Posts by placidjackal36

Wow, we really need someone on call at the local hospital. 😬

There’s actually a logical reason why companies toss additives into their products. I wouldn't do it just for kicks. It costs money, and every corporation out there is looking for ways to slash production costs while keeping the quality—and more importantly, the consumer appeal—exactly where it needs to be.

Please, stop being paranoid about citric acid. You find it in lemons and in every single one of your own cells, where it's essential for converting energy. It isn't carcinogenic.

melloweagle11 said:

placidjackal36 As specified by:
heavy Cell Phone Use Linked to Cancer Study Suggests heavy Cell Phone Use Linked to Cancer Study Suggests we might need to rethink our relationship with the devices in our pockets. It’s easy to get swept up in the convenience of constant connectivity, but when you start looking at the data, the conversation shifts from simple utility to genuine concern. I’m not one to jump to conclusions based on a single headline, but the implications are hard to ignore if we want to play it safe. Personally, i believe precautions should be taken in order to diminish The exposure and lower The risk for health hazards. We shouldn't wait for absolute certainty before we start acting with a bit more common sense regarding how close we hold these transmitters to our bodies. heavy Cell Phone Use Linked to Cancer heavy Cell Phone Use Linked to Cancer Study Suggests Study Suggests

Essentially, they've drawn a direct correlation between intensive cell phone usage—specifically when you're holding the device right against your head instead of opting for a hands-free setup—and the development of salivary gland cancer.

It turns out that some of those budget-friendly hands-free options actually end up amplifying your phone's radiation. It doesn't even matter if you're holding the device in your hand, shoving it in your pocket, or tossing it into a backpack; the wire connecting the headset to the microphone essentially acts like an antenna or a wave guide. This setup effectively funnels the signal from the phone's antenna much closer to your ear than it would be if you were simply holding the phone directly against your head.
If you ask me, you’re much better off going with a hardwired setup—think of those sealed-off, noise-canceling headsets—rather than opting for wireless gear. While everyone loves the idea of cutting the cord, the limited range of wireless tech is a constant headache. It's like trying to maintain a conversation while walking through a crowded mall; eventually, you're going to hit a dead zone and lose the connection entirely. Stick to the wires if you want reliability.

Correlation. That's an interesting point to raise, especially considering we haven't seen any definitive evidence pointing toward that conclusion just yet. Causality is a tricky thing to pin down, isn't it? It’s easy to fall into the trap of seeing two things happening at once and assuming one must have triggered the other, like mistaking a shadow for the object casting it. In reality, establishing a true causal link requires much more than just observing a coincidence; it demands rigorous evidence and a clear understanding of the underlying mechanisms at play.

Have you had a chance to dive into any medical journals lately? I’m curious about your take on how often they actually tackle causality versus just leaning on correlation.

Your argument lacks any real substance, so why the immediate descent into insults?

Look, you need to understand that we are dealing with scientific terminology here. This isn't some casual chatter you'd overhear at a local dive bar; it requires a certain level of intellectual rigor to grasp.

I have nothing to add at this time.

Yeah, that’s definitely doable. But what I was actually picturing was one of those setups where you've got the car's built-in speakerphone system running. You know, where the phone just sits there conveniently near the gear shifter, and the whole conversation feels totally seamless—like the person is sitting right there in the passenger seat with you.

Have you had a chance to dive into any medical journals lately? It’s wild how many of them try to pass off correlation as actual causation. Honestly, it feels like half the papers out there are just pointing at two things happening at once and acting like they proved one caused the other.

I haven't lately. Honestly, most people just throw around correlations because they're looking at small-scale studies coming out of American institutes. Proving actual causation? That takes a lot more time than most people are willing to wait.

I don't even have anything to say about this.

And there you have it. 😍

wiredtiger10 said:Mulac? Come on, it’s not even an insult. I’m just messing around—don't take it so seriously.

I read that article and, honestly, it looks to me like heavy Cell Phone Use Linked to Cancer is a real possibility. I think you're downplaying a lot of stuff here. This looks like a legit news site or whatever, and I don't buy that they'd publish something if it wasn't true.

I actually watched this report where scientists proved that sitting with a laptop on your lap—which is what basically everyone does—leads to lower sperm counts. The laptop heats up that area and causes those changes. I'm only bringing this up so you see how little it takes to cause an impact. We aren't even talking about radiation here, just simple heat from a few degrees.

What I'm saying is that it's just smart to cut out things we don't absolutely need. If we can't cut them out entirely, at least try to dial it back.

