# Stuff and Things > HISTORY, veterans & science >  5G and other EMFs- what the science shows regarding harm

## phoenyx

I've come to believe that while my other 5G thread has potential, it may be a bit too out there for many (the other thread in question: Evidence that Covid 19 may have started due to 5G networks ). Many people still think that 5G and other EMFs are harmless to people. So I'm thinking it may be best to create a thread focusing on the harms and only -afterwards- get into the evidence that it may be a primary cause for Covid 19. So with that said, I've decided to start the discussion with an article from Scientific American's Blog by a University Professor who has focused on cell phone radiation...

**
We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks

By Joel M. Moskowitz on October 17, 2019

The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of "fear mongering" over the advent of wireless technology's 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.  
Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.
Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:
Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.
The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

**

Full article here:
We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe - Scientific American Blog Network


As a side note, Children's Health Defense challenged the FCC's decision to reaffirm the old exposure limits while ignoring a pile of evidence that those limits are inadequate. An article on that is here:
Government Failed to Consider Evidence of Harm, Including to Children, From 5G and Wireless Radiation, Court Rules s Health Defense

----------

Big Dummy (09-06-2021),dinosaur (09-06-2021),YellowRose (09-06-2021)

----------


## Oceander

:Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## phoenyx

> 


What is it with you and the laughing avatar -.-?

----------

QuaseMarco (09-07-2021)

----------


## dinosaur

I remember way back when, when they told us we would all die of brain cancer for holding these new cellular phones up to our temples.

They keep trying to kill us all off, but so far, nothing has worked.   :Dontknow:

----------


## phoenyx

> I remember way back when, when they told us we would all die of brain cancer for holding these new cellular phones up to our temples.


Of course there have been exaggerations. However, there is also evidence that people can suffer brain damage if they use their cell phones next to their ears a lot. There is also evidence that some people are affected more severely than others. This is elaborated on in great detail in a book called The Invisible Rainbow. 

To give an example,  if I answer a call on my cell phone and put it next to my ear, within around 30 seconds, my ear area will begin to hurt. So I stopped doing that early on. Instead, I generally use speaker phone. I also use wired headphones if I'm in a public place and I'd like to keep what the person I'm talking to is saying private. For a more dramatic example, I also knew a woman who used her cell phone a lot for work and developed brain tumours. She stopped working, no longer used a cell phone and the tumours went away. The Invisible Rainbow gives other examples, those are just 2 that I have personally experienced.

----------


## YellowRose

Perhaps nothing of value to ad...just try to belittle those with whom you disagree. 
Poor style.

----------


## phoenyx

> Perhaps nothing of value to ad...just try to belittle those with whom you disagree. 
> Poor style.


Agreed and I think I do that a bit, but ultimately, I'm keenly aware of the fact that to have a decent conversation on this, it's best to have some who disagree with my stance. It's so easy preaching to the choir, but it also makes one lazy- ideological opponents tend to keep one sharp.

----------

YellowRose (09-06-2021)

----------


## Karl

Ya welp the world is going Biometrics..

What gets me is that when I need some extra drinking cash the Plasma Center now goes by "Thumbprint"..

Okay ya got my Thumb-Print or Bio MetroPCS

They still ask me the last 4 digits of my Society Security # and I gotta take my Mask Off for Visual Verification of my face on Computer Screen..

Put that Mask back on too..

Even with a CDC "Vaccine" Card the Blood and Plasma Donor Center is classified as a Medical Facility by Law and Regulation so ya gotta Wear a MASK

----------

phoenyx (09-07-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Ya welp the world is going Biometrics..
> 
> What gets me is that when I need some extra drinking cash the Plasma Center now goes by "Thumbprint"..
> 
> Okay ya got my Thumb-Print or Bio MetroPCS
> 
> They still ask me the last 4 digits of my Society Security # and I gotta take my Mask Off for Visual Verification of my face on Computer Screen..
> 
> Put that Mask back on too..
> ...


Yeah, I think all the rules are best viewed from the perspective of a comedian...

----------

QuaseMarco (09-07-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

:Geez:

----------


## nonsqtr

> I remember way back when, when they told us we would all die of brain cancer for holding these new cellular phones up to our temples.
> 
> They keep trying to kill us all off, but so far, nothing has worked.


Think of it as the next natural stage in evolution.

Those who survive the 5G will reproduce.

 :Thinking: 

Unless they... well y'know... sleep next to their cell phones... ahem...  :Grin:

----------


## phoenyx

> Think of it as the next natural stage in evolution.
> 
> Those who survive the 5G will reproduce.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless they... well y'know... sleep next to their cell phones... ahem...



Technically, I tend to sleep next to my cell phone, but I put it on airplane mode :-).

----------


## Wilson2

> I remember way back when, when they told us we would all die of brain cancer for holding these new cellular phones up to our temples.
> 
> They keep trying to kill us all off, but so far, nothing has worked.


Read your iPhone terms of service and manual.   You are supposed to keep the phone at least 1 cm away from your body.   Do you hold your phone to your ear or use the speaker?   Do you keep your phone in your pocket next to your skin?

----------

phoenyx (09-07-2021)

----------


## Frankenvoter

> Of course there have been exaggerations. However, there is also evidence that people can suffer brain damage if they use their cell phones next to their ears a lot. There is also evidence that some people are affected more severely than others. This is elaborated on in great detail in a book called The Invisible Rainbow. 
> 
> To give an example,  if I answer a call on my cell phone and put it next to my ear, within around 30 seconds, my ear area will begin to hurt. So I stopped doing that early on. Instead, I generally use speaker phone. I also use wired headphones if I'm in a public place and I'd like to keep what the person I'm talking to is saying private. For a more dramatic example, I also knew a woman who used her cell phone a lot for work and developed brain tumours. She stopped working, no longer used a cell phone and the tumours went away. The Invisible Rainbow gives other examples, those are just 2 that I have personally experienced.


There is none so blind as those who WONT see, they dont want the facts to lead to your conclusion therefore they dont, I remember when we first switched from a CB type radio in the vehicles to a cell phone, I always knew when I was about to get a text because 4 hard "clicks" would come out of the speakers overriding whatever I was listening to on the radio I knew it was a signal coming in to the phone which overrode the radio signals coming into the radio, if I held it up to my head longer than 5 minutes my head would be hot like I'd had a frying pan up against it and it hurt therefore I started using speaker phone and earbuds too.

Once again we're seeing who scientists "know best", our only option is to "trust the science" and be the guinai pigs they expect us to be, never question anything and take on blind faith what they're telling us otherwise you get the rolling on the floor with laughter avatar from people who dont mind looking down on others and exclaiming thier mental superiority over them and out "unfounded fears of technology" comparing us to monkeys who don't understand why a lightbulb turns on when the lightswitch is hit.

I have less and less patience with any of them whether it's scientist know it alls or people in my own family I had to deal with yet again yesterday who "dont want to hear" how their vote means 12 year old girls are being married off and raped right now, would vote for Biden again were the vote held today and how I'm nothing but a phobing phober of everything phobable whos nothing but a caveman in my outlooks on life and I just need to agree with them, and quit raising questions about things and being told "well, there's nothing you can do about it so best to get used to it".

No, I dont have to get used to it, I'll continue to raise questions and question those who are so in love with god government they refuse to accept any outlook other than the one they expect everyone else to embrace and learn to love the taste of the shit sandwich I'm being served up.

I completely understand now how the civil war pitted brother against brother I'm on the side these days of just cutting ties altogether not even bothering with the next family get together and meeting them on the other side if God allows them into heaven. I know he knows best therefore I wont be lobbying on their behalf if he doesn't. 

5G is microwave radiation I dont give a shit if they say it's so low dose it's nothing to worry about blah blah blah, they're cooking the frogs with it and telling us dont you dare jump out of the pot.

Why is it I just read a story yesterday that firemen and police dont want 5G towers near thier precinct houses? Why will they get an exemption and I wont? What is it about 5G they don't want "low doses" of for 24 hours straight while they're confined in the station house? 

Oh thats right, these are "caveman questions" from someone who's not even sure why the big light in the sky dissapears everynight then reappears in the morning, I just need to "trust the science" and scientists who "know more than I do" and determine what questions I'm even allowed to ask about it.

Keep asking your questions, the one question all scientists should be asking is "why they never rate a girlfriend until after they get their PhD and are making the big bucks". A bonus question to that is "what's she doing with the pool guy while I'm at work?" Those are the only questions they should be asking themselves, not feeling smug and superior to the "caveman Americans".

----------

phoenyx (09-07-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Read your iPhone terms of service and manual.   You are supposed to keep the phone at least 1 cm away from your body.   Do you hold your phone to your ear or use the speaker?   Do you keep your phone in your pocket next to your skin?


A good point. My understanding is that the exact distance they tell you depends on the signal strength of the cell phone in question. Here's an excerpt from The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs:

**
Ever Read The Fine Print? I Dont. 


What if I told you that somewhere deep in the fine print no one reads inside your smartphone... Apple, Samsung or Google is telling you never to hold the phone next to your head, or any part of your body?54 The fine print from my wifes iPhone 7 warns her to always keep it at least 5mm (⅕ of an inch) from her head or body.

In other words, if you want to get exposed to what is considered a so-called safe amount of RF radiation coming off your cellphone (called SAR) you should never have a cell phone pressed against your ear, strapped to your arm, held in your hand, in your pocket, or in your bra. What happens if you ignore this wise advice and hold your phone right next to your ear? As revealed by an investigative journalist who produced a great exposé broadcasted on CBC News Marketplace, you get exposed to radiation levels up to 4 times higher than that phones SAR rating.55

Its not very surprising, because RF exposure gets exponentially higher as you get closer to the source (in this case, the cellphones antenna). According to world-class EMF engineer Daniel DeBaun, for each millimeter you get closer to a cellphone, your EMF exposure goes up by 10%.56
**


Source: 
Pineault, Nicolas. The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs: How to Fix Our Stupid Use of Technology. Kindle Edition.



This is also assuming that the guidelines for safe levels are where they should be. I think it's instructive to understand that the U.S. safety standards are pretty lax compared to some other countries. Again from the book:
**
*Meet Our Safety Standards*


On August 1st, 1996, the Federal Communication Commission issued their FCC 96-326 policy titled Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation.42 Thats the last time these safety standards have been updated.43

Remember 1996? I do. Thats over 20 years ago, in a time I used to wear fluo shorts and when talking on this brand new Nokia 9000 wireless phone made you look pretty cool for a couple minutes  until you got exhausted from the sheer effort required to keep this 1-pound beast44 (4 times the weight of an iPhone 7) near your head.

At that time, the FCC determined the following upper limits were safe for human health  mainly based on the recommendations of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association (IEEE-SA), the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

Screen Shot 2021-09-07 at 5.13.08 AM.png


At the time these safety standards were set, a mere 16%47 of US citizens had a cellphone, compared to a projected 82%48 in 2017. The term hotspot meant, not a place with free and hopefully password-free Internet, but a place where two or more incoming RF fields cross and where you probably shouldnt hang out for too long.49 Googling wasnt even a thing  Google was launched that same year. And no one was ever exposed to tablets, cell antennas or smart meters.

Let me suggest here that it makes sense to be concerned about the fact that maybe these guidelines were created for a world that literally had nothing to do with the EMF soup we live in today. And this is not just my opinion. Hundreds of organizations, and even other governmental agencies (including the US Government Accountability Office,50 the US Department of Interior51 and the EPA52) have been saying for years that these standards make no sense.

Around the world, dozens of countries are following safety guidelines that are way stricter. China and Russia, for example, consider any RF exposure over 10 uW/cm2 or 0.614 V/m for 30 minutes to be dangerous53  100 times lower than the current FCC guidelines.

But the problem runs deeper. Turns out that cellphone manufacturers cant even follow these already deprecated and loose safety guidelines. Lets see how this all works...

[snip]

Any sane person would then ask how can they get away with this? Arent all cellphones required to be thoroughly tested for safety before being sold to you?

I wont answer this question directly. That would be too easy, and you probably wouldnt believe me. Instead, let me show you exactly how your smartphone is tested before hitting the market, and then you tell me how confident you are that someone is looking out for you.

*Meet S.A.M.*

Welcome to the RF Exposure Lab, in San Marcos, California  one of the many labs where cellphones are tested to make sure they follow the FCC guidelines.57 

Screen Shot 2021-09-07 at 5.17.47 AM.png
A mannequin head called SAM (specific anthropomorphic mannequin) will be our test subject today. By blasting SAM with the maximum amount of EMF radiation that can ever come off your phone and measuring how much that radiation is heating his brain, were going to figure out whats called the SAR rating (specific absorption rate  Ill get into this in just a second). Dont worry, SAM agreed to do this. A few fun facts about SAM as we prepare the testing equipment

SAM is a big dude  the size of his head is based on the top 10% of U.S. military recruits back in 1989.58 If he had a body, he would be 62 and weigh a solid 220 pounds  which means his head is bigger than the heads of 97% of all cell phone users.59

SAM likes to hold his cellphone at least 5mm away from his ear, at a very specific 15 degrees angle. He isnt very talkative, and always spends less than 6 minutes a day on his cellphone.SAMs head is filled with water. I mean, I would never even think of insulting this big fella  he just happens to have a head filled with a mix of water, salt and sugar which has been determined to emulate the average EMF absorption rate of a human brain.

SAM also never uses a cell phone case. He just likes to keep things simple, you know.

Lets start the test! During 6 minutes, SAMs head will get exposed to an amount of RF radiation thats equivalent to the highest power setting your phone can ever produce.

