Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

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 Sunday 7th October 2018, 13:32   #1326
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 411
@ Ed You've found another really interesting paper there--Borjam should have fun with this one. ICNIRP should read it--especially the sentence, "If one photon can alter a protein at 6,000 GHz, 6,000 photons can do it at 1 GHz." How many of the issues Raines raises would you say we can now answer? Quite a few, I think.

@ Chosun I was thinking some more about your previous comment and there's one thing I'd like to add to what I said yesterday. I think somehow this debate is often side-tracked because the subject of EMR gets treated as if it were a lifestyle issue. This debate is not--or shouldn't be--a mere matter of opinion; we're not discussing politics where some people are left-leaning and others right-leaning and we should try to respect each others' views and perhaps find a middle ground. We aren't discussing lifestyle choices here, and there isn't a middle ground. EMR is harmful or it isn't. And if we aren't sure yet, as you rightly point out, we should be cautious until we are sure one way or another.

@ all An extremely interesting piece of testimony regarding Wi-Fi in schools given to the Royal Society of Canada at http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/can...-rodney-palmer
There is both a video version and a transcript.

Last edited by Purple Heron : Sunday 7th October 2018 at 13:37.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th October 2018, 14:31   #1327
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 15,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
I think somehow this debate is often side-tracked because ...
It often gets sidetracked because you try to drag in other issues not actually central to the supposed harm to organisms caused by cell phones and wifi, such as:

- your repeated criticism of those 'wasting time' using smart phones, even referring to a study that actually showed you spend more time on devices than the average user does on a smart phone.

- your consideration of phone usage to be frivolous, despite no doubt many would say much you do is also frivolous.

- your criticism of those using mobile phones on the ground that phones have a component obtained under exploitative labour conditions, despite you also using devices with the same.

- your suggestion that we should turn against the industry as it contributes to the energy requirements of data centres, this not actually being a cell phone issue per se and, of course, despite you clearly also being very much a user of data in such centres, i.e. accessing all those numerous stored research papers and this forum for example.

And more importantly, it often gets sidetracked because you deliberately set out to mislead and misrepresent.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website

Last edited by Jos Stratford : Sunday 7th October 2018 at 15:00.
Jos Stratford is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 8th October 2018, 13:17   #1328
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 411
@ Jos ACTUAL harm. But you wouldn't know; you don't bother to read the science.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 8th October 2018, 13:28   #1329
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Ed You've found another really interesting paper there--Borjam should have fun with this one. ICNIRP should read it--especially the sentence, "If one photon can alter a protein at 6,000 GHz, 6,000 photons can do it at 1 GHz." How many of the issues Raines raises would you say we can now answer? Quite a few, I think.
No.

Physics 101.

It's like claiming that the Spanish Armada could have stoned the inhabitants of the Perfidious Albion(*) just going to Finisterre and throwing thousands of stones.

As a side note, this thread is like an endless death by a thousand paper cuts. Paper cuts, however, don't violate Quantum Physics.

(*)Relax, I'm not anglophbic, just the expression matches the Spanish Armada theme better

Last edited by Borjam : Monday 8th October 2018 at 13:32.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 8th October 2018, 17:38   #1330
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 15,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Jos ACTUAL harm. But you wouldn't know; you don't bother to read the science.
When it comes from you, it is hard to trawl the truth from the fantasy. More is the pity is that you do not bother to read what has been pointed out to you numerous times and continue to use examples which you know to be false or, at best, not representative of the wider scale.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website
Jos Stratford is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 8th October 2018, 21:52   #1331
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,348
Unfortunately, the discussion is completely misdirected. Diana's quotation from Raines' very thorough NASA report was not well selected and stripped of its context seems to be ridiculous. That's what comes from not engaging the materials but feeling free to opine about them nonetheless. And I level that critical remark at all sides, including those who do little more than kibbitz from the sidelines.

The quote in question appears on pg. 105 of the PDF file I attached (pg. 97 of the report) where the author is summarizing new physio-electromagnetic theories [i.e., c 1981] that necessarily involve speculations. Note, that the discussion also addresses potentially beneficial as well as harmful interactions. Of course, who would know that since as of this writing only four people were interested enough to download the paper, and of those maybe two attempted to read it?

I'm finding the paper very interesting and educational, but to answer Diana's question I'm ignorant of how many questions/speculations that it contains have been answered during the last 37 yrs.

Ed

Quote:
New Physio-Electromagnetic Theories
Some novel interactions between electromagnetic fields and the human body have been proposed, and they await further investigation, both theoretically and experimentally. The ones discussed here include: nonionizing single photon interactions, coherent phenomena, coupled oscillators, and the relative importance of different charge species.

