Study highlights: device usage 1 - 20 minutes per WEEK. Study population born 1935-1950, less likely as users of tech. No actual exposure data. Can't take this seriously.
Rates of brain cancer before and after the 80s and 90s should've shown some sort of statistically significant spike in brain tumors if cell phones were an issue but it didn't because they're not. 800-2000MHz seems like a lot but radiation doesn't cause ionization until you get to the 2400 terahertz range. There's literally no mechanism known to PHYSICS that would result in cell phone radiation causing brain tumors.
The potential causal mechanisms have been studied for a long time to contrast:
"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck region." - European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, 2015
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/do...
What I care about is people ascribing a casual effect by conjecture alone, especially when the research has actually been done to assess the probability/impact of a proposed mechanism. In all flavors and frequencies in the RF spectrum, this has turned up basically zero probability, uncertain impact (because how do you measure rhe impact on something that never happens), yielding zero risk out the other end.
/sarcasm off
False. We don't know that any form of microwave radiation can induce brain tumors, but we certainly don't now that they can't. It needs experiments, which are being performed (on the public) as I write this.
What we do know is that microwave radiation induces nanoampere currents where absorbed. The exact details of the currents, and where and how absorbed determines their effects. Insisting PHYSICS is a legitimate substitute for experimention is a failing that has become increasingly common, lately.
"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck region." - European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, 2015
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/do...
We don't know what will happen, but we will find out, in time. Previous generations seem to have turned out OK. All we can be certain of is that, if anyone is harmed, no one will go to jail for it. Like the people putting lead in gasoline and paint, no one involved will have their retirement even slightly inconvenienced. (Unless, of course, they are personally harmed by it.)
Do I think harm is likely? I have no information to form an opinion from, so I would be guessing, just like everybody who insists it is all just fine. What I do know is that everyone who insists they know is lying.
And this is the opposite of leaded gasoline because the first study that suggested a harmful mechanism was verifiable and produced reproducible results with a mechanism that was reasonable and testable.
The many hypothetical harms from RFR have been tested extensively and found no observable harm or mechanism for harm below the ionizing range of EM radiation.
You're just expressing doubt with arguments that are vague and untestable which is reasonable because all the testable hypothesis have been investigated.
Propose a mechanism for harm and provide evidence that it's actually happening. If we held off on advancing technology over fear, uncertainty, and doubt arguments like this we'd get no where.
Every single modulation scheme has a completely different risk profile than every other. But almost every study starts out assuming that only heating can have any effect at all, and modulation never any, pre-loading failure.
It is equivalent to saying, "We tried some plants that turned out safe to eat. Therefore, all plants are safe to eat." No. Details matter. Wishing is opposite of facts. Facts are often inconvenient.
We conducted the analog, 2G, 3G, and 4G experiments on the general public, and they appear to have turned out OK--to the extent anybody has checked. Cancer is far from the only public health problem. Is anybody even looking at others? Auto-immune illnesses are way up, and could be caused by any of thousands of untested chemicals, or non-ionizing radiation, or hygiene, or some unholy combination. Who is even checking?
We will now run the 5G experiment on the public, and see again. Or, fail to see, for not looking even after the fact.
Does anybody even have a use for 5G, besides the telecomm companies hustling equipment? 4G barely works for me, most of the time. But I will certainly end up being made to pay for 5G, useful or not, because what I need is the very last consideration.
Here's one from 2016 [1]
Overall evaluations show that the current evidence for a causal association between cancer and exposure to mobile radiation is weak and unconvincing. Some of the studies establishing association had significant limitations and weaknesses and, therefore, remain unreliable. Studies have highlighted that using these phones for about 10 years is unlikely to cause cancer.
That explanation makes a lot of sense.
EDIT: I also know we aren't dealing with "spheres", but... I get the gist. Dipole antenna emits in this weird doughnut shape, but as a 3-dimensional object, we can estimate it to be kinda-sorta like a sphere :-)
Actually though, I think a sphere is still in a way the right object. The weird donut is a representation of the amount that is emitted in different directions - I guess it's a contour of equal intensity. But the radiation is still emitted at the speed of light in every direction. So the wavefront at any given time is a sphere (until it is defracted or reflected).
(Edited to add) unless you're thinking of a really big dipole, so you can't treat it as a point source? Or close to it.