Then, a probe will look at how much the temperature in the middle of SAMs liquid brain increases.

If the measured increase of temperature is 2°C or less, were all good  and the SAR will fall within the FCCs guidelines. This SAR rating is a measure of how much average radiation is being absorbed over 1 gram of human tissue  calculated in W/kg (Watts per kilogram of bodyweight).

But why 2°C? The original researcher who developed the SAR ratings, Om P. Gandhi of the University of Utah, observed that rats whose brain temperature rose by more than 2°C suddenly stopped eating. How much this is actually relevant to the effects EMFs might or might not have on human beings I seriously cant tell.

*7 Easy Ways To Stay Within The SAR Guidelines*

Our test is completed, and luckily all the cellphones that have been tested fall within the safety guidelines, with a SAR rating of under 1.6 W/kg. Whew, what a day it was for science! Before you leave, lets talk about the different ways to make sure you always stay within the SAR safety guidelines.

*1) Be a 62, 220-pound military man.*

Warning: If you happen to have a smaller head, if youre a shorter man, if youre a woman, if youre a child or teenager  youll exceed the limits.

Childrens bodies, for example, contain way more water than those of adults  which is why their heads tend to absorb up to 2 times more radiation from the same exposure compared to adults  and why their bone marrow absorbs up to 10 times more.60

*2) Always use your phone at least 5mm away from your head.*

Warning: Certain phones SARs have been tested at a larger distance, so always make sure to look at the fine print inside your phone to find the right distance you should use. Also, always use your phone at the very precise 15 degree angle SAM uses.

Screen Shot 2021-09-07 at 5.24.06 AM.png

*3) Only use your phone for 6 minutes a day, maximum.*

Warning: If you use your phone at the maximum setting for more than 6 minutes, youll exceed the SAR guidelines.


*4) Never keep your phone in your pocket.

*Warning: If you keep your phone in your pocket, strapped to your arm, in your hand, or in your bra  youll get exposed to radiation thats not accounted for in the guidelines. Also make sure youre never exposed to any amount of background radiation from any strangers cellphone, any cellular antenna, any smart meter, any Bluetooth device, any wifi network, or any other device that emits any amount of RF radiation.

Screen Shot 2021-09-07 at 5.25.57 AM.png

This is not the place you want to be to stay within the SAR guidelines.

*5) Dont have ears.*

 Warning: The SAR is based on what amount of radiation gets inside your brain, and anything that gets on and in the ear on the side where you use your phone doesnt count towards the SAR calculation.

*6) Have a liquid brain.*

Warning: If you have a human brain instead of a liquid brain seasoned with sugar and salt, youll pretty much automatically exceed the SAR. After conducting the original SAR studies, P. Gandhi immediately followed up with a series of studies which concluded that using a homogeneous liquid to mimic the complexity of a human head isnt accurate  and doesnt take into account that certain areas like the bone marrow, salivary glands and the eyes are more likely to absorb EMF radiation.65 Maybe thats why the industry stopped funding him and even asked him to refund the funding he had previously received?66 Who knows.

*7) Never use a phone case.*

Warning: As reported by the Environmental Working Group, using a phone case can increase the amount of radiation absorbed by your head by 20 to 70%.67

**

----------


## phoenyx

> There is none so blind as those who WONT see, they dont want the facts to lead to your conclusion therefore they dont, I remember when we first switched from a CB type radio in the vehicles to a cell phone, I always knew when I was about to get a text because 4 hard "clicks" would come out of the speakers overriding whatever I was listening to on the radio I knew it was a signal coming in to the phone which overrode the radio signals coming into the radio, if I held it up to my head longer than 5 minutes my head would be hot like I'd had a frying pan up against it and it hurt therefore I started using speaker phone and earbuds too.
> 
> Once again we're seeing who scientists "know best", our only option is to "trust the science" and be the guinai pigs they expect us to be, never question anything and take on blind faith what they're telling us otherwise you get the rolling on the floor with laughter avatar from people who dont mind looking down on others and exclaiming thier mental superiority over them and out "unfounded fears of technology" comparing us to monkeys who don't understand why a lightbulb turns on when the lightswitch is hit.
> 
> I have less and less patience with any of them whether it's scientist know it alls or people in my own family I had to deal with yet again yesterday who "dont want to hear" how their vote means 12 year old girls are being married off and raped right now, would vote for Biden again were the vote held today and how I'm nothing but a phobing phober of everything phobable whos nothing but a caveman in my outlooks on life and I just need to agree with them, and quit raising questions about things and being told "well, there's nothing you can do about it so best to get used to it".
> 
> No, I dont have to get used to it, I'll continue to raise questions and question those who are so in love with god government they refuse to accept any outlook other than the one they expect everyone else to embrace and learn to love the taste of the shit sandwich I'm being served up.
> 
> I completely understand now how the civil war pitted brother against brother I'm on the side these days of just cutting ties altogether not even bothering with the next family get together and meeting them on the other side if God allows them into heaven. I know he knows best therefore I wont be lobbying on their behalf if he doesn't. 
> ...


You definitely raise a lot of good points and it's always nice to hear of other people who get pain when using cell phones next to their ear. I also have rashes on my hands where I tend to hold my phone when I'm using it. I'm hoping to be able to move soon and not have to use my cell phone so much anymore. It seems that your family doesn't share your concerns concerning cell phones, if so, my condolences. My family is definitely more weary of them, especially my mother, which makes it easier to talk about these things with them. 

As to those who think they know better than us, I like to think of an online friend of mine who believes in various things, some which I agree with, one which I don't. The one we don't agree on is his notion that the earth is flat. I've pointed out flaws in that theory and he comes up with rebuttals and I decided to just leave it at that. I felt no need to insult him or anything like that. Now, if flat earthers were coercing people into getting vaccinations and things of that nature, I'd still be debating him, but they're not. It's all a matter of how important a subject is.

----------

Frankenvoter (09-07-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

well hers what I think/ 

We have been dosing the human race with emf fields for at least 100 years, from every frequency fro m50hz to 50 petahertz. Like most forms of radiaiton, its only dangerous in large doses, such as

-Having a 330kv pylon in your back garden and the cables passing over your house, and living there for 20 years
-Holding a switched on and call active mobile phone to your ear 24/7 for the next 10 years
-sitting in front of a Microwave Comms dish
-climbing to the top of a 100kw TV transmitter


The field strengths of mobile phones  are minute, far far smaller, hundreds of time smaller, than the sorts of powers we used to use for VHF amateur radio . And like all EMF the power obeys a inverse square law. Twice the distance away from the source, four times as weak


I remain  entirely unconvinced 5G is any threat to me.

----------


## phoenyx

> well hers what I think/ 
> 
> We have been dosing the human race with emf fields for at least 100 years, from every frequency fro m50hz to 50 petahertz. Like most forms of radiaiton, its only dangerous in large doses, such as
> 
> -Having a 330kv pylon in your back garden and the cables passing over your house, and living there for 20 years
> -Holding a switched on and call active mobile phone to your ear 24/7 for the next 10 years
> -sitting in front of a Microwave Comms dish
> -climbing to the top of a 100kw TV transmitter
> 
> ...


The fact that a court recently chastised the FCC for ignoring evidence that posits that EMF radiation is in fact harmful strongly suggests that government agencies are turning a blind eye to the truth. If you're not familiar with the case, I recommend first reading the following article from the Appellant's organization:
Government Failed to Consider Evidence of Harm, Including to Children, From 5G and Wireless Radiation, Court Rules | Children's Health Defense



I'll now quote from the court's ruling as I did in another thread, bolding parts that I thought to be particularly relevant:

**
To be sure, “[a]gencies can be expected to respect the views of such other agencies as to those problems for which those other agencies are more directly responsible and more competent.” City of Boston Delegation v. FERC, 897 F.3d 241, 255 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (internal alteration and quotation marks omitted). What the Commission may not do, however, is rely on an outside expert’s silence or conclusory statements in lieu of somereasoned explanation for its decision. And while it is certainly true that an agency’s decision not to initiate a rulemaking at a time when other agencies see no compelling case for action may represent “the sort of priority-setting in the use of agency resources that is least subject to second-guessing by courts,” EMR Network, 391 F.3d at 273, the same is true of most agency decisions not to initiate a rulemaking, see Am. Horse, 812 F.2d at 4–5. *Nevertheless, an agency’s decision not to initiate a rulemaking must have some reasoned basis, and an agency cannot simply ignore evidence suggesting that a major factual predicate of its position may no longer be accurate.* Id. at 5.


[snip]

In addition to the Commission’s inadequate response to the non-cancer-related effects of RF radiation on human health, the Commission also completely failed even to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment. That utter lack of a response does not meet the Commission’s obligation to provide a reasoned explanation for terminating the notice of inquiry. The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental harms. Most relevantly, the record included a letter from the Department of the Interior voicing concern about the impact of RF radiation from communication towers on migratory birds, see J.A. 8,379, 8,383–86. In the Department of the Interior’s expert view, the Commission’s RF radiation limits “continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.” J.A. 8,383. “The [current environmental] problem,” according to the Department of the Interior, “appears to focus on very low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation.” Id.Although the Commission has repeatedly claimed that it considered “inputs from [its] sister federal agencies[,]” 2019 Order, 34 FCC Rcd. at 11,689, the Commission entirely failed to address the environmental harm concerns raised by the Department of the Interior. To be sure, the Commission could conclude that the link between RF radiation and environmental harms is too weak to warrant an amendment to its RF radiation limits. *All we hold now is that the Commission should have said something about its sister agency’s view rather than ignore it altogether.* That lack of any reasoned explanation as to environmental harms does not satisfy the requirements of the APA.



The dissenting opinion portrays this case as about the Commission’s disregard of just five articles and one Department of Interior letter. Not so. The record contained substantial information and material from, for example, the American Academy of Pediatrics, J.A. 4,533; the Council of Europe, J.A. 4,242–44, 4,247–57; the Cities of Boston and Philadelphia, J.A. 4,592–99; medical associations, see, e.g., J.A. 4,536–40 (California Medical Association); thousands of physicians and scientists from around the world, see, e.g., J.A. 4,197–4,206 (letter to United Nations); J.A. 4,208–17 (letter to European Union); J.A. 5,173–86 (Frieburger Appeal by over one thousand German physicians); and hundreds of people who were themselves or who had loved ones suffering from the alleged effects of RF radiation, see, e.g., J.A. 8,774–9,940; see also J.A. 4,218–39 (collecting statements from physicians and health organizations expressing concern about health effects of RF radiation).


The dissenting opinion then offers its own explanation as to why those select sources were not worth being addressed by the agency. This in-the-weeds assessment of scientific studies and assessments falls “outside our bailiwick[,]” Dissenting Op. at 10. More to the point, the Commission said none of what the dissenting opinion does. If it had and if those six sources fairly represented the credible record evidence seeking a change in Commission policy, that discussion likely would have sufficed. But just as post hoc rationales offered by counsel cannot fill in the holes left by an agency in its decision, neither can a dissenting opinion. See Grace v. Barr, 965 F.3d 883, 903 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (“[W]hen ‘assessing the reasonableness of [an agency’s action], we look only to what the agency said at the time of the [action]—not to its lawyers’ post-hoc rationalizations.’”) (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Good Fortune Shipping SA v. Commissioner, 897 F.3d 256, 263 (D.C. Cir. 2018)).


Instead, the Commission chose to hitch its wagon to the FDA’s unexplained disinterest in some similar information. Importantly, the dissenting opinion does not dispute that the FDA’s conclusory dismissal of that evidence ran afoul of our precedent in American Horse and American Radio. It just says that the deficiency in the FDA’s analysis cannot be imputed to a second agency, and so the dissenting opinion would hold dispositive “the fact that the Commission and the FDA are, to state the obvious, distinct agencies.” Dissenting Op. at 5.

They certainly are. But that does not amount to a legal difference here. While imitation may be the highest form of flattery, it does not meet even the low threshold of reasoned analysis required by the APA under the deferential standard of review that governs here. One agency’s unexplained adoption of an unreasoned analysis just compounds rather than vitiates the analytical void. Said another way, two wrongs do not make a right. Compare City of Tacoma v. FERC, 460 F.3d 53, 76 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he action agency must not blindly adopt the conclusions of the consultant agency, citing that agency’s expertise. Rather, the ultimate responsibility for compliance with the [Endangered Species Act] falls on the action agency.”), and Ergon-West Virginia, Inc. v. EPA, 896 F.3d 600, 612 (4th Cir. 2018) (“Although the EPA is statutorily required to consider the [Department of Energy]’s recommendation, it may not turn a blind eye to errors and omissions apparent on the face of the report, which [petitioner] pointed out and the EPA did not address in any meaningful way.* In doing so, the EPA "ignore[d] important aspects of the problem.’”)* (internal citations omitted), with Bellion Spirits, LLC v. United States, No. 19-5252, slip op. at 13–14 (D.C. Cir.Aug. 6, 2021) (approving consultation by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”) with the FDA where the TTB “did not rubberstamp FDA’s analysis of the scientific evidence or delegate final decisionmaking authority to FDA,” but instead “systematically evaluated and explained its reasons for agreeing with FDA’s analysis of each scientific study” and “then made its own determinations” about the claims at hand).
[snip]
**

Source:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/chd-v-fcc-we-won-decision.pdf

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> , I remember when we first switched from a CB type radio in the vehicles to a cell phone, I always knew when I was about to get a text because 4 hard "clicks" would come out of the speakers overriding whatever I was listening to on the radio I knew it was a signal coming in to the phone which overrode the radio signals coming into the radio ......


