...
How you can burn down a metal tower?
Heat can significantly lower the strength of the metal. That is how ancient metal forging works: heat it enough and you can shape it with a hammer operated by mere human strength.
So burn the base enough, the tower wont be able to hold its own weight up.I challenge anyone to burn a metal tower and post a picture.
Given the absolutely massive increase in mobile phone usage around the globe over the past 30 years or so I would expect a similarly massive increase in whatever health effects they might cause. Of all of the potential effects, there is only one very obvious one that kills a lot of people and that is distracted driving caused indirectly by mobile phones. It is obvious to me that they are not causing a measurable increase in cancer.
Given the absolutely massive increase in mobile phone usage around the globe over the past 30 years or so I would expect a similarly massive increase in whatever health effects they might cause. Of all of the potential effects, there is only one very obvious one that kills a lot of people and that is distracted driving caused indirectly by mobile phones. It is obvious to me that they are not causing a measurable increase in cancer.
Correct me if I am wrong. As I understand it, with the penetration issue right now, you would need a "tower" in every room to get 5G in every room.
So, I think we are going to get stuck between 4G+/5G- for a while. With full 5G having such issues with penetrating barriers such as walls and windows, we would need a lot of minor changes and advancements to occur between 5G- and full 5G.
I think we may get to the point where we have 5G to buildings, and mini-cells of 4G-LTE for that immediate area at full speed and stuck there for a long while. Or, lower the frequency (thus lowering the bandwidth) to enhance the penetration while keeping some of the other 5G features. So we have 5G-- or 5G--- or 5G----.
Should have just stuck with 3G support, good range, lower power consumption, and decent enough bandwidth for most IOT applications.
which should in theory bring lower TX powers! ... less cancer.
which should in theory bring lower TX powers! ... less cancer.
Lowers TX power but increases the number of relays drastically. The lower TX power really matters only if you're close enough to a relay. In large cities, you'll be a lot more likely to be pretty close to a 5G relay at all times. So what you're exposed too is probably not any lower on average. Unless you were living close to a 3G/4G relay.
which should in theory bring lower TX powers! ... less cancer.
Lowers TX power but increases the number of relays drastically. The lower TX power really matters only if you're close enough to a relay. In large cities, you'll be a lot more likely to be pretty close to a 5G relay at all times. So what you're exposed too is probably not any lower on average. Unless you were living close to a 3G/4G relay.... lowers TX power of the handset. The bit that people are pressing themselves against and the majority of the exposure.
Wouldn't it be much easier and more protective to just dip your smartphone into anti-5G lotion?
[5G+ 5G- etc.]
If cell phones caused cancer because of their "high frequency", imagine what visible light would do to us!
[5G+ 5G- etc.]Please, do not conflate 5G with "mmwave" technology, there's no need to invent special terminology (after all, we are on a technical forum).
...
...
...
...
But the zero risk crowd will scream bloody murder the whole time while partaking in much higher risk activities that for some reason don't trigger their sensitivity.
Members of this forum seem to be widely falling into a logical trap that is getting most of the world also.
Starts with a weak correlation between brain cancer and cell phone use. Still possible that it is a statistical fluctuation, but seems to be a real chance that there is a correlation.
Members of this forum seem to be widely falling into a logical trap that is getting most of the world also.
Starts with a weak correlation between brain cancer and cell phone use. Still possible that it is a statistical fluctuation, but seems to be a real chance that there is a correlation.
From there leaping to RF as the probable culprit. When we don't really have a clue.
1. Could be that people who have behaviors that lead to brain cancer also are more likely users of cell phones.
...
None of these has a clear path proving them to be a causal factor. All of them have credibility at least on par with the correlation. The list is not comprehensive.
A lot of people will spend a lot of serious time tracking this down, and it will likely take decades. Meanwhile, as pointed out in several prior posts the risks are low, and most will find the benefits outweigh the risks. But the zero risk crowd will scream bloody murder the whole time while partaking in much higher risk activities that for some reason don't trigger their sensitivity.
All of them have credibility at least on par with the correlation.
Members of this forum seem to be widely falling into a logical trap that is getting most of the world also.
Starts with a weak correlation between brain cancer and cell phone use. Still possible that it is a statistical fluctuation, but seems to be a real chance that there is a correlation.
From there leaping to RF as the probable culprit. When we don't really have a clue.
1. Could be that people who have behaviors that lead to brain cancer also are more likely users of cell phones.
...
None of these has a clear path proving them to be a causal factor. All of them have credibility at least on par with the correlation. The list is not comprehensive.
A lot of people will spend a lot of serious time tracking this down, and it will likely take decades. Meanwhile, as pointed out in several prior posts the risks are low, and most will find the benefits outweigh the risks. But the zero risk crowd will scream bloody murder the whole time while partaking in much higher risk activities that for some reason don't trigger their sensitivity.
Literally no one is screaming bloody murder in this thread. It is a discussion between people claiming it has zero risk, and people claiming it has some low amount of risk.
The article is far more extreme in its views and suggestions than anyone here.QuoteAll of them have credibility at least on par with the correlation.No, unless you are going to put forth the effort to provide studies to back their credibility.
eg if it were chemical, you'd see an increase in skin cancer not brain cancer, which is not seen. If it were bacterial, you'd see the same occurrences in cordless phone use, which is not seen.
https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/311044