Heavy Cell Phone Use Linked to Cancer isn't quite right. What's actually been proven is a correlation between frequent and prolonged (overall intensive) calling and a higher probability of developing salivary gland cancer.

Man, that's what we call scientific language, and you really need to grasp the nuance. This isn't small-town gossip.

I watched a report where some scientists proved that holding a laptop on your lap—which is what most people do—leads to lower sperm counts. The laptop heats up that area and causes those changes. I'm only mentioning this to show you how little it takes to cause an effect. We aren't even talking about radiation here, just simple heating by a few degrees.

And heat isn't transferred via radiation? Do infrared photons just not exist?
Yeah, I've heard about that study, but it’s nothing groundbreaking. It’s been common knowledge for ages that when the temperature in the testes rises, sperm production slows down. The body compensates by dropping the scrotum to cool things off. Conversely, when it's cold, the scrotum contracts and pulls the testes closer to the body to warm them up.
Besides, resting a laptop directly over your penis doesn't make much sense; most people rest it on their thighs.
Again, the issue lies with the wireless transmitter inside the laptop. If you have a habit of keeping a laptop right against your groin for several hours a day, you can expect more intense heating from those waves. It's not any better than wearing tight boxer briefs all day.

What I'm saying is that it's smart to eliminate certain things that we don't strictly need. If we can't cut them out entirely, at least try to reduce them.

Ah, a misunderstanding. 🙄😁

loneviper18 said:Synthetic vitamins have to be linked to natural ingredients if you want the body to actually utilize them at a cellular level.
At the end of the day, it’s just a little Price 🙂

You're a real genius, Styler, but you're clearly Confused oprostiti 🤷

Sorry, but that's just total nonsense.
Calling something a "synthetic vitamin" versus a "natural vitamin" describes how the product is categorized, not its actual chemical makeup.

Take a look at these images of thiamine (B1) link
It is IDENTICAL whether you get it from a steak or a supplement. It's the thiamine molecule. There isn't some magical "natural energy" signature attached to it. I see where you're coming from, bird, but you're missing the point entirely. 🙂

And I guess you aren't going to address the fact that you clearly have no clue what constitutes a toxic, dangerous substance—like, say, Calcium Carbonate, aka limestone... 🙄

wiredtiger10 said:Got this from a science report

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0214144349.htm

Like I’ve said before—any device running on electricity (TVs, microwaves, speakers, light bulbs, etc.) emits radiation. Some more than others. I’ve already posted about how even dead materials emit stuff—think mouse pads, cheap mice—those low-end ones from overseas are made of some sketchy plastic where your hand turns red after just thirty minutes—or even PVC window frames. If you've ever worked with PVC, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I’ve actually seen how that stuff is manufactured. It’s basically waste plastic being ground up and molded into a product. Now, look, that doesn't mean PVC window frames are dangerous for people just living in a house with them, but for the workers handling it all day long? It can't be good. It's just like wearing polyester—it's not a natural material, and it isn't smart to be wearing it against your skin.

You're emitting more radiation than a piece of plastic.
Stop spreading misinformation.

PVC window frames aren't made from waste plastic; they're made from vinyl chloride that gets polymerized into polyvinyl chloride.
What you saw were polyethylene granules that get melted down on-site to inject into molds to create products.

Wearing polyester isn't smart if it isn't breathable. If it's non-porous, your sweat has nowhere to go and you'll end up sweating like a pig. Polyester itself isn't dangerous, provided it's of decent quality.

Polyvinyl chloride is safe for humans because it's a polymer. The human body doesn't produce anything capable of breaking it back down into monomers.
However, PVC plastic *can* be dangerous because it might contain more monomers than the maximum dose allowed by law. It could also contain more stabilizers than what is permitted. That's common knowledge regarding any plastic mass.

loneviper18 said:😕 Lately, I keep seeing ads online basically confirming that some vitamins are totally useless. I believe it... But why?
It’s because clinical studies often focus on synthetic vitamins rather than those that are biologically synergistic or derived from whole food sources.

Just look at the ingredient list and decide for yourself if it's synthetic or natural. If it's all synthetics, toss it—you're just flushing money down the toilet.

Trust me, you won't find an ad out there saying, "Hey, these are synthetic vitamins."

