8 ms·
Radiation dosimetry is a combination of: * Frequency of radiation * Power of exposure * Duration of exposure * Where in the human body absorption is occurri
by cjslep 7y ago
Radiation dosimetry is a combination of:
* Frequency of radiation
* Power of exposure
* Duration of exposure
* Where in the human body absorption is occurring
While the effects of the latter three are pretty well understood for certain kinds of radiation (ionizing and non-ionizing) ranging from "acute radiation sickness due to gamma burst" to "listening to the radio your whole life doesn't have a link to cancer", there is truth that a specific band of millimeter 5G has been less studied than others.
However, science follows patterns, and interpolating the existing data to this sub-infrared region opens a kind of wiggle room similar to, but in fact the opposite to, low dosimetry of ionizing radiation that has given the Linear No Threshold model a run for it's money. Except in this case, skeptics are typically concerned about chemical effects due to subdermal heating (not really as compelling as ionizing radiation effects), or debating the "non-ionizing-ness" (which is less common because its even less supported by evidence).
It comes down to a persons personal risk. In my opinion, the sun beats out all non ionizing radiation concerns, particularly when it comes to heating of the skin and subdermal tissues. Wear a hat and sunscreen (against the sun).
Still worth researching and acknowledging the data gap, as the EU does in its metastudy of 40+ years and X00 scientific papers [0], but there's no reason to be alarmed based on the existing corpus of evidence.
[0] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiCttyFoK3lAhVKL1AKHU4SB7IQFjAAegQICRAC&usg=AOvVaw1qjeNEXhMye0UL-K6Azv7s&cshid=1571657533347 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
Edit to add citation
- Someone1234 7y ago> It comes down to a persons personal risk. [..] Wear a hat and sunscreen. What's the "hat and sunscreen" protection against millimeter wave cellphone towers, that someone else installed on their private property near you? I'm not yet convinced the risks exist. But conceptually if there was a danger, there's no "personal risk" argument. We're blanketing the whole area around a tower with millimeter wave/5G, a person cannot opt out.
- pjc50 7y agoMostly the protection is the inverse square law. Provided you're not holding the device next to your head the exposure is tiny.
- ss2003 7y agoOr in your pocket. Where do you carry your phone?
- SigmundA 7y agoCell modems are around 300 milliwatts transmit, it would be like holding a LED light up to your head that flickers on and off when sending data. Extremely tiny exposure of non ionizing radiation, you probably get more from the monitor your looking at right now.
- Someone1234 7y ago5G requires far more towers than 4G or 3G before it, and if biological damage is possible accumulated risk when measured over an entire population can still be problematic. Ultimately this isn't simply an issue of "personal risk." If there's no danger, there's no danger. But if there is and you live in a major city simply not owning a cellular device may only lower your exposure.
- pjc50 7y agoNone of what you say is false, but without numbers it's impossible to compare to other sources of danger. And like ionising radiation, you need to compare to background levels. How does it compare to, say, the sun? Or EMC emissions from motor vehicles? (Yes, they're not zero: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/44876/mira_04-0845046.pdf https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/44876/m... )
- ajsnigrutin 7y agoNo it doesnt. It can work with more on 60GHz, or it can work with the same amount on the same frequencies as 4G. And in either way - more towers, less power per tower.