Consumer technology is moving stupider and stupider directions, now working against physics for the sake of convenience at the cost of efficiency.

[Sauron]

This is a really bad idea even ignoring efficiency...

 

And you're wrong, the market isn't moving towards convenience, it's moving away from reusability and flexibility in exchange for more and more manufacturer control on your device. This isn't necessarily an example of this, though I have no doubt if this made any sense xiaomi would want you to use their patented apparatus to do it.

[Roswell]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Are you trolling? Where are you getting any of these ideas from!?

Just put them on your ignore list, trust me. Why the moderation here hasn’t addressed them yet for the trolling is beyond me. Just look at their post history...

[Roswell]

On 1/30/2021 at 2:42 PM, Kisai said:

look at how many countries still use swipe cards, oh wait, that's ONLY the US. The better option, tap-to-pay is more convenient, the more secure option chip+pin is better. Yet Americans largely have not bothered with chip+pin, and only get tap-to-pay if they have an iphone and their retailer isn't clinging to their 1980's swipe POS system. For example, in Canada, Walmart, and BestBuy have the chip terminal enabled on their systems, in the US? exact same POS hardware, chip slot is turned off. That hardware doesn't support tap-to-pay at all. Most stores in Canada support tap-to-pay.

 

Virtually every retailer in the US requires chip or NFC payments... You can’t swipe a card anymore. 

 

There were a few liability exemptions for mom and pop places but that all ran out a while ago. 

 

 

[Kisai]

46 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Virtually every retailer in the US requires chip or NFC payments... You can’t swipe a card anymore. 

 

There were a few liability exemptions for mom and pop places but that all ran out a while ago. 

 

 

Last time I was to seattle (pre-pandemic), every single store did swipe-only.

[Roswell]

26 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Last time I was to seattle (pre-pandemic), every single store did swipe-only.

Yeah it hasn’t been that way for years.

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

Yeah it hasn’t been that way for years.

2019 isn’t that long ago.

[papajo]

4 hours ago, Sakuriru said:

No it's not, please don't spread misinformation.

Why does your microwave furnace have a Faraday cage then smart guy?

 

Why are people so arrogant here and assume the other guy is wrong instead of researching before they post or asking in a way like that "I couldnt find info supporting that why do you say so?" 

 

Instead of "no its not stop spreading misinformation" 

 

If you dont know better dont be arrogant and dont accuse the other guy. 

 

YOU ARE SPREADING MISSINFORMATION THAT WAY 

[Roswell]

3 hours ago, papajo said:

Why does your microwave furnace have a Faraday cage then smart guy?

 

Why are people so arrogant here and assume the other guy is wrong instead of researching before they post or asking in a way like that "I couldnt find info supporting that why do you say so?" 

 

Instead of "no its not stop spreading misinformation" 

 

If you dont know better dont be arrogant and dont accuse the other guy. 

 

YOU ARE SPREADING MISSINFORMATION THAT WAY 

You should probably learn the difference between ionizing and non ionizing radiation. Microwaves can't give you cancer, period.

 

To answer your question as to why everyone is so arrogant with you? Probably because literally every post I see you make here on the forums contains wildly wrong information and people get tired of seeing it.

[Spindel]

2 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Are you sure on that? It is generally recognized as safe, but there is concern regarding non-ionizing spectrum in regards to cancer, most likely as a side-effect of heat damage or weird interaction with certain molecules.

Most probably not, but as always with science the only clear answer you will ever get is that all humans that have lived have at one point died.

From cancer.org, bolded text for emphasis.

Quote

Several dozen studies have looked at possible links between cell phone use and tumors. Most of these studies have focused on brain tumors. Many of these have been case-control studies, in which patients with brain tumors (cases) were compared to people who didn't have brain tumors (controls), in terms of their past cell phone use.

These studies have had mixed results. Some studies have found a possible link between cell phone use and brain tumors, while others have not. For example, several studies published by the same research group in Sweden have reported an increased risk of brain tumors in people using cell phones. However, there was no apparent overall increase in brain tumors in Sweden during the years that correspond to these reports.

 

And further, also from cancer.org

Quote

Studies of people who may have been exposed to RF radiation at their jobs (such as people who work around or with radar equipment, those who service communication antennae, and radio operators) have found no clear increase in cancer risk.