Examples of Synthetic Ingredients:
• Additives: Glucose, Sucrose, Starch, Microcrystalline Cellulose
• Dyes: FD&C Blue #2 Lake, or FD&C Red 40
• Preservatives: sorbates (e.g., Polysorbate 80), benzoates (e.g., sodium benzoate), nitrites (e.g., sodium nitrite), sulphites (e.g., sulfur dioxide)

Calcium Carbonate, Calcium Phosphate, Magnesium Oxide, Potassium Chloride, Microcrystalline Cellulose, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Gelatin, Starch, DL-tocopheryl acetate (Vitamin E), Crospovidone, Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose, Niacinamide, Zinc Oxide, Calcium Pantothenate, Glucose, Silicon Dioxide, Titanium Dioxide, Manganese sulfate, Magnesium Stearate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6), Sucrose, Cupric Oxide, Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Beta Carotene, Triethyl citrate, Thiamine Mononitrate (Vitamin B1), Vitamin A, Vitamin D, Lactose, Polysorbate 80, Chromium Chloride, Borates, Folic Acid, Potassium Iodide, Sodium Molybdate, Sodium Selenate, Biotin, Cyanocobalamin (Vitamin B12),

Your vitamins are only actually useful if they come paired with fruit or vegetable components;
For instance;

“Vitamin C (from orange)” means the Vitamin C is in its natural state alongside the actual nutrients found in fruit, not just isolated Vitamin C. “Vitamin A (100% as beta Carotene from Dunaliella)” — that means Dunaliella is the source of the Vitamin A.

If you don't see any natural ingredients listed, then they are 100% synthetic.

Did you register just to tell us this? 🙄
Good grief, what nonsense.

A vitamin, whether it's extracted from a plant or synthesized in a lab, is identical. It's a molecule.

The terms "synthetic" and "natural" refer to how the substance was obtained, not the molecules themselves. They are the same thing; they don't carry some "artificial" or "natural" label. There isn't some magical "force" marking them. Your body might absorb a vitamin more easily if you get it from a piece of fruit rather than a pill, sure. But a pill usually has much higher concentrations than a single piece of fruit. You really need both.
In tablets, you might find tiny amounts of inactive molecular isomers, but even those are strictly regulated.

As for the other chemicals you listed, it sounds like you have no idea what a chemical actually is.

I'll break down how "artificial" each one actually is for you:

glucose - glucose, you have this in your bloodstream right now.
sucrose - sucrose, plain old sugar.
starch - starch, you eat this every single day.
microcrystalline cellulose - processed cellulose, which is found in every plant on Earth.
Dyes, FD&C Blue #2 Lake, or FD&C Red 40 - common food dyes used in tiny amounts.
sorbates (e.g., Polysorbate 80) - these are found in plants as a way to protect themselves from microorganisms.
benzoates (like sodium benzoate) - you'll find this stuff in apples
nitrites (like sodium nitrite) - they're present in the soil, but if you're loading up on them, you're basically forcing your body to deal with carcinogenic nitrosamines
sulphites (like sulphur dioxide) - same deal as the nitrites

Calcium Carbonate - CHALK! 😵
Calcium Phosphate - BONE MATERIAL!
Magnesium Oxide - 🤣
Potassium Chloride - potassium and chloride ions are right there in your blood. Your whole life depends on them.
Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C) - a staple in every single citrus fruit
Gelatin - gelatin
DL-tocopheryl acetate (Vitamin E) - 🤣
Crospovidone - just a completely inert polymer

... I could honestly go on about this until tomorrow. You clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about. You're just spreading misinformation.

Emily Rogers63 said:So you're just going to bash a guy's choice of articles...🙄 👎instead of looking at how he actually acts.

The guy is a blatant spammer. He signs up and immediately drops three posts that all point back to http://saznaj.info.

After that, he just vanishes. It's classic spam behavior. There's no sense in getting hung up on polite formalities here. He flies into the forum just to kick off mindless threads advertising junk.

Nicole Lee4 said:I mean, sure, maybe I didn't grasp all the physiological nuances before, but I used to view the heart as nothing more than a biological pump. Honestly, not much has changed for me, except now I don't roll my eyes quite as hard when someone says their heart was "broken."

I don't see why anyone needs to mock metaphors and common idioms. When we say someone is "heartfelt" or has a "big heart," nobody actually thinks they’re talking about some hyper-inflated muscle struggling to fit inside a chest cavity. It’s a metaphor, plain and simple, and people should just accept that. Honestly, the level of education in America has reached a point where only a tiny fraction of the population still takes those phrases literally. Eventually, people will catch up to the science regarding how the brain works, too. Change takes work and time; we didn't reach this level of understanding overnight. There was a time when public health workers had to fight tooth and nail to teach people that illnesses aren't caused by "evil spirits," but by bacteria and viruses—that you treat a sickness by attacking the pathogen and boosting the immune system rather than making charms, praying to idols, or paying for rituals. Kids today would laugh at that and call those ancestors "stupid." And yet, that shift happened only about a hundred years ago.

