This is TOTAL wank. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 10:27:06 pm
content: Excuse me for watching TYT, however for real world events, they tend to be alright, but this is rubbish. I am seriously considering not watching TYT anymore.And for those who do not yet want to watch the video, this is definitely tech related.For the hundredth time, there is minute to no ionizing radiation emitted from cellphones, and EM radiation is harmless at the levels a smartphone emits.And from an overall standpoint, these studies are goddamn rubbish. They get the same figures from things they link to cancer. And "Scientists" have linked ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you canthink of to cancer.I bet you could run your life with 4 cellphones in your pocket blasting their radios away, and have no detectable evidence ANYWHERE on your bodies. Just because a group of people with a shiny papercalling them "Scientists" says something, doesn't mean it's true.http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/And it's true. WHO says that EM Radiation is possibly carcinogenic. I mean holy shit LIGHT is EM Radiation. And for modulated EM Radiation (Radio waves), we have had the same sort of radio waves our phones use being blasted a DAMN sight higher than our phones could ever produce since the start of the 20th century. This is all a load of wank. Would love to have your guys' opinions, and correct me if I said something wrong. Goddamn.Edit: We needed some of these.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 10:33:25 pm
content: Don't know about your cell phone, but mine gets physically warm when used to talk in a marginal location. The heat from four cell phones simultaneously in my pants pocket could do thermal damage to the old gene factory. Of course if you run four cell phones simultaneously in your pocket I would hope the sperm are damaged to the point of unviability, just for the sake of the next generation.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 10:35:08 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 18, 2016, 10:33:25 pmBecause batteries and processors create heat. So does the sun. It doesn't get hot enough to burn you through your clothes, and definitely not enough to hurt sperm.Either way, they aren't talking about that, they are blaming "Radiation from cellphones".

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 10:38:14 pm
content: Quotefor the 21st time, you probably want to take it up with the authors of those 21 research papers cited, not with this particular channel - seems to me that they are simply reporting the work others have done. So what's the beef with the reporting? take it to the horse's mouth.Those guys at least cited their sources for cell phone doing damaging work to your junk.What's your work to support the notion that "EM radiation is harmless at the levels a smartphone emits"?as to this statement:QuoteWell, the 2nd half of your statement is contracting the first half: if your phone is emitting "minute" radiation, however minute, it cannot at the same time emit "no radiation" at the same time. and vice versa.The 2nd half of your statement is definitely wrong: if it were correct, no cell phone would work wirelessly.As to it emitting "minute" radiation, well, where is your proof that it is harmless?BTW, i routinely put my phone in my jean pocket. But that's not to say that your statements are consistent logically or scientifically.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 10:47:05 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on September 18, 2016, 10:38:14 pmI am targeting both the research and TYT for publishing stupid research. And for them opening out saying research is fact.And yea, alright they cited their sources, but I could cite my gran and have her say the moon causes werewolves to come out at night.Because for years we have had modulated EM Radiation in the same say smartphones emit EM Radiation in the form of radio transmissions, with no ball breaking epidemic.It's an English term. Phones emit either no radiation, or a minute amount, it's a blanket statement saying no smartphones emit deadly amounts of Ionizing radiation.And I am referring to IONIZING radiation. This is particle radiation that has enough energy to rip electrons from atoms and molecules. EM Radiation is different.Because if it were to be emitting harmful levels of IONIZING radiation, you could pick it up with your favorite IONIZING radiation measuring tool, like a geigercounter.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 10:53:25 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 18, 2016, 10:35:08 pmAnd what is your source on the amount of heat required to damage sperm? The reason your testes are located in a little sac that hangs free of the body is that sperm actually don't do well at normal body temperature. There is some evidence that our modern clothing styles aren't good for us. Based on my experience with my cell phone it is quite believable to me that temperatures in the 120 to 130 F range (about 50C) are possible. Much worse than normal body temperature, though most people would find it uncomfortable enough to move the phones. Maybe not if it was only 105 F.