As noted in the introduction of this report, single photon interactions other than ionization are expected, based on fundamental physics. In principle, external electromagnetic fields can cause an abnormal response if the energy per photon is greater than the background, or thermal, noise due to others encountered randomly within the human body. The energy of a randomly encountered photon is, on the average:
E = k T
where k = 1.381 x 10-23 joules/degree and T is temperature in degrees Kelvin. For a body temperature of about 300 0, E is about 0.025 eV, or about 500 times less than the standard definition for ionizing radiation. Using eq. 1, the equivalent frequency is about 6,000 GHz, (96) or about 500 times lower than the arbitrary minimum frequency for ionizing radiation. Table 31 lists some of the single photon interactions that are expected. Fig. 42 shows the ratio of photon energy to kT for the lower part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

After investigating single photon interactions, it would be logical to consider the possibility of multiple photon interactions. If one photon can alter a protein at 6,000 GHz, then 6,000 photons can do it at 1 GHz. 6,000 I-GHz photons? But how efficiently can one protein intercept? What would the corresponding incident field intensity be at the surface of the body? Would it be so great that thermal injury would overwhelm the interaction?

The answer, that is, the field intensity, might be surprisingly low. The concept of cooperative, or long-range, or coherent, interactions suggests this result. According to the concept, individual microscopic particles, such as proteins, can have very large cross sections (i.e. receiver areas or gain) if they interact with each other. Actually, this is not such a novel idea. High gain antennas and lasers are established examples. In electromagnetic ·physiology, however, only a few theories based on it have appeared so far.

According to one such theory, proposed by Frohlich, the surface charges on a cell membrane are all coherent. Further, they may also be coherent with surface charges on the membranes of other cells. All of these charges, considered collectively, can oscillate between at least two different states. Based on quantum mechanical formulas, Frohlich has estimated the natural frequency of oscillation. It is in the band 50-3,000 GHz.

Frohlich suggests his theory may lead to a better understanding of cancer. The energy required to sustain the oscillations comes from within the cells. The energy drain inhibits cell reproduction. If the oscillations cease, then the cell divides without bound, ultimately resulting in cancer. This implies that electromagnetic waves in the 50-3,000 GHz band might promote or be used to inhibit the disease.

....
__________________
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 : Tuesday 9th October 2018 at 02:15.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Tuesday 9th October 2018, 07:38   #1332
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
The quote in question appears on pg. 105 of the PDF file I attached (pg. 97 of the report) where the author is summarizing new physio-electromagnetic theories [i.e., c 1981] that necessarily involve speculations. Note, that the discussion also addresses potentially beneficial as well as harmful interactions. Of course, who would know that since as of this writing only four people were interested enough to download the paper, and of those maybe two attempted to read it?
Alright, so they can research it and present a properly done research, not speculation trying to make a case for a hypothetical damage. Such a finding would make a likely candidate for a Nobel award because it would correct a lot of what we know on fundamental Physics.

Quote:
I'm finding the paper very interesting and educational, but to answer Diana's question I'm ignorant of how many questions/speculations that it contains have been answered during the last 37 yrs.
I wouldn't say educational because it's speculation.

And remember, it was pointed out a long time ago by Nohatch and yours truly. An interaction acting at such a fundamental level would have a really dramatic effect, most likely catastrophic. The widespread radio transmissions since the mid 20th century would have caused something similar to an apocalypse.

The reason why such speculations can be met with so much skepticism is simple. Physics laws are very closely intertwined.

For many claims you can run a sort of a mental exercise, a "feasibility test". You explore the consequences of that claim being true by exploring how it relates to known physical law. If it turns out it would lead to absurd or surreal consequences the claim is most likely to be false.

Of course Physics have been revolutionized in the past. And actually it's somewhat stagnant now.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 9th October 2018, 13:52   #1333
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 411
@ Ed You are quite right and I shouldn't have taken out that single quote in isolation. I was thinking of the ICNIRP/SCENIHR argument that 5G will result in lower radiation that we have now, which is based on the premise that 5G small cells won't have to work as hard (lower field intensity) because there will be so many of them. If Raines is correct, it would seem to refute this premise. As you know, physics is not my best subject.

@ Borjam I believe you are incorrect in thinking radio transmissions "would have caused something similar to an apocalypse". As I understand the science of EMR, the wavelength has a great deal to do with how it affects biological organisms. A radio wave is quite long--I think I read somewhere it can be up to a couple of miles or kilometers long? But the waves of modern wireless communications are quite short and getting shorter; they fit inside the human body or the bird/animal's body, and this is when the most damage occurs. Hence the paper I posted on 5G frequencies and insects: it is a modelling study showing that these waves are the same size as an insect's body and therefore can be expected to have a greater effect on insects. Roughly speaking, the smaller the waves the more damage they do to smaller organisms. This is not to say that longer waves do not do some damage, but I wouldn't have expected the apocalypse from radio waves. If we kill the insects, however, we will most certainly cause an apocalypse. Without insects, we will not survive. I am re-posting the study here. I know you will point out that it is only a modelling study, but don't you think 5G should be tested on live insects for such potential effects BEFORE we put it in everywhere? You know, just in case we wipe ourselves out?

