/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12229282
Is a frog's ass water tight?

>>12229282
Dose response is nonlinear in all dimensions. You won't have any good discussion here, or probably, anywhere. Just do the research yourself.

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF

My own bit.

>>12229282
No.

>>12229294
Prof?

>>12229282
rf radiation tends to reflect off people like light off a mirror at frequencies over 20GHz. the skin depth is really tiny. such frequencies are used for millimeter wave imaging like found in airports

>>12229309
Sweat glands, capillaries, hair follicles, eyes.

Bump

>>12229401
>Keep distance
Good, generally.

>Measure
Not possible with mmWaves. Last I knew measurement equipment was fragile and expensive. Perhaps in a great and despicable irony 5G phones themselves will facilitate this. Power density alone is not the greatest predictor of effects. Antennasearch can be used to infer exposure.

>emf shields
Highly variable.

>Protect home
Don't use wi-fi, period. There is so much wireless junk now the average person could never figure out how to get rid of it.

>Diet
Yes, kind of You want antioxidants, but you also want to support the glutathione related systems.

>Earthing
Yes. Ideally it should be a conductive rod driven deep into the ground, and you can run a cable off of it and stand on it, connect it to your body when you sleep, etc. You should be wary of ground currents in your area.

>Educate yourself
Worthless. The colective will still irradiate you, your workplace will irradiate you, your neighbors will irradiate you, they will continue to build towers, and there is nothing you can do to stop them.

>>12229400
mainly eyes. they don't dissipate heat well, and cook pretty easily. but phone energy densities will be low enough to not cook eyes. standing next to a tower transmitter on the other hand might carry some risk, especially if people try using reconfigurable antennas to improve SNR or spatially multiplex

>>12229293
Less thread makey more meds takey, boy
https://pastebin.com/B2mmisWm

what happened to this board?

>>12229282
>Is electricity really dangerous?

>>12229282
it's a scam with planned obsolescence by design.
mostly conceived because of immense salt when "west" watched how they were losing market share on its own turf, during deployment of LTE

>>12230501
faggots like you stopped allowing open discussion

>>12229282
Yes. But not bc of photons.

Is the internet dangerous? Yes. But not because of photons.

>>12230471
>posting that pastebin incessantly
>telling someone else to take their meds
k

No, of course not, ask Karen.

>>12230678
This.

All of these posts:
>>12229289
>>12229294
>>12230471
>>12230501
>>12230641
>>12230762
>>12230954
are substanceless garbage. Shitposts.

>>12229282
Stick your hand into your microwave and turn it on and see what happens then tell me if it's dangerous ..!!

>>12230965
Turn on a light bulb in your room and tell me if it cooks you alive?
>>12229282
It's probably not dangerous of you aren't standing within 5 feet of the tower, the effects of heating from low energy microwaves is no different that placing your hand on a warm surface in terms of effect

>>12229820
>>12230994

From:
>>12229293
>https://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF

See:
https://pastebin.com/QzVfzXPM

>everybody posting articles, or spouting memes
>not summarizing it in 2 sentences
boo

>>12229282
No and where did you get that graph?
5G is in the spectrum of non-ionising radiation and can reach 25GHz at most.
There isn't any harm and some antennas are only 4G antennas that are upgraded to 5G since some 4G antennas reach the lowest 5G spectre.

>>12231058
can microwaves harm you?

>>12231034
The summation was:
>no, take your meds.

>>12231028
>>12231028
>>12231028
>>12231028
>>12231028

READ.

>>12231028
Anyone who refuses to read the latest literature on this topic does not deserve to take part in the conversation.

>>12231164
yes because microwaves are ionizing radiations

>>12229282
Yes

>>12231657
so this chart is wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation

>>12231225
misinterpretation of a bunch of old papers?

>>12231728
>>12231657
>>12231164
radiation doesn't have to be ionizing to be harmful. 0.1 seconds of thought will tell you that you can burn your hand holding it over a stove, and being in a microwave oven while it is running is a bad idea.

ionizing radiation just means that individual photons are above a certain energy that they can strip electrons from atoms (e.g. ionize), which is bad because it's like a wreaking ball in yo biochemistry

>>12229282
4.999...G is dangerous, but fortunately 5G has improvements which makes it not dangerous and truly greater than 4.999...G.

>>12229282
No
>>12229401
Bullshit infograph, mixing 5g and wifi frequencies like that

>>12231746
Nope.

>>12229282
No you fucking retarded nigger.