I don't know what you're trying to get at with that, but if you're looking for a deep dive into some obscure topic or just throwing out random words, you're going to have to be a bit more specific. I'm all for a good conversation, but I can't exactly pick up where you left off if you aren't giving me any context to work with. Lay it out for me. kaže:
placidjackal36, don't you ever just ache for some genuine human connection? Honestly, we need to watch babies grow up to understand how to actually live naturally. When we cling to those bitter, uncomfortable experiences from our past, we end up killing off parts of ourselves that aren't even useful anymore. We shouldn't be archiving that trauma like it's some precious collection; we need to let it go. The whole concept of suffering really just stems from that "stone-hearted" philosophy people cling to. I mean, how can anyone feel at peace in their own skin when they’re carrying around a heavy weight in their chest? It’s painful, sure, but it’s also a signal—a reminder that you need to change something if you ever want to stop hurting. In that sense, holding onto suffering is just pure self-destruction and masochism, and it wreaks havoc on your health. Love and a simple human touch? That's the actual cure.

Of course I feel that longing when they're gone. It’s only human.
Look, I agree with your point, but here’s what I was actually getting at: the heart is essentially just a muscle pump. Its rhythm is tied directly to the brain—everything from stress levels to cognitive load can shift how fast or how steadily it pulses—and because we can physically feel that sensation, people started using it as a metaphor for emotion. That’s where the confusion starts. People take the metaphor as literal truth, and that's the mistake. It's as simple as that.

Nicole Lee4 Asks:
Just wanted to jump in here and add my two cents to this whole heartfelt discussion.
A few years back, I went through some rough patches that gave me my first real taste of what people mean when they talk about a broken heart. It’s a heavy thing. Logic always told me that the heart is just a muscle—that it shouldn't actually "hurt" in a physical sense because there aren't enough nerve endings in the organ itself to transmit that kind of pain. But honestly? Common sense doesn't mean much when you're actually feeling it.
Honestly, when that happened to me, I was absolutely certain I was having a heart attack.
I’d say that, along with family, it’s one of those things that just sticks with you forever.
It’s funny how that works—I didn't even realize I actually had a heart until it started hurting. It’s one of those things you just take for granted, like breathing or having a pulse, right? You don't really notice the machinery is running until something starts grinding or stalling out on you. Suddenly, you're acutely aware of the very thing that was just sitting there quietly in the background all along.

It’s a heavy feeling when your heart starts aching because the tissue isn't getting enough oxygenated blood—or worse, if nothing is flowing at all. Take a blocked coronary artery, for example. When a section of the heart muscle is cut off from its oxygen supply, it triggers that intense, crushing pain we call a myocardial infarction. But honestly, there’s so much more to physical pain than just that one scenario, and most of us tend to... In your head. It feels like a dull ache right in the center of your chest, almost like your muscles are just seizing up around it. Honestly, if you aren’t in shape and try to knock out a quick five-kilometer run, you’ll swear you’re having a full-blown heart attack. 🙂

"Quote:"

Hannah Wilson3 said:The heart functions as a neural network much like the brain does—something Taoism touches upon when discussing the concept of the three brains.

Look, the heart isn't just some tangled web of neurons. What Taoism teaches about the "heart" isn't really what we discovered when we actually started digging into how the organ works. Our understanding of the heart has evolved way beyond ancient philosophy. Nowadays, we have actual medicine to rely on.
There’s a massive difference between just debating how many teeth a horse has and actually getting up, walking down to the stable, prying an equine's mouth open, and doing the manual labor of counting them yourself.

Back in the day, Aristotle actually thought the brain was just there to cool down the blood. That idea stuck around way longer than it should have, mostly because people were too lazy to actually investigate and preferred to just lean on old philosophy instead.
They just kept babbling on and on rather than actually cracking someone open to take a closer look at how things work.

The reality is, you've got one brain in your body, but it’s functionally split up into a ton of different specialized parts.

Joseph Watson3 said:Even if I were dead drunk, I couldn't manage to make this many typos. Have our institutions failed us yet again?

