/sci/ - Science & Math

The amount of radiation released by phones and cell towers is dwarfed even by regular light, and it's not a harmful wavelength of radiation either way.

>>10626906
U sure? I don't think it's safe to use a phone 20 hours a day. In a call.. everyday? Is that safe?

>>10626902
BUMPPPP

>Imagine, if an average male has a mobile phone to his balls (in his pocket) for 20 hours a day

Microwave radiation has been proven to be a successful contraceptive. Even if you're not chatting, if the phone is broadcasting data over cellular internet then it's microwaving your testicles and making you infertile.

>>10626902
>cell towers
Protip, the cell tower's signal is there regardless of if you are in a call or not.

>>10626902
>phone to his head for 20 hours a day
you fucking what?

>>10626902
why are you only concerned with cell phone radiation? What about radio, infrared, gamma, ect. Those are all surrounding us constantly. Why would this one be any worse?

>>10627108
Thou dost not understand ionization

>>10627234
>lower energy than visible light
>ionization
go play in the traffic you stupid fuck, your monitor is bathing you in more EM radiation than every cellular tower and individual phone in 50 mile radius

>>10627313
Thy Orbulon can explain. Past a certain specific frequency, EM radiation may result in cellular damage. Orbulon hopes thou understands now.

>>10627440
Typing in an annoyingly dramatic way doesn't lend credibility to your claims.
You say a specific frequency, well, be more specific.
The entire board hopes you understand now.

>>10627234
>>10627440
Microwaves are on the wrong end of EM radiation. They are non-ionizing. So any damage would be in the form of heat that gets absorbed and cooks the cells, which as >>10627313 points out, cell phones and their towers are far too low energy for. Even less energy than the visible light coming out of your monitor.

Consider it this way, if your phone was pumping out shit tons of high energy microwaves, your battery would last seconds. And if it took shit tons of power to blast high energy microwaves from cell towers, then our phone bills would be astronomical to cover the costs. No, that shit has to be as efficient and low power as possible to get the job done so they can milk out profits.

>>10626902
About 3fiddy

>>10626902
Literally never. Sunlight is worse.

Diem E, Jahn O, Rüdiger HW (2005) Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile phone radiation in human fibroblasts and transformed GFSHR17 (rat granulosa) cells in vitro. Mutat Res 583(2):178-83.

Ivancsits S, Pilger A, Diem E, Jahn O, Rüdiger HW (2005) Cell type specific genotoxic effects of intermittent extremely low frequency
electromagnetic fields. Mutat Res 583(2):184-8

Remondini D, Nylund R, Reivinen J, Poulletier de Gannes F, Veyret B, Lagroye I, Haro E, Trillo AM, Capri M, Schlatterer K, Gminski R, Fitzner
R, Tauber R, Schuderer J, Kuster N, Leszczynski D, Bersani F, Maercker C (2006) Gene expression changes in human cells after exposure to
mobile phone microwaves. Proteomics 6(17):4745-54.
There is a lot more of this shit, simply because radiation is non-ionizing isn't the whole story, the cells can be modified by energetic transitions in the vibrational and rotational spectra, it's obviously not as damaging as higher energetic radiation, but we simply don't know well enough to make a conclusion, but there are quite a few studies throwing really bad light on 5G.

>>10626918
The sunlight that comes through your window during the day and lights up your room is far more energetic and dangerous than cell signal radiation. That's not to say you should live in the dark; rather, the dose makes the poison, and the radiation from phones is so negligible that you can call it harmless.

Hell, soil and rock naturally contain small amounts of radioactive isotopes which bombard you every second of every day with truly carcinogenic ionizing radiation. However, life has evolved to be able to deal with small doses of ionizing radiation, so you're quite unlikely to get cancer from this. The moral of the story is, the dose makes the poison.

>>10627764
>Vibrational and rotational spectra

I love pseudo-babble.

>>10627789
The fuck are you talking about? Rotational and vibrational excitations in molecules are the ones that are happening inside the cells at this energy scale, not electronic. I don't understand why people think that just because you don't ionize a molecule you don't fundamentally change it's behaviour or energetic states by introducing any sorts of radiation, this is how non-thermal DNA breakage is induced, you absolute brainlet.

>>10627764
Diem et al fabricated their data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20100594

Microwave radiation absolutely cannot break the chemical bonds in DNA anywhere near the doses present in cell phone radiation.

>>10627764
>>10627838
And here's a comprehensive review on effects of RF radiation on gene expression: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2535611/

Basically, most positive results have serious methodological and reproducibility issues, and there are plenty of negative results, so RF radiation is unlikely to have any effects worth considering at the doses we receive from cell phones and towers.

>>10627806
>Rotational and vibrational excitations in molecules are the ones that are happening inside the cells at this energy scale, not electronic.

More pseudo-babble. You sound like a Star Trek writer.

>this is how non-thermal DNA breakage is induced, you absolute brainlet.

Thermal energy is literally all photons are. You’re hilarious.

>>10627440
>Past a certain specific frequency, EM radiation may result in cellular damage
Dude the strongest (proposed) 5G transmitters are like 300 Gigahertz.
The weakest color starts at something like 400 Terahertz. That's an order of magnitude difference. And the EM radiation that actually starts to fuck with your cells is another order of magnitude above that.

>>10626902
Still no redpill, so bump

>>10627838
>>10627874
EM schizo rekt

>>10627519
>Microwaves are on the wrong side of the spectrum
This was Orbulon's point.

>>10629780
You didn't make a point.
You made a statement which was fucking wrong.