-12 weeks.
I'm danish - And come to think of it we're both one of the nations with the lowest fertility rates and one of the earliest adopters of mobile technology (used to be 5-10 years ahead of the rest of europe + uk) - Maybe there's a correlation there?
Does anyone call bogus on this? I'm now keeping my phone in my jacket pocket - But when the spring and t-shirts arrive, what will I do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that absolue crap and there is no evidence or basis for your comment lol as for being 10 years ahead of the rest of europe dude you live in windmills and have peter schmeichel dancing about advertising bacon lol
Well, I think we have to recognize that Scandinavian ppl were lucky enough to be in the "capital" of mobile phone development, since Nokia was the company that is responsible for the phone technology spring!
BTW, my sympathies for Nokia gens6200. I am deeply sad that Nokia decided to put aside their own projects in favor of WP7. One less big competitor in the pit.
And regarding the phone placed close to our "precious" , it is logical that, if you get a device with 1,4 SAR, and always keep it in your pants pocket, it could harm your future babies... I remember me, before getting a handsfree, when I had to keep the phone against my head while talking (I talk a lot), I used to have headaches. It even happens now, when the handsfree batterie is dead and I use the phone without it.
But that could just be me...
dragunov chill out i was only joking i mean how can you take a post about infertility serious in a smartfone modding forum?
Didn't want to sound that serious! My bad friend...
I guess writing in forums while being "stretched" at work affects my feelings.
gens6200 said:
Just a little cautionary tale:
Tim Ferriss' "4 Hour Body" (totally recommended btw) has an interesting finding about keeping your mobile phone in your pants pocket vis-a-vis male *erhm* fertility.
It turns out that "efficiency" is lowered by up to two-thirds from the radiation - The solution is apparently to keep it somewhere on the upper body (jacket pocket etc.) - This led to drastically improved test results in 10-12 weeks.
I'm danish - And come to think of it we're both one of the nations with the lowest fertility rates and one of the earliest adopters of mobile technology (used to be 5-10 years ahead of the rest of europe + uk) - Maybe there's a correlation there?
Does anyone call bogus on this? I'm now keeping my phone in my jacket pocket - But when the spring and t-shirts arrive, what will I do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are other much more important factors affecting fertility rates than adoption of cell phones. Economic development is just one of them as an example.
1) How did the fertility rate of Denmark compare to the rest of Europe 20 years ago?
2) 15 years ago did most of the cell phones fit in the pants pockets?
I just got that book, but still haven't read it.
Good thing that I already have 2 kids and don't need to worry about my cellphone affecting my fertility.
The reason I don't currently carry my phone in my pants pocket has more to do with the phone being brand new and me being afraid of scratching the screed
dragunov said:
Didn't want to sound that serious! My bad friend...
I guess writing in forums while being "stretched" at work affects my feelings.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
noooo i didnt mean you took it seriously, i ment ignore me comments about denmark i was only cracking a joke because its such an odd subject lol
I have one child and another on the way, yet I have been keeping a mobile in my pocket for years!
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA App
AndroHero said:
noooo i didnt mean you took it seriously, i ment ignore me comments about denmark i was only cracking a joke because its such an odd subject lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That’s why I love superiority humour – Innate nationalism always causes someone to take the bait.. And once again, I’m obviously being sarcastic.
But no seriously, Peter Schmeichel is currently advertising a new bacon slice skin care line – Apparently pig products do wonders for fine lines.
Figured I would make a thread for it since I don't see one. Interested to see what you all think.
I can see the legitimacy of the claim considering the strength of the signals right next to your head. However for this to actually be proven will take time, a lot of it. If you use a cell phone constantly then investing in a bluetooth headset couldn't hurt,, but periodic use could be no worse than a day at the lake or beach.
Disclaimer : I am not a medical professional but a software developer, so these opinions are pure drivel and have no scientific basis other than knowing the scientific method and keeping my mind open to the possibility.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA Premium App
Cause, doubtful.
Contribute, of course!
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
There's been zero scientific studies that show any connection between cellphone use and any sort of cancer. Electro-sensitivity has also been entirely discredited, as people "suffering" from it were shown to have absolutely zero heightened ability to detect any sort of electrical field (which is probably a good thing, since the earth has a freaking massive one all around it).