And we can dig further into the reasarch hole and in the end we get to the conclusion that microwave radiation (at the levels you daily get exposed to in an average person) correlation to cancer is very weak but not 100 % conclusive.

[Roswell]

2 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Are you sure on that? It is generally recognized as safe, but there is concern regarding non-ionizing spectrum in regards to cancer, most likely as a side-effect of heat damage or weird interaction with certain molecules.

 

To prevent the high power microwaves from cooking you.

Sure there's a risk of cancer with burns and the resulting scar tissue. But that's a function of the burn itself, not the radiation.

 

We're exposed to all sorts of non ionizing radiation 24/7 that poses no threat whatsoever. FM radio towers, OTA TV, cordless phones, TV remotes, light bulbs, etc etc. If wide band radiation was a danger, the entire earth would already be flooded with mutants by now since radio and the aforementioned items have been in use for a very long time. Not to mention the bombardment from that spectrum we get hit with via space.

[Spindel]

21 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Sure there's a risk of cancer with burns and the resulting scar tissue. But that's a function of the burn itself, not the radiation.

 

We're exposed to all sorts of non ionizing radiation 24/7 that poses no threat whatsoever. FM radio towers, OTA TV, cordless phones, TV remotes, light bulbs, etc etc. If wide band radiation was a danger, the entire earth would already be flooded with mutants by now since radio and the aforementioned items have been in use for a very long time. Not to mention the bombardment from that spectrum we get hit with via space.

Don't forget the sun. 

 

We know that UV-light (that is ionizing) from the sun is a cancer risk, specially for fair skinned people.

But at the longer wavelengths, through visible spectrum down way below micro waves, we are bombarded by EM radiation at way higher power levels, on a sunny day, than our electronic equipment.  

[papajo]

12 hours ago, Sakuriru said:

Because the amount of wattage would heat the surrounding area, including cooking your face if you stuck it next to it, but it won't give you cancer. It would also completely disrupt any radio communications within the area operating on the 2.4 GHz band (meaning your router).

 

And for the record, I'm actually an expert in radio communications with professional experience and certifications; so yes, I do know better.

Why is it that everyone saying something fundamentally wrong the next thing he does (instead of explaining himself) is to say "I am an expert at this" (P.S you have to be a medical expert of some sort to have a say in this your AT&T technician certification doesnt say much for this particular argument not that just claiming to be an expert without any other argument would change anything.. but yea.) 

 

You just googled if microwaves can cause cancer and google is filled with microwave oven causing cancer myth shitblog post that are saying it is a myth under the context of consuming the food prepared in said oven

 

Which is true but I was talking about exposing yourself to the radiation not getting cancer after eating some popcorn which was warmed by it. 

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10926722/

 

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10709642227609/Yakymenko Long-term MW Rad Provokes Cancer 6-11.pdf

 

 Btw so since you realize the things I bold in your quote then why dont you accept that using microwaves to transfer electricity e.g within cities is a bad thing? (Aside from cancer) 

[Loki0111]

This has to be one of the most pointless threads I've ever read. Probably 90% of the stuff you own are convenience related products.

 

Nothing that is connected to a network of any kind is energy efficient. An iPhone uses the same amount of power as your average household refrigerator when you calculate in all the power consumption for its use of the cell network and backend servers that support everything on that device. This is putting aside the entire concept of designed obsolescence to drive corporate sales which is actually a bigger problem long term due to the lack of certain fabrication resources.

 

Human beings are going to continue to need more and more energy as technology advances. You can directly correlate the quality of life of an individual living on this planet with their average energy consumption. Countries which have much lower energy consumption per capita also have a significantly lower quality of life. Going to from no accessible electricity or unreliable access to electricity to easily accessible and dependable electricity is in most cases the difference between a third world country and an advanced nation.

 

We can absolutely produce the power we need, renewables and nuclear power could meet and exceed 100% of all energy requirements on the planet for literally thousands of years or more. Its one of the reasons the fossil fuel industry supported certain environmental groups against nuclear going back decades. They were terrified of coal and oil being phased out.

 

If you don't like it and feel convenience based technology is just a waste you are free to opt out of all this technology at any time. No one forces you to buy it.