Basic physics lesson, since the speed of light is constant, the energy of EM radiation is carried by its frequency or wavelength (they're just inverses of each other). The higher the frequency (or the shorter the wavelength) the more energy the radiation has. There is an equation called the Planck-Einstein Wave energy equation that defines this relation more rigorously

The wavelength of 5G is 1-10 mm, visible light is 600-350 nm, which is much shorter than 5G. So visible light has more energy than 5G.

Let's suppose that 5G did cause cancer, then visible light would fry us instantly, since it has orders of magnitude more energy than 5G, but visible light doesn't kill us so you stupid niggers are wrong.

>>12231830
See:

>>12229293
>Dose response is nonlinear in all dimensions.

>>12231028
>>12231285
>Anyone who refuses to read the latest literature on this topic does not deserve to take part in the conversation.

>>12231830
have you heard of power density? i work with rf and am not alarmed by 5G, but your post is five-alarm-fire levels of retarded

>>12231835
Glad someone else on this isn't either a baiting nolife or a schizo nigger retard

>>12231830
>Let's suppose that 5G did cause cancer, then visible light would fry us instantly
what are resonant frequencies
what is transmittance

>then visible light would fry us instantly
well, actually it kind of does

>>12229309
That's straight up radiation

>>12231835
>>Anyone who refuses to read the latest literature on this topic does not deserve to take part in the conversation.
lmao fuck off

>>12229282
Yes because it allows you to consume psychologically damaging advertising campaigns more easily.

>>12229309
so your saying the 5g is a ploy and its really trays so the government can get more child porn because the tsa cant get nudes of minors that dont go to airports

>>12229282
Will GOD RAPE your ROTTED CUNT?

>>12233461
yeah, electromagnetic radiation, aka light.

>>12229401
>keet it away from you
What a well written infographic!

>>12231765
4.999... = 5 sorry buddy

>>12233487
this is the real danger of 5G
it's going to be used for surveillance and propaganda and won't improve peoples lives. going from 3G to 4G just resulted in a bunch of mental illness, the internet brings out the worst in humans
whenever the media only allows crazy people to object to something you should feel suspicious but 99% of people took the bait

>>12229309
First thing that struck when reading about it is that is uses same frequency as airport security scanners, yet all conspiracy theories regarding 5G omit it and focus on other things despite it being such an easy target.

Personally I don't know if they could be used as iluminators for scanning, but if someone can shed some light on this topic i would be very happy.

>>12229282
Hi guys

I know about microwaves not being capable of knocking electrons.

However could there be any mechanism besides that one that we could discover in the future or that you have imagined already through which said radiation could pose a harm to humans or a way to interact with matter in some way that eventually affects us?

I'm not a conspiracist, just genuine curiosity.

>>12231164
Hurt pretty bad when I dropped one on my foot.

>>12233954
A moderate increase in bandwidth is going to increase surveillance and propaganda?

>>12234080
If you aren't conspiratard then accept that the answer is no.

>>12234045
main difference between airport scanners and cell tech is that scanners emit 1/1000 the power that cellphones emit. this isn't surprising considering a scanner is looking at something right in front of it, while a cellphone has to talk to a tower 100s of meters away. also, phones are held next to the head when being used. it is a legitimate concern if dielectric heating from phone radiation is enough to hurt someone, but the answer is probably no because 1) it doesn't hurt 2) temperature change is imperceptible 3) it doesn't cook corneas 4) higher frequencies have smaller skin depths.

i personally wouldn't want to be standing next to a tower transmitter without knowing its specs, though. even then, advanced antennas may be reconfigurable, and focus radiation in ways that locally exceeds safety margins.

i work with scanners, so i'm not concerned about the power levels i work with, but i don't have a good sense for when rf equipment can be dangerous

>>12234138
I won't accept that, science requires constant thinking, rebuttal and thus progress.

I'm asking if anyone could think of a way that could happen, outside of currently known mechanisms.

This involves wild baseless guesses, but those hypothesis could lead to something in the future.

I'm open to creative baseless guesses by people with some science background so there are no gross principia violations.

>>12234197
turn your stove to high and hold your hand over it to find out if non-ionizing radiation can hurt you or not

>>12234203
You're being way too simplistic here.

>>12234567
actually, i'm not. my point is that non-ionizing radiation can cause damage by heating. granted, the heating mechanism between IR and RF is different (molecular rotational modes vs dielectric heating), but the outcome is the same: heat. The frequencies a cellphone uses are widely consider safe at the power densities it can produce. Compare against a radar system, which could use the same frequencies and melt a chocolate bar in your pocket (along with cooking your corneas)

>>12234611
Thanks, however is there nothing of what we've learnt on quantum mechanics or with new technology that could lead to new findings on this regard?