No. The guy straight up admitted he was writing while high. 🤷

Thomas Adams4 said:maybe a vet

😂Give me a break, man. If you keep talking like that, they're actually going to start listening to you. 🤣

wiredtiger10 said:Look, my stance hasn't changed—even if I’m a little tipsy right now—Joseph Watson3 called it: the institutions just aren't working, at least not when it comes to what I've been writing about. People have pointed out my typos a few times lately... honestly, I don't know what happened. When I was a kid, I never had issues, but ever since I started posting on forums (about a year and a half now), I can't even tell my Cs from my Ks and I'm putting accents in all the wrong spots (I mostly write when I've had a few drinks—since the weather warmed up, I've been doing it more often)—but I still firmly believe that it isn't just one or two antennas. It's everything. Every single antenna, every device we have sitting in our houses and apartments (phones, microwaves, monitors, etc.) is pumping out some kind of radiation. Some of you have even felt skin irritation from things like mousepads (I actually had this weird thing happen where I'd feel skin irritation and see redness after just thirty minutes), and people who work with PVC stuff (windows, doors, etc.) get these strange sensations on their skin. These are dead materials; they aren't even connected to a power source, yet they radiate enough to actually feel it on your skin.

So much of this has been suppressed or covered up throughout history. You've got the scientific community, which only acknowledges hard evidence and facts, and then you've got the media spin I've been talking about—over the last 50 years or so, the media has gained the power to sway massive crowds into believing things that just aren't true.

Then there are the folks pushing nuclear energy as the ultimate solution for a world starving for power. I'm definitely not one of them. Bad things happen, and when they do, 1243 miles if it's happening far away from home, whatever, but when it's happening in your own neighborhood, things are definitely not okay. So, without total certainty, I'm just not buying into it.

So, you show up buzzed and start spiraling about radio waves? Real classy.
If you're getting skin irritation, maybe try washing your mouse and your hands once in a while.

And that bit about polyvinyl chloride is a dead giveaway that you're either drunk again or you don't know the first thing about physics. Sorry, but you're talking nonsense. 🤷
At room temperature, PVC radiates radio waves about as much as a toothbrush or a glass does. It radiates because it has a thermodynamic temperature above absolute zero. A newborn baby radiates way more than a hunk of plastic.
The actual danger arises when the amount of unpolymerized vinyl chloride monomers exceeds the maximum allowable limit. That is an entirely different issue.

As for nuclear energy, it looks like you're completely out of your depth there, too. You're just another person using Chernobyl (a semi-military plant with a terrible design that was undergoing a test during a massive violation of basic reactor core safety protocols) as the gold standard for peaceful nuclear energy.

And what am I supposed to talk to someone like this about? Someone who thinks PVC "radiates" (woooo!) and doesn't understand the basics of Chernobyl? For crying out loud, those are fundamentals.

Timothy Ruiz3 said:So you're telling me these routers aren't actually harmful? I know there's no definitive proof yet—but honestly, I still feel like they're something you should just avoid altogether... [?]

Let me take a look at what's showing up on my router:

So, we’re looking at SAR levels ranging from 0.36 to 1.14 W/kg. It's right there in the numbers.

What does it say on the phone?

When we talk about how much radio wave exposure you're actually getting, we’re looking at a metric called the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR. To make sure things are being measured fairly, Tests for SAR ara conducted using standardized methods with The Phone transmitting AT its highest certified Power level in All used frequency bands. Tests for SAR ara conducted using standardized methods with The Phone transmitting AT its highest certified Power level in All used frequency bands.

SAR dati Information for residents in countries that have adopted The SAR limit reccomended by The International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection The current standard follows the SAR limit recommended by the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which sits at 2 W/kg averaged over ten grams of tissue. (for example European Union, Japan, Brazil and New Zealand):

When you look at the specs for this particular model, the highest reading recorded during testing by Sony Ericsson for near-ear use hits 0.99 W/kg (10g).

So, basically, the SAR limit refers to... Maximum number of devices.You know that feeling when your phone catches a super weak signal and starts working overtime, basically fighting for its life just to maintain a connection? It’s like trying to shout through a thick wall during a thunderstorm. Since we actually have enough cell towers spread across the US, you really shouldn't be dealing with that kind of struggle all the time. So, we’re not really talking about raw intensity here—it's more about getting solid, reliable coverage.Honestly, when you look at the numbers, cell phones aren't even coming close to hitting those SAR limits.
People aren't going to start worrying about routers hitting the SAR limit until something actually gets in their way—like a thick wall in their house.