[Sauron]

53 minutes ago, Loki0111 said:

Nothing that is connected to a network of any kind is energy efficient. An iPhone uses the same amount of power as your average household refrigerator when you calculate in all the power consumption for its use of the cell network and backend servers that support everything on that device.

First of all that's not true; the phone itself uses orders of magnitude less power than a fridge and factoring the power consumption of servers that provide things like websites and cloud services into it is absurd. Divide the power used by those servers by the billions of devices they serve in an hour and maybe we can include that, though it would still be like adding the power used to fill a milk bottle to the power draw of the fridge it's stored in.

 

Secondly, the power required for wireless communication is much, much lower than the power required to charge a device. If you want to transmit 5 watts at a distance of 2 metres you need the emitter to put out 500 watts. Surely you can see this is not something a mobile phone can do for 20 hours in a row with a 5v 3000mAh battery, most of which is used for the processor and screen anyway.

53 minutes ago, Loki0111 said:

You can directly correlate the quality of life of an individual living on this planet with their average energy consumption.

If I burn 100 liters of gasoline in my backyard every day I'll be using more power than you, that doesn't automatically make my life more comfortable. While it's true that overall power consumption is increasing efficiency is key to making it worthwhile and hopefully sustainable at some point.

53 minutes ago, Loki0111 said:

We can absolutely produce the power we need, renewables and nuclear power could meet and exceed 100% of all energy requirements on the planet for literally thousands of years or more. Its one of the reasons the fossil fuel industry supported certain environmental groups against nuclear going back decades.

Come back to me when we are actually doing that and not just destroying the planet, until then the less energy we waste for absolutely no reason the better.

 

Also if we start increasing our power requirements by an order of magnitude every time some stupid fad like this comes around I wouldn't be so sure we could keep up with it, even with nuclear plants.

 

And I don't know about you but where I live people pay for electricity. Why would you want to pay 100 times (if not more) as much for likely a worse experience than just plugging your phone in?

53 minutes ago, Loki0111 said:

If you don't like it you are free to opt out of all this technology at any time. No one forces you to buy it.

Incorrect. Boycotts never work and very often with consumer electronics once a trend takes hold every manufacturer just goes along with it and you're robbed of any choice in the matter save not buying one at all - which would be great if modern society didn't literally rely on you owning at least a smartphone with an internet connection to do anything, including having a job.

1 hour ago, papajo said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10926722/

 

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10709642227609/Yakymenko Long-term MW Rad Provokes Cancer 6-11.pdf

The general scientific consensus is that there is no evidence RF radiation in consumer electronics poses a significant risk of cancer. There have been oddball experiments which found positive correlations but most of those were either inconclusive after further data was gathered or had significant issues in their testing process.

 

The IARC is the only organization that has classified RF radiation as possibly carcinogen through the paper you posted (which is probably why it's the one you cherry picked out of the mountains of papers declaring the evidence is insufficient), which itself states is not conclusive and is based in controversial data. Other organizations have since conducted metaanalysis over a decade of research and have found insufficient evidence of RF radiation causing cancer.

 

Unless you can explain how non-ionizing radiation can damage your DNA without just cooking your cells I'm gonna say you're just wrong.

1 hour ago, papajo said:

Btw so since you realize the things I bold in your quote then why dont you accept that using microwaves to transfer electricity e.g within cities is a bad thing? (Aside from cancer) 

It IS a bad thing because it's extremely inefficient and ultimately just not convenient but do you seriously think 500W are enough to cause the effects @Sakurirumentioned?

16 hours ago, papajo said:

Why does your microwave furnace have a Faraday cage then smart guy?

Microwave ovens work because high power the radiation they emit heats up water. It can heat up water to boiling levels and cook food.

 

The human body is made in large part of water.

 

What do you think would happen to you, a being made by 70% water, if you were exposed to an unshielded microwave oven that can boil water? Do you think cancer would be your primary concern then?

[papajo]

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

The general scientific consensus is that there is no evidence RF radiation in consumer electronics poses a significant risk of cancer. There have been oddball experiments which found positive correlations but most of those were either inconclusive after further data was gathered or had significant issues in their testing process.

