Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Does EMR harm living organisms?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 3.50 average.
Old Monday 4th June 2018, 16:56   #751
jape
Registered User
 
jape's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
is there any reason to bang on about this apart from a pretty irrational fear of the unknown?
irrational fears are a pretty good reason to request caution and to request the alphabetical testing you mention. no-one who disagrees with the premis 'banged on' about need do anything but avoid the whole thread. too much has become about personalities and opinions, positions and defences rather than about how to test, examine, experiment or otherwise objectively and accurately prove the irrational fears have no basis.

the analogous situation with pesticides is enough to make anyone afraid and the possibility of synergy with other causes of declining populations would certainly suggest the possibility of EMR as harmful is increased, not mitigated
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th June 2018, 17:52   #752
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by jape View Post
not really, there are at least a couple of Govt. office or Dept. papers from US and EU in amongst the material that state the effects of EMR are, at least, insufficiently known as to require caution and further research. also, declining animal populations would be affected by declining food populations or migration patterns if those were affected by EMR.
I'm not sure what part of my 3-sentence post you're querying here. . ..
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 4th June 2018, 19:27   #753
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by jape View Post
irrational fears are a pretty good reason
Sorry Jape but I fundamentally disagree with that. Hence I'm (marginally) more scared of toddlers than terrorists, but not particularly worried by either (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/to...ns-terrorists/). Despite the best efforts of the likes of the Daily Mail...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jape View Post
to request the alphabetical testing you mention
I feel I should elaborate because I wasn't referring to a particular way of testing. What I meant to say was:
In the absence of (A) a hypothetical harmful mechanism and without a pressing incentive from (B) observation of harmful effects through whichever mechanism. Despite the efforts of the OP and some others I (still) don't see any indication either of those two are occurring.
Hope that's clearer!

J
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Monday 4th June 2018 at 20:04.
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th June 2018, 19:36   #754
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by jape View Post
too much has become about personalities and opinions, positions and defences rather than about how to test, examine, experiment or otherwise objectively and accurately prove the irrational fears have no basis.
Sadly that's true although I've tried my best (well most of the time anyway). The mechanistic experiments are pretty straightforward though and thus far have not come up with anything (see the review paper I posted a while back). Observational studies are much harder to constrain, so much so that I would hesitate to make that my starting point. Show solid, reproducible effects in a cell culture, animal model or some such first, then we can think about extrapolating and expanding the experiment.
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th June 2018, 20:52   #755
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
. . .In the absence of (A) a hypothetical harmful mechanism and without a pressing incentive from (B) observation of harmful effects through whichever mechanism. Despite the efforts of the OP and some others I (still) don't see any indication either of those two are occurring.
Indeed, in a nutshell. I lack the background to comment on (A) but I’ve found the observational evidence presented so far pitifully thin and special-pleading-ridden.
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Monday 4th June 2018 at 23:45.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th June 2018, 11:13   #756
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 378
@ jape Again, thank you--I really liked your piece on the objective scientific method, also your second post pointing out that various departments in the US and EU have suggested we proceed cautiously with wireless technologies.

@ all I am aware of the deficiencies of the tabloids (who isn't?) but they do get it right sometimes. While they cater to a less-educated audience, the journalists and editors who work there are often very well-educated themselves, and they do produce some interesting stories. They also have their finger firmly on the pulse of the general public, so if you want to know what Joe Bloggs is thinking, you will have a better idea of it if you read the Sun or the Mail than if you read the Times. And it rather looks as if Joe Bloggs is starting to worry about wireless technologies. Another recent Mail story, this time about a celebrity who has stopped using his mobile phone and finds it makes him happier: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...alent-BBC-html.

