It's also the distance and duration. An earbud in your ear is putting half its power directly into your head (the other half is directed away from you). Not only is more than half of a phone's power radiated away from your head (through the back and sides, that power is spread over a larger area simply by the fact that the antenna is larger. Then, you factor in distance, taking into account the fact that electromagnetic radiation propagates through 3d space, and you quickly find that the amount of radiation reaching any part of the body is less than that of the earbuds.
Quick math:
Earbuds: 2.5mw x 2 = 5mw
Divide by 2 to account for roughly half the radiation being directed away from you = 2.5mw
The portion of the earbud that goes into your ear is going to have a surface area of roughly 1 square centimeter. There are two of them, so we divide by that to determine exposure per square centimeter: 2.5/2 = 1.25mW
Non-ideal phone: 2000mw x 1 = 2000mw
Only radiation emitted from one of six faces of the device reaches the head: 2000/6 = 333.3mw
The dimensions of that face (we'll use an iPhone 8, not even the + model, to make it more fair to Artem's argument) are 6.73cm by 13.84cm, yielding a surface area of 93.1432cm^2. We'll round this down to 90 to account for the rounded corners. 333.3/90 = 3.7mw per cm^2
Now, to remain fair to Artem's argument (and keep the math simple, since there are too many viariables, such as the angle at which you're holding the phone, the size of your head, and the exact distance at which you hold it), we'll ignore that a portion of that is going to radiate around your head. This is fine by me, we're talking worst case, after all. Now, if you hold the phone 1cm from your ear, that puts it 2cm from the closest part of your cheek, and at least 3cm away from the farthest. Following the law of inverse squares, at 1cm you get 3.7^0.5mw, or 1.92mw per cm^2; at 2cm you get 1.92^0.5mw, or 1.39mw per cm^2; and at 3cm you get 1.39^0.5mw, or 1.18mw per cm^2.
If we assume the average ear is roughly oval and roughly 2.5x3.5cm, we get an area of roughly 24cm^2. Since the ear is a 3d structure, we'll halve this and say 12cm^2 of the phone is 1cm away, and assume half of the remaining surface (90 - 12 = 78; 78/2 = 39) is 2cm away and the rest (39) is 3cm away, we get the following:
(12 * 1.92) + (39 * 1.39) + (39 * 1.18) = 123.27mw reaching you head, spread over 90cm^2, which yields an average of 123.27/90 = 1.37mw per cm^2.
Right, so under the absolute worst case conditions, and with estimates and assumptions favoring Artem's argument, that phone is dumping a whole 0.12mw (e.g. rounding error) more into your head, despite its transmit power being orders of magnitude higher.
As for duration: The average phone user will have their phone to their ear for an hour a day (most are much less, a handful are much more, but it averages out to an hour), while the average headphone user will have them on for 4 hours.
Roughly equal exposure assuming roughly equal exposure duration; but the headphone users will see roughly 4x the exposure in the real world.
Now, we've got studies linking cellphone radiation and ADHD. I haven't read them, I don't know how conclusive they are, but I'm assuming not very since they seem to be relatively early studies. They're enough, however, to suggest that EM radiation may not be as harmless as we all think; and that's at frequencies that aren't right next to the one your microwave uses to boil water. Bluetooth is your microwave's little cousin. As you so astutely point out, that matters; a lot.
Yes, more research is needed. Right now, I don't believe they're unsafe, but I don't have enough data to be meaningfully certain of that; I simply don't use them because they sound like shit to me. Yes, even Apt-X and (because most of my music is not encoded in AAC, so there are re-encoding artifacts that are very audible) AAC. That's fine for a noisy
How do they pair with the phone? How do they let the phone know they're present, operational, and waiting for audio? How do they let the phone know you've just pressed the pause button? Idiot, they're not just receivers, they're also transmitters. The lack of understanding of technology on this tech site recently is fucking astounding.
HDR is not an image format, it refers to an image or video with an enhances color space and I was speaking specifically of video, as that is what the AC I was replying to had mentioned. Again, lack of education abounds.
Ah yes, that was 1999. We continued seeing a steady increase in "piracy", though, until around a decade later, when streaming services became popular. Interestingly, by then, the RIAA had already majorly slowed their prosecution efforts; the MPAA hasn't caught on quite yet.
