5 ms·
"So am I to understand 5G causes merely skin cancer, not brain cancer?" was mostly meant as a critique of the article, since they use shielding by skin as a def
by deogeo 7y ago
"So am I to understand 5G causes merely skin cancer, not brain cancer?" was mostly meant as a critique of the article, since they use shielding by skin as a defense.
Otherwise yes, I'm aware that 5G is non-ionizing, and produces negligible heating, which doesn't leave many straight-forward ways it could affect biology (maybe EM fields adversely affect protein folding?). For those you pretty much need experimental studies, but looks like they've been conducted, and turned up nothing.
- XorNot 7y agoEM fields are not affecting protein folding. Moreover this is really just you reacting to something that feels incomprehensible and invisible while discounting something that seems normal - sunlight - even though it's orders of magnitude more powerful, causes more heating, and is directly linked to cancer in the right ranges. But no one expresses concern about visible light causing damage from localised heating or the EM fields of it disrupting protein folding (hold a torch up to your hand - your body is quite translucent to visible light).
- deogeo 7y ago> EM fields are not affecting protein folding. Why not? The energy needed to affect that is lower than ionization energy, so they could. And I'm not "reacting" to anything. 60 GHz radiation is sufficiently different from sunlight that it might plausibly have a different effect on us (such as by interacting with some low-energy absorption peak of a protein that visible light does not interact with due to its higher energy, or by penetrating deeper into tissue than visible light can). It turns out studies show it is not harmful. But they conducted actual studies to show that - they didn't dismiss it outright "because sunlight".
- Dylan16807 7y agoSunlight bathes you in multiple watts in the same narrow frequency range, so it couldn't do that much.
- deogeo 7y agoSurely it's a different narrow frequency range? Otherwise sunlight would act as a signal jammer, a source of noise that drowned out our wireless signals?
- itcrowd 7y agoIndeed, the radiation coming from the sun in the visible spectrum is much larger than the microwave radiation coming off it [1]. Note: the microwave spectrum ends at ~300 GHz or 1 mm wavelength, that is 1 million nanometers, so the scale on the x-axis is wayyy too short in the image. The actual value is very, very low. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/EffectiveTemperature_300dpi_e.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Effectiv...
- Dylan16807 7y agoYou can filter out a stable amount pretty easily but oops I just checked the blackbody math again and an exponent flipped when I changed one of the ranges while everything else stayed almost the same, I screwed up and ignore everything I said.
- deogeo 7y agoHehe, happens :) But, suppose the sun did interfere - how would you filter this out? Due to the black-body nature of the source, the amplitude would be stable, but the phase wouldn't be - you'd get entirely uncorrelated white noise, right? How can you filter that?
- Dylan16807 7y agoI've never really looked into how the encoding is typically done on those bands. You don't need a lot of bits per Hz when you have 14GHz of space, so nothing particularly elaborate with phase is strictly necessary. But yes it would definitely hurt speeds, and you have a good point in that it's something to consider as a sanity check!
- 7y ago
- XorNot 7y agoDo you know anything about protein folding or just the term? Because everything you just wrote is reactionary jibberish and not based on any possible mechanism, or even a solid understanding of how protein folding works.