 

The IARC is the only organization that has classified RF radiation as possibly carcinogen through the paper you posted (which is probably why it's the one you cherry picked out of the mountains of papers declaring the evidence is insufficient), which itself states is not conclusive and is based in controversial data. Other organizations have since conducted metaanalysis over a decade of research and have found insufficient evidence of RF radiation causing cancer.

 

Unless you can explain how non-ionizing radiation can damage your DNA without just cooking your cells I'm gonna say you're just wrong.

1)FCC does not "oddball" research it is the authority that determines anything related to the subject. 

 

2) we are not talking about RF in general but high energy microwaves. 

 

3) The scientific consensus is that there is not a significant sample that proves RF causes cancer after a certain level of exposure and bellow (as you well said consumer electronics)  It is evident that it is dangerous though up to a certain level of exposure and beyond, when you try to transfer solar energy from a satellite and beam it from space to earth trust me no consumer electronic grade device will be involved and the magnitude of the waves will be tremendously higher than whatever you microwave oven does 

 

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It IS a bad thing because it's extremely inefficient and ultimately just not convenient but do you seriously think 500W are enough to cause the effects @Sakurirumentioned?

16 hours ago, papajo said:

I think you didn't read my initial post I wasnt talking about 500watt ovens and also your entire line doesn't make sense in context of what I said (the navy experiment of beaming energy produced by solar panels in space back to earth with microwaves) 

[papajo]

42 minutes ago, Sakuriru said:

The kind of thinking that "radiation" causes cancer derives from an incomplete understanding of basic quantum mechanics, its role in the ionization of atoms, and misreading of the available literature. Visible light, which we are constantly bathed in, doesn't seem to cause people concern and is recognized as safe, but microwave radiation is invisible, is penetrating, and therefore must cause cancer.

 

The problem here is that despite having no proposed mechanism of harm and a large number of studies which have been reproduced and verified indicating that current levels of microwave radiation is perfectly safe, a single study that used hundreds of times the normal levels of normal microwave radiation, did not remove X-Rays from their emitting devices, hasn't be reproduced, and has no proposed mechanism for action is the one that people latch onto in an alarmist frenzy stating matter of factually that your WiFi router will give you cancer. The reason for this incredible intellectual dishonesty is simple: the conclusion for microwave radiation is harmful has already been determined. This, despite the actual research indicating people who work on high powered microwave equipment have not experienced an increased incidence in cancer.

 

Even the Navy study, which is mentioned in your posted article, is highly criticized for its lack of defined parameters.

 

But I'm not here to defend high powered microwave radiation, just low powered (< 10W) radio wave transmission, which is the subject that I'm actually knowledgeable about (and no, I'm not from AT&T).

Dude you are copy pasting arguments from  the net associated with debunking tinfoilheads that say "cellphones cause cancer" or "wifi causes cancer" which is not the case here (not to mention that you involve quantum mechanics into this  ) 

 

further more noone talked about this navy study of people getting cancer 70  years ago (it is merely mentioned as one of the many cases taken into account)  you dont know how to read or you dont read at all and you dont know how to google because it is not "my article" it is a research hosted inside FCC's official webpage surely a professional like you knows that FCC regulates you, last but not least even with your single abstract of an article in a journal (written by 1 man and not cited) talking about this in  particular even -the study of the korean war sailors exposed to radars etc- mentions that   . 

 

Quote

The main conclusion that can be drawn from the data as presented by Groves et al. is that US Navy veterans of the Korean War who were exposed to radar at undetermined average exposure levels of less than 1 mW/cm² for unspecified durations of less than 5 years do not have increased mortality.

So  when you see "less than" it means that "more than" is not included. 

 

I gave you the FCC study about a fundamental thing (you even mention quantum mechanics which is totally irrelevant lol from where to begin with you... ) 

 

But you can of course  find various studies about that  it is like by definition so if you mess with a molecular structure cancer can be a byproduct microwaves mess with the molecular structure the more powerful they are the more they mess with it, it was never a question of if they do but rather on what is the highest level of exposure in which they dont cause any hazard to humans. 

 

I agree that UV's are far more dangerous than 4G,wifi,5G signals (which are in general not dangerous at all) but that's a totally other story than saying being near/operating/being exposed to machinery that is  transferring e.g 10kwatts of energy via microwaves is totally harmless lol 

[WhitetailAni]

Just now, papajo said:

you dont know how to read or you dont read at all and you dont know how to google because it is not "my article"

If you're going to accuse someone else of making ad hominem arguments, don't use them yourself.

