muppetry

About

Username
muppetry
Joined
Visits
42
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
259
Badges
1
Posts
3,331
  • Why you shouldn't worry about radiation from your Wi-Fi router or iPhone

    ruoma said:
    You seriously dissapoint me appleinsider :( This is such a misleading click-baity article.

    Has really no one read the following article? Just google “EU 5G warning”.
    https://ehtrust.org/scientists-and-doctors-demand-moratorium-on-5g-warning-of-health-effects/


    “(Örebro, Sweden) Sept. 13, 2017

    Over 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries sent a declaration to officials of the European Commission today demanding a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 5G expansion. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer.”

    “With hazards at those exposures, we are very concerned that the added exposure to 5G radiation could result in tragic, irreversible harm.”

    “Peer-reviewed research has documented industry influence on studies of the health impacts of wireless radiation. We are insisting on a moratorium on 5G until non-industry research can be conducted to ensure the safety of the public.”


    And yet in this entire thread I still haven't seen a single citation of a peer-reviewed study demonstrating any of these alleged effects - just links to newspaper articles, "health newsletters", petitions and unsupported assertions of harm. 
    StrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Why you shouldn't worry about radiation from your Wi-Fi router or iPhone

    cgWerks said:

    muppetry said:
    Now you sound like you have descended into pseudo-science so it's difficult to address your question in any meaningful way. Are you suggesting that the established understanding of the interaction of RF with matter is incorrect? It's pretty basic physics. And which advances in our scientific understanding are you referring to? You don't write like a scientist of any flavor, so are you qualified to assess what has and has not been taken into account? 
    Not pseudo-science, modern science... epigenetics.
    Not incorrect, but incomplete.
    That DNA has far more than one function (i.e.: you don't have to damage the DNA to impact what proteins are produced).

    OK - can you cite a peer-reviewed source for the assertion that low-power GHz RF affects gene activation?

    jbdragonStrangeDaysfastasleeptruthbetoldnow
  • Why you shouldn't worry about radiation from your Wi-Fi router or iPhone

    cgWerks said:
    muppetry said:
    As for whether wireless signals are harmful in some other way - it has been extensively investigated. The only significant interaction of GHz RF with organic material is direct excitation of rotational modes in polarized molecules - a mechanism of direct heating. Since we know the radiation characteristics of the antennas involved, the radiated output power, and the absorbance characteristics of relevant molecules, it is relatively trivial to bound the heating effect in nearby organic matter. 
    What about interference with cellular communication or impact on gene expression?
    If you're not looking at the right stuff, it's pretty hard to say it isn't having an impact. Hopefully it isn't having a substantial negative impact. But the kind of impact this article addresses (and the studies I've ever seen) aren't taking into account the advances in our scientific understanding from the last decade or two.

    Now you sound like you have descended into pseudo-science so it's difficult to address your question in any meaningful way. Are you suggesting that the established understanding of the interaction of RF with matter is incorrect? It's pretty basic physics. And which advances in our scientific understanding are you referring to? You don't write like a scientist of any flavor, so are you qualified to assess what has and has not been taken into account? 
    jbdragonStrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Why you shouldn't worry about radiation from your Wi-Fi router or iPhone

    dws-2 said:
    I think this article misunderstands science, which is a way of investigating the world, rather than a producer of facts. Science tells us that wireless signals won't likely harm us from ionizing radiation. However, that's not the same thing as wireless signals being harmless. Science can only tell us about things that we've investigated. That's why it's so interesting — because we're always learning new things. That said, you have to pick what you're going to worry about, and wireless signals is pretty low on my list.

    Actually I think that you misunderstood the article and the science that it reports. Science doesn't tell us that "wireless signals won't likely harm us from ionizing radiation", it tells us that wireless signals are not ionizing radiation in the first place. As for whether wireless signals are harmful in some other way - it has been extensively investigated. The only significant interaction of GHz RF with organic material is direct excitation of rotational modes in polarized molecules - a mechanism of direct heating. Since we know the radiation characteristics of the antennas involved, the radiated output power, and the absorbance characteristics of relevant molecules, it is relatively trivial to bound the heating effect in nearby organic matter. 
    MacProkenclorin schultz
  • WhatsApp backdoor defeats end-to-end encryption, potentially allows Facebook to read messa...

    zimmie said:
    mtbnut said:
    The "Can't prove a negative" logical fallacy will forever deem any 'bulletproof' encryption technology from being 100% trustworthy.

    Can any company prove that their product can't be hacked*? 
    Not exactly, but that isn't what most cryptographers try to prove. Instead, they prove that reversing a given cryptogram to the source plaintext would take X bytes of memory and Y computation operations and Z energy to pass through all the required states. The discipline used to express the relative quality of cryptosystems and the attacks against them is called computational complexity theory.

    Given unlimited resources, anything but a one-time-pad can be cracked by brute force. The question isn't whether it's possible, only how hard it is.

    There is a fun bit of math related to the "unlimited resources" part. Barring some discovery that upends our understanding of physics, we know that an ideal conventional computer (perfect, molecular-scale transistors with no spontaneous flips and no heat) couldn't even count to 2^256 given all the energy in the solar system (including energy obtained from breaking down all the mass in the solar system). That's just counting out all of the possible keys. It doesn't include trying to use them. A universe-sized ideal conventional computer given another universe worth of energy wouldn't be able to test all of the possible 256 bit keys against a single message. And that's not even getting into the time it would take to try.
    Right - but that is assuming that the only option is brute force. Cryptographic methods often end up being cracked via other, previously unrecognized, vulnerabilities which, being initially unrecognized, are not the basis for the estimated complexity.
    cornchip