Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    28 Dec '10 05:55
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-ceiling-minn-coded-internet.html

    This sounds like an excellent idea to me. Personally I don't like the idea of all that microwave frequency deluge we are all undertaking in this pervasive RF experiment we are all undergoing unknowingly.

    If the city and building lights are made from highly efficient LED's, more efficient than even the spiral bulbs now thought of as the king of efficiency, the data streaming back and forth will be only light waves, maybe IR, or visible, doesn't matter, that form of radiation is about as safe as radiation can be.

    Plus for us amateur radio operators there will be much less radio hash to sift through in this pervasive atmosphere of RF from 50 hertz to 50 Gigahertz, the less of that I see the better. Leave RF to Amateurs (hams) and put data on the much denser capability of light waves.

    Thousands of times more capable than RF and a lot less dangerous. RF damage is accumulative. If you have 1 watt for 1 second of RF hit you, you get the same damage if 1 microwatt hits you for a million seconds. Well maybe not quite that bad but you see the pattern.

    1/10th of a watt for 10 seconds is the same as 1 watt for 1 second. 1/10th of a watt is about the power of cell phones. If they could be run on an optical system, IR probably, there would never be a hint of tumors or damage to brain cells.
  2. 29 Dec '10 08:43
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-ceiling-minn-coded-internet.html

    This sounds like an excellent idea to me. Personally I don't like the idea of all that microwave frequency deluge we are all undertaking in this pervasive RF experiment we are all undergoing unknowingly.

    If the city and building lights are made from highly efficient LED's, more effi ...[text shortened]... optical system, IR probably, there would never be a hint of tumors or damage to brain cells.
    RF damage is accumulative. If you have 1 watt for 1 second of RF hit you, you get the same damage if 1 microwatt hits you for a million seconds.

    It doesn't quite work that way. UV radiation, for example, is not harmful because of its power output per se, but because the individual photons have high energy and can damage individual molecules in your cells. I'm not saying RF and microwaves are definitely safe, though, but this picture is too simple.

    Anyway, nature itself produces loads of microwaves and RF, what is the ratio of man + nature over nature's production (in our habitat)?
  3. 29 Dec '10 10:41
    Also, the power output of simple IR heat radiation hitting you is quite significant but not really harmful.
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    29 Dec '10 13:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Also, the power output of simple IR heat radiation hitting you is quite significant but not really harmful.
    That's the whole point of using IR or visible light for data. It's inherently safe.
    RF, while you may not consider it dangerous, has been proven to heat up the head when cell phones are used for long periods of time near the ears like they are usually.
    For that reason, I usually put mine on speaker phone and hold it away from my head.

    There have been many studies showing brain cell damage from accumulative RF exposure, from 30 mhz to 30 Ghz and beyond.

    The heating effect is actually accumulative. Like I said, 1 watt for one second generally = 1/10 watt for ten seconds. Cell phones are in the vicinity of 1/10th of a watt and you can do an easy experiment, hold a cell phone while talking , by your ear for ten minutes or so and measure the temp of your head around the cell phone with a laser directed IR probe (You can get those for about 50 bucks now) and you can easily see a 5 degree F rise in that area. It is not from just having your hands near your head. That heating is like microwave frequencies, near enough anyway to tend to heat up flesh near the cell phone antenna.

    That is why there has been recent work done on cell phone antenna's that alters the radiation pattern to produce more far field radiation V near field, special antenna designs actually worked out with genetic software that humans would not have figured out in a thousand years.

    Amazing technique, genetic software, make random small changes in a design, see if it helps to get to a specified goal, if not, go back, make small change elsewhere.

    Anyway, there have been a lot of studies showing cellular damage from cell phones and earlier, from amateur radio walkie talkies which have some 50 to 60 times the output of a cell phone, making them even more dangerous if transmitting near your head for long periods of time which hams do, not thinking about the radiation so close to their own heads.

    I don't think there has been evidence for actual tumors but there has been shown definite damage to cells, brain cells, for instance.

    The accumulative dose is effecting temperature not DNA damage like from UV or X rays.
  5. 29 Dec '10 14:36
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    That's the whole point of using IR or visible light for data. It's inherently safe.
    RF, while you may not consider it dangerous, has been proven to heat up the head when cell phones are used for long periods of time near the ears like they are usually.
    For that reason, I usually put mine on speaker phone and hold it away from my head.

    There have been m ...[text shortened]... ce.

