I cracked up at "NIST researchers traveled to downtown Boulder, Colorado, to test their model" because I used to live in Boulder and NIST to downtown is 2.7 miles including the tangle of roads at NIST itself.
> I cracked up at "NIST researchers traveled to downtown Boulder, Colorado, to test their model" because I used to live in Boulder
Then you should know how common it is for Boulder to 'big itself up' for seemingly trivial things all the time, all of the national Labs (NCAR, NIST and NOAA) are a 5 min car drive to Pearl Street Mall in all directions.
Though to be fair, I used to take 45 mins to get from Boulder Towers (only one exit in/out) across from CU Boulder to Pearl Street mall on a car when the Buffs played. I could have made it down there in 15 mins (my PB was 9 mins at like 4am and riding like a maniac blowing redlights which is dumb in a place that has so many negligent and intoxicated drivers). Or a take 20 min jog if I was up for it.
With that said, bravo... but no one with any other options uses their wifi, though; it sucks and unless you have no data or haven;t got the credentials for any of the local restaurants it might be useful, which includes the large homeless population that keep getting harassed, beaten, and maimed by Boulder PD.
The novel thing here is the proposal to use 60 GHz for wifi, and that can be a challenge because it will bounce a lot on surfaces, so NIST developed tools to help optimise potential installations.
Wifi is already pretty common on lamp posts in commercial areas of for municipal WANs.
My phone can talk to a base station far, far away but struggles to talk my router in certain places of my house.
Requester the entire cellular network and make it open and free.
No, no it is not. People don't appreciate just how totally insignificant the amount of energy transmitted from RF communications into the body are. They are orders of magnitude less that literally almost anything else you experience on a daily basis. On top of that, the energy of the photons used for RF communications is at minimum 10,000 lower that what is necessary to induce the breakage and formation of chemical bonds which rules out 99.9% of potential biological mechanisms for action. You know what energy does have photons with enough energy to do that? Sunlight. In the grand scheme of things impacting our health in the modern world calling RF energy background noise would be overstating its significance. There are plenty of other real things which are much more concerning such as the health impacts on the body of synthetic organic compounds which have become overwhelmingly prevalent in daily life.
I don't have enough points on my account to downvote. I do however have a graduate degree in a biology field and I'm telling you that the consensus on this field is very clear regardless. People not involved in research don't tend to understand that just because there are academic papers claiming something doesn't mean that people in the field actually believe that that let alone that its actually true. Low sample sizes and flawed studies abound. The amount of energy required for non-ionizing radiation to cause significant biological effects is orders of magnitude higher than anything you will experience from a wifi or cell phones. Don't sleep on a AN/SPY-6 and you'll be okay.
I am aware of many of the studies being referenced in those reviews. You should be aware that sticking a handful of rats in a box and microwaving them has almost become a running joke because most of those studies tell you absolutely nothing concrete about the effects of normal levels of RF radiation on rats, let alone on humans. Peer review means less than you might think. For less demanding journals it usually just means you didn't do anything egregiously wrong and for very low impact journals you can usually get published if you have a pulse and have correctly formatted your manuscript.
People usually don't publish null results. When people do publish positive results in contentious subjects you generally expect them to be rigorous and with high statistical support. A p value of 0.05 is not good enough because I know there are a lot more than 20 groups out there microwaving rats looking for something to publish.
This is why when I click on that first review, look up the first study I see it reference, and see that the researchers are making claims using experimental groups of only 6 rats it makes me want to die. I'm not going to continue this discussion further.
I link 3 meta analysises accounting ~150-200 scientific papers AKA more than you've read in your entire life and you call me pseudoscientist and conspirational?
I understand starting to questions the safety of things you have always assumed to be safe can be mentally scary but that does not justify empty dismissals.
It's true though that this is not a scientific forum and it often shows.
BTW did you know that human brains including yours loose 10% of their axons every decade? Take this fact as a reward for your low-effort.
I am not the poster you are replying to but I feel the need to point out that 200 papers isn't an obscenely high number that most people on HN will never reach.
I had to include at least 5 sources minimum for each paper that I wrote in undergrad. That means reading at least twice that number to find ones actually relevant to the subject I chose. Add this to the papers they require you read merely to supplement the text book, and your average student with 4 classes a semester can average 20 to 30 papers easily.
It's just reading research. It's not like you have to write the papers yourself.
I'd guess for my graduating thesis alone I burned through 50 papers over 3 months looking for supporting fundamentals before figuring out my experimental direction was stupid and I had to start again from scratch.
You should consider moving to a rural area and staying away from technology altogether. Having access to information seems to be making you insane via anxiety.
It’s nothing but upside for you; less WiFi radiation and conspiracy addled inner monologue.
>if you had allocated 5 seconds of your time reading more than the title and writing a dismissal
You're quoting one paper from a scientist who is very well-known for holding a niche position on this topic.
Do you study in this field? If not, how are you judging the merit of the paper? How well do you understand it?
Why did you pick this one paper, rather than from a multitude of others that exist suggesting low-level non-ionizing radiation exposure at low MW frequencies is safe? Did you survey the literature? Or did you pick a paper that aligns with a pre-existing concern or opinion on the topic?
> Why did you pick this one paper, rather than from a multitude of others that exist suggesting low-level non-ionizing radiation exposure at low MW frequencies is safe?
Has anyone studied low-level non-ionizing radiation in an environment that has a high level of other things that are carcinogenic?
DNA can conduct current and this appears to play a role in the mechanism of DNA replication and the finding and repairing of damage during replication [1].
I wonder if it would be possible for low energy fields to interfere with that mechanism? That would not cause cancer, but it might prevent a cell from avoiding a cancer from some other mechanism that it otherwise would have avoided.
There have been some studies that claim DNA can act as a fractal antenna, responding well to wavelengths much longer than you would expect a conventional antenna so small to react to. However I think all of those studies are from just one research team, and I haven't seen anyone trying to reproduce them.
Wi-Fi debuted in the late eighties, so the 1971 referenced seemed odd. I looked into it and it was part of the early research on powerful RF emissions. There were some uncomfortable images of the effects on rabbits eyes, etc.
To suggest that WLAN causes similar issues is absurd due to both the enormous EIRP difference and the very psychological point that many other (higher power) uses of the frequency have been effect for some time but of all of them, only the one marketed to consumers caused issue.
Can you speak to why Wi-Fi in particular, is suspect? CW GSM handsets held close to the head, CB Radios, 433 garage door openers or RC cars, DECT cordless phones, microwave ovens, Bluetooth 3G/4G/5G cell signals, ...all surely should be equally concerning if the RF is to blame.
Thank you for posting this. I saved all your responses. If you want to discuss, there’s a discord group of high-performing individuals who will encourage you to share: https://discord.com/invite/upcQfRMVhy
Thanks, much appreciated.
That server does not seems to be about the exploration of science but about money making methods though..
Also, I currently don't use my voice on the internet so if I share things, that would be text-only.
A forum with intellectually active individuals that are rational and do extensive research would sure be a breath of fresh air. Such a forum does not seem to exist on the internet. It appears people that actually care are like unicorns once you go above the surface level knowledge.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Downtown,+Boulder,+CO/NIST,+...