Mhhh blue light, gimme that good good blue light while I eat a sandwich with a thick layer of spiced lard on it, mh mh mhhhh.

Fats are unhealthy, fats are healthy, fats are unhealthy, fats are healthy, etc.
No, fats are delicious. Nom nom nom.

The blue light is going be just like that, I'm sure.

Yeah fats are unhealthy or so said the Sugar Barons who kinda had a vested interest in perpetrating and perpetuating that myth. Isn't it interesting that the Dairy Industry pays farmers for milk where the price paid is based on milk fat concentration... more fat, more money. Take out the fat and we get "cardboard" which can (imagine that) be made palatable with big, heaping batches of refined sugar.

The microwave energy is intended to be contained, in a manner akin to a Faraday cage. Quite often, plenty of people would be a substantial distance from the transmitting antenna of a radio station. Since the intensity of the energy exposure from radio waves drops with increasing distance from the source, contrasting the energy levels at two substantially different distances from the different sources, is not appropriate, e.g. being a substantial distance from the antenna for a radio station, while being within a few feet of the transmitting antenna of a cell phone.

Also, in general, it would be nice if evaluating the potential for causing cancer, or other medical problems, were simple. For Cancer, I believe it would generally be things such as damaged growth activators, and damaged cell death mechanisms. But in some ways, it's not quite that simple. Or perhaps it should be said, that the circumstances that could result in such things, are not necessarily simple to know. Although a sibling of mine would not necessarily be expected to have genetics identical to mine, the genetics would be expected to be somewhat similar. Yet, what actually happened within my family, is that two siblings lived in the same environment; the two siblings ate the same food, drank the same, water, etc. One of them got cancer, the other didn't.

I would suggest that ultimately, with the World in which we live, about all we can try to do is look at potential risks, and juxtapose them with various factors in our own lives. Especially since, unless a particular person happens to work in a profession, where they can easily examine the raw data and methodology of a given study for themselves, we often might only see someone else's interpretation of the raw data, might not get all the details of the methodology. Even if we try to get such things, there can be monetary costs associated with such an attempt. Heck, in the U.S. if I wish to get a copy for myself of my own medical records, I would generally be expected to pay money for that. Even though according to laws governing ownership of items that are custom "manufactured" for a particular individual, since in one way or another, even if I did so by providing "insurance" which paid for associated tests, I provided payment for the initial creation of records of data that are entirely specific to me. So strictly speaking, I should be considered to be the owner of the original records.

To me it seems as if we tend to be somewhat stuck, looking at plenty of things indirectly.

While that is quite true when we are talking about a source of 50,000 watts, a signal strength still measuring 10s of 1000s of watts extends for many miles. The distance at which it drops to the 4 watt level of cellphones is many hundreds of miles. The bottom line is that cellphone contribution is essentially akin to "spitting in the ocean".

It is certainly true that cause and effect on disease or even physical harm is a nebulous territory and rarely ever simple. Set and setting rarely are. This is one of the reasons that health guidelines are so general and conservative. It's an effort to estimate the lowest possible risk for the highest susceptibility. However, again, the degree of radio exposure from a cellphone is so low especially compared to the ocean of transmissions we are all constantly immersed in makes it utterly insignificant. Hand held "walkie-talkies" had roughly the same power as a cell phone and I would expect that being in use since 1937 we would have seen cancers by now if that was a risk. Seems like an acceptable level of risk to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet Thankfully nobody lives within even 100 meters of my home but can you explain the mechanism of wireless access to a wired keyboard?

I guess this is about the TEMPEST stuff:

Quote:

Recent research[21] has shown it is possible to detect the radiation corresponding to a keypress event from not only wireless (radio) keyboards, but also from traditional wired keyboards, and even from laptop keyboards.

EDIT: oh, the above is quite redundant since I completely missed the second page of this thread, oops.

I find using a laptop without an external keyboard and/or monitor (nevermind if it's on my lap or not) does horrible things to my spine.

