- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / Health / The 2.45GHz "water resonance" myth
Author Message
# Posted: 20 Nov 2006 12:46

2.45GHz (2450MHz) was only used for microwave ovens because that's one of many ISM bands (Industrial / Scientific / Medical) that can be freely used without licences or worries about interference. Water resonance is elsewhere in the frequency spectrum.. it's purely the sheer amount of power (hundreds of Watts) in a small confined metal box that heats up your food. Don't forget to factor in TIME into the equation too, heating up food still isn't exactly *instant*.

Hopefully that's a misconception cleared up for some of you.

# Posted: 22 Nov 2006 22:57

Notice that 2.45 GHz is almost the same as is used for 3G masts.

# Posted: 24 Nov 2006 14:06

But's that just the point, 3G at 2.3GHz is nothing to be especially scared of just because it's so close to microwave ovens' 2.45GHz - if the radio spectrum had been carved up differently in the first place we could have had ovens at (say) 3.2GHz and 3G at 1.7GHz (pick random numbers of your choice!) and both would still have worked perfectly.

It's the fact that 3G (and other digital systems) radiates a strong RF field, pulsing abruptly in power levels at a fixed rate, that still worries me. We've only had widespread use of such systems for less than 2 decades now, and proof of long term effects takes time to get going.. asbestos.. thalidomide.. heck, radioactivity was good for you at first! ;o)
People are too scared to take the side of the argument that could leave them labelled as cranks and UFO spotters.

Personally I don't believe in the SAR / heating effect issue being a practical problem, because the distances involved are way too large considering the spreading effect - and this is why 'mast victims' are disbelieved and ridiculed. That's all the possible effects that most people are aware of.

But I *do* still have concerns about the rapid, repetitive and continuous rises & falls of digitally pulsed fields. Long term effects are hard to prove, especially when so many people have trouble fully understanding the true nature of randomness with regard to clusters of cases.

Short term / instant effects intrigue me, because I've yet to see any real tested evidence of people genuinely feeling ill effects, without it all being in the mind. I don't want anyone here to feel I'm belittling them, but really, if you're not prepared to prove it in controlled conditions you MUST understand how unlikely it is that the world will take you seriously.

That's how I see it, best wishes everyone

Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.

These forums are running on discussion forum software miniBB™ © 2001-2023