Just think about this. You drew a conclusion that doesn't stand up to even a modicum of rational thought and now hold on to it as evidence that supports your fear of 5G.


Did you even consider an alternative explanation of your observations on your texts? Did you ever consider the logical implications of your explanation?

Did you get 4 loud clicks when the people in nearby vehicles received texts? Keep in mind the cell towers are broadcast transmitters.


Forgive me if you posted satire. If you did .. kudos to you.  You not only fooled me, you posted the epitome of ridiculousness. Babylon Bee quality!

----------


## Oceander

> The fact that a court recently chastised the FCC for ignoring evidence that posits that EMF radiation is in fact harmful strongly suggests that government agencies are turning a blind eye to the truth. If you're not familiar with the case, I recommend first reading the following article from the Appellant's organization:
> Government Failed to Consider Evidence of Harm, Including to Children, From 5G and Wireless Radiation, Court Rules | Children's Health Defense
> 
> 
> 
> I'll now quote from the court's ruling as I did in another thread, bolding parts that I thought to be particularly relevant:
> 
> **
> To be sure, “[a]gencies can be expected to respect the views of such other agencies as to those problems for which those other agencies are more directly responsible and more competent.” City of Boston Delegation v. FERC, 897 F.3d 241, 255 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (internal alteration and quotation marks omitted). What the Commission may not do, however, is rely on an outside expert’s silence or conclusory statements in lieu of somereasoned explanation for its decision. And while it is certainly true that an agency’s decision not to initiate a rulemaking at a time when other agencies see no compelling case for action may represent “the sort of priority-setting in the use of agency resources that is least subject to second-guessing by courts,” EMR Network, 391 F.3d at 273, the same is true of most agency decisions not to initiate a rulemaking, see Am. Horse, 812 F.2d at 4–5. *Nevertheless, an agency’s decision not to initiate a rulemaking must have some reasoned basis, and an agency cannot simply ignore evidence suggesting that a major factual predicate of its position may no longer be accurate.* Id. at 5.
> ...


Lord have mercy.  Did you even both reading the portions that you highlighted?  The court is not - as it could not - attacking the agency's conclusions, merely the manner in which it reached those conclusions - and it is attacking the manner in which those conclusions were reached simply because they did not conform in all respects to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act - that is what the "APA" is.

Anyone who thinks that the APA is a basis at all for critiquing an underlying scientific decision, is not using a single one of the brain cells God gave 'em.

----------


## phoenyx

> Did you even both reading the portions that you highlighted?  The court is not - as it could not - attacking the agency's conclusions, merely the manner in which it reached those conclusions


"Merely"? Some way of putting it.  They're basically saying the agency ignored all the evidence that was submitted that 5G and other EMFs are dangerous and they're being directed to no longer ignore it and actually respond to it. Some people actually care about people's lives and whether people are getting sick and possibly even dying due to to EMFs, but the way you talk, it's like it's just an afterthought.

----------


## Oceander

> "Merely"? Some way of putting it.  They're basically saying the agency ignored all the evidence that was submitted that 5G and other EMFs are dangerous and they're being directed to no longer ignore it and actually respond to it. Some people actually care about people's lives and whether people are getting sick of even dying to to EMFs, but the way you talk, it's like it's just an afterthought.


No, they're saying that the agency did not follow the APA.  Completely different kettle of fish.

----------


## phoenyx

> No, they're saying that the agency did not follow the APA.  Completely different kettle of fish.


No, they're saying the FCC ignored evidence. I even bolded the sentences where they said it. Looks like you missed it anyway, so once more, skipping the rest of the sentences so that you can no longer miss it:
**
*Nevertheless, an agency’s decision not to initiate a rulemaking must have some reasoned basis, and an agency cannot simply ignore evidence suggesting that a major factual predicate of its position may no longer be accurate.*

[snip]

*All we hold now is that the Commission should have said something about its sister agency’s view rather than ignore it altogether.*
**

Source:
Government Failed to Consider Evidence of Harm, Including to Children, From 5G and Wireless Radiation, Court Rules s Health Defense

----------


## Oceander

> No, they're saying the FCC ignored evidence. I even bolded the sentences where they said it. Looks like you missed it anyway, so once more, skipping the rest of the sentences so that you can no longer miss it:
> **
> *Nevertheless, an agency’s decision not to initiate a rulemaking must have some reasoned basis, and an agency cannot simply ignore evidence suggesting that a major factual predicate of its position may no longer be accurate.*
> 
> [snip]
> 
> *All we hold now is that the Commission should have said something about its sister agency’s view rather than ignore it altogether.*
> **
> 
> ...


No, the court is saying that the agency did not follow the APA.  That is the only basis on which the agency's action could have been challenged.

----------


## Wilson2

On this end issue, its new territory.   There is vastly more emf today than just 10 years ago.   Bluetooth is everywhere, and while an individual Bluetooth is low power there are a lot of them and some - like earbuds - are in your ear.   Go to the gym and look at how many Bluetooth signals there are.   Its in your car, home, work, gym, restaurants, stores.

The same for WiFi but WiFi is a stronger signal.

And cell phone signals, they are everywhere.  

The ambient radiation is 24/7.    While ea h is low power, the sum and the constant exposure is new and the impact unknown.

----------


## nonsqtr

> On this end issue, it’s new territory.   There is vastly more emf today than just 10 years ago.   Bluetooth is everywhere, and while an individual Bluetooth is low power there are a lot of them and some - like earbuds - are in your ear.   Go to the gym and look at how many Bluetooth signals there are.   It’s in your car, home, work, gym, restaurants, stores.
> 
> The same for WiFi but WiFi is a stronger signal.
> 
> And cell phone signals, they are everywhere.  
> 
> The ambient radiation is 24/7.    While ea h is low power, the sum and the constant exposure is new and the impact unknown.


The incidence of brain cancer has actually gone DOWN in the last 10 years.

----------


## phoenyx

> No, the court is saying that the agency did not follow the APA.  That is the only basis on which the agency's action could have been challenged.


What part of "ignoring evidence" don't you understand -.-?

----------


## phoenyx

> On this end issue, it’s new territory.   There is vastly more emf today than just 10 years ago.   Bluetooth is everywhere, and while an individual Bluetooth is low power there are a lot of them and some - like earbuds - are in your ear.   Go to the gym and look at how many Bluetooth signals there are.   It’s in your car, home, work, gym, restaurants, stores.
> 
> The same for WiFi but WiFi is a stronger signal.
> 
> And cell phone signals, they are everywhere.  
> 
> The ambient radiation is 24/7.    While ea h is low power, the sum and the constant exposure is new and the impact unknown.


Exactly. Also, there has been evidence for a while that even the old standards were too lax. From Chapter 3 in The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs:
**
S.A.R. = Still At Risk?

Clever title, I know. I smiled pretty good when I first came up with it. In the last few pages, I think I’ve made the case pretty clear: the current EMF safety guidelines in the US (and Canada, and most other countries) are dusty, and no one on this planet follows them, ever. Now, this entire safety fiasco is about to get worse — because it turns out that the SAR rating of a cell phone actually doesn’t tell us anything about whether it’s harmful or harmless to the human body. But let me explain before you burn this guide down to digital ashes. As Martin Blank — a PhD who used to work at the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics of Columbia University — puts it:
“The latest laboratory research indicates that the basis for the safety standards recommended by ICNIRP and IEEE is fundamentally flawed.”68 What does Dr. Blank mean here? That looking at how much the radiation from your cell phone heats your brain or other tissues tells us nothing about whether it’s safe or not. In plain English…

*The guidelines for RF safety are based on the assumption that any amount of “non-ionizing” EMF radiation that doesn’t generate too much heat has no effect on the human body.*

Why do people believe that? Because according to a lot of physicists and engineers, EMF radiation that’s “non-ionizing” simply cannot physically affect your cells. Have I lost you? I thought so. Back into the science class for a bit…

*How Can Physicists & Engineers Be Wrong?
*“Engineers should never be allowed to make statements about safety or disease in a human being.” - Prof. Trevor Marshall, engineer, published researcher and member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)

Remember the EMF spectrum from last chapter? Since the shocking discovery of harmful yet invisible radiation by Marie Curie, her lovely husband and Antoine Henri Becquerel — for which they received the 1903 Nobel prize in Physics — scientists have divided the EMF spectrum in two distinct categories:

EMF Radiation Types.png

Ionizing Radiation: Radiation that “carries enough energy to free electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them”69 — which breaks chemical bonds. Exposure to ionizing radiation causes damage to living tissue, and can result in mutation, radiation sickness, cancer, and death.


Non-Ionizing Radiation: Non-ionizing radiation refers to any type of electromagnetic radiation that does not carry enough energy (photon energy) to ionize atoms or molecules. This radiation has sufficient energy only for excitation, the movement of an electron to a higher energy state.70


Now, the problem here is that while non-ionizing radiation cannot possibly break chemical bonds inside a human cell and instantly destroy your DNA — it doesn’t mean that it has no biological effect, especially over time.

If physicists and engineers are so convinced that non-ionizing radiation has no effect whatsoever on the human body, it must be because there is simply no evidence this could be the case, right?

*What’s puzzling to me is that thousands of “black-swan” studies show the opposite — that non-ionizing radiation does have biological effects at levels way too low to cause any heat.*

Let’s hear from Martin Blank’s wisdom again: “In 1948, two groups of researchers, working independently, both noted nonthermal effects resulting from EM radiation exposure. Scientists at the Mayo Clinic noted the incidence of cataracts in dogs following exposure to microwave radiation, and researchers at the University of Iowa noted that exposure to microwaves microwaves resulted in cataracts in rabbits and dogs, and ‘testicular degradation’ in rats.”71

This is one of the thousands of studies showing that the 4 kinds of EMFs I told you about in Chapter 1 — Radio Frequency, Magnetic Fields, Electric Fields and Dirty Electricity — can either heal or harm even at very, very low levels.

We’ll get into these effects very soon — but first let’s shut down the whole ionizing VS non-ionizing debate once and for all.


*The Debate Is Over: Non-Ionizing Radiation Induces Cancer In Rats.*

If some skeptics and professional “debunkers” were still somehow able to argue that non-ionizing radiation does nothing to living beings — the study I’m about to tell you about has finally put an end to this massive delusion. A $25M study performed by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) studied the effects of exposing rats and mice to an amount of cellphone radiation equivalent to what a human would get by talking for 30 minutes a day, for 36 years.72 As reported by Microwave News: “The exposed rats were found to have higher rates of two types of cancers: glioma, a tumor of the glial cells in the brain, and malignant schwannoma of the heart, a very rare tumor. None of the unexposed control rats developed either type of tumor.”

But here’s the fun twist — because it’s not the first time studies find possible links between cell phone exposure and cancer in rats… in the NTP study, researchers ruled out the heating effects by making sure the rats’ body temperature never rose by more than 1°C. In other words, non-ionizing, non-heating EMFs have been shown to increase cancer risks in rats. The irony is the whole reason John Bucher, the senior manager of the NTP study, wanted his agency to run this study is to prove once and for all that cellphones do not cause cancer.73

*Freaking Out Yet?*

I know I did at first when I realized the inconvenient truth — that there are simply no effective and truly science-based safety standards in place to protect you against the possible effects that EMFs can have on your health. Now, this is the part where I could become alarmist and tell you to throw away your cell phone, because it can “kill you”. Don’t worry… it won’t.

We know smoking can cause cancer, and still, millions of people still do it. Sugar is nothing good for my body — and still, I find myself being human and eating dessert once in awhile. But the reason I don’t stuff myself with sugar, alcohol or fast food is that it’s now a fact that these things are not good for us — and that they need to be done in moderation.

So… how much EMF exposure is too much? How harmful is it? And what happens when we use the opposite of moderation and binge with this EMF soup 24/7? As Neil deGrasse Tyson would say: Follow me. (The simple way this guy explains mind-bending science has been a huge inspiration for me — even if he personally doesn’t believe EMFs are a danger.74)

**

Source:
Pineault, Nicolas. The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs: How to Fix Our Stupid Use of Technology. Kindle Edition.


Nicolas gets into the evidence of how harmful EMF exposure is in the next chapter.

----------


## Oceander

:Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## UKSmartypants

> No, the court is saying that the agency did not follow the APA.  That is the only basis on which the agency's action could have been challenged.



I didnt read it, it was TL;DR

----------


## phoenyx

> I didnt read it, it was TL;DR


Apparently, neither did Oceander -.-

----------


## Oceander

> Apparently, neither did Oceander -.-


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

because not only are you the world’s foremost leading authority on 5G and electromagnetism generally, you’re also the worlds foremost expert on legal proceedings.

----------


## phoenyx

> because not only are you the world’s foremost leading authority on 5G and electromagnetism generally, you’re also the worlds foremost expert on legal proceedings.


You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand what the court meant by "an agency cannot simply ignore evidence", and who they were referring to, given the context of the sentence. But go on, talk about how you have to be an "expert" to understand basic english -.-

----------


## Oceander

> You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand what the court meant by "an agency cannot simply ignore evidence", and who they were referring to, given the context of the sentence. But go on, talk about how you have to be an "expert" to understand basic english -.-


I know exactly what it means - in the context of a proceeding under the APA - equally clearly, you do not.

----------


## Canadianeye

I think it is great. Keep up the narratives. I use them daily in conversations in my little corner of the world.

Quite an effective tool, since I have a mind that is tactical, in a bigger picture sort of way... regarding battles vs wars.

