I posted this response already to someone else asking a similar problem.
First of all, let me say that cell phones are such low power that they're inconsequential and the largest studies have confirmed this. The amount of energy we're talking about isn't enough to raise your temperature 1/100th of a degrees even in the worst case, and the temperature of the room and the clothing you wear is a much larger factor.
Second, you're making the cumulative effects argument. But even if you use the cell phone 5 minutes a day, that's 288 times less cumulative exposure. But the phone is 1000 to 1000000 times greater in strength which means 5 minutes of cell phone exposure is orders of magnitude more cumulative energy than a cell tower.
Third, I reject the cumulative effect argument. Can you say that jumping off a 1 foot cliff 100 times is as harmful as jumping off a 100 foot cliff a single time? What if I exposed you to one hour of sunlight but concentrated it down to 5 minutes? Does one hour exposure do the same cumulative damage as the same amount of sunlight given to you in 5 minutes? These examples demonstrate how absurd the cumulative effect argument is.
"What if you don't use a wi-fi AP and only use your cell phone once or twice a day for less than a minute"
First of all, let me say that cell phones are such low power that they're inconsequential and the largest studies have confirmed this. The amount of energy we're talking about isn't enough to raise your temperature 1/100th of a degrees even in the worst case, and the temperature of the room and the clothing you wear is a much larger factor.
Second, you're making the cumulative effects argument. But even if you use the cell phone 5 minutes a day, that's 288 times less cumulative exposure. But the phone is 1000 to 1000000 times greater in strength which means 5 minutes of cell phone exposure is orders of magnitude more cumulative energy than a cell tower.
Third, I reject the cumulative effect argument. Can you say that jumping off a 1 foot cliff 100 times is as harmful as jumping off a 100 foot cliff a single time? What if I exposed you to one hour of sunlight but concentrated it down to 5 minutes? Does one hour exposure do the same cumulative damage as the same amount of sunlight given to you in 5 minutes? These examples demonstrate how absurd the cumulative effect argument is.
I'm not sure I'd call it good advice as it does require that someone wastes $100. I only gave it to this person because it might help him to get the apartment he really wants. Of course after he uses the device for a few days, he'll realize how silly the fear is and probably wonder why he bought it.
Multiple channels don't matter because they're usually pointed in a different direction. Each sector gets its own channel and you can't be in multiple sectors at once. And even if you are exposed by 10 cell tower channels at once, it doesn't overcome the fact that your Wi-Fi AP is probably 100-1000 times stronger, or the fact that your cell phone is 1000-1000000 times stronger.
"Your AP probably transmits at 20-27dBm. A cellular AP probably transmits at 40dBm."
That is true, but you're forgetting the difference in the distance and the inverse square law and the 10 dB loss from just the building. A cell tower will be a minimum of 50 feet from your body while a Wi-Fi AP will be 5 feet from you. That 10-fold difference in distance corresponds to a 100-fold decline in power levels and perhaps a 20 dB drop. So even in worst case, your Wi-Fi AP will most likely have a stronger signal than the cell tower.
Furthermore, remember that Wi-Fi typically operates between -20 dBm and -80 dBm while cell phones are designed to work between -40 dBm and -105 dBm. So Wi-Fi operates with much higher power levels, but your cell phone trumps everything since it's literally a few inches away.
But the cell tower is typically a million times weaker than your own cell phone, and maybe 1000 times weaker even if you're extremely close to the tower. And even the cell phone can't really raise the entire body temperature more than a hundredths of a degrees.
Testicles do in fact disperse heat even more so than the rest of the body to maintain a slightly lower temperature for optimum sperm production. This is why the skin around them will contract and loosen depending on the temperature.
Right, and we're only talking about 2 degrees C increase in temperature for most highly concentrated gram of tissue mass after one hour of exposure to max SAR levels. But those few grams of tissue won't even come close to that level of heating due to the fact that the other 70,000 grams of your body will absorb the heat, not even accounting for the heat loss from sweat. So we're talking about a heat rise of less than a thousandths of a degrees even after one hour of max SAR exposure. Wearing a hat will produce far more heat increase in your head.