author: whitevamp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 10:54:28 pm
content: this reminds me about cel phones causing brain cancer, becouse of the radiation.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 10:55:41 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 18, 2016, 10:53:25 pmBecause for centuries people have lived in 120F weather in certain spots without any ball busting issue.However for most silicon, 90C is around a max temp, which is enough to burn skin.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 10:57:08 pm
content: QuoteSo you would be OK if someone pop you in a 10KW microwave and cook you there for a few hours?You really should think through your statements logically and check against common sense, at a bare minimum.Otherwise, no one can take you seriously.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 11:01:39 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on September 18, 2016, 10:57:08 pmQuoteEM radiation is harmless at the levels a smartphone emits.EM radiation is harmless at the levels a smartphone emits.EM radiation is harmless at the levels a smartphone emits.In where did I say that high levels of EM Radiation weren't harmful. I am saying cellphones contain insignificant amounts of ionizing radiation (if any) and that they don't produceEM Radiation high enough to cause damage.Understand what YOU are reading, and don't make statements that pull information form quotes out of your arse.And 10KW Microwave? There aren't household outlets in the EU or US (Household mind you) that can supply 10x1000 (10000) W of power.EDIT: As a point of fairness, I can make false statements, sometimes very bad ones, but I never said the things you have accused my being false of.

author: System Error Message
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 03:47:31 am
content: heat only does temporary damage as long as you dont cook it. Its why theres such a thing as cold showers/hot showers as a temporary measure.ASide from heat the problem used to be that at one point cell phones were using lots of power to communicate back with cell towers. It depends on the band.Infact putting laptop chargers in between your lags and the laptop on your lap produces more heat than your phone.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 03:50:25 am
content: Quote from: System Error Message on September 19, 2016, 03:47:31 amYou could stand next to a transmission tower, and without direct contact there wouldn't be any issue.

author: NottheDan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 04:07:36 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 18, 2016, 10:27:06 pmUV light is a known cause of cancer. No "holy shit" there.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 04:18:24 am
content: If it makes you feel better, I will validate your opinion that cell phones are not a significant or worrisome source of ionizing radiation.I also agree that it seems unlikely that RF emissions are a significant problem. It still remains possible that there is a small effect. Remember that absence of proof is not proof of absence.I don't think thermal emissions (radiated, conducted or convected) are a serious problem. But if there is a problem with cell phones it seems to me that this is the most likely source. Anecdotal comments about laptops and other sources of heat does not prove there is no effect, just indicates that the effect is not catastrophic.We would probably all agree that cell phones are deadly, in the sense of removing attention from the very real dangers of walking, biking, driving or operating heavy machinery in the real world. Far bigger problem than any health affect in the acoustic, RF, microwave, optical, UV, gamma or higher frequency radiation.So in the end, I concur, there is no "end of the world" problem here. But I wouldn't quite go so far as to say it is total wank (that there is no possibility of any problem).

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 05:06:20 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 18, 2016, 10:33:25 pmWhere do people tuck their phones? Down their underpants? Hip pockets are fairly out of the way. Furthermore, your balls literally has to rest on the transmitter before we can entertain the idea whether sperm damage is a possibility; and even then the whole claim is dubious without real empirical data.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 05:26:49 am
content: Except those that have a self-igniting smartphone. As recently unveiled by Samsung.

author: Ice-Tea
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 07:08:15 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 18, 2016, 11:01:39 pmGot 22kW right here. A lot of people here beat 10kW, easy.In addition, having a 2W transmitter in your pocket is a whole different game than a radio transmitter miles away. I'm by no means an expert and I have no "conclusion" on the topic but I actually prefer a whole bunch of scientists looking this over a hundred times over some dude on the internet yelling "no man, it's all fine, no worries".

