/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10844757
A little bit. If you are in the industry and regularly work less than a couple meters from high powered antennas for more than a few hours a day you should probably turn them off first.

>>10844757
5G is not dangerous, it uses millimeter waves, which are in the 300GHz zone, or microwaves. Microwaves are non ionizing (cannot damage DNA and cause cancer) and the intensity used in a cell phone will not excite your water molecules enough to cook you like in a kitchen microwave.

Theres a study anti 5G enthusiasts like to throw around, the NTP study, which claimed to find a correlation between cell phone radiation and cancer. However, statistically significant results for cancer only appeared in the 6w/kg intensity test, which is way higher than the intensity we experience, which is around 1.5w/kg.

Mind you the mice in this study had transmitters held to their bodies (0 feet) for 9 hours a day for 2 years, which is way more than a typical person holds a phone to their skull.

The study is not accurate as to what people experience on a day to day basis, so the results are not worrying. I do think there needs to be more accurate studies done however, to clear up many of the common misconceptions about radiation.

>>10844757
Like it matters. We won't even be getting 5G as it thermal throttles the phones so much they have to switch to 4G.

>>10844802

What about sperm quality and dizziness?

>>10844812
What about them? For all you know 5G increases sperm quality and decreases dizziness.

>>10844812
No studies on these, time to get to work anon!

>>10844802
>I do think there needs to be more accurate studies done however, to clear up many of the common misconceptions about radiation.
I think there needs to be a concerted effort to explain to normies just exactly what radiation is and why not all of it is gonna melt the flesh off your bones or turn you into the hulk.
I bet upwards of 90% of the civilized world is unaware that they themselves emit radiation.

>>10844757
microwave kills all biology. it is incompatible with life.

bioinitiative.org

why post deleted, coping tranny janny?

>>10845098
5G/MICROWAVE RADIATION KILLS ALL BIOLOGICAL LIFE

>>10844802
>A rational opinion
We don't take kindly to your ilk around here.

>>10845102

Was this proven to give cancer for anything other than mice and rats? Also, weren't the mice and rats bombarded with large amounts of non-ionizing radiation? The devil's in the details you dope.

>>10845126
b-but muh thermal effects muh non-ionizing

Oh my god. How did I click on Facebook??? For your information I am related to a person who has brought 5G to life. You might call me biased because of that. But all I can say to you is that these people know what they are doing. You should worry more about what social internet conspiracy theories are doing to your brain than the actual waves that will penetrate it. In short, if you are worried about this, you are a natural-born crank.

>>10845126
Don't forget that the female control rats had only slightly less tumors and the male control rats had slightly more.

>>10845130
Living life causes tumors. Okay?

>>10845138
living life near safe non-ionizing FM transmitters causes more tumors

>>10845037
>>10845102

See >>10844802 in regards to the NTP study.

>>10845145
FM transmitters use power on the order of Kw, cell phones use single digit watts.

>>10844802
>>10845222
the study was only looking at extremely severe effects, i.e cancer, not low level effects such as tinnitus or immune system suppression which obviously happen at levels even lower than in the NTP study and are happening to hundreds of millions right now as a result of exposure to artificial EMF

also, the study used very old 2G/3G signal architecture which was much less bioactive, only one single frequency when in reality people are exposed to dozens with synergistic effects and resonances, and the chamber was designed by the telecoms industry essentially to make the test fail but the rats STILL got cancer

>>10845222
FM power that hits you will not be kW unless you live right on top of the antenna

>>10845222
>FM transmitters use power on the order of Kw, cell phones use single digit watts.
I remember a story about a crazy guy who had a million watt station down in mexico that could be heard in canada.

>>10845233
>not low level effects such as tinnitus or immune system suppression which obviously happen
[citation needed]

>>10844802
>had transmitters held to their bodies (0 feet) for 9 hours a day for 2 years, which is way more than a typical person holds a phone to their skull.
this is getting the details of the study wrong I believe, the antennas were on the walls of the reverberation chambers

>>10845239
bioinitiative.org

>>10845233
>the study used very old 2G/3G signal architecture which was much less bioactive
[citation needed]

>only one single frequency when in reality people are exposed to dozens with synergistic effects and resonances
[Citation Needed]

>and the chamber was designed by the telecoms industry essentially to make the test fail but the rats STILL got cancer
[CITATION NEEDED]

>>10845233
If you look at the actual publication, statistically significant increase in cancer was only found in the 6w/kg group. Not the 1.6w/kg group which is just above the standard. So no, no one is getting cancer right now, the NTP study showed this. It's when they crank up the wattage to abnormal levels does cancer start occurring. The rats were also exposed to very close radiation 9 hours a day for 2 years. Even at this much exposure, the 1.6w/kg group did NOT see statistically significant increases in cancer.