Look, SAR isn't just some magic number where danger suddenly switches on. It’s likely way lower than the threshold where we actually start seeing real risks from chronic exposure. That's just how testing works—whether you're looking at pharmaceuticals or any kind of radiation, non-ionizing or ionizing, it's standard practice. You don't wait for the house to burn down before you decide the heat is too high; you set limits long before the actual danger zone hits.

What’s the deal with the scientists, engineers, and technicians working directly in high-intensity fields? Or even the guys climbing up cell towers to run repairs? They spend hours standing right next to microwave parabolic antennas and they seem completely fine. It makes you wonder.
We’re talking about radio waves and weak microwaves here. This isn't the kind of radiation that tears molecules apart. Honestly, UV rays are way more dangerous, yet I don't see people running for cover every time the sun comes out. People love tanning, even though those rays are actually ripping through DNA and messing with base pairs and all that.

wiredtiger10 said:I'm not even going to go there with the insults because I can just blow off guys like you.

I see you're one of those people who thinks INSTITUTIONS MUST FUNCTION properly—that’s pretty optimistic of you, but also kind of childishly naive. Until recently, they were covering up how smoking causes cancer. Does that mean smoking is healthy? Did it ever cross your mind that the evidence exists, it's just not available to you or me? Because releasing it would mean destroying one of the biggest industries, shutting down factories, leaving people jobless, and putting a massive burden on the government.

You can save that little lecture about antennas for some idiot.

Any moron knows antennas don't aim signals downward (why would they do that if they're on top of a building?), but what about everything around that building? Other structures, houses, people? I thought GSM antennas were put where people are—on high-rises. I live in a house and I've got at least 3 or 4 of them on nearby buildings. What I was talking about regarding sick kids in England is exactly that: a GSM antenna gets put on a nearby building, and then kids at that school start getting leukemia, cancer, etc. And yeah, there was panic—huge panic, lawsuits, the whole nine yards—but did it destroy the entire GSM industry? Nope. You'd need a much higher body count for what you're suggesting to actually happen.

INSTITUTIONS MUST FUNCTION / $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Look, I’m not one of those conspiracy theorists you’re thinking of. You seem to be under the impression that a massive wave of illness could just be swept under the rug. It can't. It's simply not possible to hide something on that scale.
So, I've got a question for you— Do you actually have any proof??
Or just... You really think so?Are you a "believer"? Because if you are, I’m done talking to you. There’s no point in engaging with believers. You just ignore them.

Look, regarding the whole smoking thing, you’ve already heard it all before, but I’m going to say it one more time just so you actually learn the lesson from history.
It’s always been common knowledge that smoking is bad for you, and public health officials have been preaching the "don't smoke" gospel for ages. But let's be honest—back in the day, the message was pretty weak compared to the massive, multi-billion dollar marketing machines run by Big Tobacco. They had us beat at our own game. Nowadays? Not so much. The tide has finally turned.

Look, any idiot knows that antennas don't beam signals straight down—I mean, why would they do that if they’re mounted on top of a building? But let's be real: isn't there always stuff surrounding those buildings? Other structures, houses, people... everything. My logic was that GSM antennas get placed exactly where the crowds are, usually atop some high-rise. I live in a house, yet I can see at least three or four of them sitting on nearby buildings right now. What I was getting at regarding those sick kids in England is precisely this: an antenna was installed on a building near a school, and suddenly the kids there started coming down with leukemia, cancer, and all that. It caused a massive panic—lawsuits flying everywhere, total chaos—but did that wipe out the entire cellular industry? Of course not. You’d need a much larger number of victims before things reach the scale you're suggesting.

Institutions need to actually work. Period. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

They aren't even positioned right by your head; they’re sitting dozens of feet away from people. I'm guessing you're under the impression that field intensity is just uniform everywhere the field exists, but that's not how physics works. Joseph Watson3 already laid that out for you.

wiredtiger10 As I was saying:
So, what’s the deal with people claiming nobody actually lives right next to those towers? I can see one sitting just about 50 yards from my window. It makes me wonder—is it going to do more damage to me to use my own cell phone, or is it those massive external cellular antennas sitting right there in my backyard? I don't have all the answers, but logically, it seems like those big outdoor setups would be pumping out way more radiation than the little device in my pocket.
And let’s not forget we’ve got those other ones right next to our heads whenever we're talking on the phone.

Joseph Watson3 cleared things up.

melloweagle11 said:😂 🤣

Well, thanks for dropping by; you certainly have a knack for being entertaining. That said, what might an aspiring scientist deduce from the following scenario?

