The idiotic claims in TFA about more radiation on a city bus were entertaining too.
More SOLAR radiation behind the large non-tinted glass of a city bus probably puts you at higher risk for skin cancer, than the miniscule additional RF EM fields from some dude's cell phone adds heating risk 5 feet away.
Plenty of people working in higher RF fields at these same frequencies for many decades now aren't dropping like flies, either. (Cell site technicians, anyone?)
And most homes have at least a cordless phone (900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz) at similar power levels, and the average idiot posting to Slashdot about the "dangers" of cell phone radiation is probably doing it with a 150mW 2.4 GHz transmitter sitting on their lap (WiFi).
Actually the AMPS system was just turned off this year. Not "quite a while ago".
But I fully agree with you that the RF frequencies used have been in use since the 1960's and heavy use since the 1970's and there's no evidence that people working in MUCH higher RF field levels at the same frequencies as cell phones, are any worse off for the experience.
Transmitters (and people working in MUCH higher RF fields) at these frequencies have been around since the 1960's.
None of those folks have dropped dead yet in any statistically significant numbers.
And the average home has at least one cordless phone on 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, or 5.8 GHz at similar power levels and conversations on those are often FAR longer than conversations on cell phones.
The cell phone is just the boogie-man. Transmitters in this power level and frequency ranges have been in use for a couple of generations of people now, with none of them showing any adverse effects.
Ever use a regular cordless phone? (800 MHz, 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz)
Or a WiFi device? (2.4 GHz)
There's just no evidence that the frequencies used by a cell phone are any more "dangerous" than these other common devices... but the myths persist.
Transmitters with MUCH higher power and RF fields have been worked on and around by technicians at these frequencies for at least five decades. None of those folks have any statistically significant increase in cancer or anything else, and they're not dropping like flies.
Not to mention that there's already been a few generations of folks who work in much higher RF fields at these same frequencies (including cell site technicians) who aren't dropping like flies.
RF at 800 MHz through 3 GHz isn't exactly new technology. Seen any old AT&T Long Lines guys growing any extra body parts as they head into retirement?
People are idiots. They'll look you straight in the eye and tell you their cell phone is killing them, while talking for hours on a 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, or 5.8 GHz cordless phone and make the claim to Slashdot via a 150 mW 2.4 GHz WiFi transmitter sitting on their lap.
And what's that got to do with the recent trend to not only stop second-hand smoke in public places where the majority need to go, but privately owned businesses where anyone who doesn't want to be there, can LEAVE?
Studies or no studies, the NIMBYs freedom-quelling is getting old. Ask anyone with a Nazi home-owner's association how much they're enjoying that mindset after they've been there for a few years.
Sure the neighborhood looks great, but everyone's at each other's throats, ready to kill each other over whether or not five or six weeds are pulled.
Guess what... that's not a NEIGHBORHOOD.
Ironically, the wackos who want all smoking banned everywhere are also the folks who will scream about how DIVERSITY is important. Uh-huh.
Leave the restaurant and bar owners who want to cater to smokers alone. And don't patronize their businesses if you don't want to. But don't BAN them from offering up their place of business as a haven for smokers if they WANT to.
There were plenty of those places of business with NO SMOKING signs up on their own without asshole NIMBYs getting laws passed.
There are no positive effects of you posting on Slashdot other than your own enjoyment either, so we should ban websites too -- using that logic.
It's called Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
You didn't answer his question -- but the answer is obvious. He doesn't drive a car, but he's in the MINORITY. The majority rules... even if by mob tactics and/or tyranny.
Making it illegal in society to smoke in public places where the owner, patrons, and everyone walking into the place KNOWS second-hand smoke is present and can LEAVE if they want to -- like restaurants and bars -- is nothing more than tyranny.)
Restaurant owners ALWAYS had the Liberty (option) to post a sign saying "No smoking". And many had. But making it a law banning smoking for those who CHOOSE to smoke for their own enjoyment, is just wrong in a free country.
