Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 09:20:04 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:04:43?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 10:58:08?AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 30/07/2023 14:27, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 9:16:56?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
Peer reviewed literature in mainstream science:
https://mdsafetech.org/2021/07/19/wildlife-and-biodiversity-a-disappearing-act-by-cell-towers-on-land-and-in-space/
Altered behavior is a marker for physical effect.
But you have to work out which physical effect is making the difference. The fact that you can see cell phone towers doesn\'t mean that they are what is making the difference.
Physicians for Safe Technology doesn\'t sound all that mainstream. and physicians have published some truly terrible science.
Here\'s some 5G BS for ya I ran across a while back...
https://youtu.be/BwyDCHf5iCY?list=PLEnjh_SJZNljxwoFqc6N4w5JNSj5y8kop&t=347
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 11:05:49â¯PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
\"The recently proposed Connect Our Parks Act calls for increased cell service in parks but does not weigh the damaging impacts of wireless radio frequency (RF) radiation â emitted by cellular installations â on all living creatures. Introduced by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Angus King (I-Maine), this new bill does not consider the many ways that cell tower radiating equipment can impair ecologically sensitive areas and every living thing in its wake, ranging from insects to mammals to the plants and trees on which their survival depends. \"
They\'re right about that. RF is strongly suspected of disorienting navigation of many different organisms, which is not surprising since it\'s well known their natural sensory systems are beyond belief sensitive.
The people who strongly suspect it are beyond belief whack jobs.
This is how you end up with the \"Devil Bird\" migrating to NYC, quite a ways from Brazil.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/experts-sound-alarm-rare-appearances-111500049.html
It isn\'t. The articles actually blames global warming for messing up the environment, rather than cellular radio towers messing the bird\'s navigation.
More legislation introduced by phony pro-business GOP types prostituting their home states for tourist dollars, re-paying their donors for campaign contributions:
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4124742-we-cannot-ignore-the-dangers-of-radiation-in-our-national-parks/
Wack jobs do get worried about cellular radio tower emissions. There\'s not a scrap of objective evidence that the emissions have any effect at all, but whack jobs run on irrational prejudice, rather than rational argument.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 3:17:36?AM UTC+10, boB wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 09:20:04 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:04:43?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 10:58:08?AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 30/07/2023 14:27, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 9:16:56?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
Peer reviewed literature in mainstream science:
https://mdsafetech.org/2021/07/19/wildlife-and-biodiversity-a-disappearing-act-by-cell-towers-on-land-and-in-space/
Altered behavior is a marker for physical effect.
But you have to work out which physical effect is making the difference. The fact that you can see cell phone towers doesn\'t mean that they are what is making the difference.
Physicians for Safe Technology doesn\'t sound all that mainstream. and physicians have published some truly terrible science.
Here\'s some 5G BS for ya I ran across a while back...
https://youtu.be/BwyDCHf5iCY?list=PLEnjh_SJZNljxwoFqc6N4w5JNSj5y8kop&t=347
\"comments are turned off\". YouTube is mostly not worth wasting time on, and when comments are turned off it\'s really not worth finding out why.
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 12:21:46 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:57:58 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
It is extremely unlikely that cell towers affect anything that isn\'t
very close to the emitters. Back in the old days some of the fast long
range microwave links had dangerous power levels up close to the
emitter. I suspect that they did for a RF engineer of my acquaintance
who died very young of an unusual and rare brain cancer.
Well, these long-range microwave links are not all that powerful, so
let\'s talk about radar engineers and technicians. We\'re talking
megawatts versus a kilowatt.
Direct visual line of sight links require little radiated power
(EiRP).
Apparently the \"long-range\" links refer to the troposcatter
over-the-horizon links between Scotland and the North Sea oil rigs.
Such tropospheric scatter links require really high EiRP. When going
over the radio horizon, you have to increase the power ten times (+10
dB) for every degree the signal has to bend down past the horizon.
Those North Sea links had huge fixed parabolic reflectors on the
shore.
It is interesting to note that people get more and more scared when
the parabolic disk size is increased. In fact if the transmitter power
remains the same, the near field field strength is lowered when the
disk size is increased. The most dangerous point in a parabolic
antenna is close to the feed point. Never look into the waveguide or
feedhorn unless you are absolutely sure that the transmitter is
powered down, or you may get blind in a few seconds.
Regarding the 5 MW EiRP UHF transmitters, the much smaller transmitter
power is directed towards the horizon to reach as far as possible.
Very little is radiated above the horizon or to the ground just around
the tower. Thus walking on the ground towards the tower, the power
densities remains quite low.
However do not fly close to the tower at 300 to 600 m altitude in a
wooden biplane, since you are in the antenna main lobe and the wooden
plane doesn\'t protect you as a metallic plane does.
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 12:21:46 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:57:58 +0100, Martin Brown
Well, these long-range microwave links are not all that powerful, so
let\'s talk about radar engineers and technicians. We\'re talking
megawatts versus a kilowatt.
Direct visual line of sight links require little radiated power
(EiRP).
Regarding the 5 MW EiRP UHF transmitters, the much smaller transmitter
power is directed towards the horizon to reach as far as possible.
Very little is radiated above the horizon or to the ground just around
the tower. Thus walking on the ground towards the tower, the power
densities remains quite low.
However do not fly close to the tower at 300 to 600 m altitude in a
wooden biplane, since you are in the antenna main lobe and the wooden
plane doesn\'t protect you as a metallic plane does.