Mr. Perkins, the biology tutor at a posh suburban girl's college, asked during a class,
"Miss Smythe, would you please name the organ of the human body,
which under the appropriate conditions,
expands to six times its normal size,
and define the conditions."

Miss Smythe gasped, then said freezingly,
"Mr. Perkins, I don't think that that is a proper question to ask me.
I assure you my parents will hear of this."
With that she sat down red-faced.

Unperturbed, Mr. Perkins called on miss Johnson and asked The same question.
Miss Johnson, with composure, replied,
"The pupil of the eye, in dim light."

"Correct," said Mr. Perkins. "And now, Miss Smythe, I have three things to say to you.
One, you have not studied your lesson.
Two, you have a dirty mind.
And three, you will some day be faced with a dreadful disappointment!"

I have no idea what you're getting at with that. It's an old joke.
And that whole thing about believers applies to you, too. You believe it's harmful and you believe there's a conspiracy. Hey, believe whatever you want; it's your business. The rest of us are going to stick to the facts, and the facts show that cell phones have a much stronger influence than radio towers.

melloweagle11 said:Sure, you're absolutely right—science is infallible.

Look, if a bunch of kids in an apartment complex suddenly fell ill after a cellular antenna was installed, there would be absolute chaos among the research institutes. A situation like that is simply impossible to sweep under the rug.

Nick Naylor: Gentlemen, practice these words in front of the mirror: Although we are constantly exploring the subject, currently there is no direct evidence that links cell phone usage to brain cancer.

There is also a basic lesson in antenna physics: antennas aren't designed to beam their maximum radiation straight down at the ground, because that would be completely illogical. The peak radiation intensity is distributed in the shape of a torus. Think of it like a lighthouse. It doesn't aim its light directly at the base of the tower; it casts its beam out toward the horizon. This design, combined with mounting the equipment on a high structure, ensures broad coverage. In reality, the signal is actually at its weakest directly beneath the antenna.

And that’s why people are constantly jumping around while they're talking on their phones.

It’s not as if anyone would ever dream of placing an antenna on a tall building, because then it might tilt downward and "illuminate" a larger surface area, potentially hitting the phones held by pedestrians passing by, right?

On topic:
As Nick mentioned, there is currently no evidence, nor does anyone have the slightest desire to find any. If someone were to actually stumble upon definitive proof, the mobile industry would simply commission a handful of three-month studies within two weeks that conclude nothing is certain.
And that researcher would most likely find themselves unemployed.

One guy cheated. It’s not the first time, and it won't be the last. Such things happen all the time.

That's why people are always jumping around while they're on their phones.

They wouldn't even dream of putting antennas on high objects unless they could tilt them downward to "illuminate" a larger area—including the phones people are holding up to their ears, right?

I haven't seen anyone jumping around. There's no need to jump. 😕
Antennas are placed on tall buildings specifically so the signal can cover as much ground as possible. If other buildings get in the way, you want the "light source" as high as possible to minimize the "shadow."

On topic:
Like Nick said, nobody is looking for proof, nor does anyone actually want to find it. If someone somehow stumbled upon actual evidence, the mobile industry would just whip up a few three-month studies within two weeks claiming nothing is certain.
And that researcher would very likely find themselves unemployed.

Nobody wants to find it? Do you realize what you just said? You basically admitted they *should* be looking for it. You're acting like the lack of evidence is some mystery, when really, the evidence just hasn't been uncovered yet through proper research. But it isn't there.
All you have are fearful, irrational, ignorant people who freak out at the mere mention of "radiation." Honestly, if they knew that light itself is radiation, or that they are constantly emitting radio waves themselves, they'd absolutely lose their minds.

And let's be clear, I'm not even talking about electromagnetic smog or values exceeding the legal limits allowed in the US.

This title is completely mindless, and honestly, the article itself is just poorly written. Look, we all need vitamins, sure, but nobody needs nearly as much as these people claim you should be popping every single day. If you cut out even one essential vitamin, yeah, you'd probably drop dead, but that's not an excuse to overdo it.
Plus, half the stuff they listed in there isn't even a vitamin to begin with.

wiredtiger10 said:As far as I know, it’s a proven fact that cell antennas—and I mean those big ones on buildings, plus the tiny ones inside our phones—emit radiation. It's enough to have messed up countless people's lives. I don't have links to any random comic strips or "proof" handy, but I'm definitely not the only one who saw reports on TV or read in the papers about mass illnesses like leukemia or cancer—especially in kids, though adults get hit too—right after a GSM tower gets set up nearby. I distinctly remember an example from England where a bunch of kids at a school ended up with leukemia after a tower was installed right next to the building. Now, whether these tiny little internet antennas radiate enough to actually be dangerous? Honestly, I don't know. I haven't seen or read anything definitive either way, but I wouldn't just assume they're safe just because there isn't "proof" yet. If I had to guess, I'd say it's better to be careful until we get some 100% solid evidence.