Some people are not that way (which is okay by me), but we all have our skill sets.

----------


## phoenyx

> I know exactly what it means


If you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. For the audience, I'll give the preceding sentences to the quote on ignoring evidence so that they can draw their own conclusions, with the final sentence being the bit where the court mentions ignoring evidence:

**
We agree with the dissenting opinion that the Commission may credit outside experts in deciding whether to initiate a rulemaking to modify its RF radiation guidelines. To be sure, “[a]gencies can be expected to respect the views of such other agencies as to those problems for which those other agencies are more directly responsible and more competent.” City of Boston Delegation v. FERC, 897 F.3d 241, 255 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (internalalteration and quotation marks omitted). What the Commission may not do, however, is rely on an outside expert’s silence or conclusory statements in lieu of some reasoned explanation for its decision. And while it is certainly true that an agency’s decision not to initiate a rulemaking at a time when other agencies see no compelling case for action may represent “the sort of priority-setting in the use of agency resources that is least subject to second-guessing by courts,” EMR Network, 391 F.3d at 273, the same is true of most agency decisions not to initiate a rulemaking, see Am. Horse, 812 F.2d at 4–5. *Nevertheless, an agency’s decision not to initiate a rulemaking must have some reasoned basis, and an agency cannot simply ignore evidence suggesting that a major factual predicate of its position may no longer be accurate.* Id. at 5.
**

Source:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...n-decision.pdf

----------


## Authentic

What does CAPTAINDARETOFLY think of this?

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> **
> 
> Source:
> Pineault, Nicolas. The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs: How to Fix Our Stupid Use of Technology. Kindle Edition.
> 
> 
> *Nicolas* gets into the evidence of how harmful EMF exposure is in the next chapter.


Please......
"Nicolas" (since you are on a first name basis) wouldn't know an E field from an H field. Here is his bio...



> "My professional background is in communications, copywriting and journalism"



About Us - The EMF Guy

He writes for people like you and makes money selling books to people like you ... not doing science.

----------


## phoenyx

> What does CAPTAINDARETOFLY think of this?


Lol :-). For all I know, he may not have even heard of this. Personally, I think if we made it a requirement to only get our news from serious sounding sources, we'd be poorer for it. That being said, what I quoted is from a court decision, doesn't get much more serious than that.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Lol :-). For all I know, he may not have even heard of this. Personally, I think if we made it a requirement to only get our news from serious sounding sources, we'd be poorer for it. That being said, what I quoted is from a court decision, *doesn't get much more serious than that*.


Nor any less scientific

----------


## Authentic

> Please......
> "Nicolas" (since you are on a first name basis) wouldn't know an E field from an H field. Here is his bio...
> 
> 
> 
> About Us - The EMF Guy
> 
> He writes for people like you and makes money selling books to people like you ... not doing science.


How do I get into that racket?

----------


## phoenyx

> Please......
> "Nicolas" (since you are on a first name basis) wouldn't know an E field from an H field. Here is his bio...
> 
> 
> 
> About Us - The EMF Guy
> 
> He writes for people like you and makes money selling books to people like you ... not doing science.


Based on my reading of his book, I'd say he writes on subjects that need a bit of explanation for the layperson and I think he did an excellent job. If you have any objections with his evidence, by all means, bring it up- otherwise, it's just the typical name calling that's rather familiar in this forum.

----------


## phoenyx

> How do I get into that racket?


Lol :-p. But come now Authentic, we all need to make a buck- what's wrong with making it while trying to explain complex subjects to laypeople?

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Based on my reading of his book, I'd say he writes on subjects that need a bit of explanation for the layperson and I think he did an excellent job. If you have any objections with his evidence, by all means, bring it up- otherwise, it's just the typical name calling that's rather familiar in this forum.


He presented no evidence.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Lol :-). For all I know, he may not have even heard of this. Personally, I think if we made it a requirement to only get our news from serious sounding sources, we'd be poorer for it. That being said, what I quoted is from a court decision, doesn't get much more serious than that.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor any less scientific


More accusations without evidence. If you have any objections to to the evidence laid down by the court, by all means, bring it up. Just saying that x or y is "unscientific" makes it all too clear that you're just using it as an insult and apparently have no intention of actually backing up your accusation with evidence.

----------


## phoenyx

> He presented no evidence.


I strongly disagree with that statement. But I tell you what, name anything he said that you think is false and explain your reasoning and we could perhaps have a productive conversation.

----------


## Authentic

> Lol :-p. But come now Authentic, we all need to make a buck- what's wrong with making it while trying to explain complex subjects to laypeople?


That is what I'd like to do. I care not so much about the accuracy of what I am asked to write, but about the direct deposits into my checking account. Remember, I am a mercenary for hire.

----------


## Authentic

> I've come to believe that while my other 5G thread has potential, it may be a bit too out there for many (the other thread in question: Evidence that Covid 19 may have started due to 5G networks ). Many people still think that 5G and other EMFs are harmless to people. So I'm thinking it may be best to create a thread focusing on the harms and only -afterwards- get into the evidence that it may be a primary cause for Covid 19. So with that said, I've decided to start the discussion with an article from Scientific American's Blog by a University Professor who has focused on cell phone radiation...
> 
> **
> We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe
> 
> The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks
> 
> By Joel M. Moskowitz on October 17, 2019
> 
> ...


You're wrong.

----------


## phoenyx

> That is what I'd like to do. I care not so much about the accuracy of what I am asked to write, but about the direct deposits into my checking account. Remember, I am a mercenary for hire.


God Authentic, I honestly think the value of your comic relief is immeasurable :-). Anyway, if you can find any hint that Mr. Pineault has misled in any way, I'd definitely be interested in knowing. Based on my own personal analysis, I have found that all his statements are highly reasonable.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> How do I get into that racket?


You can do it, buddy. You just need to get through the hoops with the 1st one. The rest will be easy.  Maybe find an author and be a "coauthor" in a field that you can bullshit people on.... people EAGER to be bullshitted because it makes them feel good. Try to "debunk" something in history.  Russian history, maybe. 

Tell the author that you want to learn the ropes and you PROMISE that once you do, you won't step into his turf... whatever that is. 

Seriously... get number 1. The rest will follow.

----------

Authentic (09-07-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> You're wrong.


I'm 99% sure that you're just yanking my chain on this one, lol :-p.

----------


## Authentic

> A good point. My understanding is that the exact distance they tell you depends on the signal strength of the cell phone in question. Here's an excerpt from The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs:
> 
> **
> Ever Read The Fine Print? I Dont. 
> 
> 
> What if I told you that somewhere deep in the fine print no one reads inside your smartphone... Apple, Samsung or Google is telling you never to hold the phone next to your head, or any part of your body?54 The fine print from my wifes iPhone 7 warns her to always keep it at least 5mm (⅕ of an inch) from her head or body.
> 
> In other words, if you want to get exposed to what is considered a so-called safe amount of RF radiation coming off your cellphone (called SAR) you should never have a cell phone pressed against your ear, strapped to your arm, held in your hand, in your pocket, or in your bra. What happens if you ignore this wise advice and hold your phone right next to your ear? As revealed by an investigative journalist who produced a great exposé broadcasted on CBC News Marketplace, you get exposed to radiation levels up to 4 times higher than that phones SAR rating.55
> ...


Oh my God - I knew it all along!

----------


## phoenyx

> Oh my God - I knew it all along!


Playing both sides of the fence I see, lol :-).

----------

Authentic (09-07-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> That is what I'd like to do. I care not so much about the accuracy of what I am asked to write, but about the direct deposits into my checking account. Remember, I am a mercenary for hire.


Maybe go outside your area of expertise.  Try astrology.  Need a catchy title...
"Finding Uranus in Your House of Fun"

----------


## Wilson2

> The incidence of brain cancer has actually gone DOWN in the last 10 years.


It doesnt have to brain cancer.   The impact of this level of emf 24/7 is unknown.

I saw a study a few months ago claiming the average IQ of millennials was down 4-5 points.   The study attributed it to millennials not reading but spending a lot of time on social media, Netflix, etc.   Maybe its not the lack of reading but the radiation.

----------

phoenyx (09-07-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

@phoenyx

Here... this is for you. 

A fundamental principle of electromagnetics is the principle of superposition. Superposition is the property that allows two waves of the same or different frequencies to pass by each other without causing any change in the other and without creating new signals.  Superposition holds in free space and it hold true in materials and devices THAT BEHAVE LINEARLY. 

BUT... there is magic in nonlinear materials and nonlinear devices.  You can find non linear devices where ever you can find electronics with semiconductors. You can also find it where two dissimilar metals meet. You can find it lots of places.  Now the magic is this: let's assume two simple signals, a continuous wave signal at F1 and a continuous wave signal at F2. When these signals meet in the nonlinear device/material, what comes out is not just F1 and F2. Nooooooo. What comes out is various combinations of the sums and differences of F1 and F2 and their harmonics. This principle is used in standard radio by design ( when creating the "intermediate frequencies") and it is also a nuisance that causes interference.  So when you are looking at 5G systems, you should consider ALL the nonlinear devices on credit cards, cell phones, laptops, nuts and bolts of dissimilar metals, and on and on. It will be a crazy mix of signals.  


But that's not the worst of it.

Nooooooo. It's the waveforms... the modulation of the signals that carries the information. You see, when you have those nonlinear devices, they can and do produce signals at the intermodulation product frequencies that contain the same modulation.  In fact, those nonlinear devices can even strip the RF off of a signal and produce the modulation waveform itself.  A child's first "crystal" radio set is exactly that.  It strips the amplitude modulating signal off of the RF and sends it out to be felt by any device that is sensitive to it... an earphone, for example. Now here is where the nefarious or oblivious scientists/engineers can create their mind control signals.  Now I'm sounding sarcastic but seriously... I could design a tailored waveform that is carried on the RF signal (or combination of signals) that can emanate ( as a conducted or radiated signal) as a result of intermodulation in a nonlinear device that will affect the brain. 

The modulation schemes used in telecom are brilliant pieces of engineering ( thank you DoD for your spread spectrum CDMA technology used in JTIDS and other systems decades ago) . The modulation technologies are where half of the real brains of telecom are. We would be discussing discrete Fourier transforms, orthogonal frequencies division multiplexing, TDM, QPSK, BPSK, yada yada yada. But suffice it to say that one could modulate the RF of 5G ( or 4G and 3G) to carry signals that carry information but also carry baseband signals that can get inside your head just through their interaction with nonlinear devices... which are virtually everywhere in an urban environment and at least  within a cell phone no matter where it is - regardless of whether it is turned on or not.


Check it out .

----------


## nonsqtr

lol  :Grin: 

Some o'youse clowns are very amusing!

Well look, I started in amateur radio at age 9, and at 15 I was fixing the 50kw transmitter which is now Disney. By that time, I had a 2kw linear at home, with a lovely pair of Eimac 3-1000-z's (remember those?), which I built myself.

Now... I can't tell you the number of hours I spent standing directly in front of high power radiation, I'm like one of those old navy guys who used to service the microwave antennas... only, I'm reasonably smart and I have three lovely children, so, no sterility, no brain death... THOUSANDS of watts, multiples thereof... I'm still here...

Cell phones... are like... 100 milli-watts, something like that?  :Dontknow: 

I'm pretty sure this issue doesn't merit many valuable brain cycles.

----------


## nonsqtr

> @phoenyx
> 
> Here... this is for you. 
> 
> A fundamental principle of electromagnetics is the principle of superposition. Superposition is the property that allows two waves of the same or different frequencies to pass by each other without causing any change in the other and without creating new signals.  Superposition holds in free space and it hold true in materials and devices THAT BEHAVE LINEARLY. 
> 
> BUT... there is magic in nonlinear materials and nonlinear devices.  You can find non linear devices where ever you can find electronics with semiconductors. You can also find it where two dissimilar metals meet. You can find it lots of places.  Now the magic is this: let's assume two simple signals, a continuous wave signal at F1 and a continuous wave signal at F2. When these signals meet in the nonlinear device/material, what comes out is not just F1 and F2. Nooooooo. What comes out is various combinations of the sums and differences of F1 and F2 and their harmonics. This principle is used in standard radio by design ( when creating the "intermediate frequencies") and it is also a nuisance that causes interference.  So when you are looking at 5G systems, you should consider ALL the nonlinear devices on credit cards, cell phones, laptops, nuts and bolts of dissimilar metals, and on and on. It will be a crazy mix of signals.  
> 
> 
> ...


Superposition requires phase alignment.

So let's see, 5G is line of sight and requires alignment by hand, and... what are the chances, of a microwave signal remaining in alignment for, say, 24 hours?

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> *Superposition requires phase alignment.*
> 
> So let's see, 5G is line of sight and requires alignment by hand, and... what are the chances, of a microwave signal remaining in alignment for, say, 24 hours?


Negative. Don't even try to correct me. Your bathroom reading is no competition for my knowledge of electromagnetics .

----------

Authentic (09-07-2021),nonsqtr (09-07-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Negative. Don't even try to correct me. Your bathroom reading is no competition for my knowledge of electromagnetics .


