dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
577
share rss forum feed


ahhnold

join:2003-12-04
Orland Park, IL

Ignorance and the herd mentality

Wifi, cellphone and other radio waves are classified as non-ionizing radiation. Its main interaction effect with biological tissues is heat transfer. No peer reviewed scientific studies have shown evidence to the contrary at current usage/exposure levels. The hundreds of millions (now billions) of cellphones and wifi access points in operations throughout the world for the past 10+ years don't contradict those studies either.

This is pretty basic stuff and if people are this easily influenced it makes me wonder how much farther society can advance ...


Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org
As i mentioned before, there is no measurement of long term exposure only theory until presented with data. In the past ten years wifi and cell use rose a million fold, for every action there is a reaction, a basic law of nature.. What is the reaction of our actions? That is the question that may not be exposed during this lifetime..

On that note, i am sure we are all fine, its the bees i am worried about.


Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org
reply to ahhnold
O yea ignorance is an assumption.. A little like what you are doing


Bor

@telus.net
reply to Naterator
said by Naterator :

for every action there is a reaction, a basic law of nature.. What is the reaction of our actions?

It is not a "Law of Nature" it's Newtons Third Law of motion. It is an observation of the way mechanical forces act upon objects. It's not, nor was it ever meant to be, some metaphysical rule about the universe. There in all likelihood will be no measurable or significant "reaction of our actions".

If you have no understanding of science, don't presume to talk about it.


dslcreature
Premium
join:2010-07-10
Seattle, WA
reply to ahhnold
said by ahhnold:

Wifi, cellphone and other radio waves are classified as non-ionizing radiation. Its main interaction effect with biological tissues is heat transfer. No peer reviewed scientific studies have shown evidence to the contrary at current usage/exposure levels.

uv is non-ionizing and it causes cell damage and cancer unrelated to "heating". There is simulation evidence sub-millimeter radiation can cause DNA damage due to "nonlinear resonances". Very very low frequency radiation in thousands of meter bands has shown to be a hazard to the human nervous system due to induced currents.

To the point others are making regarding modern life surrounded by radio signals keep in mind EM signal strength follows inverse square law with distance. The signal strength of the cellular phone up to your ear is hundreds to trillions or more times more powerful than any other radio signals in your immediate environment. Cell phones transmit with a power of a watt or so.. the signals they are able to receive from towers are on order of one quadrillionth of a watt. Proximity to signal more than anything else is critical to understanding the users exposure.

In an isolated classroom environment with 30 transmitters broadcasting a few hundred mw each in close quarters all day is a significant exposure to microwave radiation above and beyond the background environment of typical exposure to radio and tv transmitters.

Finally there are government radiation exposure standards for these devices which assume ridiculous configurations such as holding the phone an inch from your head while speaking or keeping the body several inches from the antenna embedded in the display bezel. (Inverse square law strikes again)

These conditions are routinely and consistently violated by the majority of users who have no idea that their style of use effectively means they exceed government defined exposure limits.

Is it harmful? will it cause cancer? I doubt it. I don't know... Assume it did and the chance was small what would the sample size of the study and the duration need to be to detect the effect in an unambiguous and statistically significant way? My guess the answer far exceeds any effort anyone is willing to put into the question. Given 20% of the worlds population will die from cancer the SNR involved with detecting such a signal assuming it did exist is impossibly high. We were hardly able to detect the cancer signal in survivors as a result of the hiroshima/nakaski atomic bombs.

Obviously you can never prove a negative but all of these inconclusive statistical based studies people are falling back to in my view are worthless. Any research short of attempting to directly observe cellular damage or mechanisms for the same will never produce a positive result even if you flat out assume there was one to be found.

Until positive evidence is found I chose to assume it does not exist or my chance of being harmed is too small that I don't care. I only speak for myself.


Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org
reply to Bor
So you are dismissing the Laws of Nature? and yes the laws of motion apply, Do you think a wifi signal does not move? Do you think radio waves to not vibrate your eardrums? (heance makes your body move). You dont think protons and atoms move? I think you need to go back to science class. If you want to try to dismantle his proven law then you have alot of work ahead of you.


Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org
reply to Bor
On last thing, in all likelihood can you measure a reaction to your actions. flick your cup of coffee.. See what happens. Now flick it harder (3rd grade science buddy)

LucasLee

join:2010-11-26
kudos:1
reply to Naterator
for someone crying about the scientific ignorance of others you're rather hilariously in the dark regarding the levels of radiation generated by our sun.

remember, science is used to prove things exist, not their lack of existence. the metaphorical ball signifying the figurative burden of proof regarding the hazardous nature of wifi signals is decidedly in your court.

keep on trollin' sir.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to ahhnold
said by ahhnold:

Wifi, cellphone and other radio waves are classified as non-ionizing radiation. Its main interaction effect with biological tissues is heat transfer. No peer reviewed scientific studies have shown evidence to the contrary at current usage/exposure levels. The hundreds of millions (now billions) of cellphones and wifi access points in operations throughout the world for the past 10+ years don't contradict those studies either.

This is pretty basic stuff and if people are this easily influenced it makes me wonder how much farther society can advance ...

While it is true that radio waves are classified as non-ionizing radiation, there are actually MANY peer reviewed studies showing harmful biological effects from sub-thermal levels of exposure. Even the FCC admits this:

said by 'FCC' :
More recently, other scientific laboratories in North America, Europe and elsewhere
have reported certain biological effects after exposure of animals ("in vivo") and animal tissue
("in vitro") to relatively low levels of RF radiation. These reported effects have included
certain changes in the immune system, neurological effects, behavioral effects, evidence for a
link between microwave exposure and the action of certain drugs and compounds, a "calcium
efflux" effect in brain tissue (exposed under very specific conditions), and effects on DNA.

The FCC also admits that they know nothing about the health or safety of RF exposure and it defers the matter to industry groups (IEEE, ANSI).

»transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engin···56e4.pdf


Naterator

@lifebridgehealth.org
reply to LucasLee
Get closer to the sun you get burned. Stand 5 feet next to a TV transmitting tower for 10 minutes tell me how you feel. Your science is flawed by the assumption that i am talking about how powerful one thing is verse another in relative distance and size.