The majority are always allowed to do stupid, dangerous things that minorities aren't allowed to by law.
Ahh it started off badly, but you got to the right solution -- your enjoyment of your "clean air" is your problem. Don't like the smokers, take responsibility and move. Good show.
At least you're not out beating the streets to ban their things they enjoy and you realize that you're an adult and have other options instead.
Too bad the anti-smoking lobbyists and NIMBYs couldn't have the level of self-reliance you have.
I get such a kick out of those who will say cell phones for extended periods are "probably unsafe" and then talk on a 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz or 5.8 GHz cordless phone for hours on end.
(And no, I'm not of the belief that cell phone RF is in any way dangerous at the levels cell phones are allowed to transmit at. I just LOVE that cell phones are the boogie-man, and cordless phones on the same bands and similar power levels are not mentioned by the conspiracy theorists.)
I think his point was that you're DISTRACTED, not that you need to physically turn a wheel. Pay attention. (Ironic that you missed it, were you talking on the phone when you posted that?)
I haven't seen any broadcast engineers (who often spend days at a time at multi-megawatt sites -- granted on different frequency bands, but a MUCH higher RF output, hundreds if not thousands of orders of magnitude higher than anything a cell phone user puts themselves through -- dropping dead of cancer.
Same for the generation of microwave engineers who worked on the AT&T "Long Lines" networks and built a little company once known as MCI (Microwave Communications, Inc.), now Verizon Business...
Or the generation of cell site TECHS who work on the much higher gain and higher power cellular site transmitters...
All of those folks are at MUCH higher risk from RF energy than a typical cell phone user, and there's NO statistical evidence that they're adversely affected.
Anecdotally, I do know one broadcast engineer who says he never used birth control during his time in broadcast, and only started having kids naturally with his wife after he left the business. But I also personally know another (Catholic) RF engineer who has six or seven (I lost count) kids, and he's always worked in the industry.
So... whatever. The point is... there's people (large numbers of them) that could be used for studies of how cellular phone type RF frequencies at high power levels might be dangerous out there... and none of that demographic are dropping like flies.
So your concerns are likely quite unfounded.
Do I believe that different people are differently affected by RF? Yes. Do we fully understand all of the effects of RF? No. But is the risk significantly higher for cancer or anything else for the flea-power cellular microwave frequencies? No.
Your understanding of antenna theory is highly flawed. Smaller does not mean more gain, or any "concentation" of signal.
However, I do have to agree with you about the sentiment that you'd rather be connected to the world, not having the world connected to you.
The mental stress too many people put on THEMSELVES to answer cell phones, bustle around, and generally be too busy is far more likely to kill them than their cell phone's signal.
Huh? You get the same amount of RF radiated from a phone with a crappy antenna versus a well-matched high-gain antenna?
No.
Antenna gain in the direction desired is measured against a reference, usually a "perfect" antenna which is point-in-space theoretical antenna that can't be duplicated in the real-world called an isotropic radiator, thus a measurement in dBi (decibels above isotropic) or versus a real but still theoretical (due to the fact that you can't make a perfect one) dipole antenna, which yields a measurement in dBd.
A better antenna radiating in the direction you want the RF signal to go is a higher number of dB in dBi or dBd.
A change in just a dB at the high(ish) frequencies that most cell phones use is a SIGNIFICANT change in that signal's ability to be received by the receiver at the cell site servicing your call.
Since the cellular network has control over your phone's power output level, it will command your phone to lower power if your signal is better and raise it if your signal is bad at the receiver on the cell tower.
So putting a better antenna on any phone that radiates RF better toward the tower servicing your call often results in lower power output from the phone, but no difference in the quality of the call.
If what you're saying is "it takes the same amount of RF energy to be heard by the same cell tower from the same location" you're correct, but if you're saying there aren't any benefits from having a better antenna, you're only partially correct.
