Ops-Normal.org

Apsara put me onto this and she's not stupid.








She did a check on the outside source speakers and said they are credible.

Request Fox3 or someone knowledgeable to comment.

Well, my first reaction is that we have another outbreak like the 'Global Warming' panic full of breathless leftward leaning talking heads and I would not be surprised to see Mr Gore jumping on this wagon.

Having been involved in various efforts to improve 2G communication in UK rural areas, the "I don't want an aerial near my house/school/insert as applicable" brigade are always very vocal -"The radiation from the mast will kill my children" etc etc. What these poor folk do NOT realise is that by having a weak mobile phone signal around the school/your house/insert as applicable WITHOUT a decent mast network means that every single mobile, including those in the school/your house/insert as applicable will be at full output all the time it is on, trying to establish contact with a more distant cell. This includes the mobile that your little Tommy carries in his jacket pocket, yes, right alongside his kidneys.

The nearer you are to a mast the lower the output will be from your phone. I would HOPE (but do not know) that having a profusion of 'extra' stations under 5g will mean your phone is going to put out a lower strength signal 24/7. This can only be beneficial to you and Tommy, as the 'personal' radiation levels FROM your phone will be lower. It is a fact of life that for decades we have all been bombarded with radiation at different intensities - radio, TV, radar, computer monitors, all nearby mobile phones and wireless routers. Whether all this background radiation is really harmful I know not, but we have folk getting hot and bothered about low levels of background radiation eg in Cornwall, so maybe we are all exposed to a health risk anyway.

Until we know more about the transmission strengths involved, the Jury is out.

Around here 2G is patchy, 3G non-existent, I'll probably be dead before 5G gets here so I'm not worried.

BOAC, you are right about being increasingly radiated.

There is a general increase in awareness of RF but not necessarily understanding.

I know that operating the old fashioned but high powered airborne searcher radar we always ensured that there were no people in the danger zone. A generation earlier we operated I-band radars on the ground it total ignorance of a safety zone.

The crew chief would stand under the green satin Doppler unaware of it was on or off. The H2S radar would be transmitting on sector or circular scan without any thought for safety, though the groundcrew wore radiation safety tags.

A few years later we started to consider radiation safety and ensured post flight the radar scan pointed aft but that was as much to protect the radar crystals.

However in the aircraft we sat level with the scanner bare festive away and only a thin RAM blanket over the pressure bulk head. There was some talk that crews had more girls than boys. This was true of our crew - 10-1. The copilot only did a couple of years and had a son,but died of a brain tumour.

I don't know of any general health effects from radhaz though.

From Sep 69 to early 74 This was the scene from my office window at Scampers. Multiple movements each day and every one had the NBS radar sweeping - you could tell as the office radio would "blip" with each sweep.

I had two daughters!!

Basics:
The rate of information transfer is limited by frequency. More cycles per second = more signals per second. 5G operates in the GHz range, with 3.5 GHz and 26+ GHz being typical. What's new with 5G is the use of frequencies above 6 GHz. The effects on the human body change around 6 GHz, with the major problem below 6 gigs being energy absorption (warming), and surface effects (mainly skin and cornea) above that.

Energy absorption and transmission is also dependent on frequency. Due to GHz frequencies being less able to bend round corners and being more easily absorbed by materials, 5G networks will require many more antenna. Some work is being done on passive directional antennas, which will sit invisibly within things like billboards, and redirect energy into areas not well covered by the transmitting antennae.

Some will be pleased to hear that banging on with one's old war stories about airborne radar is in fact relevant here, since the frequencies are of the same order as 5G. Feel free to bore your grandchildren

There are several problems with studying the health effects. These include limited studies, unrepresentative studies (typically only 30 mins maximum use per day), and the perennial problem with new technology of it being impossible to study the long term effects. This is particularly true with above 6 GHz effects. A specific problem with 5G is that no government has shown the slightest interest in doing studies before approving the rollout of 5G. In short, they don't know and they don't care.

