191–200 of 613 posts
I feel EMF from WiFi/LTE with my head. Someone wants to study me? As soon as there is a high-bandwidth transmitter very close to me - headache comes in seconds. I've done blind tests holding non-remitting iPad or the one streaming 1080p movies at high bitrate and easily able to tell when there is no radiation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sun is a 1000 watts per square meter exposure at your body, cell towers might be 100w if you hugged the antenna then inverse square law to distance to about 0.00000001 watt with a strong signal. Your cell device is a millwatts transmitter, equivalent to an LED light shining on you. You don't need hat and sunscreen for street lights or flashlights nor would you need it for cellular power levels, orders of magnitud…
Absorbsion rates vary by orders of magnitude depending on signal frequency. A simple power comparison is not a great measure of affect.
The problem with every argument about radiation from cell phones being dangerous is that for every proposed mechanism, the Sun is orders of magnitude more damaging.
The obvious worries with cell phones are repeated stress injuries, insomnia and disruption of personal relationships. There's just no plausible mechanism for the radiation to be damaging, though.
Correlation != causation. And the author does not ask for caution and research, he asks directly for limits on the technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume you're North American and so upset mainly by the absence of an 'MD'. MBChB is an equivalent. Having an additional 'Cert' in homeopathy would be like having a CS degree but also certifying in AWS or Azure products, for example, which wouldn't even necessarily say that I endorse them, perhaps just that I have clients that might like to see that certification.
A cert in homeopathy would not be like certifying in AWS or Azure products. It would be like having a CS degree and then getting a cert in computer shamanism where you were trained in the proper chants and symbology to fix computers just by shouting at them. Equating certifying in a stack or methodology like AWS or Azure with homeopathy lends it 1000X more credit than it deserves. By all means certify in herbology or…
Also, I can now add Blood Sacrifice as an optional extra for my clients, who see the fee as a small price to pay for covering all the bases.
Yeah. HackerNews is your local city's subreddit now. Agree - very sad.
This is why i never mention HackerNews on Reddit. What is the next site we're all going to? ... and how will they control participant quality?
but i believe that online meet-up spots are similar to physically hosting a party. people in-the-know show up in small numbers to a place, and now the time-and-place has turned into a 'party with the cool people'.
on a graph, y-axis is coolness and x-axis is time - typical -x^2 graph where the party hits a coolest point but as time progresses, more and more people who bring noise, low energy, cynicism, and karma grinding show up and kill the party.
but well before the maximum coolness, the original people that turned the party into a real instance, they already got bored and left for the 'after party', which is just the N+1 party instance.
if we calculate how to predict N+1, the algorithm that did it is instantly invalid, so there's no answer to where the next cool party is. i believe it generally starts off as something quasi private, but with some invariable public entry that allows it to grow enough that it eventually gets ruined.
consider all the closed door parties, like private forums, that have been stable brown dwarfs that exist for almost forever - we can't list those here because it's a violation of the rules, to admit they exist.
by the time we all realize where the next place to have these cordial, bourbon sipping, armchair style message forum posts, all the cool people will already have moved into the next room in. and this room will have a coat room full of people taking their coats off, ready to move into where the perceived cool party is happening.
it's neat. i'm not in the cool party and i never will be, but it's still fascinating to get to chat with people on here who are still serious and adhere to whatever the culture here is. i liken it to how i would act differently if i snuck into a golf resort. i have no idea what i am doing but i can fake it just enough to avoid detection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the same time, everybody seems to accept that the chance of getting cancer in your lifetime has risen to about one in three for men and one in five for women. And nobody knows why. Because life expectancy has also risen; people who used to be dying of other things are now living long enough that cancer is more common.
from where does this increase in cancer probability statistic come from? anyone have a link to a paper? tried googling but found nothing reliable sadly
"In other words, the individual incidence of cancer deaths has actually fallen."
I'm amazed at how many people here actually decline to click on the links in the article, which would guide one to a large list of scientific publications, with links to the original publications themselves. Yet they are very ready to call "more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields" "wackos" or "cranks with a PhD", call…
People don’t click the link because they already know better. We are bathed in radiation everyday. So guess what, the people who say 5G is unsafe, are also the same people that will say flying is unsafe, or using a microwave is unsafe, or eating a banana is unsafe, or being in your car is unsafe, or using your phone is unsafe. Because all these things emit radiation. Do people care about that though? No. The effects…
Just so you know.
Your point still stands though, although i would say we're bathed in more intense radiation than 5G and have been bathing in it for millenias - sunlight is radiation as well!
Better live underground, i guess.
Oh, oh, but what about skin cancer you say? That's caused by sunlight, right, so radiowaves could harm you, right? Yeah, but skin cancer is caused by ultraviolet, high energy, high frequency EM radiation (3-30PHz). Petahertz, Coral! That's several orders of magnitude less than most extreme 5G!
Don't even get me started on the power levels of sun vs a base station!
So yeah, the claims of health impact are bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> HV power lines are, in an electrical sense, very far away from you I've seen family houses literally next to high tension poles (not just regular poles, I mean those huge ones many times the height of the house), for example in Portugal. I don't see any definitive conclusion online for the link between high voltage lines proximity and cancer, but I am not an expert. Seems to me the consensus is far from general.
Yea, the huge ones, many times the height of the house, are uh, really many times the height of the house above the house. According to [0], the maximum magnetic field from 275kV-400kV overhead power line (this would be measured much closer to the line than you could possibly get to without climbing the towers) is 100uT. Standing next to a running vacuum cleaner about 800uT. A standard clinical MRI is typically 1.5T,…
Studies funded by the 5G industry are 10 times more likely to say there are no side effects on human, which is suspect and an indication that is an attempt to manipulate science going on - https://nutritionfacts.org/video/does-cell-phone-radiation-c...
The leading independent organization on cancer causes says that current cell phones are "possible carcinogens" - https://nutritionfacts.org/video/cell-phone-brain-tumor-risk...
So what happens if you're standing in the path of a milimeter wave beam from a tower trying to reach a user behind a wall?
MIMO, active beam steering and paths with reflections. In theory. In practice, we'll see, but probably you'll have to hold your phone high to provide some clear line of sight between the antennas if you want those blazing fast speeds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A significant chunk of the rise in life expectancy is driven by a fall in infant mortality, is it not?
Well, if you could point me to a good scientific study that makes a link between higher life expectancy and cancer, I'd be inclined to believe it. Until then, I think the cancer incidence rise is shocking, and can't be explained by rise in life expectancy alone.
"In other words, the individual incidence of cancer deaths has actually fallen."