author: 3db
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 07:44:39 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 18, 2016, 10:35:08 pmActually it depends on your clothes.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 07:53:06 am
content: Bunch of folks here need to read up on the topic of microwave-promoted chemistry. Google it. This has nothing at all to do with ionizing radiation, and nothing to do with local heating effects. It's much more subtle than that.Summary: molecules have natural resonant modes. EM signals in the microwave band (which cell phone signals are) can and do cause various molecular vibration modes to be larger than they would otherwise. With the vibration modes amplified and tuned to some extent by HF EM fields vs plain thermal vibration, there are a LOT of variations in how chemical reactions proceed and the resulting reaction product balances. This is what the field of industrial microwave-promoted chemistry is about. Biologists haven't really caught up with this, because they are more interested in how things work _normally_. Anyone who thinks this effect could not possibly have any harmful influence on living organisms by shifting balances in the metabolic machinery, is just being stupid.That's one definite potential for influence.Another is that cells interact with each other by exchanging various messenger molecules and ions via ion-pump channels and pores in the cell membrane - which is an electrical insulator. Ionic potential between inside and outside of the cell plays a very important role in these - and you wouldn't be able to look at your screen and think about what you are reading if they weren't. Since that's how neurones fire. The complex of ways cells interact via ion channels is vast, and still being explored. (In brief, we still know squat.) Some of those inter-cell communications are related to cell division regulation, and contribute to cancer when they go wrong. So you think imposing HF E fields (no matter how small) across cell membranes can't possibly have any harmful effect? So then, go electrocute yourself. That's just a low frequency and higher current version of the same thing.Here's another. Hopefully you'll enjoy this because it's so weird and unexpected. Think you know the structure and properties of the water molecule? Yes, but there's another form, semi-stable, to which microwaves can switch normal water molecules. I'm not convinced this is real, but it's interesting. Couple of starter links:http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-43.pdfhttp://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOPCJ/TOPCJ-5-1.pdfPoint being, that if it _is_ real, that's another potential path for microwave influence of body tissue, because this form of water behaves quite different chemically.I think a lot of people tend to be outraged by suggestions of cell phones being harmful, due to Confirmation Bias, in which they assume that since they use cell phones, cells phones must be perfectly safe. And to show otherwise would make them look like fools.Problem is, there's accumulating evidence they are not safe. Another eg:http://www.naturalnews.com/054165_cell_phone_radiation_brain_tumors_government_study.htmlMassive government study concludes cell phone radiation causes brain cancerThis is not a topic I save links on. I just decided when cell phones arrived that I'd avoid them as much as possible for philosophical reasons. Then later added Precautionary Principle. But really I don't care. The world is overpopulated and too many people are as unquestioning as sheep. By all means, carry your cell phones in your pockets.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 08:03:47 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 19, 2016, 03:50:25 amI can tell you from bitter experience that standing in the radiant path of a tower antenna with any form of close proximity for any reasonable period of time will give you a cracking headache. I've worked on 2 buildings with concealed antenna that have not had the appropriate warning signs in place and after standing on the roof admiring the view for a while I needed a bex and a good lie down. A quick call to the operator has seen signs popped on the roof doors smartish and an off-the-record (ie please don't sue us) apology both times.I'm not in any way implying any form of permanent damage, however there were observable physiological effects.As for the thermal characteristics of the testes, those are well known. A quick chat to any doctor specializing in fertility will set you straight. Of course you could just continue to spout uninformed rubbish too. Yes. Heat is bad. Laptops are a notorious issue. Mobile phones in pockets? Not so much.

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 08:11:40 am
content: QuoteProblem is, you are trusting natrualnews.com as a primary source of information, which contains a lot of dubious content with pseudo-scientific nonsense. Sorry, but take anything on that site with a grain of salt.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 10:24:12 am
content: Quote from: AntiProtonBoy on September 19, 2016, 08:11:40 am_Someone_ can't tell the difference between a news aggregation site (NaturalNews) and actual primary sources. Which is linked in the article, if you'd bothered to read a few lines, instead of kneejerk rejecting everything from a source because you disagree with content, and don't understand the concept of 'read widely, file for reference, not necessarily accepting everything as gospel.'The source:http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdfWhich is the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory preprint server for biology. Well known for pseudo-scientific nonsense?I hope everyone remembers the tobacco industry strenuously insisting that smoking cigarettes had absolutely no connection whatsoever with lung cancer, and to prove it there were endless studies showing no link. (Then later being proven to have known all along.) We are at about the same stage with cell phones I think.They've only been around for what, 20 years? Ubiquitous for 15? Wait till we see the stats for mid-life adults who used cellphones heavily all their lives, since childhood.This is what I meant by Precautionary Principle btw. I think harmful effects are possible, though weakly established as yet. But since I don't really need to carry and use a cellphone, I choose to do so extremely rarely. If they'd been in use for 50 years and clearly had no effect, it would be different.