@ Nohatch I hardly think you have discredited the entire body of anti-EMR research, though you're obviously trying. The trouble is, you are using the tactics that the industry itself uses, the same tactics that were used by Big Tobacco and Big Oil repeated now by Big Wireless. It is a game that can go on ad nauseam, and has done: 1) get an industry-affiliated body to repeat a study but fail to replicate the results (repeat for good measure) and then point to those studies to show that there are at least as many studies showing no harm as studies showing harm 2) attack the credentials of researchers and scientists who find that EMR causes harm, 3) write pieces saying that the evidence presented (e.g. explanations for the mechanisms that cause harm) are not convincing, 4) propose alternative explanations for the evidence of harm in nature and society that have nothing to do with EMR, etc. These are good delaying-tactics, and they worked for Big Tobacco and Big Oil for a long time and to a degree are still working (why else are you complaining about cars?).

What I don't see, though, is why you insist on 100% incontrovertible proof that EMR harms humans and damages the environment before considering that we should take a step back and assess what is already happening before we proceed with another generation of a technology which many reputable scientists say IS causing harm. To do so risks causing irreversible harm. If we were having this argument about EMR and 5G weren't on the horizon, your position would make more sense--4G is already here, after all. But 5G is less than two years away, is already about to be rolled out in some places, not-so eventually blasted at us from space, and we are nowhere near settling the question of whether it could be really damaging to us and the environment. There are virtually no scientific studies of the effects of 5G frequencies on living organisms, we don't know what we're doing, and we're in a tearing hurry because? So I'm afraid saying that you personally aren't convinced by the studies you've seen really isn't good enough. Jape is right in saying that scientists have the same right (but no more right) than any other citizen to participate in a debate. You don't get ten votes to everyone else's one.

If you want 100% incontrovertible proof that EMR is harmful to us and the environment before we implement 5G, and we proceed with 5G on the basis that harm has not been proven 100%, and it turns out that you are wrong, what then? Why is it not preferable to err on the side of caution?

Last edited by Purple Heron : Tuesday 5th June 2018 at 11:16.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th June 2018, 11:20   #757
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
If you want 100% incontrovertible proof that EMR is harmful to us and the environment before we implement 5G, and we proceed with 5G on the basis that harm has not been proven 100%, and it turns out that you are wrong, what then? Why is it not preferable to err on the side of caution?
Interesting take: if we had done this with every single new thing in life since the beginning we would never have gotten even as far as the Amish in technological and sociological advancement.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 5th June 2018, 16:33   #758
jape
Registered User
 
jape's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
i want to digress a bit. irrational fear in an adult is seen as, well, irrational and thus denigrated. i dont want to make this too much about me or too personal as people don't respond well to that. i am autistic and that doesn't help because i often miss things that seem obvious to others.

fear is not irrational if it has an underlying cause. that cause if not linked directly to a concept is seen as irrational but i am suggesting it is not irrational, just unresolved. so to me, where you have effects without a known cause it seems obvious to examine possible causes. much of the argument here has been that the premis of EMR as harmful is not sufficiently proven. i cannot quite accept that as in my judgement enough doubt is raised and that before we examine synergy. if govt. bodies call for further research and if responsible intelligent people ask for further examination and a moratorium meanwhile, why is this so hard?

my irrational fears are based in my own history, i left home young, was setup and badly beaten and fined for druguse by police when 17 and visiting friends despite actual innocence. then there was My Lai and i assisted in an underground railroad for deserting GIs. then Kent State and Jackson shootings. i still grew to be a reasonably responsible citizen and understood the benefit of social order and stability. coloured by exoerience but still valid, law and order and regulation.

i have also seen 3 mile island, Bhopal (between 4 and 16 thousand dead alone), Chernobyl, ddt, lead in car exhausts and other problems all to do with technology, science and human nature. irrational to some of you, my fears but real to me. even a couple of percent doubt should override financial concerns and at least get a delay while the scientists work out some testing. all right, the first atomic explosion didnt unravel the world as some thought, and Cern didnt unravel the Universe, yet. i am glad for the wonders of science but i can surely wait a year or two for 5G and hopefully concommitent proof that wifi is not harmful.
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th June 2018, 11:07   #759
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 378
@ jape A really good analysis of why fear that may seem, at first blush, "irrational" is based on memories of events/technologies that turned out badly. Lots of things that we were told were safe and harmless turned out not to be so and many people were injured, killed or otherwise affected. I seem to recall that all or most of the celebrities invited to watch the first atom bomb explode (a highly coveted invitation) eventually died of cancer. And leaded petrol led to cretinism in many, many children living in poor, congested neighborhoods.