Plus, doing this kind of thing makes you seem desperate to be right.

[papajo]

8 minutes ago, ragnarok0273 said:

If you're going to accuse someone else of making ad hominem arguments, don't use them yourself.

Plus, doing this kind of thing makes you seem desperate to be right.

Well because i didnt stop there I explained why I believe that since what he claims being the basis of the study in the FCC's website I linked is merely just mentioned as being one of the studies taken into account and also pointing that his link is just an abstract in a journal and not a study and even in that thing it mentions that the conclusion is that radiation exposure LOWER than X is not dangerous which doesn't include higher than X exposure. So I dont make ad hominem arguments 

[WhitetailAni]

6 minutes ago, papajo said:

Well because i didnt stop there I explained why I believe that since what he claims being the basis of the study in the FCC's website I linked is merely just mentioned as being one of the studies taken into account and also pointing that his link is just an abstract in a journal and not a study and even in that thing it mentions that the conclusion is that radiation exposure LOWER than X is not dangerous which doesn't include higher than X exposure. So I dont make ad hominem arguments 

You literally insulted him.

That's an ad hominem argument.

[papajo]

7 minutes ago, ragnarok0273 said:

You literally insulted him.

That's an ad hominem argument.

Exposing the truth is not an insult. 

 

He claimed something not being the case (lets call it X). In other words this study  https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10709642227609/Yakymenko Long-term MW Rad Provokes Cancer 6-11.pdf is not based on the studies about cancer in korean war technicians it merely mentions it once in the study as been taking into account nothing further. 

 

So he either a) did not read the study or b) dont know how to read a study to make such a conclusion

 

He linked to something that even if X was the case it doesnt refute it and on top of that what he linked wasnt even a study but a journal posting the opinion of one guy about said study .

 

 

[WhitetailAni]

Just now, papajo said:

Exposing the truth is not an insult.

 

1 minute ago, papajo said:

further more noone talked about this navy study of people getting cancer 70  years ago (it is merely mentioned as one of the many cases taken into account)  you dont know how to read or you dont read at all and you dont know how to google because it is not "my article" it is a research hosted inside FCC's official webpage surely a professional like you knows that FCC regulates you, last but not least even with your single abstract of an article in a journal (written by 1 man and not cited) talking about this in  particular even -the study of the korean war sailors exposed to radars etc- mentions that   . 

In what world is saying "you don't know how to read" not an insult?
Someone other that @papajo: if I'm mistaken, please tell me, but I don't think I'm wrong.

[papajo]

1 minute ago, ragnarok0273 said:

 

In what world is saying "you don't know how to read" not an insult?
Someone other that @papajo: if I'm mistaken, please tell me, but I don't think I'm wrong.

 

3 minutes ago, papajo said:

 

He claimed something not being the case (lets call it X). In other words this study  https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10709642227609/Yakymenko Long-term MW Rad Provokes Cancer 6-11.pdf is not based on the studies about cancer in korean war technicians it merely mentions it once in the study as been taking into account nothing further. 

 

So he either a) did not read the study or b) dont know how to read a study to make such a conclusion

 

[WhitetailAni]

Just now, papajo said:

So he either a) did not read the study or b) dont know how to read a study to make such a conclusion

Your phrasing made it an insult.

Instead, you should have said "then you didn't read the study correctly" not "you don't know how to read".

[papajo]

2 minutes ago, ragnarok0273 said:

Your phrasing made it an insult.

Instead, you should have said "then you didn't read the study correctly" not "you don't know how to read".

His phrasing of just shitting on my post by ignoring everything else pointing on a minute detail I mentioned (even if he was right about that which he is not) and saying 

 

"dat wrong stop spreading missinformation"
 

Is more of an insult I merely expressed what is true on my side. 

[WhitetailAni]

Just now, papajo said:

His phrasing of just shitting on my post by ignoring everything else pointing on a minute details I mentioned (even if he was right about that which he is not)

I would like to see proof of this.

From what I've read, you've been making wild and false claims, getting debunked, then slightly changing the subject so you're right, except you're not, and repeat.