Is Radiation From Our Devices Dangerous? | Talking Point | Full Episode

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ม.ค. 2022
  • All electrical devices emit RadioFrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF EMFs), many times as a by-product of functioning. Some, like our phones and WiFi routers, use it to transmit signals.
    Sales of EMF-shielding products in Singapore have seen a fourfold increase since 2016, illustrating the rising concerns people have about RF EMF. Host Steven Chia finds out just how much we’re exposed to RF EMF, if we should really be concerned and if anti-radiation devices do the job, they claim to do.
    Watch more #TalkingPoint: • Talking Point | Full E...
    About the show: Talking Point investigates a current issue or event, offering different perspectives to local stories and revealing how it all affects you.
    ================================================
    #CNAInsider #CNATalkingPoint #Radiation #AntiRadiation
    For more, SUBSCRIBE to CNA INSIDER!
    cna.asia/insideryoutubesub
    Follow CNA INSIDER on:
    Instagram: / cnainsider
    Facebook: / cnainsider
    Website: cna.asia/cnainsider

ความคิดเห็น • 695

  • @SuccessforLifester
    @SuccessforLifester 2 ปีที่แล้ว +130

    Other points to ponder about is where did the guidelines come about. Were the studies conducted by these devices' companies and then submitted to health boards to be used as reference for the guidelines? History has told us that there would be a conflict of interest if this is the case. The cigarette companies were trying to convince the consumers that cigarettes is safe back then. Similarly, petroleum companies were also promoting leaded fuel and saying that they are safe. All were later proven to be untrue.

    • @bidyo1365
      @bidyo1365 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      😲

    • @Jesuswasnojew
      @Jesuswasnojew ปีที่แล้ว +9

      We were also told that wearing a face mask was safe and effective when it's scientifically been proven false. (Dr Vernon Coleman's channel - BNT). Stop the virtue signalling cuz it looks ridiculous.

    • @SuccessforLifester
      @SuccessforLifester ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@Jesuswasnojew My picture? Not promoting anything. Just conveniently created to protect my identity during a period when mask wearing was compulsory. What is 411? It looks silly and meaningless to me.

    • @ravenisnotmyname711
      @ravenisnotmyname711 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Opiates was promoted as non addicting. Baby powder is cancerous, benedryl can cause alziemers, Hersheys has a dangerous amount of lead in their chocolate... like obviously companies don't care about the people.

    • @EtreTocsin
      @EtreTocsin ปีที่แล้ว +2

      exactly

  • @jphlpalma
    @jphlpalma 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Very helpful! Thanks for the information

  • @raindropsrising7662
    @raindropsrising7662 2 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    Appreciate your time to put this together. It was highly educational.

    • @love_for_truth
      @love_for_truth 6 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Yes, very informative. Dr. Devra Davis is a top researcher in the field. Another great researcher is Dr. Magda Havas. I would be more cautious than the host though. My wife and I sleep much better since we shielded our bedroom. We didn't get much benefit from pendants and such. They're giving people a false sense of security.

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 6 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@love_for_truth, Devra Davis is a quack and a charlatan. She is paid to sew Russian Psy-Op information.

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 6 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@love_for_truth, I can guarantee that the "shielding" in your bedroom is purely psychological in its "function":
      You think it works, so you feel better. In reality, it does nothing.

    • @BarrelTitor91
      @BarrelTitor91 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@love_for_truth The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)Trusted Source has classified non-ionizing EMFs in the radiofrequency range as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. These fields are produced by electronic products like cellphones, smart devices, and tablets.

  • @AtitManandhar
    @AtitManandhar 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Absolutely informative content. Thanks.

  • @shaneintegra
    @shaneintegra ปีที่แล้ว +64

    Some of those anti radiation devices have actually been found to contain actual radiation material in them. They were all over Amazon at one point and got pulled

    • @englishguy1985
      @englishguy1985 ปีที่แล้ว

      They contained thorium which is a radioactive element, the irony is that they are advertised as stopping electromagnetic radiation actually expose people to nuclear radiation.

    • @film2240
      @film2240 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      That's ironic. A so called 'anti-radiation' device actually contains radioactive materials which pose an actual danger to your health. Much more than using a mobile phone.

    • @Ed_Mann
      @Ed_Mann 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I really looked into that industry, all the “scientic studies”=etc is pure entertainment forth gullble. “The effctvnws of our rare earth radiation harmonizing device can’t be measured, but we employed a team of scientists to develop the pendant and they assure that it works.”

    • @tomkj5gy
      @tomkj5gy 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Hahaha In last 10-20 years they- corrupt laying WHO- lifted healh denger points RADIATION LIMIT from 100 befoure to NOW 100 000... So healh standards are now Bullcrap for ZOMBIS , Use your brain !!! Check this info your self on internet.

    • @mariusscheijgrond9061
      @mariusscheijgrond9061 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      mf criminals

  • @dr.avinashksajnani7930
    @dr.avinashksajnani7930 2 ปีที่แล้ว +26

    Always in-depth and informative . Love the series CNA insider!

    • @larissakravcova8626
      @larissakravcova8626 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Bull sh.t propaganda for the Naive.?

    • @Growmap
      @Growmap ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I find it interesting that they only tested blocking materials that did not work. There are many that do work. But they can reflect signals and make exposure worse. Avoidance is better.

    • @mikuspalmis
      @mikuspalmis 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@@GrowmapQ-Disc from Premier Research Labs does work on phones (I know, because I'm sensitive) but it won't do anything for all the other sources. So avoidance still is key.

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@mikuspalmis, nope. None of the "blockers" work to do anything meaningful. Some of the "blockers" actually use radioactive substances which will cause real harm.

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@Growmap, most of the "blocking materials" don't work. If you paid attention, you would have seen that it is all safe, so stop worrying.

  • @yourkdraamachingu
    @yourkdraamachingu 2 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    SO smart and charming this Venkat guy, wish to meet in person!!!

  • @elasticxplastic
    @elasticxplastic ปีที่แล้ว

    Super informative. Thank you.

