3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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...
- qz2 6y agoThe canonical reference is by ICNIRP which references many studies at the end of the document. This is also actively reviewed based on new evidence all the time, which is the entire point of ICNIRP! https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPrfgdl20... I make no comment on Scientific American. I don't read it and have no experience with it. Just a point here to note ... There are health effects from RF as it stands but it's usually localised heating, hence why some handheld radios are known as "Chinese eyeball cookers" but they tend to run +40dBm into an antenna with some gain thus ending up with 25W ERP close range strapped to your face - that's another 4dB or so. Your average phone kicks out a max of 23dBm if it's really kicking it out hard. That's 125x less power. Your wifi router is half that again. That's 250x less power than the eyeball cooker. And none of those emit ionising radiation. And your wifi router isn't strapped to your head. As mentioned earlier my Ryzen's motherboard shows up bang on 800MHz with more ERP than my router... Far far far more worrying for me is all the pollution and crap in the air I'm huffing up every day living near an airport.
- hutzlibu 6y ago"Far far far more worrying for me is all the pollution and crap in the air I'm huffing up every day living near an airport." Ah yes, that reminds me of certain esoteric people, who spend lots of energy finding new things to worry about and struggle to avoid it, like bad chemicals from the washing maschine and of course 5G, while smoking the whole time.
- qz2 6y agoYep. My father is one of them. Has cancer but it's driving a couple of diesel cars that did it, not the smoking for 60 years...
- lnsru 6y agoMy boss paid for decent shielded room 4x4 meters in size €80k. I wouldn’t toy with foils an the apartment walls, that sounds like complete nonsense to me when I know how industrial shielded room was build.
- qtech 6y agoThe common kitchen aluminium foil works. We now use it in our lab to shield stuff. A few layers of it works much better than the expensive stuff from 3M.
- walterbell 6y agoIs shielding affected by an insulating layer, e.g. paper or foam used in thermal insulation or vapor barriers? Those are available with two layers of aluminum, in 4' wide rolls with fiber strands for strength, at much lower cost ($0.20 per sq ft) than overpriced shielding fabrics. There are barrier variations, some do use aluminum, e.g. https://www.radiantguard.com/products/radiant-barrier-ultima-foil-insulation-u500b https://www.radiantguard.com/products/radiant-barrier-ultima...
- lnsru 6y agoWhat about reflections inside? I bet foil is very reflective and is good if you only need shielding from outer radiation.
- qz2 6y agoThey are usually lined with absorber foam. That's the expensive bit.
- BuildTheRobots 6y agoWhat frequencies are you blocking and at what powers? I've spent a while trying to build a poor man's fariday cage for phone testing and found it almost impossible to isolate handsets.