It seems highly dangerous for the WHO to make any sort of statements like this without evidence to back it up. This is really just a political, not scientific, move.
>implying anybody puts their phones by their heads any more
Sent from my CM7 SCH-i500
(cough) bull****! (cough)
havent we figured out now that everything will give you cancer
**** some asshats will tell you inorganic fruit and veggies will kill you! Haha I just laugh and wait for the air I breathe to give me cancer
Im sure somebody has a study that says it will
(cough) @!#% (cough)
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Living gives you cancer, dying doesn't. Being dead is the only way to be sure you won't get cancer, unless of course you had it when you died, then, I don't really know what hope you have
It doesn't take a genius to realize electromagnetic waves (radio) converge at our cell phone antennas and some of that energy is absorbed into our cells, closer to the antenna equals more absorption...since energy turns to heat obviously our cells are heated up and could damage dna over time...look at your microwave or an xray machine, yes given they are higher energy and lower wavelength they do much more damage but who knows what happens over 60 years of cell phone use if always holding it to the same ear
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Have a buddy who told me that he is cutting down on talk time on the phone cause of this - while he was lighting a cigarette.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
dmasjz45 said:
It doesn't take a genius to realize electromagnetic waves (radio) converge at our cell phone antennas and some of that energy is absorbed into our cells, closer to the antenna equals more absorption...since energy turns to heat obviously our cells are heated up and could damage dna over time...look at your microwave or an xray machine, yes given they are higher energy and lower wavelength they do much more damage but who knows what happens over 60 years of cell phone use if always holding it to the same ear
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
These same geniuses can also figure out that more electromagnetic radiation (light) is absorbed in 10 minutes outside than likely in years of using a cell phone. Does tv cause cancer? tons of electromagnetic waves there too. I guess im screwed either way! Haha maybe I should take up smoking speed it up a lil!
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
droidzach said:
These same geniuses can also figure out that more electromagnetic radiation (light) is absorbed in 10 minutes outside than likely in years of using a cell phone. Does tv cause cancer? tons of electromagnetic waves there too. I guess im screwed either way! Haha maybe I should take up smoking speed it up a lil!
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What a moron this guy is, did he really just try to compare the sun to cell phones? You do realize how easy it is to get skin cancer, right? And actually yes genius, crt screens are known to emit low levels of xrays, unless you're living in the 90's and pinning your ear to your tv you probably don't need to worry...as I said before radio waves converge at an antenna, why do you think there are rf warning signs posted near antenna towers? you clearly aren't very technical, probably isn't the best idea to argue with an engineer
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
One, the findings are preliminary, not conclusive. The media needs to learn the difference. Two, everyone who follows even a little science knows cell phones have always contributed to cancer, as well as televisions, monitors, and just about anything electric. How much of a contribution cell phones make is the reason for the study, not IF, as media may confuse. Everyone knows all forms of radiation have a chance of altering the DNA of cells, therefore running the risk of making a cancerous cell, possibly causing full-blown cancer. Note the ifs in that statement. Even smoking cigarettes does not mean you WILL get cancer, it means more cells are modified, increasing the risk. Note the difference.
Anyhow, the study is preliminary, and therefore doesn't mean anything, yet. Prudence advices using your land-line, or bluetooth headset, seeing as it is much lower power, or speakerphone if you must use a cell phone. No matter the finding, cell phones at the ear will never be found good for you, so why wait for a finding to act?
My 14 cents.
Domush said:
No matter the finding, cell phones at the ear will never be found good for you, so why wait for a finding to act?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because if a year of using the cell phone contributes less to your cancer risk than going out just to check your mail in the morning, then it's a colossal waste of time, and effort. There have already been studies attempting to ascertain cell phone usage's contribution to cancer rates, and they've already failed to be able to show any increased risk.