  • @cindyfranklin1680
    @cindyfranklin1680 2 ปีที่แล้ว +67

    An important fact that was either omitted or not understood.... the video stated that because the exposure levels fall within international "safety" guidelines it is safe. These guidelines were established by the military and telecom industry over 26 years ago and only protect from levels high enough to cause heating of tissue as this was originally believed to be the only possible harm from microwave radiation exposure. However, there have since been thousands of published studies showing biological harm (DNA damage, oxidative stress, insomnia, depression, in addition to tumor formation) at levels hundreds and thousands of times below the level of exposure that is high enough to heat tissue. The decision by the U.S. federal safety regulatory agency the FCC to maintain their obsolete, thermal only guideline was found to be "arbitrary and capricious" for ignoring the growing body of evidence showing harm at much lower levels of exposure. (See ruling in the US DC Circuit EHT v. FCC).
    Therefore, it is not correct that exposure levels at or below the international "safety" levels are protective of public health. The FCC is now legally required to re-assess these guidelines and show the U.S. federal court system that the current "thermal only" assumption about microwave radiation is still valid in light of decades of published research conclusions to the contrary.

    • @kiyoponnn
      @kiyoponnn 2 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      You are absolutely wrong. Electronics operate using EM waves in the radio range which is definitely non-ionising ergo not carcinogenic. The power levels used cannot even heat tissue unless you are extremely close to a cell tower. Not convinced huh? Ok then, think about this: You are exposed to infrared radiation which has a shorter wavelength than microwave radiation every time you are near a hot object, and if you use a stove or heater you are exposed to high power levels day in and day out. Now are you going to tell me that these too can cause cancer? The mechanism in which ionising radiation(begins at UV light) damages DNA is by having enough energy(measured in electronvolt) to remove electrons from DNA molecules and causing unwanted changes in its sequence. Non-ionising radiation does not have enough energy to be carcinogenic. As for the papers they are probably extremely flawed in their methodologies and I wouldn't expect you to be able to discern between truth and fiction. So what explains higher incidence rates? Environmental pollutants due to industries and modern products, e.g. microplastics, edcs, pesticides, heavy metals etc, excessive consumption of junk food, lack of consistent physical activity. Instead of letting your imagination run wild, try to study and think critically so you do not get duped by false informarion.

    • @cindyfranklin1680
      @cindyfranklin1680 2 ปีที่แล้ว +20

      @@kiyoponnn The most reliable research was the $30 million U.S. National Toxicology Program 10 year study to determine whether cell phone radiation causes cancer. The peer reviewed final conclusion was that the study results showed "clear evidence" or cancer and DNA damage. All at levels below that causing heating. The study was replicated by the Ramazzini Institute at levels much lower than that of the US NTP study. Studies dating back to the 1970s have been compiled by the US Navy showing biological harm from radar at levels far below heating. It's typical of industries (tobacco, cell phone, pesticides, etc) to simply say that a study showing harm must have had design flaws. The science is growing documenting that the belief (opinion) that non-ionizing radiation is not strong enough to cause harm other than heating of tissue is no longer accurate.

    • @kiyoponnn
      @kiyoponnn 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@cindyfranklin1680 I would appreciate links to the studies that you are referring to

    • @pingdragonify
      @pingdragonify 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Sources please?

    • @cindyfranklin1680
      @cindyfranklin1680 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@pingdragonify just sent links in comment to Kiyopon

  • @jaivikdhebar
    @jaivikdhebar 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Very informative! Thank you ❤

  • @theonghantan862
    @theonghantan862 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Thanks 👍 always use tips

  • @ashwinkumar576
    @ashwinkumar576 ปีที่แล้ว

    Very informative with scientific analysis.

  • @mariburns8758
    @mariburns8758 17 วันที่ผ่านมา

    thank you very much for this video and your painstaking research

  • @etutorshop
    @etutorshop 2 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    I have heard about SAR around 4 or 5 years ago where a state in USA is made to display SAR information in mobile store so people are aware of what they are purchasing.

    • @etutorshop
      @etutorshop 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      I watched the full show and it has some really good info.

    • @mightyelf2660
      @mightyelf2660 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@etutorshopcan you tell me the name of the show?

  • @sizzflair6634
    @sizzflair6634 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    1st time viewer of your channel, enjoy watching and learning, tqvm. love your antics car

  • @naturespirit104
    @naturespirit104 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    This video is amazing just the way you told it thank you and can you please explain wireless watchs please hope you read this.

  • @bsythdd4754
    @bsythdd4754 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Hey Prof Venkat and prof YY! Nice show!

  • @HarpaxA
    @HarpaxA 2 ปีที่แล้ว +56

    So nice that Apple and Samsung start removing wired headphone jacks...

    • @traciewalker8506
      @traciewalker8506 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      I'm wondering...what about Bluetooth?

    • @Jorge01234
      @Jorge01234 10 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      ​@traciewalker8506 They both have bluetooth connection capability.

    • @FiveDrexler
      @FiveDrexler 10 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      @@Jorge01234I think she meant is Bluetooth safe

    • @Jorge01234
      @Jorge01234 10 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

      @@FiveDrexler Something that a lot of people might not consider is of there are cellular or radio antennae near where you live. Higher cancer rates have been recorded in such areas so this is something that already has been studied.

    • @WhoHAAAAA
      @WhoHAAAAA 10 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      You can plug in an adapter into the charge port. Or get buds with a plug that fits the charge port

  • @callmeyang
    @callmeyang 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Great public service!!! Thanks for this. Great job!

  • @jusDoIt-Med
    @jusDoIt-Med 8 หลายเดือนก่อน +24

    As a doctor my self & high mobile user I observed
    1. Using phones causing hand bone pain sometimes
    2. I observed when I'd headache closer the phone giving more irritation to body even without using it.
    3. People who are techies/ high mobile users have lower forearm muscle circumference & increased forearm span (attophy/ hypotrophy)
    4. sometime holding phone giving Tingling sensation (irritation to nerves)
    5. Sensing heating on thighs while in pocket (especially with Android phones)
    Yet not enough researches are published regarding these safety usage in different people with different settings (besides Call usage & distance ) there should be safety check while heavy usage (like gaming, multitasking, while on high temperature)

    • @heythave
      @heythave 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Never put your phone on your body.

