4 ms·

Indeed, a mumbojumbo word soup. Light from the sun is more powerful than cell phone radiation. Being outside, or by a window, is far more dangerous.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
The concern is not the power. Look: maybe it's baseless. Misrepresenting the claims and calling them "mumbojumbo" isn't a good way of determining that.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  > electromagnetic field scientists > modulation of wireless devices > makes the energy more biologically active > our cellular mechanisms > natural cellular processes > stress proteins and free radicals Define any of the above, and point to a reputable source when any of the above phrases are used. It's a collection of phrases which are all "off", like a foreign person with broken english.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    • No clue. • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation • No clue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_activity doesn't apply. (This is a crank warning sign.) • This is too generic to answer out of context. • Same as the above, perhaps with the naturalistic fallacy thrown in (also a crank warning sign). • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_hormone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_hormone and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-radical_theory_of_aging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-radical_theory_of_aging Of your six quotes, only two (maybe three) of them are crank warning signs, and two have clear, well-defined meanings.
    - coldpie 5y ago
      Two crank warning signs is a massive number for someone purporting to be a scientist or expert...
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        And there were a few others not quoted. But just because a crank is saying something, that doesn't mean it's wrong; this person seems inclined to complain about phones causing cancer independently of whether it's true, so his view shouldn't really affect what you think either way. I doubt he's right, but I'm not confident enough to laugh at him. Even relatively low-intensity radio waves affect neurons, so it's not like they have no effect on the body.
    - dariusj18 5y ago
      RE: #2 It's not about any single word, it's about the use of words together. ex. "modulation of wireless devices" is not just modulation, what does the phrase as a whole mean and what is it's actual relevance to the matter at hand? In this specific case why would they not cite references for that claim?
    - gus_massa 5y ago
      #6 Free radicals: It's very difficult to create free radicals with photons that has less energy than UV rays. And the photons of cell phones has a few order of magnitude less energy. The term is well defined, but it's almost impossible that it's relevant. Stress hormone: Your link is about hormones produced by glands, and in the sentence it looks like some modification of each cell. Again, the term is well defined, but I'm not sure they are talking about the same thing, and it's not very probable that it's relevant.
- jellicle 5y ago
  The concern isn't the power now, after people point out that your cell phone is emitting less power than a single christmas tree light. Power absolutely was the concern, it was beaming energy right into your brain! Boiling your precious fluids! But power was shot down, so now it's not the power, it's the modulation! Except the Sun generates a tremendous mish-mash of modulated EM radiation, so "modulation" is also a nonsense argument. What's next for the Gish gallop crowd?
netr0ute 5y ago
The problem is, the sun is more powerful, but the wavelength of the visible/UV light means it can't get past our skin. Radio waves obviously can penetrate much farther and get to the areas that you would want to be concerned about.
- aeternum 5y ago
  The sun also produces radio-waves, it generates very broad spectrum radiation, as do other natural celestial events.
  - netr0ute 5y ago
    I'm not sure about the specifics, but the sun is a blackbody radiator. As visible light is orders of magnitude higher frequency than regular radio waves (say, AWS which uses 1.9/2GHz), the amount of radio-level RF emitted by the sun isn't as high as you'd think. Also, if it did emit high enough levels of RF, we wouldn't be able to use any radios here in earth because the SNR could never be high enough.
    - sidewndr46 5y ago
      The sun is a blackbody radiator and does exactly what you think. However, RF from the sun basically only arrives at exactly one angle from the sky (or not at all, if it is night time). It does exactly what you describe, degrading SNR from signals in the same direction to the point of uselessness. If you've ever used satellite based services like television then you've probably experienced it. There is a long explanation here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-03-20/how-can-the-sun-mess-with-your-tv-and-radio/8363976 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-03-20/how-can-the-s... > The period in which the Sun passes behind a geostationary satellite is brief — about 10 minutes at most according to Dr Carter — but the noise is enough to degrade or completely disrupt radio and television broadcasts, as well as satellite internet.
      - netr0ute 5y ago
        I would have thought the signals from the sun would bounce around on ground terrain, making things like WiFi useless. Does this also mean I should try to shield my outdoor wireless devices from sunlight?
bopbeepboop 5y ago
You ignored the argument in your reply. The reason that cellphones operate on sunny days is modulation matters — me posting this on a cellphone while sitting in sunshine makes your point wrong. > Many biologists and electromagnetic field scientists believe the modulation of wireless devices makes the energy more biologically active, which interferes with our cellular mechanisms, ... The exact argument is you can’t compare the strength of signals alone when considering bio activity — just like strength alone doesn’t determine if a cellphone signal can be heard.

