Read this and then throw away your cell phone;

Read this and then throw away your cell phone;

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.5008.pdf

better yet, get out of the city (tower risk)

Other urls found in this thread:

who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/
jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(07)00204-8/abstract
bmj.com/content/332/7546/886.full
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20195/abstract
web.archive.org/web/20071010073038/http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8934/8934.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_3210
ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521095727.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>arxiv
>theoretical biology

You know what to do.

>MIT PhD
>Los Alamos government research

correction, bachelors in math from MIT, masters and phd from uc berkeley

But, I don't own a cell and I don't live in a city.

...

>quack with mental issues who think he gets headaches from EM

I'll take his word over yours. He's a highly-educated government scientist who wrote a paper detailing the threat vector

you are just some anonymous guy shaking his head

Just to live in the country is a full-time job. You don't have to do anything. The idle pursuit of making a living is pushed to one side, where it belongs, in favor of living itself, a task of such immediacy, variety, beauty, and excitement that one is powerless to resist its wild embrace. - E. B. White

You are just some anonymous crank posting about another crank, no one cares whose word you'll take.

I am posting U.S. government research

w o w
(no one is impressed, government ""research"" is shit

No you aren't. You have no idea what you're talking about. If I posted a crank paper on arxiv it would have nothing to do with my lab or government funding. That's exactly what your crank has done. The paper doesn't even have any actual research in it.

Interesting, so you're saying that you accept what he wrote because he's a highly-educated government scientist? Because almost every highly-educated government scientist who has studied EM sensitivity has concluded that is completely psychosomatic

who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/

jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(07)00204-8/abstract

bmj.com/content/332/7546/886.full

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20195/abstract

web.archive.org/web/20071010073038/http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8934/8934.html

>No you aren't.

Yes, I am. I posted the link in the OP. What does it say?

>2008
>2006
>2006
>2005
>2005

They didn't know about the atomic bomb until they figured that out, either. protip: also at Los Alamos

also, the articles you posted concern exposure to passive radiation. Dr. Bruno discusses a direct attack vector.

Also note that in ~2006 the devices were much less powerful, as was the signal.

Are you illiterate? Nowhere does it say this paper is U.S. government research. It simply says the author works at Los Alamos. Do you understand the difference or are you just retarded?

just like Saul's brother

>They didn't know about the atomic bomb until they figured that out, either.
They figured out that people like this crank who claim to be sensitive to EM aren't in controlled studies. This is not new, there are many similar psychosomatic disorders, like people who claim to be allergic to MSG. It's called the nocebo effect.

>also, the articles you posted concern exposure to passive radiation. Dr. Bruno discusses a direct attack vector.
The paper claims that cell phone use might be harmful. This is passive use.

>Also note that in ~2006 the devices were much less powerful, as was the signal.
False.

Can you make a post without making shit up out of thin air?

>2008
>2006
>2006
>2005
>2005
Most of the papers cited in your crank's paper are from the 2000s, along with several from 50 years ago. You're grasping at straws like a true tinfoiler.

what do you think he did at Los Alamos? Landscaping? A biophysics PhD published a paper in his field, listing the US government laboratory that facilitates said research.

why do you think the paper included "Los Alamos National Laboratory"? a decorative flourish?

>This is not new, there are many similar psychosomatic disorders, like people who claim to be allergic to MSG

and again, incidental exposure to passive cell radiation is NOT the point of the paper. it's a theoretical attack vector; something that has not been demonstrated, like atomic energy before successfully tested/used

>The paper claims that cell phone use might be harmful. This is passive use.

wrong, read the paper. you don't know what you're talking about

>False.

are you stupid?

you think old cell phones were as powerful as new smartphones?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_3210

>1250 MaH

stay retarded.

regarding signal,

>what is 4g

Dr. Bruno's paper was published 2011, and again, it concerns a direct attack vector; that has nothing to do with those other papers. completely different topic. try to keep up

oh look, it's the unpublished paper by the crackpot who thinks the photoelectric effect is fake
again

>what do you think he did at Los Alamos? Landscaping? A biophysics PhD published a paper in his field, listing the US government laboratory that facilitates said research.
>arxiv
>published
OK kid, it's really time for you to stop pretending you know anything. It's time to stop shitposting.

>and again, incidental exposure to passive cell radiation is NOT the point of the paper. it's a theoretical attack vector; something that has not been demonstrated, like atomic energy before successfully tested/used
Where does the paper mention ANYTHING about an "attack vector"? It doesn't.


>The paper claims that cell phone use might be harmful. This is passive use.
>wrong, read the paper. you don't know what you're talking about
Are you illiterate? The abstract:

"It has been argued that cellphones are safe because a single microwave photon does
not have enough energy to break a chemical bond. We show that cellphone
technology operates in the classical wave limit, not the single photon limit. Based on
energy densities relative to thermal energy, we estimate thresholds at which effects
could be possible. These seem to correspond somewhat with many experimental
observations."

Again, stop making shit up, crank.

>you think old cell phones were as powerful as new smartphones?
>1250 MaH
>what is 4g
So you think battery use and processing speed are the same thing as microwave radiation? OK, your brain appears to be severely broken since you can't write a single sentence without retarded non sequiturs.

>Dr. Bruno's paper was published 2011
Misses the point, which is that you complained the papers I cited were from the 2000s when your crank cites papers from the same time. There is no issue with using papers from 10 years ago, and if there is, then this would invalidate your crank's paper.

>it concerns a direct attack vector
Where? Quote it, you delusional moron.

I'm out, you're indistinguishable from someone pretending to be retarded. Take your meds.

>US government weapons lab sponsored-"crackpot"

or maybe it's you

Dude, the sun is a bigger concern that most of these man-made EM waves.