Hell, people still sunbathe even though it's quite common knowledge that that massively increases your odds of getting skin cancer.
dmasjz45 said:
What a moron this guy is, did he really just try to compare the sun to cell phones? You do realize how easy it is to get skin cancer, right? And actually yes genius, crt screens are known to emit low levels of xrays, unless you're living in the 90's and pinning your ear to your tv you probably don't need to worry...as I said before radio waves converge at an antenna, why do you think there are rf warning signs posted near antenna towers? you clearly aren't very technical, probably isn't the best idea to argue with an engineer
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha I guess that engineers like this guy are too "technical" to understand simple sarcasm. The topic of this thread is a joke to me and thats all I was saying **** head. Im not afraid of getting cancer from my phone or tv or car radio or microwave or dental x rays or any other form of everyday very very low doses of radiation we encounter. Dont forget about all of the cosmic rays that are flying through your head right now! And you proved my point about the sun being way more dangerous by saying "do you know how easy it is to get skin cancer." (by the way heat is radiation too and is not what alters your cell's dna which is what cancer is) I wasnt arguing anything either where do you see arguments in my post? All radiation is electromagnetic waves right mr "engineer?" Radio waves converge at your car's antenna too, at every antenna. But I guess that im not "technical" enough to know that. Now I have to say this because you are just an asshole, but its very obvious that there are varying levels of radiation for everything some being more harmful than others. Every study that comes out seems to say you can get cancer from this and that. I just happen to think they are bull****. Maybe you "engineers" just need things explicitly stated so you can comprehend. (moron)
Sent from my SCH-I500 using electromagnetic waves(radiation) look out! hope you have a lead vest and helmet....
KitsuneKnight said:
Because if a year of using the cell phone contributes less to your cancer risk than going out just to check your mail in the morning, then it's a colossal waste of time, and effort. There have already been studies attempting to ascertain cell phone usage's contribution to cancer rates, and they've already failed to be able to show any increased risk.
Hell, people still sunbathe even though it's quite common knowledge that that massively increases your odds of getting skin cancer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They did the studies with GSM phones where the emitted energy signature is a huge spike relative to CDMA phones where the energy signature is so distributed and ever so nebulous, its damn difficult to even get a DX lock on.
"it's a colossal waste of time, and effort." +1
Remember when people thought cigarettes were good for you? And studies on the effects of prolonged use was incomplete? The studies are too young to give conclusive evidence here as well. People will give you all kinds of insight but ultimately its your life and you can chose to do what you want. You can proceed with caution or you can ignore it and assumed it has no effect. That is pretty much what it will boil down to until long term studies are done.
chefthomas99 said:
Have a buddy who told me that he is cutting down on talk time on the phone cause of this - while he was lighting a cigarette.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
^this. pretty much awesome.
10char
The study said that the radiation is non-ionizing like that of a micro-wave. The media grabbed at this and said "the cell phone is going to cook your brain." The levels are not enough to "cook" anything. The point of saying that it is non-ionizing is to say that the likelyhood of causing cancer is very low since the types of radiations that cause cancer (like x-rays) are all ionizing. There is no clear evidence that there is a health risk. The media will still try to scare everyone into watching the news by saying "There is no clear evidence that cell phones are completely safe." Twist it which ever way makes your nipplettes perky.
jamiekuhn said:
There is no clear evidence that there is a health risk.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Media said:
There is no clear evidence that cell phones are completely safe.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now, how is your statement any better than the media? You give unverified reassurance and the media gives unverified fear.
How many years passed before people even realized the effects of lead based paint? How about asbestos insulation? Hell, the first ever x-ray machines were used in shoe stores to judge your foot size! You think people thought they would get cancer from those back then?! I'm sure there were people lining up on both sides of the fence back then, too. All refusing to admit those three most difficult words of the self-assured "I.. don't.. know."
Stop doling out false conclusions when nobody knows the answer, hence preliminary findings. The answer is "We don't yet know enough to have an answer one way or the other." False calming has likely killed many more people than panic.
"Oh, these nuclear weapons tests.. no harm at all. Here, go clean up that green ooze with this here broom and dustpan."
or more recently..
"Formaldehyde is everywhere, we can't just go banning it because it's toxic"
As with anything potentially dangerous.. expose yourself as little as needed and no more.
Domush said:
....
As with anything potentially dangerous.. expose yourself as little as needed and no more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are the evidences of the dangerous potential?
I bought this on eBay thinking it was an aluminum case. I just got in the mail and opened it up to find it is a battery cover. I love it! Replace the flimsy one with the aluminum. It adds a bit of weight too. The stock cover goes in the box now.