A sector antenna typically boosts power levels by 15 dB due to the fact that it "concentrates" the radio waves towards a certain direction. But because of the "boost", the radios in the urban towers reduce their power output considerably. In fact, typical urban power levels are 10 watt ERP (with actual radio power of half a watt) is common (see http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/cellpcs.html).
But this assumes that the sector antennas are aimed directly at his prospective apartment unit. If they're not aimed at him, the power levels are far lower than just the bare.5 watt radios because the power that would have gone towards him are being redirected by the sector antennas. But even if he's in the hot zone for those antennas at 20 feet away, I really doubt his power level is more than -10 dBm which is still really low compared to your own cell phone. Furthermore, having that much signal just means you'll get less overall exposure because your cell phone can use much lower power levels.
Now the original post mentioned "panel antennas" which are highly directional and typically used for backhaul. Those I'm almost certain aren't facing his apartment because that would kind of make those antennas useless since they need a clear line of sight.
The earlier "assessments" were based on weak studies and half truths (http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/half-truths-on-cell-phone-dangers/). All the studies that found potential dangers were based on tiny sample populations. All the studies that showed no danger were based on massive sample populations.
The facts about urban wireless towers is that they're very low power because of the high population density. They use very small cells in urban towers to achieve a very small coverage radius so that they can put up more towers in the city and reuse the same spectrum. Furthermore, just being in-doors cuts the power level 10-fold and I'd really doubt that you're getting more than -40 dBm which is equivalent to 100 nanowatts of power even if you're outside the windows. My Wi-Fi Access Point is 5 feet from me and it's got a power level of -13 dBm which is about 1000 times stronger than a -40 dBm signal. Now if you think that's high, your cell phone probably has a signal strength of +10 dBm which means the power density is 100,000 times stronger than a -40 dBm signal. And if you think the phone is dangerous, check out this article from me http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/sar-ratings-are-not-a-measure-of-radiation/ and this article http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/01/cell-phone-exposure-prevents-or-reverses-alzheimer-in-mice/. So really, worrying about that cellular tower is just silly. If you're really worried about it, buy one of those $100 "Electrosmog" meters and measure the signal strength yourself at various places.
Anyone can claim "movie quality" if we're going by Star Wars Episode 4 (original version) standards. The problem is that movies have obviously gotten a lot better though still not completely realistic. The fact is that real-time rendering will always be vastly inferior to slow rendering because you can throw at least 100 times the hardware and 100 times the time for movie making than any gaming computer. Furthermore, you only need 24 fps for movie making while you need a minimum of 60 fps with an average of 120 fps for a good gaming experience.
Biggest problem I've seen is the speed hacks where someone runs around 100 miles per hour. I've also seen a sniper use some kind of spy-cheat where he can see spies. There was no way for me to get past him as a spy because he'd shoot me every time even if I never bumped anything to disrupt my cloak. I haven't seen any cheats lately though.
First of all, the patents that are granted aren't for the publicly funded R which is pathetic amounts of money to begin with. You're simply making things up to fit your socialist philosophy.
Again, find me a socialist funded program that has developed and given away their intellectual property for the benefit of the world. Show me which socialist nation has donated more free drugs to the developing world than these "evil" corporations.
The problem with government funded drug research is that it's still can't be given away to other nations. Otherwise you too many nations freeloading off of a few nations.
Show me a single nation that innovated in things like pharmaceuticals without Intellectual Property (IP) protection.
The problem with those who complain about IP protection is that if they actually had their way, there wouldn't be any life saving drugs to begin with. IP protections do limit the good that these drugs can do in the short term in the sense that it's only affordable to first-world nations (with the exception of some donations here and there), but those drugs eventually lose their patent protection and become cheap enough for everyone to buy them. Now the typical socialist will argue that those drugs have to be practically given away so that everyone can afford them the minute they're invented. The problem is that socialist policies means no one will spend the billions of dollars necessary to invent these drugs in the first place.
