IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New The frequencies and power levels aren't bio-active
People have had vague concerns about radiation from electrical things since Edison's day. Remember when these new-fangled cell phones were going to give everyone brain cancer because they were being held against their head all the time? It didn't happen.

We know a decent amount about how various radio frequencies interact with cells. They put giant TV transmitter towers in residential neighborhoods. They've put 5G "microcell" towers throughout our area. (They go on power poles and apparently need to be within 500 feet of their neighbor.)

https://spectrum.ieee.org/will-5g-be-bad-for-our-health

Beware that, speaking as an engineer, engineers are often too confident of their particular understanding and discount actual experts. ;-)

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New I'm imprinted by thank you for smoking
Incredible movie. And it ends up with the smoking lobbyist moving on to lobby for cell phone towers. Which then triggered me to do the research. And there is definitely a connection between high cell phone usage and brain tumors.

I'm going to die of lung cancer so that won't affect me, at least in the time frame that is required to fry your brain and create the tumors.
New Good movie.
But...

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html

We had a Sprint PCS (digital) cell phone in the late '90s (introduced in 1996). The iPhone was released in June 2007. I'm not seeing any increase in brain cancer rates, myself.

Cheers,
Scott.
New " And there is definitely a connection between high cell phone usage and brain tumors."
There is not.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11577482/
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/central/doi/10.1002/central/CN-01732556/full?highlightAbstract=cancer%7Cphon%7Cphone%7Ccellular
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html#:~:text=The%20main%20concerns%20have%20focused%20on%20whether%20cell,on%20a%20call.%20How%20do%20cell%20phones%20work%3F

From the last link:

What do expert agencies say?


The American Cancer Society (ACS) does not have any official position or statement on whether or not radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell phones, cell phone towers, or other sources is a cause of cancer.

 ACS generally looks to other expert organizations to determine if something causes cancer (that is, if it is a carcinogen), including:

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO)


The US National Toxicology Program (NTP), which is formed from parts of several different government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Other major organizations also sometimes comment on the ability of certain exposures (such as cell phone use) to cause cancer.

Based on a review of studies published up until 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans, based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. (For more information on the IARC classification system, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.) 

More recently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a technical report based on studies published between 2008 and 2018, as well as national trends in cancer rates. The report concluded: Based on the studies that are described in detail in this report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure and [tumor formation].

So far, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) has not included RF radiation in its Report on Carcinogens, which lists exposures that are known to be or reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. (For more on this report, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.)

According to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC):

[C]urrently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better basis for RF safety standards than is currently used.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

At this time we do not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use. Scientific studies are underway to determine whether cell phone use may cause health effects.
New It doesn't have to be ionizing radiation to trigger cellular changes.
We are sensitive in many areas to the energy. They just found out about photo receptors in our skin which then trigger all kinds of internal processes on exposure to light. We are sensitive to magnetic waves and can use them to orient ourselves. We thought it was just turtles and birds for many years but then realized mammals have it too, we are just not that aware of it.

Sticking a radio transmitter up to your ear next to your brain on an ongoing basis is f****** insane. And if the bars are low that means it's upping its transmission power to speak to the tower far away.

While the specific damage is next to impossible to predict I'd rather not take that chance. I take enough chances, this one's in unnecessary one.
New Changes =/= Disease.
Don't move the goal posts. First it was brain cancer. Now bodies are sensitive to stuff.

We're sensitive to changes in shadows. It probably evolved as a consequence of not getting eaten by big cats. That doesn't mean that vampire movies are dangerous.

Life is too short to worry about nanoscopic-probability stuff. :-)

The people making these claims about hazards of low-level RF/mm-wave radiation need to come up with a mechanism. It's chemistry and biology. It takes energy for things to change in a destructive way (atom displacement, etc.) in DNA and in cells - there isn't enough energy in cell-phone radiation to cause the effect that they're claiming.

There are real dangers from cosmic rays - charged particles with monstrous energies (up to 10^+20 eV) - compared to 2.5 x 10^-6 eV for 6 GHz RF radiation in some 5G bands.

