Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [Yahoo!] FCC test to measure cell phone radiation flawed...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Yahoo!] FCC test to measure cell phone radiation flawed... - Page 8

post #71 of 103
infertility??? oh noes, we'd better start carrying purse for our cellphones like the women always do...
    
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i5-2410M @ 2.9ghz Nvidia GT 540M 1GB DDR3 4GB DDR3 1333mhz 500GB 5400rpm 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Win 7 Home 64 1366x768 gloss 90w power brick Acer 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i5-2410M @ 2.9ghz Nvidia GT 540M 1GB DDR3 4GB DDR3 1333mhz 500GB 5400rpm 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Win 7 Home 64 1366x768 gloss 90w power brick Acer 
  hide details  
Reply
post #72 of 103
well its not flawed for me, 6'2" @ 220, rest of ya going to get the cancer


j/k....hope not
Game rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600k MSI z68 - 65 Waterforce 1080 Ti 2 x 8GB Team Dark 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
850 EVO D5 Vario, XSPC Raystorm on CPU, SR2 480mm rad a... Windows 10 64bit BenQ xl2730z 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G410 Corsair TX850 Core P5 G502 
Mouse PadAudio
zboard gaming pad Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
Game rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600k MSI z68 - 65 Waterforce 1080 Ti 2 x 8GB Team Dark 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
850 EVO D5 Vario, XSPC Raystorm on CPU, SR2 480mm rad a... Windows 10 64bit BenQ xl2730z 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G410 Corsair TX850 Core P5 G502 
Mouse PadAudio
zboard gaming pad Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
post #73 of 103
What's the problem with using a large mannequin? It will absorb more radiation than a smaller mass would, so the results will err on the side of caution. This is ideal.
post #74 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by willis888 View Post
What's the problem with using a large mannequin? It will absorb more radiation than a smaller mass would, so the results will err on the side of caution. This is ideal.
That's a fallacious theory.
Shop Dog
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E8400 Asus Blitz Formula SE HD3870X2 G Skill 2 x 2GB DDR2 800 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Velociraptor 150GB LG DVD Burner Vista Ultimate 64 AOC 21.5" LED 1080p 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Deck Legend Silverstone 750 Modular OverClock Edition Lian Li V1100 Logitech Trackball 
Mouse Pad
Nope 
  hide details  
Reply
Shop Dog
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E8400 Asus Blitz Formula SE HD3870X2 G Skill 2 x 2GB DDR2 800 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Velociraptor 150GB LG DVD Burner Vista Ultimate 64 AOC 21.5" LED 1080p 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Deck Legend Silverstone 750 Modular OverClock Edition Lian Li V1100 Logitech Trackball 
Mouse Pad
Nope 
  hide details  
Reply
post #75 of 103
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpwnmebro View Post
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Broscience

im borrowing this word from body building

lol damn. nerd diss. I don't think I deserved all that just for saying that I don't think we know it all about potential issues involving the human body.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PII x4 965 Asus m3a79-T Sapphire TOXIC 5850 OCZ Reaper 2x2gb DDR 1066 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Stupid Vista Samsung 2494SW OCZ GameXstream 700w Corsair 600T 
  hide details  
Reply
post #76 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
I think some people are confused because certain types of non-ionizing radiation does create free radicals
I did read on in this thread and you did clarify further that you're aware visible light and lower wavelength radiation aren't dangerous, but I felt obligated to point this out.

ONLY ionizing radiation has been shown to split bonds. Considering the name itself describes the ability to create free radicals (or lack thereof), no, "certain types" of non-ionizing radiation are not capable of creating free radicals.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 SABERTOOTH X58 Gigabyte GTX 970 Corsair  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
WD 320GB WD 1TB Hitachi 1TB CM Hyper 212 Plus 
OSMonitorMonitorPower
Windows 10 Pro 24" Sceptre 20" Asus Corsair TX750 
Case
Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 SABERTOOTH X58 Gigabyte GTX 970 Corsair  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
WD 320GB WD 1TB Hitachi 1TB CM Hyper 212 Plus 
OSMonitorMonitorPower
Windows 10 Pro 24" Sceptre 20" Asus Corsair TX750 
Case
Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
post #77 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroc91 View Post
I did read on in this thread and you did clarify further that you're aware visible light and lower wavelength radiation aren't dangerous, but I felt obligated to point this out.

ONLY ionizing radiation has been shown to split bonds. Considering the name itself describes the ability to create free radicals (or lack thereof), no, "certain types" of non-ionizing radiation are not capable of creating free radicals.
There's a big difference between radiation (light) that can split bonds, and ionizing radiation. A large range of UV light is not considered ionizing (it lacks sufficient energy to kick out an electron from an atom or molecule), yet it is sufficiently energetic to induce the breaking of chemical bonds and hence induce a whole lot of bad things, including cancer. Breaking a chemical bond is not the same as ionizing a molecule. Not all cancer is caused by a free radical or ionized molecule--sometimes (quite frequently), it's a mal-formed molecule that causes the havoc.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #78 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberDruid View Post
That's a fallacious theory.
How do you figure? It's a bigger target. Does something different happen if less than a full 1-2cm wavelength passes through? Wouldn't the larger mannequin have a larger surface area and volume so therefore be hit by more partial waves and complete waves?
Edited by willis888 - 10/19/11 at 10:38pm
post #79 of 103
Blah blah blah radiation blah blah. Oh did I forget to mention all the additives in the food we eat and the air we breathe? I still wonder where cancer comes from. NOT
Zimbu
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 940 BE ASUS M3A78-T ASUS 5850 DirectCu TOP 4 GB DDR2 OCZ 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
500GB X3 Win 7 64-bit Samsung 2253BW TX750W Corsair 
CaseMouse
Cooler Master 330 Saitek GM3200 
  hide details  
Reply
Zimbu
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 940 BE ASUS M3A78-T ASUS 5850 DirectCu TOP 4 GB DDR2 OCZ 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
500GB X3 Win 7 64-bit Samsung 2253BW TX750W Corsair 
CaseMouse
Cooler Master 330 Saitek GM3200 
  hide details  
Reply
post #80 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by [\\/]Paris View Post
Good god you must have like -10% bodyfat or something :O

How the freak are you alive?
I had 2% bodyfat in high school as a weight lifter.

2% is the minimum your body needs for proper organ function.

also radiation cell phones blah blah.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [Yahoo!] FCC test to measure cell phone radiation flawed...