@ all A couple of articles worth looking at. The first, "Will 5G be necessary for self-driving cars?" answers its own question by concluding that yes, it will--and by inference it will have to be broadcast by satellite if you ever want to take your self-driving car off a major highway or out of a city. This is why they want 5G from space, and why they want countries with stricter radiation standards to change them. And they want to do this without testing for biological effects of these frequencies. They are trying to build the entire business model and economy of the future on a technology that has never been tested to see what it might do to us or nature. Here is the link: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45048264?es_p=7708502

The second article involves live 5G testing in Docklands, and it might be interesting for anyone who lives near there to go see if there are any immediately observable effects on birds. When we lived in London, we used to go watch birds in Docklands--lots of coots lived and nested there, great crested grebes (one pair used to nest near the floating Chinese restaurant, and we watched them crack their eggs open and watched the babies grow up), sparrows, pigeons...We left in 2005, so I don't know what is there now--the photos in the article are singularly bird-free. If you know what Docklands has been like for birds over the past year or so, it might be possible to observe whether it affects their presence or behaviour in any way.
Here is the link: https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/ee-lau...k-13368492.amp
It is worth remembering that 4G won't go away when 5G comes in--they will run together, or in parallel. So whatever ICNIRP and SCENIHR say, we will be getting more radiation, not less.

Last edited by Purple Heron : Tuesday 9th October 2018 at 13:54.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 9th October 2018, 17:26   #1334
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,033
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
...... I know you will point out that it is only a modelling study, but don't you think 5G should be tested on live insects for such potential effects BEFORE we put it in everywhere? You know, just in case we wipe ourselves out? .....

@ all A couple of articles worth looking at. The first, "Will 5G be necessary for self-driving cars?" ...... Here is the link: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45048264?es_p=7708502

The second article involves live 5G testing in Docklands ..... Here is the link: https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/ee-lau...k-13368492.amp .....
Look, I don't know who "they" are, but I hope they're not the same "they" that my sister tells me are spraying us with 'chemtrails' ?! Anyway, if "they" are, they're not doing a real good job since apparently it's not affecting 'climate change'. Maybe it's like arms dealers fostering, supplying, and profiting off both sides of a conflict ?

Reading those articles, I didn't see mention of a satellite matrix, nor did I find the inference of a business case for it proven. I've read a few analyses of business cases for 5G which had difficulty stacking up in the near term, but didn't want to introduce them to the thread so that the main core facts and scientific issues weren't 'clouded' (boom boom ! :) . If business cases for terrestrial 5G antennas are questionable, then how can lifting all that heavy infrastructure into space be any cheaper ?

From reading the article, it seems that all that those who are worried about the technology have to do is hang a flower pot in the way of the signal.

If the fear of it is that great, then I would suggest those people band together to form a consortium to fund the construction of signal proof retreats - you'd do a roaring trade !

On a practical level, even if baseline data for insect/ bird/ wildlife populations do not exist prior to these 5G demonstration sites commencing trial operations - wouldn't it be a simple matter to conduct controlled experiments by bringing statistically relevant numbers of these lifeforms into the area affected - measuring signal strength and parameters etc and any effects on the lifeforms ? ..... keeping an identical control population under the same conditions of confinement, feeding, behavioural constraints in an area free of signals ...... Surely such experiments could be designed to give scientifically useful and valid information. Yes?



Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 9th October 2018, 22:09   #1335
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borjam View Post
Alright, so they can research it and present a properly done research, not speculation trying to make a case for a hypothetical damage. Such a finding would make a likely candidate for a Nobel award because it would correct a lot of what we know on fundamental Physics.


I wouldn't say educational because it's speculation.

And remember, it was pointed out a long time ago by Nohatch and yours truly. An interaction acting at such a fundamental level would have a really dramatic effect, most likely catastrophic. The widespread radio transmissions since the mid 20th century would have caused something similar to an apocalypse.

The reason why such speculations can be met with so much skepticism is simple. Physics laws are very closely intertwined.

For many claims you can run a sort of a mental exercise, a "feasibility test". You explore the consequences of that claim being true by exploring how it relates to known physical law. If it turns out it would lead to absurd or surreal consequences the claim is most likely to be false.

Of course Physics have been revolutionized in the past. And actually it's somewhat stagnant now.
Well, if they live long enough they might get a Nobel prize, but certainly not in fundamental physics. They probably won't get a literature prize either.

You're speaking as an engineer and not a scientist. Engineering depends upon knowledge being treated as "facts," whereas science depends upon "speculation" (theory) being treated as hypotheses. Engineers often portray themselves as "experts," whereas (as Richard Feynman said), science is the belief in their ignorance.

Pardon me for chuckling at the highlighted paragraph, but it's simply not enough to run an idea through your own mind and do a "feasibility test." Physical laws are abstract. There are very few of them, but even so, the problems arise in their application. I'm willing to say that Raines knew every bit as much of current physical theory as you do. His own mental "feasibility test," however, produced very different results, — which may be why Diana brought it to your attention.

A great deal of what Raines discussed in 1981 is with us today, as Pall's more recent research summaries, and those of others, clearly demonstrate. I would submit that they include potential candidates for Nobel Prizes in biophysics or biochemistry.

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
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Tuesday 9th October 2018, 22:24   #1336
Paul Longland
Registered User
 
Paul Longland's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: leicester
Posts: 521
Without trawling through 50+ pages of this debate I apologise if this point has already been made, and disregarding all the side issues, On the original question of does EMR harm living organisms the answer is yes, no, possibly and maybe.

