Reply to post: Re: Can this inform the 5G debate?

Hell hath no fury like a radar engineer scorned

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: Can this inform the 5G debate?

"ie EM frequency is a poor guide to what effect it will have on something"

EM frequency is an extremely important guide to what effect it will have on things.

Its physiological effect depends on both frequency and absorbed energy yes. But unless you have special equipment - like chlorophyll or rods and cones - the effect will only be thermal unless the wavelength is short enough to be ionising. The thermal effect of a mobile phone stuck next to your ear is comparable to wearing a hat with ear flaps.

Ah - perhaps we can start a "ushankas cause cancer" scare.

I'm not dismissing EM risks out of hand, I had to spend quite a lot of time learning about the behaviour of radiation.

As an example of the utter cluelessness of the "radiation is bad" freaks, consider the ones who objected to mobile phone masts near schools. The mast radiation at ground level is insignificant. But putting the mast near the school means that the energy radiated by the phones actually near your ear will be lower.

I'd like to say it's about as scientific as phrenology, but the phrenology people at least had an idea worth investigating (that different parts of the brain might have different functions and size was important) and actually did some research.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon