Recently, a paper was produced regarding exposure to radio frequencies (defined as frequencies between 3 kHz and 300 GHz). The only problem was that the frequencies below 150 kHz were never addressed, and they are the biologically active ones. Instead, the carrier wave that uses the higher frequencies, those above 150 kHz, was the focus. This has been a common problem in many scientific evaluations.
For example, the NTP rat cell phone study is commonly referred to, but they used 2G and 3G, which are no longer available. The study is outdated, as today, 4G is being replaced by 5G. The distraction is simple: guide the reader to focus on information and details about the carrier wave and never discuss the true issue - the data that rides on the carrier wave, which is in the kilohertz frequency range.
The research using this small-scale RFR exposure system was technically challenging and more resource intensive than expected. In addition, this exposure system was designed to study the frequencies and modulations used in 2G and 3G devices, but is not representative of newer technologies such as 4G/4G-LTE, or 5G (which is still not fully defined). Taking these factors into consideration, no further work with this RFR exposure system will be conducted and NIEHS has no further plans to conduct additional RFR exposure studies at this time.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/topics/cellphones
What does this mean? I’ll try to explain. Think of the carrier wave, which is oscillating at millions or billions of cycles per second, as the wire for a clothesline, and the subcarrier as the clothes hanging from the line, moving as the wind blows at a much slower rate (thousands of cycles per second). From a distance, you can see the clothes but not the line.
The carrier wave is also used to cook food in a microwave oven by disturbing the dipole of a water molecule, which creates friction.
From Wiki:
In telecommunications, a carrier wave, carrier signal, or just carrier, is a periodic waveform (usually sinusoidal) that conveys information through a process called modulation. One or more of the wave's properties, such as amplitude or frequency, are modified by an information bearing signal, called the message signal or modulation signal. The carrier frequency is usually much higher than the message signal frequency because it is usually impractical to transmit signals with low frequencies due to larger wavelength than antenna size.
The purpose of the carrier is usually either to transmit the information through space as an electromagnetic wave (as in radio communication), or to allow several carriers at different frequencies to share a common physical transmission medium by frequency division multiplexing (as in a cable television system).
The term originated in radio communication, where the carrier wave creates the waves which carry the information (modulation) through the air from the transmitter to the receiver. The term is also used for an unmodulated emission in the absence of any modulating signal.[1]
In music production, carrier signals can be controlled by a modulating signal to change the sound property of an audio recording and add a sense of depth and movement.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_wave
What is a subcarrier wave? It’s the data that's carried by the carrier wave, and is in the kHz frequency range. What’s that data in practical terms? It’s the images in the video you just watched, the color in the photo you just shared, or the sound of your voice on the message you just left for a loved one.
From WIKI
A subcarrier is a sideband of a radio frequency carrier wave, which is modulated to send additional information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcarrier
4G uses 15 kHz. https://www.sharetechnote.com/html/Handbook_LTE_PhyParameter_DL_FDD.html#google_vignette
5G uses 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, or 480 kHz.
https://www.sharetechnote.com/html/5G/5G_Phy_Numerology.html
These subcarrier frequencies have been shown in modern-day scientific articles to manipulate sodium ion channels to create a nerve block. Other channels, such as potassium and calcium, are also affected. So, leaving these frequencies out of any analytical radio frequency paper is a gross omission.
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007766
We have to ask ourselves this: can we trust the results of ANY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH if they do not account for the variable of kilohertz frequency exposure? Did those cell cultures grow differently; did those animal studies change; and did those human studies really answer the questions that were being asked if the subjects in each study were being exposed to different types of kilohertz frequencies during the data collection timeframe?
The challenge, therefore, is to find the following unmentioned variables in the methods section of scientific studies:
Were the locations exposed equally to sub-150 kHz frequencies?
What was the power quality at the lab? What was the harmonic distortion?
Grounded surfaces contain different frequencies and voltages. What was that exposure?
If solar is in use, was the work performed at night or during the day?
Was there a smart meter known to produce sub-150 kHz on the front end of the building's wiring?
To date, no laboratory monitors or removes known biologically active frequencies from the building. Their lighting consists of anything other than an incandescent light bulb. LEDs and fluorescent lights are known to create sub-150 kHz frequencies (dirty electricity, DE, supraharmonics), which then radiate off all the electric wiring.
Similarly, lab equipment may have switch-mode power supplies and variable frequency drives, which also produce DE. Many industrial and government buildings have solar, and every one of them has a smart meter installed -- all sources of DE.
So, simply focusing on the carrier wave in any study may paint a rosier picture than the actual situation. The cellular telecommunications companies rely on science that shows their products are safe by using just the carrier wave.
For accurate science, shouldn't those frequencies be removed from laboratories testing radio frequency or anything biological? Could this be a reason why some labs produced a result different than another? Also, would it be possible to make the subcarrier frequencies faster and move them out of the biologically active range? In simple terms, why didn’t we or couldn’t we create a cell phone or wifi router where both the carrier wave and data waves were out of the kilohertz frequency range, and thus, safe for plants, animals, bees, and us humans?
THANK YOU for shifting the focus from the carrier wave. THANK YOU for talking about the lower frequencies as being damaging and ignored. I have been stating that for years and no one seems to understand, so THANK YOU.
Anyone who knows EMF knows that higher frequencies affect people and that they are not safe. You are certainly not refuting that, but THANK YOU for doing us all a huge service by bringing the ignored piece of this EMF to the forefront.
interesting post. but what makes you think the higher frequencies (those in the mega and giga hertz ranges) are safe, not “biologically active” and do not impact all of life?