>>10845248
read the study:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr595_508.pdf

>>10845246
Let me guess these people have Electrohypersensitivity disorder and claim effects even though blind trials show they can't tell if a device is on or off.

>>10845250
people are exposed to much more modulated signals 24 hours a day from cell towers, not 9 hours a day. the rats' bodies were allowed to rest and not have the artificial EMF stressor ruining their cell function. if the signals were on for 24 hours a day, with 9 hours of stronger signal with no rest time, the results would have been much worse (even though the chamber was designed to maximize destructive interference and they only used one signal)

also, if they used modern modulation (LTE) and realistic signal simulations, the rats wont last a month. they will straight up die.

>>10845251
Thanks, nothing you claimed was in the study.

>>10845253
I too believe industry propaganda.

>>10845258
It is though.

>>10845262
>It is though.
No it isn't.

>>10845264
Thanks for conceding.

>>10845266
(You)

>>10845257
What you are saying would apply to the 6w/kg group. This is not what people are exposed to. People are exposed to 1.5w/kg maximum, which according to the NTP study, no effects were found.

Also, modulation doesn't mean shit, the study wasn't examining that.

Show me a study that uses exposure AT OR BELOW THE STANDARD 1.5w/kg level and shows statistically significant increases in cancer.

>>10845270
This statement misrepresents risk to the brain from the whole-body exposures used in the NTP study. While the exposure limit to RF radiation in the US is 0.08 W/kg averaged over the whole body, the localized exposure limit is 1.6 W/kg averaged over any one gram of tissue. Body tissues located nearest to the cell phone antenna receive much higher exposures than tissues located distant from the antenna. Thus, when an individual uses a cell phone and holds it next to his or her head, exposure to the brain will be much higher than exposures averaged over the whole body. When considering organ-specific risk (e.g., risk to the brain) from cell phone RF, the important measure of exposure is the SAR value of 1.6 W/kg averaged over any gram of tissue. In the NTP study in which animals were exposed to whole-body RF at SARs of 1.5, 3, and 6.0 W/kg, exposures in the brain were within 10% of the whole-body exposure levels. Therefore, in the NTP study, exposure intensities in the brain of rats were similar to or only slightly higher than localized human exposures from cell phones held next to the head.

>>10845270
>>10845273
from:

https://ehtrust.org/expert-reaction-australian-centre-electromagnetic-bioeffects-research-criticism-national-toxicology-program-study-cell-phone-radio-frequency-radiation/

also another good link dispelling fake news on the study from the MSM:

https://ehtrust.org/science/myth-vs-fact-national-toxicology-program-cell-phone-cancer-study/

>>10845270
>modulation doesn't mean shit, the study wasn't examining that.

>>10845273
I literally just said this. We know the study used 1.5w/kg and I'm saying in the actual paper only found statistic significance in the 3w and 6w group, not the 1.5w/kg group, which is the MAXIMUM people are exposed too.

>>10845274
This does not address the issues I'm describing.

>>10845277
This isnt even related to the NTP study results.

>>10845284
Careful Anon, if you question him too hard he'll run out of canned responses and will just spam Jew memes at you and pretend he won the argument like he did last time
>>10838046

>>10845284
>I literally just said this.
Nice reading comprehension- NOT!
>This does not address the issues
It does, try reading- oh wait
>This isn't related to the study
Is your brain incapable of understanding implications? This is not the website for you, pal.

>>10845277
Ever hear of a Fourier transform? All modulation does is introduce a slight range to the frequencies in the signal. There's no extra magic property of modulation that can do jiggery-pokery to your cell signal transduction mechanisms.

>>10845291
But he's the one on the backfoot, not me.

>>10845293
What's the difference in frequency content between a 3G signal and an LTE signal?

You will not be able to answer sufficiently.

