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

51–60 of 129 posts

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#51

Post by waegawegawe »

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.

Quick Google searches indicate about three watts. To a first approximation, you are not concave when talking on a cell phone, so figure at most 1.5W travelling in your direction. Humans are definitely not opaque to radio, but let's suppose I am. Personally, I weigh 90kg, so for me it's something like 15mW per kg at most, for the small handful of minutes per day I spend on the cell phone.

My level of concern about this could not be lower.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#52

Post by vvanders »

waegawegawe wrote: post #51
vvanders wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quick Google searches indicate about three watts. To a first approximation, you are not concave when talking on a cell phone, so figure at most 1.5W travelling in your direction. Humans are definitely not opaque to radio, but let's suppose I am. Personally, I weigh 90kg, so for me it's something like 15mW per kg at most, for the small handful of minutes per day I spend on the cell phone. My level of concern about thi…

Keep in mind if they're doing CDMA the power is dialed down to keep it uniform at the receiver(otherwise the code XOR doesn't work) so unless you're at the limits of reception it's probably not at 3w.

Agreed though, the power seems really low.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#53

Post by keenerd »

kobeya wrote: post #48
userbinator wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Microwaves aren’t RF.

Yes they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_transmission

> The frequency has a very specific interaction with water.

No it doesn't: http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/10/15/why-are-the-microwave...

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#54

Post by theyregreat »

Hmmm. It depends on the power, frequencies and distance to tissue. I remember a coworker at a GPS mfgr accidentially turned on a 440 MHz radio in high-power (25W) mode with only a whip antenna and received a nasty radio burn when he pointlessly/accidentally put his hand around it. That radio burn looked similar to a sunburn or maybe 20 seconds in the microwave. Increased risk of cancer, for sure.

A fraction of a Watt every now and then might be okay, as long as it’s not bursting at multiple Watts or near the resonant frequencies of purine or water.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#55

Post by microcolonel »

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#56

Post by pavement »

theyregreat wrote: post #54

Hmmm. It depends on the power, frequencies and distance to tissue. I remember a coworker at a GPS mfgr accidentially turned on a 440 MHz radio in high-power (25W) mode with only a whip antenna and received a nasty radio burn when he pointlessly/accidentally put his hand around it. That radio burn looked similar to a sunburn or maybe 20 seconds in the microwave. Increased risk of cancer, for sure. A fraction of a Watt…

Consider multiple transmitters operating at the same time, in the same room. Even if no signal transmitter is dumping high output into that part of the spectrum, isn’t bandwidth saturation one of the reasons for poor reception and lower bars?

Would that not provide bonuses to absorbed effective wattage? There’s probably some constructive interference producing fortuitous signals, no?

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#57

Post by pfarnsworth »

valuearb wrote: post #3

No discussion of sample sizes or P values? I convinced, I will refuse to stand within inches of a 5G base station for 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off, for 10 hours a day.

Will you have a choice if you live in a condo where they have places several of these antennae on the roof, where they are broadcasting at much higher wattages?

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#59

Post by cma »

ko27 wrote: post #8
manmal wrote: post #7

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.

The body also reflects terahertz radiation from the surrounding environment, even directly into other people's eyes. This has the bizarre side-effect of causing people to be able to "see" each other.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#60

Post by nashashmi »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

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.

What you can't measure doesn't exist

... Until it is discovered!

I can feel Bluetooth waves!

Post reply on HN