In my profession (Health, safety & environmental management - yes someone has to bear the brunt of the Clarkson jokes) and in particular my industry (infrastructure and railway electrification) this is something that has been extensively researched, is considered in designs and precautions taken to minimise levels. There is European wide legislation (and no doubt elsewhere) which dictates maximum exposure limits. As such is it obviously recognised, based on a wealth of scientific research, that exposure above such levels MAY be harmul until proven otherwise. HOWEVER these levels are extremely high, cover very specific frequencies and would never be encountered in everyday life. The sorts of levels would only be encountered within a limited radius (and over a prolonged period) of certain times of equipment such as high voltage ac/dc transformers and unbalanced loads on inadequately separated DC cables amongst others.

The major risk area, is that of interference with implanted medical devices (eg pacemakers, cochlea implants etc). As such as part of the fitness for work assessments we ensure that any employees with such devices are not permitted into those areas. Pregnant women may also be at increased risk in such areas.

So to sum up except under extreme circumstances everyday levels of EMR are not dangerous. However, there are some people who have additional specific risk factors who need additional protection at work.

Obviously this only applies to human beings and one would suspect that the same risk factors such as pregnancy would apply to other creatures too. However, the likelihood of them being in close enough proximity for long enough would be minimal. I have never seen a bird with pacemaker so that can be discounted.

To argue that all EMR, and in particular normal Wi-Fi, broadcast radio frequencies etc, cause harm simply does not stack up.
Paul Longland is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 9th October 2018, 23:11   #1337
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Longland View Post
Without trawling through 50+ pages of this debate I apologise if this point has already been made, and disregarding all the side issues, On the original question of does EMR harm living organisms the answer is yes, no, possibly and maybe.

...
Before I retired my professional focus was on aerospace safety. From what I've read in the literature and posted earlier on this website, the broad answer to: "Does EMR harm living organisms?" is "Yes." Does it harm humans? "Yes." Is it immediately evident or catastrophic? "No." Is there a comprehensive protocol to evaluate the short- or long-term effects of 5G implementations on humans? "No." Are humans willing to forego the benefits and profits to get the answers?" "No!" Could they if they wanted to? "Maybe." Will the species survive, nonetheless? "Je ne sais pas." :-)

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 10th October 2018 at 00:57.
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 10th October 2018, 10:45   #1338
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Engineers often portray themselves as "experts," whereas (as Richard Feynman said), science is the belief in their ignorance.
If you're going to mention Feynman.. There we go. A perfect example.
http://hoaxes.org/comments/papparticle2.html

Quote:
Pardon me for chuckling at the highlighted paragraph, but it's simply not enough to run an idea through your own mind and do a "feasibility test." Physical laws are abstract. There are very few of them, but even so, the problems arise in their application.
Abstract and few of them. Some of them are pretty hard like the Laws of Thermodynamics. If, faced with an apparently extraordinary claim you work on its consequences and you find it violating one of those extraordinarily stubborn laws, like the Energy Conservation Law, you can be 99.999999999% sure that it's absurd.

Quote:
I'm willing to say that Raines knew every bit as much of current physical theory as you do. His own mental "feasibility test," however, produced very different results, — which may be why Diana brought it to your attention.
He should know more of physical theory than myself. That said, read "Voodoo Science" by Robert L. Park.

Reading that paper it looks like they accept a priori that weak non ionizing electromagnetic radiation is dangerous and they go to great lengths to try to justify it.

Quote:
A great deal of what Raines discussed in 1981 is with us today, as Pall's more recent research summaries, and those of others, clearly demonstrate. I would submit that they include potential candidates for Nobel Prizes in biophysics or biochemistry.
Those phenomenons would surely involve new Physics. More precisely they wouldn't be awarded the prize but if their speculations proved to be true they would be the base for an important Nobel award winning Physics revolution, which is roughly equivalent.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 10th October 2018, 11:38   #1339
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Borjam I believe you are incorrect in thinking radio transmissions "would have caused something similar to an apocalypse". As I understand the science of EMR, the wavelength has a great deal to do with how it affects biological organisms. A radio wave is quite long--I think I read somewhere it can be up to a couple of miles or kilometers long?
Well, "radio waves" is a really vague term. Let's try to examine it through different, layman points of view.

1- "Radio waves" mean "radio broadcasts".

In that case, radio broadcasts are present on these frequency bands. I include an order of magnitude wavelength as well.

- Long wave (LW) in the LF band (148 to 283 KHz, wavelengths longer than 1000 m).

- Medium wave (MW) in the MF band, between about 550 KHz to 1600 KHz. The wavelengths are around 300 m.

- Short wave (SW) in the HF bands. There are several small bands with wavelengths from 80 m to 12m. The reason is that long path propagation depends on solar conditions, so different bands are used depending on the time of the day, solar cycle activity, etc.

- FM broadcasts on VHF. 88 to 108 MHz, a wavelength of 3 m. It's called popularly the "FM" band because unlike the others, in which transmissions are amplitude modulated, the FM band is frequency modulated.

