3 ms·

I suspect that worrying about ambient RF is causing you the problems rather than the ambient RF. some anecdotes: I worked in an office with a phone tower on t

by qz2 6y ago

I suspect that worrying about ambient RF is causing you the problems rather than the ambient RF. some anecdotes: I worked in an office with a phone tower on the roof. A couple of people complained continuously about headaches and sickness and blamed it on the tower. One quit. This was entirely related to their borderline alcoholism and terrible diet rather than the phone tower but failing to see the causality is a typical human trait. How do we know? Well when they were putting the tower up they managed to damage the roof which caused all work to stop before it was even powered up. At that point the insurance companies were duking it out. Also I’m an amateur radio operator and ex RF engineer. I spent a number of years working in fairly high energy RF installations in the defence sector and not once did I see a reported problem from someone in the field. I suspect you need to check your causality before being hooked on solutions which are usually sold by a combination of con artists and morons. This is one step from burning 5G towers on the thought spectrum.

andi999 6y ago
Also you could argue that radiation levels are the lowest beneath the tower.
nikkwong 6y ago
Yeah, I actually sleep fine and this would be the most extreme version of proactivity that I would ever elicit. I don't really know what to make of some interesting case reports that some individuals make about being "RF sensitive" on a very rare basis; but I definitely don't fall into that camp. However, I have done some reading on the potential long-term health consequences of non-ionizing radiation and a lot of the research is inconclusive. I believe the general consensus from empirical data is that RF has not been shown to cause cancer, but, I feel like that's a relatively low bar to meet. Certainly, there are no positive health effects to all of the extra radiation we are creating and exposing each other to; and the consequences may only be known in the future when we have more precise measurement techniques. But yeah, even with that said, I don't know if I consider it to be enough of a problem to warrant spending more than a few hundred dollars on.
- qz2 6y ago
  I think the point is, to steal an ironic phrase, that the signal to noise ratio of issues is utterly insignificant. Nearly all the research is inconclusive and anything which is conclusive isn’t reliable. I don’t think that is enough to act upon myself. The communications agencies around the world have provided us with well researched safe exposure limits and compliance. If you have a few hundred dollars to burn and want to feel better, do it but that’s just bankrolling the idiots selling magic unicorns. The real solutions used in laboratories and industry run well into five figures. Perhaps interestingly I spent a few hours the other day chasing down a prominent signal working its way into my spectrum analyser. What was it? Well it turned out to be a clock PLL harmonic off my Ryzen PC. That was far above the relative power of the WiFi router about 6 feet away from it. My interest in that signal? Purely academic as I thought my SA was broken again :)
  - nikkwong 6y ago
    I agree with your sentiment, but let me play devil's advocate to potentially turn over a few stones. > communications agencies around the world have provided us with well researched safe exposure limits and compliance Based on what evidence though? Aren't their conclusions based on the general consensus that epidemiologists have gathered over the last few decades demonstrating that RFs don't cause cancer? IMO, that's a low bar; and they have a history of time and time again approving technologies, food products, and chemicals that in hindsight prove to have far worse health implications than originally believed. I think citing any one individual study is a flawed argumentative technique, so I'll just say I was certainly surprised when Scientific American (whom I find to be in the top 5 publications in terms of credibility) published this piece[0] stating that speculating on the health effects of 5G are not completely unwarranted. The piece is an op-ed but I have found that Scientific American is very selective in what they do choose to publish. I assume the claims they are making on the effects of EMF in the piece are based on the totality of the evidence. Practically speaking though yes, like you, I don't pay thought to it. Though if we do eventually realize that these technologies did end up having some negative health externalities I will find myself unsurprised. [0]: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no...

by qz2 6y ago

andi999 6y ago

Also you could argue that radiation levels are the lowest beneath the tower.

nikkwong 6y ago

Yeah, I actually sleep fine and this would be the most extreme version of proactivity that I would ever elicit. I don't really know what to make of some interesting case reports that some individuals make about being "RF sensitive" on a very rare basis; but I definitely don't fall into that camp. However, I have done some reading on the potential long-term health consequences of non-ionizing radiation and a lot of the research is inconclusive. I believe the general consensus from empirical data is that RF has not been shown to cause cancer, but, I feel like that's a relatively low bar to meet. Certainly, there are no positive health effects to all of the extra radiation we are creating and exposing each other to; and the consequences may only be known in the future when we have more precise measurement techniques. But yeah, even with that said, I don't know if I consider it to be enough of a problem to warrant spending more than a few hundred dollars on.

qz2 6y ago
I think the point is, to steal an ironic phrase, that the signal to noise ratio of issues is utterly insignificant. Nearly all the research is inconclusive and anything which is conclusive isn’t reliable. I don’t think that is enough to act upon myself. The communications agencies around the world have provided us with well researched safe exposure limits and compliance. If you have a few hundred dollars to burn and want to feel better, do it but that’s just bankrolling the idiots selling magic unicorns. The real solutions used in laboratories and industry run well into five figures. Perhaps interestingly I spent a few hours the other day chasing down a prominent signal working its way into my spectrum analyser. What was it? Well it turned out to be a clock PLL harmonic off my Ryzen PC. That was far above the relative power of the WiFi router about 6 feet away from it. My interest in that signal? Purely academic as I thought my SA was broken again :)
- nikkwong 6y ago
  I agree with your sentiment, but let me play devil's advocate to potentially turn over a few stones. > communications agencies around the world have provided us with well researched safe exposure limits and compliance Based on what evidence though? Aren't their conclusions based on the general consensus that epidemiologists have gathered over the last few decades demonstrating that RFs don't cause cancer? IMO, that's a low bar; and they have a history of time and time again approving technologies, food products, and chemicals that in hindsight prove to have far worse health implications than originally believed. I think citing any one individual study is a flawed argumentative technique, so I'll just say I was certainly surprised when Scientific American (whom I find to be in the top 5 publications in terms of credibility) published this piece[0] stating that speculating on the health effects of 5G are not completely unwarranted. The piece is an op-ed but I have found that Scientific American is very selective in what they do choose to publish. I assume the claims they are making on the effects of EMF in the piece are based on the totality of the evidence. Practically speaking though yes, like you, I don't pay thought to it. Though if we do eventually realize that these technologies did end up having some negative health externalities I will find myself unsurprised. [0]: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no...