You'll have much longer battery life, the phone's transmitter will operate at a lower power level, and the "link margin" from your phone to the site will be greater with a better antenna -- if outside interference or other problems "bother" the phone's communication with the tower, the tower can command a much smaller jump in power from your phone if a good antenna gives you a 10X jump in gain versus a 2X jump in gain, as an oversimplified example.
Seeing this in dB which is a logarithmic scale, helps to see it. RF receivers "hear" in dB, so to speak.
A better antenna also helps on the receiving end, making antenna gain a "double-bang" for the buck versus just pumping more power into a bad antenna.
Microwave ovens transmit at a frequency near 2.45 GHz for a very good reason -- it's one of the frequencies that vibrates (resonant) with water molecules.
Vibrate water molecules. Make water hot inside food. Cooked food.
The "microwave meter" typically sold for testing microwave oven leakage typically employ a very crude diode detector circuit that is very broadbanded and which will react to all sorts of non-dangerous frequencies.
They do their "job" of detecting microwave leaks well enough to sell them as a product, but they don't discriminate between many other nearby microwave frequencies and the 2.4 GHz waves coming from a leaky microwave oven.
I guess the fact that sociopaths do strange things, like.... oh, perhaps murder/suicide at his former residence that he no longer owns... might be a reason for concern when an escaped convict is running around.
If the people that owned the home or others had tried to stop him, how many others could he have EASILY hurt if he was already suicidal?
I guess your snarky little comment acting like a group named a "Safe Streets Task Force" was a bad idea, didn't stand up to the reality, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, you've got your boss and his VP working for you now? Impressive!
According to this MIT study, no.
Bravo!
The idiotic claims in TFA about more radiation on a city bus were entertaining too.
More SOLAR radiation behind the large non-tinted glass of a city bus probably puts you at higher risk for skin cancer, than the miniscule additional RF EM fields from some dude's cell phone adds heating risk 5 feet away.
Plenty of people working in higher RF fields at these same frequencies for many decades now aren't dropping like flies, either. (Cell site technicians, anyone?)
And most homes have at least a cordless phone (900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz) at similar power levels, and the average idiot posting to Slashdot about the "dangers" of cell phone radiation is probably doing it with a 150mW 2.4 GHz transmitter sitting on their lap (WiFi).
Actually the AMPS system was just turned off this year. Not "quite a while ago".
But I fully agree with you that the RF frequencies used have been in use since the 1960's and heavy use since the 1970's and there's no evidence that people working in MUCH higher RF field levels at the same frequencies as cell phones, are any worse off for the experience.
Transmitters (and people working in MUCH higher RF fields) at these frequencies have been around since the 1960's.
None of those folks have dropped dead yet in any statistically significant numbers.
And the average home has at least one cordless phone on 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, or 5.8 GHz at similar power levels and conversations on those are often FAR longer than conversations on cell phones.
The cell phone is just the boogie-man. Transmitters in this power level and frequency ranges have been in use for a couple of generations of people now, with none of them showing any adverse effects.
Ever use a regular cordless phone? (800 MHz, 2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz)
Or a WiFi device? (2.4 GHz)
There's just no evidence that the frequencies used by a cell phone are any more "dangerous" than these other common devices... but the myths persist.
Transmitters with MUCH higher power and RF fields have been worked on and around by technicians at these frequencies for at least five decades. None of those folks have any statistically significant increase in cancer or anything else, and they're not dropping like flies.
The evidence simply isn't THERE. It's fiction.
Not to mention that there's already been a few generations of folks who work in much higher RF fields at these same frequencies (including cell site technicians) who aren't dropping like flies.
RF at 800 MHz through 3 GHz isn't exactly new technology. Seen any old AT&T Long Lines guys growing any extra body parts as they head into retirement?
People are idiots. They'll look you straight in the eye and tell you their cell phone is killing them, while talking for hours on a 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, or 5.8 GHz cordless phone and make the claim to Slashdot via a 150 mW 2.4 GHz WiFi transmitter sitting on their lap.
Sigh...
There are MANY people who work around MUCH BIGGER RF fields at those frequencies and have for DECADES.
