[JesWade21]

The cells in your body are extremely small, measuring 10-6 or micrometres. Even the most recent 5G operates at a wavelength of 10-4 metres, and 4G at 10-3 metres, both of which are above the infrared spectrum. So any conclusion that radio and microwaves with such large wave lengths compared to human cells are inconclusive, as you stated, which is why we use them everywhere. However, the placebo effect is real and powerful, so if you believe something is making you sick, it will most likely make you sick.

[alancalverd]

I chaired a conference session some years go where a group reported significant stimulation of a squid axon by mobile phone signals. I pointed out that whilst they were unable to detect a cellular effect, the nerve was an electrical conductor about a quarter-wavelength long, so it would be surprising if it didn't twitch a bit.   

The problem with phone towers is that the specific absorption rate  for a person with 5 m of the tower is orders of magnitude less than for the user of a mobile phone when transmitting, and there is very little evidence of sensitivity to that.

[Deecart]

However, the placebo effect is real and powerful, so if you believe something is making you sick, it will most likely make you sick.

No.
A placebo effect only make your health better.
You confuse with the nocebo effect.

The problem with phone towers is that the specific absorption rate  for a person with 5 m of the tower is orders of magnitude less than for the user of a mobile phone when transmitting, and there is very little evidence of sensitivity to that.

No kidding.
You mean that using your phone every second of your day and every day of the year and every year of decades...near your brain,  will not cause health damage ?
Try it and we will talk about later.

Someone staying all night and part of the journey near some phone tower will be much more impacted that some people using their phone.

Other difference you dont understand :
The phone radiate low, starting , well, at the position of the phone.
So your body is mostly impacted at the location of the ear (so the brain).

But the phone tower, if you like to say (and it would be nice to have some reference about this) is radiating at the same power as the phone when reaching some human at 5m and this mean that : The whole body of this human is impacted by the wave at this same (so around) power value, not only the brain.
You see your error when you say that the two situations are the same ?
   

 

[Bored chemist]

You mean that using your phone every second of your day and every day of the year and every year of decades...near your brain,  will not cause health damage ?

That's very probably right.
There is no evidence for harm at the levels people use.

[Deecart]

There is no evidence for harm at the levels people use.

You mean that the phone towers power down regulary during the day like the poeple who are using their phone ?

[Origin]

You mean that using your phone every second of your day and every day of the year and every year of decades...near your brain,  will not cause health damage ?

Yes.

Try it and we will talk about later.

I am currently running the experiment on my self as is everyone I know.

Someone staying all night and part of the journey near some phone tower will be much more impacted that some people using their phone.

Which in both cases is approximately 0 impact.

[Bored chemist]

There is no evidence for harm at the levels people use.

You mean that the phone towers power down regulary during the day like the poeple who are using their phone ?

Those two concepts are completely unrelated and so, obviously, that's not what I meant.

[Deecart]

I am currently running the experiment on my self as is everyone I know.

No you dont.
The average use of cell phones per day is around 3h30.
3.30 is the same as 24.00 for you ?

Which in both cases is approximately 0 impact.

You dont know.

Several studies have been conducted to determine whether cell phone use can cause cancer, although they were unable to establish clear evidence. One study found a slight increase of glioma, a type of brain cancer, in a small group of people who spent a considerable amount of time on their screens. However, other studies did not find anything similar.

As of now, healthcare organizations such as the CDC and FDA have not issued any statements regarding the link between cell phones and increased risk of cancer, including brain cancer. Research is underway to investigate where there is a link between the two.

https://www.medicinenet.com/how_do_cell_phones_affect_a_childs_brain/article.htm

Summary: Cell phone radiation increases the risk for a number of biological and health disorders, including gliomas and acoustic neuroma brain cancer. Researchers discuss how to reduce the risk of cell phone radiation.

Source: UC Berkeley

For more than a decade, Joel Moskowitz, a researcher in the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley and director of Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health, has been on a quest to prove that radiation from cellphones is unsafe. But, he said, most people don’t want to hear it.

https://neurosciencenews.com/cellphone-radiation-brain-cancer-18889/

Large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for most or all of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.

https://www.cancer.org/healthy/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html

[Deecart]

Those two concepts are completely unrelated and so, obviously, that's not what I meant.

Then try to understand what i am talking about before saying so useless things.

[Origin]

No you dont.
The average use of cell phones per day is around 3h30.
3.30 is the same as 24.00 for you ?

So there is much less impact, got it.
Are you also concerned about radio and TV broadcasts too?

[Deecart]

Are you also concerned about radio and TV broadcasts too?

Apparently, almost 20 years after the begin of this technology you have not yet understand that some problem occur from the wave length and the power of theses waves used by those technologies.

Why do you think that the manufactures tried initially to lower down the power of the cell phones ?
And why they dont use more powerfull waves now that "we know" that thes waves can not damage our health...
If this were true they would not have any financial risk at powering up the cell phones... but they dont.