    • @raythornburg2791RemindMeLater
      @raythornburg2791RemindMeLater 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      The tingling sensation is the microwaves from the phone cooking your skin. The only reason it doesn't cook it faster is because it is pulsed. Much like toughing your hand to a hot stove pipe. You'd be amazed at how many time you can touch you hand to the pipe, pull it away and do it again without burning yourself.

    • @donnavorbach215
      @donnavorbach215 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Doctor, I have been suffering from head pressure, dizziness, weak muscles, wobbly legs and heavy feeling in legs, insomnia, agitation, change of taste with some food. I think it may be a radio wave military grade weapon being targeted on me. Research "Targeted Justice". Trying to figure out how to protect myself.

    • @dankrigby5621
      @dankrigby5621 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@raythornburg2791RemindMeLater this is false. Microwaves are always pulsed. They have a specific frequency (wavelengths are in micrometers). The reason your phone doesnt cook you like your microwave is that the microwave radiation has way higher amplitude, as well as a set frequency, being the resonance frequency of water, to heat water more efficiently. Also they havea faradaic cage to keep all EMF-waves inside of it, and reflect it perfectly so you get standing waves inside the faradaic cage. Even if your phone constantly emitted an EMF at the same frequency as a microwave 24/7, it couldnt heat you comparable to the microwave, because the amplitude is way too low, especially if you arent even focussing the EMF with a faradaic cage.

    • @tomkj5gy
      @tomkj5gy 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Hahaha In last 10-20 years they- corrupt laying WHO- lifted healh denger points RADIATION LIMIT from 100 befoure to NOW 100 000... So healh standards are now Bullcrap for ZOMBIS , Use your brain !!! Check this info your self on internet.

  • @patchoe8014
    @patchoe8014 2 ปีที่แล้ว +33

    The guidelines come from the manufacturers of these RF emitting devices. They have a strong voice in formulating the guidelines.

    • @insertgoodname4809
      @insertgoodname4809 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      Exactly, the "safe threshold" is exponentially higher than it should be.

    • @dankrigby5621
      @dankrigby5621 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Wrong, they come from government agencies. In the EU, CENELEC is responsible for the threshld values of EMF emitting devices such as phones.

    • @insertgoodname4809
      @insertgoodname4809 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@dankrigby5621 In the U.S. it is controlled by the phone companies. Pure corruption.

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Actually, the guidelines did not come from the manufacturers. Thank you for being dishonest, "Patchoe8014".

    • @insertgoodname4809
      @insertgoodname4809 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@topherkrock Effective they do. There is tons of corruption in the regulatory bodies. They are controlled by the companies.

  • @hahaharithz
    @hahaharithz 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    How about smart streetlamps that Singapore has been trying to introduce? I think the Dutch or Danes have introduced them to a great degree in their capital. Do they have a collective effect?

  • @patchoe8014
    @patchoe8014 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Overall, this is a good review, Steve.

  • @rexgnoib8284
    @rexgnoib8284 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Omg i requested this tyyyyy

  • @callmeyang
    @callmeyang 2 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    You should do another instalment of this with better products and meters. You also need to block radiation by default and see the difference in your sleep, cognition, well-being, awareness, etc...

    • @tk-uk1pv
      @tk-uk1pv ปีที่แล้ว

      What do you think?

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      He actually used one of the best meters possible.

  • @jvg9401
    @jvg9401 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    At last ! Something that makes clear about my radiation dilemma

    • @imperialdoggo5826
      @imperialdoggo5826 ปีที่แล้ว

      It’s safe. Visible light is more dangerous. Light actively heats you up the moment you step into it, yet we live around it everyday, because it’s non ionizing.

    • @lilo5629
      @lilo5629 ปีที่แล้ว

      I live in the USA am I safe?

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@lilo5629 , completely. Only fools worry about this stuff.

    • @BarrelTitor91
      @BarrelTitor91 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@lilo5629 No you are not. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)Trusted Source has classified non-ionizing EMFs in the radiofrequency range as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. These fields are produced by electronic products like cellphones, smart devices, and tablets.

  • @innercore4796
    @innercore4796 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    2:50 frequency spectrum ionization
    3:50 Specific Absorption Rate
    5:00 research 📱 radiation
    7:40 emf
    9:10 bands
    10:45 distance is your friend
    13:30 interview Uni of Melbourg
    15:50 insights
    19:00 test

  • @mudassirnadeem636
    @mudassirnadeem636 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    The best series ever
    Hope 🇮🇳 media learns

  • @j.a.velarde5901
    @j.a.velarde5901 9 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    This video put me at ease!!! Thank you!!!

  • @ShermX69X
    @ShermX69X ปีที่แล้ว +4

    If only I could get my wife to watch and listen to an informative video like this for more than a minute.😕

    • @jaygopinath1694
      @jaygopinath1694 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Same why are they so opinionated and arrogant about it cant even talk about it without getting super assy no logical reasoning its like trying to reason with religious fanatic your going to hell for not believeing there beliefs and thats A FACT🤔

    • @holylabs
      @holylabs 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@jaygopinath1694gonna have to buy a emf reader and do it live in front of them

  • @ravitanand1460
    @ravitanand1460 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    If the phone put in the chamber is isolated from the EMFs from the outside, how can you successfully call that phone ?

    • @walther89
      @walther89 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      you cant, loses it signal to receive or give. Its like puting phone on airplane mode. try it

  • @90sTVRaps
    @90sTVRaps 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Her face when he calls that prism a cube 🤣

  • @bryanwong2575
    @bryanwong2575 2 ปีที่แล้ว +44

    Rather than i should be concern on radiation, i think i should concern on frauds who sell fake items more

    • @lynndavis2884
      @lynndavis2884 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      That has to be the stupidest statement I ever heard

    • @arp-oy6vc
      @arp-oy6vc ปีที่แล้ว

      @@lynndavis2884 Considering EMFs are not dangerous, not really.

    • @sjisekek9637
      @sjisekek9637 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      dumb npc@@arp-oy6vc

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@lynndavis2884, _your statement_ is the example of itself.