- DAB (Digital Audio Broadcast) still not widely used. Currently on VHF frequencies with a wavelenght of about 1.5 m. There is a provision for the L band (microwave) with a wavelength of about 0.5 m. But I'm not sure about the deployments in different countries. I know DAB is widely used in Norway (they shut off FM), and in the UK at least in the Greater London area.


2- Does police, ambulances, the military, and even kids use "radios"?

In that case "radio" includes transmissions in the UHF bands (300 MHz - 3000 MHz) with wavelengths as small as 10 cm.

3- Does TV use "radio waves" as transport?

It does, which means UHF mentioned above constitutes "radio waves" as well, because nowadays terrestrial TV is based mainly on UHF. It used a VHF band in the past as well, with a wavelenght of 6 m.

Radio waves vs microwaves: It's a very blurry distinction. The term "microwave" is often used for frequencies above 1 GHz (1000 MHz, wavelegth of 30 cm). What makes microwaves somewhat different from your typical "radio waves" is the increased difficulty to design and build electronics from them and the fact that their propagation is more similar to light than to the expected "radio behavior".

Quote:
But the waves of modern wireless communications are quite short and getting shorter;
If you tried to read something on the history of radio transmissions used for every purpose, I mean, not just communication but detection and navigation as well, you would be surprised to learn that even in WWII there were radars working on microwave frequencies.

Military applications aside, radio and TV relays working on the good old frequencies below 1 GHz have been linked by microwave links many many years ago. How do you get a signal to a TV repeater on top of a mountain? You can use terrestrial microwave links or satellite links. All of that has been "raining" on us for more than 50 years.

Radars. Radars became widespread for civil applications (merchant shipping, fishing, etc) since the early 50's? The frequency bands are essentially the same and powers are really hefty. Radars transmit very strong pulses and receive very faint echoes from detected targets. Radars are not only used by the military, fishermen, merchant shipping, aircrafts or recreative boating: meteorologic radars operate in the 5 GHz band, shared with WiFi. WiFi equipment is legally required to implement measures to share spectrum with meteorologic radars avoiding interference.

Quote:
they fit inside the human body or the bird/animal's body, and this is when the most damage occurs. Hence the paper I posted on 5G frequencies and insects: it is a modelling study showing that these waves are the same size as an insect's body and therefore can be expected to have a greater effect on insects.
Why? A larger body would absorb more energy, hence damage would be greater. And what is a body? We are cell colonies. Biology now sees animals not as a monospecific set of cells, but a very complex community of procariote and eucariote cells of different species. Without our sybiotic bacteria we are dead. They are part of us.

So, what's the basic unit that would be affected by radio waves? A whole animal? An organ? A cell? A molecule? An insect is made of cells similar to ours, and the molecules they employ are roughly the same. The only difference between a briozoan and us is information.

Quote:
Roughly speaking, the smaller the waves the more damage they do to smaller organisms.
Why?

Quote:
This is not to say that longer waves do not do some damage, but I wouldn't have expected the apocalypse from radio waves. If we kill the insects, however, we will most certainly cause an apocalypse.
This is an oxymoron. According to our usage of electromagnetic radiation since radio was invented, insects would have been wiped from the civilized world 30 years ago. Insects are declining now, but is there a correlation even with radio transmissions? Not that I know. There is habitat destruction, alien species (Vespa velutina is causing serious troubles in Spain), extensive agriculture, even urban areas are becoming more sterile than they were 30 years ago.

Quote:
Without insects, we will not survive.
Indeed, this is true.

Quote:
It is worth remembering that 4G won't go away when 5G comes in--they will run together, or in parallel. So whatever ICNIRP and SCENIHR say, we will be getting more radiation, not less.
The spectrum bands used by all these evil "wireless services" are extremely valuable. What is actually happening is a reshuffling of frequency bands. The spectrum allocated to mobile phones now was being used for other purposes in the past.
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 11th October 2018, 00:05   #1340
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,348
Borjam,

Feynman unearthed an engine technology hoax by physically withholding the electrical power cord that made it work. So what? That's like revealing a magician's trick or some other scam. However, intimating that the entire body of research on EMF effects, many hundreds of journal articles, is a hoax based on your personal, infallible "feasibility test," is, well, ... slightly lacking in humility. But, if that's the way you see things I'm cool with it.

For those curious about Feynman's broad views regarding hierarchies of scientific understanding, however, please see the last section of his lecture on entropy starting at about 16:00. (Make sure to skip the ad.) One doesn't have to be a physicist to understand what he's saying, and his ending thoughts are certainly the productive path to follow. What we're discussing on this thread lies firmly within the boundaries of several scientific hierarchies.