HTH a little.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Accepted
But it's perfectly reasonable to be worried about nano size stuff. Nano plastic and nano metal scare the s*** out of me.


https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-020-00358-y

Not that I can do anything about it.
New Yup. Nothing you can do about it.
Also...

Currently, a systematic comparison of the neurotoxic effects of different particle types, shapes, sizes at different exposure concentrations and durations is lacking, but urgently needed to further elucidate the neurotoxic hazard and risk of exposure to micro- and nanoplastics.


IOW, there's no evidence of a problem, but there might be a problem.

I get it - society and technology are changing rapidly and we really don't know all the implications. But there are big problems now that we already know that are causing huge health and safety issues in the US - the pandemic; lead; maternal healthcare and abortion restrictions; climate change; etc.

Yes, research the new stuff, but don't get distracted.

Cheers,
Scott.
New I just gave you the science
If you're gonna reject it, there's not much more I can say to convince you.
New Yeah but you were an a****** at the moment.
Another Scott is never an a******. I accepted the science from him. Don't worry, I still like you.
New Meanwhile, ...
New So, you've never cooked meat with a kitchen microwave? :)
Navy radars are known to hurt sailors and definitely kill birds.

But, of course, these are high power transmitters.
Alex

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New Yup.
Microwave ovens operate around 2.45 GHz where water molecules have strong absorption. Of course, microwave ovens are closed metal boxes with standing waves - when working properly, they don't leak radiation. And they often have 1200W of power.

An X-band Radar:

FCC.gov:

Transmit Power

The radar will transmit a waveform with a peak power of 4 kW. Factoring in the antenna gain, the peak ERP (effective radiated power; transmit power multiplied by antenna gain) is 1.26 MW (61 dBW). The radar will operate at a maximum of 10% duty factor, so the maximum average power emitted by the radar is 400 W, with an equivalent maximum average ERP of 126 kW (51 dBW).


Lots of power for short periods of time, but not so much on average.

(Big AM radio stations are typically 50,000 watts (some used to be 500,000 watts, IIRC).)

In contrast, a cell phone towers typically radiate 5-10 watts, and 1/r^2 is always your friend. ;-)

Things are different at high power - even intense visible light is bad at high enough intensity. And, naturally, there's been lots of research on using high intensity light for countermeasures...

Interesting stuff!

Cheers,
Scott.
     Recommendation for cell extender - (crazy) - (26)
         Google Fi connects over WiFi, is that an option? - (drook) - (3)
             Our internet is worse than the phone - (crazy) - (2)
                 Does your phone support wifi calling? - (pwhysall) - (1)
                     Yes but it doesn't help with the crappy internet - (crazy)
         T-Mobile used to have such things. - (Another Scott)
         And M decided to do something - (crazy) - (20)
             👍 -NT - (Another Scott)
             Heh - (pwhysall) - (18)
                 I was given one with my very first cell phone - (drook) - (17)
                     Yeah it's a different value equation depending if they have the cell towers and the bandwidth versus - (crazy) - (16)
                         buy the neighbor a 5g tshirt -NT - (boxley)
                         Well, it reduces how strong a signal your phone has to send out. - (a6l6e6x) - (14)
                             While my phone power signal requirement is low, I'm bathed in the frequencies - (crazy) - (13)
                                 The frequencies and power levels aren't bio-active - (Another Scott) - (12)
                                     I'm imprinted by thank you for smoking - (crazy) - (11)
                                         Good movie. - (Another Scott)
                                         " And there is definitely a connection between high cell phone usage and brain tumors." - (pwhysall) - (6)
                                             It doesn't have to be ionizing radiation to trigger cellular changes. - (crazy) - (5)
                                                 Changes =/= Disease. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                     Accepted - (crazy) - (1)
                                                         Yup. Nothing you can do about it. - (Another Scott)
                                                 I just gave you the science - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                                     Yeah but you were an a****** at the moment. - (crazy)
                                         Meanwhile, ... - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                             So, you've never cooked meat with a kitchen microwave? :) - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                                 Yup. - (Another Scott)

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
118 ms