Nice. Who makes that one?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA
It clearly says it's a battery door replacement but I didn't read lol
http://www.ebay.com/itm/16082094015...AX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649#ht_500wt_1287
Since metals are opaque to radio waves, your signal strength must have plummeted.
Full bars bro...
Sent from my badass Samsung Galaxy SIII
ReggieTee said:
Full bars bro...
Sent from my badass Samsung Galaxy SIII
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try it in an area where you don't have full bars with the battery door on and off. Or just read off decibel level of the signal from Settings/About/Status.
Bro.
I heard the aluminum back covers screw with nfc
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
nabbed said:
Since metals are opaque to radio waves, your signal strength must have plummeted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correction. Grounded metals are opaque to radio waves.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2
jnadke said:
Correction. Grounded metals are opaque to radio waves.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think so. It doesn't matter if a piece of metal is grounded or not, it will absorb most radio frequencies.
It's $12 and looks good. If it affects anything, I have the option of removing it lol.
Sent from my badass Samsung Galaxy SIII
You owe me 40.00 my wife saw this
http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewitem?itemId=160820596085&index=8&nav=SEARCH&nid=65699023939
And ordered 3 & clear cases to go over
Lol thanks
Sent from my Sprint Galaxy Nexus CDMA using Xparent ICS Blue Tapatalk 2
Epix4G said:
You owe me 40.00 my wife saw this
http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewitem?itemId=160820596085&index=8&nav=SEARCH&nid=65699023939
And ordered 3 & clear cases to go over
Lol thanks
Sent from my Sprint Galaxy Nexus CDMA using Xparent ICS Blue Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol sorry!
the metal case has to reflect/degrade signal, since that was a major issue with my Transformer prime and its all metal back. which people found that if they removed it or repositioned antennas that the signal would improve by a ton.
nabbed said:
I don't think so. It doesn't matter if a piece of metal is grounded or not, it will absorb most radio frequencies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know if absorb is the word of choice. Without getting overly technical for the average person, metal impedes/obstructs radio signals severely if the antenna is inside of the metal enclosure or wall. Elevators are big metal boxes that kill signal really easily if you're inside them. Trees are big rf attenuators depending on the frequency of the radio. Even a hand or body very near or touching an antenna will greatly reduce your signal tx/rx. RF is a strange thing and can be affected both good and bad by many different kinds of external objects.
oscarthegrouch said:
I don't know if absorb is the word of choice. Without getting overly technical for the average person, metal impedes/obstructs radio signals severely if the antenna is inside of the metal enclosure or wall. Elevators are big metal boxes that kill signal really easily if you're inside them. Trees are big rf attenuators depending on the frequency of the radio. Even a hand or body very near or touching an antenna will greatly reduce your signal tx/rx. RF is a strange thing and can be affected both good and bad by many different kinds of external objects.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think absorb is the right word.
Here's a snippet from an Argonne writeup:
Electrons in metals can slosh back and forth in a piece of metal at slow frequencies, and so metals absorb radio at nearly all frequencies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99245.htm
I have to saw that with this cover the headphone jack is affected. It won't allow the plug to go all the way in and the sound is affected. That sucks.
Edit: This is incorrect. I didn't have it plugged in all the way.
nabbed said:
I think absorb is the right word.
Here's a snippet from an Argonne writeup:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99245.htm
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AFAIK, that site, and the person writing that article is wrong. I will have to ask someone I know who was an electrical engineer and amateur radio operator (extra class) if that gov site is correct. Everything I've learned about RF, before and after I got my radio license, tells me that guy is wrong. I'm not trying to start an argument with anyone either. I'm debating this issue. http://www.iphelp.ru/faq/9/ch02lev1sec6.html is a link explaining rf behavior in wlan situations, but the gist of it holds true with what I've learned with HF/VHF/UHF and microwave bands. If anyone here is a ham radio operator, please chime in with your input. The statement the scientist said that something needs to be a wavelength thick to affect rf is bs. Like I said before, I'm not trying to start anything with anyone. I am not saying I am smarter or better either. I just have had some training and hands on experience with antennas and building a few from scratch and testing their performance.
