71–80 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is great
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…
> or maybe 20 seconds in the microwave I'm curious to know the circumstances if you know what a skin burn from 20 seconds in a microwave looks like.
Do we really have to relive this?
Yes because cigarettes, radium, leaded petrol, asbestos, etc. Most things turn out to be pretty safe but in the slim chance they're not, the downside risk is very high.
Not well understood physics, then it was understood and quickly recognized as dangerous. Nothing was done because of nonexistent regulations and corporate money.
>leaded petrol
Recognized as dangerous to begin with ("December 1922, the US Surgeon General wrote to GM regarding growing concerns that environmental lead would become a serious menace to public health."), huge negative effects in workers noticed almost immediately. Nothing was done because of nonexistent regulations and corporate money. (https://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth/)
>asbestos
Recognized as dangerous by medical journals as far back as the 30s (About 40 years after it came into widespread use). Nothing was done because of nonexistent regulations and corporate money.
>cigarettes
Recognized as dangerous by medical journals as far back as the 40s. Nothing was done because of nonexistent regulations and corporate money.
>Non-ionizing radiation
Not recognized as dangerous despite every conceivable study being tried multiple times. No link to cancer. Technology has been widely used for a little under a century with no signs of population-level effects. No known mechanism of action (unlike all the others). Regardless, regulations limit human exposure and require standardized testing of all consumer products.
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?
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?
Isn't there a pretty well-established (but small) link between temperature and cancer? There's probably a reason why all the RF cancer studies go to the effort of specifically controlling it and specifying that the effects they are interested in are athermal.
There is a well understood risk of cancer in people who drink really really hot coffee and tea in oesophageal cancer but in no other cancer is there a relationship
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?
Hi, I'm no expert on the exact regulations, but I run fccid.io and have a pretty good idea of the process manufacturers go through. Although forgery of results would be possible, almost all testing is done by independent labs. It would be possible for the manufacturer to submit a "compliant" sample but then program the rest of the units to radiate differently. What I see most commonly are devices being sold without a…
However, testing is done by multiple independent countries, so for any significant effect something would be found.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the preprint 'Report of Partial Findings' paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/23/055... As a non-biologist, the amount of power being exposed to the rats here seems pretty high - 0, 1.5, 3, and 6 watts absorbed per Kg of body mass. Also, if I'm reading this right, survival was very slightly lower in the control groups than any of the RF exposed groups.
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.
I would be more surprised if they didn’t develop issues at those power levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They reported some results of a not yet published study. So if you allready know everything, I hope you are open for some questions about the base structure and maybe the great unifying theory of the universe?
There have been plenty of published studies with equally-alarming results. The one thing that all of the studies have had in common is that the effects they describe mysteriously disappear as soon as someone tries to reproduce them.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes because cigarettes, radium, leaded petrol, asbestos, etc. Most things turn out to be pretty safe but in the slim chance they're not, the downside risk is very high.
>radium Not well understood physics, then it was understood and quickly recognized as dangerous. Nothing was done because of nonexistent regulations and corporate money. >leaded petrol Recognized as dangerous to begin with ("December 1922, the US Surgeon General wrote to GM regarding growing concerns that environmental lead would become a serious menace to public health."), huge negative effects in workers noticed al…
- 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...
...and probably there were people back then saying "Oh more scare stories about Radium again?!?"
Where mobile phones are concerned, I remember my old Ericsson GA628 that used to heat up my ear leaving it red after 5 minutes of conversation.
What's worth bearing in mind is we deployed mobile phones to the public at large before we had any significant data of their long term effects on us. Likewise 5G - we'll only really know what is does to us long term once we've gathered a few years of data, but that's not going to stop us deploying it. So yes it won't immediately kill us but we're deluding ourselves to say we know for sure there's no harm long term.
