It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Death Of Land Lines

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian

Do not forget two items:

1. RF exposure is cumulative. You can light a fluorescent lamp when standing directly under high-tension lines @ lowly 60Hz. There is A LOT of RF flowing through our noggins 7x24 which leads to point 2

2. Spread spectrum doesn't mean anything from a biological stance. RF is RF, whether it's spread over a few megahertz or on a single carrier frequency. Biologic tissue is not selective; no filtering takes place. In fact, the closer we come to microwaves the more we need to worry about molecular resonance in the opposite direction from a tuned circuit. At resonance, for example your microwave oven's 2.4GHz klystron variant, water molecules resonate and absorb an awful lot of the RF flowing through it.

Your WiFi, cordless phone, cell phones, and those Bluetooth devices glued to your ear also operate in the vicinity of 2.4GHz.

Ever cook an egg? You can cook it on a hot pavement if you're willing to wait a little while. You don't need a "burning hot" oven surface at all. Simply energy and time.

With regards to the cell phone causes cancer argument....
I have participated in EME surveys and we have found evidence that the EME field within 100' of overhead distribution power lines can well exceed 100% of the recommended continuous exposure limit, and was correlated to the line voltage; the same distance from a typical cell tower was around 25% and a cell phone in use barely registered 1% on our equipment.
So the argument that being 40 meters from power lines versus holding the cell phone against the head is a good comparison because the distance negates the difference in field strength is completely meaningless since as I mentioned above the field around the over head lines at 100 feet (approximately 30 meters) is still several orders of magnitude stronger than the field around the cell phone.

Additionally, most cellphones in use today operate on a CDMA type air-interface, a.k.a. "spread spectrum" (- yes 3G / UMTS, etc. have roots in CDMA), and in doing so have rather low power outputs as their signals are spread across mulitple frequencies and are typically only as strong as necessary to get above the background noise. Older phones operating on AMPS or TDMA broadcast around one channel and by necessity at higher power.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
You are thinking of the Inverse-Distance Squared Law of RF attentuation.


Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by sciemus

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by sciemus
 


You don't seem to be thinking straight. Of course everything emits Em radiation. That's not the issue. The issue is that we're holding this device directly to our head. Did you not read the article I provided? It provided many links with numerous sources showing that cell phones cause brain tumors, damage dna, and screw up the blood brain barrier. If you don't think this is cause for concern, you might want to reconsider your logic.

So you seem to understand the basic concept that the power of an electromagnetic field declines as you move further away from it...



The concept your describing is called attenuation.

I don't have any medical or scientific knowledge regarding the harmful effects of using mobile phones but as you mentioned there are far more powerful radio waves floating around the atmosphere which no one seems to attribute to health damage.




posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Ultrasound and RF are not the same. Apples to oranges. Sorry.


Originally posted by Death_Kron
Maybe the following might be of use when talking about the medical effects of an RM signal:

"Attenuation coefficient
Attenuation coefficients are used to quantify different media according to how strongly the transmitted ultrasound amplitude decreases as a function of frequency. The attenuation coefficient (α) can be used to determine total attenuation in dB in the medium using the following formula:

As this equation shows, besides the medium length and attenuation coefficient, attenuation is also linearly dependent on the frequency of the incident ultrasound beam. Attenuation coefficients vary widely for different media. In biomedical ultrasound imaging however, biological materials and water are the most commonly used media. The attenuation coefficients of common biological materials at a frequency of 1 MHz are listed below:[2]

Material α(dB / (MHz * cm))
Lung 41
Bone 20
Kidney 1.0
Liver 0.94
Brain 0.85
Fat 0.63
Blood 0.18
Water 0.23222
"
Source: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


Here ya go, buddy. Check out this report.
BioInitiative Report
Next-Up Org

Here's a disturbing chart just for funzies..




[edit on 31-1-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by joeofthemountain


Do not forget two items:

1. RF exposure is cumulative. You can light a fluorescent lamp when standing directly under high-tension lines @ lowly 60Hz. There is A LOT of RF flowing through our noggins 7x24 which leads to point 2

2. Spread spectrum doesn't mean anything from a biological stance. RF is RF, whether it's spread over a few megahertz or on a single carrier frequency. Biologic tissue is not selective; no filtering takes place. In fact, the closer we come to microwaves the more we need to worry about molecular resonance in the opposite direction from a tuned circuit. At resonance, for example your microwave oven's 2.4GHz klystron variant, water molecules resonate and absorb an awful lot of the RF flowing through it.

