4 ms·

There are too many unknowns in biology for me to 100% dismiss the idea. I use a phone, I'm not worried about it - but it also wouldn't surprise me if there wer

There are too many unknowns in biology for me to 100% dismiss the idea. I use a phone, I'm not worried about it - but it also wouldn't surprise me if there were mechanisms we are not yet aware of at play. e.g. specific frequencies that can do harm even at low levels. I also know we don't have good quality baselines. Cell phones have only been here for 30-ish years, during a time when the resolution and detail at which we delineate and diagnose disease has gone up dramatically. There are diseases and conditions we know about today that didn't know about then. Until we understand all the mechanisms of those diseases - it's bad science to entirely dismiss EM radiation because of "inverse square law".

gruez 5y ago
>There are too many unknowns in biology for me to 100% dismiss the idea. You're moving the goalposts. "[not] being afraid of EM" =/= "100% dismiss the idea [of cell phones causing cancer]".
- kennywinker 5y ago
  It’s not moving the goalpost to say that OP’s dismissal of risk (because inverse square law) is imo just a little bit too broad. I know it’s not moving the goalpost because there is no goal. I’m not trying to win or defeat anyone or anything - i’m just trying to talk about an interesting topic.
giantg2 5y ago
Similar view here. No harm in using a phone and no harm reducing exposure using basic techniques like speaker phone, not talking on it in the car, scheduling your router wifi to turn off during the hours you don't plan on using it, etc.
- gruez 5y ago
  >No harm in using a phone and no harm reducing exposure using basic techniques like speaker phone ...except if you're in a room/bus and you're disturbing everyone by being on speaker phone. >not talking on it in the car What's the point of this? Are you trying to avoid brain cancer or distracted driving? >scheduling your router wifi to turn off during the hours you don't plan on using it, etc. I mean, if you want to go through the effort to set this up, that's your prerogative. I'd probably put more effort into chucking out the 1200W microwave before worrying about the 0.1W coming from router.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "except if you're in a room/bus and you're disturbing everyone by being on speaker phone." You're likely disturbing everyone even if you're not on speaker. In general, I'm not going to talk on a phone in a crowded location unless I have to. This is one very small edge case which I don't see affecting my claim that it doesn't hurt to use speaker phone. "What's the point of this? Are you trying to avoid brain cancer or distracted driving?" Cars act as weak Faraday cages. Using a phone inside a car increases the power output required to reach the tower. Similar if you are in a low reception area. "I mean, if you want to go through the effort to set this up, that's your prerogative." It takes maybe 5 minutes to log into your router and set the schedule. Not much effort at all. "I'd probably put more effort into chucking out the 1200W microwave before worrying about the 0.1W coming from router." Why? You realize the microwaves are contained to to inside of the machine by it's shielding, right? The allowable lifetime escape limit is set at 5mW. Routers can have much higher power output than that. I think the US limit is 1W. This is also something that runs almost continuously as compared to a microwave that runs for maybe a few minutes per day.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >You're likely disturbing everyone even if you're not on speaker. yeah but in addition to one guy speaking normally half the time, you also hear a distorted voice coming out of the shitty speakerphone the other half of the time. >Cars act as weak Faraday cages. Using a phone inside a car increases the power output required to reach the tower. Similar if you are in a low reception area. That's partially canceled out by being able to use hands-free calling in your car, and placing the phone on the other side of the car. I suspect the inverse square law will cause you to get less radiation exposure than you holding the phone using your arms. >It takes maybe 5 minutes to log into your router and set the schedule. Not much effort at all. the "effort" also includes the time you have to fiddle with your router to turn it on when you need wifi during the night for whatever reason. >Why? You realize the microwaves are contained to to inside of the machine by it's shielding, right? The allowable lifetime escape limit is set at 5mW. yet, when I place my phone inside the microwave it still gets wifi reception (yes, I tested it with 2.4ghz wifi only). >Routers can have much higher power output than that. I think the US limit is 1W. This is also something that runs almost continuously as compared to a microwave that runs for maybe a few minutes per day. inverse square law applies here. chances are when you're operating a microwave you'll be standing near by. at the very least you need to be next to it to turn it on. meanwhile the router is probably tucked in some corner of your house. also, I suspect you can apply the "runs for maybe a few minutes per day" argument to wifi as well. if you're not torrenting on your wifi 24/7, it's probably not pumping 1W 24/7.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  You are constantly bathed in your neighbors wifi, emf from nearly cell phone towers and even more intense from the sun. Scheduling your routers wifi to turn off is absolute nonsense.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Relative nonsense, anyway.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Not everyone lives close enough for their neighbor's wifi. These comparisons are very sloppy. Different frequencies act differently, have different limits of exposure, and have different effects. First you need to establish which frequencies are comparable or fit the same category/type. Then you have to set exposure limits (acute and cumulative). Reducing one's RF exposure by 5mW (1W at 15 feet) while one sleeps could be significant in these respects depending on what those limits and baseline exposures are. The fact is, there is little known about the mechanisms and the limits. For example, why does glucose metabolism increase in the brain when exposed to cell RF and how does that increased glucose metabolism affect the rest of the biological system it's a part of? (Honest question. It's something that I found interesting but seems it's lacking research.) My point was that it doesn't hurt to take basic steps like turning off wifi or using speaker phone. We can show that it measurably reduces exposure, but we don't know if it helps or makes a difference when it comes to outcomes.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      Who wants to when you have an inkling to use your computer go to the bother of going to a hard wired computer and turning on the network. It is an absolutely ridiculous workflow which we have absolutely no reason to believe has any benefit whatsoever. You might as well hop on one foot and turn in a circle while making the sign of the evil eye.

