11–20 of 129 posts
I have no doubt our bodies are easily disrupted by EM in ways we know about and probably many, many more we don't, but it is insufficient to base a belief on "science said male rats don't like 5g phones", which is basically all the article states
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A human body emits more radiation in the gigahertz range than a cellphone?
I am talking about the infrared range, which is above 300GHz.
Disappointing lack of specific information about the test setup, it mentions a variety of configurations at varying energy levels, but omits whether it was a single male/female pair in each configuration or whatever else I have no doubt our bodies are easily disrupted by EM in ways we know about and probably many, many more we don't, but it is insufficient to base a belief on "science said male rats don't like 5g pho…
This article is misleading. The paper it is based on studied the effects of 900MHz CDMA modulated RF on rats. 5G bandwidth in the U.S. is from roughly 3100 MHz to 4200 MHz.
If non-ionizing low temperature radiation can be harmful to humans, does that mean we can get health issues just from standing near another human body which emits EM radiation at a far higher frequency and energy density?
There's probably a reason why all the RF cancer studies go to the effort of specifically controlling it and specifying that the effects they are interested in are athermal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am talking about the infrared range, which is above 300GHz.
Interesting thought. Near infrared light does interact with cells (photobiomodulation), usually in a beneficial way. Maybe the wave form is another factor, or some frequency ranges are beneficial while others are not?
Certainly. Heat is nice (if not too much), but x-ray is usually bad. Gamma-rays a lot worse. And cellphone radiation is probably somewhere in between ... so like the article cites: we don't know yet.
So I do not like sleeping next to my mobile nor have it next to lower body parts for too long ...
Seriously? This again? There is no physical basis for the hypothesis that non-ionizing radiation at athermal levels has any effect on humans. So, either come up with some repeatable results, or find something else to spend your research funding on.
Seriously? This again? There is no physical basis for the hypothesis that non-ionizing radiation at athermal levels has any effect on humans. So, either come up with some repeatable results, or find something else to spend your research funding on.
They reported some results of a not yet published study. So if you allready know everything, I hope you are open for some questions about the base structure and maybe the great unifying theory of the universe?
The one thing that all of the studies have had in common is that the effects they describe mysteriously disappear as soon as someone tries to reproduce them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting thought. Near infrared light does interact with cells (photobiomodulation), usually in a beneficial way. Maybe the wave form is another factor, or some frequency ranges are beneficial while others are not?
"some frequency ranges are beneficial while others are not" Certainly. Heat is nice (if not too much), but x-ray is usually bad. Gamma-rays a lot worse. And cellphone radiation is probably somewhere in between ... so like the article cites: we don't know yet. So I do not like sleeping next to my mobile nor have it next to lower body parts for too long ...
Disappointing lack of specific information about the test setup, it mentions a variety of configurations at varying energy levels, but omits whether it was a single male/female pair in each configuration or whatever else I have no doubt our bodies are easily disrupted by EM in ways we know about and probably many, many more we don't, but it is insufficient to base a belief on "science said male rats don't like 5g pho…
Link to the NTP's paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/23/055699 This article is misleading. The paper it is based on studied the effects of 900MHz CDMA modulated RF on rats. 5G bandwidth in the U.S. is from roughly 3100 MHz to 4200 MHz.
>As far as frequency, the 5G test network used a 15 GHz frequency band, which is higher and shorter range than current 3G/4G cellular frequencies that top out at around 2.6 GHz
http://www.comsoc.org/blog/latest-update-5g-ieee-communicati...
The original article was suggesting this substantial difference is the likely source of the problem, which would make sense if the study used the same frequency range.
Higher frequencies tend to dislike solid obstacles and need higher gain (there is a specific absorption rate that phones must not exceed to prevent literally cooking bits of you, something you might not necessarily feel but could eventually result in cancerous tissue just like any repetitive internal trauma)...
such an argument against it's use for cell phones might have weight, on the other hand forcing this paper narrative (if it was in-fact using 900MHz) was a mistake.