  • @lucapizzimbone1517
    @lucapizzimbone1517 10 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    IEEE Std C95.1-2019, which is one of the most relevant standard for for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz only guarantee protection against electrostimulation or overheating. However, from the Note 8 of the standard itself, it is quite clear that other potential harmful effects are not considered, simply because hard to demonstrate. In fact, WHO also indicated that, “IARC has classified radio frequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used exactly when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.”
    I fully agree, that many 'gadget' for sale are not actually effective, but I believe very reasonable to reduce exposure to radio frequencies, as simply we do not know enough about its impact on our health.

    • @BarrelTitor91
      @BarrelTitor91 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Most of them are bad and most people believe they are safe. What a braindead planet this is.

  • @mmmfun77
    @mmmfun77 9 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Putting it in Airplane mode reduces radiation. ❤

  • @fentayesisay8920
    @fentayesisay8920 ปีที่แล้ว

    be blessed

  • @lingth
    @lingth 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    just a NORMAL cap, and you line the inside with aluminium foil it works like the "Baby Bennie" for

    • @HarpaxA
      @HarpaxA 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Or you could lined the outside and look like conspiracy theorist 🤣🤣 j.k

  • @chongsein
    @chongsein ปีที่แล้ว +1

    "When I ask Dr Davis she didn't have specifics.." LOL

    • @Denver_____
      @Denver_____ 9 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      One can only wonder how flawed her logic is

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@Denver_____, there's no wondering, she literally contradicts herself in one, run-on sentence!

  • @kstey5872
    @kstey5872 2 ปีที่แล้ว +17

    Hmm. Sunlight is of a way higher frequency than that of our devices.

    • @thesoundofart7124
      @thesoundofart7124 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Sunlight is a natural frequency where if we spend sufficient time in it it will help us thrive. This is a constant stream of millimeter waves pounding us 24/7......

    • @condorX2
      @condorX2 2 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      Good point.
      Skin cancer comes to mind

    • @SpecJack15
      @SpecJack15 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Indeed, prolonged exposure from sunlight especially in the Equatorial region like SG increase skin cancer risk.

    • @imperialdoggo5826
      @imperialdoggo5826 ปีที่แล้ว

      What heats you up quicker. The sun or microwaves. What gives more people skin cancer? Animals adapted to microwave radiation before the dinosaurs walked the earth.

  • @davidgammon4934
    @davidgammon4934 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I wanna know the theories on those anti EMF tools. Bc rocks are grounding, so I think if the signal was smaller than the rock it would block it. But idk about the other tools, like the bracelet.

  • @kawataufik5098
    @kawataufik5098 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    That head cap is safer for children head when we can find in thailand can buy witch say made in Singapore? Anyone help how much cost?

  • @juliusbodino8978
    @juliusbodino8978 2 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    I'm curious about How the communication tower emits a radiation on safety?

    • @CAMSLAYER13
      @CAMSLAYER13 ปีที่แล้ว

      Radiation makes it sound scary but it's like the same thing as radio. Technically light is radiation.

  • @nicholasbolas
    @nicholasbolas 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    19:40 That's why Magneto wears a helmet bruh...

    • @sdqsdq6274
      @sdqsdq6274 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      haha his is more complex then that

  • @aabehzadi
    @aabehzadi 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    great video with specific testing and not just hype.
    I test I would have loved to see would be multiple devices together. If you have your phone and wearing a watch (wearable) and working on a tablet(laptop) close to an Access Point that broadcasts in both 2.4 and 5ghz frequencies; Would the total Wattage be above the 10W per Meter squared? Nowadays with people working from home would fall under this scenario. Also what about when the device is plugged into power?
    Thank you for what you are creating and putting out. I am a new subscriber.

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Plugging something in does not increase the RF output.

    • @lauracknoll
      @lauracknoll 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I use Bluetooth headphones 🎧 now I'm not sure

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@lauracknoll, they're super safe. They're only transmitting 30ft. That's super low power.

  • @KostisVerveridis
    @KostisVerveridis 8 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    Very well done! this is actually a well-balanced investigation of RF EMF radiation exposure in humans. I would like to see a second part looking at the biological effects of exposure in the current safety guidelines range i.e. 10w/m2 to see if these should be updated.

    • @Meekseek
      @Meekseek 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      "10w/m2 to see if these should be updated"
      Are you kidding me if they should be updated.

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Nothing needs to be updated.

  • @Porco_Utah
    @Porco_Utah ปีที่แล้ว

    cell phone radiate power of around 500 mW = 1/2 watt. Amateur Radio are allow to put out 1500 watts 3000 times more than typical cell phone. they operate mostly in residential neighbourhood. if you see large antenna in your neighbourhood, most likely they are amateur radio ( Ham ) operator. you should ask what power level they are putting out, and if they are keeping legal safety limits.

  • @hoppinghobbit9797
    @hoppinghobbit9797 ปีที่แล้ว

    3:15 Should be electromagnetic frequency not radio frequency which is the non-ionizing portion.

  • @manningchiro
    @manningchiro วันที่ผ่านมา

    Would like to see a test on shungite if possible.. :)

  • @sunnyinsanya2
    @sunnyinsanya2 5 วันที่ผ่านมา

    You should be more worried about having a car accident in that old car than RF exposure, no air bags or crumple zones....

  • @lincolnkarim1
    @lincolnkarim1 10 หลายเดือนก่อน +109

    If you ever got cancer or any other health problems from your electronic devices, just keep a copy of this video and tell your doctor that this bumbling engineer told you it was safe to use and there is nothing to worry about. Just remember that each country has different safety levels depending on the bribery received by the regulatory agencies from Telecom companies.

    • @walther89
      @walther89 9 หลายเดือนก่อน +12

      id be dead already. oh wait im here still everything is fine. Can sleep. Just look at your health and lifestyle. Turn all your light bulbs off and cut or lines. Then youll be happy i guess. and Dont go outside.

    • @ExtremCoxer
      @ExtremCoxer 9 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      How would you know that the reason would be the electronic devices and not some other parts of the lifestyle?

