Wouldn't the difference there be that the person consuming meat is voluntarily consuming it while even people sticking to older tech phones are exposed to the newer radiation? I am no luddite but this would be my argument from a devil's advocate position

No, because you're only exposed to radiation if you actually use a phone. Google for "inverse square law". Your exposure is orders of magnitude lower from "second-hand cellphones" than from using it yourself; it's not like second-hand smoking.

Not if there's a cell tower every 100 yards putting out 30dB more power than your phone. The inverse square law also doesn't apply when you have phased arrays doing beamforming if you're directly in the path.

The inverse square law totally applies in the case of phased array beamforming, you just have a much higher gain to start with.

You get a lower exponent than the square with a beam. For a perfectly parallel beam the exponent is technically 0 (same intensity regardless of distance - like a laser pointer) For a focused beam intensity will actually increase with distance up to the focal point. Some energy can be absorbed by the medium (air/moisture/rain), but that is not covered by the inverse square law.

Not with a planar or linear array. I'm skeptical, but prepared to learn something: what sort of array can generate a square beam?

Even lasers spread. This guy agrees with me: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-light-from-lasers-reduced-by-th...

The cross section of the beam can be any shape, the important thing is the signal source is an area not a point. The value of the inverse square (of distance from source) is dominates power density when the signal source is effectively a point - this becomes the situation for a laser or anything at long enough distance, but at distances where it is effectively a beam, the strength of power density does not dissipate by that value. The geometry of the beam concentrates the power density at its focal point, which can be far behind the source or in front of it. For an ideal beam focused to infinity (parallel rays) its power would never dissipate with distance - as all of the power goes in the same direction. We don't need to form an ideal beam to say its doesn't follow the inverse square rule, any focusing of rays breaks the rule (at scales where it is reasonable to treat it as a beam and not just rays emanating from a point)

I hope that helps picture the situation. My original comment that a beam can have a different exponent was incorrect except in some approximate sense. The inverse square value will still apply, but from the beams real or imaginary focal point (if it is a point) But it the case of a transmitter beaming a signal at another, that focal length can be far beyond the reciever, so the 'rule' can be completely confounded.

It depends. The inverse square law applies to spherical wavefronts. Due to diffraction, wave fronts always become spherical in the far field.

But in the near field, that's not the case.

Beamforming arrays have planar wavefronts close to the source, so the inverse square law does not apply. The wave fronts will become spherical again at a "large" distance from the emitter, where the meaning of "large" depends on wavelength and emitter size.

Focussed lasers also do not have spherical wave fronts in the near field. The distance at which the inverse square law starts to apply to lasers depends on beam width, coherence, and focus.

the inverse square law always applies, hence the law part.

Laws of Physics are in general not always applicable. Ohm's Law, for instance, is only applicable in a narrow range of conditions.

"Laws" tend to be less rigorous and more narrowly applicable than "theories," though the colloquial meaning of the terms is switched.

Yes, except in this case there isn't an exception.

Incorrect analysis can give the correct answer.

There are excpetions to many inverse square laws, they just aren't relevant to the problem at hand.

Actually the difference between law and theory is nothing whatsoever.

There is a substantial difference in my opinion. Laws rarely put forward a mechanism or seek a complete understanding of a relationship, while theories often do.

Ohm's law was a law long before the electron was discovered. It's an emperical linear relationship that just seemed to work. Since no mechanism is suggested, it's not possible to determine whether ohmic behavior is expected or not. In contrast, The Drude Model's explantion of ohmic behavior could be considered a theory. It makes an attempt to understand the underlying physics, and from this it is possible to predict whether a material will follow Ohm's Law or not.

Have you noticed that nothing is called a law anymore? It's a difference in word choice not meaning.

I think modern scientists are a lot less likely to call any empirical relationship a law. Theory is still pretty widely used, and not for things that could be called laws.

You can say the "the theory of quantum chromodynamics," but not "the law of quantum chromodynamics". 'Law' implies a small number of simple equations, while theory allows for a much larger scope of complexity or rigor. The meaning is absolutely different. Modern science is pretty complex compared to what went on 200 years ago, so it's not surprising law has fallen out of favor.

> it's not like second-hand smoking

Shouldn't smoke follow the inverse square law as well (in the absence of air currents)?

no. smoke is heavily influenced by ventilation and the enclosure. there's a fair amount of modelling in the literature, for example on how much air flow you would need in confined spaces to reduce secondhand smoke cancer risks to acceptable levels.

Not if you are in a sealed room with the smoker.

> Shouldn't smoke follow the inverse square law as well (in the absence of air currents)?

That's why smoking is allowed outdoors.

(Except when it's not.)

It's not really uncommon to see "no smoking on the patio" or "no smoking within 100 feet of this door" signs. And some states have legalized smoking cannabis, except outdoors.

Patios are usually very close to doors. Is the threshold really 100 feet in some places?

I've seen such limits imposed on private property, but as far as I know there aren't any laws (specifically for cigarette smoke) that extreme.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a smoker and never have been. I like these laws. I'm just being a bit pedantic. There has been a general trend of restricting smoking and I think that trend has continued outdoors. It used to be that you could smoke anywhere, then businesses started creating indoor smoking sections. Then indoor smoking sections were banned and smokers moved to the outdoor seating. Then smoking outside near exterior doors was banned, in a way that effectively banned smoking at many restaurants entirely. Beyond this, in some places like NYC you have smoking bans in public parks and beaches as well, regardless of how far you are from any exterior door. (To be clear, I support these bans because cigarette smokers are notorious for their litter.)

And in the case of cannabis the restrictions are even more severe. In Washington you cannot smoke cannabis in view of the general public or in most buildings (except residential, although many apartment buildings have smoking bans too.) California is more permissive, but even they enforce a 1000(!) foot smoking ban around schools and youth centers.

But not everyone eats barbecued meat or has barbecued meat near/next to their body 24/7 like people who use cell phones. I can opt out of eating barbecued meat though it carrying a phone close to my body.

Fortunately/unfortunately some of us live in Kansas City and have no choice in the matter.

Regarding 5G or barbecued meat?

Meat barbecued with 5G

As I type this across from Jack Stack. Korean BBQ is better anyway.

> For example, eating barbecued meat causes cancer, but it we don't ban it.

Sure, but the absolute risk is very low and it's probably zero if you add veggies to your meal. And also causality was not established, observational studies on this topic suffering from the healthy-user bias in addition to a lot of confounding factors and in general for nutrition the evidence is very low quality, compared with medication research.

This isn't a boolean. Saying that "this or that causes cancer" is meaningless without giving the risk factor, which has to be statistically significant and in case of meat it isn't.

In other words if you want to compare the risks of 5G with anything, I think nutrition is a really poor choice due to the low standards for evidence we have and due to all the confounding factors and biases.

Not sure if assessing the safety of 5G is easier, but at the very least you can do double-blind studies. At the very least you can compare it with the placebo effect. Which in nutrition isn't possible.

Cigarettes and alcohol too. Radiowave effects, even if they do cause anything, are quite easy to mitigate in humans by wearing clothing with carefully positioned electrical conductor insertions.

What about the head? Is it time for tinfoil hats?

Working in a Faraday cage seems more appealing.

"Causes" implies that you will get cancer if you partake. Maybe you mean "increases the risk of". Agreed that your risk exposure might only be fractions of a percent and not worth abstaining or regulating.