5g And Lies
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-05-07 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Technology , 263 references Ignore this thread
5g And Lies
[Comments enabled]

I hate liars and sensationalist horsecrap.

The first part of that piece contains two lies:

1) 5g will lead to "massive" increases in RF exposure and 2) 5g means that there will be a high-power transmitter every few houses in distance.

Utter nonsense.

First, no firm can pay for said high-power transmitters in that density, never will be able to, nor will they be able to handle the backhaul requirements.  Such pipe-dream nonsense can only take place in a world where nobody has a calculator to run costs.

Second, the more dense your transmitters are the lower power level they must use or you get unacceptable interference that destroys the performance of the system as a whole.  WiFi is a great example; it's damn near everywhere, there are a dozen or more hotspots visible in many urban areas -- hell, there are a few visible from my house (other than mine personally.)  Indeed most of us have an intentional RF emitter in our home providing WiFi services to our computers, phones, tablets, TVs and similar.  The maximum allowed in the US is 1 watt.  Your cell handset has a maximum allowable is 600mw (but often runs much less, since the cell site tells it what power level to use to avoid interference with neighboring cells.)

Now you can run a higher effectively radiated power in some cases, but with the exception of a point-to-point link it's sort of stupid to do so, since using a directional antenna defeats the point of being able to walk around and have a steady signal.  At best you can "squash" the output pattern (and typically get a 3db gain by doing so) so you're not blasting signal both straight up and down (which does you no good, obviously.)

Then, of course, there's this:

Remarkably, cell phones had been allowed onto the US consumer market a decade earlier without any government safety testing. Now, some customers and industry workers were being diagnosed with cancer. In January 1993, David Reynard sued the NEC America Company, claiming that his wife’s NEC phone caused her lethal brain tumor. After Reynard appeared on national TV, the story went viral. A congressional subcommittee announced an investigation; investors began dumping their cell-phone stocks; and Wheeler and the CTIA swung into action.

A week later, Wheeler announced that his industry would pay for a comprehensive research program. Cell phones were already safe, Wheeler told reporters; the new research would simply “re-validate the findings of the existing studies.”

That article is full of conspiracy-minded nonsense.

Look folks, there's a difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.  It's quite-profound and yet most people simply don't understand it.  You can get a nasty burn from non-ionizing radiation (indeed that's how a microwave oven cooks food!) because the heating is not absorbed and transmitted from the top tissues (e.g. skin) of your body inward; rather, it is absorbed at an inverse-square relationship at the distance from the emitting source, which means that for the most part it heats evenly.  So if you get an RF burn on your arm, for example, it "cooks" your arm all the way through at once.  That is what makes it dangerous (and is why RF injuries are very slow to heal.)

Ionizing radiation, on the other hand, usually doesn't cause heating damage.  But it can cause cancer.  This is why having X-rays (or a CT scan for that matter) without a damn good reason is a bad idea.  Imaging your broken arm to figure out exactly how to set it is worth the (small, but non-zero) risk, and technology has greatly reduced the level of exposure in medical imaging; as an example the modern electronic-sensor dental X-ray machine has an exposure of only about 15% as much as film because the digital sensor is more-sensitive than the film is, and as a result much less X-ray energy is required.

Yet you have probably had "bite wing" X-rays taken on an annual basis since you were a child!  May I note that a huge percentage of the time those are purely speculative -- that is, you don't have a toothache and the hygienist has already cleaned your teeth and physically probed the surfaces for cavities. The dentist has no reason to suspect you need an X-ray but they do find problems -- cracks in the teeth, cavities that are not obvious on physical probing, and bone issues in the jaw.  That exposure is to ionizing radiation -- the sort can and does cause cancer.

How many cancers?  Not many.  But not zero.

Is this a realistic factor when it comes to cellphones?  No.

Does that mean there's no risk?  No, it doesn't, but the magnitude of additional risk over that which you already have and accept as a result of having a microwave in your house, a WiFi hotspot sitting on top of your media center, your TV and stereo having WiFi capabilities and similar makes this a losing argument.

