3 ms·

I'm just looking at some of these graphs and they seem a little concerning? Like the y-axis on 3G and 4G is 0.1degC ... no measurable health effects measured fo

I'm just looking at some of these graphs and they seem a little concerning? Like the y-axis on 3G and 4G is 0.1degC ... no measurable health effects measured for a few decades, easy done and justified. But then these 5G graphs are measured at a scale 200-300x higher on the y-axis and have like 20x the energy penetration deep in the body. That's real brave. Should my next phone be 5G or is this saying no?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
swader999 5y ago
Just turn it down to use 4G. Sometimes I'll use LTE for meetings or big downloads. 5G - hard no. I sleep with my phone and Wi-Fi off. Don't knock it till you try it. Get a meter if you are serious about it.
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  you turn off your wifi and phone before you sleep every night? why the meter?
  - swader999 5y ago
    Yeah I do. The meter checks that all the other emf from other sources is low too. I live rural so it's easier, neighbors are far away.
    - squarefoot 5y ago
      Inverse square law. You would have no reasons to worry even if the closest neighbors would put a 5G tower on each of their houses. Your body would be exposed to a lot more power from your cellphone rather than any tower. That would mean if there is a real danger, we should be already counting several millions of deaths among all those people carrying a cellphone in their pocket every day. It is something that simply cannot go undetected. Those technologies would either need extremely high power, and/or use much much higher frequencies (beyond visible light) then fall into ionizing radiations (which are dangerous indeed) to have any health effects.
      - swader999 5y ago
        The 4G tower about 500m puts out about 5x what my phone does. I shielded my bedroom with the paint and its close to zero now. I'm not really thinking much about 5 yet, too early for my area. I do agree with your statements.
        inter_netuser 5y ago
        if you agree with the statements its not dangerous, why paint the room? How did you come to the conclusion it disrupts sleep?
        swader999 5y ago
        I slept really well at my parents cabin over the years but not in the city where I lived. I could never figure out why. Then one summer they got Wi-Fi and I no longer had great sleeps there. Did some research and started experimenting with shielded clothing. Noticed much deeper rem sleep, dreams and all that again. I realize there's very poor research and low quality studies that support this. It's almost impossible to fund and find a group of people that can actually be shielded for a study. But hey it works for me, enough that I invested significant time, effort and a bit of money to get a decently shielded sleeping area. I have better concentration during the day in these same low emf conditions too.
        Johnythree 5y ago
        The claim that paint can suppress 4G radiation is nonsense. Did you also paint the doors, windows, ceiling and floor? If you want further information, talk to the people who build shielded rooms. Cutting down EM radiation by more than a few db is incredibly difficult.
        LinuxBender 5y ago
        Just slapping on a coat of the stuff would not work, but doing it correctly absolutely does work. It takes a few coats and you have to ground it. Done correctly, you won't be able to use Wifi or make a phone call. Yes you will get some leakage from windows, but that can be attenuated with metal screens or use steel roll-down shutters that have the benefit of improving the R/U insulation rating of the windows at night and improving physical security. I have tested this in two houses. I will also be adding the paint to a property I recently acquired. If you bookmark this thread, I will circle back in about six months after the snow to test the attenuation.
perl4ever 5y ago
If all else fails, you can move to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Quiet_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Q... I'm against 5G for now, just because I don't see what I need it for, and I resent being forced to pay even if it's not harmful.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- InitialBP 5y ago
  These aareas of West Virginia and Virginia are exceptionally beautiful and serene places to visit, if you ever get a chance to drive by the Green Bank telescope it is Massive! In fact the dish of the telescope has a diameter of around 300 feet.
cpncrunch 5y ago
“However, this study does not take into account the layers of skin, fat, muscle and skull containing the brain in a realistic head model” Higher frequency radiation will be absorbed by the skin more easily and I think it will not reach the brain.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ofou 5y ago
  They reached the brain. [1] [1]: https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/10595/Eulitz_handy_98.pdf https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/1059...
  - CommieBobDole 5y ago
    That study refers to GSM phones, though, which use a much lower frequency that's a lot better at penetrating things like walls and people's skulls.
    - ofou 5y ago
      Gamma radiation in-vivo cells have been shown to produce "a reduction in cell division; alteration in the ratio of the different phases of mitosis, and the appearance of degenerate cells in the germinative zone." [1] Also Le Pogam et al. [2019] found that "EM radiation in the 5G range affect cell permeability and metabolic profiles". [2] To me, that's not something to be discarded so easily, more research is needed. But there's already good one coming up. [3] [1]: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-14-158-65 https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-14-158-... [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45662-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45662-6 [3]: https://sci-hub.st/10.3390/ijerph16183406 https://sci-hub.st/10.3390/ijerph16183406
bobsil1 5y ago
Make an external antenna as a sticky throw ball
jjoonathan 5y ago
I think you are mistaken -- there is less penetration at 40GHz. The graphs show increased surface heating at 40GHz as a result of less penetration. Informative exercise: put sunlight on that graph. Note that the units (W/m^2*10^3) are such that F=1 roughly corresponds to the incident power of direct sunlight, 1kW/m^2. Results like 60 degree heating at the surface when it is illuminated with 15 times the intensity of direct sunlight suddenly don't quite seem so shocking. Yes, longer wavelengths were able to avoid absorption, but there had to be a frequency where it started behaving like visible light and shining on the surface instead, and 40GHz appears to be high enough. This is exactly what I would expect. Is there a particular graph that had you worried that we could dig deeper into?
- oliv__ 5y ago
  > Informative exercise: put sunlight on that graph. Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity [0] [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    A. Does that paper have anything to do with any of the graphs in TFA? The point of the exercise was to calibrate intuition for trends and intensities, not to talk about damage models. B. Has this line of research actually shown anything in a bulk setting at sane levels of incident RF or is it still "we built an antenna structure out of saline and showed that a neuron can respond to the resulting voltage if we really blast it?" Thermalization mechanisms like rovibrational absorption (small scale) and conventional currents (large scale -- the focus of these new studies) aren't the only supporting evidence for thermal damage models, though. There is also the dose/response curve. We can generate RF at many thousands of times the intensity that we find in cell phones and observe the consequences. Often unintentionally. Those consequences look a heck of a lot like thermal burns. If there is an alternative damage mechanism, it has to saturate at a very low level, so that there are no observable acute effects from a wild overdose.
    - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