EVERY SINGLE DEVICE (lightbulbs, TVs, radios, monitors, cordless phones, antennas) EMITS RADIATION.

THE GOAL SHOULD BE TO GET RID OF THE STUFF WE DON'T NEED.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE AREN'T GETTING RID OF THESE CELL ANTENNAS ANYTIME SOON (the business is just too massive).

If I were a bit less patient, I would have bombarded you with insults by now. Is it "proven" that they radiate? Give me a break.
How does communication between antennas even work, anyway? You stick them on buildings, and then pigeons sit on them and pass bytes back and forth? Or maybe they use little scraps of paper? Or perhaps flying elves? No, it's definitely Yahweh.

And you honestly think an anecdote counts as valid scientific evidence? We're in trouble if that's the case. 🙏

Look, if a whole bunch of kids in an apartment building got sick right after a GSM antenna was installed, there would be absolute panic among the research institutes. You can't hide something like that.
Since almost all GSM antennas are designed very similarly, it would cause mass illness all over the planet.
But it doesn't. So, it's something else entirely. Or maybe it's just a media hoax, which wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Here's a quick lesson in antenna physics: antennas aren't designed to blast the most radiation straight down, because that would be pointless. The strongest radiation intensity is distributed in the shape of a torus. Think of it like a lighthouse. A lighthouse doesn't shine its light directly at the ground—that makes no sense—it shines it out toward the horizon. That, combined with being placed on a tall building, ensures wide coverage. In fact, the signal is actually weakest directly underneath the antenna.

^So, are you actually suggesting we should just dodge or completely ditch metaphors like "my heart yearns" altogether?

Casey Gomez2 said:It doesn't refute it. That's precisely the point. But imagine how poets would throw a tantrum if they were forced to admit the heart is just a pump, especially when every infant knows that's what it is.
Touch? What on earth does touch have to do with the heart?

Everything works fine as long as we recognize we're dealing with a metaphor. It seems like some people who pride themselves on being "rational" just can't wrap their heads around metaphors or "what the author intended." Well, sorry, but you're wrong. 🙂
Think about babies. They communicate through touch. Their vision is basically non-existent, smell is just starting to kick in, and sounds are just noise, but the warmth and softness of skin provides their sense of security. Ultimately, the world they came from—that soft, warm womb—is what they find most comforting. This entire atmosphere is brand new to them. 😁

Dennis Rogers6 said:It makes perfect sense within the scope of your particular worldview... though, if I'm being completely honest, I still can't quite wrap my head around it.

What is the point of all this suffering? I can already see the answer coming my way, but I suppose I have to ask anyway, don't I?

On an internet forum? Sure. I'm not some emotionless machine, you know.

Why the suffering? (I can guess the answer, but I have to ask.)

That's personal.

It would be incredibly helpful if someone would just start a dedicated thread to explain to the folks wandering around the Health section what the heck radiation actually is and all the different types out there. Up until now, I’ve always been the one stuck doing it, and I highly doubt that tradition is about to end.
No, there is zero evidence that electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices causes cancer. If there were, do you honestly think the regulators would even allow them on the market?
What about the research facilities and institutes where radiation intensities are astronomically higher? Those places are practically crawling with tumors and metastases. 🙏

There is simply no evidence—not even a correlation, let alone causality—between exposure to radio waves and low-energy microwaves (the kind of daily intensity and duration we deal with for communication) and malignant diseases.
We are talking about UHF waves (ultra-high frequency).

As a precaution—basically just being smart about potential risks that might manifest after years of constant exposure to strong fields—it’s recommended to limit use around small children, turn devices off while sleeping, and so on.

But if there were proof, there would be. There isn't. All you need is a healthy dose of common sense and a little caution. Look, if running cables is impossible, go wireless. If you need to be mobile, go wireless. But if you're only buying wireless because you think it looks "modern" and "cool," then stick to the cables.

And for all of you who are absolutely terrified of the word "radiation," here's a little comic strip for you.