/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12644872
Is no one else really actually worried about the cancer box in their pocket?

So do some science.

Create a program that every 30 minutes either does nothing or sends a bunch of data through the phone. It's vitally important that you can't tell what it's doing. You need to not be able to see flashing lights on a router, a performance change in other connected devices, or tell if the phone is heating up.

The program keeps a record of when it was active and when it was quiet. While it's running you also keep a record of when your birds freak out and when you feel focused. Those are both pretty vague so try to make reasonably objective measures. Maybe how many times the birds move between perches, contacts between bird and cage exterior, or something.

After you've finished recording your observations for a day you can compare that to what the phone was actually doing. Repeat that whole thing over many days. Post the results here, someone will yell at you about how shit your statistical analysis is and then do it better.

Until you can blind yourself to what the phone is doing any observations will be effectively useless. Also goes without saying that human ability to focus on a task, birds trying to escape a cage, and increased risk of cancer are three very different effects and finding one doesn't imply the others would be present.

>>12645241
>actually taking the time to actually set up another laptop somewhere out of sight with a randomized macro script on it set initiate downloads and logging everything.

I just wanted to be spoon fed anon, can someone who actually studied this stuff just tell me what distances and shielding measures are practical vs what is pointless paranoid overkill.

>>12645241
this. Must do, this.

>>12645585
Take a spoonfull of meds because EM radiation isn't causing any of that. At most you might have birds freak out because your computer produces a high pitch sound or something like that but even that is unlikely and it's just observation bias.

>>12645585
>I just wanted to be spoon fed
It's all bullshit.

People who claim to feel ill around electromagnetic radiation are feeling ill because they believe they should feel ill. Give them a closed box with a phone in it and they do no better than chance at being able to tell if it's "bombarding them with brain altering radio waves" or if it's turned off.

Maybe some component of your phone makes a high pitched noise when under heavy load which you cannot hear but irritates your birds.

Or you're just noticing a pattern where in reality there is none. Especially if the effect is "not instant". That means if you use your phone and the birds get upset at basically any time in the next hour you can blame it on the phone and seem to confirm your theory. And of course your birds getting upset when you didn't use your phone can also be explained away. It's all bullshit.

>>12645585
>I just want to be spoon-fed
No you don't. You want to have your conspiracy theory validated by other retards. Radio waves have been used for over a century, and there's no reason to suspect they induce any kind of medical problems. Their characteristic wavelength is far too large to penetrate the human skin. Even microwaves are entirely safe since they cannot penetrate the human skin.

>>12645656
>>12645670
That is not what I want to hear, I want someone to validate my paranoia.

Where is the 5G doom porn anons, show me something that is convincing without being schizophrenic at the same time.

>>12645691
Someone should give conspiracy theorists access to tripods.

>>12645709
I'd rather they had access to tide pods for dinner.

>>12644872
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF

Read the top text file labeled (Read First). There is a lot of literature out there on this topic.

>>12645656
>People who claim to feel ill around electromagnetic radiation are feeling ill because they believe they should feel ill.
Animal models yield objective responses as well, and have no basis for a nocebo response nor are they highly prone to suggestion from the researchers. Nocebo theory is not adequately explanatory.

>>12645670
>Radio waves have been used for over a century, and there's no reason to suspect they induce any kind of medical problems.
The literature says otherwise.

>Their characteristic wavelength is far too large to penetrate the human skin.
The larger the wavelength, the greater the penetration for biological objects. Dielectric properties of tissues have been well characterized, and entire generation of military research was devoted to this topic (HP Schwan being prominent).

You don't know what you're talking about and are guilty of what you accuse OP of.

>>12645691
what a fool.

>>12645802
>the literature
Certainly not scientific literature, nor even medical literature. Conspiratorial "literature"? Sure, I'll grant you that. Just like there's literature on Goku having sex with Joe Biden. Doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality.
>The larger the wavelength, the greater the penetration for biological objects.
No, that's not how works. The larger the FREQUENCY, the greater the penetration. That's why X-rays are so dangerous that you need to have a lead shield in front of you to block (lead is dense enough (small distance between atoms) to block the small characteristic wavelengths of X-rays). In contrast, an MRI is totally safe to where you don't need lead shielding... because of the large wavelength of radio waves. It's why you don't need a lead shield in front of your ear when using a telephone, because radio waves are safe.

You're literally a retard, mate.

>>12645821
>Certainly not scientific literature
Scientific literature.

>No, that's not how works. The larger the FREQUENCY, the greater the penetration.
No. Penetration through different materials is nonlinear, this is why your cell phone works through walls, but visible light cannot. As frequency rises, dielectric loss in water and other biological structures generally increases. After visible light and UV penetrtation depth begins to icnrease again.

>>12645670
You're an idiot if you think emf does not affect health. There is a reason we have quite a few emf safe guards in the lab. Even worse, there is quite a lot data that points to emf being the cause of quite a few issues we suffer only now that didn't exist just a hundred years ago.

Kill yourself

>>12645840
>>12645872
Cite the literature then.
Since you guys have no idea what you're talking about, I've taken the liberty of already scanning the internet for your questions that refuse to seek scientific answers for.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/555778/why-x-ray-and-radio-waves-can-penetrate-walls-but-light-can-not

>>12645877
See:
>>12645789

>>12645880
>Implying anyone is stupid enough to install malware in their machine via that shady source
Dude, torrents are safer to download than that shit.

>>12644872
>Phone on, birds flip out and start pecking the walls of their cage trying to escape. Phone off = birds kalm, peacefully chirping to each other and eating. It is not like the effect is instant or anything, seems to take about 10-20mins to ramp up and disturb the birds.
That's a repeatable experiment. Good enough for science. If it's bad enough for birds, it's bad enough for you.

>>12645901
I know of no evidence of mediafire inserting malware into files. Text files opened in notepad or whatever can't be malicious either, to my knowledge. If I included checksums I doubt you'd check anyway.

Whatever.

>>12645947
If it's scientific literature you're sharing, then why not link to the journal itself? Pick whatever you think is the strongest paper there, and then share the journal article. Simple.

>>12645963
I'm not interested in using my time that way. What I provided suits what OP is looking for.