I was just sayin'... nonlinear devices eh?  :Grin:

----------


## phoenyx

> @phoenyx
> 
> Here... this is for you. 
> 
> A fundamental principle of electromagnetics is the principle of superposition. Superposition is the property that allows two waves of the same or different frequencies to pass by each other without causing any change in the other and without creating new signals.  Superposition holds in free space and it hold true in materials and devices THAT BEHAVE LINEARLY. 
> 
> BUT... there is magic in nonlinear materials and nonlinear devices.  You can find non linear devices where ever you can find electronics with semiconductors. You can also find it where two dissimilar metals meet. You can find it lots of places.  Now the magic is this: let's assume two simple signals, a continuous wave signal at F1 and a continuous wave signal at F2. When these signals meet in the nonlinear device/material, what comes out is not just F1 and F2. Nooooooo. What comes out is various combinations of the sums and differences of F1 and F2 and their harmonics. This principle is used in standard radio by design ( when creating the "intermediate frequencies") and it is also a nuisance that causes interference.  So when you are looking at 5G systems, you should consider ALL the nonlinear devices on credit cards, cell phones, laptops, nuts and bolts of dissimilar metals, and on and on. It will be a crazy mix of signals.  
> 
> 
> ...



I skimmed what you wrote, didn't see any connection to it and the subject of this thread, namely evidence, for or against, that 5G and other EMF waves can cause harm to humans.

----------


## Dan40

We use 2 Campbell's soup cans (Cream of Mushroom) and some twine.  Zero G.

----------

Authentic (09-07-2021),Canadianeye (09-07-2021),nonsqtr (09-07-2021),Oceander (09-08-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> I skimmed what you wrote, didn't see any connection to it and the subject of this thread, namely evidence, for or against, that 5G and other EMF waves can cause harm to humans.


Why skim, and not read?

----------


## Authentic

> We use 2 Campbell's soup cans (Cream of Mushroom) and some twine.  Zero G.


Or a stick and a hollow drum with some animal skin stretched over the top.

----------


## Authentic

Shh... Don't tell anyone - the "G" in 5G stands for "government - specifically one-world government.

You can tell because 5G is supposed to be _global_!

----------


## Dan40

> Or a stick and a hollow drum with some animal skin stretched over the top.


Smoky fire and a blanket for LD.

----------

Authentic (09-07-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

> didn't see


Yep. Well... in your case the blindness is probably willful. 

Here, crack a book.

Nonlinear frequency conversion, explained by RP Photonics Encyclopedia; frequency doubling, tripling, quadrupling

Read about tera-Hertz frequency conversion and other interesting subjects.

Principles of nonlinear frequency conversion  20 yearsâ experience in the manufacture of MgO:PPLN crystals and waveguides

In the vernacular, you could consider that "motors make noise". Remember in the old days, every time you turned on your vacuum cleaner you'd get snow on the television.

Well, the AC is 60 Hz, and the motor is at most a few hundred rpm, but channel 2 is up in the mega-hertz.

----------


## phoenyx

> Why skim, and not read?


I don't like wasting time. I suspect Ishmael's trying to waste mine.

----------


## phoenyx

> Yep. Well... in your case the blindness is probably willful. 
> 
> Here, crack a book.
> 
> Nonlinear frequency conversion, explained by RP Photonics Encyclopedia; frequency doubling, tripling, quadrupling
> 
> Read about tera-Hertz frequency conversion and other interesting subjects.
> 
> Principles of nonlinear frequency conversion  20 yearsâ€™ experience in the manufacture of MgO:PPLN crystals and waveguides
> ...


Again, I don't see any evidence, for or against, that this has anything to do with whether EMFs cause humans harm. I suspect you're just trying to waste my time as well.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> We use 2 Campbell's soup cans (Cream of Mushroom) and some twine.  Zero G.


The gubmint has surveyed the cans most commonly used for this purpose and have devised baseband modulations and frequency pairing such that intermodulation products will contain waveforms that are resonant within those cans, which are essentially short waveguides. The one end that is intact is a metallic reflector. At that point, the physical manifestation of maxwells equations will result in the tangential component of the electric field being zero and the magnetic field being at a maximum. Fields in a circular waveguide are cylindrical Bessel functions.  They are characterized as being "transverse electric" and "transverse magnetic", or TE and TM and are over various orders, depending on 2D cross sectional patterns of the fields. There are literally an infinite number of these waveguide modes but the low orders are the most nefarious. See the pattern of the TM mode here?
8630_28_29.jpg

When you hold that can up to your face, the intermodulation products of 5G will create a resonance of THAT field distribution. THAT circular waveguide mode is directed exactly at your head at that time. It is then that the 5G networks "talk" to the graphene-based receptors that have formed in your brain. From there .... you are under their control. Warn your friends.

----------

Authentic (09-08-2021),Oceander (09-08-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Again, I don't see any evidence, for or against, that this has anything to do with whether EMFs cause humans harm. I suspect you're just trying to waste my time as well.


Yes, you do seem to be suspicious.  :Smile:

----------

Oceander (09-08-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

Some of you may be wondering how graphene plays into the devil's scheme. 

I don't have time to fully describe the process right now but here are the basic clues. 

Graphene is injected as just millions of loose particles attached to spike proteins. The loose particles are not dangerous, per se. What is dangerous is when the spike proteins attack living tissue all at once. How does that happen? 


Graphene is a unique substance that can store magnetic domains.  As you may know, there are no magnetic monopoles so at the microscopic level of the individual graphene particle, which is square, a bar magnet is formed. As time goes by after the injection, the individual bar magnets connect to each other.. N pole to S pole until you have a long strand of the high conductivity graphene in your blood stream. The lateral sides of the graphene particles have the spike protein attached through an electrostatic force between the graphene and the protein.  (Pretty ingenious...using both the magnetic and electric properties of the graphene to perform separate functions! ) 
Digress for a moment to a phenomenon known as antenna 'antenna scattering'. I refer here to Ohio State's PhD dissertation by Greene from decades ago. 
https://www.semanticscholar.org/pape...b8405eb2ee0430
More than just theoretical, antenna scattering has been used by the CIA to ascertain technical properties of systems onboard old soviet reconnaissance aircraft.  The idea is to "ping" the target system with a range of frequencies and see what comes back at you. A resonant antenna will scatter energy most effectively at its resonant frequency.  So when you get that BIG response back, you know you have found the resonant frequency. One more thing... antennas have many forms.  But the simplest resonant antenna is the half wave dipole. And by "half wave", I mean the antenna is exactly one half the wavelength of the resonance frequency.  ( there are slight corrections that are made to the calculation if the half wave dipole is embedded in a material whose constitutive parameters (permittivity and permeability, AKA epsilon and mu) are different than free space... as they would be in any biological medium.

OK .. so as the graphene/protein complex gradually grows in length, the 5G operators will know when there are people in the vicinity of their system that have essentially a proper length half wave dipole within their body. Now the most ingenious but diabolical phases of 5G come into play. 

Recall the large "bar magnet" that is now located somewhere in the target body?  Well that needs to be moved up to brain. How is that done? Magnetic fields...very low frequency magnetic fields that are intermodulation products of 5G. We didn't discuss "polarization" but suffice it to say that electromagnetic fields are polarized, that is... the orientation of the electric and magnetic fields, relative to the direction of propagation of the signal are one of the parameters that define a signal ( along with amplitude, frequency, and phase). One might think that intermodulation products would be emanating at all polarizations and any attempt to move the devil spear ( my terminology for the chain of graphene blocks electrostatically bonded to the spike protein) will be futile.  But the 5G system was constructed partly by electromagneticists who know that the surface of the earth is a decent conductor and that (as with the backs of those cans in a different post) the tangential component of the electric field will be very low. Because the electric field and the magnetic field are perpendicular to each other in a propagating field, the orientation of the magnetic field is now known.  And it is that field of the low frequency intermodulation products of 5G that is employed to move the devil's spear upwards , through the heart and to the brain.

And why do they do this?  Recall that they know the resonant frequency of the spear.  Recall that only a large collection of the proteins are toxic.  When 5G wants to release the toxins enmass, they need only to excite the spear with a pulse at the resonant frequency of the spear.  And like so many airborne soldiers parachuting out of their transport plane, those spikes are released at the the same time and same location. After that... you are worm food.


I'm not telling you anything that the 5G people won't tell you.  But I'm telling you years before they plan to. They will tell you because they will want you to know that they now control whether you live or die. Do as they say or ... your mind - including all functions needed for breathing, heartbeat, as well as basic cognition will be canceled.  Warn your friends.

----------

Authentic (09-08-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

Sorry I can't make these revelations shorter.  Evil is hoping you don't spend the time to read the posts.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I don't like wasting time. I suspect Ishmael's trying to waste mine.


Nope.  Just coming clean.  I don't want blood on my hands.

----------


## Oceander

> Some of you may be wondering how graphene plays into the devil's scheme. 
> 
> I don't have time to fully describe the process right now but here are the basic clues. 
> 
> Graphene is injected as just millions of loose particles attached to spike proteins. The loose particles are not dangerous, per se. What is dangerous is when the spike proteins attack living tissue all at once. How does that happen? 
> 
> 
> Graphene is a unique substance that can store magnetic domains.  As you may know, there are no magnetic monopoles so at the microscopic level of the individual graphene particle, which is square, a bar magnet is formed. As time goes by after the injection, the individual bar magnets connect to each other.. N pole to S pole until you have a long strand of the high conductivity graphene in your blood stream. The lateral sides of the graphene particles have the spike protein attached through an electrostatic force between the graphene and the protein.  (Pretty ingenious...using both the magnetic and electric properties of the graphene to perform separate functions! ) 
> Digress for a moment to a phenomenon known as antenna 'antenna scattering'. I refer here to Ohio State's PhD dissertation by Greene from decades ago. 
> ...


How much time did you spend on that?

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> How much time did you spend on that?


See ... the thing is... I know this stuff like the back of my hand. My profession/education since 1972 has mainly been tied to electromagnetics... measurements, analysis, design, simulation, publications, patents  ... 


That post took as long as it required only for my fingers to navigate the keyboard and correct the dumb ass spell checker on my phone. That did take a few minutes but it was only for that reason.

----------

Authentic (09-08-2021),Oceander (09-08-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> I don't like wasting time. I suspect Ishmael's trying to waste mine.


Or you didn't understand the content.

----------


## phoenyx

> Or you didn't understand the content.


I considered that possibility, which is why I mentioned that I couldn't see the connection. He's since made more posts that make it abundantly clear that he's not being serious.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I considered that possibility, which is why I mentioned that I couldn't see the connection. He's since made more posts that make it abundantly clear that he's not being serious.


What do you disagree with?

----------


## phoenyx

> What do you disagree with?


Come on Ishmael, it's obvious that you're just joking around. When you want to -seriously- address the evidence that 5G and other EMFs cause harm, by all means, let me know.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Come on Ishmael, it's obvious that you're just joking around. When you want to -seriously- address the evidence that 5G and other EMFs cause harm, by all means, let me know.


Is there something in my posts that you find to be incorrect?  Let me know.  We can discuss.

It's the full monty.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Come on Ishmael, it's obvious that you're just joking around. When you want to -seriously- address the evidence that 5G and other EMFs cause harm, by all means, let me know.


You're not getting this, @phoenyx.

Look here - science is all about asking the right questions. 

If you ask dumbass questions, you'll dumbass answers. So, knowing which questions to ask, is important.

And, unless you have some knowledge - what I call "context" - around the subject matter, you won't understand what you're looking at, when you examine a piece of evidence, or some data.

Ish is trying to educate you, he's being very patient with you, taking a lot of time for you. He's giving you a big part of the framework - the "context' - to understand what actually happens with propagated electromagnetism.

And, the idea that EMF caused excitations in other molecules, is exactly the physics you need, if you wish to discuss this topic at an intelligent and "modern" scientific level.

I have to go now, have to record a guy with a guitar, at the beach, with chicks and sammiches.

I'll be back though, to make sure you stay on the straight and narrow. lol - wink  :Grin:

----------

Authentic (09-08-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Is there something in my posts that you find to be incorrect?  Let me know.  We can discuss.
> 
> It's the full monty.



I guess you've decided to go the Auth route- I don't blame you, he can be pretty entertaining :-p. But it's also obvious you're not being serious so yeah. But if you actually want to be serious, by all means, read my post#18 in this thread discussing some of the evidence that 5G and other EMFs are in fact harmful:
5G and other EMFs- what the science shows regarding harm - Page 2

Or review the whole decision:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...n-decision.pdf

----------


## phoenyx

> You're not getting this, @phoenyx.
> 
> Look here - science is all about asking the right questions.



I'd argue that there are no 'dumb' questions. Thinking there are can lead to a lot of problems. I'll stop there, as you start insulting after this point.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I guess you've decided to go the Auth route- I don't blame you, he can be pretty entertaining :-p. But it's also obvious you're not being serious so yeah. But if you actually want to be serious, by all means, read my post#18 in this thread discussing some of the evidence that 5G and other EMFs are in fact harmful:
> 5G and other EMFs- what the science shows regarding harm - Page 2
> 
> Or review the whole decision:
> https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...n-decision.pdf


They allude to this but haven't got a clue. The carrier frequency contain no information and are at power levels and frequencies that don't enter deep into the body.  It's the modulation waveform that carry the information... and can be made to re-radiate at any frequency... including the baseband. The modulation can carry Beethhoven's 5th or an entire encyclopedia.... or instructions for controlling the electrochemical processes in the body or a foreign body that is sensitive to EM waves. (And by the way, regardless of being correct or not, popular or not, real electromagneticists seldom use "EMF" . "EM" usually suffices when we talk about RF. )

You gotta get to the point where you understand the degrees of freedom the 5G scientists have in creating the waveforms that modulate the carrier waves with variations in amplitude, frequency, and phase.  Sorry I didn't explain MIMO but that feature simply adds greater spatial specificity to the processing so that you know the exact point in space that you are addressing. So that coupled with the well understood intermodulation phenomena allows these devil's henchmen to construct any waveform at any frequency at any point in space. 