That's all well and good, but it does nothing for the longstanding agreements that existed before 2991, nor to stop those from renewing in perpetuity. It also doesn't stop the incumbent providers from suing to stop municipalities from building their own networks or allowing competitors into the market; both of these occur at alarming rates.
Hell, it hasn't even stopped municipalities form granting new exclusivity! The FCC got the law passed, but it is toothless; it can't enforce it.
Lets, for a moment, suppose that I'm bullshitting. Even then, my point still stands, as copyright infringement has been illegal for over a century, but music "piracy" has only recently decreased; around the time streaming services became viable and popular. Clearly, the law is a contributing factor.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I can speak for myself and about 100 or so of my friends and family members. I, and those for whom I can speak, switched to streaming services when they became viable, without regard for the law, and without being sued by the MPAA or RIAA. Approximately 100 out of approximately 100 of us. In other words, approximately 100% of us.
For similar reasons, I don't see a big need for 4k video either.
The biggest draw of UHD (e.g. 4K video) is dynamic range, not resolution. The difference between HDR and non-HDR video and images on an HDR display is noticeable from any reasonable distance, on any size display.
Your limited use case for internet blinds you to the realities of that market, as well.
Technically, someone to whom they don't offer service isn't a subscriber. As long as 10Mbps is available to everyone to whom they offer service, they're "complying". Disgusting, but technically compliant.
Of course, I've lived places where AT&T didn't offer anything over 6Mbps as recently as 2015, so they're not even technically complying.
What exactly did these people expect living away from cities/hubs/high pop areas?
I'm sure they thought that the government funding that was given to the telcos to build out their networks and provide broadband (by the FCC's definition) in rural areas would have been used to... well.. provide broadband (by the FCC's definition) in rural areas.
Move to Virginia. About every 3rd person I talk to tells me they're carrying, and I suppose if anyone F's with them, it will earn them a bullet.
Well, with the 9th Circuit's recent decision, we have unrestricted open carry here, now. The only caveat is that localities can require concealment, but cannot require a permit if concealment is required. It's still early in the game to see if it's going to stick or not, but it seems we might have more gun freedom here in WA than you do there.
people just don't mess out here as much
In fairness, when I had my car broken into several times, I lived in Ohio. The irony is, the one time I actually did have a radio in it, the door was unlocked and the radio wasn't properly mounted (I was waiting for the mounting kit to arrive) and could be grabbed and taken out of the dash easily. They still broke my window and tore up my dash stealing the damn thing.
Perfect response. Absolutely stunning and genius. Yes, I'll continue paying for comprehensive coverage long past the point where the 6 month cost of coverage exceeds the value of the vehicle.
Wait, no, I won't, because I'm not a fucking moron and realize that it's not economical to have that coverage on a vehicle more than 5 years old (unless you're still paying for it and your bank requires it). No, at that point I'd just have collision coverage.
Nobody's f'd with my car for decades
Good for you. I've had mine broken into a number of times, despite leaving nothing of value in it, let alone in plain sight.
A good train station lot will be secure with patrols
And eight years living in the SF Bay area has taught me that a good train station is hard to come by. Even with BART police and and Caltrain transit police patroling, shit still gets stolen and cars still get broken into.
There's also the fact that train tickets (especially once the line expands to connect all major cities) plus a car rental for a week costs considerably more than a few tanks of gas.
Oh, and your solution wouldn't have helped with my recent move from CA to WA, wherein I used my truck to haul all of my shit. I suppose you'll suggest I spend a couple grand to have my shit hauled for me, and another couple grand to have the truck towed, eh? Yeah, no, last time I paid professionals $2k to haul my shit across the country, they "lost" several boxes of my stuff, damaged several others, and gave me a box that belonged to someone else.
Your short-sighted suggestion and the idealistic way point of view from which you defend it show a distinct lack of experience dealing with the world outside your safe little bubble. Go out and get robbed, have your shit stolen, be confronted and threatened for walking through the wrong part of the neighborhood in the evening, then get back to me.
I'm guessing the 0.001% number was pulled out of one's ass to make a point. 0.1% wouldn't be felt by taxpayers but would, according to your calculations, amount to $2 billion, allowing a $394 subsidy per car. Does that cover the full cost? No, but it helps. 0.5% would still not really be felt by the group we're talking about, and that brings the allowance up to:
With no superchargers in the mountains, it would turn the 12hr drive from San Francisco to Tacoma into a 2 day trip.