The reality is they do not know how harmful the exposure may be, evidence has been shown for and against, however as you will see in 2004 (keep in mind cell phones were much weaker then as well) the consensus was that https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253668/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...roops/1608293/

Keep in mind that rarely were those walkie talkies held directly against the head/close to the brain. Also, Police and Military do require restrictions on the length of use of those "radios" to minimize risk. Also there is an increase correlation with exposure to RF/EMF and higher mortality rates, this is one reason why those in the "Nuclear/Radiological Medicine" departments typically have higher mortality rates in the Medical field. Also, why they are offered generous incentive packages to work in those fields.
https://oem.bmj.com/content/71/12/819
https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/abs/10.1148/radiol.2332031119

Also, be wary of saying that studies show such and such is safe, or the government and agencies like to er on the side of extreme caution... Remember the syphilis studies on Americans? Or how about being told the water is safe to drink at Camp Lejeune, NC? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...roops/1608293/
https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...ng-compounds#1

PS: Asbestos was once considered safe an used for all kinds of fire retardant purposes. I remember being issued an asbestos blanket in the military, was told it not only kept you warm but also could be placed over your head and body to protect you while escaping fire. Sorry if I lack faith or trust in authority figures or authoritative reports.

I hope I didn't come across as one exhibiting blind faith. I have none. The problem with general guidelines, rules of thumb, and words from authorities in areas not well known yet is exactly that - general and not well known. We can't possibly know everything so we do have a tendency to lean on others, especially the best experts currently available, for guidance but it seems to me it is not wise to stop there. Depending completely on one's likely exposures, it is fine to ignore what one is not likely to even be exposed to and minimize that we individually are exposed to. Obviously as with asbestos, it is prudent to try to stay up to date to make rational decisions. The old cliche of "Believe half of what you read and none of what you hear" is hardly more than a very generalized caution, somewhat twisted for wry humor, but containing a kernel of truth. Don't marry the first person you fall in love with and don't accept "as gospel" just one source.

Specific to this thread, I seriously doubt any of us are signing a loved ones death warrant by allowing or even encouraging them to use a cellphone but it is certainly wise to include caution as part of the package. It is certainly not at all smart for several reasons, to have a cellphone (or even a landline wireless networked phone) jammed in your (or anyone's ear) for hours each day. It's probably completely safe to talk endlessly on a wired phone, not only because the fields of both transmit and receive are so weak, but due to the huge sample of users for going on a century now.

I saw something today which saddened me. Coming out of my local Tesco was a young woman pushing a chair with a toddler in it. I don't know how old the child was because I don't know how you tell that kind of thing. Old enough to be sitting upright in a chair anyway. It was holding a smartphone and staring into it intently.

They start young these days.

I think I've even seen primary school kids have smartphones too, certainly high school kids do. I remember being on a bus when it was just after knock off time for school and they were on their way home/wherever else; there was only one kid that wasn't holding a smartphone doing whatever on it.

When I was in school, you were the king if you had a PC with a CD burner, or even just a PC...

But a toddler???

Like you said, they are start'n young these days, and times are change'n...

Inverse square law works both ways, so there is a world of difference between holding a 2-way radio in your hand (several inches from your body) and pressing it to your temple. I greatly prefer texting to talking on the phone.

Of course there are times when there is no substitute, but using a headset with a wire or lower power radio is probably better than using a radio that is powerful enough to do communication with a cell tower. Unless there is no difference at all.

I wrote my first BASIC program at 6 just to mess with the teacher introducing us to it. Technology is here and is everywhere. Not sure that holding back on exposing children to it is of any help?

hazel, unfortunately this is becoming more prevalent. I've seen toddlers with cellphones/tablets in restaurants, in the buggy at grocery stores, while in car seats in the back of the car etc... Seems one generation used radios to "raise kids", another used TV's and now its cellphones/tablets to keep them quiet.

My wife and I were having dinner at a Japanese restaurant a few weeks ago and a family came in (Mom, Dad, young child and a toddler). As soon as they sat down, the mother gave the toddler a tablet to watch YouTube videos, the father was already texting or Facebooking, then the mother began to text/facebook on her phone, and the young child/pre-teen was already livestreaming or video-chatting someone. Not one of them spoke to each other, was some inaudible grunting and nodding though. Oh, it also appeared they ordered their food online because I did not see them speak with the waiter/server either, yet food arrived for them.

Quite concerning that people are losing the ability to simply BE and exist without a screen in their face.

Basic humanity and the skills associated with it should be introduced before technology. What will become of tech dependent people if/when that technology fails/disappears?

This is an interesting read, if for no other reason then to realize how many "skills" we have already lost or subjugated to "others"/companies.
https://www.amazon.com/When-Technolo...s=books&sr=1-1