Once you understand this, you won't be just cutting and pasting lawyer nonsense.  Kennedy is shooting in the dark.  So is your buddy Nicolas...the "EMF Guy".

Make a difference... warn your friends.  The danger is in the modulation waveforms.

----------

Authentic (09-08-2021)

----------


## Authentic

And don"t worry so much about AM and FM. They are largely harmless. 

It's the phase modulations that should concern you - specifically a variant called PMS - Phase Modulated Spike proteins!

----------


## Authentic

Modulation is like anything else - you need to look at all _angles_.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> And don"t worry so much about AM and FM. They are largely harmless. 
> 
> It's the phase modulations that should concern you - specifically a variant called PMS - Phase Modulated Spike proteins!


As a "technician" did you ever joke about what "FM" stands for? 







Fuckin' Magic.
It was a common joke even though we all knew what FM was. For some reason, engineers thought it was a stupid joke.

----------


## Oceander

> As a "technician" did you ever joke about what "FM" stands for? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuckin' Magic.
> It was a common joke even though we all knew what FM was. For some reason, engineers thought it was a stupid joke.


Would that make "AM" Ancient Magic?

----------


## phoenyx

> They allude to this but haven't got a clue.


They allude to what?

----------


## phoenyx

> And don"t worry so much about AM and FM. They are largely harmless. 
> 
> It's the phase modulations that should concern you - specifically a variant called PMS - Phase Modulated Spike proteins!


Well, I imagine -you- must be enjoying yourself immensely- you've now got others copying your style :-p.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> They allude to what?


The modulation waveforms.
From your CHD article. 




> The court determined the FCC failed to respond to evidence showing effects that have nothing to do with heat (called “non-thermal harms”), and also failed to consider other factors that may be involved in causing harm, including long-term exposure and pulsation and *modulation* of the wireless radio frequency signals (two methods of imbuing radio waves with information).


 see it was right in front of  you but it went...zzzzzzzip over your head. You couldn't have understood it anyhow.  So I tried to give you a short explanation and you rejected it.



And do you remember this post?




> Hesitantly.... 
> 
> If I have any MAJOR concerns about some conspiracy involving cell phone systems, they are wrapped up into some issue that no one here has  mentioned. I'm not going to mention it either but if the issue comes up, I may rejoin the conversation.  Till then... it's all nuttery.


Evidence that Covid 19 may have started due to 5G networks - Page 4

This is what I was referring to. It's the modulation.  And you see why I didn't want to bring it up. Basically... you can't handle the truth.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Would that make "AM" Ancient Magic?


*A*dios *M*otherf#@#er

AM used unnecessarily large amounts of power.  The circuits were simple though. Still we would sit on 10KW dummy loads and repair/test/repair the transmitter without the shielding in place.

Hmmm... prostate cancer. I gots it. Hmmmmm.
 :Sad20:

----------

Authentic (09-08-2021),Oceander (09-08-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> They allude to what?
> 
> 
> 
> The modulation waveforms.
> From your CHD article. 
> ...


I think we can agree it would have helped if you'd specified what you were alluding to -.-. Anyway, it looks like you may finally be taking this conversation seriously, so I'll play ball. Quoting the rest of your previous post:




> The carrier frequency contain no information and are at power levels and frequencies that don't enter deep into the body.  It's the modulation waveform that carry the information... and can be made to re-radiate at any frequency... including the baseband. The modulation can carry Beethhoven's 5th or an entire encyclopedia.... or instructions for controlling the electrochemical processes in the body or a foreign body that is sensitive to EM waves. (And by the way, regardless of being correct or not, popular or not, real electromagneticists seldom use "EMF" . "EM" usually suffices when we talk about RF. )
> 
> You gotta get to the point where you understand the degrees of freedom the 5G scientists have in creating the waveforms that modulate the carrier waves with variations in amplitude, frequency, and phase.  Sorry I didn't explain MIMO but that feature simply adds greater spatial specificity to the processing so that you know the exact point in space that you are addressing. So that coupled with the well understood intermodulation phenomena allows these devil's henchmen to construct any waveform at any frequency at any point in space. 
> 
> Once you understand this, you won't be just cutting and pasting lawyer nonsense.  Kennedy is shooting in the dark.  So is your buddy Nicolas...the "EMF Guy".
> 
> Make a difference... warn your friends.  The danger is in the modulation waveforms.


Alright, I clicked on CHD's "long-term exposure and pulsation and modulation" and it went to a brief (for those not familiar with what a brief is: Brief legal definition of brief ) .

Quoting from the brief:
**
_F. Modulation/Pulsation, Peak, Simultaneous and Cumulative Exposure Risks

EPA-retired scientist and BIR author Dr. Carl Blackman concluded that modulation may be more important for guidelines than RF levels.59 BIR Section 1560 analyzes 250 studies and shows that the exclusive focus on radiation levels is inadequate because it does not take frequency, modulation, duration or dose into account. Dr. Frey, whose own studies on auditory effects and BBB damage showed the effects of pulsation, concurs: “[t]he issue is not whether cell phones are safe; it is whether the particular frequencies and modulations that the FCC assigned to cell phones, based on faulty  assumptions, are safe.”61 


A meta-analysis showed that almost 100% of studies that use actual pulsed/modulated mobile exposures showed effects. The authors observed that “[l]iving organisms seem to have decreased defense against environmental stressors of high variability.”62BIR and other scientists also noted that frequencyspecific, amplitude-modulated and pulsed EMFs have long been used for medical purposes to treat bone fractures, advanced carcinoma, 63and chronic pain.64 These treatments would not work if human bodies were unaffected by non-thermal pulsed and modulated emissions. 


The Order did not address this issue._
**

Source:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...A1.pdf#page=37


What do you think of that statement?

----------


## phoenyx

> *A*dios *M*otherf#@#er
> 
> AM used unnecessarily large amounts of power.  The circuits were simple though. Still we would sit on 10KW dummy loads and repair/test/repair the transmitter without the shielding in place.
> 
> Hmmm... prostate cancer. I gots it. Hmmmmm.


If you're not joking around, it seems you are agreeing that EMFs (or EMs as you 'professionals' like to call them) may indeed be harmful.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I think we can agree it would have helped if you'd specified what you were alluding to -.-. Anyway, it looks like you may finally be taking this conversation seriously, so I'll play ball. Quoting the rest of your previous post:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, I clicked on CHD's "long-term exposure and pulsation and modulation" and it went to a brief (for those not familiar with what a brief is: Brief legal definition of brief ) .
> 
> Quoting from the brief:
> **
> _F. Modulation/Pulsation, Peak, Simultaneous and Cumulative Exposure Risks
> ...


It's sophomoric.  He's still talking about the power in the RF part of the spectrum.... the peak power. But safety analyses include calculation of average power using the peak power densities and the "duty cycle" of the modulating waveforms. And the standards like C95.1 list the maximum peak regardless of what the average is. So the effects of peak power pulses are NOT ignored in the standards. 

No... it has nothing to do with what I was referring to.

----------

Authentic (09-08-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> Well, I imagine -you- must be enjoying yourself immensely- you've now got others copying your style :-p.


I thought that I was copying theirs.

----------

phoenyx (09-08-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> I thought that I was copying theirs.


Lol :-)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> If you're not joking around, it seems you are agreeing that EMFs (or EMs as you 'professionals' like to call them) may indeed be harmful.


No one has disputed that. It's why we have standards like IEEE C95.1 ... to know what the limit is above which there is a health hazard.

----------


## Authentic

> As a "technician" did you ever joke about what "FM" stands for? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuckin' Magic.
> It was a common joke even though we all knew what FM was. For some reason, engineers thought it was a stupid joke.


No, but do recall making some off color jokes about transistors.

----------


## phoenyx

> No one has disputed that. It's why we have standards like IEEE C95.1 ... to know what the limit is above which there is a health hazard.


Fair enough, I think we can agree that the main issue is whether the FCC's 1996 guidelines are truly safe.

----------


## Authentic

Op amps were a bit more fun to joke around with because they are a black box and technicians didn't need to worry so much about went on inside them - though I did.

There is an input, output, and a feedback loop. Nothing happens unless the input is biased properly. Gain is produced at the output. Use your imagination.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> No, but do recall making some off color jokes about transistors.


Oh yeah.... in AF electronics tech school people circulated a one pager with a little story thst lots of sexual innuendo using electrical/electronic terminology. I don't recall it much but stupid things like "blowing fuses" was included.  Some devices go "both ways" but some don't. Transformers. Yeah... maybe "holes" was in there somewhere. Waddya expect from an all guys squadron of young adult techs in Biloxi Mississippi 1972.

----------

Authentic (09-08-2021),Oceander (09-08-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> It's sophomoric.  He's still talking about the power in the RF part of the spectrum.... the peak power. But safety analyses include calculation of average power using the peak power densities and the "duty cycle" of the modulating waveforms. And the standards like C95.1 list the maximum peak regardless of what the average is. So the effects of peak power pulses are NOT ignored in the standards. 
> 
> No... it has nothing to do with what I was referring to.


Alright, I don't have the expertise on this, so I'll let that one go. Here's one that's in line with your point about possibly getting cancer from EMF radiation:

**
*G. Exposure→Mechanism→Disease*

RF/EMF exposure affects human biology and negatively impacts important bodily mechanisms. This can cause multiple diseases.
*1. Cancer

*Consistent with the NTP and Ramazzini studies, many commenters submitted extensive evidence demonstrating an increased risk of several forms of cancer from RF/EMF exposure. IARC classified RF/EMF as a 2B (possible) carcinogen in 2011. In 2018, Professor of Oncology and Cancer Epidemiology Lennart Hardell, MD PhD, a BIR author and a past IARC committee member,noted that, based on the NTP findings “there is clear evidence that RF radiation is a human carcinogen, causing glioma and vestibular schwannoma (acoustic neuroma).”65


A literature survey by Petitioner Dr. Paul Dart in 2013 concluded that “epidemiological research shows that greater than 10 years of cell phone use” significantly increases risk of ipsilateral brain tumors (glioma) and that the risk is greater in individuals who started cell phone use as children.66 Dr. Dart also reviewed studies showing increased cancer risk from exposures to cellular towers, with proximity a key factor.67 And a 2011 review of almost one-hundred studies on long-term exposure to RF/EMF, including from cell phones and cellular towers, found it “promote[s] cancer development.”68

These authors also reviewed studies investigating potential mechanisms that could lead to cancer. This research demonstrates that RF/EMF exposures below thermal levels lead to DNA breakage and chronic inflammation that increases the activity of free radicals (oxidative stress).69 Accordingly, all three submissions concluded that current regulations based on thermal heating should be re-assessed for non-thermal effects.70

Aside from the NTP study, the Order does not address any cancer-related submissions.
**

Source:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...A1.pdf#page=38

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Fair enough, I think we can agree that the main issue is whether the FCC's 1996 guidelines are truly safe.


Well ... you can put your concern to rest.  I'm retired, not evil, and won't be joining industry/government to do the nasty things with the modulation and intermodulation that I described here. And in all likelihood, only a few people in the country, besides myself, have the multidisciplinary background that would allow them to do it on their own. If it was done - as usual - with a team of people, you couldn't keep it a secret without burying them all at the end of the development.

----------


## phoenyx

> Well ... you can put your concern to rest.  I'm retired, not evil, and won't be joining industry/government to do the nasty things with the modulation and intermodulation that I described here. And in all likelihood, only a few people in the country, besides myself, have the multidisciplinary background that would allow them to do it on their own. If it was done - as usual - with a team of people, you couldn't keep it a secret without burying them all at the end of the development.


I've never pinned you as a bad guy, but I hope that you respond my post #104. And there's a lot more evidence of that nature.

----------


## Dan40

> The gubmint has surveyed the cans most commonly used for this purpose and have devised baseband modulations and frequency pairing such that intermodulation products will contain waveforms that are resonant within those cans, which are essentially short waveguides. The one end that is intact is a metallic reflector. At that point, the physical manifestation of maxwells equations will result in the tangential component of the electric field being zero and the magnetic field being at a maximum. Fields in a circular waveguide are cylindrical Bessel functions.  They are characterized as being "transverse electric" and "transverse magnetic", or TE and TM and are over various orders, depending on 2D cross sectional patterns of the fields. There are literally an infinite number of these waveguide modes but the low orders are the most nefarious. See the pattern of the TM mode here?
> Attachment 62525
> 
> When you hold that can up to your face, the intermodulation products of 5G will create a resonance of THAT field distribution. THAT circular waveguide mode is directed exactly at your head at that time. It is then that the 5G networks "talk" to the graphene-based receptors that have formed in your brain. From there .... you are under their control. Warn your friends.


I knew that!

----------

Call_me_Ishmael (09-08-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Alright, I don't have the expertise on this, so I'll let that one go. Here's one that's in line with your point about possibly getting cancer from EMF radiation:
> 
> **
> *G. Exposure→Mechanism→Disease*
> 
> RF/EMF exposure affects human biology and negatively impacts important bodily mechanisms. This can cause multiple diseases.
> *1. Cancer
> 
> *Consistent with the NTP and Ramazzini studies, many commenters submitted extensive evidence demonstrating an increased risk of several forms of cancer from RF/EMF exposure. IARC classified RF/EMF as a 2B (possible) carcinogen in 2011. In 2018, Professor of Oncology and Cancer Epidemiology Lennart Hardell, MD PhD, a BIR author and a past IARC committee member,noted that, based on the NTP findings “there is clear evidence that RF radiation is a human carcinogen, causing glioma and vestibular schwannoma (acoustic neuroma).”65
> ...