    The accumulative dose is effecting temperature not DNA damage like from UV or X rays.
    Is it really just temperature doing the damage here? Wouldn't physical exercise or a sauna etc. be equally harmful then?
  6. 29 Dec '10 16:13
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Is it really just temperature doing the damage here? Wouldn't physical exercise or a sauna etc. be equally harmful then?
    Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the body can cope with external heat sources and cool itself down. RF radiation though, has a penetrative effect and can heat tissues under the surface.
  7. 29 Dec '10 17:31
    Originally posted by jimslyp69
    Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the body can cope with external heat sources and cool itself down. RF radiation though, has a penetrative effect and can heat tissues under the surface.
    That is true, but the body also has plenty of internal heat sources (from cell activity) and it can cope with the heat produced from that.
  8. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    30 Dec '10 19:25 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    That is true, but the body also has plenty of internal heat sources (from cell activity) and it can cope with the heat produced from that.
    I think there are studies showing damage to cells from longer term exposure to low levels of RF in the >1 to 10 Ghz frequency range, maybe from being localized. There used to be a device called a Diatherm machine, something like that spelling, that used induced RF heating on say, an arm or chest, with supposed medical benefits but I don't think it ever was shown to actually help anyone except make them feel warm inside.

    I guess there are therapeutic benefits:

    a little piece of an article about it, Diathermy:

    iathermy
    the use of high-frequency electrical currents as a form of physical therapy and in surgical procedures.
    Diathermy is used in physical therapy to deliver moderate heat directly to pathological lesions in the deeper tissues of the body. Surgically, the extreme heat that can be produced by diathermy may be used to destroy neoplasms, warts and infected tissues, and to cauterize blood vessels to prevent excessive bleeding. The technique is particularly valuable in neurosurgery and surgery of the eye. See also electrosurgery.

    However, that is more of a short time frame controlled use of RF, not long term exposure.

    Here is another piece of a link about RF damage to human cells:

    Moderate level exposures cause heat stress and behavioral changes. The effects are often mistaken for the flu because the symptoms are similar. As the level of exposure increases, the potential for harm increases. Human cells die at 107° Fahrenheit. This is the reason why doctors get concerned if someone’s temperature goes above 105°. The body is constantly replacing cells, so the amount of damage that is done depends on how many cells are killed and the type of cells that are killed. Kill off some cells, and the effects may pass in minutes or hours. Destroy a lot of liver cells for instance, and you will have liver damage. If the damage is not too severe, the body can repair itself. However, if the damage is extensive, the effects may be permanent! Perhaps the most vulnerable organs are the eyes. The eyes have virtually no blood flow that can provide cooling from other parts of the body, and their dimensions make them very good antennas at microwave frequencies.

    I didn't know human cells started dying with temps as low as 107 degrees F. I remember having a fever close to that as a child, 106 degrees which caused long lasting eye problems (myopia) So the question becomes, can extended cell phone use in the way we usually use them, next to the ear, produce that kind of temperature in the brain. If so, my own technique of using speakerphone is validated.

    Also, as a ham who has a lot of RF equipment, and antennas close to the house, I try to limit my talk time on the air and seldom use walkie talkies (we call them handie talkies), because the power of those devices is like I said some 50 times higher than cell phones so the danger there is a lot higher in terms of brain cell damage.

    I found a link to various studies of cell phone brain cell damage:

    http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/cellphonecancer.php

    They seem to be saying 30 minutes of cell phone use could start the process off making brain tumors. There is an excellent drawing of the RF pattern near the head vs that rf reaching the cell phone tower.
  9. 30 Dec '10 20:40
    From your link:

    "EHSO has seen no credible evidence to date that cell phones cause cancer or brain tumors. It is illogical to believe that evidence of unusual brain tumors is covered up when there are hundred's of millions of people using cell phones worldwide. There is a TREMENDOUS amount of junk science and thoroughly ignorant (as in untrained, uneducated) people running around naming themselves as experts and publishing their opinions on the internet. This hype and fear-mongering has only one goal: to puff up the egos and wallets of those propagating nonsense.And the supposed link between mobile-phone use and cancer is even listed among the American Cancer Society's "Top 10 Cancer Myths,"

    However, cell phones are still relatively new, and while science does not support that the radiation may not be likely to cause cancer, time may prove differently! And in any case, it may cause some other type of damage (certainly accidents in cars from being distracted while fumbling with the phone!)"

    They seem to agree with me that while it's not definitely safe, the risk is low at worst. If you want to reduce the risk of getting cancer, you're probably better off avoiding meat, exercise, obesity, smoking and sunlight rather than mobile phones.
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    31 Dec '10 04:00
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    From your link:

    "EHSO has seen no credible evidence to date that cell phones cause cancer or brain tumors. It is illogical to believe that evidence of unusual brain tumors is covered up when there are hundred's of millions of people using cell phones worldwide. There is a TREMENDOUS amount of junk science and thoroughly ignorant (as in untrained, un ...[text shortened]... er off avoiding meat, exercise, obesity, smoking and sunlight rather than mobile phones.
    I do that too. #1 biggie: don't smoke tobacco.