Found: a low radiation cordless phone for the kids

Samsays

Hi
I started looking into this and found this site which seems to be quite informative
Wiredchild
It seems this problem is not imagined. My friend says he can't go near wifi cos he gets such bad headaches. They recommend dlan plugs instead. Not too much cost for your health.

Samsays

Moonrakerz
you talk about “Kolodynski & Kolodynska, 1999
However powerwatch say that the intensity was the same as from wifi or a phone mast and so maybe this study is relevant? the frequency was less but higher frequencies would be expected to be more not les dangerous wouldn't they?

Jemma-T

Crazy thread!

Radiation comes off virtually every bit of electrical equipment. The reason there's so much cancer (a completely natural process albeit horrible) is due to cell damage caused by our environment. Everything we do daily damages our cells. It's called life.

Maybe we should all move back to caves. Need to make sure the smoke from the fire is well ventilated however.

Cordite

The essence of Tin's original posting is that DECTs can be a menace.
Perpetual transmission from conventional base units results in a variety of adverse biological effects. Chronic exposure particularly when base is close to sleeping place is very likely to cause some of the common symptoms, then produce significant illness in many people.

Protracted use of the DECT handset will result in other adverse effects.

People vary - age, general health, immune system etc. reactions and consequences come quickly for some and late for others.

The military-industrial interests and western governments have maintained false non-ionising radiation standards for many decades.
The current ICNIRP/WHO emf Group Guideline standards are useless for health protection, but essential for current mobile profits.

There is a mountain of published research works showing harm from 'low level' man made electromag radiation, from power frequencies upwards.
This is systematically ignored or wrongly dismissed by the place-person 'experts' who have a monopoly on official pronouncements.

emfacts dot com

Follow MicrowaveNews dot com

Blackpool_Saver

Tinfish wrote: »

Listen mate.

---

:rotfl:............................................

PUK_2

Aside from the radiation issues, I find that a lot of people who try to skrimp and save, you know the sort of person that knows that there is a petrol station 20 miles away that is 1pence cheaper than their local, and who will actually drive there - nuf said - well these people are often so mean that they are mean minded and mean spirited to boot, they lack the milk of human kindness and so will not easily relate issues of moral virtue unless their money gland is stimulated. As for the low radiation phones and issue of radiation, they will no doubt have to re-write the text books (20yrs ago they laughed at 2 scientists who said that a bacterium caused stomach ulcers) plain and simply the levels of non ionising radiation in our everyday enviroments not just the direct wireless producing appliances but also appliances that manipulate the elecricity that flows through them such as computers, plasma tvs, dimmer switches ...etc leading to more RF pollution in house cables and utilities (Dirty Power - google it !) the whole gammit of electromagnetic radiation that we are exposed to daily is going without any form of monitoring, so whos counting ? If you read this on this site then no doubt you are good at adding up, well do the maths dummy, and act smart like TinFish. As for the aformentioned Inverse square law, well hey I know how to spell DNA that doesnt make me a Biologist, its more to do with transient spikes and modulations on the carrier waves ie how much information is loaded onto them than just the power alone, it is these signals that have an interface with our cells over and above any dogma laiden thermal/power issues, they can in fact be miniscule in power but have a relatively powerful effect on the silent running of our anatomies - you may not get the message until its to late I fear, thats bad for you but is also bad for me - Hey its a bit like the economy and the mechanisms that have brought it into bad health just recently. Confusis said that if we fail to worry about waht we see in the distance then it will be on our doorsteps when we awake ! By all means keep on penny pinching but try to remember that people are of more value than a five pound note !:money:

bubbles0169

:think::whistle:_pale_:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

spinneyhorse

normanmark wrote: »

I think you're being a bit of a hypochondriac tbh.

Phone makers' own scientists discover that bedtime use can lead to headaches, confusion and depression

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 20 January 2008

Radiation from mobile phones delays and reduces sleep, and causes headaches and confusion, according to a new study.
The research, sponsored by the mobile phone companies themselves, shows that using the handsets before bed causes people to take longer to reach the deeper stages of sleep and to spend less time in them, interfering with the body's ability to repair damage suffered during the day.

The findings are especially alarming for children and teenagers, most of whom - surveys suggest - use their phones late at night and who especially need sleep. Their failure to get enough can lead to mood and personality changes, ADHD-like symptoms, depression, lack of concentration and poor academic performance.