wizzwizz4 5y ago

The concern is not the power. Look: maybe it's baseless. Misrepresenting the claims and calling them "mumbojumbo" isn't a good way of determining that.

mjburgess 5y ago
> electromagnetic field scientists > modulation of wireless devices > makes the energy more biologically active > our cellular mechanisms > natural cellular processes > stress proteins and free radicals Define any of the above, and point to a reputable source when any of the above phrases are used. It's a collection of phrases which are all "off", like a foreign person with broken english.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  • No clue. • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation • No clue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_activity doesn't apply. (This is a crank warning sign.) • This is too generic to answer out of context. • Same as the above, perhaps with the naturalistic fallacy thrown in (also a crank warning sign). • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_hormone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_hormone and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-radical_theory_of_aging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-radical_theory_of_aging Of your six quotes, only two (maybe three) of them are crank warning signs, and two have clear, well-defined meanings.
  - coldpie 5y ago
    Two crank warning signs is a massive number for someone purporting to be a scientist or expert...
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      And there were a few others not quoted. But just because a crank is saying something, that doesn't mean it's wrong; this person seems inclined to complain about phones causing cancer independently of whether it's true, so his view shouldn't really affect what you think either way. I doubt he's right, but I'm not confident enough to laugh at him. Even relatively low-intensity radio waves affect neurons, so it's not like they have no effect on the body.
  - dariusj18 5y ago
    RE: #2 It's not about any single word, it's about the use of words together. ex. "modulation of wireless devices" is not just modulation, what does the phrase as a whole mean and what is it's actual relevance to the matter at hand? In this specific case why would they not cite references for that claim?
  - gus_massa 5y ago
    #6 Free radicals: It's very difficult to create free radicals with photons that has less energy than UV rays. And the photons of cell phones has a few order of magnitude less energy. The term is well defined, but it's almost impossible that it's relevant. Stress hormone: Your link is about hormones produced by glands, and in the sentence it looks like some modification of each cell. Again, the term is well defined, but I'm not sure they are talking about the same thing, and it's not very probable that it's relevant.
jellicle 5y ago
The concern isn't the power now, after people point out that your cell phone is emitting less power than a single christmas tree light. Power absolutely was the concern, it was beaming energy right into your brain! Boiling your precious fluids! But power was shot down, so now it's not the power, it's the modulation! Except the Sun generates a tremendous mish-mash of modulated EM radiation, so "modulation" is also a nonsense argument. What's next for the Gish gallop crowd?

netr0ute 5y ago

The problem is, the sun is more powerful, but the wavelength of the visible/UV light means it can't get past our skin. Radio waves obviously can penetrate much farther and get to the areas that you would want to be concerned about.

aeternum 5y ago
The sun also produces radio-waves, it generates very broad spectrum radiation, as do other natural celestial events.
- netr0ute 5y ago
  I'm not sure about the specifics, but the sun is a blackbody radiator. As visible light is orders of magnitude higher frequency than regular radio waves (say, AWS which uses 1.9/2GHz), the amount of radio-level RF emitted by the sun isn't as high as you'd think. Also, if it did emit high enough levels of RF, we wouldn't be able to use any radios here in earth because the SNR could never be high enough.
  - sidewndr46 5y ago
    The sun is a blackbody radiator and does exactly what you think. However, RF from the sun basically only arrives at exactly one angle from the sky (or not at all, if it is night time). It does exactly what you describe, degrading SNR from signals in the same direction to the point of uselessness. If you've ever used satellite based services like television then you've probably experienced it. There is a long explanation here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-03-20/how-can-the-sun-mess-with-your-tv-and-radio/8363976 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-03-20/how-can-the-s... > The period in which the Sun passes behind a geostationary satellite is brief — about 10 minutes at most according to Dr Carter — but the noise is enough to degrade or completely disrupt radio and television broadcasts, as well as satellite internet.
    - netr0ute 5y ago
      I would have thought the signals from the sun would bounce around on ground terrain, making things like WiFi useless. Does this also mean I should try to shield my outdoor wireless devices from sunlight?

bopbeepboop 5y ago

You ignored the argument in your reply. The reason that cellphones operate on sunny days is modulation matters — me posting this on a cellphone while sitting in sunshine makes your point wrong. > Many biologists and electromagnetic field scientists believe the modulation of wireless devices makes the energy more biologically active, which interferes with our cellular mechanisms, ... The exact argument is you can’t compare the strength of signals alone when considering bio activity — just like strength alone doesn’t determine if a cellphone signal can be heard.