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
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 11th October 2018, 04:20   #1341
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,033
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Before I retired my professional focus was on aerospace safety. From what I've read in the literature and posted earlier on this website, the broad answer to: "Does EMR harm living organisms?" is "Yes." Does it harm humans? "Yes." Is it immediately evident or catastrophic? "No." Is there a comprehensive protocol to evaluate the short- or long-term effects of 5G implementations on humans? "No." Are humans willing to forego the benefits and profits to get the answers?" "No!" Could they if they wanted to? "Maybe." Will the species survive, nonetheless? "Je ne sais pas." :-)

Ed
Ed, I had hoped that you'd be rather more optimistic on that ! :)

I would hope that wherever the science leads us, that those verified voices will be heard, and regulators will do their jobs to first and foremost ensure the safety of the entire population, without regard to the technology's potential utility, and certainly without regard to it's potential profitability.

Regarding Engineering v Science, I recall one of the great scientific communicators (can't remember who - it may have been Tyson, Cox, or even Sagan) quoting the following:

"The best day a scientist will have is when the results come in and they say, not - well that's what we expected, but rather - hmm - well that's strange ......"




Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 11th October 2018, 07:51   #1342
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Feynman unearthed an engine technology hoax by physically withholding the electrical power cord that made it work. So what?
Of course. This is what Feynman thought of that "engine" at the time it seems.

I told them nothing has enough power to go for six months like that, unless it's a nuclear reactor, which it surely is not. 'Fakes are always coming out,' I said, 'and the guy's probably trying to get investors to invest in his engine.'"


Quote:
For those curious about Feynman's broad views regarding hierarchies of scientific understanding, however, please see the last section of his lecture on entropy starting at about 16:00. (Make sure to skip the ad.) One doesn't have to be a physicist to understand what he's saying, and his ending thoughts are certainly the productive path to follow. What we're discussing on this thread lies firmly within the boundaries of several scientific hierarchies.
And he is talking about abstraction levels in order to deal with complexity. No sane person would try to calculate how much acid to add to a solution in order to alter its pH using Quantum Physics.

Feynman's stance on that engine is pretty simple: it can't work unless it's nuclear, it would violate fundamental laws. We all know that he was an engineer

But still what happens in that chemical reaction will not violate fundamental laws. Well, lots of people wish it did, because it would make the world much more interesting, as Hawking said about the Higgs boson.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...boson-particle

As for books on science and "heretics" I can recommend a really good one by Freeman Dyson: "The Scientist as Rebel".

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/b...Johnson.t.html
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 11th October 2018, 23:35   #1343
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,348
@ Chosun.
Quote:
... I would hope that wherever the science leads us, that those verified voices will be heard, and regulators will do their jobs to first and foremost ensure the safety of the entire population, without regard to the technology's potential utility, and certainly without regard to it's potential profitability.
Hope springs eternal. Let us pray.

@ Borjam.
Quote:
Feynman's stance on that engine is pretty simple: it can't work unless it's nuclear, it would violate fundamental laws. We all know that he was an engineer
What Feynman actually said, with his engineer's hat on, was: "I told them nothing has enough power to go for six months like that, unless it's a nuclear reactor, which it surely is not." He did not say "... it would violate fundamental physical laws.," which wouldn't be true, incidentally, because a nuclear reactor would do the job. It just couldn't be engineered to be small enough. This exemplifies the problem of invoking the specter of "violating fundamental physical laws" without being specific about which laws they are or how they are violated.

Note that the story appeared in the Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics, and that his friend Freeman Dyson was/is also a major skeptic — notably about AGW (but, shhhh, let's not get into that.) Dyson's book really is a good read, though, so at least on that, we can agree.

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
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Friday 12th October 2018, 11:12   #1344
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 411
@ Chosun I think that if the authorities were doing their jobs properly we would not be having this conversation; clearly they are not as there are too many vested interests and Big Wireless is now using all the same tactics as the tobacco, oil and pharmaceutical industries have used so successfully in the past. You didn't see mention of a satellite matrix in the article on 5G in cars because it is not there, except by inference. There is no other way that self-driving cars could be used outside of urban areas and 5G highways without a satellite matrix. See my further comments below.

With regard to chemtrails, a bit off-subject but I just wanted to point out that weather modification programs have been around for a very long time; I remember talk of "seeding the clouds" to make it rain back when I was in my early teens. I was very scornful of the "chemtrails" hysteria until I realized that what people meant was weather modification, and there appears to be a great deal of that going on--I looked it up and found a list of which types of programs are going on in various countries--there's quite a lot. There are even private companies that will do weather modification for farmers, etc.--they advertise on the Internet. Since weather modification programs involve spraying at high(ish) altitudes with various substances including heavy metals, which will inevitably come back down to earth and enter the soil and the ground water (there are a number of videos on YouTube with people giving evidence to the US Congress about this) I have to say that I think such activities are extremely stupid and potentially very dangerous. It's not something I know much about, but like EMR, it is messing with the natural order of things, man thinking he can control nature, and I suspect that it too will turn around and bite us in the bum.

@ Borjam As usual I see that I have not got through to you, but let me point out one thing for you to consider: if EMR can have beneficial effects, which I think you will grant, then you must concede that EMR has effects. The logical corollary to that is that is that bad effects are equally possible. Your position is only tenable if EMR has no effects, either good or bad. Did you ever look at the Blank and Goodman papers? You are very stuck on radio waves, whereas all the evidence points to increasing harm with shorter wavelengths. I am not disputing the potential usefulness of EMR applications (radio, radar, whatever) or their commercial value, but the price in terms of human and environmental health outweighs either of these. See my comments below.