>>10845295
>he's the one on the backfoot
True. Ask him to explain why r = 0.417 is supposedly a strong correlation for epidemiological studies. He claims he knows why yet when asked to explain himself he just refers you to google

>>10845292
Nice deflection

From the NTP paper. As you can see, no statistically significant increases in the 1.5w/kg group, which is what people are typically exposed to.

>>10845295
>I'm on the backfoot.
You're the one deflecting.

>>10845296
I'm not the guy sitting next to you in the telecoms nerd virgin shill basement, moron.

>>10845298
>From the NTP paper. As you can see, no statistically significant increases in the 1.5w/kg group, which is what people are typically exposed to.

answered fully in
>>10845273
>>10845274

>>10845299
Still no explanation then?

>>10844802
Here is the thing that freaks me out, we have studies, but they all suck. I want a lot more studies on, wifi, 3g, 4g, and 5g effects on humans. Deep studies of 1000s of people for long periods of time.

>NTP study
>"peer"-reviewed by people hand-picked by the NTP
>the NTP found no flaw in this multi-million study conducted by the NTP, please continue to give us your tax dollars

>>10845305
look up Moscow Signal for exactly what you're looking for

>>10845302
The data is literally right in the paper. I'm not going to that shitty shill website. Stop directing me to shitty websites and provide a logical arguement.

>>10845310

My grandma just sent me a facebook that say 5gelly are a bad. Should I listened to my grandma, or should I kill her. Your response makes you responsible for my grandma's death.

>>10845311
Man I sure wish there was a shitty myth vs fact that actually addresses my argument but I guess you can't read.

>>10845295
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_frequency_bands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR_frequency_bands

Here you go, frequency bands publicly available

>>10845315
>Why wont you accept my BuzzFeed tier propaganda, goy?

>>10845314
You should listen to her, 5G will kill her for you.

>>10845317
>no mention of how varying modulation methods affect the signal
>wikipedo

google OFDMA and maybe in a week you can answer my question

>>10845311
>>10845318
He's literally asking you to explain in your own words the study YOU keep citing. Because you obviously don't actually understand the shit you're spouting you just try to refer him on to some shitty third party sites, which is not an actual argument on your behalf.

fucking mexicans don't deserve the white man's technology

>>10845321
The funny thing is these buzzfeed websites dont even address the topic at hand.

Pretty sure he just didnt even read actual paper and just reads the shitty propaganda images.

These outlets are fervently Pro-5G to the point of using propaganda to distort science:

>BuzzFeed
>Vox
>NYT
>Ars Technica
>Washington Post
>Yahoo!
>NBC
>CNN
>Fortune
>LAtimes
>LinkedIn

From: https://ehtrust.org/science/myth-vs-fact-national-toxicology-program-cell-phone-cancer-study/

All (((propaganda))) NPC outlets.

If all these subversives are telling you that Microwave radiation is good for you, your parents and brothers and sisters and children to be subjected to, at all times, then maybe, just maybe... it's not?

Just a thought.

MEXICAN'TS EAT THEIR OWN POOP

>>10845321
>>10845323
>BuzzFeed
>Vox
>NYT
>Ars Technica
>Washington Post
>Yahoo!
>NBC
>CNN
>Fortune
>LAtimes
>LinkedIn

Which one of these Real News (not fake) shitholes is your employer?

Rip anti 5g anon, he really got torn to shreds this thread

>>10845327
wrong looks like he dominated yet again making it clear pro-5g telecoms trannies are in league with fake news (((MSM))) like Buzzfeed

>>10845320
Literally all that matters for biological impact is the frequency spectrum. Frequency modulation only requires changing the frequency by a small amount around the carrier frequency. This is why frequency division works.

>>10845324
Even if the ntp study was complete bunk, the fact that all these kike fake news propaganda rags are shilling for 5G makes me instantly suspicious and worried.

Will he ever refute the data shown in the actual NTP paper?

>>10845327
Yep, these threads are becoming more and more embarrassing the more unhinged he gets. He doesn't even bother trying to form semi-coherent arguments any more. Wonder when his next 3-week ban is coming

>>10845336
>Wonder when his next 3-week ban is coming

>>10845336
He gets away with it on /g/, idk why he tries here though.