Just put some sun screen on, and you will be fine.

I don't actually use my phone for calling/texting. It's mostly just my alarm clock

>arxiv
>published

>muh technicality

surely you can do better than that

>Where does the paper mention ANYTHING about an "attack vector"?

>That coherent photon energies can combine to do work (including work other than just
heating) is most clearly illustrated by optical tweezers, which can be used to move
bacterial cells but cause physiological damage in the process [Rasmussen et al.
2008]. The requirements for biological tweezers to operate are a gradient in the index
of refraction and sufficient flux of photons (proportional to the work to be done).

>Limiting the level of exposure on the basis of a single cell is only likely to go wrong if
there are multicellular structures that concentrate RF energy from a larger volume into
one cell. This could happen due to resonances, or focusing, or conductive
'circuits' (the presence of apparent semiconductors such as neuromelanin and
biogenic calcite in the brain, and of piezo-electric collagen, should inspire more
research into whether such circuits exist). Nevertheless, we compute a safety ballpark
level using this approach of 1000 V/m for small (10 micron diameter) cells. For a very
large neuron (100 micron diameter) a safe exposure would be only 30 V/m, which is
less than the hundreds of V/m a cellphone typically emits. Note that the human body
contains a wide range of neuron sizes (up to ~1 meter long)

>So you think battery use and processing speed are the same thing as microwave radiation?

they are related, but since both signal strength and battery strength have increased, you're wrong regardless

>Quote it

see above

>I'm out

run away then pussy

>That coherent photon energies can combine to do work (including work other than just
heating) is most clearly illustrated by optical tweezers, which can be used to move
bacterial cells but cause physiological damage in the process [Rasmussen et al.
2008]. The requirements for biological tweezers to operate are a gradient in the index
of refraction and sufficient flux of photons (proportional to the work to be done).

>Limiting the level of exposure on the basis of a single cell is only likely to go wrong if
there are multicellular structures that concentrate RF energy from a larger volume into
one cell. This could happen due to resonances, or focusing, or conductive
'circuits' (the presence of apparent semiconductors such as neuromelanin and
biogenic calcite in the brain, and of piezo-electric collagen, should inspire more
research into whether such circuits exist). Nevertheless, we compute a safety ballpark
level using this approach of 1000 V/m for small (10 micron diameter) cells. For a very
large neuron (100 micron diameter) a safe exposure would be only 30 V/m, which is
less than the hundreds of V/m a cellphone typically emits. Note that the human body
contains a wide range of neuron sizes (up to ~1 meter long)

Uh... where does it say anything here about an attack, attack vector, or any other malicious intent user?

the mechanism is there

>current digital pulse modulation schemes makes use of frequencies that, if demodulated [Bruno 2011], are also used by neurons.

check this out, Veeky Forums


>THE EFFECT OF MICROWAVES ON THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM

ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521095727.pdf

No, pulse amplitude modulation is a technique for braodcasting signals. Your crank is saying that TV signals can affect neurons. It's passive.

wrong, that's normal modulation. Dr. Bruno is talking about modulating signals for the purposes of attacking biological systems, as described

>This involves a direct influence of high-frequency energy on the autonomic nervous system and the influence on the somatic nervous system takes place by the control of its readiness to function from the vegetative sphere . Such a process otherwise takes place only under hypnosis.
This paper is spouting pure pseudoscience in the first paragraph.

>wrong, that's normal modulation. Dr. Bruno is talking about modulating signals for the purposes of attacking biological systems, as described
Again, where does he say that? Everything you quoted describes normal, passive radiation. Including the demodulated PAM. PAM has to be demodulated to work. So far every single post you've made has been full of nonsense and you can't even back up your characterization of the paper with a quote. This is laughable.

>they are related, but since both signal strength and battery strength have increased, you're wrong regardless
literally making shit up, you retard.

>Everything you quoted describes normal, passive radiation.

no it doesn't. what are optical tweezers?

you can find a quote referring to them ITT, as well as many others from the paper

>you can't even back up your characterization of the paper with a quote.

wrong, see above.

nope, everybody knows more power is required to operate your phone as a small computer versus just making phone calls and sending texts. and I already posted the fact that older phones have lower power, something that is, again, common knowledge and easily verifiable

that signal strength has increased necessarily, to accommodate the substantial increase in traffic (see phones as computers) is also obvious as fuck, and again, see 4g

power used by a phone is different from the intensity of microwave radiation emitted by a phone. computing doesn't involve microwave radiation; signal transmission does.

>that signal strength has increased necessarily, to accommodate the substantial increase in traffic (see phones as computers) is also obvious as fuck
only to dickwits like you who don't know a thing about cell phones. transmission power affects the distance a signal can be transmitted, not how much data a packet can include. and improved antenna technology makes it possible to pick up weaker signals than we used to.

you're making shit up off the top of your head because it sounds cool to you and because you simply don't know how wrong you are.

they're related. a device with a higher power source can propagate a stronger signal

and again, it is obvious as fuck and a matter of public record that mobile signal strength has increased significantly recently, pic related

>what is 4g

>what are optical tweezers?
Optical tweezers are weak laser beams, they can't be used as a weapon, unless you think scratching a single cell is an attack. Your crank uses them as an example of how EM can affect a cell, not as an example of how EM can be used as a weapon. You're grasping at straws. Take your meds.

>a device with a higher power source can propagate a stronger signal
this is true but not relevant to your picture. the specs listed are about communication speed, not signal strength.

your entire argument here seems to be based in a fundamental misunderstanding of how radio communication works. let me spell it out for you in a bowl of alphabet soup:
A STRONGER SIGNAL DOES NOT CARRY MORE DATA. IT JUST CARRIES DATA FURTHER.