    • @calebacrutto9601
      @calebacrutto9601 9 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      What is your gripe exactly? Because he didn't put out a video that confirms your narrative he's a bumbling engineer? The video mentioned an international level. He summed up the video with saying that he would still limit his exposure by increasing his proximity to EMF emitting devices. Maybe that doctor you speak of would say to you "did you watch the whole video?". That said, do you still use wireless?

    • @delmontee
      @delmontee 8 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Yeah, to hell with proven scientific tests from experienced people in their fields, eh?

    • @90sTVRaps
      @90sTVRaps 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      What qualifications and evidence do you have to label this man as 'bumbling'?

  • @resolutionarybeing1885
    @resolutionarybeing1885 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    I am sorry to say that we have been given misinformation and told out-right lies so often by so called experts and authorities; that it is still difficult to be trusting of any information we are given. I do thank you and appreciate what you are trying to do on this site to protect the public; and we are interested in seeking out your information, never the less. I want to be hopeful for the sake of all of us.

    • @dongkeekee
      @dongkeekee ปีที่แล้ว

      Iphones frequency rage is below 1 GHz .. Measurements from a EMC chamber, with High-Performance Pyramidal Foam EMC Absorber, will not be able to give accurate radiation results... Hmmm..Guess it's SOP.. close 🙈 and let the 🐂💩 propagate ?.. .🤳

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      You need to learn about things like the "scientific method" and its application. This will help you understand why we can trust the body of knowledge that humanity has built up through the years.

    • @resolutionarybeing1885
      @resolutionarybeing1885 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yes, I agree that many very dedicated people are using the scientific method to great advantage, helping humanity through the years. Even then often in time, we find that our knowledge and interpretations are incomplete or not accurate as we gain further knowledge and people do suffer as a result, IMO.
      However there many professional, corporate beings and "so called" experts, who do not have the well-being of most of humanity in mind when they act, or perhaps they just true innocent believers in the information they were given, or they accept that that is how things are in these times, and working in their field, requires some some finessing from 'on high'. They need to earn a living and or make a name for themselves to do well in their field in order to compete, so do as they must.
      These "on high" entities having this form of top dog, eugenic "SURVIVAL of the FITTEST" ideation, --who need and hire these scientific experts to prove their products or the value of whatever they have to offer, get to pick and choose the most promising appearing results, then further tweek the findings to suit their ends and purposes; as they gain power, control, material resources, realestate, or pure and simple monetary gain.
      We must realize that there are many expendable individuals and groups being sacrificed to low standards, misinformation or downright lies which dombarding the public with their hand-selected expert advice and information. As with many groups 'supposedly' working for the public good, their business is to know, understand and manipulate the people to their ends and purposes. People who may or may not have a clue what the "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" is or how it can be manipulated to misrepresent or mis-inform humanity.@@topherkrock PLease tell me it ain't so. I want to believe again, shuck off my life experience, embrace truth and know whom to trust and when and which such --often contradictory truth is required in real life for actual well-being and goodness. That's is my problem, I AIN'T smart enough to be able to tell what the truth is or how accurately the "Scientific Method" has been applied to anything. I believe the public has often been misled and has become collateral damage in many fields areas of life. That concerns me! I hold to my original comment.

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@resolutionarybeing1885, your problem is that you like to lie. Why don't you STFU and learn to listen? Maybe clean the sh!t out of your eyes and ears from time to time. Stop trying to conflate things.
      *The SCIENTIFIC METHOD **_cannot_** be used to deceive anyone.* Anyone who understands what it is will know that it is a set of rules that governs how to do scientific research properly. It creates the framework.
      Can you explain how that could be used for deceptive purposes?

  • @bkakakeway
    @bkakakeway ปีที่แล้ว

    im curious to know what cellphones were tested??

    • @Growmap
      @Growmap ปีที่แล้ว

      You can look up the official SAR ratings for any phone. That said, the safest phones are some flip phones that don't call home very often. All the smart phones I've measured transmit all the time regularly when you're not using them. The flip phone I have only transmits on powering up or down, receiving or sending a text, or making or receiving a call. It does randomly transmit infrequently rather than frequently like a smart phone. But apparently some newer flip phones transmit more often than others. Personally, mine stays charged up but powered off to only use it in emergencies or to receive a text code.

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Watch the video.

  • @connormusic9274
    @connormusic9274 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Interesting video and the watts/sq. meter value testing was revealing. However, as a long time electrical engineer, we were taught in power quality testing schools that another dangerous value to consider is milligauss strength. This results from usually only 60 Hz electrical fields produced in the proximity of electrical conductors carrying current in only one direction; isolated from a return or neutral current conductor. If a reading of more than 3 or 4 MG was measured; it was cause for health concerns because now we're measuring MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH, or FLUX as we say in power engineering circles.
    This effectively would be like sticking your head between 2 coils of a large transformer. Now you have these electric fields impacting the body's own fields and the cells within. This is a huge oxidative and cellular disruptive force. Now cells and nerves cannot transmit biochemical signals in the body for it's normal processes. Now you have deterioration of the body's electrical and chemical pathways by disrupting the electrolytic path found in certain key minerals of the body; like potassium, sodium, phosphorus and magnesium. This will eventually cause serious illnesses to develop if immersed in these frequencies for hours a day.
    I will confess, that I am NOT A COMMUNICATIONS OR ELECTRONIC ENGINEER; who likely has a deeper grasp of the power within gigahertz high frequencies. I must add though, that not everything that emits EMR is a radio frequency, or RF. Keep that in mind. We grew up in the 50's 60's and 70's watching TV with over the air antennas that transmitted VHF and UHF frequencies at a level FAR BELOW TODAY'S NETWORKS AND router or cell phone frequencies. I know that ultimately, it's the power level, expressed in watts within a specified space; that makes the difference in toxicity to the human body. Also, the higher the frequency of the wave, the greater chance for inducing electrical current in a nearby object. Fundamental EE science teaches us that when designing transformers.
    But people have a right to be concerned these days, as even the 3G and 4G cellular and network frequencies are being shown to have harmful effects on humans; when immersed in these all day long, or by holding a phone close to your head and storing it in your pockets near your organs. This new 5G rollout needs to be stopped! These are military grade millimeter waves that burn our outer skin and tissues very quickly.
    I will keep researching more on the effects of modern wireless internet signals and cell phone signals; as studies outside the politically controlled United States FCC in other countries are revealing disturbing facts proven to harm human health. Thank-you for this interesting and informative video!