>>10845335
How about you refute deez nuts
https://pastebin.com/VuLYa82S

>>10845341
More people on /g/ are beginning to get fed up with his ramblings and are calling him out on his blatant lack of understanding on the topic. He's going to end up calling the entire /g/ userbase kike shills if this keeps up. Only harms his cause anyway so I'm happy to let him continue embarrassing himself.

>>10845346
In all seriousness, we can't let him get the nuclear codes.

>>10845345
>clamper
lmaoooo

>>10845350
Continue to cope by repeating your 2016 election memes. Does it remind you of home (r/the_donald)?
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/216583385/#216593256

>>10845355
>BuzzFeed
>Vox
>NYT
>Ars Technica
>Washington Post
>Yahoo!
>NBC
>CNN
>Fortune
>LAtimes
>LinkedIn

Which one of these Real News (not fake) shitholes is your employer?

>>10845358
>look mom I posted it again

What topic will he move on to now that his 5G career has ended

>>10845372
6G once it comes out and everyone has forgotten about the scaremongering that preceded 5G

>>10845372
>>10845380
>lets just straight up attempt to astroturf the narrative that we enjoyed any kind of victory today
lick those wounds, dog

>>10845386
Is this your response to

>>10845298
>>10845310
>>10845315?

>>10845389
all those shit posts were fully answered earlier, read the thread

>>10845392
>says he provided an answer
>none to be found

>>10845395
none to be found because you didnt read the answer
keep humiliating yourself j*w

Add this one to the pastebin boys
>https://pastebin.com/VuLYa82S

>>10845398
>posts buzzfeed sites that have nothing to do with the topic at hand
>cant form an argument of her(his) own

>>10845398
>anon posts actual paper data
>you respond with some third party website not even affiliated with NTP

>>10845405
>no u posted buzzfeed
when you literally post buzzfeed talking points to defend 5G
>no u are a tranny
when you literally spend at least an hour a day at the communal dilation station (imagine the smell)

>>10845408
You realize that those articles are written by a guy in charge of the NTP study?

>>10845410
>posts actual LITERAL data table from NTP paper
>buzzfeed talking point

>written by a guy in charge of the NTP study
Yeah, read my study goy.

Post more shameful damage control instead of actual arguments.

>>10845413
ok now your schizophrenia is just in plain view for everyone to be disturbed by, I think you need a long break from your computer

>>10845416
Not the Anon you're replying to but you're the only one who looks schizophrenic here

>>10845418
I posted this

>>10845416
Yeah cause I'm the one who makes these shitty threads every single day if my life and then gets btfo in an endless cycle

>>10845420
Anti 5G posts actual science in their favor. You post nothing but BuzzFeed talking points over and over.

>>10845420
>btfo in an endless cycle

>>10845422
Yes, keep calling the data from your oh so holy NTP study "buzzfeed" It really helps your cause.

>>10845420
>>10845426
>>/g/?task=search2&ghost=&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=spam3.jpg+&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

You've literally posted your sad compilation over 20 times on /g/ alone in an attempt to "get" anyone who is Anti-5G lmfao. this is since June 20th when you made it.

also the filename is "spam3" which implies you've made more images (and you have as one of the posts im replying to is more of your obsessive combing of the archives for Anti-5G posters whomst are not me)

really and honestly get help, you are only making things worse for yourself and your cause

>>10845434
anon, stop wasting your time. Not worth the engagement. Just let these threads die, im tired of seeing someone like you always actually entertaining this.

>>10845434
Awful attempt at trying to make the compilation any less embarrassing for you

>>10845299
Back at it again with those NPC memes.

>>10845436
>just give up goy
no

>>10845434
still deflecting from the topic at hand

This is your thread anon, not mine

>>10845442
>Stop distracting from the topic
that's all you do though kike

>>10845446
>still hasnt argued against NTP paper anon who posts real data from the paper

>>10845450
>you havent argued against it because i havent read your argument

>>10845452
You never actually made an argument though. Pretending you did is not an argument.

im done now btw trannies you can have this thread to yourselves

good night and 5G is getting banned because of these threads LMAO cope

>>10845450
>>10845452
At this point as a 3rd party observer I can't tell which one of you believes in what anymore.

