Doh. It was @Medievalist.
One guy with a gun nick and one guy with a usericon that is holding a gun…
4 Likes
There was a time when religion was the opiate of the masses; now it is science. Blind followers, ignorant of the principles they preach, using their believes to propagate fear and division.
Frequency and wavelength are not the only principles of importance here. Microwaves ovens transmit at the same frequency as wireless routers, and high-power cell towers are absolutely not safe in close proximity for any long duration without appropriate precautions.
2 Likes
That’s because the RF radiation at those frequencies and power output literally cooks your flesh and/or organs. You can get what is basically a sunburn by standing to close to an active cell tower (IOW, microwave emitting) antenna for too long.
It’s not ionizing radiation though so it’s not going to damage your DNA.
13 Likes
These frequencies cause direct chemical changes, e.g., breaking bonds (as in DNA). UV can directly damage skin because it’s on the outside, but it doesn’t penetrate farther than that. I can see that there might also be secondary effects, where chemicals produced by the changes then diffuse into the body and cause disease. I don’t know any specific examples.
Higher frequencies, like x-rays, can actually penetrate the body and do this kind of chemical damage. The higher the more energy and the more damage.
Frequencies lower than light generally don’t generally cause chemical changes like breaking bonds AFAIK. They can cause damage due to heating, however – that’s how microwaves heat water. I have heard (and I don’t know if it’s true) that servicemen manning an early radar station somewhere cold actually stood in front of the dish to warm up. Not a good idea? Anyway you need higher power low frequencies to get heating enough to do damage.
I think there’s been some controversy whether these low frequencies – radio etc. – can cause chemical changes. The last I heard living next to a power line wasn’t a big deal. So I really wonder whether WiFi is the least bit dangerous – at least no more so than the constant sea of radiation we all live in anyway.
Just my $0.02.
7 Likes
Yeah that is my take… we don’t seem to be worried about the tv and radio signals. And your wifi unless you carry it around in your pocket well inverse square law says more than a foot away and you are good. The thing is if wifi caused all these things so would radio, tv, your light bulbs, etc. It is just frustrating.
10 Likes
Oh wow! I’m convinced.
1 Like
That study has no business being controversial. It shows two conflicting nonsensical effects with a signal so close to noise that at best you can call it inconclusive. Point being this massive, long-term study shows no harmful effects.
Seriously, separated by sex, one population gets a protective effect the other gets a carcinogenic effect, means that this study has detected noise. It also didn’t replicate anything like the exposure levels you’d see in the real world unless you lived inside a cell tower’s antenna.
6 Likes
Definitely, and the conversation about the potential harm of RF is what damage might be caused, at cellular, when those cells heat up (or if they heat) at low output power. DNA is an electrically charged molecule and can, at least theoretically, be damaged by electromagnetic radiation
1 Like
And the inverse square law lets you get far enough away not to be harmed. Unlike say x-rays, it’s not the specific photon that does damage, but how many photons per cubic centimeter of flesh are available to heat up the tissue.
4 Likes
I work nights and hate this info. I’ve heard about the melatonin/cancer link, but take melatonin supplements anyways to help me sleep in the day. Thanks for the link to the study.
2 Likes
Before I went the lazy route and went into arts, I was into science. I went to ESSI, a science and engineering course at K-State for Juniors and Seniors. One of my favorite speakers was The Purple Professor, who told some awesome stories, including some Cold War spy stuff. He was the head of he Nuclear department at K-State which has a small reactor. He gave a great presentation on the type and amount of radiation we get everyday.
3 Likes
No, religion is still what it is, and quacks are still what they are.
Science is evidence-based with well documented processes. They’re pretty much the opposite.
The blind followers are the anti-science crowd… they don’t bother putting together processes that overcome well known flaws in how humans think. They believe DESPITE evidence to the contrary. They just like to freak out about things while ignoring evidence, whether they’re climate change denialists, anti evolution loons, or people who arbitrarily decide that Wi-Fi presents some magical danger despite no evidence to support their absurd assumptions.
11 Likes
Yes, it can be damaged by EM radiation, like UV and X-rays, and that goes for uncharged molecules just the same as charged ones. I fail to see what charge has to do with anything in this context. What, precisely, do you think charge has to do with this?
Meanwhile any jackass who can qualify for a second or third level Ham radio license can probably tell you a story where they gave themselves an RF burn. Non-ionizing radiation heats things up because it induces molecular vibrations. It’s why infrared radiation from the sun heats up CO2 and causes global warming. If it worked differently, we wouldn’t be able to use non-ionizing radiation literally every day to non-destructively identify substances and structures in chemistry. If it did alter the chemical structure of a substance, we’d be the first to notice.
16 Likes
I read @Ryan_Coyle’s assertion that science has now displaced religion as the new (and improved!) opiate of the masses as a criticism of the emerging ‘Yeah, Science!’ crowd who take the side of every ‘pro-science’ argument without bothering to understand it or the underlying science itself.
Like I said in another thread: people are always looking for a cornerstone to substantiate their beliefs or perceptions. We make fun of phrenology today, but already the popular, contemporary parlance for describing and talking about mental illness as a matter of ‘chemical imbalances’ is falling apart, exposing it as the new and improved phrenology that it is. And many of the people speaking in these terms are completely blind to this development because they’re ignorant of the deeper frameworks currently in flux.
4 Likes
Jackass with second level ham radio license here. Can confirm.
14 Likes
I’m wondering if you bothered to read the “study”?
It clearly says cell phone radiation increases the lifespan of men!
9 Likes
Oh I’ve read it and am familiar with its weaknesses. My point there was about the controversy and skepticism itself, and not the finality of that particular rat-rf study’s correlations.
Don’t confuse damage from chemicals with damage from EMF.
2 Likes
What use is a point without merit? The issue we have is with the trendy left-wing pseudoskepticism.
2 Likes
Is advocating for not having an unequivocal faith in all things styled ‘scientific’ meritless? I say that superstition should be questioned in all its forms.