author: macboy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 12:40:43 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 18, 2016, 11:01:39 pmCitations?Citations?Citations?No? Didn't think so.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 01:13:51 pm
content: That's why I wear this :

author: 3db
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 01:29:51 pm
content: Quote from: edy on September 19, 2016, 01:13:51 pmBrilliant

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 01:38:10 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 18, 2016, 10:27:06 pmNot exactly true.Put a transmitting smart phone up to your head 24/7/365 and you might not be saying that in decade or two.At some level of power and duration, RF radiation has the capability to cause biological problems. It's why they have standard for these things and test for them in phone designs.There have been several studies on rats and mice that show correlation, a more recent one is:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/That doesn't mean go batshit anti-phone crazy, but it does mean you shouldn't go around making the blanket statement "EM radiation is harmless at the levels a smartphone emits" as if it's a fact. There is very good evidence to suggest the opposite may be true and the industry takes it very seriously.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 01:42:22 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 18, 2016, 10:47:05 pmErr, having a several watt RF peak transmitter right up against you head is kinda alotdifferent to an RF transmitter many km away, or a WiFi transmitter meters away etc. Distance mattersa lot.

author: StuUK
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 01:46:27 pm
content: Quote from: edy on September 19, 2016, 01:13:51 pmIs that his cellphone stuffed in his trousers... silly boy, no kids for him....

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 01:51:06 pm
content: QuoteUhuh. Yea, well a telecoms transmitter in a phone doesn't put out enough current to electrocute you.And for everyone else, yea the effect isn't drastic, People have lived their whole lives just fine next to EM transmission towers. They have been around long enough, and people work around them daily without ball busting head smashing effects. A citation of a source can be useless. Anyone can push an agenda, and trying to find someone telling the truth for the sake of telling the truth is a game of sherlock.I can quote any damned article, and any damned test I please. I could find the studies, evidence, and people to convince someone that werewolves exist, or that bigfoot is real. It's a game of how much you agree with the evidence.What the actual science is behind the supposed effects of EM radiation, I don't know for complete, but I have personally met people who have been born in the 50's when radios were more than common. They had TVs, radios, and there have been hobbyist radio people for DECADES. EM Radiation is a broad definition for things like light, radio waves, and other sorts of things. So yea, if I were to stick my head in my microwave and get myself a tan (10 points to whoever gets that) or I stick my tongue in a lamp holder, I would get damaged. Same as if I was outside in UV light, or I had a powerful laser on me. But through examining what is going on, there is no reasonable evidence to suggest there are noticeable effects.Whenever you or anyone quotes a study, there is more than a 50/50 chance that they are being paid to make a fact. There could be people who have some weird monetary or political agenda, who are trying to discourage the use of cellphones. Anyone can be bribed, paid off, or told to do anything, and if done right the average Joe can't tell the facts from the fabrications. There can be some convincing bullshit.It's like what is said to cause cancer. I were to completely stop using everything that has a possible link to cancer, I would live such a hollow life, vegans would pity me.I mean even if EM radiation could be somehow harmful, it's not making it's self known drastically enough to be a concern in my opinion. I mean you would probably be worse off driving, or walking down a flight of stairs than with a phone in your pocket. More people have gotten injuries that way, where's the panic about that?It's not like the effects of lead, mercury, ionizing radiation, and other dangerous chemicals that were originally thought harmless that in a few years made themselves damn well known, EM radiation just doesn't break enough stuff in an open enough way to be alarming to me.And if you feel endangered by this, you have a hell of a load of higher risks of stuff that can happen to you. I can firmly say, with the lack of massive deaths reported on the issue, the vehicle you drive daily, or weekly is more dangerous than a lifetime of cellphone usage.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 01:53:10 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 19, 2016, 01:38:10 pmFair enough, but that's what some people are doing.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 01:54:55 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 19, 2016, 01:42:22 pmFair enough again, but what about hobby radio? That's been around for a while.But to comment, I do not take it as a serious risk. Serious risks show major issues. This hasn't caused everyone with a cellphone to go sterile yet.