>>10845458
>>10845273

>>10845452
I read it. No where in your buzzfeed sites does it say anything about the 1.5w/kg group not having a correlation to cancer, which is displayed in the NTP data tables. At that exposure (which ehtrust says is correct btw) there is no correlation. Meaning 2G/3G is NOT correlated to cancer at the 1.5w/kg level.

>>10845440
give up? how is that giving up? you think retard 5g poster is going to actually influence anything? you're wasting your own god damn time, and making him feel more legitimate by engaging in an argument.

>>10845455
Night anon, cant wait for this 5G network to be finished in my area!

>>10845460
>which is displayed in the NTP data tables.
So explain to me where in these tables >>10845298 the 1.5w/kg group show increased cancer rates.

>>10845458
>>10845468


I'm >>10845460

I'm saying that if you read the actual NTP data, theres no correlation to cancer for the group of rats with radiation exposure at 1.5w/kg, which is the maximum that a person would be exposed to at any given time. Correlation was not seen until they cranked power up to 3w/kg and 6w/kg which is much higher than we experience day to day. The rats conditions were much more extreme. So, the NTP study isn't a good guideline for what happens to the human body whatsoever, and anti 5G shills need to stop citing this study.

>>10845476
This statement misrepresents risk to the brain from the whole-body exposures used in the NTP study. While the exposure limit to RF radiation in the US is 0.08 W/kg averaged over the whole body, the localized exposure limit is 1.6 W/kg averaged over any one gram of tissue. Body tissues located nearest to the cell phone antenna receive much higher exposures than tissues located distant from the antenna. Thus, when an individual uses a cell phone and holds it next to his or her head, exposure to the brain will be much higher than exposures averaged over the whole body. When considering organ-specific risk (e.g., risk to the brain) from cell phone RF, the important measure of exposure is the SAR value of 1.6 W/kg averaged over any gram of tissue. In the NTP study in which animals were exposed to whole-body RF at SARs of 1.5, 3, and 6.0 W/kg, exposures in the brain were within 10% of the whole-body exposure levels. Therefore, in the NTP study, exposure intensities in the brain of rats were similar to or only slightly higher than localized human exposures from cell phones held next to the head.

>>10845479
> In the NTP study in which animals were exposed to whole-body RF at SARs of 1.5, 3, and 6.0 W/kg

I literally just explained this.

>>10845481
>Therefore, in the NTP study, exposure intensities in the brain of rats were similar to or only slightly higher than localized human exposures from cell phones held next to the head.

>>10845482
>While the exposure limit to RF radiation in the US is 0.08 W/kg averaged over the whole body, the localized exposure limit is 1.6 W/kg averaged over any one gram of tissue.

>How do the RFR levels used in the studies compare to typical human exposures?
The lowest exposure level used in the studies was
equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently
allowed for cell phone users. This power level rarely
occurs with typical cell phone use. The highest exposure
level in the studies was four times higher than the
maximum power level permitted for local tissues.

From actual NTP website.

>10845494
>Therefore, in the NTP study, exposure intensities in the brain of rats were similar to or only slightly higher than localized human exposures from cell phones held next to the head.

>>10845496
The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for cell phone users. This power level rarely
occurs with typical cell phone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the
maximum power level permitted for local tissues.

>This power level rarely
occurs with typical cell phone use.
>The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the
maximum power level permitted for local tissues.

NTP statement vs Ehtrust statement, hmmmmmm.

>>10845494
I mean this was said by the actual NTP, they were using power levels beyond the maximum that humans are exposed to.

>>10845502
The EHtrust statement is made by the designer of the NTP study

You are not able to understand what I'm posting because you're mentally retarded or using pilpul to distract yourself in the face of defeat

At the highest exposure level in the NTP study, rat brain tissue would have been only slightly more stimulated than a real world usage case for a call on a cell phone. That's what this means:

>>Therefore, in the NTP study, exposure intensities in the brain of rats were similar to or only slightly higher than localized human exposures from cell phones held next to the head.


Ok retard? Go kill yourself now. You need to die ASAP.

>>10845494
So yeah, the NTP was using higher power levels. I think NTP trumps ehtrust here.

>>10845464
Don't forget to climb the towers so you can give the transmitter a big hug to thank it for everything it does for you! 5G means more transmitters, but that's just more to love!