When companies and governments know a technology is unsafe they inflict it on the poor, whether it is high-voltage power-lines over poor neighborhoods or chemical factories in India. In this way we ship our toxic e-waste to the third world, and who cares if some dirt-poor native gets sick from exposure to heavy metals and other poisonous substances he picks through with bare hands? He is invisible to us.

@ CalvinFold We have this fascination with technology and technological progress that seems to drive reason out the window, though our rational selves ought to foresee the consequences of our actions. You decry all caution as an attempt to hinder our advancement as a species, but there are good reasons to slow down or halt the deployment of wireless technologies above and beyond the putative dangers of EMR. The mining of nickel and gold, for instance, is hugely destructive of nature and vastly polluting, and the e-waste is, as I pointed out above, highly toxic. Then there is energy use. It is not possible to power the current generation of wireless technology, let alone 5G and the IoT, without building more and more nuclear reactors, each one a potential Chernobyl or Fukishima (which may yet kill us all). Solar technology also produces toxic waste, while wind farms kill millions of birds every year. Alternative forms of energy are not without environmental consequences, not are they as clean as we would like to believe. Solar farms sit on arable land, and wind farms are connected to massive pylons strung with power lines. In a world where everyone worries about energy use and climate change, it is very hard to see how energy-guzzling wireless technology can be powered without causing severe environmental damage. And we do not need wireless technology when modern wired technology offers faster, better, safer and cheaper connectivity. The problem is that modern wired technology is not as profitable to the telecoms companies, so they promote wireless technologies by endless PR and making their gadgets addictive. From an environmental perspective, EMR need not enter the picture to reject wireless technologies. If climate change is indeed responsible for so many of the problems nature is facing, how can anyone in good conscience promote the most power-hungry technology of them all? The same applies to electric cars: a nice idea on the face of it but you have to produce the electricity to power them somehow, and that's a lot of electricity. Where will that come from and what will be the consequences of producing it?

@ Nohatch How can you say "in the absence of any hypothetical harmful mechanism" and "observation of harmful effects through whichever mechanism" with a straight face? I have posted a good many pieces concerning both.

Insurance and telecoms companies are certainly not taking the view that wireless technologies are guaranteed 100% harmless, but instead bracing for a potential storm. For reports and white papers of the insurance industry, you might want to look at https://www.ehtrust.org/key-issues/r...ance-industry/
For a look at telecom and insurance companies warning of liability and risk see: https://www.ehtrust.org/key-issues/c...go-key-issues/
For corporate company investor warnings in annual reports 10k filings concerning radiations risks see: https://www.ehtrust.org/key-issues/c...diation-risks/
For a look at electromagnetic field insurance policy exclusions see: https://www.ehtrust.org/key-issues/e...cy-exclusions/
While no one is saying that the research has absolutely proved EMR is harmful (the telecoms industry would not admit this anyway) there is obviously concern that it will be be proved harmful at some point, as was the case with asbestos and tobacco. So they are not dismissing the research out of hand. A number of court cases related to mobile phone use are pending, and it is clear that at some point they expect there to be a significant judgement in favor of the plaintiff(s).