> But the radiation is still emitted at the speed of light in every direction.
I think that makes sense.
> (Edited to add) unless you're thinking of a really big dipole, so you can't treat it as a point source?
Honestly, didn't think of that issue either. You're right though, some antennas (especially AM antennas) are the size of Godzilla, and its absurd to even think of them as point-sources.
The term gain is just referring to the antennas directionality relative to a perfect spherical omni radiator that doesn't exist.
Experiments with E-M effects on biology show that changes in current matter more than steady current. So, the effect of pulses could be larger than if it actually were transmitting full-time. We just don't know.
Are you claiming a heating effect or something else?
In fact all varying E-M fields induce electrical currents where they are absorbed. The effects of those electrical currents vary in myriad ways, depending both on the currents and on where they are absorbed. In living matter the currents are carried by motion of ions in solution. Not coincidentally, life is conducted largely by motion of ions in solution.
Incidentally the ADC's that sample the input dissipate the electrical energy captured by the antenna as heat however little it may be as is the case with all electrical circuits that sink electrical energy. So yes your cellphone does use a "heating effect" because where else does the energy go? Do you think it charges the battery or emits light with the captured energy?
It is not the heat, at the end, that makes your phone work. You may read up on how antennas work, if you care to have any actual, you know, facts. I promise it won't say one word about heat.
I know someone who needs to read up on antennas and digital receivers and its not me.
I never heard that, and looking at the list in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog-to-digital_converter#Ty... I can't find any that work this way.
The capacitor is discharged using a resistor of known value.
Also take it down to the comparator level which basically all ADC use the op-amps use transistors and resistors and are themselves dissipating the input power in order to measure voltage.
The word transistor is a contraction of transfer resistance, they are electronically variable resistors and as everyone knows dissipate power as heat during function.
A) The main method that use a ADC to work is heating a resistance and then measuring the temperature or the time to cool down or something like that. [1]
B) As a side effect of the internal working, the ADC produce heat. The heat is not important for the operation, but it's an inevitable side effect.
My opinion: A) No, B) Yes
Can you both please answer A) and B) with "Yes" or "No"?
[1] Note that something similar is used to measure pressure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirani_gauge .
Radio receivers do not depend on an analog to digital converter, or even a resistor, to extract a signal from an antenna. The essential component is a diode.
(That is not to say that, having detected, amplified, and demodulated an antenna signal, the result won't finally drive an A/D converter; you can drive anything you want to after all that. Even a speaker. But operation of the speaker, too, does not depend in any way on heat.)
Even in a analog receiver the power amplifiers used to drive a speaker or whatever are going to dissipate the signals power as heat in order to modulate the amplifiers output power (out power will always be less than power supply power).
If you are talking about a crystal radio, then yes the input power drives a speaker and is turned into sound instead (along with some power lost heat in the circuits resistance).
We have many devices that emit 10Watts of EM radiation at us every day: we call them light bulbs or LEDs. Cell phones are only allowed to emit 3W IIRC.
It wouldn't surprise me if the screen has more EM than the radio.
LEDs and light bulbs do not emit modulated microwaves. If the screen emitted substantial RF radiation, the FCC (and related agencies in other countries) would have something to say about it.
Least-dangerous -- Radio / Infrared / Visible Light / Ultraviolet / XRays / Gamma Rays -- Most energy/dangerous
All light-bulbs, screens, LEDs (etc. etc.) emit visible light. There's a couple of bands in there that might be more dangerous than others (ex: Microwaves specifically resonate with water), but for the most part, Gamma Rays are the most dangerous, and Radiowaves have the least effect on our body.
Just hoping to pique your curiosity into the field of biology and away from hyper-reductionistic physics models.
You're begging the question.
You could have more easily stated your opinion as "low frequency radio waves disturb cells". Which is fundamentally false. There are lots of radio-waves being used around the world: RADAR systems, Radio-headquarter units... as well as people who live nearby radio-towers (TV, AM Radio, FM Radio), and cell phones.
Do you think WW2 units fielded with SCR-300 (World War 2 backpack radio) had increased amounts of cell membrane damage associated with them?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Scr300.p...
I’m not saying it’s a great study, but please at least skim the study before being so dismissive and slightly misleading in the comments.