/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12538436
depends if you want jewish or chinese interference

>>12538436
They're both bad, but I find I respond more strongly to 4G / LTE, though wifi is noticeable as well. Bluetooth and DECT are the worst though, subjectively. Apparently rhe peak power of most modern DECT units is quite high.

>>12538436
What about turning it off?

>>12538458
>>12538462
>>12538463
So...what's worst ?

>>12538463
But then I won't be able to get alerts for when someone replies to my posts on 4chan and reddit.

>>12538474
Just get a desktop or an ethernet cable.

>>12538474
Connect it by ethernet.

Bump

>>12538474
well you could always leave 4chan for your home site and then you'd only have to worry about one

>>12538436
This thread is relevant to something I saw in Jackie Chan movie on Netflix. In The Foreigner, he wraps his phone in a layer of aluminum foil to prevent tracking. I don't think this would work, but could many layers work?
Btw, make time for yourself OP retard. Someone texting you doesn't mean you have to respond. You aren't their assistant or their bitch.

So what's worst

>>12538436
Look at this smug freak, does anyone else want to just fucking break his face?

Bump

Bump

>>12538472
>>12538436
>what's worst
what's WORSE you esl idiot

>>12538462
Nice delusion

>>12541862
it's spelled easel

>>12541866
>Delusion
It's actually my ESP angels giving me information about these demon waves anon.

>>12541866
>brings it down to your level
Nuh uh! You're delusional! So there!

I tought this board was full of knowledgable turbo autists who could actually answer the question.

>>12541900
OK, schizo.

>>12541919
OK, schizo.

>>12541914
Your question is based on a false premise.

>>12541927
How so

>>12541971
radiation and electromagnetic fields have absolutely zero effect on living beings no matter how strong

>>12541974
>have absolutely zero effect

That's simply false. Radiation and electromagnetic fields do interact with matter.

>>12541991
Basic physics say otherwise. EM radiation and fields are transmitted by photons, which do not have mass and therefore do not interact with matter

>>12541994
So if you hold a phone in your hand for 10 years straight without stopping, what's worst for your health ? The 4g setting or the Wi-Fi setting ?

>>12542001
Neither. There is literally no harmful effects that would come from it. The cells in your hand are already constantly emitting EM radiation

>>12542014
Let's say you hold the phone close to your vital organs for 10 years straight, still nothing ?

>>12542022
Oh yeah in that case 4G is worse.
The waves put little nanomachines into your organs which turn you into a liberal.

>>12542022
eh I was just fuckin with you but the other anon bringing up liberals ruined the fun. I do actually think phone signals and EM pollution are harmful at high enough concentrations and it's annoying that mainstream science isn't talking about it

>>12542054
So what's worst beetween 4g and Wifi ?

>>12542062
idk how you'd even compare the two. You definitely shouldn't spend time right next to a cell tower, on the other hand a router is probably worse for you than your personal phone
anyone who thinks wi-fi has absolutely no effect, I dare you to sleep with your router under your pillow for a month

>>12542054
>I do actually think phone signals and EM pollution are harmful at high enough concentrations
Based on what?

>>12542253
Based on the fact that cellular towers have warning signs on them, and also basic common sense. I'm not saying we've reached the point where the levels have become harmful, I'm saying that a harmful level exists theoretically

>>12542253
My fee fees

>>12542266
Wet floors also have warning signs, do you get harmed by standing near them?
Legos are covered in warning signs, do you get harmed if you stand near them?

>>12542498
funny if bait, if unironic let me know if you want to know why that's retarded

>>12542503
Okay, why? I'm only holding them to the same standards you do.

>>12542508
Because unlike cell towers, the dangers presented by wet floors and legos do not manifest when you passively stand next to them

>>12538730
do the fucking math yourself

calculate the skin depth of aluminum foil and make as many layers as possible to make it so that


oh fuck it one layer is enough you faggot

>>12538436
If you think either of those non-ionizing radiations harm the human body, why do you even have your phone (or other electronical devices) near your bed while you sleep?

I don't think they harm us and still I would not take my phone into the bedroom.

>>12538436
how the hell are either of those penetrating cell membranes enough to cause replication error?

>>12543253
>>12543266
why does this sign >>12542517 exist?

>>12542517
because of the field strength which rapidly drops off over distance.
And yes a radio tower has to have lots of power to reach anywhere.

>>12543277
my point was always that the em field given off by devices has the potential to harm you at high enough levels, not that those levels have already been reached

>>12543268
Politics. Did you know there's a sign in every California restaurant that warns about cancer causing chemicals within? Do you know what chemical they are referring to? The fucking chemical that is the natural brown color of toasted bread.

>>12543281
yeah sure, my old man worked in high voltage protection for 25 years in the SMA, definitely in field strengths and close proximity to cause some concern, he's healthy as an ox.

>>12543296
sorry I meant yeah for sure, not yeah sure hehe

>>12543281
>em field given off by devices has the potential to harm you at high enough levels
Fuck your lies, schizo. NON-IONIZING is safe.

>>12544333
is the radiation from a cell tower ionizing?

>>12543268
Did you not read the reply chain? Inverse square law and such as shown here >>12543277
Even then: It is non-ionizing radiation, it cannot harm your body's molecules.

>>12538436
As a conspiracy theorist I‘m now wearing a mask it’s the new Al hat.
Just turn your phone into flight mode. It’s the most healthy option considering the value of a good night sleep.

What's the definitive answer

ITT a bunch of people talking about things they've never studied.

Height of absurdity. There is a mountain of actual scientific literature on this topic. Not that you'll read it when you could just put forward high school physics level a priori notions as though they're fact.

>>12538436
1) Neither. Stop giving conspiracy theorists a bad name by believing this retarded garbage.
2) If you ACTUALLY believed this crap, you wouldn't have a phone at all.

>>12547941
Garrett baby, it's time for your weekly ECT!

>>12547977

>>12547982
Here comes the lightning!

>>12547987
Nothing would surprise me at this point.