pgoat

OK, maybe this is a dumb question - but with all the hoopla about the potential dangers of radiation/cancers from cell phones, is there any reason to worry about a HR monitor? after all, isn't it transmitting radio waves between your chest and your wrist?

Pls feel free to make me look stupid, I won't mind having one less thing to worry about....

I-Like-To-Bike

What hoopla? Yes you should worry about an alleged problem, even when you fabricated it, IF you choose to worry about every hyped up scare headline and unsubstantiated rumor repeated in the newspapers, tabloids or on the Internet.

genec

This report just hit the newswires a couple days ago...

https://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/executivesummary

This is pretty much a rehash of previous reports that have come out, albeit with new data covering the latest phones. Apparently some studies have determined that there is some connection to long term (10 years) heavy use of cell phones and the potential for certain cancers.

The gist of the report is this:
Here is a quick "hit list" from the report:
Perhaps the biggest hazard overall of cell phone use is the apparent rise in "stupidity" while driving, and a general lack of etiquette while using cell phones in public.

Bottom line, limit your cell phone use, use a system that allows you to keep the darn thing away from your body such as a wired headset (bluetooth seems to cause "stupidity" too... ) and remember to pay attention to those other humans around you.



.
.
.

Disclosure: I have worked in the cell phone industry designing the darn things...

.
.
.

Pat

Well, cell phones emit radiation.

Most people think of hazards when they think of radiation. But there is such a thing as an electromagnetic spectrum. X-rays and gamma rays are examples of ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation interacts with certain bio-molecules to produce free radicals. Free radical production is associated with increased mutation rates and cancer.

However, cell phone radiation is less energetic. It is not ionizing radiation. It is not as energetic as visible light. It is in the area of microwave radiation. Microwave radiation can be harmful in large doses because it causes heat build up in the tissues.

I would doubt that any cell phone kicks out enough microwaves to cause marked heat damage in tissues. Of course, people cram cell phones against their ears which means the dose goes way up (inverse square law) so maybe.

I would think that the dose of radiation from a heart rate monitor would be much smaller. Batteries are a proxy for energy use. A little bitty battery in a heart rate monitor strap lasts a pretty long time. So I just bet the radiation dosage is very small. The health effect is probably close to nonexistant.

Well, the above is theory. The theory says that cell phone risk does not look really high. But it is good to double check it with lab results. That has been done with the world's favorite lab animal: the white rat (rattus norwegicus). Even on high dosages, the results are inconclusive. I did a fast google on the subject and there is anecdotal evidence for human risk. But that is largely uncontrolled and some of the claims are down right goofy. One guy claims that the increase in autism is caused by cell phones. Autism develops symptoms in the 2nd or 3rd year of life. Does he think that children between the ages of 0-3 are running around talking on cell phones? Children of that age will not have exposure unless their parents strap cell phones on their ears or something. That claim looks to me to be in the "nut case" category.

Lab tests are controlled. One can expose rats to a known amount of dose and see what the effect is. But the popular articles do not report the lab results except in passing. But from what I was able to see, no one made claims for large effects seen in the lab studies. If it isn't happening in the lab, it almost certainly won't be happening in the field.

MGtrack

If you really had any clue as to the amount of radiated RF waves you are subjected to constantly you'd make your tin foil hat a lot stronger and wrap your whole body in it. Then go live in a copper clad room and never go out.

genec

+10

Even the smallest electronic device, even the wires in the wall... all emit some form of EM energy... that frankly wasn't part of the human condition some 150 years or so ago.

Food for thought.

sggoodri

Even if there were some measurable level of negative health effects from RF cell phone transmissions, which I doubt there are, heart rate monitors transmit much, much shorter distances at much lower power. Just consider the battery capacity used over time, and how limited the range is.

Anybody know the frequency band used by heart rate monitors?

Shimagnolo

2.4GHz band, (same as 802.11b/g).

trustnoone

Though neither was hand-washing and the human condition had a life expectancy of about 40 years.

genec

I don't believe EM radiation has extended the human life expectancy... perhaps hand washing and a few antibiotics and vaccinations though are the real key.

DX-MAN

Meh.

Remember: eat healthy, stay fit, die anyway!

J/K.......

rubic

Most of the time cycling with a HR monitor is an outdoor activity with plenty of sun light. The sun's radiation.... Well, you know the drill.

dougmc

Quote:

However, recent studies find increasing risks for brain and mouth tumors after at least a decade of cell phone use.

Hell, simple statistics will support increasing risks for brain and mouth tumors after at least a decade of *living*.

njkayaker

This issue (if there is one) is related to the power of the transmitter. Cell phones have to transmit to the cell tower (a huge distance compared to a HR monitor) and they require a fair amount of power. If you use a cell phone with any regularity, the amount of exposure from the HR monitor is going to be tiny compared to that.

Don't you think that that is the control they are using?

I-Like-To-Bike

I assume that the advocates of a specific policy, when designing a sloppy, agenda driven "study" would avoid using any control that may not enhance their predetermined conclusion.

njkayaker

Whether or not the studies are "sloppy", the "increased risk" is as-compared to some sort of control in a peer-reviewed publication. While the "EWG" might have an "agenda", it's not at all clear that the studies they reference do.

Since dougmc's comment is a tautology, it doesn't succeed as a criticism of these or any studies.

============

It doesn't make any sense to worry about a HR monitor if one uses a cell phone regularly. (I'm not saying there is any risk to using a cell phone. In this case, whether or not cell phones cause any risk turns out not to matter!

dougmc

It's not a tautology -- after all, increasing cancer risk as one ages is not absolutely certain, though it's fairly well established.

And besides, I wasn't critiquing any actual study, only the claim that `however, recent studies find increasing risks for brain and mouth tumors after at least a decade of cell phone use' -- because that claim is likely to be true even if cell phones have zero impact on cancer. (Now, if the claim said `compared to a control group that didn't use cell phones', then it would be a different matter.)

Any study that did find such a link should be very clear about it's control group. But somebody who just makes claims based on what they saw in a study may not be giving you the entire story.