Started by Laura Sanchez · · 👁 2 views · 43 replies
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).
placidjackal36 said: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.
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).
placidjackal36 said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
placidjackal36 said: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.
Joseph Watson3 said:If you had any actual clue what you were talking about, you'd realize that the antennas on your phone emit way more radiation than the towers on top of buildings—considering intensity drops off with the square of the distance.
placidjackal36 said: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.
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.
wiredtiger10 said:And what’s the deal with nobody living right next to those towers? I can see one just 50 feet from my window. Will my phone antenna do more damage to me, or all those outdoor GSM antennas right in my backyard? I don't know, but it seems logical that those external ones would blast way harder than a phone—even if we do hold the damn things right against our heads when we talk.
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 / $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
wiredtiger10 said:I'm not even going to go there with the insults because I can just blow off guys like you.
I see you're one of those people who thinks INSTITUTIONS MUST FUNCTION properly—that’s pretty optimistic of you, but also kind of childishly naive. Until recently, they were covering up how smoking causes cancer. Does that mean smoking is healthy? Did it ever cross your mind that the evidence exists, it's just not available to you or me? Because releasing it would mean destroying one of the biggest industries, shutting down factories, leaving people jobless, and putting a massive burden on the government.
You can save that little lecture about antennas for some idiot.
Any moron knows antennas don't aim signals downward (why would they do that if they're on top of a building?), but what about everything around that building? Other structures, houses, people? I thought GSM antennas were put where people are—on high-rises. I live in a house and I've got at least 3 or 4 of them on nearby buildings. What I was talking about regarding sick kids in England is exactly that: a GSM antenna gets put on a nearby building, and then kids at that school start getting leukemia, cancer, etc. And yeah, there was panic—huge panic, lawsuits, the whole nine yards—but did it destroy the entire GSM industry? Nope. You'd need a much higher body count for what you're suggesting to actually happen.
INSTITUTIONS MUST FUNCTION / $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
wiredtiger10 said:I'm not even going to go there with the insults because I can just blow off guys like you.
I see you're one of those people who thinks INSTITUTIONS MUST FUNCTION properly—that’s pretty optimistic of you, but also kind of childishly naive. Until recently, they were covering up how smoking causes cancer. Does that mean smoking is healthy? Did it ever cross your mind that the evidence exists, it's just not available to you or me? Because releasing it would mean destroying one of the biggest industries, shutting down factories, leaving people jobless, and putting a massive burden on the government.
You can save that little lecture about antennas for some idiot.
Any moron knows antennas don't aim signals downward (why would they do that if they're on top of a building?), but what about everything around that building? Other structures, houses, people? I thought GSM antennas were put where people are—on high-rises. I live in a house and I've got at least 3 or 4 of them on nearby buildings. What I was talking about regarding sick kids in England is exactly that: a GSM antenna gets put on a nearby building, and then kids at that school start getting leukemia, cancer, etc. And yeah, there was panic—huge panic, lawsuits, the whole nine yards—but did it destroy the entire GSM industry? Nope. You'd need a much higher body count for what you're suggesting to actually happen.
INSTITUTIONS MUST FUNCTION / $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Look, any idiot knows that antennas don't beam signals straight down—I mean, why would they do that if they’re mounted on top of a building? But let's be real: isn't there always stuff surrounding those buildings? Other structures, houses, people... everything. My logic was that GSM antennas get placed exactly where the crowds are, usually atop some high-rise. I live in a house, yet I can see at least three or four of them sitting on nearby buildings right now. What I was getting at regarding those sick kids in England is precisely this: an antenna was installed on a building near a school, and suddenly the kids there started coming down with leukemia, cancer, and all that. It caused a massive panic—lawsuits flying everywhere, total chaos—but did that wipe out the entire cellular industry? Of course not. You’d need a much larger number of victims before things reach the scale you're suggesting.
Institutions need to actually work. Period. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
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.
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!"