Furthermore, even if cell phones cause cancer then the risk will in all likelihood be so small that it doesn't justify banning the technology. [1]
For example, eating barbecued meat causes cancer, but it we don't ban it.
For example, eating barbecued meat causes cancer, but it we don't ban it.
Even lasers spread. This guy agrees with me: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-light-from-lasers-reduced-by-th...
But in the near field, that's not the case.
Beamforming arrays have planar wavefronts close to the source, so the inverse square law does not apply. The wave fronts will become spherical again at a "large" distance from the emitter, where the meaning of "large" depends on wavelength and emitter size.
Focussed lasers also do not have spherical wave fronts in the near field. The distance at which the inverse square law starts to apply to lasers depends on beam width, coherence, and focus.
I hope that helps picture the situation. My original comment that a beam can have a different exponent was incorrect except in some approximate sense. The inverse square value will still apply, but from the beams real or imaginary focal point (if it is a point) But it the case of a transmitter beaming a signal at another, that focal length can be far beyond the reciever, so the 'rule' can be completely confounded.
"Laws" tend to be less rigorous and more narrowly applicable than "theories," though the colloquial meaning of the terms is switched.
Ohm's law was a law long before the electron was discovered. It's an emperical linear relationship that just seemed to work. Since no mechanism is suggested, it's not possible to determine whether ohmic behavior is expected or not. In contrast, The Drude Model's explantion of ohmic behavior could be considered a theory. It makes an attempt to understand the underlying physics, and from this it is possible to predict whether a material will follow Ohm's Law or not.
You can say the "the theory of quantum chromodynamics," but not "the law of quantum chromodynamics". 'Law' implies a small number of simple equations, while theory allows for a much larger scope of complexity or rigor. The meaning is absolutely different. Modern science is pretty complex compared to what went on 200 years ago, so it's not surprising law has fallen out of favor.
There are excpetions to many inverse square laws, they just aren't relevant to the problem at hand.
Shouldn't smoke follow the inverse square law as well (in the absence of air currents)?
That's why smoking is allowed outdoors.
It's not really uncommon to see "no smoking on the patio" or "no smoking within 100 feet of this door" signs. And some states have legalized smoking cannabis, except outdoors.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a smoker and never have been. I like these laws. I'm just being a bit pedantic. There has been a general trend of restricting smoking and I think that trend has continued outdoors. It used to be that you could smoke anywhere, then businesses started creating indoor smoking sections. Then indoor smoking sections were banned and smokers moved to the outdoor seating. Then smoking outside near exterior doors was banned, in a way that effectively banned smoking at many restaurants entirely. Beyond this, in some places like NYC you have smoking bans in public parks and beaches as well, regardless of how far you are from any exterior door. (To be clear, I support these bans because cigarette smokers are notorious for their litter.)
And in the case of cannabis the restrictions are even more severe. In Washington you cannot smoke cannabis in view of the general public or in most buildings (except residential, although many apartment buildings have smoking bans too.) California is more permissive, but even they enforce a 1000(!) foot smoking ban around schools and youth centers.
Sure, but the absolute risk is very low and it's probably zero if you add veggies to your meal. And also causality was not established, observational studies on this topic suffering from the healthy-user bias in addition to a lot of confounding factors and in general for nutrition the evidence is very low quality, compared with medication research.
This isn't a boolean. Saying that "this or that causes cancer" is meaningless without giving the risk factor, which has to be statistically significant and in case of meat it isn't.
In other words if you want to compare the risks of 5G with anything, I think nutrition is a really poor choice due to the low standards for evidence we have and due to all the confounding factors and biases.
Not sure if assessing the safety of 5G is easier, but at the very least you can do double-blind studies. At the very least you can compare it with the placebo effect. Which in nutrition isn't possible.
Working in a Faraday cage seems more appealing.