Discussion in 'Free Fire Zone' started by OpanaPointer, May 7, 2019.
I can't believe it's not butter.
There you go again making unwarranted assumptions. The first paper I found mentioned a 20% (not 20dB) increase in the SAR. This paper:
mentions increases of 100-300%. Do hardly "eyes boiled hard". I do still find it interesting that you said:
And now you are saying that if you wear glasses they are deadly ....
Incidently found this site which seems to have a pretty good summary of things:
Mobile Phone and Health
Well, okay then.
Unfortunately, I can't find there any 20 percent. They say at the beginning the absorbed power with glasses is about 3.1–4.5 times (about 6dB) which is actually isn't much.
They concern themselves with phones, wifi routers, and similar, low power devices. i.e. 0.1W max, and they are playing it extremely safe, paranoid even.
But even people wearing hundreds of glasses will not be hurt by 0.1W.
And it seems glasses aren't good at focusing frequencies used by such devices.
Glasses are unsafe around powerfull transmitters and radars, no around home devices.
20 percent is actually nothing, we can't hear 20 percent difference in loudness, or see such a difference in brightness.
This is because our world and our senses are mostly logarithmic not linear.
The 20% was on a different page that I can't seem to find anymore. The academic paper I'd consider to be of more merit in any case. I also wouldn't want to be in the near field of a transmitter of any significant power while it was radiating with or without glasses.
who'd have thunk, this thread would turn into some really good info/reading.
dont snubb it out.
The big transmitters aren't that dangerous, a 100kW transmitter with an omnidirectional antenna deposit in your body 10 meters away less energy than the sun on a sunny day.
It will be less safe if you put a magnifying glass between the sun and your body, or a magnifying radio waves piece of metal between the antenna and your body.
Still, the pain will warn you that something is wrong. You can feel it, you can see the bright spot.
Unless it's spectacles and your eyes.
Your eyes can't see radio waves and can't feel the pain.
Military radars can be in the Megawatt range and are definitely not omnidirectional.
Radar Exposure Has Little Effect on Mortality of Korean War Veterans
(National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health)
A long-term study of U.S. Navy veterans found little increased disease risk associated with exposure to radar. The report, which involved over 40 years of follow-up, is published in the May issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology*.
There has long been public concern that exposure to low energy, non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, including that associated with power lines, electrical appliances, cellular telephones and radar, may have significant health effects. Unlike higher energy, ionizing radiation (such as X-rays), which has been linked to increased cancer risks, lower energy radiation has shown no consistent association.
wasn't there a class action with police handheld radars...something about radar gun resting on lap of officers caused testicular cancer.
Cops' radar guns emit 36 GHz frequency radiation that causes testicular cancer – who knew?
Unfortunately, that is a conspiracy theory and fake news website, chemtrails and more, that mostly sells dietary supplements.
"The long trail of dead bodies & false flags that follow around Bill & Hillary Clinton" is maybe not bad, but generally it's a lot worse.
LONG-TERM EXPOSURE TO MICROWAVE RADIATION PROVOKES CANCER GROWTH: EVIDENCES FROM RADARS AND MOBILE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS | Experimental oncology
The article is based on a genuine study done in the early 90's. IIRC out of some 340 policemen studied, 6 developed testicular cancer with the only common link being the radar gun use.
The only common link found, you mean.
If that were true, after 30 years of the massive use of cellphones all around the planet, bodies of their victims should have been visible everywhere.
It's low-quality research from low-quality universities. Today if you want a grant easily it's sufficient to declare you want to research global warming or electromagnetic radiation provoking cancer growth.
The statement Almost two times more cases of cancer were indicated in the high-exposed American naval personnel served during the Korean War (1950—1954) () is directly denied by the National Cancer Institute above (Radar Exposure Has Little Effect on Mortality of Korean War Veterans.)
Despite massive use of cellphones, in the US the number of new cases of cancer actually declined:
thank you. interesting stuff.
wonder how long people smoked cigarettes before realizing the danger...20- 30 years before symptoms? sometimes never.
The number of new cases of brain cancer has declined too (I don't suppose cellphones cause rectal cancer) and it's today 6.4 per 100,000 men and women per year.
More or less it's the probability of dying from a snake bite.
It means that even in this case, despite billions and billions of cellphones and wifi access points, our environment is healthier than twenty years ago.
um, maybe too spicey of a meatball.