No, some of us heterosexuals prefer natural breasts. If you've ever felt fake ones, especially after they're a year old and the woman has built up quite a bit of tissue scaring and/or it's shaped in a really hideous way where you see a breast on top of a breast, you'd understand.
A true natural C cup is actually pretty impressive especially if it's shaped well with good skin. Now I won't complain if it's a natural D or above, but it becomes very rare and it may not be shaped well e.g., saggy and/or woman is a little too chunky.
Read the article, and watch the video they showed. The researcher showed pictures of the brain tissue and positive effects of the cell phones. It's not a case of mice dying before they develop Alzheimers.
They said they used EQUIVALENT doses in the mice. I'm pretty sure they didn't use the same dose, just an equivalent dose that factors in the size of the mice.
All the data to date with studies following hundreds of thousands of humans for nearly a decade has shown not evidence of cancer, and neither has prior studies on electromagnetic fields. These study did not show a bunch of mice dying of cancer before they developed Alzheimers, it showed that electromagnetic fields from cell phones staved off or even reversed the effects of Alzheimers in these mice.
Not that I would suggest cell phones are dangerous, but Bluetooth field strength is 1000 times weaker.
Cell phones don’t produce dangerous radiation and they produce extremely small amounts of heat energy in the form of radio waves that might heat up a 154 pound person 1/100th of a degrees Celsius after an hour of absorbing 1 watt (which is unlikely to be that high) of radio wave energy from a cell phone.
Folks, this is a very irresponsible headline at slashdot. The Microsoft articles does NOT say hotfix breaks power save and it doesn't even mention turbo, but that it is an either or solution. Microsoft always offers workarounds as an ALTERNATIVE to the hotfix for people who don't want to apply hotfixes. The Microsoft KB article even tells you if you want to keep using those power states, then run the hotfix and make a certain modification to the registry.
This post makes it sound like some kind of cover up and that the fix causes major CPU slowdowns, and that it's on the level of the AMD Barcelona TLB bug where the fix actually did cause a significant performance drop. This does not appear to be true. The real story is that all CPUs have hundreds of errata, and it's the job of the software maker to work around it, and that is what Microsoft is doing with their hotfix and registry hack. They're also telling you if you aren't experiencing any problems, don't bother applying the hotfix.
Looking at federal spending, almost all of the subsidy is being wasted on high cost areas for telephone service where we use USF taxes to subsidize $16K per year per phone line http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/americans-are-subsidizing-16834-phone-lines/. USF subsidies work out to about $7B and some of it goes to libraries, schools, and low income families. However, around $5B is mostly wasted on high cost funds.
The tax payer subsidies are not funding the "Internet industry" as you claim. The telecom and cable industry spends about $50B in private investments per year on communications infrastructure and that's 10 times higher than the USF subsidies. The stimulus funding that was approved this year was only $7.2 billion, but it came with so many strings attached that no large Telco or cable company took up the offer.
It's unfortunate that the Slashdot community is going to rate up unsubstantiated claims as "informative".
Smart grid makes it more exposed to hacking. If we're talking about the ability to manage major appliances such that they can be spread out so that we can put a higher load on the grid without overloading it, imagine if someone broke into that system and did the opposite by synchronizing usage. Coupled with the fact that loads are even higher, it's a perfect storm for melting down parts of the grid which would take a long time to repair. During that time, people who are most vulnerable (the elderly) would die.
Slashdot Mirror
I posted this response already to someone else asking a similar problem.
First of all, let me say that cell phones are such low power that they're inconsequential and the largest studies have confirmed this. The amount of energy we're talking about isn't enough to raise your temperature 1/100th of a degrees even in the worst case, and the temperature of the room and the clothing you wear is a much larger factor.