oscarthegrouch said:
AFAIK, that site, and the person writing that article is wrong. I will have to ask someone I know who was an electrical engineer and amateur radio operator (extra class) if that gov site is correct. Everything I've learned about RF, before and after I got my radio license, tells me that guy is wrong. I'm not trying to start an argument with anyone either. I'm debating this issue. http://www.iphelp.ru/faq/9/ch02lev1sec6.html is a link explaining rf behavior in wlan situations, but the gist of it holds true with what I've learned with HF/VHF/UHF and microwave bands. If anyone here is a ham radio operator, please chime in with your input. The statement the scientist said that something needs to be a wavelength thick to affect rf is bs. Like I said before, I'm not trying to start anything with anyone. I am not saying I am smarter or better either. I just have had some training and hands on experience with antennas and building a few from scratch and testing their performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is simple physics. Please don't fight science in your ignorance.
Gotta love how even the simplest debate on xda can end in one member attempting to belittle another.
mlin said:
Gotta love how even the simplest debate on xda can end in one member attempting to belittle another.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everybody put ur flame suits on
Sent from my SPH-L710 using XDA
Edit can anybody help me out with "external..izing?" The antenna ? Haha
Erica Griffin stated that they use phosphorus in the screen of the Sony Z2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS5DlQIhLTM
Can anyone confirm this? Do they use phosphorous substances in the screen? Is this phosphorus radioactive? Way back the use of (some form of) phosphorus was banned in watches etc. because it destroys your eyes.
SuperMarioGalaxy said:
Erica Griffin stated that they use phosphorus in the screen of the Sony Z2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS5DlQIhLTM
Can anyone confirm this? Do they use phosphorous substances in the screen? Is this phosphorus radioactive? Way back the use of (some form of) phosphorus was banned in watches etc. because it destroys your eyes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A banana is very radioactive as well. Do you avoid eating bananas?
SuperMarioGalaxy said:
Erica Griffin stated that they use phosphorus in the screen of the Sony Z2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS5DlQIhLTM
Can anyone confirm this? Do they use phosphorous substances in the screen? Is this phosphorus radioactive? Way back the use of (some form of) phosphorus was banned in watches etc. because it destroys your eyes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is enough internet for today... (just 1PM :crying
I'm actually serious about this. The use of some phosphorus substance is banned because of its ill effects. So unless someone can verify what is used on this phone I won't buy it and suggest others to keep from it also.
SuperMarioGalaxy said:
I'm actually serious about this. The use of some phosphorus substance is banned because of its ill effects. So unless someone can verify what is used on this phone I won't buy it and suggest others to keep from it also.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good news! That means there will be one more device available for someone who really wants it.
Why is everyone taking this so lightly or as a joke? Detrimenting one's eyesight is no joke to me...
SuperMarioGalaxy said:
Why is everyone taking this so lightly or as a joke? Detrimenting one's eyesight is no joke to me...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think it's a joke.
Sent from my D6503 using XDA Free mobile app
PLEASE..... , she's a great reviewer (when reviewing) , but her ocd problem with over analysing every little tiny aspect of a mobile phone is a bit too much for me..:silly:
How many different things do we have to be careful about this week, as long as you do everything in moderation and NOT to access then you'll be fine..............just enjoy your phone & chill out...
LOL! Usually paid Samsung trolls like you suck, but you're hilarious.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
Zamboney said:
LOL! Usually paid Samsung trolls like you suck, but you're hilarious.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
& this is aimed at who? you own a Samsung Galaxy Note....:laugh:.
Does that mean when you are sleeping with the phone charging next to your bed the phosphorus meanines come out through one of the flaps & nuke my eyes & sperm :silly:
Phosphorus is not radioactive, infact it's quite the wonder element. It's used in applications such as softening water, used to remove impurities from glass, used as fertiliser, heck you piss it out as the substance is formed in your body in the kidneys when removing contaminants.
I haven't watched the video but since it's that same woman who was bothered about staining when the device was being handled by hundreds of people, I have little faith in what she says anyway.
Zamboney said:
LOL! Usually paid Samsung trolls like you suck, but you're hilarious.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm no paid Samsung troll. If anything, I'm a bit of a Sony fan. I didn't want to make a huge deal out of this to scare people, hence the lame title etc. I just wanted to know if there really is a harmful substance used in the screen.
TheOnlyIntruder said:
Phosphorus is not radioactive, infact it's quite the wonder element. It's used in applications such as softening water, used to remove impurities from glass, used as fertiliser, heck you piss it out as the substance is formed in your body in the kidneys when removing contaminants.
