4 ms·

Worries about Ghz radiation at probably less than 100 watts from a tower that follows inverse-square, then walks around outside under 1000 watt per meter at the

Worries about Ghz radiation at probably less than 100 watts from a tower that follows inverse-square, then walks around outside under 1000 watt per meter at the ground terahertz radiation from the nuclear fireball in sky that actually is ionizing and can cause cancer... Be careful that light-bulb in your room puts out 10-100x the radiation of your cell phone.

pixelpoet 8y ago
Doesn't radio have inverse cube falloff? That's the thing that somewhat worried me about mobile phones, it has inverse cube falloff and has to speak to a tower miles away, so putting it against your brain for hours on end (I don't like calling, so that's not an issue to me) seems like a bad idea.
- lobf 8y ago
  Why?
- pdonis 8y ago
  > Doesn't radio have inverse cube falloff? No, inverse square. > has to speak to a tower miles away But the tower has a very sensitive antenna, so your phone doesn't need to put much power into transmitting. The effect of the phone on your brain and body is small compared to ordinary thermal noise at your body's temperature. > putting it against your brain for hours on end If you're going to be talking that much and are worried about this (which I don't think you need to be, but everyone has to make their own judgments), you can use a bluetooth headset. Bluetooth transmit power is an order of magnitude smaller, at least, than cell phone transmit power.
  - freyr 8y ago
    Inverse square, in free space.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rdl 8y ago
  It's inverse square -- think of it as the surface area of the sphere a specific distance from the source at any given instant. Not the volume of the space between the frontier and the source.
  - hyeonwho4 8y ago
    Although the free space attenuation is inverse square, interference effects can increase power attenuation for radio waves in the far field limit. If there is reflection off the ground, the power attenuation is closer to inverse quartic in the far field. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-ray_ground-reflection_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-ray_ground-reflection_mo...
- noobermin 8y ago
  Geometry in three dimensions requires inverse square. You probably have incident on your body more energy sitting under a light bulb than from a cell phone, not to mention the nuclear fireball in the fucking sky.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    Lumping different wavelengths into the general of "radiation" isn't really scientific. And adding more technical-sounding hyperbole to the conversation doesn't actually help.
- etimberg 8y ago
  Power drops off with the square of distance in free space. To get power of an RF wave you S = E x H [1]. Both the E & H fields decrease with distance. If you double the distance and both E&H decrease by half then |S| decreases by a factor of 4. Interestingly though, in some environments you can actually get better than free space loss. I remember an off-hand comment from a professor in university that in concrete tunnels you can get R^1.6-1.8 because the tunnel acts as a waveguide 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector
- dreamcompiler 8y ago
  Doesn't matter whether it's radio or light or sound; if it's a point source (zero-dimensional) in three-dimensional space, it's inverse square falloff. If it's a line source (one dimensional), it's inverse (one over first power of distance) falloff. This is why fluorescent lights are so effective at illuminating large warehouses: At near distances, they are approximately line sources.
noobermin 8y ago
Careful, you used a power in your first clause and an intensity in your second...and the intensity in the first (from a tower) is exceedingly less.
- credit_guy 8y ago
  OP’s joke is that the nuclear fireball is the Sun.
tpfour 8y ago
You could have a point if you put a little bit more effort into your rant. As it stands you are making a couple of factual errors, as others noted. THz is non-ionizing, for one.
- weberc2 8y ago
  What an odd comment. What are the errors and who noted them? Right now there's only one "correction" and it appears to be in agreement with the original post. Did the OP reverse his point or am I misunderstanding someone?
  - tpfour 8y ago
    Noobermin mentioned that OP compares a power vs an intensity (different units). OP suggests that THz radiation is ionizing - it is not. OP maintains that a lightbulb emits "10-100x" more radiation than a cellphone - at what frequencies? Is he talking about power or intensity?
    - SigmundA 8y ago
      I did quickly write out the post without putting much thought or research into it. On power vs intensity since our distance from the sun is relatively fixed intensity is a better unit while distance from a radio tower is variable so power is a better unit. I also figured that a smart crowd like this would appreciate that you would be exposed to much less radiation standing next to the tower than standing in the sun and that it falls off at inverse square from the tower. So I always forget technically ionizing UV is not in the terahertz range, however ionizing like damage to human biology does start in that range and is not a thermal effect. The lightbulb statement was power and again was just a quick way of trying put it in perspective.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
The impact of the source of radiation on living organism depends on the wave length of this radiation, not only power. A light bulb and 5G antennas have very different wave lengths. You can say what you like but one thing is clear: there is absolutely no consensus among scientists that EM radiation from mobile phones has absolutely no negative influence on human health.
- SigmundA 8y ago
  There is no consensus that a light bulb has absolutely no negative influence on human health. You receive much more radiation from these devices than cellphones. Radio is much lower frequency than light, once you get below the UV spectrum the only known effect that light and radio have is thermal, that is heating flesh, ie heat lamps, microwave ovens. Yet everyone walks around outside under orders of magnitude higher intensity radiation that has full scientific consensus to cause cancer without giving it much thought. I for one am not worried about my cellphone that has the power output of a led penlight.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
    I understand your argumentation and I'm happy you're convinced, and I'd like to be, too. However, I did some checks on the people signed here: https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal and at least some seem very serious, knowledgeable and definitely not lunatics.
- dekhn 8y ago
  THere is no consensus, but there is also a upper limit on the total damage. Epidemiologically, there isn't any strong evidence this radiation has influence enough for us to care. Every high quality study has found no effect or a tiny effect, much smaller than the total benefit of mobile phones. Many people publishing in this space aren't good at quantitative research and make common errors, yuet the mainstream media ends up publishing the "shocking" results and convincing people it's dangerous.

