101–110 of 129 posts
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?
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…
That said, getting an RF burn off an active radio element is like getting a regular burn because you've put your hand around an incandescent lightbulb. It's your fault, and it doesn't imply lightbulbs are a health danger, as in both cases the energy received diminishes by the square of your distance from the source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radium is a great example of society blindly placing trust in technology and corporations as these ads from the 1910's show... - It will cure your hayfever! https://i.imgur.com/yXpONhN.png - Wear a radium pad for great health! https://i.imgur.com/NlnzYOx.jpg - Drink Radium water for better health! https://i.imgur.com/d1uIUGO.jpg Story is explained here https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/03/how-we-re... .…
We have a good idea what 5G does. It heats our bodies by negligible amount. There's no known mechanisms for long-term adverse effects, there's no experimental data supporting such claims.
But that's exactly point - there are no _known_ mechanisms. Just like radium in 1910 we didn't know what the mechanism was at that point, if any.
Have we studied the effects of 5G on a large sample of people over a 5 year or 10 year period ? No because 5G hasn't been available that long.
So ultimately we don't know but we're going to do it anyway. Which is OK if we are aware that that's the choice we're making
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm conflicted about this, because on the one hand, people should have a choice about things that happen to them. On the other hand, if you let them, you get things like this, or anti-vaccination movements. What can one do?
Anti-vac is a public issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radium wasn't used for over a century all over the entire planet and exposed to most of the entire population of the world their entire lives. It's literally the worst comparison to non-ionizing radiation possible. I think if there were significant issues with non-ionizing radiation, we would have a large sample size by now since almost everyone is exposed to it their entire life. Also, what is significant about your…
My point wasn't about comparing different types of EM radiation - of course there's no comparison. My point was simply about the process by which society blindly adopts a new technology without fully understanding the consequences and how that might have parallels today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
When it comes to interference with DNA, it is wavelength not wattage that is important.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoionization#Multi-photon_i...
Apparently, at least using some deep laser science magic, you can make photons' energy additive with respect to ionization process. Anyone here who knows the science behind this, and could shine the light on whether or not this thing has any impact on day-to-day interactions with RF radiation?
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have a good idea what 5G does. It heats our bodies by negligible amount. There's no known mechanisms for long-term adverse effects, there's no experimental data supporting such claims.
> There's no known mechanisms for long-term adverse effects, there's no experimental data supporting such claims. But that's exactly point - there are no _known_ mechanisms. Just like radium in 1910 we didn't know what the mechanism was at that point, if any. Have we studied the effects of 5G on a large sample of people over a 5 year or 10 year period ? No because 5G hasn't been available that long. So ultimately we…
The 60GHz band was specifically chosen for short range wide-band data transmissions because it is close to the absorption peak for oxygen. This means it doesn't propagate far in air, making it a poor choice for much other than short range communications, where it's an asset if neighbouring cells don't interfere with each other. Short range in this case means a cell in every room of a house, as typical propagation distance is about 10 metres.
Given that the 60GHz band is specifically absorbed by oxygen, and the body contains oxygen, it strikes me that it's worth specifically testing the biological effects of this band, separately to existing cell phone bands.
Note that the article under consideration here tests at 900MHz and 1900MHz.
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…
Yeah no. Burning yourself on a hot stove does not increase your risk of cancer and that's the same thing which happened to your coworker.
As such, it stands to reason that any type of burn (causing tissue damage) could ultimately lead to cancer.
Or at least that's my current understanding.