B0ycey wrote:Ok RT. Lets discuss the information for those intellectuals who are ready to learn the truth and ask the big questions. What is the life expectancy of someone who is exposed to electromagnetic pollution compared to someone who isn't? Also, how many phone users develop brain tumours?
With the proliferation of anthropogenic electromagnetic fields, it's very difficult to assess health risks and set-up a control experiment with a focus on life expectancy. On one hand, contemporary forms of electrosmog have only been around since the 1990s
(and that's a generous time reference).. On the other, the propagation and concentration of non-ionizing radiation can be subject to many variables
(stochastic process). Furthermore, background levels will continue to rise around the planet, adding new sources and variables to a life-expectancy study. This is a tricky area for research, and that's why the scientific community is somewhat split over the hasty implementation of new technologies.
What about electric, magnetic fields, and old/new forms of RF? All forms produce non-ionizing radiation.
What are electromagnetic fields?Electric fields are created by differences in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger will be the resultant field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. If current does flow, the strength of the magnetic field will vary with power consumption but the electric field strength will be constant.
Natural sources of electromagnetic fields
Electromagnetic fields are present everywhere in our environment but are invisible to the human eye. Electric fields are produced by the local build-up of electric charges in the atmosphere associated with thunderstorms. The earth's magnetic field causes a compass needle to orient in a North-South direction and is used by birds and fish for navigation.
Human-made sources of electromagnetic fields
Besides natural sources the electromagnetic spectrum also includes fields generated by human-made sources: X-rays are employed to diagnose a broken limb after a sport accident. The electricity that comes out of every power socket has associated low frequency electromagnetic fields. And various kinds of higher frequency radiowaves are used to transmit information – whether via TV antennas, radio stations or mobile phone base stations.
The basics of wavelength and frequency
What makes the various forms of electromagnetic fields so different?
One of the main characteristics which defines an electromagnetic field (EMF) is its frequency or its corresponding wavelength. Fields of different frequencies interact with the body in different ways. One can imagine electromagnetic waves as series of very regular waves that travel at an enormous speed, the speed of light. The frequency simply describes the number of oscillations or cycles per second, while the term wavelength describes the distance between one wave and the next. Hence wavelength and frequency are inseparably intertwined: the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength.
A simple analogy should help to illustrate the concept: Tie a long rope to a door handle and keep hold of the free end. Moving it up and then down slowly will generate a single big wave; more rapid motion will generate a whole series of small waves. The length of the rope remains constant, therefore, the more waves you generate (higher frequency) the smaller will be the distance between them (shorter wavelength).
Electromagnetic fields at high frequencies
Mobile telephones, television and radio transmitters and radar produce RF fields. These fields are used to transmit information over long distances and form the basis of telecommunications as well as radio and television broadcasting all over the world. Microwaves are RF fields at high frequencies in the GHz range. In microwaves ovens, we use them to quickly heat food.
At radio frequencies, electric and magnetic fields are closely interrelated and we typically measure their levels as power densities in watts per square metre (W/m2).Learn more:
https://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/Also, you might want to read this:
Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Exposure DataThis chapter explains the physical principles and terminology relating to sources, exposures and dosimetry for human exposures to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). It also identifies critical aspects for consideration in the interpretation of biological and epidemiological studies.
Radiation is the process through which energy travels (or “propagates”) in the form of waves or particles through space or some other medium. The term “electromagnetic radiation” specifically refers to the wave-like mode of transport in which energy is carried by electric (E) and magnetic (H) fields that vary in planes perpendicular to each other and to the direction of energy propagation.
The variations in electric and magnetic field strength depend only on the source of the waves, and most man-made sources of electromagnetic radiation produce waves with field strengths that vary sinusoidally with time, as shown in Fig. 1.1. The number of cycles per second is known as the frequency (f) and is quantified in the unit hertz (Hz). The waves travel at the speed of light (c) in free space and in air, but more slowly in dielectric media, including body tissues. The wavelength (λ) is the distance between successive peaks in a wave (Fig. 1.1) and is related to the frequency according to λ = c/f (ICNIRP, 2009a).https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304634/Do you understand how difficult it is to study the life expectancy of a human exposed to artificial EMF? Are you going to monitor a group of humans for a long time or extrapolate data sets? If you extrapolate data sets you gotta deal with numerous variables. Today, we follow guidelines for exposure, because that's the best we can do. Nevertheless, our guidelines do not account for proliferation, chemical signaling, the human-microbiota relationship, and possible bioaccumulative effects.
It's not all bad news. I'm of the opinion that EMF modulation will play a large role in medicine as we utilize specific frequencies to manipulate biochemical processes. After-all, intelligent systems become intelligent environments. The reality is there may well be some truth in all your posts. And I suspect there are. But the significance of it will never outweigh the convenience of wireless technology. And I say that with the upmost confidence. Why? Because mobile phones and an association with brain tumours has been going around for as long as I remember. I have discussed it before with people numerous times. And yet here I am, on my phone, writing this message to you. So why am I using my phone? Because if there is any correlation to brain tumours it has to be minimal since everyone I know has a mobile phone and I can't say I known anyone who has died premature from them.
Is there any link between cellphones and cancer?After evaluating several studies on the possibility of a connection between cellphones and glioma and a noncancerous brain tumor known as acoustic neuroma, members of the International Agency for Research on Cancer — part of the World Health Organization — agreed that there's limited evidence that cellphone radiation is a cancer-causing agent (carcinogenic). As a result, the group classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to people.
Still, a series of recent studies can't tell the entire story. It often takes many years between the use of a new cancer-causing agent and the observation of an increase in cancer rates, such as with tobacco and lung cancer. At this point, it's possible that too little time has passed to detect an increase in cancer rates directly attributable to cellphone use.
For now, no one knows if cellphones are capable of causing cancer. Although long-term studies are ongoing, to date there's no convincing evidence that cellphone use increases the risk of cancer. If you're concerned about the possible link between cellphones and cancer, consider limiting your use of cellphones — or use a speaker or hands-free device that places the cellphone antenna, which is typically in the cellphone itself, away from your head.https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life ... q-20057798In other words, it is a limited risk like driving a car - as you could be involved in an accident or eating fast food - as you could develop diabetes. And people accept those risks for the convenience they provide.
My argument is not about a potential individual collision, it's about unforeseen byproducts that affect ecosystems. When you drive a car, you're emitting carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases that affect the planet.
It's not about someone developing diabetes due to fast-food intake, I care about the factory farming that supplies someone with the choice to consume fast-food.
In other words, I'm not impressed by your limited outline, B0ycey. Efficacy and ethics go hand in hand when we talk about the ecosphere.
So I say it again, I suspect most readers will come across this thread, agree with it and move on. Don't be alarmed if responses are low.
Oh, I know. In this case, the reader is more important than the poster. By challenging my perspective, you strengthen my response. The reader benefits.