sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
pun?but its lack of coverage
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
pun?but its lack of coverage
You dont have to cast your scope of reference too far to see the NYT's standing as a unbiased fact checking news outlet has eroded substantially coinciding with the present administration.
This is the truth.Scientific America, maybe
NYT, no. They have lost all credibility and no linger qualify as a legitimate news source.
Did it? Or did it just cause the impedance of the antenna to change dramatically, leading to refelctions and loss of energy in the phone's transmission path ?Remember the iPhone 4 "Antenna-gate" fiasco where those so-called brilliant Apple engineers actually went there and put the antennas into the body of the phone? See what happened when people - aka organic tissue - touched the antennas? Their organic tissue wicked away that microwave RF radiation like water being sucked up by a Super Shammy.
And we should believe these "mediabiasfactcheck" people because ... why? Because they say so? They "took the truth pledge?" LOL[Re: NYT's legitamacy as a news source:
Guess again on the times; https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/ Factual Reporting: HIGH World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
Microwave radiation is non ionising radiation, meaning it has no ability to alter the molecular structure of ANY material, organic or otherwise. In huge amounts it can heat things up, but the same can be said for literally ALL wavelengths of EM radiation. In other words, if you're worried about mW range microwave radiation causing issues with organic tissue.
Regardless, it's way past time we all switched to Drinkems!
It almost sounds like your describing the suns radiation
It is very simple. There is no safe level of radiation, that doesnt mean its harmful however it reasonable to say its not to be encouraged as healthy. Clickbate sensationalism is vastly counter productive then to simply state that mobile phones radiate, we cant directly link that useage with definitive cancers but caution to minimize exposure is the best avenue forward.
At least we arnt using the nokia or ericcsons from 15 years ago
I know it's rough to hear things you don't agree with, it bothers me to.And we should believe these "mediabiasfactcheck" people because ... why? Because they say so? They "took the truth pledge?" LOL
I never heard of mediabiasfactcheck before. Looking at their front page, they seem to have an anti-Trump bias.
Who funds them? Bezos? Soros?
Liar. It asks people to help fund them on Patreon, not that Patreon is the only source.I know it's rough to hear things you don't agree with, it bothers me to.
It's no wonder a site that ranks news sources for factual information might appear at first glance to be anti-dRumpf, it's not like the prezident regularly lies and obfuscates facts .
If you'd bothered to do more than a cursory glance you would have noticed the about page which explains how the site is funded.
Who funds Media Bias/Fact Check?It asks people to help fund them on Patreon, not that Patreon is the only source.
It doesn't say where their funding comes from.
Who funds Media Bias/Fact Check?
Sorry that they don't dox their donors, you'll just have to burn that cross another day.
I think it's because some people still believe that microwave ovens "irradiate" their food, as in making it radioactive, despite that fact that even actually irradiating food with ionizing radiation doesn't make food radioactive. Once this belief is held, anything called a "microwave" is believed dangerous.*Ionizing radiation.
I've never heard that claim in regards to visible light or infrared radiation. And I've never heard it in regards to radio. For some reason microwaves seem to be the sweet spot for paranoia.
Ever wonder how they guarantee the sterility of a Band-Aid brand bandage inside it's paper wrapper?... despite that fact that even actually irradiating food with ionizing radiation doesn't make food radioactive.
We irradiated blood products (to order - it was not routine) when I worked in the laboratory at our local American Red Cross. The machine that did so was perfectly safe sitting right out in the open and when the irradiation was complete the bags were perfectly safe to handle with our usual latex gloves.Ever wonder how they guarantee the sterility of a Band-Aid brand bandage inside it's paper wrapper?
Gamma irradiation. See https://www.steris-ast.com/services/gamma-irradiation/
And the recipients of the blood didn't turn green and angry? Color me shocked!We irradiated blood products (to order - it was not routine) when I worked in the laboratory at our local American Red Cross. The machine that did so was perfectly safe sitting right out in the open and when the irradiation was complete the bags were perfectly safe to handle with our usual latex gloves.