Second, you're making the cumulative effects argument. But even if you use the cell phone 5 minutes a day, that's 288 times less cumulative exposure. But the phone is 1000 to 1000000 times greater in strength which means 5 minutes of cell phone exposure is orders of magnitude more cumulative energy than a cell tower.
Third, I reject the cumulative effect argument. Can you say that jumping off a 1 foot cliff 100 times is as harmful as jumping off a 100 foot cliff a single time? What if I exposed you to one hour of sunlight but concentrated it down to 5 minutes? Does one hour exposure do the same cumulative damage as the same amount of sunlight given to you in 5 minutes? These examples demonstrate how absurd the cumulative effect argument is.
"What if you don't use a wi-fi AP and only use your cell phone once or twice a day for less than a minute"
First of all, let me say that cell phones are such low power that they're inconsequential and the largest studies have confirmed this. The amount of energy we're talking about isn't enough to raise your temperature 1/100th of a degrees even in the worst case, and the temperature of the room and the clothing you wear is a much larger factor.
Second, you're making the cumulative effects argument. But even if you use the cell phone 5 minutes a day, that's 288 times less cumulative exposure. But the phone is 1000 to 1000000 times greater in strength which means 5 minutes of cell phone exposure is orders of magnitude more cumulative energy than a cell tower.
Third, I reject the cumulative effect argument. Can you say that jumping off a 1 foot cliff 100 times is as harmful as jumping off a 100 foot cliff a single time? What if I exposed you to one hour of sunlight but concentrated it down to 5 minutes? Does one hour exposure do the same cumulative damage as the same amount of sunlight given to you in 5 minutes? These examples demonstrate how absurd the cumulative effect argument is.
I'm not sure I'd call it good advice as it does require that someone wastes $100. I only gave it to this person because it might help him to get the apartment he really wants. Of course after he uses the device for a few days, he'll realize how silly the fear is and probably wonder why he bought it.
Multiple channels don't matter because they're usually pointed in a different direction. Each sector gets its own channel and you can't be in multiple sectors at once. And even if you are exposed by 10 cell tower channels at once, it doesn't overcome the fact that your Wi-Fi AP is probably 100-1000 times stronger, or the fact that your cell phone is 1000-1000000 times stronger.
"Your AP probably transmits at 20-27dBm. A cellular AP probably transmits at 40dBm."
That is true, but you're forgetting the difference in the distance and the inverse square law and the 10 dB loss from just the building. A cell tower will be a minimum of 50 feet from your body while a Wi-Fi AP will be 5 feet from you. That 10-fold difference in distance corresponds to a 100-fold decline in power levels and perhaps a 20 dB drop. So even in worst case, your Wi-Fi AP will most likely have a stronger signal than the cell tower.
Furthermore, remember that Wi-Fi typically operates between -20 dBm and -80 dBm while cell phones are designed to work between -40 dBm and -105 dBm. So Wi-Fi operates with much higher power levels, but your cell phone trumps everything since it's literally a few inches away.
But the cell tower is typically a million times weaker than your own cell phone, and maybe 1000 times weaker even if you're extremely close to the tower. And even the cell phone can't really raise the entire body temperature more than a hundredths of a degrees.
Testicles do in fact disperse heat even more so than the rest of the body to maintain a slightly lower temperature for optimum sperm production. This is why the skin around them will contract and loosen depending on the temperature.
Right, and we're only talking about 2 degrees C increase in temperature for most highly concentrated gram of tissue mass after one hour of exposure to max SAR levels. But those few grams of tissue won't even come close to that level of heating due to the fact that the other 70,000 grams of your body will absorb the heat, not even accounting for the heat loss from sweat. So we're talking about a heat rise of less than a thousandths of a degrees even after one hour of max SAR exposure. Wearing a hat will produce far more heat increase in your head.