pixelpoet 8y ago

Doesn't radio have inverse cube falloff? That's the thing that somewhat worried me about mobile phones, it has inverse cube falloff and has to speak to a tower miles away, so putting it against your brain for hours on end (I don't like calling, so that's not an issue to me) seems like a bad idea.

lobf 8y ago
Why?
pdonis 8y ago
> Doesn't radio have inverse cube falloff? No, inverse square. > has to speak to a tower miles away But the tower has a very sensitive antenna, so your phone doesn't need to put much power into transmitting. The effect of the phone on your brain and body is small compared to ordinary thermal noise at your body's temperature. > putting it against your brain for hours on end If you're going to be talking that much and are worried about this (which I don't think you need to be, but everyone has to make their own judgments), you can use a bluetooth headset. Bluetooth transmit power is an order of magnitude smaller, at least, than cell phone transmit power.
- freyr 8y ago
  Inverse square, in free space.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rdl 8y ago
It's inverse square -- think of it as the surface area of the sphere a specific distance from the source at any given instant. Not the volume of the space between the frontier and the source.
- hyeonwho4 8y ago
  Although the free space attenuation is inverse square, interference effects can increase power attenuation for radio waves in the far field limit. If there is reflection off the ground, the power attenuation is closer to inverse quartic in the far field. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-ray_ground-reflection_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-ray_ground-reflection_mo...
noobermin 8y ago
Geometry in three dimensions requires inverse square. You probably have incident on your body more energy sitting under a light bulb than from a cell phone, not to mention the nuclear fireball in the fucking sky.
- mindslight 8y ago
  Lumping different wavelengths into the general of "radiation" isn't really scientific. And adding more technical-sounding hyperbole to the conversation doesn't actually help.
etimberg 8y ago
Power drops off with the square of distance in free space. To get power of an RF wave you S = E x H [1]. Both the E & H fields decrease with distance. If you double the distance and both E&H decrease by half then |S| decreases by a factor of 4. Interestingly though, in some environments you can actually get better than free space loss. I remember an off-hand comment from a professor in university that in concrete tunnels you can get R^1.6-1.8 because the tunnel acts as a waveguide 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector
dreamcompiler 8y ago
Doesn't matter whether it's radio or light or sound; if it's a point source (zero-dimensional) in three-dimensional space, it's inverse square falloff. If it's a line source (one dimensional), it's inverse (one over first power of distance) falloff. This is why fluorescent lights are so effective at illuminating large warehouses: At near distances, they are approximately line sources.

noobermin 8y ago

Careful, you used a power in your first clause and an intensity in your second...and the intensity in the first (from a tower) is exceedingly less.

credit_guy 8y ago
OP’s joke is that the nuclear fireball is the Sun.

tpfour 8y ago

You could have a point if you put a little bit more effort into your rant. As it stands you are making a couple of factual errors, as others noted. THz is non-ionizing, for one.

weberc2 8y ago
What an odd comment. What are the errors and who noted them? Right now there's only one "correction" and it appears to be in agreement with the original post. Did the OP reverse his point or am I misunderstanding someone?
- tpfour 8y ago
  Noobermin mentioned that OP compares a power vs an intensity (different units). OP suggests that THz radiation is ionizing - it is not. OP maintains that a lightbulb emits "10-100x" more radiation than a cellphone - at what frequencies? Is he talking about power or intensity?
  - SigmundA 8y ago
    I did quickly write out the post without putting much thought or research into it. On power vs intensity since our distance from the sun is relatively fixed intensity is a better unit while distance from a radio tower is variable so power is a better unit. I also figured that a smart crowd like this would appreciate that you would be exposed to much less radiation standing next to the tower than standing in the sun and that it falls off at inverse square from the tower. So I always forget technically ionizing UV is not in the terahertz range, however ionizing like damage to human biology does start in that range and is not a thermal effect. The lightbulb statement was power and again was just a quick way of trying put it in perspective.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago

The impact of the source of radiation on living organism depends on the wave length of this radiation, not only power. A light bulb and 5G antennas have very different wave lengths. You can say what you like but one thing is clear: there is absolutely no consensus among scientists that EM radiation from mobile phones has absolutely no negative influence on human health.

SigmundA 8y ago
There is no consensus that a light bulb has absolutely no negative influence on human health. You receive much more radiation from these devices than cellphones. Radio is much lower frequency than light, once you get below the UV spectrum the only known effect that light and radio have is thermal, that is heating flesh, ie heat lamps, microwave ovens. Yet everyone walks around outside under orders of magnitude higher intensity radiation that has full scientific consensus to cause cancer without giving it much thought. I for one am not worried about my cellphone that has the power output of a led penlight.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  I understand your argumentation and I'm happy you're convinced, and I'd like to be, too. However, I did some checks on the people signed here: https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal and at least some seem very serious, knowledgeable and definitely not lunatics.
dekhn 8y ago
THere is no consensus, but there is also a upper limit on the total damage. Epidemiologically, there isn't any strong evidence this radiation has influence enough for us to care. Every high quality study has found no effect or a tiny effect, much smaller than the total benefit of mobile phones. Many people publishing in this space aren't good at quantitative research and make common errors, yuet the mainstream media ends up publishing the "shocking" results and convincing people it's dangerous.