>>10845507
The EHtrust statement is made by the designer of the NTP study

You are not able to understand what I'm posting because you're mentally retarded or using pilpul to distract yourself in the face of defeat

At the highest exposure level in the NTP study, rat brain tissue would have been only slightly more stimulated than a real world usage case for a call on a cell phone. That's what this means:

>>Therefore, in the NTP study, exposure intensities in the brain of rats were similar to or only slightly higher than localized human exposures from cell phones held next to the head.


Ok retard? Go kill yourself now. You need to die ASAP.

>>10845506
How am I the retard? The NTP literally LITERALLY said they were using exposures 4x that of the maximum, which the maximum is rarely exposed to humans. The NTP THEMSELVES said this.

Go shill Ehtrust somewhere else.

>>10845514
110th time lucky you fucking animal kike

>>10845512
>designer of NTP study

Yeah ok. Guess the NTP just lied then about exposure levels in their own paper.

>>10845512
>slightly
>ntp study says lowest exposure rarely reached by humans
>they used exposure levels 4x this maximum

>>10845522
Yes. And cancer correlation was only found at levels ABOVE the maximum. Meaning at even the maximum that humans are exposed to, there is no cancer correlation.

>>10845522
At this point I can only conclude that pro-5G "people" are literaly 60 IQ drooling unviable mental retards who need adult diapers

5g is probably completely and uterly harmless. At best, no effect on humans. At worst, it has an extremely minute effect.

>>10845532
just like Hillary was getting elected

>>10845532
>BuzzFeed
>Vox
>NYT
>Ars Technica
>Washington Post
>Yahoo!
>NBC
>CNN
>Fortune
>LAtimes
>LinkedIn
>BBC

This is who you are parroting the propaganda of.

Sedition is punishable by death.

>a weak frequency lower than ultraviolet hurts me

I thought this was /sci/ not /brainlet/

>>10845538
>5Ganon is so pathetic he can't survive with his head in the microwave while it's on

>>10845537
I'm a liberal because I know non-ionizing radiation is extremely unlikely to cause cancer and other physical ailments? What does party affiliation have to do with this anyway?

>>10845520
>trusting that it even is their paper

>>10845537

what would we lose if all """""journalists"""""" were killed

>>10845543
What would we gain?

>>10845543
What would we loose if everyone who uses multiple quotes or parentheses around words was killed.

>>10845550
Everything.

>>10845529
The Ehtrust is saying "only slightly" higher but that is blatantly false. The NTP themselves said that the lowest intensity groups exposure (1.5w/kg) is rarely reached for humans. They also state that the highest exposure (6.5w/kg) is 4x that of the maximum. And if the maximum is "rarely" experienced by humans I can only assume the 3w/kg and 6w/kg exposures would NEVER be experienced by humans. This combined with the fact that the 1.5w/kg group DIDNT EVEN correlate to cancer makes this study invalid for this topic.

The NTP study only reinforces the fact that the 1.5w/kg power exposure that humans rarely face is a good maximum exposure and that we should never use intensities higher than this. It does not state that 5G at the current maximum power usage would be harmful. Further studies would be needed to make such a claim.

>>10844802
I find this post informative, concise and rationnal. Here's a (You).

holy shit the amount of posts deleted from this thread after he got banned is insane
>i-im not a samefag I swear!

>lose argument severely on all fronts
>call in favor with tranny janny to delete all posts opposing 5G
pathetic

>>10845585
How will you win the civil war urbanite non-human?

>>10846383
Sorry pal, this is /sci/ not /x/.

>>10845314
Kill, anon. Kill.

>>10846274
funny how you completely glance over when your kind gets deleted and banned and hides for a month because he's scared of the fact that 40 bans = permaban
funny how you literally could not make it more obvious that you're part of the pro-5g pro-corporate disinfo squad, you're really bad at this
>>/sci/thread/S10733737#p10736685

>>10846791
lot of cope in this post

>>10844757
Refer to:
>>/sci/thread/S10767085

>>10847105
explain

>>10844757
where can I buy a cell antenna
I want to hack my consciousness

>>10846385
You've already lost.

>>10844827
btfo

>>10844864
If you can pull that off with radiation, please do chemicals next.

>>10847159
It is self explanatory. That thread is essentially a response to this one.