The that cellphone caused my brain cancer argument is interesting but did those people never have a dental X-ray?  How do you isolate out speculative non-ionizing RF as a "cause" when ionizing radiation is in fact where real and known risk comes from?

Never mind the tremendous decrease in radiation exposure over the last 20ish years as tube-style TVs and computer monitors have all but disappeared world-wide.  You see, old-style CRT displays inherently aimed a beam of electrons straight at your head.  That's how those displays worked and it was much worse for color sets.  When you were a kid if you grew up in the age of the "flickering blue parent" you were probably told "don't sit so close"; guess why?  How about that older computer monitor where you had to sit at a foot or so distance away in order to read it?

The glass in CRTs contained lead for the explicit purpose of absorbing as much of it as possible but it didn't get it all.  Those displays are more-or-less all gone now, having long since been replaced with LCDs that don't rely on the acceleration of electrons striking a phosphor to produce an image.

So let's have some perspective, eh, since it's total exposure that matters, you take a fair bit of exposure to ionizing radiation every time you fly (since you're up high enough that you lose a decent amount of the shielding the atmosphere provides from cosmic radiation) and when it comes to ionizing radiation there's been a tremendous decrease in both routine medical and household exposure over the last 30 years or so.

Go to responses (registration required to post)

User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info 5g And Lies in forum [Market-Ticker]
Posts: 22
Incept: 2017-07-25

Tulsa, OK.
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List

It's surprising how few people seem to understand ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation.

So, are these scientists and doctors practicing what they're preaching? Are they carrying a cel phone? Are all their computers on wired, not wireless connections? Or is this another 'not good for you' but 'OK for me'?

Weve tried the Soap Box, They censored that.
Weve tried the Ballot Box, They stuffed that.
Weve tried the Jury Box, They tamper with that.
All we have left is the Cartridge box.
Posts: 5905
Incept: 2009-03-21

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Nowadays, the facts don't really seem to matter to most people. Compounding the problem is the way the legal system works.

Given the irresponsibility of the media, sensationalized stories that "cell-phones cause cancer" are run frequently enough that most people are at least aware of the issue and many accept it almost as demonstrated fact (after all, the media wouldn't lie, would they?). Also, given the low intelligence and/or intellectual laziness of the general public (from which juries are selected), they are unable/unwilling to consider the big picture issues as presented in this Ticker (hell, most people can't even follow the logical thought process if it is spoon-fed to them).

Even if a cell-phone, e.g., is a very small percentage of total radiation exposure, it is not that difficult for any lawyer to convince a jury that it is likely to be a contributing factor, no matter how small, to a particular cancer. Given the "deep pockets" principle, it is not the dentist who performs the annual dental imaging that the lawyers will go after, but they will present the "large, greedy, corporation that has no compunction about killing people for profit" as the target, as it is seen to be a huge cash cow to be milked for damages.

Thus, notwithstanding the facts of the Ticker, we are likely to see lots of sleazy lawyers getting rich due to this issue. ("sleazy lawyer" - that's much more often than not an obvious redundancy.)

". . . the Constitution has died, the economy welters in irreversible decline, we have perpetual war, all power lies in the hands of the executive, the police are supreme, and a surveillance beyond Orwells imaginings falls into place." - Fred Reed
Posts: 135
Incept: 2013-08-19

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
They specifically talk about brain cancer. I am guessing I should be more worried about testicular cancer since my phone spends more time in my front pocket than on my ear by a factor of 50. Also, with the move to more hands free head sets this should go away, until the next guy tries to claim that blue tooth gave him brain cancer.
Posts: 2086
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I was amazed at the people that signed this piece of tripe. So many acacdemics and advanced degrees yet totally oblivious to reality. It is like a stupid farm.

"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Posts: 4624
Incept: 2011-04-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
No one puts a gun to your head and tells you to put the cellphone within range of your brain. No one.

Whether they cause cancer or not.

Anyone bitching about this to me get a so-****ing-what. Just give up your cellphone then.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