    • @walther89
      @walther89 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      But in reality things are much more complicated than that. Wireless HD video is serious engineering challenge (partly) because the high frequency signals necessary to provide the appropriate bandwidth tend to bounce off the walls. At really high frequencies (i.e. ~60 GHz) necessary for such applications other absorption/reflection phenomena can compromise transmission: e.g. absorption by oxygen (in the air). This depends very much on the medium through which your wave needs to go through.
      higher frequencies aren't able to go better through walls than low frequencies. All are tested as SAR, all are measured in inverse square law

    • @connormusic9274
      @connormusic9274 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@walther89 Interesting. Thanks for that insight.

  • @gogogoup
    @gogogoup 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    great for me, i can go for days without touching my phone. one time my friend thought i was dead just because i didnt respond to his message for a day and a half.

  • @graceleeks
    @graceleeks 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Wish you measured airpods and earbuds too! Since those are pretty much used very very close to our brains 🧠

  • @RBLXGaming23
    @RBLXGaming23 9 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    those earpods inside your ear also emit RF EMF.

  • @waltright648
    @waltright648 2 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    These standards are written by the cell phone companies. Just like the pharmaceutical companies financing the CDC, there is a conflict of interest.

    • @suzieque4222
      @suzieque4222 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      YEP EXACTLLLY the fact that many ignore this fact iis astounding reallly !!

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@suzieque4222, except that it is _not_ fact. Government agencies, not the cell phone companies, set the guidelines. This was based on hard data.

    • @suzieque4222
      @suzieque4222 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@topherkrock not what I have researched and found to be true !!

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@suzieque4222, but you haven't done any research or found the truth.

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@suzieque4222, it is very clear to me that you have neither done any research nor found any truth.

  • @trukngal
    @trukngal ปีที่แล้ว +1

    He said people, to be extra safe, listen to what they are saying, in-between the words

  • @JenniferScott5150
    @JenniferScott5150 ปีที่แล้ว

    Intrresting its out of singapore. A number one profucer of the phones etc

  • @harveyh3696
    @harveyh3696 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    A+

  • @bubbythebrow153
    @bubbythebrow153 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    The same people scared about cell phones will go and drink energy drinks and vape all day lmao

  • @richard-zs7tn
    @richard-zs7tn หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Have you had symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, poor memory, difficulty sleeping, and lack of clarity in your thoughts? It may seem like these could be the results of daily stress and frenzy, but there could be another culprit. All of these are symptoms of electro-sensitivity, which is something that more and more people find themselves affected by. Studies conducted in 1997 found "less than a few cases (of electro-sensitivity) per million", however now as much as 2.5% of the population is affected by electro-sensitivity. Even with the most moderate calculations, electrosensitivity is 10,000 times more common today than it was 20 years ago. Why could this be?
    Electro-sensitivity and its symptoms appear to be triggered by certain microwave frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Due to their high frequency, microwaves allow for higher transmission rates and smaller antenna sizes, which is perfect for high-tech devices that are constantly getting smaller and faster. These are devices such as cell phones, tablets, laptops, and any device that can connect to Wi-Fi, which can now include TVs and refrigerators

  • @wanderlust360
    @wanderlust360 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    So many snake oil 😅 thanks for the testing on those products 👍👍

  • @CATKAT5
    @CATKAT5 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    My husband died this year from glioblastoma brain tumor, (the terminator). He was never much of an AirPod, IPhone, IPad, or other device User. He was more old school and rarely used these devices, however, I do wonder why so many RARE primary brain tumors are being diagnosed in Heber/Overgaard/and other areas in AZ, as the per patient ratio to capita of population is way way off; (8 tumors in 100K population is the STAT), problem is, H/O as above, only has a population of 25K, so what gives? Could it be the 94 million gallons of Uranium, radioactive metal tailings, and sulfates, that breached a dam in Church Rock NM., spilling over into the lil Colorado river and Rio Puerco River on into Holbrook, AZ in 1979; of which we lived right below (1 hr drive there from Linden AZ), of which I am aware - this population of 25K, has had at least 8 peeps with tumors in the past few years. So where did that 94 million bottles of WHAT GO? And what damage has it done to the water table, soil, air, trees, plants, grass, etc… Is it perhaps in the wood that we burn in a wood stove for winter warmth? My husband use to sit right close to that thing, whereas I was usually blown outta the room by the amount of heat it gives off. They told us he had 12-15 months, some shorter, some longer, when in actuality, most live 8.6 months after dx., so we did lose him 9/27/23, after dx. 2/2/23, but he had been suffering a couple of months with speech aphasia prior to dx. ME, I use all of those apple devices all the time, probably have my AirPods in all day long most days, and most nights to get to sleep.

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      The truly radioactive things and other poisons in the environment are definitely the issue, not the harmless, longer EMF wavelengths. So sorry for your loss.

  • @user-sx1pd4tp6p
    @user-sx1pd4tp6p 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    What about wirless (bluetooth) airpods , are they safe?

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Very safe. They are at extremely low power.

  • @DSS259
    @DSS259 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    11:10 inside the house, you are protected against the "virus" without a mask, but outside you have to wear a mask 😂

  • @marlonc7668
    @marlonc7668 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    What about crowds? I bet it adds up

  • @PlayerodeP11
    @PlayerodeP11 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Saludos. Esa información es muy importante. Sugiero poner títulos en español para beneficio de todas las personas hispanas. Gracias.

    • @anseso49
      @anseso49 ปีที่แล้ว

      Sitúe el puntero sobre la imagen del vídeo, active los subtítulos en recuadro junto a rueda de configuración parte inferior derecha de la pantalla del vídeo, luego click en la rueda de configuración, (sale pantallita en negro), luego click en subtítulos (inglés generado automáticamente), luego click en Traduce automáticamente y después elija idioma español de entre la lista de diferentes idiomas.
      Esta operatoria sirve para todos los vídeos que tengan subtítulos (sale rayita roja al pulsar en recuadrito de subtítulos junto a la ruedecita de configuración).