A sector antenna typically boosts power levels by 15 dB due to the fact that it "concentrates" the radio waves towards a certain direction. But because of the "boost", the radios in the urban towers reduce their power output considerably. In fact, typical urban power levels are 10 watt ERP (with actual radio power of half a watt) is common (see http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/cellpcs.html).
.5 watt radios because the power that would have gone towards him are being redirected by the sector antennas. But even if he's in the hot zone for those antennas at 20 feet away, I really doubt his power level is more than -10 dBm which is still really low compared to your own cell phone. Furthermore, having that much signal just means you'll get less overall exposure because your cell phone can use much lower power levels.
But this assumes that the sector antennas are aimed directly at his prospective apartment unit. If they're not aimed at him, the power levels are far lower than just the bare
Now the original post mentioned "panel antennas" which are highly directional and typically used for backhaul. Those I'm almost certain aren't facing his apartment because that would kind of make those antennas useless since they need a clear line of sight.
The earlier "assessments" were based on weak studies and half truths (http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/half-truths-on-cell-phone-dangers/). All the studies that found potential dangers were based on tiny sample populations. All the studies that showed no danger were based on massive sample populations.
The facts about urban wireless towers is that they're very low power because of the high population density. They use very small cells in urban towers to achieve a very small coverage radius so that they can put up more towers in the city and reuse the same spectrum. Furthermore, just being in-doors cuts the power level 10-fold and I'd really doubt that you're getting more than -40 dBm which is equivalent to 100 nanowatts of power even if you're outside the windows. My Wi-Fi Access Point is 5 feet from me and it's got a power level of -13 dBm which is about 1000 times stronger than a -40 dBm signal. Now if you think that's high, your cell phone probably has a signal strength of +10 dBm which means the power density is 100,000 times stronger than a -40 dBm signal. And if you think the phone is dangerous, check out this article from me http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/sar-ratings-are-not-a-measure-of-radiation/ and this article http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/01/cell-phone-exposure-prevents-or-reverses-alzheimer-in-mice/. So really, worrying about that cellular tower is just silly. If you're really worried about it, buy one of those $100 "Electrosmog" meters and measure the signal strength yourself at various places.
I never knew brain matter was a magnet for radio signals.
Anyone can claim "movie quality" if we're going by Star Wars Episode 4 (original version) standards. The problem is that movies have obviously gotten a lot better though still not completely realistic. The fact is that real-time rendering will always be vastly inferior to slow rendering because you can throw at least 100 times the hardware and 100 times the time for movie making than any gaming computer. Furthermore, you only need 24 fps for movie making while you need a minimum of 60 fps with an average of 120 fps for a good gaming experience.
Biggest problem I've seen is the speed hacks where someone runs around 100 miles per hour. I've also seen a sniper use some kind of spy-cheat where he can see spies. There was no way for me to get past him as a spy because he'd shoot me every time even if I never bumped anything to disrupt my cloak. I haven't seen any cheats lately though.
First of all, the patents that are granted aren't for the publicly funded R which is pathetic amounts of money to begin with. You're simply making things up to fit your socialist philosophy.
Again, find me a socialist funded program that has developed and given away their intellectual property for the benefit of the world. Show me which socialist nation has donated more free drugs to the developing world than these "evil" corporations.
The problem with government funded drug research is that it's still can't be given away to other nations. Otherwise you too many nations freeloading off of a few nations.
Show me a single nation that innovated in things like pharmaceuticals without Intellectual Property (IP) protection.
The problem with those who complain about IP protection is that if they actually had their way, there wouldn't be any life saving drugs to begin with. IP protections do limit the good that these drugs can do in the short term in the sense that it's only affordable to first-world nations (with the exception of some donations here and there), but those drugs eventually lose their patent protection and become cheap enough for everyone to buy them. Now the typical socialist will argue that those drugs have to be practically given away so that everyone can afford them the minute they're invented. The problem is that socialist policies means no one will spend the billions of dollars necessary to invent these drugs in the first place.