The WHO, through its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), has classified mobile phone use as cancer risk 2B - possibly carcinogenic to humans - glioma (brain cancer). It notes that Governments don't seem to have changed their advice one bit since the classification. For more on that, start here:
https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/ ... r208_E.pdf

A specific problem with 5G is that the foaming-at-the-mouth brigade have possibly inured the public to complaints about mobile phones by overdoing the criticism of current mobile phones. 5G presents new risks, but these may be ignored on the 'boy who cried wolf' principle.

It should be remembered that by far and away the biggest risk associated with mobile phone use is the risk of accidents whilst distracted by one's phone, especially whilst driving. Other than that, one should, as almost everyone here knows, limit one's exposure by time, distance from radiation source, and (as BOAC pointed out) intensity.

That military aircrew have a high proportion of girls is well known from medical studies (and it was true on all my squadrons). Other professions such as commercial divers also exhibit this phenomenon. The mechanism is unknown, nor have (to my knowledge) newer studies been done since women became more common in these professions. The obvious speculation is that testosterone levels are responsible in stereotypically 'macho' jobs, but it could be something as simple as frequency of lovemaking. It should now be possible to do a statistically significant study on, say, female fighter pilots, and indeed to assess the effect of what their partners do for a living also.

Since the dawn of the 20th Century we have been increasingly exposed to radio waves followed by television transmissions.
The æther must be saturated.
Are these radiations harmless?

Freeview TV is way down in the high UHF band.

Back in the 60s the useable parts of the RF spectrum were few with relatively large gaps. I think this was due to relatively insensitive electronics. VHF radios and Band 1 TV had better propagation ranges compared with UHF and high UHF was relatively restricted compared with freqs around 243MHz.

Long range search radars tended to be in the S-band 2-3GHz with ground mapping X band at 9GHz. J-Band at 13GHz gave better definition but shorter range with more sensitive kit. As the older kit needed higher power for longer range they certainly were more dangerous.

The æther must be saturated.
Are these radiations harmless?

Good question.

Shortest answer: No, and No.

Slightly less short answer: Almost nothing is harmless. Sitting watching kitten videos for hours on end may kill you through deep vein thrombosis.

Longer answer:
The air on Earth has measurable EM radiation in just about every frequency band from natural sources, which mainly means space. Our atmosphere absorbs the vast majority of waves from space, but the percentage absorbed is very dependent on frequency Almost all UV is absorbed, for instance, but apart from clouds very little visible light is. 'Saturated' has very little meaning in its general sense, so it makes sense to take 'saturated' to mean 'what humans can safely absorb'. This also varies tremendously by frequency, as do both absorption rate and the damage mechanisms. In this sense, the air is barely registering, much less saturated, even around most artificial sources of radiation. The most dangerous EM radiation is the highest frequency, gamma, but almost all of the gamma that impinges on people goes straight out the other side. When it does interact with atoms, it can cause damage to both chemical bonding or atomic nuclei, either of which, especially in DNA, can lead to cancers. However, EM radiation is not the only cause of cancers, and cancers in total are 4 times less likely to kill a person than heart diseases or failures, and 3 times less likely than infectious diseases. Cancer is 10 times more likely to get you than road accidents.
The difficulty is working out how much more likely cancer is to kill you from an increase in exposure to a particular cancer risk source, then balancing this against the total risk to yourself (not people in general) from all other sources. This is far too difficult for journalists, and indeed government, so they just give blanket bans or approvals to random sources of risk. Make your own choices. Good luck with that; once government decides on something it becomes almost impossible to get clear data from which to form an independent opinion.
e.g flying jets can be highly risky, both through accidental risk and stress-induced illnesses (e.g. stroke). Alcohol relieves stress. Alcohol also can destroy the liver. Most aircrew prefer the stress-relief over the liver risk, and drink like fish. So do many doctors.