@ Paul Longland I think that if you read the many studies posted on this forum you would find that that the argument that EMR damages living organisms does indeed stack up, and if you read them you would interpret many of the things you observe about the world from a very different perspective. Ed put it very nicely, so I won't belabour the point. See my comments below.

@ All If you look about you, if you listen to what people are saying about how they feel and what ails them and compare that to the affects of EMR which are enumerated in so much of the literature warning that EMR has serious health effects, you will see a pattern emerging. I have said before that in casual conversation people tell me they are experiencing diverse symptoms including inability to sleep, tiredness in spite of sleeping, fatigue, depression, headaches, confusion, and inability to remember things. These all all common symptoms
associated with EMR and especially Wi-Fi. A number of people on this forum have mentioned depression, for that matter. It seems to affect men more than it does women.

In the UK, Theresa May has just created a new minister for suicide prevention. She did this because suicide is now the leading cause of death in the UK for men under 40. Think about this for a moment, because the creation of a cabinet post for suicide prevention is an acknowledgement that there is a huge and growing problem. Suicide numbers are growing along with the proliferation of Wi-Fi in homes and in public places. Depression, when severe, can lead to suicide. EMR and Wi-Fi are known to cause depression. With more and more public Wi-Fi being introduced, and more and more homes using Wi-Fi instead of wired connections, suicides are likely to increase. Just over a year ago there was a much-publicized case of a 15 year old girl in the UK who committed suicide because the Wi-Fi in school was intolerable. There have been other cases as well, where the suicide note specifically blamed Wi-Fi. Yet recognition that Wi-Fi is a public health hazard is slow in coming, despite vocal warnings from people like Martin Pall and Barrie Trower.

Yesterday I went to see our local ear, nose and throat specialist. At the end of the visit, I asked him if he was seeing an increase in acoustic neuromas, one of the two main types of tumor which are associated with mobile phone use. He told me that yes, he was seeing a marked increase in acoustic neuromas in recent years, and that the number of people who have them is very high in proportion to the population here. He also said that all the doctors in his specialty are seeing vastly increased numbers of acoustic neuromas, and that they are aware that this is associated with radiation from mobile phone use.

This is, you might say, from the horse's mouth. A real live doctor who is in a position to know how many actual patients have acoustic neuromas is saying that too many people have them, and that the numbers are increasing, and that they are associated with cell phone use. Doctors all over the world are seeing, and treating, ailments which are being caused by cell phone use and wireless technologies, yet bodies like ICNIRP and SCENIHR maintain that EMR is harmless at the levels which they have determined are "safe."

Acoustic neuromas are tumours. They are benign, but they are tumors. They press on the brain and often have to be surgically removed. It is definitely not good to get one. Yet more and more people will get them unless standards-setting bodies like ICNIRP recognize that EMR can cause harm without heating tissue.

The evidence that EMR is having affects on human health does exist if you look for it and join up the dots. It is also affecting birds, insects, plants and animals. Again, you have to compare what is happening with the list of damage that EMR can do: cause oxidative stress, DNA damage, etc. It is there if you look. Governments are not looking, or are looking the other way, because wireless technologies are so profitable. However, governments will end up footing the bill for a massive public health crisis: falling fertility rates affecting demographics, people who are too ill to work, and public health care costs.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 12th October 2018, 12:03   #1345
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 15,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post

In the UK, Theresa May has just created a new minister for suicide prevention. She did this because suicide is now the leading cause of death in the UK for men under 40. Think about this for a moment, because the creation of a cabinet post for suicide prevention is an acknowledgement that there is a huge and growing problem. Suicide numbers are growing along with the proliferation of Wi-Fi in homes and in public places.
Expert in suicide too now? You have jumped on a statistic to hijack it for your cause. And, once again, you have got it wrong. And certainly wrong to directly link suicides to the growth of wifi - to do this is a disservice to those in the field.

I work with one of the leading professionals in the field of suicide prevention in Europe (and it also has to be mentioned that Lithuania has one of the highest suicide rates in the world). Contrary to your claim, suicide numbers have fallen in many European countries in the same period that wifi has appeared and proliferated.

In the UK case that you allude too, I stand to be corrected, but I believe numbers have not increased overall - the UK male suicide rate in 2017 was of 15.5 deaths/ 100,000, one of the lowest totals for over 30 years, the UK female rate was 4.9 deaths/100,000, a figure consistent for over a decade. That it remains a problem however and deserves the appointment of a minister is without doubt.