author: R_Gtx
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 04:04:14 pm
content: A couple of relevant research papers:10.1016/j.toxlet.2013.01.00310.3109/09553002.2013.811309It does look as though there is an increasing body of evidence that deliberately irradiating one's bollocks may not be overly beneficial.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 08:26:51 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 18, 2016, 10:27:06 pmI think the only place TYT would be considered "alright" is in Cenks alternative realityhttps://youtu.be/lsVONO75utI

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2016, 01:08:05 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 19, 2016, 01:42:22 pmDave,people work at Transmitter sites.In the old days,we used to wander at will around the paddock in front of HF curtain arrays driven by 50kW Transmitters.The number of kids produced by such folks is about the same as the average number.Cancer is at average rates,too.What do seem more common among old time Tx Techs are heart conditions.(probably tied up with eating habits when on shift work)

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2016, 01:26:13 am
content: Lot of people don't seem to realize that the heat generated by a cell phone is not because of the RF, it's because of the actual device itself getting warm. Processor, battery etc. The RF power is very low. I imagine you'd have to get into the 100w range for it to be dangerous. Microwave ovens operate in a similar frequency range as cell phones and wifi, but they also output at like 1200w. Whether it's non ionizing or not does not matter much though, non ionizing radiation can still be dangerous at certain power levels, but I don't think cells output enough for that. That said I probably would not want to climb up a cell tower without the transmitters being turned off.

author: Santa3
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 20, 2016, 04:49:35 am
content: I dread to think where you dragged that image up from.

author: CoffinDodger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2016, 08:39:30 pm
content: I can testify that as a radiology technician my balls have been radiated numerous times while in compromising (protection wise) positions to support patients and my sack seems to operate just fine. I don't think a bit of cell phone hootinany is going to do much.However, like with trying to study the long terms effect of low dosage radiation procedures on people, how would they go about trying to separate the effects of every other event/vector/some correct word/what?/bs in their subjects' lives from strictly that of the cell phone. I don't think they could. Best result would be a short high powered burst to see if there is an effect period. Then multiple medium length bursts of a smaller magnitude to see if that effect is cumulative.or by blasting mice and such. which I think was mentioned early. (did dave mention it? I think dave mentioned it...)

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2016, 09:44:05 pm
content: Please note that there is noradiationimmediately next to a cell phone or similar device. Very close to the antenna, you are in the "near field" (cf.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field) where energy is not moving, but is being stored in the EM field. A few wavelengths out, and you are in the "far field", where energy is moving outward from the source. The relationship between the field values in near and far regions depends strongly on the geometry. The inverse-square law is only valid in the far field region.As pointed out above, there is noionizingradiation involved in this discussion.

author: System Error Message
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2016, 02:19:14 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on September 20, 2016, 01:26:13 amCell phones dont operate at the same frequency as wifi unless you use wifi on them. The frequency that cell phones use even for 4G is still within the radio band which has a lower frequency than microwave or wifi. There was one cell phone band that did use more power which is more of a concern but i think that band is barely ever used anymore (its still around though).The 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz band are within the microwave region. Satellites use frequencies in the microwave region and infact a satellite from space pointing at you is more harmful than your wifi router. Wifi routers at most use 500mW and up to 1W of combined power (2.4Ghz + 5Ghz) per radio. That means a triband radio wifi router will have a maximum of 1.5W combined. When you add distance however the power drops real fast. Only non consumer wifi equipment transmits at higher watts (such as 1.5W per radio) but are still harmless because they are still smaller than background radiation. What matters is the ionisation and thats something that can be measured.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrumShould educate you on what is harmful or not. EM fields arent great for the body in large quantities but in small quantities are totally fine but in large quantities just makes you unhealthy in general.background radiation is more of a concern as it can cause bits in ram to flip.ionising radiation which is harmful is in a band higher than visible light.