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

111–120 of 129 posts

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#111

Post by CyberDildonics »

boooooo wrote: post #38
CyberDildonics wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the radiation heat transfer from microscopic bodies is the same as saying a human body emits infrared light on a macro scale.

It does though, that's how infrared cameras work for one thing.

I think this is mixing up two different things.

People seem to emit infrared light, but that is not the light that people usually see through an infrared camera.

https://www.livescience.com/7799-strange-humans-glow-visible...

This is showing infrared and even visible light radiation from a person's body in extremely small amounts.

An infrared camera just sees infrared light period, the vast majority of which is what is reflecting off of someone from other sources.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#112

Post by baobrien »

red75prime wrote: post #95
dash2 wrote: post #79

"Why, for instance, did only male rats show increased tumor rates, and not females?" Hmm, was this pre-registered? Wee bit p-hacking? I can't find the answer in the paper. Hmm, though I did find this interesting nugget: "At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of 23 males than in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR." Anyone want to venture a post hoc explanation?

Thermoregulation reduced metabolic rate thanks to additional thermal energy input, leading to slightly higher lifespans? Pure unfounded speculation, of course.

It looks like the control group just didn't survive for quite as long as this particular strain of rats usually do. Probably just a statistical fluke with the seemingly small (to a non-biologist) sample size.

From 'Conclusions':

>The survival of the control group of male rats in the current study (28%) was relatively low compared to other recent NTP studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley ® SD ® (Harlan) rats (average 47%, range 24-72%).

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#113

Post by kobeya »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #93
kobeya wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your link takes an award for missing the point. There is a resonant frequency of liquid water in the microwave range which is why tabletop microwaves use that range. They don’t emit a single frequency, no, but I don’t know anyone who claims they do...

You literally just wrote microwaves aren't radio frequencies, which is wrong by the very definitions of "microwave" and "radio frequency".

Different fields define the EM energy spectrum differently based on use. You can either argue that "microwave" is one end of the "RF spectrum", or that "microwave" and "radio" are two separate sub-categories of EM energy. My field teaches to the latter.

In the end it is an uninteresting point however because it is an argument over what word to use, not fundamental differences in nature. The point I was making earlier which was misinterpreted was that microwave interacts with matter in a fundamentally different way than lower frequency RF, which is critically important to the topic of TFA. Microwaves excite dipoles on the atomic and bio-molecular scale. Lower frequency RF requires some sort of conductive material (or A LOT of energy) to form an antenna, on the other hand, which is why we are transparent to "RF" but not "microwave" (and hence, why some fields treat them separately).

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#114

Post by keenerd »

kobeya wrote: post #87
keenerd wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Your link takes an award for missing the point. There is a resonant frequency of liquid water in the microwave range which is why tabletop microwaves use that range. They don’t emit a single frequency, no, but I don’t know anyone who claims they do...

> There is a resonant frequency of liquid water

Yes, I'll give you that

> in the microwave range

No. Water's first resonance is around 1THz, in the far infrared.

> which is why tabletop microwaves use that range.

No, they use 2.4GHz because that is what the FCC lets them use. The first microwave oven used 1GHz (https://www.google.com/patents/US2480679), later increased to 3GHz (https://www.google.com/patents/US2495429). Anything in that range will work.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#115

Post by keenerd »

kobeya wrote: post #113
TeMPOraL wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally just wrote microwaves aren't radio frequencies, which is wrong by the very definitions of "microwave" and "radio frequency".

Different fields define the EM energy spectrum differently based on use. You can either argue that "microwave" is one end of the "RF spectrum", or that "microwave" and "radio" are two separate sub-categories of EM energy. My field teaches to the latter. In the end it is an uninteresting point however because it is an argument over what word to use, not fundamental differences in nature. The point I was making earlier…

What is your field? What textbook says that "microwave" and "radio" are different? I've been citing a lot of sources here. Just this one from you would be appreciated.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#116

Post by XorNot »

dwk wrote: post #88
XorNot wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A quick Google search for "burns and cancer" suggests that there may indeed be a relationship between kitchen burns and cancer. One such result: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11957286 > Abstract > Burns are very frequent. Skin cancer on burns scars are one of the known complications....

Interesting - I didn't know that. But the parent was pretty obviously making the association between forms of damage which definitely increase cancer risk (sunburn) and non-ionizing radiation - which does not. The type of burn he observed is thermal.

So even if thermal damage (or just damage in general) can increase cancer risk a little...it's not remotely the same thing as sunburn or gamma radiation, and as it pertains to cellphones completely irrelevant (because a cellphone is not a 40W antenna emitter).

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#117

Post by gambiting »

grecy wrote: post #89
gambiting wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People actually cook things in microwaves? As in - they go from raw product to a cooked product? I've only ever used and only ever saw microwaves bring used for warming up meals, never for actual cooking.

Checkout the buttons on the front - many have settings for cooking chicken, beef, etc. Absolutely you can "cook" things in microwaves, people do it all the time.

What buttons? Pretty much every microwave I've ever seen looks like this[0] - timer + power setting. Even our kitchen at work which has some really fancy microwaves only offers time + power, nothing else. The ones full of buttons on the front are from like....American movies, not something I ever see in real life :P

[0] https://asda.scene7.com/is/image/Asda/5054781247296?hei=532&...

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#118

Post by mark_l_watson »

It is worth the risk, in my opinion. I never hold my phone next to my ear, but there will be more general ambient radiation with more 5g cell towers and cell use. Something unfortunate is that there is really no way to opt-out of cell tower radiation exposure unless you live in a remote area.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#119

Post by SigmundA »

manmal wrote: post #66
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Grandparent is right though since most of the blue and green light parts are reflected or absorbed in the top skin layers. Starting with red and infrared, deep tissue penetration is possible. The higher the frequency, the lower its ability to penetrate. That’s why RF can pass through bodies while UV light can’t.

Its not as simple as that, X-rays also penetrate but are much higher frequency than UV.

The difference as far as health concerns is X-rays cause DNA damage, RF will simply increase temperature.

Increase temperature enough and you cause tissue damage of course, but we are talking milliwatts at the transmitter point source that falls off at inverse square, again similar to the amount of heating you would get from a low power LED held near your skin, actually less since as you pointed out RF mainly passes right through us rather than being absorbed.

This stuff should continue to be studied, but so should the effects of much higher power light bulbs just in case there is some damaging mechanism yet to be discovered beyond heating your flesh.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#120

Post by grecy »

gambiting wrote: post #117
grecy wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Checkout the buttons on the front - many have settings for cooking chicken, beef, etc. Absolutely you can "cook" things in microwaves, people do it all the time.

What buttons? Pretty much every microwave I've ever seen looks like this[0] - timer + power setting. Even our kitchen at work which has some really fancy microwaves only offers time + power, nothing else. The ones full of buttons on the front are from like....American movies, not something I ever see in real life :P [0] https://asda.scene7.com/is/image/Asda/5054781247296?hei=532&...

Most I have seen look like this

https://www.google.com/search?q=microwave+buttons&source=lnm...

Post reply on HN