The study - carried out by scientists from the blue-chip Karolinska Institute and Uppsala University in Sweden and from Wayne State University in Michigan, USA - is thought to be the most comprehensive of its kind.

Published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium and funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, representing the main handset companies, it has caused serious concern among top sleep experts, one of whom said that there was now "more than sufficient evidence" to show that the radiation "affects deep sleep".

The scientists studied 35 men and 36 women aged between 18 and 45. Some were exposed to radiation that exactly mimicked what is received when using mobile phones; others were placed in precisely the same conditions, but given only "sham" exposure, receiving no radiation at all.

The people who had received the radiation took longer to enter the first of the deeper stages of sleep, and spent less time in the deepest one. The scientists concluded: "The study indicates that during laboratory exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely affected."

The embarrassed Mobile Manufacturers Forum played down the results, insisting - at apparent variance with this published conclusion - that its "results were inconclusive" and that "the researchers did not claim that exposure caused sleep disturbance".

But Professor Bengt Arnetz, who led the study, says: "We did find an effect from mobile phones from exposure scenarios that were realistic. This suggests that they have measurable effects on the brain."

He believes that the radiation may activate the brain's stress system, "making people more alert and more focused, and decreasing their ability to wind down and fall asleep".
About half of the people studied believed themselves to be "electrosensitive", reporting symptoms such as headaches and impaired cognitive function from mobile phone use. But they proved to be unable to tell if they had been exposed to the radiation in the test.

This strengthens the conclusion of the study, as it disposes of any suggestion that knowledge of exposure influenced sleeping patterns. Even more significantly, it throws into doubt the relevance of studies the industry relies on to maintain that the radiation has no measurable effects.

A series of them - most notably a recent highly publicised study at Essex University - have similarly found that people claiming to be electrosensitive could not distinguish when the radiation was turned on in laboratory conditions, suggesting that they were not affected.

Critics have attacked the studies' methodology, but the new findings deal them a serious blow. For they show that the radiation did have an effect, even though people could not tell when they were exposed.

It also complements other recent research. A massive study, following 1,656 Belgian teenagers for a year, found most of them used their phones after going to bed. It concluded that those who did this once a week were more than three times - and those who used them more often more than five times - as likely to be "very tired".

Dr Chris Idzikowski, the director of the Edinburgh Sleep Centre, says: "There is now more than sufficient evidence, from a large number of reputable investigators who are finding that mobile phone exposure an hour before sleep adversely affects deep sleep."

Dr William Kohler of the Florida Sleep Institute added: "Anything that disrupts the integrity of your sleep will potentially have adverse consequences in functioning during the day, such as grouchiness, difficulty concentrating, and in children hyperactivity and behaviour problems."

David Schick, the chief executive of Exradia, which manufactures protective devices against the radiation, called on ministers to conduct "a formal public inquiry" into the effects of mobile phones.

KimYeovil

So there were control groups of teenagers who used corded phones at the same times as those with mobiles? I doubt it.

No one disputes children (and adults) need a decent night's sleep. And no-one disputes chatting to your mates instead of snuggling down will result in adverse consequences. Belgian report doesn't seem to conclude anything about the effects of radiation.

gavinp

There seems to be a lot of "new" supportive people posting on this thread ... :rotfl:

If anyone is really that bothered about this, Siemens sell "ECO DECT" phones and are available from lots of on-line retailers...

Shamelessly lifted from Wikipedia:
======================================
ECO Dect

Gigaset created ECO DECT technology whereby radio wave transmission is switched off when the handset is charging in its base station and 60% of the energy is saved by using low-energy switched mode power supply units.
ECO DECT consists of two elements:

• Less power consumption by using switched-mode power supply unit (PSU).

• Reduction of the transmission power. This is done in two forms. First, transmission power is adjusted according to the handset's distance to the base station. Second, transmission power is turned off when the handset is docked and charging.

A "green home" logo is often used to show that the product is eco-friendly. The company employs a marketing campaign with the slogan "Make a little difference"[3].

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

We have some Siemens Gigaset phones (purchased for their other features and NOT the Eco DECT).

The cheapest Eco DECT phone I found in 30 seconds of googling was £19.99:

http://www.cordless-phones.uk.com/cordless-phones/digital-cordless-phones/siemens-al180-dect-phone

(I have no link to this retailer - feel free to buy one from anywhere you like if you really want it! :laugh: )

Thanks

Gavin