swader999 5y ago

Just turn it down to use 4G. Sometimes I'll use LTE for meetings or big downloads. 5G - hard no. I sleep with my phone and Wi-Fi off. Don't knock it till you try it. Get a meter if you are serious about it.

inter_netuser 5y ago
you turn off your wifi and phone before you sleep every night? why the meter?
- swader999 5y ago
  Yeah I do. The meter checks that all the other emf from other sources is low too. I live rural so it's easier, neighbors are far away.
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    Inverse square law. You would have no reasons to worry even if the closest neighbors would put a 5G tower on each of their houses. Your body would be exposed to a lot more power from your cellphone rather than any tower. That would mean if there is a real danger, we should be already counting several millions of deaths among all those people carrying a cellphone in their pocket every day. It is something that simply cannot go undetected. Those technologies would either need extremely high power, and/or use much much higher frequencies (beyond visible light) then fall into ionizing radiations (which are dangerous indeed) to have any health effects.
    - swader999 5y ago
      The 4G tower about 500m puts out about 5x what my phone does. I shielded my bedroom with the paint and its close to zero now. I'm not really thinking much about 5 yet, too early for my area. I do agree with your statements.
      - inter_netuser 5y ago
        if you agree with the statements its not dangerous, why paint the room? How did you come to the conclusion it disrupts sleep?
        swader999 5y ago
        I slept really well at my parents cabin over the years but not in the city where I lived. I could never figure out why. Then one summer they got Wi-Fi and I no longer had great sleeps there. Did some research and started experimenting with shielded clothing. Noticed much deeper rem sleep, dreams and all that again. I realize there's very poor research and low quality studies that support this. It's almost impossible to fund and find a group of people that can actually be shielded for a study. But hey it works for me, enough that I invested significant time, effort and a bit of money to get a decently shielded sleeping area. I have better concentration during the day in these same low emf conditions too.
      - Johnythree 5y ago
        The claim that paint can suppress 4G radiation is nonsense. Did you also paint the doors, windows, ceiling and floor? If you want further information, talk to the people who build shielded rooms. Cutting down EM radiation by more than a few db is incredibly difficult.
        LinuxBender 5y ago
        Just slapping on a coat of the stuff would not work, but doing it correctly absolutely does work. It takes a few coats and you have to ground it. Done correctly, you won't be able to use Wifi or make a phone call. Yes you will get some leakage from windows, but that can be attenuated with metal screens or use steel roll-down shutters that have the benefit of improving the R/U insulation rating of the windows at night and improving physical security. I have tested this in two houses. I will also be adding the paint to a property I recently acquired. If you bookmark this thread, I will circle back in about six months after the snow to test the attenuation.