No, some of us heterosexuals prefer natural breasts. If you've ever felt fake ones, especially after they're a year old and the woman has built up quite a bit of tissue scaring and/or it's shaped in a really hideous way where you see a breast on top of a breast, you'd understand.
A true natural C cup is actually pretty impressive especially if it's shaped well with good skin. Now I won't complain if it's a natural D or above, but it becomes very rare and it may not be shaped well e.g., saggy and/or woman is a little too chunky.
Read the article, and watch the video they showed. The researcher showed pictures of the brain tissue and positive effects of the cell phones. It's not a case of mice dying before they develop Alzheimers.
They said they used EQUIVALENT doses in the mice. I'm pretty sure they didn't use the same dose, just an equivalent dose that factors in the size of the mice.
All the data to date with studies following hundreds of thousands of humans for nearly a decade has shown not evidence of cancer, and neither has prior studies on electromagnetic fields. These study did not show a bunch of mice dying of cancer before they developed Alzheimers, it showed that electromagnetic fields from cell phones staved off or even reversed the effects of Alzheimers in these mice.
Not that I would suggest cell phones are dangerous, but Bluetooth field strength is 1000 times weaker.
Cell phones don’t produce dangerous radiation and they produce extremely small amounts of heat energy in the form of radio waves that might heat up a 154 pound person 1/100th of a degrees Celsius after an hour of absorbing 1 watt (which is unlikely to be that high) of radio wave energy from a cell phone.
Folks, this is a very irresponsible headline at slashdot. The Microsoft articles does NOT say hotfix breaks power save and it doesn't even mention turbo, but that it is an either or solution. Microsoft always offers workarounds as an ALTERNATIVE to the hotfix for people who don't want to apply hotfixes. The Microsoft KB article even tells you if you want to keep using those power states, then run the hotfix and make a certain modification to the registry.
This post makes it sound like some kind of cover up and that the fix causes major CPU slowdowns, and that it's on the level of the AMD Barcelona TLB bug where the fix actually did cause a significant performance drop. This does not appear to be true. The real story is that all CPUs have hundreds of errata, and it's the job of the software maker to work around it, and that is what Microsoft is doing with their hotfix and registry hack. They're also telling you if you aren't experiencing any problems, don't bother applying the hotfix.
Looking at federal spending, almost all of the subsidy is being wasted on high cost areas for telephone service where we use USF taxes to subsidize $16K per year per phone line http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/americans-are-subsidizing-16834-phone-lines/. USF subsidies work out to about $7B and some of it goes to libraries, schools, and low income families. However, around $5B is mostly wasted on high cost funds.
The tax payer subsidies are not funding the "Internet industry" as you claim. The telecom and cable industry spends about $50B in private investments per year on communications infrastructure and that's 10 times higher than the USF subsidies. The stimulus funding that was approved this year was only $7.2 billion, but it came with so many strings attached that no large Telco or cable company took up the offer.
It's unfortunate that the Slashdot community is going to rate up unsubstantiated claims as "informative".
Smart grid makes it more exposed to hacking. If we're talking about the ability to manage major appliances such that they can be spread out so that we can put a higher load on the grid without overloading it, imagine if someone broke into that system and did the opposite by synchronizing usage. Coupled with the fact that loads are even higher, it's a perfect storm for melting down parts of the grid which would take a long time to repair. During that time, people who are most vulnerable (the elderly) would die.
They advertise it as "up to" and not "at least". It is confusing, but it's not misleading. That's why I've proposed a better transparency standard http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/the-need-for-a-broadband-transparency-standard/.
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/analysis-of-bittorrent-utp-congestion-avoidance/ BitTorrent’s new uTP protocol claims to be “network friendly”, but testing suggests that it’s just as nasty to web surfing, online gaming, and VoIP as before. BitTorrent still consumes 90% of the network and causes very high jitter.