That is not peculiar to 5G. 
I mean... don't lean on 5G transmit antennas if they ever put them within touch distance. But don't put your eyes up to the little screen on the windows of a microwave oven either. (evanescent waves don't propagate but they have fields strengths that need to be respected where they do exist.  They are energy storage fields that decay exponentially from the surface of the screen. Touching them changes their behavior and allows you to couple into those fields. Some "experts" ignore/don't-know this.) The general concern about cancer would apply to microwave ovens, television receivers (yes... receivers. The receiver design of modern receivers includes a "local oscillator" that does indeed radiate. It is a source of interference mostly but if you are paranoid about RF...know that it will radiate), and standard radio, Bluetooth, wifi, etc.... not to mention the very high 60/120 Hz fields that we are immersed in from the power grid. 

So go chase those windmills too. They have been approved using standards similar if not identical to what 5G authorization used.

PS..   @phoenyx,  I should add that any computer is also a source of EM fields.  That's why highly classified computing must be performed within a Faraday screen room. Smart adversaries/spies can sit across the street, pick up that radiation, interpret it and know exactly what you are typing. Likely thry can decipher your screen too but that is beyond my fist hand knowledge. All this because of EM radiation. Again... from a safety/health perspective, these devices have been approved using the same standard that was used for 5G authorization.  Be sure to get the children's heakth defense lawyer to go after all those computers manufacturers.

----------


## Authentic

Welcome to the test flight of the 5G network. In case of explosive demodulation, a tin foil hat will drop from overhead. Place the hat securely on your head and tighten the straps. Secure your own hat before assisting others.

----------

Call_me_Ishmael (09-08-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> That is not peculiar to 5G. 
> I mean... don't lean on 5G transmit antennas if they ever put them within touch distance. But don't put your eyes up to the little screen on the windows of a microwave oven either. (evanescent waves don't propagate but they have fields strengths that need to be respected where they do exist.  They are energy storage fields that decay exponentially from the surface of the screen. Touching them changes their behavior and allows you to couple into those fields. Some "experts" ignore/don't-know this.) The general concern about cancer would apply to microwave ovens, television receivers (yes... receivers. The receiver design of modern receivers includes a "local oscillator" that does indeed radiate. It is a source of interference mostly but if you are paranoid about RF...know that it will radiate), and standard radio, Bluetooth, wifi, etc.... not to mention the very high 60/120 Hz fields that we are immersed in from the power grid. 
> 
> So go chase those windmills too. They have been approved using standards similar if not identical to what 5G authorization used.
> 
> PS.. @phoenyx,  I should add that any computer is also a source of EM fields.  That's why highly classified computing must be performed within a Faraday screen room. Smart adversaries/spies can sit across the street, pick up that radiation, interpret it and know exactly what you are typing. Likely thry can decipher your screen too but that is beyond my fist hand knowledge. All this because of EM radiation.


I never said these things were peculiar to 5G. As to the other things you say, I don't think I have an issue with them, but I notice that you didn't really address anything in the material you quoted. Does this mean you agree with all of it?

----------


## Authentic

The Earth is one giant magnet...

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I never said these things were peculiar to 5G. As to the other things you say, I don't think I have an issue with them, but I notice that you didn't really address anything in the material you quoted. D*oes this mean you agree with all of* it?


Not at all..
I'd have to read the real research, assess whether the measurements were properly conducted, and results analyzed properly.  If someone pays me to do it, I would.  Its not a trivial matter. You can choose to "believe" what they say. I trust my own knowledge and very few others'.


For example... somewhere in these posts and links is a reference to experiments done with mice and the increase in cancer within their organs when exposed to cell phones. I have to scratch my head on tbe applicability of that to humans. Why? Because if they put a cell phone up to the mouse, the transmitter distance to the skin of the mouse and the skin of a person may be comparable. But the distance to ANY other organ within the mouse is a fraction of the distance to that same organ in a man. So ... I'm not just going to accept 3rd or 4th hand the supposed results of that experiment. Mediocrity and bias is everywhere... even in "peer" reviewed articles. ( don't get me started on "peer" review.  It won't sift out papers that use consensus science even if the consensus science is false. And very few are as anal as I am in checking data.  They typically have full time jobs and will be a peer reviewer for various reasons but can't spend much time on the review.  It's kinda a "club' too. And yes... I've been a peer reviewer.)

----------

Oceander (09-08-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> The Earth is one giant magnet...


Good topic for another day.

----------

Authentic (09-08-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Not at all..
> I'd have to read the real research, assess whether the measurements were properly conducted, and results analyzed properly.  If someone pays me to do it, I would.  Its not a trivial matter. You can choose to "believe" what they say. I trust my own knowledge and very few others'.
> 
> For example... somewhere in these posts and links is a reference to experiments done with mice and the increase in cancer within their organs when exposed to cell phones. I have to scratch my head on the applicability of that to humans. Why? Because if they put a cell phone up to the mouse, the transmitter distance to the skin of the mouse and the skin of a person may be comparable. But the distance to ANY other organ within the mouse is a fraction of the distance to that same organ in a man. So ... I'm not just going to accept 3rd or 4th hand the supposed results of that experiment. Mediocrity and bias is everywhere... even in "peer" reviewed articles. ( don't get me started on "peer" review.  It won't sift out papers that use consensus science even if the consensus science is false. And very few are as anal as I am in checking data.  They typically have full time jobs and will be a peer reviewer for various reasons but can't spend much time on the review.  It's kinda a "club' too. And yes... I've been a peer reviewer.)


Alright, fair enough. I'm wondering, have you seen the following post I made:
5G and other EMFs- what the science shows regarding harm - Page 2

If you haven't, would you check it and let me know if you agree with the points made?

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Alright, fair enough. I'm wondering, have you seen the following post I made:
> 5G and other EMFs- what the science shows regarding harm - Page 2
> 
> If you haven't, would you check it and let me know if you agree with the points made?


You are full of shit if you think you can post claim after claim after claim and then say... "here Ishmael... find the fallacies". Ummm let's take "SAM". What is the cell phone technology, frequency and power output, polarization, and duty cycle used to similate a conversation? What is the skull material made out of. Before the RF can heat any brain, it will have to pass through bone.  What assumptions were used in the antenna pattern of the cell phone?  In other words, what percent of the transmitted energy was even directed towards the brain, let alone able to pass through the skull. 

So no.... you do your own homework or simply belieeeeve these people.

And the claim about China and Russia.... I might check but whoo boy that would be a change.  I know that Russia's standards were looser than ours in cold war days. And there is no way that without proof im going to believe that China and Russia are "safer" than we are. That sounds like a tall tale. But you want me to research their standards and then compare with ours.  Who the hell do you think you are? Get a grip. Get an education in this... or get out of the fear mongering business.

PS. My advice is to use wired ear buds.  No matter what kind of transmitter, cell phone, walkie talki, etc... that would always be good advice. @phoenyx

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Alright, fair enough. I'm wondering, have you seen the following post I made:
> 5G and other EMFs- what the science shows regarding harm - Page 2
> 
> If you haven't, would you check it and let me know if you agree with the points made?


So I did try to check on the standards.  Whatever you posted made no sense.  There is this included in your nonsense 




> 10 uW/cm2 or 0.614 V/m


10 uW/cm2 is not 0.614 V/m

Somebody did some bad arithmetic.  

Why didn't you check that?  

So I just stopped there.  I'm done with your nonsense. You have proven yourself to be irresponsible in your posts. You don't or can't vett the info you posts and cite experiments that cannot be verified by the information you provide.

Oh yeah I reviewed ANOTHER of your specious claims.  In that nonsense you steered me to, it said that the results of SAM were such that you can't talk longer than 6 minutes a day. The temporal averaging that is used in the standards does not mean that. Whoever wrote it was an idiot. And you reposted an idiot's ramblings.  


Oh... sure .... "all you can do is criticize" you will say. Bull fucking shit. No one NO ONE here has acted on greater faith than I have in reviewing what you post. FU Homer.

----------

Authentic (09-08-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> So I did try to check on the standards.  Whatever you posted made no sense.  There is this included in your nonsense 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 uW/cm2 is not 0.614 V/m
> 
> Somebody did some bad arithmetic.  
> 
> Why didn't you check that?  
> ...


     @phoenyx 

I did find some references that said Russian standards were lower than ours in the old soviet union. But by a factor of 10 in power.  That is not my recollection ( from 40 years ago) but I would have been looking at standards for military personnel.  Just like we do, i suspect they had different standards for controlled environments ( which I used for years even up to last year for navy personnel) vs uncontrolled ( general population)  environments.  I dug into that 40 years ago since the Russian radars had some obviously unsafe designs where the operator was right there in the near field high of a power reflector antenna, spinning with the search radar. We would have never permitted that as the arrangement would have immersed the operator in a high microwave field.
The current standards appear at first glance to be different by a factor of 100 but actually they don't directly compare since they use a total dose metric over a long period of time and we don't. It's an exercise for the student to research the difference. 


PS...  @phoenyx you are iggy now so save your comments for someone else.

----------


## Authentic

> So I did try to check on the standards.  Whatever you posted made no sense.  There is this included in your nonsense 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 uW/cm2 is not 0.614 V/m
> 
> Somebody did some bad arithmetic.  
> 
> Why didn't you check that?  
> ...


My conversion chart says that .614 V/m= 10,000 microwatts/cm^2. 

His numbers were funky.

----------

phoenyx (09-08-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

> I'd argue that there are no 'dumb' questions. Thinking there are can lead to a lot of problems. I'll stop there, as you start insulting after this point.


If I wanted to insult you, you'd know it.

Rule #1 of science: keep it simple. 

For instance - when you're done with all the hifalutin stuff about frequency dispersion, ask yourself this SIMPLE question:

Why does my TV cut out when the weather changes?

When you've eliminated all the other possibilities, you'll remember Ish, and what he told you which you rejected as a waste of time.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Fair enough, I think we can agree that the main issue is whether the FCC's 1996 guidelines are truly safe.


No one gives a shit about government guidelines.

I sure don't.

The US government is the LAST place I'd turn for anything related to science.

It wasn't always that way...

But it is now.

----------


## phoenyx

> The Earth is one giant magnet...


Yes, but my understanding is that it's much lower than the electric currents that we're dishing out via electric wires and EMFs.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I never said these things were peculiar to 5G. As to the other things you say, I don't think I have an issue with them, but I notice that you didn't really address anything in the material you quoted. Does this mean you agree with all of it?


You're still ignorant on this topic.

Crack a book, then come back and talk to us.

You're talking to half a dozen experts in this thread, and you still think "evidence" is what some idiot said in a lawsuit.

You seriously need to go to school. For a few years. If you want to be perceived as anything less than a complete doofus when it comes to basic electricity and magnetism.

How come radio waves bend around metal buildings?

Do you know?

If you don't, don't bother talking to us about 5G.

Now, can we please put this idiotic thread to rest?

----------

Authentic (09-08-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> You are full of shit if you think you can post claim after claim after claim and then say... "here Ishmael... find the fallacies".


Already, you've already made it clear that you're not sure about some things. Clearly, it's nice to be able to talk to someone who knows a fair amount about EMFs. But I certainly acknowledge that there's a limit to how much investigative work you're willing to do on this.





> Ummm let's take "SAM". What is the cell phone technology, frequency and power output, polarization, and duty cycle used to similate a conversation? What is the skull material made out of. Before the RF can heat any brain, it will have to pass through bone.  What assumptions were used in the antenna pattern of the cell phone?  In other words, what percent of the transmitted energy was even directed towards the brain, let alone able to pass through the skull. 
> So no.... you do your own homework or simply belieeeeve these people.


Reading all this material -is- homework. I didn't study to be an electrician, let alone an electrical engineer, so a lot of what you said above went right over my head. But I notice that you didn't actually say that anything that was said in the post I referred to was wrong, so there's that. 




> And the claim about China and Russia.... I might check but whoo boy that would be a change.  I know that Russia's standards were looser than ours in cold war days. And there is no way that without proof im going to believe that China and Russia are "safer" than we are. That sounds like a tall tale.


Given what they did in Wuhan and elsewhere in regards to 5G, I suspect they don't follow their own safety standards. 





> But you want me to research their standards and then compare with ours.  Who the hell do you think you are? Get a grip. Get an education in this... or get out of the fear mongering business.


I'm not in the "fear mongering business". I read from various sources that I think are fairly reliable and then I draw my conclusions. I think it's clear that you have a fair amount of trust in the FCC- I don't. So I imagine that you may have been surprised that the court ruled that they would have to explain why they were ignoring so much evidence. I only showed you a small fraction of it. So I'd like to think that in that, at least, I taught you something. 




> PS. My advice is to use wired ear buds.  No matter what kind of transmitter, cell phone, walkie talki, etc... that would always be good advice. @phoenyx


I do actually. Either that or I use speakerphone- bottom line is to keep my cell phone a good distance from my head. I don't even like holding it when I'm on a call- ideally I put it on a table. Holding on to it gets my hands sweaty and, more importantly, I've developed rashes where I tend to hold it, so that's another reason I am working extra hard not to hold it when I'm on a call. I actually use my phone a fair amount to read online comics, but I make a point of only doing that when it's in airplane mode. Even then, the phone of course has its own EMFs, but I think it's safe to say they're a lot weaker than the EMFs getting pumped out when it is active, let alone when it's on a call.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Yes, but my understanding is that it's much lower than the electric currents that we're dishing out via electric wires and EMFs.