[alancalverd]

Why do you think that the manufactures tried initially to lower down the power of the cell phones ?

To improve battery life.

[alancalverd]

But the phone tower, if you like to say (and it would be nice to have some reference about this) is radiating at the same power as the phone when reaching some human at 5m

No.

Exposure measurements made by one of UKHSA’s predecessor organisations can be found in 2 technical reports. The first of these focused on larger 2G base stations with their antennas mounted high above the ground and was published in 2000. It included measurements taken at 118 locations at 17 different base station sites. Average exposures were found to be 50,000 times below the ICNIRP public exposure guidelines and the maximum found at any location was 500 times below the guidelines. The second report was published in 2004 and focused on a sample of smaller base stations with their antennas nearer to ground level. The results showed exposures generally between 50,000 and 50 times below the ICNIRP guideline levels at accessible locations within a few tens of metres of the antennas.

[evan_au]

You mean that the phone towers power down regularly during the day like the poeple who are using their phone ?

Interference minimization between cells is important in cellular networks. As is reducing energy bills to power the cellular network.
- So it makes sense for a cell site transmitter to reduce the number of carriers used, and the total transmit power when there is less data to transmit.

But the phone tower...is radiating at the same power as the phone when reaching some human at 5m

I think it is good advice for hang-glider pilots and sky-divers to stay at least 5m away from cell-phone towers.
- For the rest of us (on the ground), the bulk of the radiation passes over out heads, as the peak of radiation is aimed at those nearer the cell edge (perhaps 1km away). At this distance, the inverse-square law reduces the intensity significantly.
- Similarly for base stations built on the roof of buildings - the antennas point outwards, and the power inside the building is minimal.
- I guess if a tall building went up near a shorter building with a base station on the roof, you would not want an antenna radiating straight into the windows of the new building! (Plus, the new building would create a bit of a shadow zone behind it.) The base station tends to be on the tallest building in an area, so perhaps the building developers consider that to be a revenue stream, and an incentive to build higher than anyone else...

[Overlap with alancalverd]

[Bored chemist]

Why do you think that the manufactures tried initially to lower down the power of the cell phones ?

Battery life, the fact that high power transistors are more expensive, the requirements to avoid breaking teh rules on causing EM interference.

But that's only what the science says.
Why do you think they did it?

[Deecart]

I think it is good advice for hang-glider pilots and sky-divers to stay at least 5m away from cell-phone towers.

I only talked about the phone towers so around 5m of the poeples.
Sometime you have some isolated tower with nobody living around, so its probably ok (not for the birds who arise on it of course... but who care)
But often i see some phone emmiter installed on the roof of  buildings.
The poeple who live at 5 m of it are surely impacted (they even sleep under these emitters).
In Paris where i lived on the top of some building there was some emiter so around 20 m of my room.
I could even hear the transmission when using some electronic devices and i finaly went sick : I became electrosensitive.

[Deecart]

Why do you think they did it?

Because they have to follow the FCC comission specifications.

     ?

A high level of SAR is known to have ill effects on humans.

- Phones with high SAR value can potentially damage the body, particularly when you hold the phones against your ears and talk on them.

- Researchers are increasingly getting convinced that the radiation from phones can damage sperm and cause infertility.

- Men may be more susceptible to phone radiation than women on fertility.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-sar-value-why-should-you-care-mohammad-atif

Because we are absolute sure that if we use higher SAR value we will make poeple ill or invalid.

Per example we actually know that using your laptop on your legs (using wifi) make you infertile.

Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22112647/

[evan_au]

Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility

I am not impressed with the control. As I read it:
- One set of samples were exposed to a laptop with WiFi
- The other set of samples was not exposed to a laptop at all
- Surely a better control would be the same model laptop, but communicating the same amount of data over wired Ethernet rather than WiFi?

It has been alleged for some time that males sitting a laptop on their lap top can increase the temperature of the testes, and lead to reduced fertility.
- It seems that they have repeated this in-vivo experiment using an in-vitro experiment
- And came to the same conclusion

So they have not demonstrated that WiFi is the cause of the effect.

https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(11)02678-1/fulltext

[Bored chemist]

I became electrosensitive.

Those who are self-described with EHS report adverse reactions to electromagnetic fields at intensities well below the maximum levels permitted by international radiation safety standards. The majority of provocation trials to date have found that such claimants are unable to distinguish between exposure and non-exposure to electromagnetic fields.[2][3] A systematic review of medical research in 2011 found no convincing scientific evidence for symptoms being caused by electromagnetic fields.[2] Since then, several double-blind experiments have shown that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields, suggesting the cause in these cases to be the nocebo effect.[4][5][6]

from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity

[Bored chemist]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-sar-value-why-should-you-care-mohammad-atif

WHo?