4 ms·

https://neurosciencenews.com/cellphone-radiation-brain-cancer-18889/ https://neurosciencenews.com/cellphone-radiation-brain-cance... >In 1996, the Federal Comm

by 6510 3y ago

https://neurosciencenews.com/cellphone-radiation-brain-cancer-18889/ https://neurosciencenews.com/cellphone-radiation-brain-cance... >In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adopted exposure guidelines that limited the intensity of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These guidelines were designed to prevent significant heating of tissue from short-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, not to protect us from the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of modulated, or pulsed, radiofrequency radiation, which is produced by cellphones, cordless phones and other wireless devices, including Wi-Fi. >Yet, the preponderance of research published since 1990 finds adverse biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, including DNA damage. >More than 250 scientists, who have published over 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields produced by wireless devices, including cellphones, have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits. So, there are many scientists who agree that this radiation is harmful to our health.

lxgr 3y ago
Sorry, but the quoted article seems a bit dubious to me: > The difference is the kind of microwave radiation each device emits. With regard to cellphones and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, there is an information-gathering component. The waves are modulated and pulsed in a very different manner than your microwave oven. What is an "information-gathering component"? What does that have to do with pulsed emitters and (averaged) EIRP values, which definitely is a thing for some, but not all of the mentioned transmission technologies: Especially 3G and some versions of Wi-Fi use DSSS or other spread-spectrum techniques which are not pulsed, unlike TDMA. I could even see an argument being made for "pulsing" making a difference and maybe another measure than the EIRP being needed (just like how the linear-no-threshold model for the effects of radiation on organisms might be a simplification of what's actually going on), but then it doesn't help to just throw a bunch of wildly different wireless technologies, using greatly varying transmission powers from 10 mW to 2000 mW, into a single bag and call them "very different from microwave ovens" without describing what that means.
- 6510 3y ago
  > What is an "information-gathering component"? I assume they mean each pulses at a different frequency range, the information is gathered or clumped up around its own band. You can assume modern articles repeat themselves and say the same thing several times. I suppose this is the first useful instance I've seen... or is it? > What does that have to do with pulsed emitters and (averaged) EIRP values I'm definitely not an expert but I can share my layman view on the topic. Equivalent isotropic radiated power is just power. If you strike an object it makes a sound, it vibrates at it's own frequency. Sometimes it dampens quickly sometimes it sticks around. Like say a bell, a wine glass or a tuning fork. It takes very little energy to push a swing and keep it going. It will eventually get rid of the energy though friction but much slower than you can gently push it up to speed. You can't push the swing at some random frequency, you have to match it exactly (1/2 or 1/4 would also work of course) just like you cant shatter a whine glass if your voice doesn't match the frequency. You can make a hell of a lot of noise (power) without shattering any wine glasses. EIRP would be like trying to destroy the glass with just decibels. All parts of our body big and small vibrate too, with all the liquid it dampens quickly and there is very little for magnetism to hook into but if the frequency matches exactly (or some octave of it) it doesn't seem a stretch of the imagination that one can have an effect without much power. The power just needs to exceed dampening. With dental fillings the effect is well known.[1][2] Say mercury spreads around the body, would that have no effect on reception? Sorry to butcher the topic, I'm just trying to picture how it might work. There are plenty of (strange[3]) studies and 5000 scientists who agree it's just bad for our health. And of course the addicts who don't want to hear any of it :) [1] - https://www.bradfordfamilydentist.ca/lucille-ball-heard-spies-dental-fillings/ https://www.bradfordfamilydentist.ca/lucille-ball-heard-spie... [2] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4795328/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4795328/ [3] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35057520/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35057520/

by 6510 3y ago

lxgr 3y ago

Sorry, but the quoted article seems a bit dubious to me: > The difference is the kind of microwave radiation each device emits. With regard to cellphones and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, there is an information-gathering component. The waves are modulated and pulsed in a very different manner than your microwave oven. What is an "information-gathering component"? What does that have to do with pulsed emitters and (averaged) EIRP values, which definitely is a thing for some, but not all of the mentioned transmission technologies: Especially 3G and some versions of Wi-Fi use DSSS or other spread-spectrum techniques which are not pulsed, unlike TDMA. I could even see an argument being made for "pulsing" making a difference and maybe another measure than the EIRP being needed (just like how the linear-no-threshold model for the effects of radiation on organisms might be a simplification of what's actually going on), but then it doesn't help to just throw a bunch of wildly different wireless technologies, using greatly varying transmission powers from 10 mW to 2000 mW, into a single bag and call them "very different from microwave ovens" without describing what that means.

6510 3y ago
> What is an "information-gathering component"? I assume they mean each pulses at a different frequency range, the information is gathered or clumped up around its own band. You can assume modern articles repeat themselves and say the same thing several times. I suppose this is the first useful instance I've seen... or is it? > What does that have to do with pulsed emitters and (averaged) EIRP values I'm definitely not an expert but I can share my layman view on the topic. Equivalent isotropic radiated power is just power. If you strike an object it makes a sound, it vibrates at it's own frequency. Sometimes it dampens quickly sometimes it sticks around. Like say a bell, a wine glass or a tuning fork. It takes very little energy to push a swing and keep it going. It will eventually get rid of the energy though friction but much slower than you can gently push it up to speed. You can't push the swing at some random frequency, you have to match it exactly (1/2 or 1/4 would also work of course) just like you cant shatter a whine glass if your voice doesn't match the frequency. You can make a hell of a lot of noise (power) without shattering any wine glasses. EIRP would be like trying to destroy the glass with just decibels. All parts of our body big and small vibrate too, with all the liquid it dampens quickly and there is very little for magnetism to hook into but if the frequency matches exactly (or some octave of it) it doesn't seem a stretch of the imagination that one can have an effect without much power. The power just needs to exceed dampening. With dental fillings the effect is well known.[1][2] Say mercury spreads around the body, would that have no effect on reception? Sorry to butcher the topic, I'm just trying to picture how it might work. There are plenty of (strange[3]) studies and 5000 scientists who agree it's just bad for our health. And of course the addicts who don't want to hear any of it :) [1] - https://www.bradfordfamilydentist.ca/lucille-ball-heard-spies-dental-fillings/ https://www.bradfordfamilydentist.ca/lucille-ball-heard-spie... [2] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4795328/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4795328/ [3] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35057520/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35057520/