>>10844802
Yep it should also be mentioned that the 6w/kg intensity is exactly the the amount of intensity needed for some radiation to accidentally become ionizing ultraviolet which of course has the risk of causing cancer.

Anything under 6w/kg intensity can't cause damage. It would literally break the laws of physics to be causing damage due to generating more energy with the damage than the wave contained which is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

>>10848654
Yes. That's why visible light entering your eye, and influencing your behavior accordingly violates the laws of physics.

It's not a matter of energy deposition, it's information contained in the signal. Transduction and amplification.

More broadly, low intensity signals can cause kinetic changes in systems as well. Don't think if it was a simple matter of "can it ionize directly?", we wouldn't have studied for literally over a hundred years?

Would you kindly include in your response your reasoning in engaging in this line of argument. The only sensible explanation is that you've just assumed everyone is that stupid and you're a step ahead of those Facebook soccer moms. Which is untenable with even basic engagement with the literature.

>108 replies
>24 posters
Every time.

>>10848744

Take your meds OP.

>>10846208
Reminder that right now, today, if you put a cell phone directly to your head, or directly against your body, you're exceeding exposure guidelines by several times.

Gandhi 2019 - Microwave Emissions From Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the US When Touching the Body
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8688629

See also:
Gandhi 2012 - Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21999884
https://ehtrust.org/a-summary-exposure-limits-the-underestimation-of-absorbed-cellphone-radiation-especially-in-children/

Om P Gandhi was active during the making of these standards, and worked in the Brooks air force base research / propaganda apparatus. Like many from that era, he did a hard 180 later on.

>>10848654

Perhaps the low-energy waves slowly accumulate their energy into a target cell and eventually amount to a damaging threshold of total energy?

>>10848823
Kind of. First it's important to know the terrain, and the environment these phenomena are occurring.

From Adey 1993 - Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields:
"In cellular aggregates that form tissues of higher animals, cells are separated by narrow fluid channels that take on special importance in signaling from cell to cell. These channels act as windows on the electrochemical world surrounding each cell. Hormones, antibodies, neurotransmitters and chemical cancer promoters, for example, move along them to reach binding sites on cell membrane receptors. These narrow fluid "gutters," typically not more than 150 A wide, are also preferred pathways for intrinsic and environmental electromagnetic (EM) fields, since they offer a much lower electrical impedance than cell membranes. Although this intercellular space (ICS) forms only about 10 percent of the conducting cross section of typical tissue, it carries at least 90 percent of any imposed or intrinsic current, directing it along cell membrane surfaces.

Numerous stranded protein molecules protrude from within the cell into this narrow ICS. Their glycoprotein tips form the glycocalyx, which senses chemical and electrical signals in surrounding fluid. Their highly negatively charged tips form receptor sites for hormones, antibodies, neurotransmitters, and for many metabolic agents, including cancer promoters. These charged terminals form an anatomical substrate for the first detection of weak electrochemical oscillations in pericellular fluid, including field potentials arising in activity of adjacent cells or as tissue components of environmental fields."

For one primary mechanism you have motion of charge, which puts forces on the charge groups making up the calcium channel's voltage sensor. This activates it. You have chronically elevated intraceullar Ca2+ and pic related. There are other mechanisms as well.

>>10848823
That's not possible due to the quantized nature of electrons.

pic-related is how an atom looks. There are electrons around it in layers. When you send radiation into an atom and that radiation is at EXACTLY the energy level needed the electron is going to absorb the radiation. The electron will then move up 1 layer. And then go down to its original layer again while emitting the radiation it absorbed again. This is normal and good. It's why objects have color etc.

However if you have a specific strong radiation (called ionizing radiation) it is powerful enough to not push the electron to a higher layer but shoot it away from the atom altogether. The atom will have 1 fewer electron permanently which causes it to have a chemical reaction with other atoms or steal an electron from another atom either way it would cause damage to the tissue the atom belongs to this is what causes cancers etc.

However everything under ionizing radiation doesn't have the energy to do this. This is calculable and very precise, not some guesswork but firmly known physics.

The exact definition of ionizing radiation is having enough energy to cause an atom to lose one electron which we call "ionization".

Thus we know with 100% certainty that all lower power radiation will NEVER cause damage. It breaks the laws of thermodynamics for it to cause damage.

>>10846383