Hi Rxxx,
You caught me driving in traffic on the phone. However, the argument that “they are further, so we are safer” is an oversimplification. This is similar to Elon’s oversimplification of ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiation when claiming how safe the microwaves from your cell phone are.
There is only one responsible thing to do: follow the precedent set by a growing number of cities over the FCC’s loss in court due to the outdated nature of the science used to create the standards. The RF Safety guidelines in place today are a quarter of a century old and do not account for these types of long-term, constant, low-level exposures to unnatural electromagnetic radiation. https://www.rfsafe.com/articles/cell-phone-radiation/studies-cellphone-health-risks/massachusetts-towns-pause-5g-expansion.html
The brute force effects from the intensity of the radiation do drop according to the inverse square law. However, as pointed out in this study, “While the debate on the EMF effects generally focuses on the carrier frequency, the biological effect may well originate from the modulation of the signal. Adding these modulations to the signal leads to the inclusion of frequencies that are in or near the biological range of frequencies at which the brain operates. It has been suggested that low-frequency modulations can have an impact on a cellular level in biological systems.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-48561-z
The frequency and frequency modulations matter, and attributing health effects to only power is a flawed stance to take. Studies have already shown over and over that the power-to-risk ratio is not linear. The world’s largest study, from the USA, the NTP study shows this.
Under your argument, in the NTP test done at 1.5, 3, and 6 W/kg, you would expect the 6 W/kg to cause the largest biological effect. But that is not what the data shows. At half the power of the highest level is where most of the effects were found. The RI studies also confirmed the same results at much lower power levels. Non-linear dose-response!
This leaves us with many questions.
How much lower we can go is slowly being brought to light as well. I mentioned these on the phone with you.
“The U.S. military, particularly through initiatives like RadioBio by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), appears to be signaling a significant shift in its approach to the study of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation.”
“The FDA-approved TheraBionic treatment, which employs RF radiation at power levels up to 1000 times lower than those emitted by cell phones.”
These technologies are frequency-dependent.
Feel free to quote any EMF study over the last 30 years. I haven’t missed one since I buried my firstborn daughter in 1995. Don’t worry about confusing me with physics, I enrolled in college at 15 for engineering.
My first patent was the interferometric array antenna for cell phones in the late 90s, I understand the physics of RF. I’m also the only one on earth to have created a prototype LiFi for wireless networking using Far UVC light, a patent approved last year. https://patents.google.com/patent/US11700058B2/en?oq=11700058
A 219-224 nm wavelength can’t penetrate the body. Ideal for schools, where air quality and radiation exposure are a concern.
No one understands your position better than I do, the problem is, lower power still doesn’t mean safe! Maybe you just haven’t parted with enough of your children. I have, I want more guarantees than over a century-old EM theory can provide!
Blessings,
John Coates
RF Safe Brand Ambassador
Impact of RF-EMF Exposure on Sleep Patterns in Preterm Newborns https://www.rfsafe.com/articles/cell-phone-radiation/impact-of-rf-emf-exposure-on-sleep-patterns-in-preterm-newborns.html.
Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense vs. FCC: Highlighted the FCC’s failure to consider new scientific evidence and update its guidelines for exposure to radiation from cell phones and cell towers (U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 2021). https://ehtrust.org/in-historic-decision-federal-court-finds-fcc-failed-to-explain-why-it-ignored-scientific-evidence-showing-harm-from-wireless-radiation/
In 2010 Thomas Tillman did a study, the predecessor of Lerchl’s study, The results found that 3G radiation promotes tumors. The study was regarded as significant, but largely forgotten about and ignored. Lerchl’s study which included a larger testing group offers us an insight into the technology we mistakenly regard as safe.
“Lerchl found higher rates of cancer among mice exposed to SARs of 0.04 W/Kg, 0.4 W/Kg and 2 W/Kg —and in some cases, the lower the dose, the more cancer. For instance, he saw a higher incidence of lymphoma at the two lower doses than at 2 W/Kg, as shown in the histogram taken from his paper, which has been accepted for publication in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications: Lerchl Lymhoma.
Image from Lerchl’s BBRC paper, Figure 1; “**” indicates that the result is significant at p<0.01.
“Our results show that electromagnetic fields obviously enhance the growth of tumors,” says Lerchl in a press release issued by Jacobs University in Bremen, where he is a professor of biology.
For years Lerchl was at the forefront of the big industry propaganda machine, saying that RF radiation did not cause cancer or have any ill health effects. Now, Lerchl’s study has become one of the biggest problems for the telecom industry. A once skeptic and denouncer of RF hazards, Lerchl has catapulted the notion that we only have “limited evidence” right to the forefront of science. We, most undoubtedly now, have evidence that even small doses of radiation can cause harm – and this doesn’t exclude wearable computers.
There is More To Exposure Than Distance and Intensity!
Before anyone else calls to claim I don’t understand the inverse square law of distance, and demand that we are safe if cell towers are in outer space. I hope that can be proven one day, and the frequency effects are fully understood! But that’s not the data that has been piling up for 30 years. We don’t have fewer questions after 30 years of accumulated research – we have more questions than ever now as biological effects have been found where this RFR was thought to only cause heating.
I might not have taken my turn talking on the phone with a fan of Elon’s microwave testing on the American people, so I also wanted to offer my apologies, as it can be very annoying when someone on the phone assumes I don’t understand high school math to calculate the power of photons at different distances from the source.
One of QXT’s best-selling products is the QuantaDose UV test card, designed to detect fake or defective UVC lighting used for germicidal purposes. This product demonstrates our knowledge of the frequency and intensity of photons. It shows how small differences in frequency can significantly affect how matter is impacted by electromagnetic radiation. QXT’s Multi-Wavelength Bi-Luminescent Technology changes from red to green when exposed to different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation in the UV spectrum of light – only a small difference in nanometers is required for absorption differences.
The card also turns purple when exposed to UV light, providing a reusable intensity gauge. Armed with the inverse square law of distance formula, knowing the intensity at one point and the distance from a source allows one to calculate the intensity at any other distance. It’s also easy enough to use Beer-Lambert’s law when the medium changes.
Anyway, it’s a number one best seller on Amazon. With the knowledge of the formulas mentioned, you can get a lot of utility out of a QuantaDose if you ever need to confirm the wavelength or intensity of UV light.
Returning to microwave RFR, complications arise due to constructive and destructive interference when dealing with the much longer wavelengths of microwaves and the phased array technology used in satellites.
I do reinforce the importance of the inverse square law of distance for everyone searching for an anti-radiation case. Because we explicitly say, the QuantaCase is not a substitute for distance, but to be used when distance isn’t an option. When dealing with near-field exposure from the cell phone handset itself, distance is a user’s best friend. We aren’t worried about the nearfield exposure from a satellite; we are concerned about the far-field frequency effects, and the modulation of these frequencies along with the potential to concentrate power when used in very large arrays.