I haven't watched the video but since it's that same woman who was bothered about staining when the device was being handled by hundreds of people, I have little faith in what she says anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I'm perfectly aware that Phosphorus isn't radioactive in itself and its a necessity to life and its being wasted when we pee in a toilet, thus degrading the soil unnecessarily. But there are isotopes that are radioactive and that some harmful phosphorus substances have been used in for example watches that illuminate the hands in the dark. This was later deemed dangerous to eyesight.
One misconception I want to clear: Although Erica might be a "bit" neurotic, or maybe just because of that, she certainly knows her nitbits. She never said anything about the phosphorus being dangerous. It just rang in my ear. She stated at 5:34 that they used red and green phosphorus and a blue backlight. The Triluminos tech is explained in the video so that a blue backlight excites the red and green phosphorus and so they get a wide color gamut. I'm no physicist but maybe someone else can explain this better. Basically the problem is not that it would ill you from your bedside table, but when the display is on, whatever the phosphorus is emitting when excited (be it radioactive or only light) is going straight to your eye. If you use this technology for several hours a day for years its bound to affect something, IF there are any effects to be had. I'm not trying to cause a panic or steer people away from buying this (I have mine on preorder too), I would just want to understand what this is.
I'm not completely sure but I think that traditional LEDs don't use this kind of technology and they use regular diodes with no phosphorus in them.
Thoughts? Physicists that could explain this?
Jeesus dude stop being so psichotic. I mean with all current regulations and safety requirements do you really think a company size of sony would use something harmful to human beings? Maybe you should worry about GM foods you ingest everyday, instead of such trivial things.
Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk 2
feis said:
Jeesus dude stop being so psichotic. I mean with all current regulations and safety requirements do you really think a company size of sony would use something harmful to human beings? Maybe you should worry about GM foods you ingest everyday, instead of such trivial things.
Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm in no way psychotic, wtf?! Many have used harmful stuff. We still don't know if cell phone radiowaves are harmful in the long run. Also electrical equipments create magnetic fields that affect us. You are deluded to think that no-one would produce anything harmful either by not knowing it is or knowingly. Jfyi, I try not to eat GM-foods but if I didn't eat them at all, life would be really hard. I just don't fret about it. Usually I don't fret about things at all, this just sounded very weird to me. And this is not a trivial thing to me, I value my eyesight thank you very much. I've been grown to think light emitting phosphorus is harmful. Same way if you heard that something had asbest in it, you would go inhaling it right away, right?
banzibaby said:
does that mean when you are sleeping with the phone charging next to your bed the phosphorus meanines come out through one of the flaps & nuke my eyes & sperm :silly:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol made my day! +1
you would go inhaling it right away, right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes ......I am inhaling right now.....& boy is it good.......
I mean we live in such a world that you cannot possibly avoid everything that maybe harmful to you, and there are many unclear things and their effects to human in todays technology, and i can guarantee you no one in this forum can give you answers for your question with proof or say medical experments, so just go for other phone if you are that worried about this stuff. For me this is trivial, and i have bigger problems than worrying about something i know nothing about and just heard a single word about it in a single review. Ps english is not my native language, i probably meant paranoid not psychotic.
Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk 2
feis said:
Jeesus dude stop being so psichotic. I mean with all current regulations and safety requirements do you really think a company size of sony would use something harmful to human beings?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is exactly it, if the phone screen emitted UV radiation (which is what I believe you're thinking of) there would be warnings in place explaining if it did and the amount it would output. Not only that but even if the diodes had enough power to emit UV radiation, there is a glass panel in the way and if you didn't know already, glass blocks upto 99.99% of UV light, an example of such is when you see someone who wears transition glasses, the glasses don't transition when in side of the car, even if strong sunlight is shinning through simply because the windows are blocking UV light.
Our phones aren't equipped with flashbangs, they aren't going to blind us.
As for radiation in general, all elements have radiation isotopes, most naturally found elements are those that have decayed from another element and become stable since the half-life becomes in the millions of years range.
Hey OP, It's phosphor - not phosphorous. Plasma and many other displays use those.In fact, Panasonic's VT/ZT series use fast switching phosphors and those are simply the best TVs in the market. They are not harmful as long as you don't break the glass and start poking at them with your finger. Same thing applies to batteries. You can chillax now.
