291–300 of 613 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've also had broadcast radio for over a century now, at much higher power levels than mobile phones.
Not really comparable (especially to the 5G technologies). Given their size, radio waves go right over us.
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…
With every new generation of cellular technology, this question comes up. This started as early as CT, then DECT, GSM, 3G, 4G and now 5G. After 30+ years of having consumer grade wireless telephony we are still debating whether the radio signals have any negative effect on living beings. If we can't draw any conclusion from a sample size that big, then I must conclude that the effects of EM-radiation are so minimal (…
Remember how long it took for us to finally get lead out of gasoline?
Also, what has lead in gasoline to do with EM-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…
This is a tangent, but it's crazy that we've built a communications network that relies on basically LEDs shining out of our pockets (with less interference from the sun, but still).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people in the cancer field (I worked in a tangential one) believe that incidence of cancer is due to people living longer (cancer rates go up a lot as you age), and not dying of other diseases first. In a sense, cancer is what you get after you solved the other problems.
"Most people in the cancer field" seem to be pretty misinformed then. See [1] and [2]. At a minimum, health/diet habits have increased cancer risk in young people over the last 20 years, and probably other environmental factors/exposures as well. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2... [2] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
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…
The article says, "more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating." The link to the 500 articles is https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl... . I checked the "conclusions" of the first two: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29996112 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29709736 Conclusion of 1) De…
That said, given the scientific consensus from rigorous meta-analyses, I expect that these “positive” studies are mostly of low quality and/or limited sample size. And scepticism is generally warranted when advocates start listing large numbers of studies instead of referring to a few meta-studies. As it happens, the best available meta-studies come to the opposite conclusion (namely, that there’s probably no harm from mobile EMF), so this long list is essentially bogus.
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.
> It comes down to a persons personal risk. [..] Wear a hat and sunscreen. What's the "hat and sunscreen" protection against millimeter wave cellphone towers, that someone else installed on their private property near you? I'm not yet convinced the risks exist. But conceptually if there was a danger, there's no "personal risk" argument. We're blanketing the whole area around a tower with millimeter wave/5G, a person…
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…
Therefore, 99.9999038793% of the energy emitted is at wavelengths shorter than 1E-4m (0.1mm).
Or, across the entire continuous spectrum (0, 1e-4m], the total energy from the Sun is 0.0009612W, or 961uW.
You might complain that 961 uW is much more than 10nW, but again, you have to consider that 961 uW is across the entire spectrum (0,1E-4]. The Sun is less powerful at narrow spectrums because otherwise it'd drown out the cell phone tower (Or rather we pump power into the antenna to overcome the "noise" from the Sun).
I'd reproduce the numbers, but unfortunately my HP48 underflows at such narrow bandwidths.
And the "LED" at your face is, of course, much more powerful than the Sun since (as you pointed out) by the inverse square law, it has to pump out a lot of power to reach the tower.
Nor do I happen to think LEDs are harmless. Using LEDs to affect biological system is a very rich area of study.
Do I think non-ionizing radiation is harmful? I doubt it. But comparing a 1000W/m^2 @ 5400K black body radiator to a cell phone tower is dishonest.
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…
Learned all about him from Malcom Gladwell's podcast this weekend. A really fascinating story of someone that wouldn't give in to peer-pressure, because he was convinced:
http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/40-the-obscure-virus-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a tangent, but it's crazy that we've built a communications network that relies on basically LEDs shining out of our pockets (with less interference from the sun, but still).
Except our pockets (unless you wear tinfoil pants) and many other materials are transparent at those wavelengths which makes it a lot less crazy.