  • @urandurparthu1526
    @urandurparthu1526 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    why not run the Geiger counter over those anti-stickers then you find yourself in the other end of the electromagnetic spectrum

  • @TnAfeatKouha
    @TnAfeatKouha 2 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    this thing will be easier if Apple doesn't start the trend to remove 3.5mm headphone jack a few years ago

    • @simiknang6775
      @simiknang6775 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Apple needs to squeeze more $$ out of its customers thru the AirPods

    • @mariellemeil2366
      @mariellemeil2366 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@simiknang6775which microwave your brain!! I used to listen to music with those ear buds quite a lot and had constant tinnitus. Stopped using them for a couple of weeks and no more tinnitus!!

    • @wasabiginger6993
      @wasabiginger6993 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Am still ticked off!

    • @TheKingWhoWins
      @TheKingWhoWins 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Horrible decision

  • @raythornburg2791RemindMeLater
    @raythornburg2791RemindMeLater 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

    Put your router in another room at least 20 feet from you and preferably on the other side of the home in a room nobody uses. Use an outlet timer to turn it off at night when nobody is using it. If possible keep your cellphone at least two feet away from you at all times. The cellphone never stops producing microwave radiation, so don't carry it in your pocket. Turn off wifi if you travel away from the house like driving for instance. The cellphone radiation spikes up every time is "sees" another wifi. Get rid of or unplug all those wifi gadgets....they constantly communicate back and forth producing radiation....Don't surf social media or hold your phone and watch a video on your phone. At the rate these devices are used now days they are very dangerous but when symptoms happen it's almost impossible to pinpoint the exact cause or prove it was cell phone radiation. But they're happening. Have you ever heard the term "good vibrations" well cell phone radiation is "bad vibrations"......and it affects people emotionally first and then medically.

    • @corolex
      @corolex 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Keeping the router away would make your device use more power trying to communicate with it

    • @armin856
      @armin856 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Source? "The cellphone never stops producing microwave radiation,.." this is a false claim. What phones are u using?

    • @raythornburg2791RemindMeLater
      @raythornburg2791RemindMeLater 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I've documented it with my own cellphone and an emf meter which measures microwaves. I even have a video because I know I would get pushback. I don't know how to post videos here yet so don't ask. But one thing I think everyone can agree on....cell phones don't work by magic and the radiation can't be healthy for you. So if it's not healthy, then, well draw your own conclusions. As far as source I suggest let your fingers do the walking.@@armin856

    • @raythornburg2791RemindMeLater
      @raythornburg2791RemindMeLater 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I've been taking measurements. In the house use wifi, it's lower strength so lower radiation exposure. When you travel turn the wifi off. The phone amps up every time you pass a house trying to connect. Keep the phone 2 or three feet from you when using map apps and driving....@@corolex

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Ray, none of your "advice" is helpful. You can sleep in the same room with your Wi-Fi APs, as well as leave them on.
      No one has ever been affected by the transmissions of a cellphone or PC.

  • @niranjanbhat9432
    @niranjanbhat9432 ปีที่แล้ว

    You research is in depth and highly insighful and trustworthy. Funny TH-camrs like Mr beasts not useful random videos gets 100s of millions views, that is 1000 times more than what this video got. I just wonder how do you monetize or make money from this video?

  • @BlehShit4Eva
    @BlehShit4Eva 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    How about "Is reading a book, using a phone or watching TV too close and also while lying down, harmful for our eyes?"

    • @toh9090
      @toh9090 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yes it is still harmful for our eyes

  • @sashwinessan1095
    @sashwinessan1095 ปีที่แล้ว

    Need a summary of this video please

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      It is all safe. Also, Devra Davis contradicts herself in one sentence.

  • @SuccessforLifester
    @SuccessforLifester 2 ปีที่แล้ว +33

    You didn't cover Bluetooth devices like trackers, headphones. Even HPB now want us to sleep with their Bluetooth trackers to monitor our sleeps

    • @ClaraFlater_than_surface_board
      @ClaraFlater_than_surface_board 2 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      U ought to be scared of the sun cuz they emit higher radiation energy than ur small trackers

    • @SuccessforLifester
      @SuccessforLifester 2 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@ClaraFlater_than_surface_board Sun energy is a different topic. Theirs is in ionising spectrum, the UVs

    • @kstey5872
      @kstey5872 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@SuccessforLifester visible light is in the non-ionising spectrum. Only higher frequencies of UV light are in the ionising spectrum. Even IF (hypothetically) visible light is ionising, the point is that higher frequencies are more likely to damage cells and DNAs and thus, visible light, being of higher frequencies than those waves emitting from the devices, should be of more concern. But ironically, people do not seem as concerned about sunlight.

    • @SuccessforLifester
      @SuccessforLifester 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@kstey5872 Yes I am referring to the UVs not the visible light. This is an area of discussion for another topic. The topic here is on low frequency high wavelength radiation, which covers Bluetooth devices. With Bluetootht rackers and earphones so common now, I thought they would cover it.

    • @kstey5872
      @kstey5872 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@SuccessforLifester The topic here is about the impact of radiation on human health. The ionising and non-ionising frequencies are on the same spectrum and not two independent unrelated concepts.
      Moreover, bluetooth operates on 2.4ghz band which means that when they cover wifi on both 2.4ghz and 5ghz, they have essentially talked about bluetooth.

  • @NoNeed2Pay
    @NoNeed2Pay 2 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    What about Bluetooth connectivity?

    • @alexsandrkerensky7457
      @alexsandrkerensky7457 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      +10 rad/sec

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Bluetooth uses much less power. It is quite safe.

  • @bummers
    @bummers 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    As of now, there are 11 plastic band wearers. lol

  • @francisleong7989
    @francisleong7989 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    oh i know that guy. i trust the professor at 13:38.

