Frequently Asked Questions
Is there harmful Radio Frequencies RF or Elector Magnetic EM hazards?
The cell phone generates higher magnetic field as it requires more power to obtain signal.
The 3 watt signal coming form the in car transmitter is negligible.
In act the cell phone generates less of a magnetic field when the signal is stronger.
Why should I be concerned about cell phone radiation?
Cell phone radiations have not been too much of a concern initially, now their are a number of studies that ties cell phones directly to cell phone use Quote :”The most recent studies, which include subjects with a history of cell phone usage for a duration of at least 10 years, show a possible association between certain benign tumors (acoustic neuromas) and some brain cancers on the side the device is used. [6, 7, 8, 9]”
How can Boosters Eliminate radiations?
The cell phone device puts out more radiation when they work harder to keep up with signal fluctuation. When you have a change in signal strength the phone device works to compensate for any change to amplify a weak signal puts out more radiation studied to have harmful effects in children and any one who have not fully grown into adults. A booster will limit the instances fluctuation as well as lessen the amount of signal emanating from the cell phone because it working with a strong send/receive source.
Why a radiation from phone is bad and the radiation from a booster is good?
The radiation is directly related to the distance from where you hold the phone against your tissue , the FCC calls it SAR .The farther the source of the radiation the lesser the ill effects.
Quotes taken from article by: http://www.environmentaloncology.org/node/201
Cell phone use and acoustic neuroma: the need for standardized questionnaires and access to industry data.
Published in Surgical Neurology. 2009 Sep;72(3):216-22; discussion 222. Epub 2009 Mar 27.
Yueh-Ying Han; H. Kano; Devra Lee Davis; Ajay Niranjan; LD Lunsford
BACKGROUND: The capacity of radiofrequency from cell phones to be absorbed into the brain has prompted concerns that regular cell phone use may increase the risk of acoustic neuroma (AN) and other brain tumors. This article critically evaluates current literature on cell phone use and AN risks and proposes additional studies to clarify any possible linkage.
METHODS: Through a PubMed search, we identified and reviewed 10 case-control studies and 1 cohort study of AN risks associated with cell phone use and a meta-analysis of long-term mobile phone use and its association with AN and other brain tumors. RESULTS: Most studies did not find association between the development of AN and cell phone use, but some studies that followed cases for 10 years or more did show an association. Among 10 case-control studies, odds ratios for AN associated with regular cell phone use ranged from 0.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-1.0) to 4.2 (95% CI, 1.8-10). Cell phone use was not associated with increased risk for AN in the Danish cohort study, which excluded business users from their study. The meta-analysis, which included 3 case-control studies, found that subjects who used cell phones for at least 10 years had a 2.4-fold greater risk of developing ipsilateral AN. In general, retrospective studies are limited in the ability to assess cell phone exposure because of recall bias and misclassification.
CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of AN risk factors is challenging due to its long latency. Some studies of longer term cell phone use have found an increased risk of ipsilateral AN. Adopting a prospective approach to acquire data on cell phone use, obtaining retrospective billing records that provide independent evaluations of exposures, and incorporating information on other key potential risk factors from questionnaires could markedly advance the capacity of studies to evaluate the impact of cell phones on AN.
Article taken from http://www.upci.upmc.edu/ceo/research.cfm
Center for Environmental Oncology
University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute
5150 Centre Avenue, Suite 434
Pittsburgh, PA 15232