Elsewhere, several countries with historically high rates have seen significant declines in rates in the period that wifi has coincidentally expanded - for example, from one of the highest rates in Europe in the 1990s, Finland has seen the rate halve since then. Even in Lithuania's case, a country with both historically very high suicide rates and continuing high numbers, the rate has seen consistent decline, again coinciding with the period of expansion of wifi/4G across the country - for the latest years, 30.41 suicides/100,000 in 2015, 28.3/100,000 in 2016 and 26/100,000 in 2017.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website
Jos Stratford is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 12th October 2018, 13:39   #1346
viator
Registered User
 
viator's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ All If you look about you, if you listen to what people are saying about how they feel and what ails them and compare that to the affects of EMR which are enumerated in so much of the literature warning that EMR has serious health effects, you will see a pattern emerging. I have said before that in casual conversation people tell me they are experiencing diverse symptoms including inability to sleep, tiredness in spite of sleeping, fatigue, depression, headaches, confusion, and inability to remember things. These all all common symptoms
associated with EMR and especially Wi-Fi. A number of people on this forum have mentioned depression, for that matter. It seems to affect men more than it does women.
You've left out other health issues which have been increasing over the last few decades coinciding with the growth of mobile networks like hypertension, high cholestrol levels, diabetes and obesity - better explanations for the
symptoms you give than EMR but presumably you'd blame these on EMR as well.
__________________
Last Lifer: Beaudouin's Snake Eagle (#3796, Jun 22, '18)
Top 3 Countries: Indonesia (680), Thailand (576), China (568)
Last 2018 Bird: Green-backed Flycatcher (#786, Dec 1)
www.viatorphoto.com/wildlife_galleries/birds
viator is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 12th October 2018, 13:41   #1347
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 411
@ Jos The point is that suicide is the top cause of death in the UK for men under 40. Suicides are up in Greece, a country where traditionally very few people commit suicide. Numbers have always been high in Scandinavia and the Baltics, probably related to the lack of light and vitamin D during long winters.

@ viator Yes, I would include these as well since EMR affects endocrine function, as is demonstrated in a great many studies. See the various papers by Martin Pall on ths thread for details.

Last edited by Purple Heron : Friday 12th October 2018 at 13:43.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 12th October 2018, 15:27   #1348
Borjam
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Algorta Spain
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
@ Borjam.

What Feynman actually said, with his engineer's hat on, was: "I told them nothing has enough power to go for six months like that, unless it's a nuclear reactor, which it surely is not." He did not say "... it would violate fundamental physical laws.," which wouldn't be true, incidentally, because a nuclear reactor would do the job. It just couldn't be engineered to be small enough. This exemplifies the problem of invoking the specter of "violating fundamental physical laws" without being specific about which laws they are or how they are violated.
Now that's interesting! So, he claimed that it wouldn't be possible unless nuclear because engineer. Nice!

Quote:
Note that the story appeared in the Journal of the Southern Californian Skeptics, and that his friend Freeman Dyson was/is also a major skeptic — notably about AGW (but, shhhh, let's not get into that.) Dyson's book really is a good read, though, so at least on that, we can agree.
And so?
Borjam is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 12th October 2018, 20:12   #1349
Jos Stratford
Beast from the East
 
Jos Stratford's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Exile in Eastern Europe
Posts: 15,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Heron View Post
@ Jos The point is that suicide is the top cause of death in the UK for men under 40. Suicides are up in Greece, a country where traditionally very few people commit suicide. Numbers have always been high in Scandinavia and the Baltics, probably related to the lack of light and vitamin D during long winters.
The point is you were wrong - suicide has decreased overall, significantly in several countries, in the period that wifi/4G has proliferated.

There are vast quantities of research investigating risk factors linked to suicide - you of course failed to mention any of this, just linking to your hobby horse instead.

As for your comments about the Baltics, better you stick to something you know - you are wrong again.
__________________
For photographs and articles, Lithuania and beyond, click here for my website
Jos Stratford is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 13th October 2018, 13:27   #1350
Purple Heron
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 411
@ Jos While not an expert, it is a subject that concerns me since I lost my little sister to suicide some years ago. EMR and especially Wi-Fi are linked to depression, and depression all too often leads to suicide. I have attached s document by Martin Pall--see page 5, point 3 for neurological/neuropsychiatric effects. Pages 9 and 10 list the studies he refers to.

It would be foolish to overlook any factor that causes depression, whatever the statistics are doing, because doing so may cost someone his or her life needlessly. Online bullying is another factor that leads to depression. With the proliferation of Wi-Fi hotspots, Wi-Fi in public places, ever stronger home Wi-Fi routers, etc.,--plus people spending ever-increasing amounts of time online rather than outdoors in the real world--it is more than likely that more people will experience depression, some badly enough to take their own lives.

I realize you dislike me personally. However, you are allowing that to blind you to a very serious issue that should not be ignored by someone who is allegedly interested in preventing suicides. This is not my field but I can put you in touch with people who know a lot more about this area than I do. If you are interested, send me a private message.

Last edited by Purple Heron : Saturday 13th October 2018 at 13:39.
Purple Heron is offline  
Reply With Quote
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 18:09
What birds can harm humans scuba0095 Birds & Birding 40 Friday 26th May 2006 19:09
Do feeders do more harm or good? cavan wood Garden Birds, Bird Feeding & Nestboxes 14 Tuesday 17th May 2005 15:19
The Living House, The Living Garden George Ordish Richard D Books, Magazines, Publications, Video & DVD 3 Tuesday 5th October 2004 14:59

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.19199204 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:35.