  • @rabokarabekian409
    @rabokarabekian409 13 วันที่ผ่านมา

    OMFG! One tiny group is absolutely worried! RUNAWAY! RUN AWAY!
    Where are the cited long-term, double-blind studies?
    What frequencies have impact?
    Anyone remember the cancer fearmongering about high voltage power lines decades ago?
    Where are the comparisons to solar radiation?
    Where are the physical data of cellular damage?
    Where are the time-based physical recovery results?
    This vid is indeed a "Talking Point".

  • @Shieldyourbody
    @Shieldyourbody 2 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    Thank you kindly for providing an independent, 3rd party test of the shielding performance of our SYB Baby Beanie. We are proud to be the only product you tested that actually worked. It is a shame that so many fake EMF protection products are on the market.

    • @joelsedigo344
      @joelsedigo344 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Just use the sticker properly

    • @phototristan
      @phototristan ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@joelsedigo344 It's not a sticker.

    • @tlqweasdzxc001
      @tlqweasdzxc001 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Metal on baby's head. No thanks

    • @hanhong2267
      @hanhong2267 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@tlqweasdzxc001 Wait what's wrong with that?

    • @kevinsheldrick917
      @kevinsheldrick917 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      It went from -25 to -31 but they didn't really explain how significant that was but they at least gave a tick...

  • @talalztube
    @talalztube 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    we supposed to be 6 feet social distancing from my phone now

  • @hd9g
    @hd9g 2 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    Flats are prone to higher RF radiation. Your neighbour above/below/beside you could be contributing. More so if they have a Smart-home.

    • @SuccessforLifester
      @SuccessforLifester 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      That is true. Overlapping wireless signals.

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@SuccessforLifester, except that it's not really true. Keep in mind that there is plenty of distance and materials between apartments.

  • @mrtienphysics666
    @mrtienphysics666 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Can you do a documentary on vape vs cigarettes?

  • @annenieminen4155
    @annenieminen4155 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Usually the anti radiation clothes are made from silver fabric. That blocks it.

  • @maxfun6797
    @maxfun6797 ปีที่แล้ว

    I'm so thankful for the captions when the indian guy is talking. 😁

  • @davidgammon4934
    @davidgammon4934 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    There’s also a million common ailments suffered in between safety and cancer.

  • @maikrolf9356
    @maikrolf9356 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Im really curious how wireless earphone radiation is because they are in your ear not like a mobile next to you ear....

  • @trukngal
    @trukngal ปีที่แล้ว

    Radiation detector?? Hmmm, not like the app on the phone?

  • @danyalrasheed1
    @danyalrasheed1 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    The question really is how safe are the safety guidelines?

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Extremely safe.

  • @kawataufik5098
    @kawataufik5098 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    It mean use wire headphones much safer than Bluetooth? Distance is main key

  • @HalimHalim-rn7zx
    @HalimHalim-rn7zx 2 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    For health consciousness ,it is best to avoid radiation as possible as we can

    • @CAMSLAYER13
      @CAMSLAYER13 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Actually impossible. Light is radiation, heat is radiation

    • @imperialdoggo5826
      @imperialdoggo5826 ปีที่แล้ว

      Humans actually irradiate potentially dangerous levels from our own body’s.

    • @resolutionarybeing1885
      @resolutionarybeing1885 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@CAMSLAYER13 PRIMArily ADDitional human generated radiation.

    • @jaygopinath1694
      @jaygopinath1694 ปีที่แล้ว

      Dont go in the sun its big ball of irradiation just waiting to give you cancer😂

    • @G2H_HellBringer
      @G2H_HellBringer 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@CAMSLAYER13 Exactly

  • @llama29745
    @llama29745 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    A lot of anti radiation devices have actual ionizing (cell damaging) radiation material in them, and emit gamma rays, which are FAR worse than your phone’s harmless RF radiation, which is weaker than visible light.

    • @pencodes3580
      @pencodes3580 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      it is weaker than visible light in a sense of frequency. those radiation in our powerlines, according to the electromagnetic spectrum is amongst the lowest in frequency. but still very dangerous

    • @kufenkiproduction7069
      @kufenkiproduction7069 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@@pencodes3580 everyone says it's dangerous whyyy is it

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@pencodes3580, actually, the frequency in power lines is neither the lowest, nor is it harmful. 50/60Hz does nothing to you. The voltage and amperage of the electricity can harm you, but that is completely independent of the frequency.

  • @babyhoney9
    @babyhoney9 ปีที่แล้ว

    It did not say u sit there how many hours .

  • @SmileZero
    @SmileZero 2 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    19:40 The year is 2022, now we sell tin foil hat for baby lmao

  • @rickybobby8563
    @rickybobby8563 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Everyone's head is going to blow up

  • @GRYL180
    @GRYL180 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Where are phone brand radiation amounts?

  • @CristinaTeixeiraTV
    @CristinaTeixeiraTV 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Excelent video! Thanks so Much. I'm from Portugal. I bought a device to mesure EMF at my home. I was surprise with the numbers :). But I have a question that maybe you can help to have clarity.. Lcd Screen of the computer, sending emf the same numbers even it is off? That makes sense to you? I ususaly switch off the screen when I'm not looking at it. I work online, and spend most of the time in the desck working. The screen is around 1,5m distance. So , O feel less the emf. But it was a surpreise when I measure with the camway device to measure Enf that I bought . The screen have the same measure even turn it off. Do you have andy video about this? Thanks so much. I Hope I explain ok.

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      You bought a "beep-beep-ometer". It beeps, whirs, and clicks, while giving you nothing useful. None of these things cause any harm.

  • @cgatito3528
    @cgatito3528 8 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Governmental safety guidelines for EMF were only created based on thermal effects on human tissue. No consideration was given to biological effects such as calcium channel activation, cytokine production, etc.

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Actually, these have been studied and there is no effect on VGCCs, VGSCs, or cytokine production. Sleep safe!

  • @TheKoeko
    @TheKoeko 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    How about bluetooth earpiece?

    • @topherkrock
      @topherkrock 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Super low power. Remember that BT only goes about 30 feet, whereas cell signals go miles.

  • @rachela2106
    @rachela2106 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I wouldn't trust their guidelines. Take as much precautions as possible 🛡