perl4ever 5y ago

If all else fails, you can move to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Quiet_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Q... I'm against 5G for now, just because I don't see what I need it for, and I resent being forced to pay even if it's not harmful.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
InitialBP 5y ago
These aareas of West Virginia and Virginia are exceptionally beautiful and serene places to visit, if you ever get a chance to drive by the Green Bank telescope it is Massive! In fact the dish of the telescope has a diameter of around 300 feet.

cpncrunch 5y ago

“However, this study does not take into account the layers of skin, fat, muscle and skull containing the brain in a realistic head model” Higher frequency radiation will be absorbed by the skin more easily and I think it will not reach the brain.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ofou 5y ago
They reached the brain. [1] [1]: https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/10595/Eulitz_handy_98.pdf https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/1059...
- CommieBobDole 5y ago
  That study refers to GSM phones, though, which use a much lower frequency that's a lot better at penetrating things like walls and people's skulls.
  - ofou 5y ago
    Gamma radiation in-vivo cells have been shown to produce "a reduction in cell division; alteration in the ratio of the different phases of mitosis, and the appearance of degenerate cells in the germinative zone." [1] Also Le Pogam et al. [2019] found that "EM radiation in the 5G range affect cell permeability and metabolic profiles". [2] To me, that's not something to be discarded so easily, more research is needed. But there's already good one coming up. [3] [1]: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-14-158-65 https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-14-158-... [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45662-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45662-6 [3]: https://sci-hub.st/10.3390/ijerph16183406 https://sci-hub.st/10.3390/ijerph16183406

bobsil1 5y ago

Make an external antenna as a sticky throw ball

jjoonathan 5y ago

I think you are mistaken -- there is less penetration at 40GHz. The graphs show increased surface heating at 40GHz as a result of less penetration. Informative exercise: put sunlight on that graph. Note that the units (W/m^2*10^3) are such that F=1 roughly corresponds to the incident power of direct sunlight, 1kW/m^2. Results like 60 degree heating at the surface when it is illuminated with 15 times the intensity of direct sunlight suddenly don't quite seem so shocking. Yes, longer wavelengths were able to avoid absorption, but there had to be a frequency where it started behaving like visible light and shining on the surface instead, and 40GHz appears to be high enough. This is exactly what I would expect. Is there a particular graph that had you worried that we could dig deeper into?

oliv__ 5y ago
> Informative exercise: put sunlight on that graph. Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity [0] [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  A. Does that paper have anything to do with any of the graphs in TFA? The point of the exercise was to calibrate intuition for trends and intensities, not to talk about damage models. B. Has this line of research actually shown anything in a bulk setting at sane levels of incident RF or is it still "we built an antenna structure out of saline and showed that a neuron can respond to the resulting voltage if we really blast it?" Thermalization mechanisms like rovibrational absorption (small scale) and conventional currents (large scale -- the focus of these new studies) aren't the only supporting evidence for thermal damage models, though. There is also the dose/response curve. We can generate RF at many thousands of times the intensity that we find in cell phones and observe the consequences. Often unintentionally. Those consequences look a heck of a lot like thermal burns. If there is an alternative damage mechanism, it has to saturate at a very low level, so that there are no observable acute effects from a wild overdose.
  - 5y ago