That, of course, is assuming the car wasn't loaded up with luggage, thereby reducing its range and requiring another couple of charges to get there, making it a 3 day trip.
Adding to that, less decrease in overall vehicle emissions than if a slightly smaller reduction in emissions were mandated, which could be implemented without as much cost, leading to more people buying the newer, more efficient (than their old vehicle, even if not by as much as current standards) vehicles, rather than keeping their old one or buying a less efficient used vehicle.
Someone else said it earlier, I'll paraphrase here: Would you rather replace 5% of vehicles with new vehicles with 20% better efficiency (a 1% net improvement), or 20% of vehicles with new vehicles with 10% better efficiency (a 2% net improvement)?
From your post, I'm confident you'd prefer the latter. People who oppose this seem to prefer the former, probably because they don't understand math.
I don't recall which specific window it was, but at least one required a copy and paste to read the contents.
It sounds like you're talking about something different than I am. I'm curious to know which dialog this is, so I can take a look.
This was a problem with even 1280x800 screens
Huh... You know, I ran a 13" CRT at 1280x1024 for years with no issues, so I'm not sure I agree with you on that. It didn't really become an issue for most people until inappropriately-sized >2K displays became widely available (even if still not common at the time) and people actually started trying to use the scaling options, only to find that they didn't work as expected. I wouldn't say it took them 20 years to fix it, either; people didn't care until 5 years ago or so, so they had no reason to even consider fixing it until then.
Also, are you saying you've never had scaling issues on a Mac? Trust me, they're a thing. Not as prevalent as on Windows, I'll grant, but that's all the more reason to believe that Apple will never fix them, while Microsoft is actually being responsive to their users now.
A capacitive touch screen is the same tech whether it's on a PC or a phone. A camera is the same tech whether it's on a PC or a phone. Flash storage is the same tech whether it's on a PC or a phone. A battery is the same tech whether it's in a PC or a phone. You see where I'm going with this?
Slashdot Mirror
You lose power with distance, and a microwave has enough power at the right wavelength to be harmful at a good distance. How about you try it.
It's also the distance and duration. An earbud in your ear is putting half its power directly into your head (the other half is directed away from you). Not only is more than half of a phone's power radiated away from your head (through the back and sides, that power is spread over a larger area simply by the fact that the antenna is larger. Then, you factor in distance, taking into account the fact that electromagnetic radiation propagates through 3d space, and you quickly find that the amount of radiation reaching any part of the body is less than that of the earbuds.
Quick math:
Earbuds: 2.5mw x 2 = 5mw
Divide by 2 to account for roughly half the radiation being directed away from you = 2.5mw
The portion of the earbud that goes into your ear is going to have a surface area of roughly 1 square centimeter. There are two of them, so we divide by that to determine exposure per square centimeter: 2.5/2 = 1.25mW
Non-ideal phone: 2000mw x 1 = 2000mw
Only radiation emitted from one of six faces of the device reaches the head: 2000/6 = 333.3mw
The dimensions of that face (we'll use an iPhone 8, not even the + model, to make it more fair to Artem's argument) are 6.73cm by 13.84cm, yielding a surface area of 93.1432cm^2. We'll round this down to 90 to account for the rounded corners. 333.3/90 = 3.7mw per cm^2
Now, to remain fair to Artem's argument (and keep the math simple, since there are too many viariables, such as the angle at which you're holding the phone, the size of your head, and the exact distance at which you hold it), we'll ignore that a portion of that is going to radiate around your head. This is fine by me, we're talking worst case, after all. Now, if you hold the phone 1cm from your ear, that puts it 2cm from the closest part of your cheek, and at least 3cm away from the farthest. Following the law of inverse squares, at 1cm you get 3.7^0.5mw, or 1.92mw per cm^2; at 2cm you get 1.92^0.5mw, or 1.39mw per cm^2; and at 3cm you get 1.39^0.5mw, or 1.18mw per cm^2.
If we assume the average ear is roughly oval and roughly 2.5x3.5cm, we get an area of roughly 24cm^2. Since the ear is a 3d structure, we'll halve this and say 12cm^2 of the phone is 1cm away, and assume half of the remaining surface (90 - 12 = 78; 78/2 = 39) is 2cm away and the rest (39) is 3cm away, we get the following:
(12 * 1.92) + (39 * 1.39) + (39 * 1.18) = 123.27mw reaching you head, spread over 90cm^2, which yields an average of 123.27/90 = 1.37mw per cm^2.