I really do have to take issue with the "absence of any hypothetical harmful mechanism". You may reject such a hypothesis, but to claim that none has even been proposed is arrant nonsense. The attached letter from Dr, Martin Pall to the EU explains one "hypothetical harmful mechanism" quite clearly in case you have missed it.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf pall-to-eu-on-5g-harm-march-2018.pdf (410.1 KB, 6 views)

Last edited by Purple Heron : Wednesday 6th June 2018 at 11:13.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th June 2018, 11:45   #760
jape
Registered User
 
jape's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
i just discovered another irrational fear ... while reading PH last post i realised i often relax with my tablet on my lap radiating various mobile, bluetooth and wifi frequencies just inches from my testicles. i now envision a future world where the sterile caucasian, asian and european races dismantle the toxic technology and have to import negro males from very backward regions for breeding purposes. that is not racist, it is ironic, and not necessarily irrational.
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th June 2018, 13:41   #761
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
You decry all caution as an attempt to hinder our advancement as a species
No, I did not. You may have inferred that, but I in no way implied it.

Is this kind of leaping-to-conclusions how you conduct your examinations of all problems, including the 5G discussion?

The rest of what you went on-and-on about I am already well aware of, and actually sympathize and agree to greater or lesser extents.

But also don't forget that along with technological change, so came sociological change. If we never had the tech, would you have been okay with the sociological stagnation that came with it?

I would also ask, if 5G is moratorium worthy, so are all the other things you mention. Are you comfortable with a sudden halt to it all say, tomorrow?

You've also made a few causal comments about the industry bracing for a storm. Of course they are: the world is lawsuit-happy, that's just standard policy. It sounds ominous when sensationalized but really it's just another day at the office for any large company that makes money; this kind of prep is routine to the point of boring. Whether they are bracing because they know their product is harmful or because they know they'll be sued-to-death by wackos is conjecture at best.

Granted, I don't trust industries like this, but I'm also not willing to consider every person working for them to be evil either. Some rather nice people work in the Legal department where I work (which is a Fortune 500 company).

And given what my company produces, I do feel quite guilty at times (bugs the hell out of me at times, actually), but...if I quit, I die. If I take a job more in line with my ethics, I die. If I had to live back before modern technology, I'd have died in my youth.

So I have to balance "the way it should be" with "the way it is right now."

Where is your balance, Purple Heron? And does that world have a place for people like me, in your estimation?
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 6th June 2018, 14:05   #762
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I really do have to take issue with the "absence of any hypothetical harmful mechanism". You may reject such a hypothesis, but to claim that none has even been proposed is arrant nonsense. The attached letter from Dr, Martin Pall to the EU explains one "hypothetical harmful mechanism" quite clearly in case you have missed it.
:) Let's put that to the test then shall we? Since the mechanism proposed by Pall is quite clear to you, please explain it in simple terms to your audience.
That should show us how well you've done your homework and understood the subject matter - and it saves everyone else from having to read that dreadful ramble....result!

Oh and by the way, your accusation that I'm (somehow) using "underhand industry tactics" is baseless, but unsurprising.

Good luck,
J
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th June 2018, 14:09   #763
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
So I have to balance "the way it should be" with "the way it is right now."
Excellent point, and from where I stand a more connected hi-tech world is part of the solution to a lot of the real problems we are facing.
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Wednesday 6th June 2018 at 14:17.
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th June 2018, 14:14   #764
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 721
Whilst doing my homework I came across this well-written criticism of the Bioinitiative Report that has been bandied about in this thread a couple of times:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pic...iative-report/

