On Wednesday, 3 April 2019 17:59:16 AEDT Stephen Rapley wrote: > While the health impacts of RF exposure are real a quick survey of the source > of this story and the host site’s other offerings - David Icke and anti-vaxer > sentiments - leaves you with the sense this site is trying to squeeze the > health concerns about 5G and RF in general into a tinfoil hat that doesn’t do > the issue justice.
Yes indeed. Linkers may remember a discussion some years ago regarding a desk study by the epidemiologist Dr. Bruce Hocking for Telstra which found a doubling of childhood leukemia in the suburbs around Gore Hill in Sydney. This was to be phase-1 of a more detailed study, but I understand Telstra cancelled phase-2. The opening paragraph of the website item - https://takebackyourpower.net/brussels-first-major-city-to-halt-5g-due-to-health-effects/ - states "Ms. Fremault accurately identified that a *5G pilot project is not compatible with Belgian radiation safety standards* (9 V/m, or 95 mW/m2 according to this online converter[1])". But I believe the power density of an EM field of 'e' volts/metre in free space is given by (e^2)/(120*Pi) watts/sq.metre. A field of 9 volts/metre is then 0.215 watts/sq.metre or 215 mW/sq.metre, not 95. An ABC source once told me that the field on the roof of their administration building at Gore Hill was around 5 volts/metre, and I think that also used to be the Russian standard for maximum weekday exposure. So I think the story is wrong somewhere (maybe me?).... David L. -------- [1] https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/unitconversion.asp _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
