BigDumbDinosaur wrote:
It almost seems that for every argument that seeks to prove that close-in exposure to high frequency radiation will kill you/maim you/hurt your dog/wilt the flowers, etc., there is an opposing argument that proposes that it's all Chicken Little reaction to a theoretical risk.
During my service in the U.S. Navy, I was well aware of the dangers of direct exposure to the microwave output of radar sets, especially the radar used on gun directors, which operated at many gigahertz and was powerful enough to take out seagulls at hundreds of feet. However, these were sources operating at tens to hundreds of kilowatts of radiated power—the air search radar on our ship radiated 750 KW at full power! A modern cell phone's radiation is minuscule in comparison. Ditto for the output of wifi routers, medical telemetry systems (I've been on those a few times), and a host of other gadgets that generate and, by design, radiate RF energy. These devices, especially cell phones, have been commonplace since the 1990s, and a lot of data regarding radiation hazards has been gathered and analyzed.
At this time, I tend to brand it as a theoretical risk, as science has not been able to conclusively link daily exposure to low-level RF radiation with known health maladies. Extended studies done during the latter 1990s, especially in Sweden, where there was considerable concern about X-ray and other radiation emanating from the CRTs in radar 'scopes and large video monitors (both of which use very high secondary anode voltages to propel the electrons into the screen corners), failed to establish any link between said radiation and health issues. The conclusion was the radiation levels were too low to be a concern.
As Ed noted, there are bound to be exceptions in the population. However, they are sufficiently rare as to be dismissed as aberrations, not commonplace occurrences.
That book makes a good point that essentially all of the studies have been funded by power companies. Most of those studies are clearly setting out to prove that there is no health issue. All of those studies can be dismissed as bogus.
Our society has a huge investment in electrical power. If we can't have power lines, how will we get our electricity? If we can't have electricity, civilization will collapse. Realistically, nobody is going to step forward and say that there is a health issue.
barrym95838 wrote:
I think that I understand the gist of Garth's linked videos ... the documented hazard is not all about the intensity, but the combination of proximity, frequency, and pulse signature ... I say, as I light up my tenth cigarette of the day ...
Mike B.
The effects are subtle. We are not talking about: "taking out seagulls at hundreds of feet." The book also says that prolonged exposure to low levels of EM pollution has more of an effect than short and intermittent exposure to high levels of EM pollution --- of course, prolonged exposure to high levels of EM pollution will seriously screw you up.
The symptoms are also not what you would expect intuitively. Food alergies are very common. Experiencing a metallic taste is common. Various kinds of hyper-sensitivity result. And, of course, there are hallucinations involving aliens. How is any of this going to be measured in a scientific study?
Also, having experienced an electrical shock will also result in similar symptoms afterwards, perhaps for the rest of your life. I know a guy who got hit by lightning while operating a track-hoe, and he still suffers from fasciculation years later.
The body uses electricity internally, and nobody really knows very much about how this works. It may be related to the qi. I have read a book on Qi Gong and I do exercises to relieve stress. I also go to an acupuncturist for some health issues I have. How are you going to measure qi in a scientific study? There is no way to measure voltage potentials or current flow inside of the body.
BTW: I doubt that cigarettes cause lung cancer. If you ask people why they smoke, they almost always say that nicotine relieves stress. This implies that they are stressed out, because otherwise why would they need something to relieve stress? It seems more likely to me that stress is what causes cancer --- cigarette smoking is a symptom, not a cause --- saying that cigarette smoking causes cancer is a false correllation.
barrym95838 wrote:
Hugh Aguilar wrote:
... The book was written in 1998, before cell phones were invented. He is mostly talking about power lines, television towers, ham-radio towers, etc ...
s/invented/ubiquitous/
Mike B.
You are right that cell phones had been invented in the 1990s, but weren't ubiquitous yet. My recollection of the 1990s is somewhat hazy --- all I remember are the billboards for "JJ the King of Beepers" (that, and the fact that I was working as a Forth programmer).
That book, "Electric UFOs," doesn't make any mention of cell phones.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Of course, it's slower than if 
Not a peep about magic values like $82 and $62? All in good fun, regardless. 
You couldn't butt-dial it, because it was much too big to sit on. 