We'll need to drain all your blood for that, or else bleach your skin and burn you in various locations in a rather cool looking pattern. Are you okay with this?And the recipients of the blood didn't turn green and angry? Color me shocked!
*Ionizing radiation.
I've never heard that claim in regards to visible light or infrared radiation. And I've never heard it in regards to radio. For some reason microwaves seem to be the sweet spot for paranoia.
name checks
Guess again on the times; https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/ Factual Reporting: HIGH World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
And the recipients of the blood didn't turn green and angry? Color me shocked!
Never mind the fact that we have countless sources that are heating us from the inside. It's not just cell towers, all new cars have radars these days. All that power adds up.
That story is simply terrible. It's either intentionally sensationalist or written by someone who doesn't understand what science is.
Finding that something may cause cancer in rats simply does not mean that it will cause cancer in humans. Exposing rats to a human lifetime's worth of almost anything will likely cause health problems.
This is exactly the same nonsense that was spread about saccharin. It scared a lot of people until they figured out that they would have to continuously drink diet soda for months in order to reach the same relative exposure levels as the scientists were cramming into their rodents.
More ammunition for the paranoid.
What you're describing is a behavioral issue, though. The LCD issue you describe is also not unique to cell phones. That said, I am perfectly willing to agree that children's cell phone use should be monitored and controlled, like any number of other potentially damaging behaviors.
Regardless, it's still not evidence that the RF radiation of a cell phone damages human tissue, which is what I was requesting after being told quite haughtily that such damage was obviously happening and was in the process of killing us all.
A recent government study reportedly found “clear evidence” that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer, but its lack of coverage has redrawn attention to the wireless industry’s use of PR campaigns to mislead consumers. The Guardian points out that 5G will massively increase the general population’s exposure to radiation, but some say that the majority will remain willfully ignorant for convenience’s sake.
Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a public-health experiment: use a mobile phone today, find out later if it causes genetic damage or cancer.
No, it doesn't add up. Below a threshold level, your body's thermal regulation systems just get rid of it (look up hormesis).
Now, maybe if your ability to shed heat was already overtaxed, like when it's 115F in Phoenix, you'd have a problem. But at that temperature, you should worry more about your phone getting heated, as opposed to doing the heating. Hell, you should probably turn the damn thing off and use it as a heat sink, and for shade.
Besides, no cell phone on the market today is going to increase your total radiation exposure as much as living in Santa Fe (elev. 7100 ft) or Denver (elev. 5300 ft) does.
Remember the iPhone 4 "Antenna-gate" fiasco where those so-called brilliant Apple engineers actually went there and put the antennas into the body of the phone?
"We" is probably the wrong word. "Nuts" works better....and we are fretting over cell phone radiation?!?
As a radio engineer for the better part of my 5 decades of existence (yes, I went there), I can speak from experience and first-hand knowledge of what microwave radiation does to organic tissue. Remember the iPhone 4 "Antenna-gate" fiasco where those so-called brilliant Apple engineers actually went there and put the antennas into the body of the phone? See what happened when people - aka organic tissue - touched the antennas? Their organic tissue wicked away that microwave RF radiation like water being sucked up by a Super Shammy.
But thanks for the laugh at even mentioning Wikipedia 'cause, well, that's the last bastion for most of those people I was talkin' about.
Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe,
I agree but it does also not mean its not safe... it means exactly jack squat.
So why not go and find eveidence instead of trying to create a fear about it instead.
helthy scepticalism is good but uneded fear is not
I wasn't criticizing people that like sweet drinks. I was commenting on the association between economic status and soda consumption.First off, taste is subjective. For example, I find tonic water to be vile. Second, it's kind of hilarious to take potshots at people who drink soda and then immediately talk about how you enjoy drinking hard liquor...which, by the way, almost everyone hates the taste of the first time they drink it.
As a radio engineer for the better part of my 5 decades of existence (yes, I went there).