Your WiFi, cordless phone, cell phones, and those Bluetooth devices glued to your ear also operate in the vicinity of 2.4GHz.

Ever cook an egg? You can cook it on a hot pavement if you're willing to wait a little while. You don't need a "burning hot" oven surface at all. Simply energy and time.
If the 'RF is cumulative' thing you mention is true then I should be able to boil a cup of water using 18 ten second exposures spread over a period of an hour instead of one 3 minute burst.

My microwave has an RF emitting power transistor in it, not a variant of a klystron. It also has a power rating of 650 watts. I think you would agree that power is substantially higher than the 4 watts my phone is capable of emitting, the 2 watts my wifi router at home is set to put out and the few milliwatts a bluetooth device transmits at.

My cell phone operates a fair distance from 2.4GHz, more specifically at either of the bands centered around 850MHz (cellular band) and 1900MHz (PCS band). And, as I do not have a bluetooth headset, the bluetooth transmitter in my phone is turned off.

Spread spectrum has a rather large impact on RF levels since as I mentioned the signal is spread over multiple frequencies and the power level is only as strong as necessary to get the signal above the background noise. Additionally, the signal would appear similar to background noise if you were to use a spectrum analyzer and looked at it and didn't have the code to put the pieces together.
An older cellphone of the AMPS or TDMA type radiate around a singular channel / frequency and could have a PEP approaching 4 watts but the newer phones rarely approach that level unless they are in an RF noisy environment such as would be encountered when connected to a busy cell tower or in a place where many people are using their phones simultaneously.

And I think you'll find your egg dehydrates and spoils long before it cooks on the pavement, unless, of course, the ground and ambient air temperature is above 140-150F degrees. And even here, we should both be able to agree that if the egg were to cook on the pavement it would be due to the heat on the ground, not the strength of the RF fields penetrating the egg.

[edit on 1/31/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Lophe
 


Oh it's not cancer that scares me, i'm sure that will develop quite nicely on it's own eventually. I have looked into VOIP as well, most of those plans also quite expensive. As for cell phone plans being affordable, when they come up with an unlimited local and long distance plan for under 20 dollars a month I may switch. It drives me insane talking to people I work with who shell out 75-130 bucks a month for their cell phone plans. They wonder why they have no extra money. Also I have no reason to be in constant reach of everyone. My job is aware I do not own a cell phone, so I am much less likely to be randomly called in to cover for someone. My family and friends also know I do not own a cell phone. It allows considerably more freedom than being constantly tied down and in contact with everyone.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
There is one company in Europe that is working on a wireless phone that works like a cell phone but looks like a land-line phone and you can hang on the wall or put on a table next to your bed.
www.asia.ru...

Instead of being wired from your house to a pole or outside connection its RF signal to boxes hung on poles every couple blocks.

When you get service you go to the phone company and get the phone and take it home plug it into power and use it just like a landlines phone.
The phone company would no longer have to have installers come and run the line into your home.

These phones would also have a plug-in to connect to your computer so you can get Internet.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by aristocrat2
 

Go here for a list a cell phones ranked by radiation and research provided by a group called the Environmental Working Group:

www.ewg.org...



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   

The audio quality is abysmal - barely communications grade.

However, is not a limitation of many networks itself.


The form factors are "anti-ergonomic" and exasperate RPS problems in my wrists caused by a lifetime of PC usage (I'm not alone in this - most PC users will get it after they ruin the linings of the nerves in their arms)

That's a side-effect making a mobile compact.


As the PE points out, landlines run on 70V from the local exchange and do not depend on 120V from the power company.

Cell towers have battery backups that will die in a matter of hours without the mains

I call it "diesel generators", and also "maintenance" keeping the grid online so outages of longer than a few hours do not occur.


Cell is radio and the usage is constrained by an economic model that assuems time-sharing of call patterns. IOW - cell phone networks collapse under heavy use as in a disaster

Then you design them to meet peak demand.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join