Right, so under the absolute worst case conditions, and with estimates and assumptions favoring Artem's argument, that phone is dumping a whole 0.12mw (e.g. rounding error) more into your head, despite its transmit power being orders of magnitude higher.
As for duration: The average phone user will have their phone to their ear for an hour a day (most are much less, a handful are much more, but it averages out to an hour), while the average headphone user will have them on for 4 hours.
Roughly equal exposure assuming roughly equal exposure duration; but the headphone users will see roughly 4x the exposure in the real world.
Now, we've got studies linking cellphone radiation and ADHD. I haven't read them, I don't know how conclusive they are, but I'm assuming not very since they seem to be relatively early studies. They're enough, however, to suggest that EM radiation may not be as harmless as we all think; and that's at frequencies that aren't right next to the one your microwave uses to boil water. Bluetooth is your microwave's little cousin. As you so astutely point out, that matters; a lot.
Yes, more research is needed. Right now, I don't believe they're unsafe, but I don't have enough data to be meaningfully certain of that; I simply don't use them because they sound like shit to me. Yes, even Apt-X and (because most of my music is not encoded in AAC, so there are re-encoding artifacts that are very audible) AAC. That's fine for a noisy
How do they pair with the phone? How do they let the phone know they're present, operational, and waiting for audio? How do they let the phone know you've just pressed the pause button? Idiot, they're not just receivers, they're also transmitters. The lack of understanding of technology on this tech site recently is fucking astounding.
HDR is not an image format, it refers to an image or video with an enhances color space and I was speaking specifically of video, as that is what the AC I was replying to had mentioned. Again, lack of education abounds.
Ah yes, that was 1999. We continued seeing a steady increase in "piracy", though, until around a decade later, when streaming services became popular. Interestingly, by then, the RIAA had already majorly slowed their prosecution efforts; the MPAA hasn't caught on quite yet.
That's all well and good, but it does nothing for the longstanding agreements that existed before 2991, nor to stop those from renewing in perpetuity. It also doesn't stop the incumbent providers from suing to stop municipalities from building their own networks or allowing competitors into the market; both of these occur at alarming rates.
Hell, it hasn't even stopped municipalities form granting new exclusivity! The FCC got the law passed, but it is toothless; it can't enforce it.
Lets, for a moment, suppose that I'm bullshitting. Even then, my point still stands, as copyright infringement has been illegal for over a century, but music "piracy" has only recently decreased; around the time streaming services became viable and popular. Clearly, the law is a contributing factor.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I can speak for myself and about 100 or so of my friends and family members. I, and those for whom I can speak, switched to streaming services when they became viable, without regard for the law, and without being sued by the MPAA or RIAA. Approximately 100 out of approximately 100 of us. In other words, approximately 100% of us.
For similar reasons, I don't see a big need for 4k video either.
The biggest draw of UHD (e.g. 4K video) is dynamic range, not resolution. The difference between HDR and non-HDR video and images on an HDR display is noticeable from any reasonable distance, on any size display.
Your limited use case for internet blinds you to the realities of that market, as well.
Technically, someone to whom they don't offer service isn't a subscriber. As long as 10Mbps is available to everyone to whom they offer service, they're "complying". Disgusting, but technically compliant.
Of course, I've lived places where AT&T didn't offer anything over 6Mbps as recently as 2015, so they're not even technically complying.
What exactly did these people expect living away from cities/hubs/high pop areas?
I'm sure they thought that the government funding that was given to the telcos to build out their networks and provide broadband (by the FCC's definition) in rural areas would have been used to... well.. provide broadband (by the FCC's definition) in rural areas.
Move to Virginia. About every 3rd person I talk to tells me they're carrying, and I suppose if anyone F's with them, it will earn them a bullet.
Well, with the 9th Circuit's recent decision, we have unrestricted open carry here, now. The only caveat is that localities can require concealment, but cannot require a permit if concealment is required. It's still early in the game to see if it's going to stick or not, but it seems we might have more gun freedom here in WA than you do there.
people just don't mess out here as much
In fairness, when I had my car broken into several times, I lived in Ohio. The irony is, the one time I actually did have a radio in it, the door was unlocked and the radio wasn't properly mounted (I was waiting for the mounting kit to arrive) and could be grabbed and taken out of the dash easily. They still broke my window and tore up my dash stealing the damn thing.