Facts.
Whether or not they are relevant, you decide.

From 1952 I was always subject to some level of radiation.

Until 1959, not much of it in the higher frequencies. In 1959 I started almost 4 years on Valiant's. With H2S and Green Satin around as a norm.

SM & I were married in June 62, by Oct 62 I took over the the Green Satin bench at Akrotiri. This meant I spent my working day besides the Tx 'horn' or attenuator.

We decided to not have kids until I had left the RAF and we were established in civilian life.

I knew the job and was subjected to radiation, not only from the GS bench, but the adjacent Blue Silk, H2s Mk9 (NBS) for two years, and for the last few months we also had AI 21 for the Lightnings pumping out a few watts.

We decided to stop taking birth control precautions about 1968, but we were not successful until 1973.

We never did any investigations into the fertility of either of us.
We only had the one child.

I've managed to get into my 80's with my biggest problems being bronchial.

Ian, son or daughter?

Q: Is radiation from phone masts/phones having an effect on our mental capabilities ?
A: Examine the proceeds of the House of Commons over the past few weeks.

Pontius Navigator wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:07 pm

Ian, son or daughter?

Son, and he has fathered our 2 grandchildren.

Thanks for all tech comments and esp from Fox3.

I agree the jury is still out but 5th Generation needs to be examined properly before it's let loose in the wild.

My family and me don't need, nor want, 'the Internet of Things' and so will never become dependent on it.

Slasher, amazing how addictive verbally switched lights etc are. Just walk into a room and say "Google, switch the lights on please." Or after going to bed, forgot to turn 'em off, "Google, please turn off....." Sounds trivial until you've lived with it....

OFSO wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:17 am

" Sounds trivial until you've lived with it....

Like auto headlights and wipers on the car!

I thought they were a big 'So What', till I got them.

OFSO wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:17 am

Slasher, amazing how addictive verbally switched lights etc are. Just walk into a room and say "Google, switch the lights on please." Or after going to bed, forgot to turn 'em off, "Google, please turn off....." Sounds trivial until you've lived with it....

Especially for table lamps around a room that might be operated by a switch on the lamp, in the cord or the floor. We use plug in sockets whereas son in law has changed the sockets and light switches too.

We use the Amazon ones, and I combine a number of commands. "Going out" switches some lights off and cameras on. "Back home" switches the cameras off. At night " Good night" switches off any lamps and responses with 'sleep tight' or some such.

"Good morning" is the big one with lights in winter, the weather, road conditions to work, Sky News. "

We have a unit in each living room down stairs.

Just to confuse the issue, and it is inevitable that it will, Wi-Fi operates at 2.4 and 5.0 GHz but both referred to as 2.4 and 5 G.

That 5th Generation and 5 Gig, both shortened to 5G will confuse the masses and our MPs in equal measure.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not against technology - I'm against it if I feel I'm gonna get lazy and depend on it too much, particularly if the power goes out for an extended period, plus the well known security risks and the fact one's voice can be possibly recorded by Goigle or a hack without one's knowledge.

There are only 4 items of electronickry I'm grateful for. All made me exclaim "How the f**k did I ever survive without this!"

1. Colour TV
2. Colour TV remote
3. Weather radar
4. Online video porn

and the fact one's voice can be possibly recorded by Goigle or a hack without one's knowledge.

No big surprise when Amazon publish regular 'most asked questions '. They are probably garnered automatically and collated by computer, but they also employ 1,000 staff around the world to sample questions asked.

I have also seen the little blue light ring light up unrequested. The wake up call was certainly not made.

In early days I was using a Kindle Fire when Amazon revealed it had a microphone - nothing in the documentation before that!

Other spies are software like 'find my phone' or 'laptop'. They locate and take a picture without the user's knowledge. Easy enough to slip in a 3rd party app unknown to the legitimate user.