It would seem that we have another first, and this one is not so good. The A1 is the highest radiation emitter of any phone tested. I'm not exactly sure what that means since there is no clear case for the radiation being harmful, but it is something to keep in mind.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/xiaomi-mi-a1-one-plus-5t-emit-most-cellphone-radiation/
This is known for quite a while, I don't think it would be much significant compared to other devices to worry about. Anyways the best a user can do is to avoid the device being near your head. Nothing more.
Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk
pooniaprashant said:
This is known for quite a while, I don't think it would be much significant compared to other devices to worry about. Anyways the best a user can do is to avoid the device being near your head. Nothing more.
Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you're scared, you may want to avoid keeping it in your pocket, where it's close to the only thing more important than your brain for a male
BtB said:
If you're scared, you may want to avoid keeping it in your pocket, where it's close to the only thing more important than your brain for a male
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you're scared, you should avoid sunlight because it has a lot more harmful radiation than this phone.
Thanks to Tissot I'm infertile but I love Gcam.
ccalixtro said:
Thanks to Tissot I'm infertile but I love Gcam.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol, believe me. It's nothing significant compared to any other smartphone. Other than that, you made me giggle for sure [emoji23]
Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk
Hahaha...you guys are a hoot. I'm not scared, just found it an interesting data point. Since there is scant evidence of it being harmful radiation, I'm not worried about it. But what is this about sunlight?
KB_Thailand said:
Hahaha...you guys are a hoot. I'm not scared, just found it an interesting data point. Since there is scant evidence of it being harmful radiation, I'm not worried about it. But what is this about sunlight?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The evidence is not 'scant'. It is mixed. Visible light is one form of non-ionising radiation which is probably what the sunlight comment was referring to which is also bogus. The health effect which we are interested are Microwaves/RF/ELF, not sunlight.
Thanks Xiaomi, now im cancer free
barrack1 said:
The evidence is not 'scant'. It is mixed. Visible light is one form of non-ionising radiation which is probably what the sunlight comment was referring to which is also bogus. The health effect which we are interested are Microwaves/RF/ELF, not sunlight.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks Professor Science. Please note the WINK after my sunlight statement. And yes, I do realize that UV, X-ray and Gamma rays are dangerous if you are unlucky.
Since scant is defined as 'barely sufficient or adequate', I stand by my use of the word as there are no studies with the 'smoking gun' proving harm from the RF energy produced by cell phones, while some of the studies indicate a 'possible' harmful link. WIth all the various forms of radiation we are exposed to as modern humans, I would think that cell phones would be one of the lessor issues, but that is a hypothesis that is still open to debate.
KB_Thailand said:
Thanks Professor Science. Please note the WINK after my sunlight statement. And yes, I do realize that UV, X-ray and Gamma rays are dangerous if you are unlucky.
Since scant is defined as 'barely sufficient or adequate', I stand by my use of the word as there are no studies with the 'smoking gun' proving harm from the RF energy produced by cell phones, while some of the studies indicate a 'possible' harmful link. WIth all the various forms of radiation we are exposed to as modern humans, I would think that cell phones would be one of the lessor issues, but that is a hypothesis that is still open to debate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why should the wink change the context of your statement since it was dismissive and snarky anyway?
And if you know anything about science, a smoking gun is a very high standard to reach and in any case, the level of funding for that sort of research is scant since it goes against the direction of big industry. A recent '17 rat study which was remarkable for the size of its subject population and type of brain cancer which is on the increase for humans, found cancer occuring even though the levels of radiation was below the cut-off point for heating levels which seems to go against prevailing assumptions about potential problems of non-ionizing radiation, so making an insinuation that its just like sunlight isn't helpful.
barrack1 said:
Why should the wink change the context of your statement since it was dismissive and snarky anyway?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Coz when we talk, tone of voice matters, we can say if someone is aggressive/serious/sarcastic from tone of voice.
We use emoji in text to lighten the tension in text.
stelariusinfinitek said:
If you're scared, you should avoid sunlight because it has a lot more harmful radiation than this phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Luckily enough, the part I was referring to before does not see lots of sunlight
PS: this post does not have any scientific value.