And finally, for a bit of balance, a recent study in PLoS ONE by the University of Vienna showed that:
Taken together, the present findings show that UMTS-modulated RF fields did not cause induction of DNA damage in 10 cell lines in either the presence or absence of H2O2. Only the U87 cell line under serum-free conditions demonstrated increased DNA damage in response to RF field exposure, where induction of NER appears to be involved.
In other words, if you already have brain cancer and don't have any blood, then EMF can definitely do damage to your DNA. Scary stuff...
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0193677
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Wednesday 6th June 2018 at 14:38.
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th June 2018, 14:41   #765
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
. . . I seem to recall that all or most of the celebrities invited to watch the first atom bomb explode (a highly coveted invitation) eventually died of cancer. . ..
Oh, c’mon, be serious. . ..
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 6th June 2018, 21:06   #766
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Low-intensity electromagnetic waves cause difficulties
which are primarily of a neurotic nature (14]. These include
headaches, pain in the eyes, tiredness and general weakness,
dizziness after standing for a period of time, fitful sleep
at night, sleepiness in the daytime, changing moods,
irritability, hypochondriacal attitudes, fear, depressions,
reduced intellectual capacity, and reduced memory. With
longer exposure, laziness and an inability to make decisions
result. Complaints are voiced regarding sensations of tension
in the skin, head, and forehead, loss of hair, muscle
aches, and pain around the heart. Complaints of sexual
difficulties are not uncommon. Such people experience slight
eyelid, tongue, and finger tremors accompanied by increased
perspiration. During work in a higher field, a marked reduction
in blood pressure has been observed which lead to
collapse. (pg.3)
Quote:
... It should be pointed cut that the possibility of the
existence of the non-thermal effect of electromagnetic
waves is generally accepted today, and because substantial
experimental documentation exists, it can be considered
proven. It has been demonstrated that non-thermal effects
also occur with fields of greater intensity, where the rise
in temperature is the first reaction of the organ[ism]. Nonthermal
effects brought about changes in Inter-neuron
connections, the inactivation of certain viruses, and
changes in the growth and infection properties of bacteria.
Undoubtedly the most important non-thermal effects are the
changes in the course of the division of cells, especially of
chromosomes. Fig. 3 shows the process. It depicts the
dependence of the mitotic index on the intensity of the field
at different radiation times (11]. Also, actual changes in
the shape of the chromosomes have been encountered. These
changes are directly connected with the development of the
individual and the changes in the properties of the descendants.
...(pg. 4)
That's what it says in the attached US Library of Congress study report dating back to 1966. It's worth reading since non-thermal effects were felt to be proven even at that time, and the description of symptoms is consistent with more recent articles I've found. Also, the general mechanisms of action are discussed, so there's no paucity of explanations.

Ed
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Biological Effects of High Frequency EMR.pdf (858.1 KB, 9 views)
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 6th June 2018, 21:21   #767
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,467
Does anyone have any good visuals showing the relative part of the spectrum that shows human visual, radio, television, ionic, radar, sonar, 900 MHz, and 6 GHz frequencies?

I know that's a wide range, but I'd like to see all of these things at once on a linear spectrum map to wrap my brain around it.

Likely would have follow-up questions after that.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 6th June 2018, 21:22   #768
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
That's what it says in the attached US Library of Congress study report dating back to 1966. It's worth reading since non-thermal effects were felt to be proven even at that time, and the description of symptoms is consistent with more recent articles I've found. Also, the general mechanisms of action are discussed, so there's no paucity of explanations.

Ed
Ed correct me if I'm wrong, but this review deals with high-frequency EMR....so ultraviolet, X-rays and other ionizing radiation. The damaging nature of those are indeed well established, even at low intensities. But the point is that low-frequency EMR does not have these ionizing properties, hence is in theory harmless. Do point out specifics if I missed them as I only had time for a cursory look.

Cheers,
Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th June 2018, 21:23   #769
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
Does anyone have any good visuals showing the relative part of the spectrum that shows human visual, radio, television, ionic, radar, sonar, 900 MHz, and 6 GHz frequencies?

I know that's a wide range, but I'd like to see all of these things at once on a linear spectrum map to wrap my brain around it.

