Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

beta.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 129 posts

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#41

Post by phkahler »

SigmundA wrote: post #28
hutzlibu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 ...

X-rays and Gamma and all the way down to UV are ionizing which is why they are harmful. Radio waves are way below light and infrared as was stated. Forget body heat, why does no one care we are walking around 60w terahertz radiators in our home! Then we go outside and bathe in 1000 watt per meter sunlight which includes ionizing UV. Cell phones put out the equivalent of a low power LED light I am not sure way everyon…

Cell phones emit RF signals that penetrate the body. Lightbulbs for the most part do not. I've always considered the notion of antennas important. Your circulatory system may act as antennas of all different lengths and that would put the received energy right into the blood where it can cause leukemia or other similar cancers. Just speculation of course, but the proposed mechanism applies to RF and not light bulbs.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#43

Post by kobeya »

phkahler wrote: post #41
SigmundA wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X-rays and Gamma and all the way down to UV are ionizing which is why they are harmful. Radio waves are way below light and infrared as was stated. Forget body heat, why does no one care we are walking around 60w terahertz radiators in our home! Then we go outside and bathe in 1000 watt per meter sunlight which includes ionizing UV. Cell phones put out the equivalent of a low power LED light I am not sure way everyon…

Cell phones emit RF signals that penetrate the body. Lightbulbs for the most part do not. I've always considered the notion of antennas important. Your circulatory system may act as antennas of all different lengths and that would put the received energy right into the blood where it can cause leukemia or other similar cancers. Just speculation of course, but the proposed mechanism applies to RF and not light bulbs.

How? “Into the blood” isn’t a mechanism. When was the last time you saw a lump of meat arc and spark? This is fear mongering.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#44

Post by kobeya »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #33
baobrien wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the preprint 'Report of Partial Findings' paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/23/055... As a non-biologist, the amount of power being exposed to the rats here seems pretty high - 0, 1.5, 3, and 6 watts absorbed per Kg of body mass. Also, if I'm reading this right, survival was very slightly lower in the control groups than any of the RF exposed groups.

6 watts absorbed per kg of body mass would be somewhere in the range of 500 watts for a human being, so, yes, very high -- that's around 5x the amount of energy normally produced as body heat. I would think that would be enough to produce severe stress just from the thermal effects.

That’s called “getting cooked”. If you stand under a heat lamp many multiples higher in energy than direct sunlight, bad things happen. News at 11.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#45

Post by userbinator »

kobeya wrote: post #43
phkahler wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cell phones emit RF signals that penetrate the body. Lightbulbs for the most part do not. I've always considered the notion of antennas important. Your circulatory system may act as antennas of all different lengths and that would put the received energy right into the blood where it can cause leukemia or other similar cancers. Just speculation of course, but the proposed mechanism applies to RF and not light bulbs.

How? “Into the blood” isn’t a mechanism. When was the last time you saw a lump of meat arc and spark? This is fear mongering.

When was the last time you saw a lump of meat arc and spark?

Actually, Google "microwave meat sparking" and you'll find plenty of videos --- but in almost all the cases, the meat is cut in a very specific shape (with sharp edges) that makes it concentrate the RF, and of course being a microwave oven the power density is very high. A human body is, to a rough approximation, a bag of water. It will heat, mostly evenly, when exposed to RF (some parts like the eyes do not have good cooling, hence are more dangerous to irradiate, but this is still a conversation about power levels many orders of magnitude higher than a phone would produce.)

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#46

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

phkahler wrote: post #41
SigmundA wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X-rays and Gamma and all the way down to UV are ionizing which is why they are harmful. Radio waves are way below light and infrared as was stated. Forget body heat, why does no one care we are walking around 60w terahertz radiators in our home! Then we go outside and bathe in 1000 watt per meter sunlight which includes ionizing UV. Cell phones put out the equivalent of a low power LED light I am not sure way everyon…

Cell phones emit RF signals that penetrate the body. Lightbulbs for the most part do not. I've always considered the notion of antennas important. Your circulatory system may act as antennas of all different lengths and that would put the received energy right into the blood where it can cause leukemia or other similar cancers. Just speculation of course, but the proposed mechanism applies to RF and not light bulbs.

> Lightbulbs for the most part do not.

1) Take a flashlight

2) Put a finger over the bulb and turn it on

3) Observe the surprising amount of light that passes through your finger.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#47

Post by a1371 »

sschueller wrote: post #4

I would be more worried about issues similar to the diesel gate scandal where manufacturers start forging radiation tests results. How much testing does the government do and how much is the industry self testing?

The problem right now is that the tests are not rigorous enough, so they don't even need to do that. The regulation allows them to test the radiation level when the cellphone is 15mm from the body. If the cellphone is on the body without a gap, none of the flagship phones meet the safe level of radiation when they are broadcasting to a tower far away.

Also, the radiation test only tests the size of an adult's body, so children, who will have a larger region of their body and head impacted, are missed from the test.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm69ik_Qdb8

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#48

Post by kobeya »

userbinator wrote: post #45
kobeya wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? “Into the blood” isn’t a mechanism. When was the last time you saw a lump of meat arc and spark? This is fear mongering.

When was the last time you saw a lump of meat arc and spark? Actually, Google "microwave meat sparking" and you'll find plenty of videos --- but in almost all the cases, the meat is cut in a very specific shape (with sharp edges) that makes it concentrate the RF, and of course being a microwave oven the power density is very high. A human body is, to a rough approximation, a bag of water. It will heat, mostly evenly,…

Microwaves aren’t RF. The frequency has a very specific interaction with water.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#49

Post by BenjiWiebe »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #19
hutzlibu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 ...

Heat is not a frequency or a frequency range.

Generally speaking, warm/hot objects radiate in the infrared range. In my understanding, all objects radiate something, unless at absolute zero.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#50

Post by baobrien »

vvanders wrote: post #39
Turing_Machine wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6 watts absorbed per kg of body mass would be somewhere in the range of 500 watts for a human being, so, yes, very high -- that's around 5x the amount of energy normally produced as body heat. I would think that would be enough to produce severe stress just from the thermal effects.

Holy crap, yeah you don't want to be near something dropping 500W ERP. If I recall correctly most cell phones are on the order of 1-2W since more would tear through your battery.

100-500mW/Kg might still be appropriate, though, if you are dissipating a significant fraction of that 1-2W in your body. I have to imagine that most meat-power-dissipation would be pretty well concentrated near the transmitter.
Post reply on HN