There was a bit of discussion on 'single wire transmission lines' along with links to various resources. https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/surface-wave-transmission-lines.550069/ 73 Jon AF7TS
OK, I'll bite: what is the mechanism by which this millimetric non-point source RF induces cancer. Be explicit.
No kidding! For another point of comparison, consider that the basic metabolism of a resting human is on the order of a hundred watts. To do the math, 2500 Calories/day times 4186.8 Joules/Calorie divided by 86,400 sec/day gives 121 Joules/s, which is the same as 121 Watts. So if you eat 2500 Calories per day, and you neither gain nor lose weight, you must be expending something around 120 Watts, averaged over the entire day. Add an extra 300 Watts on top of that, and that will be a significant amount of heat energy that the body has to get rid of. At best, you'll start sweating a lot to get rid of the extra heat. It certainly seems plausible that there could be other metabolic effects of this much heat.
Simple Solution: Throw away your phone, don't use your microwave oven, don't turn on your ARS transceiver or Amp, disconnect your outside cable connections, turn off your WiFi Router, don't turn on your television set, etc., if you believe this trash. "Add an extra 300 Watts on top of that, and that will be a significant amount of heat energy that the body has to get rid of. At best, you'll start sweating a lot to get rid of the extra heat. It certainly seems plausible that there could be other metabolic effects of this much heat..." How are you guys calculating this 50 to 300 Watts exposure number you threw out? Phil
Okay, but what is the power radiated from the source and along the power lines and what is the power level or power density on the ground say 20 feet below and orthogonal to that power source? Phil
Exactly my point (reread my post). It would take an unrealistic power at the transmitter to generate the rat experiment power levels in a human at ground level.
Thanks. I missed the basis of your comparisons and totally agree. Unrealistic power densities, applied at unrealistic separation distances, applied for unrealistic exposure times, yield biased data to then be claimed as some new finding not supported by the actual science. Phil
I've started a thread on the NTP report, to try to avoid derailing the discussion of the ATT technology itself: https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?th...n-of-the-ntp-cell-phone-cancer-report.553875/
I think it will likely hinge on whether there are caps involved and the cost per month to the consumer. If there are caps and it's expensive, don't expect a stampede of customers flocking to this new technology.
This will also only be usable in areas that have overhead power lines. I doubt they will try and put something above ground for those who's utility lines are all underground.
I believe this technology is mainly to provide the broadband trunk or data transmission line over moderate distances; not individual branches into neighborhoods or all the way to the house. The final link(s) will be converted at the last pole to a newer high speed DSL over old existing copper POTS, or new buried FTTH. Which is another reason not to fear exposure to any non-occurring un-harmful allegedly radiated EMF.
Seems power company is looking for new sources of funds now that solar powered homes cut into wholesale to retail energy markup profit. parts of canada use a non profit model for cable TV/internet service , any profit is used to build the network out to the rural areas and fund a free movie channel. much better business model then using corporate profit to feed the 1% on the board of directors and wall street.