Likely would have follow-up questions after that.
Halfway down the page Kevin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

6 GHz (i.e. 5G wifi) has a wavelength of about 5 cm which puts it in the 'microwave' range (I think) - ionizing effects like those mentioned in the review Ed posted occur from ultraviolet and beyond. Hence too much sun can give you skin cancer, but visible light and beyond (incl. microwaves) can only heat stuff up.
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Wednesday 6th June 2018 at 21:31.
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th June 2018, 21:34   #770
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
So I assume you mean this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...rumrevised.png

For those of us who haven't had to deal with BIG numbers in a while:

If 10^8 Hz, is for FM Radio, what is that in MHz and/or GHz (without the exponents)? (I feel really dumb for asking...*sigh*)

Basically I'm looking for 900 MHz (per the paper elkcub posted) and 6 GHz (the upper limit of 5G) on that chart, relative to "benign" things like the visual spectrum, FM radio, and television.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 6th June 2018, 21:50   #771
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 721
This should help Kevin: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calcula...ofrequency.htm

Basically 100 MHz is 3 m length, 1 GHz is 30 cm, 6 GHz is 5 cm etc. - they're inversely related.

@Ed: too tired now but will have another read tomorrow. So far I've seen biological superconductors and denaturing proteins. And several mentions that it's all nailed down but nothing to back it up.
__________________
IOC Life list: 1312 (latest: Carolina Wren @ Besthesda, MD, USA)
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th June 2018, 22:00   #772
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Ed correct me if I'm wrong, but this review deals with high-frequency EMR....so ultraviolet, X-rays and other ionizing radiation. The damaging nature of those are indeed well established, even at low intensities. But the point is that low-frequency EMR does not have these ionizing properties, hence is in theory harmless. Do point out specifics if I missed them as I only had time for a cursory look.

Cheers,
Joost
The article focuses on the microwave/radio-wave band, which is non-ionizing radiation. See Wiki.

Quote:
Gamma rays, X-rays, and the higher ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic spectrum are ionizing, whereas the lower ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic spectrum and all the spectrum below UV, including visible light (including nearly all types of laser light), infrared, microwaves, and radio waves are considered non-ionizing radiation. The boundary between ionizing and non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation that occurs in the ultraviolet is not sharply defined, since different molecules and atoms ionize at different energies. Conventional definition places the boundary at a photon energy between 10 eV and 33 eV in the ultraviolet .
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Wednesday 6th June 2018 at 22:24.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 7th June 2018, 00:56   #773
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
This should help Kevin: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calcula...ofrequency.htm

Basically 100 MHz is 3 m length, 1 GHz is 30 cm, 6 GHz is 5 cm etc. - they're inversely related.
Okay, but my point is, for the layman, I need them all on one unit of measurement. For purposes of this discussion, that unit needs to be GHz or at least MHz because that is how 5G is spec'd for the layman.

So if 5G is at most 6GHz and elkcub's paper is referencing 0.9 GHz (900 MHz), where does visual light fall? Where does FM radio fall? Where does typical aircraft radar fall? Where does gamma radiation fall? Where does the radiation from a typical nuclear bomb fall? Cellular phones?

For example, don't cordless phone settle in around 1.2 GHz?

I want to compare, on the same scale, sources we have around us every day.

You see what I'm getting at? Yes, the 3m, 30cm, etc. is another way of putting it, but let's put them all on the GHz scale so they are easier to compare one-to-one without conversions or lookup tables.

Not just for me, I think it would be instrumental to the line of reasoning I'm thinking of pursuing. I don't want to ask my next question until this one is straightened out; please bear with me.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 7th June 2018, 03:06   #774
jape
Registered User
 
jape's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: warrington
Posts: 739
i will try a bit of explanation for you Kevin mate but i dont sleep so it is middle of night here in UK and i am not energetic.

do google electromagnetic spectrum for various charts that show what you want.

the wikipedia chart is clear enough but others might be better for layman so look at a few and decide
the mobile phone terms of 4G, 3G, 2G are not related directly and can use various frequencies so you also have to look at frequency bands currently allocated and used by different providers but for simplicity we can say from 700 MHz to 2.6 GHz, then add 5GHz for wifi.
5G rollout will use various bits of those and 3.5GHz but is future designed to work up at 26GHz

one effect of going higher frequency bands noticeable at even going from 700MHz mobile up to 2.1GHz mobile is the signal doesn't carry as far without increasing power. so (again approximating because in reality now with carrier aggregation etc the frequencies used vary and change in one 'cal') a 700MHz signal at normal power may travel further from tower to phones, i.e greater range. Range tends to drop as you get upto the 2.6 GHz area.