gruez 5y ago

>There are too many unknowns in biology for me to 100% dismiss the idea. You're moving the goalposts. "[not] being afraid of EM" =/= "100% dismiss the idea [of cell phones causing cancer]".

kennywinker 5y ago
It’s not moving the goalpost to say that OP’s dismissal of risk (because inverse square law) is imo just a little bit too broad. I know it’s not moving the goalpost because there is no goal. I’m not trying to win or defeat anyone or anything - i’m just trying to talk about an interesting topic.

giantg2 5y ago

Similar view here. No harm in using a phone and no harm reducing exposure using basic techniques like speaker phone, not talking on it in the car, scheduling your router wifi to turn off during the hours you don't plan on using it, etc.

gruez 5y ago
>No harm in using a phone and no harm reducing exposure using basic techniques like speaker phone ...except if you're in a room/bus and you're disturbing everyone by being on speaker phone. >not talking on it in the car What's the point of this? Are you trying to avoid brain cancer or distracted driving? >scheduling your router wifi to turn off during the hours you don't plan on using it, etc. I mean, if you want to go through the effort to set this up, that's your prerogative. I'd probably put more effort into chucking out the 1200W microwave before worrying about the 0.1W coming from router.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "except if you're in a room/bus and you're disturbing everyone by being on speaker phone." You're likely disturbing everyone even if you're not on speaker. In general, I'm not going to talk on a phone in a crowded location unless I have to. This is one very small edge case which I don't see affecting my claim that it doesn't hurt to use speaker phone. "What's the point of this? Are you trying to avoid brain cancer or distracted driving?" Cars act as weak Faraday cages. Using a phone inside a car increases the power output required to reach the tower. Similar if you are in a low reception area. "I mean, if you want to go through the effort to set this up, that's your prerogative." It takes maybe 5 minutes to log into your router and set the schedule. Not much effort at all. "I'd probably put more effort into chucking out the 1200W microwave before worrying about the 0.1W coming from router." Why? You realize the microwaves are contained to to inside of the machine by it's shielding, right? The allowable lifetime escape limit is set at 5mW. Routers can have much higher power output than that. I think the US limit is 1W. This is also something that runs almost continuously as compared to a microwave that runs for maybe a few minutes per day.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >You're likely disturbing everyone even if you're not on speaker. yeah but in addition to one guy speaking normally half the time, you also hear a distorted voice coming out of the shitty speakerphone the other half of the time. >Cars act as weak Faraday cages. Using a phone inside a car increases the power output required to reach the tower. Similar if you are in a low reception area. That's partially canceled out by being able to use hands-free calling in your car, and placing the phone on the other side of the car. I suspect the inverse square law will cause you to get less radiation exposure than you holding the phone using your arms. >It takes maybe 5 minutes to log into your router and set the schedule. Not much effort at all. the "effort" also includes the time you have to fiddle with your router to turn it on when you need wifi during the night for whatever reason. >Why? You realize the microwaves are contained to to inside of the machine by it's shielding, right? The allowable lifetime escape limit is set at 5mW. yet, when I place my phone inside the microwave it still gets wifi reception (yes, I tested it with 2.4ghz wifi only). >Routers can have much higher power output than that. I think the US limit is 1W. This is also something that runs almost continuously as compared to a microwave that runs for maybe a few minutes per day. inverse square law applies here. chances are when you're operating a microwave you'll be standing near by. at the very least you need to be next to it to turn it on. meanwhile the router is probably tucked in some corner of your house. also, I suspect you can apply the "runs for maybe a few minutes per day" argument to wifi as well. if you're not torrenting on your wifi 24/7, it's probably not pumping 1W 24/7.
michaelmrose 5y ago
You are constantly bathed in your neighbors wifi, emf from nearly cell phone towers and even more intense from the sun. Scheduling your routers wifi to turn off is absolute nonsense.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Relative nonsense, anyway.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- giantg2 5y ago
  Not everyone lives close enough for their neighbor's wifi. These comparisons are very sloppy. Different frequencies act differently, have different limits of exposure, and have different effects. First you need to establish which frequencies are comparable or fit the same category/type. Then you have to set exposure limits (acute and cumulative). Reducing one's RF exposure by 5mW (1W at 15 feet) while one sleeps could be significant in these respects depending on what those limits and baseline exposures are. The fact is, there is little known about the mechanisms and the limits. For example, why does glucose metabolism increase in the brain when exposed to cell RF and how does that increased glucose metabolism affect the rest of the biological system it's a part of? (Honest question. It's something that I found interesting but seems it's lacking research.) My point was that it doesn't hurt to take basic steps like turning off wifi or using speaker phone. We can show that it measurably reduces exposure, but we don't know if it helps or makes a difference when it comes to outcomes.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Who wants to when you have an inkling to use your computer go to the bother of going to a hard wired computer and turning on the network. It is an absolutely ridiculous workflow which we have absolutely no reason to believe has any benefit whatsoever. You might as well hop on one foot and turn in a circle while making the sign of the evil eye.