(Including the cell tower workers. Duh.)
Plenty of them would be dead by now and a statistically notable connection would have been made.
And what's that got to do with the recent trend to not only stop second-hand smoke in public places where the majority need to go, but privately owned businesses where anyone who doesn't want to be there, can LEAVE?
Studies or no studies, the NIMBYs freedom-quelling is getting old. Ask anyone with a Nazi home-owner's association how much they're enjoying that mindset after they've been there for a few years.
Sure the neighborhood looks great, but everyone's at each other's throats, ready to kill each other over whether or not five or six weeds are pulled.
Guess what... that's not a NEIGHBORHOOD.
Ironically, the wackos who want all smoking banned everywhere are also the folks who will scream about how DIVERSITY is important. Uh-huh.
Leave the restaurant and bar owners who want to cater to smokers alone. And don't patronize their businesses if you don't want to. But don't BAN them from offering up their place of business as a haven for smokers if they WANT to.
There were plenty of those places of business with NO SMOKING signs up on their own without asshole NIMBYs getting laws passed.
There are no positive effects of you posting on Slashdot other than your own enjoyment either, so we should ban websites too -- using that logic.
It's called Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
You didn't answer his question -- but the answer is obvious. He doesn't drive a car, but he's in the MINORITY. The majority rules... even if by mob tactics and/or tyranny.
Making it illegal in society to smoke in public places where the owner, patrons, and everyone walking into the place KNOWS second-hand smoke is present and can LEAVE if they want to -- like restaurants and bars -- is nothing more than tyranny.)
Restaurant owners ALWAYS had the Liberty (option) to post a sign saying "No smoking". And many had. But making it a law banning smoking for those who CHOOSE to smoke for their own enjoyment, is just wrong in a free country.
The majority are always allowed to do stupid, dangerous things that minorities aren't allowed to by law.
Ahh it started off badly, but you got to the right solution -- your enjoyment of your "clean air" is your problem. Don't like the smokers, take responsibility and move. Good show.
At least you're not out beating the streets to ban their things they enjoy and you realize that you're an adult and have other options instead.
Too bad the anti-smoking lobbyists and NIMBYs couldn't have the level of self-reliance you have.
Whatever the uneducated majority wants, apparently.
I get such a kick out of those who will say cell phones for extended periods are "probably unsafe" and then talk on a 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz or 5.8 GHz cordless phone for hours on end.
(And no, I'm not of the belief that cell phone RF is in any way dangerous at the levels cell phones are allowed to transmit at. I just LOVE that cell phones are the boogie-man, and cordless phones on the same bands and similar power levels are not mentioned by the conspiracy theorists.)
I think his point was that you're DISTRACTED, not that you need to physically turn a wheel. Pay attention. (Ironic that you missed it, were you talking on the phone when you posted that?)
Uhh, I came out there on a business trip to Southfield a number of years ago.
I can't say I saw anything in Detroit that would make me want to move there.
Yeah, because the northeast states are a panacea of cleanliness.
I believe you have a city called "New York" somewhere in the northeast?
That was awesome. Wish I hadn't commented so I could mod you up.
I haven't seen any broadcast engineers (who often spend days at a time at multi-megawatt sites -- granted on different frequency bands, but a MUCH higher RF output, hundreds if not thousands of orders of magnitude higher than anything a cell phone user puts themselves through -- dropping dead of cancer.
Same for the generation of microwave engineers who worked on the AT&T "Long Lines" networks and built a little company once known as MCI (Microwave Communications, Inc.), now Verizon Business...
Or the generation of cell site TECHS who work on the much higher gain and higher power cellular site transmitters...
All of those folks are at MUCH higher risk from RF energy than a typical cell phone user, and there's NO statistical evidence that they're adversely affected.
Anecdotally, I do know one broadcast engineer who says he never used birth control during his time in broadcast, and only started having kids naturally with his wife after he left the business. But I also personally know another (Catholic) RF engineer who has six or seven (I lost count) kids, and he's always worked in the industry.