so for little phones with low power to work the towers will effectively be in every street corner or closer. you can't go to far into laymans terms without getting picked on but you need to read a bit to understand it all and look up a few things. the worry of the 5G is when it uses the 26GHz range everylamp post will effectively be used as a tower because you need the multiple points of broadcast and reception in cities and builtup areas because the signal by then doesnt travel far at all. strictly speaking some of the terms like 'far' apply at particular practical power levels.

then you get other phenomena like the penetration into buildings, bodies etc by the frequency. the upper levels of the commonly used mobile bands today such as 2.1GHz already give what is called worse reception or penetration into buildings than say the 700MHz

some of the laymans charts show a rough correlation of 'size of the wave' at frequencies against normal objects. some of the angst is the size makes cell and dna damage more likely.

then you get harmonics, intensity, whether constantly around or intermittent ... it is not realky a laymans area at the level of scientific examination discussed in various papers mentioned here but i hope my explanation makes it easier not harder! when you look at a laymans electromagnetic spectrum chart it will show also how transparent the atmisphere is to the various levels. it varies but consider, life evolved expised to some and not to others. then look at synergistic or combined effects with chemistry ....

PH will rightly remind us that the signals are going to be beamed by satellite at us so coverage will be everywhere, dont kniw the power designed into that but it is one reason my technical awareness starts to correlate with irrational fear - we will have to live in faraday cages with foil hats and underwear to escape it!

and i will add that the rf frequencies are not just 'mobile phones'. other areas of comnercial and military fill them all up. no escape lol and poor liitle dna cells, insects and birdies trying to live in it all...


why do you think they put warnings on radar not to stand in front of it? and even the glass of microwave ovens has blocking material? 'it' (EMR) fries things, one way or the other.

Last edited by jape : Thursday 7th June 2018 at 03:31.
jape is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 7th June 2018, 04:59   #775
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
Does anyone have any good visuals showing the relative part of the spectrum that shows human visual, radio, television, ionic, radar, sonar, 900 MHz, and 6 GHz frequencies?

I know that's a wide range, but I'd like to see all of these things at once on a linear spectrum map to wrap my brain around it.

Likely would have follow-up questions after that.
Good job, jape. I had composed the following:

Calvin,

I know what you mean but it's not practical to show the EM spectrum on a linear scale. So it's done on a log scale to the base 10. (Otherwise, you couldn't make the chart large enough at a printable granularity.) Looking at Fig. 1, pg.12 of the 1966 paper, the graph shows frequencies in the <1000 to 10,000 MHz. range. By moving the decimal point three positions left, the range could also be expressed as <1-10 GHz. But in either case, by cross-referencing the attached chart the discussion is about the (non-ionizing) radio-microwave region.

Ed
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	EM Spectrum.jpg
Views:	75
Size:	20.6 KB
ID:	665220  
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Thursday 7th June 2018 at 06:24.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Google - this site may harm your computer ?? Kits Computers, Birding Software And The Internet 7 Saturday 31st January 2009 17:09
What birds can harm humans scuba0095 Birds & Birding 40 Friday 26th May 2006 18:09
Do feeders do more harm or good? cavan wood Garden Birds, Bird Feeding & Nestboxes 14 Tuesday 17th May 2005 14:19
The Living House, The Living Garden George Ordish Richard D Books, Magazines, Publications, Video & DVD 3 Tuesday 5th October 2004 13:59

{googleads}
Opticron - NEW DBA VHD+ 8x42, 10x42. Prices from Β£579

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.27105999 seconds with 36 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:50.