Are 2-way radios as dangerous as cell phones?

Hello,

We purchased some 2-way radios for our children this Christmas. Since
then, lately, there has been much media attention regarding cell phone
usage being dangerous for children. These scientific studies suggest
that children under 14 years of age shouldn't use cell phones because
their skulls are not thick enough to protect their developing brains
from the EMF exposure form cell phones.

Do 2-way radios present the same problem as cell phones? Should I not
allow our children to use these 2-way radios?

Here are the specs of our 2 Way Radios:

Brand:
Motorola

Model:
"Talk About"
fr50

channels:
14

operating frequency:
UHF-462.550 - 467.725 MHz

There is a note in the Motorola fr50 manual regarding the safety of
using these radios due to EMF. It indicates to keep the radio 2 - 3
inches from your mouth when transmitting and to keep the antenae at
least 1 inch away from head and body when transmitting.

However, considering these recent newer published studies pointing to
possible dangers of using cell phones is it reasonable to conclude that
children under 14 also shouldn't be using 2-way radios such as the
Motorolla fr50s or perhaps any 2-way radio?

 

I should also mention that the fr50 has a range of 2 miles. It uses 3 AA
batteries and so I would assume it is about 4.5 volts.

 

AFAIK, the hazard associated with non-ionizing radiation (i.e., the
stuff that's below gamma rays, X-rays, and the like) is localized tissue
heating.

There are studies that do demonstrate a statistical significance with
respect to a correlation between non-ionizing radiation and [enter
pathology here]. Be aware that the effects being studied are subtle and
occur naturally at a very low level. We are not talking "Place hand in
fire, observe blistered and charred tissue" here. If the probability of
the observed effects occurring by chance, when all other contributing
factors are accounted for [*], is small (e.g, 5%) then a correlation may
be said to have been found at that significance level.

When multiple similar studies are performed, a correlation that is only
likely to occur 5% of the time frequently does occur 5% of the time.
Relying on (cherry picking) a single study that supports a particular
outcome is not wise.

Lawyers, however, are paid to be advocates and if Little Johnny has the
bad luck to develop a cerebral pathology and the cell phone manufacturer
has the bad luck to have made the phone that Little Johnny used for
several hours each day then lawyer "A" will find an expert witness "B"
to testify that study "C" clearly shows a statistically significant
correlation between cell phone usage and brain tumors.

[*] Controlling for all other contributing factors is hard and a
favorite place to attack when arguing against the validity of a
particular study.

 

Junk science is just new-age superstition.

 

For more information, I'll refer you to any or all of the following
links for further information;
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/ and;
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html

These are the US govt's sites.

Here is an Australian site;
http://unionsafe.labor.net.au/hazards/104820076229759.html

My own opinion is that low levels of radio energy should NOT cause any
problems, especially compared to many other common hazards, around the
household, or school. That said, these are not my children, so you
need to make up your own mind after you've been adequately informed
as to the hazards, and reviewing the sites above. To be sure there
is sometimes conflicting, and contradictory stories going around,
some of it fired by litigation, so beware of the source.


*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*

 

These radios are terribly dangerous to both children and adults. Please,
for your own safety, put the radios back in their original packaging,
and mail them to me for proper disposal

- jim

 

Thanks everyone for all this helpful info.

I think I will just encourage them to hold the radio and antenna away
from the head.

This quote that Steve pointed out is particularily relevant. Thanks Steve,

from:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html

Unlike cellular telephones, which transmit continuously throughout a
call, two-way radios normally transmit only when the "press-to-talk"
button is depressed. This significantly reduces exposure, and there is
no evidence that there would be a safety hazard associated with exposure
from vehicle-mounted, two-way antennas when the manufacturer's
recommendations are followed.

Hand-held "two-way" portable radios such as walkie-talkies are
low-powered devices used to transmit and receive messages over
relatively short distances. Because of the low power levels used, the
intermittency of these transmissions ("push-to-talk"), and due to the
fact that these radios are held away from the head, they should not
expose users to RF energy in excess of safe limits. Therefore, the FCC
does not require routine documentation of compliance with safety limits
for push-to-talk two-way radios as it does for cellular and PCS phones
(which transmit continuously during use and which are held against the
head).


Otherwise from readig all the info, if there is a risk it is probably small.