'Evidence" for post #122.

Someone says something about magnetism, Phoenyx replies "it's lower than electric currents".

Do you know what a SQUID is?

Look it up. A SQUID, is sensitive to ONE QUANTUM of magnetic flux, which is something like 10^-15 Weber. 

Compare that, to the Earth's magnetic field...

And then, research this question:

How far away does the SQUID have to be from the cell phone, before detectable magnetism drops below one quantum?

----------


## nonsqtr

> I'm not in the "fear mongering business".


Yes, you are.

----------


## phoenyx

> So I did try to check on the standards.  Whatever you posted made no sense.  There is this included in your nonsense 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _10 uW/cm2 or 0.614 V/m_
> 
> 
> ...



Mm. Perhaps the author of the book. As others have mentioned, he never claimed to be a huge expert in EMFs, so I can see how he could have made a mistake here. 




> Why didn't you check that?



I wouldn't even know how. 




> So I just stopped there.  I'm done with your nonsense.


Oh not this again -.- Fine, do your own thing. Thanks for taking some time to be serious though. We're not all trained to be electricians, let alone electric engineers, so we do the best we can with what we do know and we learn some along the way. Anyway, I think you can't deny that the FCC was caught ignoring a lot of evidence that EMFs are in fact more harmful than their 1996 standards allow. I believe the court also intimated that this evidence -might- be mistaken, but the FCC has a duty to investigate it, not ignore it. You're not the FCC, so you can go do whatever you like.

----------


## phoenyx

> @phoenyx 
> 
> I did find some references that said Russian standards were lower than ours in the old soviet union. But by a factor of 10 in power.  That is not my recollection ( from 40 years ago) but I would have been looking at standards for military personnel.  Just like we do, i suspect they had different standards for controlled environments ( which I used for years even up to last year for navy personnel) vs uncontrolled ( general population)  environments.  I dug into that 40 years ago since the Russian radars had some obviously unsafe designs where the operator was right there in the near field high of a power reflector antenna, spinning with the search radar. We would have never permitted that as the arrangement would have immersed the operator in a high microwave field.
> The current standards appear at first glance to be different by a factor of 100 but actually they don't directly compare since they use a total dose metric over a long period of time and we don't. It's an exercise for the student to research the difference.


I see.

----------


## phoenyx

> My conversion chart says that .614 V/m= 10,000 microwatts/cm^2. 
> 
> His numbers were funky.


Alright, so how much would 10 uw/cm2 really be?

----------


## phoenyx

> If I wanted to insult you, you'd know it.


Even -Trinity- agreed that you'd insulted me, just that you hadn't insulted me in a manner harsh enough for her to intervene.

----------


## phoenyx

> Rule #1 of science: keep it simple. 
> 
> For instance - when you're done with all the hifalutin stuff about frequency dispersion, ask yourself this SIMPLE question:
> 
> Why does my TV cut out when the weather changes?
> 
> When you've eliminated all the other possibilities, you'll remember Ish, and what he told you which you rejected as a waste of time.


I -suspected- that he was wasting my time because I couldn't see a connection between what he was saying and whether or not EMFs were harmful. Since then, he's agreed that EMFs can be harmful, it depends on the dose, and that was what the court case involving the FCC was all about.

----------


## Authentic

> Now, can we please put this idiotic thread to rest?


No! Then I'd have to go to The Laugh Factory to practice my lines, and I hate Hollywood.

----------


## phoenyx

> No one gives a shit about government guidelines.


If that were true, Children's Health Defense would never have taken their court case with the FCC's 1996 guidelines up to the Supreme Court. The fact that the Supreme Court decided for them in some aspects also shows that there is certainly cause for concern.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Even -Trinity- agreed that you'd insulted me, just that you hadn't insulted me in a manner harsh enough for her to intervene.


You ask Trinnity what happens when I want to insult someone.

Go ahead, ask her.

Here, I'm merely stating a simple independently observable and repeatable fact. You are scientifically ignorant on this topic.

And you're trying to challenge experts with your ignorance, which makes you arrogant AND ignorant.

If you want to perceive any of this as an insult, you're free to do so 

From my perspective, the truth matters more than your sensitivities. We're in a public forum, and I'm not here to be a nice guy.

Respect is earned. If you want some, earn it.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I never said these things were peculiar to 5G. As to the other things you say, I don't think I have an issue with them, but I notice that you didn't really address anything in the material you quoted. Does this mean you agree with all of it?
> 
> 
> You're still ignorant on this topic.



Somehow, I don't think you'd make a good teacher :-p. Look non, it's clear that I don't know a fair amount, but I've also learned a fair amount and even Ishmael acknowledged that there are things he doesn't know- for instance, where the evidence in some of the studies I've referenced are valid are not. Furthermore, I suspect that neither he or you were even aware of the FCC court case that Children's Health Defense won in part until I brought it up. So I think it's fair to say that we both learned some things here.

----------


## Authentic

> Alright, so how much would 10 uw/cm2 really be?


6.14 V/m, just move the decimal point 3 places.

This is basic electrical math.

----------

phoenyx (09-08-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> 'Evidence" for post #122.
> 
> Someone says something about magnetism, Phoenyx replies "it's lower than electric currents".
> 
> Do you know what a SQUID is?
> 
> Look it up. A SQUID, is sensitive to ONE QUANTUM of magnetic flux, which is something like 10^-15 Weber. 
> 
> Compare that, to the Earth's magnetic field...
> ...



There are various variables at play here. If cell phone radiation didn't have something that was way above regular earth background EMFs, it wouldn't be an issue and cell phone companies wouldn't be telling people not to have their ears closer to them than .5cm-1.5 cm. Perhaps cell phones don't emit "magnetic flux", no idea, but clearly there is something they're emitting at a much higher level than background EMFs.

----------


## phoenyx

> Yes, you are.


Ah, the old, "I'm right and you're wrong" and leaving it at that eh :-p? When will you ever learn that that type of "debate" is the same type that pre schoolers use and just as useful to having a meaningful conversation.

----------


## nonsqtr

> If that were true, Children's Health Defense would never have taken their court case with the FCC's 1996 guidelines up to the Supreme Court. The fact that the Supreme Court decided for them in some aspects also shows that there is certainly cause for concern.


Horseshit.

All it shows is that the Supreme Court is scientifically ignorant.

Gee, who'd-a-thunk?

----------


## phoenyx

> Horseshit.
> 
> All it shows is that the Supreme Court is scientifically ignorant.



Ishmael never said that. Neither did Authentic. Authentic and Ishmael were both electricians, Ishmael was an electrical engineer as well. Do you have credentials of that caliber?

----------


## nonsqtr

> Somehow, I don't think you'd make a good teacher :-p. Look non, it's clear that I don't know a fair amount, but I've also learned a fair amount and even Ishmael acknowledged that there are things he doesn't know- for instance, where the evidence in some of the studies I've referenced are valid are not. Furthermore, I suspect that neither he or you were even aware of the FCC court case that Children's Health Defense won in part until I brought it up. So I think it's fair to say that we both learned some things here.


It's good that you're learning.

But... reality check... you've been hammering on this topic for over a dozen pages now.

You make like you're trying to "warn" us about it or something.

And, we told you the truth on page 1 or 2 and you still don't want to listen, 12 pages later.

So how about, put it to bed.

You can learn a whole lot more in the library, in a shorter time. And it should be obvious by now, you're not convincing us of anything 

Yeah, fear mongering is when you try to make a federal case out of something that should be #1200 on the list of priorities.

----------


## phoenyx

> You ask Trinnity what happens when I want to insult someone.
> 
> Go ahead, ask her.


I'll pass.

----------


## Authentic

> Ishmael never said that. Neither did Authentic. Authentic and Ishmael were both electricians, Ishmael was an electrical engineer as well. Do you have credentials of that caliber?


I never claimed to be an electrician.

 I am a qualified electronics technician, and specifically worked as an RF technician for production of photonic devices designed for use in cell transmission towers. I can understand Ishmael because my training covered it (it had to have been pre-engineering because we studied some calculus and trig but most of that stuff I never used in the field - but I can analyze any circuit real good!) but he has specific expertise while mine is more general.

nonsqtr knows his stuff. Don't bet against him.

----------


## Authentic

He can tell you all about Calabi-Yau manifolds.

----------


## phoenyx

> It's good that you're learning.
> 
> But... reality check... you've been hammering on this topic for over a dozen pages now.



Sure. So have others. I also think I haven't been the only one who's been learning things here. 




> You make like you're trying to "warn" us about it or something.


I am.




> And, we told you the truth on page 1 or 2 and you still don't want to listen, 12 pages later.



I frequently find it irritating how people confuse not agreeing with and/or not understanding what someone is saying with not -listening- to what they're saying. 





> So how about, put it to bed.
> 
> You can learn a whole lot more in the library, in a shorter time. And it should be obvious by now, you're not convincing us of anything



I hope I've persuaded some here that the Supreme Court told the FCC that they couldn't continue to ignore evidence that runs contrary to their notion that their 1996 EMF guidelines don't need to be updated. This in turn has us lead to looking at a bit of that evidence. Not that much of it as of yet, but a start. 




> Yeah, fear mongering is when you try to make a federal case out of something that should be #1200 on the list of priorities.


Sure, but I definitely don't believe that's what's happening here. I'm still persuaded that 5G and other EMFs are the most likely cause of the initial Covid cases.

----------


## phoenyx

> I never claimed to be an electrician. I am a qualified electronics technician, and specifically worked as an RF technician for production of photonic devices designed for use in cell transmission towers. I can understand Ishmael because my training covered it, but he has specific expertise while mine is more general.
> 
> nonsqtr knows his stuff. Don't bet against him.


Sure he knows his stuff, but I have a feeling he knows less about EMFs than you and Ishmael.

----------


## Rutabaga

master electrician here, let me check your shorts...

----------

Authentic (09-09-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> He can tell you all about Calabi-Yau manifolds.


Sure, but I don't think that's really all that important when it comes to EMFs :-p.

----------


## Authentic

> Sure he knows his stuff, but I have a feeling he knows less about EMFs than you and Ishmael.


What is the "F" in the acronymn? Frequencies? I've never heard it like that. There are frequency ranges used for communication but there aren't specific electromagnetic frequencies. Usually it is just called EM.

----------


## Authentic

> Sure, but I don't think that's really all that important when it comes to EMFs :-p.


You might be surprised. I know nothing about it but from the stuff he has posted about manifolds, they can be used to depict geometrically all sorts of things.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I'm still persuaded that 5G and other EMFs are the most likely cause of the initial Covid cases.


You have NO EVIDENCE for this belief.

This is religion on your part, not science.

There is NOT A SINGLE SHRED of scientific evidence for this belief. Nada. Zip. Squat 

Nothing published, nothing peer reviewed, nothing independently observable or repeatable. NOTHING that meets the universally accepted definition of scientific evidence.

GO AWAY with your idiotic religion. Go post your BELIEFS in the religion forum.

This science forum is for science. Not religious fear mongering.

You've been asked NICELY three times to stop.

----------


## phoenyx

> What is the "F" in the acronymn? Frequencies? I've never heard it like that. There are frequency ranges used for communication but there aren't specific electromagnetic frequencies. Usually it is just called EM.


Yes, the F is indeed for Frequencies :-). Ishmael also said that he called it EM. It seems that Electricians and Electrical Engineers are taught to call them EMs while laypeople are told they are EMFs. As to your statement that there aren't specific electromagnetic frequencies, that doesn't sound right. Here's a chart I got from Wikipedia on the different frequencies/wavelengths:


Screen Shot 2021-09-09 at 6.10.26 AM.png

Source:
Electromagnetic spectrum - Wikipedia

----------


## phoenyx

> You might be surprised. I know nothing about it but from the stuff he has posted about manifolds, they can be used to depict geometrically all sorts of things.


Well, if he can use it in a way that supports his beliefs in regards to EMFs and that he can explain to laypeople, he's welcome to do that.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I'm still persuaded that 5G and other EMFs are the most likely cause of the initial Covid cases.
> 
> 
> 
> You have NO EVIDENCE for this belief.


I strongly disagree with that statement. For those in the audience who haven't seen it, I invite them to take a look at the following thread where I present evidence I have gathered that Covid and 5G/other EMFs may well have been the initial cause of Covid cases:
Evidence that Covid 19 may have started due to 5G networks

----------


## nonsqtr

> I strongly disagree with that statement.


Your disagreeing with the truth doesn't make it any less the truth.

The fact of the matter is, the LAWSUIT you cited does NOT qualify as scientific evidence !!!

If you don't even understand the difference between evidence and bullshit, kindly STOP until you do !!!

You are WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME with your bullshit. PLEASE STOP.

For the fifth time: PLEASE STOP WITH THE FEAR MONGERING BULLSHIT.

----------

Oceander (09-09-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Your disagreeing with the truth doesn't make it any less the truth.


The same could be said for you. The problem with you is that you have no room in your head for allowing for that possibility.

----------


## Authentic

So, what is this court case that keeps being mentioned?

----------


## phoenyx

> So, what is this court case that keeps being mentioned?


I'm glad you asked :-). Children's Health Defense writes about the case here:
Historic Win: CHD Wins Case Against FCC on Safety Guidelines for 5G and Wireless | Children's Health Defense

The decision itself can be seen here:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...n-decision.pdf

----------