So... whatever. The point is... there's people (large numbers of them) that could be used for studies of how cellular phone type RF frequencies at high power levels might be dangerous out there... and none of that demographic are dropping like flies.
So your concerns are likely quite unfounded.
Do I believe that different people are differently affected by RF? Yes. Do we fully understand all of the effects of RF? No. But is the risk significantly higher for cancer or anything else for the flea-power cellular microwave frequencies? No.
Your understanding of antenna theory is highly flawed. Smaller does not mean more gain, or any "concentation" of signal.
However, I do have to agree with you about the sentiment that you'd rather be connected to the world, not having the world connected to you.
The mental stress too many people put on THEMSELVES to answer cell phones, bustle around, and generally be too busy is far more likely to kill them than their cell phone's signal.
Huh? You get the same amount of RF radiated from a phone with a crappy antenna versus a well-matched high-gain antenna?
No.
Antenna gain in the direction desired is measured against a reference, usually a "perfect" antenna which is point-in-space theoretical antenna that can't be duplicated in the real-world called an isotropic radiator, thus a measurement in dBi (decibels above isotropic) or versus a real but still theoretical (due to the fact that you can't make a perfect one) dipole antenna, which yields a measurement in dBd.
A better antenna radiating in the direction you want the RF signal to go is a higher number of dB in dBi or dBd.
A change in just a dB at the high(ish) frequencies that most cell phones use is a SIGNIFICANT change in that signal's ability to be received by the receiver at the cell site servicing your call.
Since the cellular network has control over your phone's power output level, it will command your phone to lower power if your signal is better and raise it if your signal is bad at the receiver on the cell tower.
So putting a better antenna on any phone that radiates RF better toward the tower servicing your call often results in lower power output from the phone, but no difference in the quality of the call.
If what you're saying is "it takes the same amount of RF energy to be heard by the same cell tower from the same location" you're correct, but if you're saying there aren't any benefits from having a better antenna, you're only partially correct.
You'll have much longer battery life, the phone's transmitter will operate at a lower power level, and the "link margin" from your phone to the site will be greater with a better antenna -- if outside interference or other problems "bother" the phone's communication with the tower, the tower can command a much smaller jump in power from your phone if a good antenna gives you a 10X jump in gain versus a 2X jump in gain, as an oversimplified example.
Seeing this in dB which is a logarithmic scale, helps to see it. RF receivers "hear" in dB, so to speak.
A better antenna also helps on the receiving end, making antenna gain a "double-bang" for the buck versus just pumping more power into a bad antenna.
Nope.
Microwave ovens transmit at a frequency near 2.45 GHz for a very good reason -- it's one of the frequencies that vibrates (resonant) with water molecules.
Vibrate water molecules. Make water hot inside food. Cooked food.
The "microwave meter" typically sold for testing microwave oven leakage typically employ a very crude diode detector circuit that is very broadbanded and which will react to all sorts of non-dangerous frequencies.
They do their "job" of detecting microwave leaks well enough to sell them as a product, but they don't discriminate between many other nearby microwave frequencies and the 2.4 GHz waves coming from a leaky microwave oven.
I never have gotten that "go sleep on the couch" thing.
On the one hand I paid for that bed, so I'm sleeping in it whenever I want.
On the other hand, I bought the couch too, and it's comfy for sleeping.
Who cares? I'll sleep anywhere...
Awesome mods... "Insightful" on a command from a homophobe that lives with his transvestite dad. That's just perfect.
It was ever high enough to fall? Right...
I guess the fact that sociopaths do strange things, like .... oh, perhaps murder/suicide at his former residence that he no longer owns... might be a reason for concern when an escaped convict is running around.
If the people that owned the home or others had tried to stop him, how many others could he have EASILY hurt if he was already suicidal?
I guess your snarky little comment acting like a group named a "Safe Streets Task Force" was a bad idea, didn't stand up to the reality, eh?