What insurance is for.
Perfect response. Absolutely stunning and genius. Yes, I'll continue paying for comprehensive coverage long past the point where the 6 month cost of coverage exceeds the value of the vehicle.
Wait, no, I won't, because I'm not a fucking moron and realize that it's not economical to have that coverage on a vehicle more than 5 years old (unless you're still paying for it and your bank requires it). No, at that point I'd just have collision coverage.
Nobody's f'd with my car for decades
Good for you. I've had mine broken into a number of times, despite leaving nothing of value in it, let alone in plain sight.
A good train station lot will be secure with patrols
And eight years living in the SF Bay area has taught me that a good train station is hard to come by. Even with BART police and and Caltrain transit police patroling, shit still gets stolen and cars still get broken into.
There's also the fact that train tickets (especially once the line expands to connect all major cities) plus a car rental for a week costs considerably more than a few tanks of gas.
Oh, and your solution wouldn't have helped with my recent move from CA to WA, wherein I used my truck to haul all of my shit. I suppose you'll suggest I spend a couple grand to have my shit hauled for me, and another couple grand to have the truck towed, eh? Yeah, no, last time I paid professionals $2k to haul my shit across the country, they "lost" several boxes of my stuff, damaged several others, and gave me a box that belonged to someone else.
Your short-sighted suggestion and the idealistic way point of view from which you defend it show a distinct lack of experience dealing with the world outside your safe little bubble. Go out and get robbed, have your shit stolen, be confronted and threatened for walking through the wrong part of the neighborhood in the evening, then get back to me.
And come back to find your car broken into or stolen. No, thanks.
about $2,000 per vehicle, which is...
... what ...
The EPA and NHTSA estimated it would cost
Fewer newer cars means more older cars, therefore decreasing safety.
It also means less overall improvement in emissions than if the standards were slightly less stringent and cheaper to implement.
With no superchargers in the mountains, it would turn the 12hr drive from San Francisco to Tacoma into a 2 day trip.
That, of course, is assuming the car wasn't loaded up with luggage, thereby reducing its range and requiring another couple of charges to get there, making it a 3 day trip.
Adding to that, less decrease in overall vehicle emissions than if a slightly smaller reduction in emissions were mandated, which could be implemented without as much cost, leading to more people buying the newer, more efficient (than their old vehicle, even if not by as much as current standards) vehicles, rather than keeping their old one or buying a less efficient used vehicle.
Someone else said it earlier, I'll paraphrase here: Would you rather replace 5% of vehicles with new vehicles with 20% better efficiency (a 1% net improvement), or 20% of vehicles with new vehicles with 10% better efficiency (a 2% net improvement)?
From your post, I'm confident you'd prefer the latter. People who oppose this seem to prefer the former, probably because they don't understand math.
You could start by looking up the definition of "categorically".
I don't recall which specific window it was, but at least one required a copy and paste to read the contents.
It sounds like you're talking about something different than I am. I'm curious to know which dialog this is, so I can take a look.
This was a problem with even 1280x800 screens
Huh... You know, I ran a 13" CRT at 1280x1024 for years with no issues, so I'm not sure I agree with you on that. It didn't really become an issue for most people until inappropriately-sized >2K displays became widely available (even if still not common at the time) and people actually started trying to use the scaling options, only to find that they didn't work as expected. I wouldn't say it took them 20 years to fix it, either; people didn't care until 5 years ago or so, so they had no reason to even consider fixing it until then.
Also, are you saying you've never had scaling issues on a Mac? Trust me, they're a thing. Not as prevalent as on Windows, I'll grant, but that's all the more reason to believe that Apple will never fix them, while Microsoft is actually being responsive to their users now.
#nailedit
A capacitive touch screen is the same tech whether it's on a PC or a phone. A camera is the same tech whether it's on a PC or a phone. Flash storage is the same tech whether it's on a PC or a phone. A battery is the same tech whether it's in a PC or a phone. You see where I'm going with this?
Oh?
Hell, I use HughesNet's monthly allotment in a handful of hours doing my work. Certainly not viable.
It's not a monopoly. has been illegal to do this for years.
It's been illegal for properties to do this. That is, apartments, condos, and HOAs. City and county governments on the other hand...