[nec209]

I read this .

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...h-wireless.html

It is in the news today.

How wireless technology can affect the body


This debate has been going on with inclusion studies some saying it does and others saying it does not.


Other scientist say well the most a strong microwave radiation can do is lead to skin cancer.I don't understand the type of wave can determinants what it does to the body. That why ultraviolet radiation can cause skin cancer but not strong enough to cause other cancer.

The army using high microwave radiation to cause skin burns where you skin gets very hot to the touch and uncomfortable so called microwave weapon.But even this can not cause cancer other than skin cancer with long exposure.


The wave can be talked about what type of energy the wave has like radio wave or microwave so on and the intensity it has or other way saying how many photones it has.


That why no metter how intensity the type of wave or how many photones it has some parts of the EM spectrum can cause electric current so called photoelectric effect and other parts of the EM spectrum not.

This post has been edited by nec209: 5 October 2011 - 07:05 PM

[swansont]

People have used fake science to advance political agendas for a long time. Fear is a powerful tool.

[nec209]

Why did this thread get moved to Politics ? I wanted some one that understands science to explain how this works and where the media may be getting the information wrong.


I don't realy understand how this works has you can tell in the first post.


In the news today.

Quote

The million dollar question: What is the risk of brain cancer from cell phone radiation?


HELSINKI, December 19, 2011 ― There is ongoing discussion about whether use of cell phones leads to an increase in the rate of brain cancer, and the public is seeking answers.

Is there an increase in the number of cases of brain cancer in the population over the last several years? What is the individual cellphone user's risk? What are the risks for society as a whole?

These are important questions. Based on the current science, following are the best answers:

Read more here http://communities.w...hone-radiation/


http://communities.w...hone-radiation/

This post has been edited by nec209: 21 December 2011 - 06:14 AM

[John Cuthber]

http://xkcd.com/925/

[JustinW]

Quote

People have used fake science to advance political agendas for a long time. Fear is a powerful tool.

I may have missed something. What political agenda? Environmental, health, who's politics does this fit into? I'm not sure why this thread was moved either.

[swansont]

JustinW, on 21 December 2011 - 10:16 PM, said:

I may have missed something. What political agenda? Environmental, health, who's politics does this fit into? I'm not sure why this thread was moved either.

I don't recall if I moved it, but there's very little science to discuss or rebut in the linked article. It's about the reaction of the WHO to various studies.

As far as the agenda, I don't know, either. What is the agenda of the anti-vaccination crowd, who are basing their position on equally shaky (if not worse) ground. But the actions are political in nature, since they are not based on sound science.

The basic science is pretty clear: to cause cancer with photons you have to ionize atoms or molecules.
RF/microwave photon frequencies are ~5 orders of magnitude too small to do this.

To do other damage you have to heat the tissue up. Specific Absorption Rates for phones are around 1 W/kg. If that was a danger, vigorous exercise would cause damage.

[CharonY]

I am still waiting for the hounds...

[swansont]

CharonY, on 23 December 2011 - 08:21 PM, said:

I am still waiting for the hounds...

It's a big internet. It may take a while.

[nec209]

swansont, on 22 December 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

I don't recall if I moved it, but there's very little science to discuss or rebut in the linked article. It's about the reaction of the WHO to various studies.

As far as the agenda, I don't know, either. What is the agenda of the anti-vaccination crowd, who are basing their position on equally shaky (if not worse) ground. But the actions are political in nature, since they are not based on sound science.

The basic science is pretty clear: to cause cancer with photons you have to ionize atoms or molecules.
RF/microwave photon frequencies are ~5 orders of magnitude too small to do this.

To do other damage you have to heat the tissue up. Specific Absorption Rates for phones are around 1 W/kg. If that was a danger, vigorous exercise would cause damage.

The cells have DNA so would you not have to ionize atoms of the cells ?

What do you mean by vigorous exercise can cause cell damage to do to heat.

[StringJunky]

nec209, on 24 December 2011 - 01:57 AM, said:

What do you mean by vigorous exercise can cause cell damage to do to heat.

He meant, if phones could cause damage at that rate (1w/KG) then physical exercise would as well because exercise can generate as much heat as them. We are not damaged by the heat generated from exercise, so it follows, that we won't be damaged by the equivalent heat generated by a mobile phone.

This post has been edited by StringJunky: 24 December 2011 - 02:42 AM

[swansont]

StringJunky, on 24 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

He meant, if phones could cause damage at that rate (1w/KG) then physical exercise would as well because exercise can generate as much heat as them. We are not damaged by the heat generated from exercise, so it follows, that we won't be damaged by the equivalent heat generated by a mobile phone.

Exactly. I can generate 1 kW and have a mass of around 100kg, and am nowhere near the top end of the performance spectrum; people with less mass than I can generate more power. Our bodies heat up and we sweat to shed the excess heat we generate and this doesn't cause cancer.. We don't seem to get damaged by being near other types of heat sources, either.

nec209, on 24 December 2011 - 01:57 AM, said:

The cells have DNA so would you not have to ionize atoms of the cells ?

Those are the ones that you'd have to ionize to cause cancer.

[Appolinaria]

Everything is fine until it's not.

[StringJunky]

Appolinaria, on 24 December 2011 - 01:04 PM, said:

Everything is fine until it's not.

Science can only work with the available evidence and that's what scientists like swansont is doing. It will never be right, only less wrong with each new discovery.

[Appolinaria]

Cell phone usage is "possibly" carcinogenic.

So now there's an agenda? That's laughable.

[StringJunky]

Appolinaria, on 24 December 2011 - 02:30 PM, said:

Cell phone usage is "possibly" carcinogenic.

So now there's an agenda? That's laughable.

Me no comprende.

[swansont]

Appolinaria, on 24 December 2011 - 02:30 PM, said:

Cell phone usage is "possibly" carcinogenic.

So now there's an agenda? That's laughable.

That's not the premise-conclusion being offered.

There people who insist that cellphones cause cancer, which is a much stronger position than the one used here (and even that is overstating things). This is not only not based on the available evidence, it is contradicted by it in terms of the mechanism and data represented by the xkcd graph; very similar to the antivax example I gave. So yes, if you insist on something under those conditions, you probably have an agenda of some sort.

[nec209]

swansont, on 24 December 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

Exactly. I can generate 1 kW and have a mass of around 100kg, and am nowhere near the top end of the performance spectrum; people with less mass than I can generate more power. Our bodies heat up and we sweat to shed the excess heat we generate and this doesn't cause cancer.. We don't seem to get damaged by being near other types of heat sources, either.



Those are the ones that you'd have to ionize to cause cancer.

I'm not Understand some thing here . I thought it was the wavelength that cause cancer not heat? I thought radio waves and microwave the wavelength is too long to pass your skin but UV and x-ray the wavelength is so short it is like size of cell .

So no matter the wattage ( energy ) the wavelength of radio waves and microwave the wavelength is too long .

[swansont]

nec209, on 30 December 2011 - 09:44 PM, said:

I'm not Understand some thing here . I thought it was the wavelength that cause cancer not heat? I thought radio waves and microwave the wavelength is too long to pass your skin but UV and x-ray the wavelength is so short it is like size of cell .

So no matter the wattage ( energy ) the wavelength of radio waves and microwave the wavelength is too long .

I'm covering all the cases here — it can't be ionization because of the wavelength, and it can't be the heat.

[nec209]

swansont, on 31 December 2011 - 11:26 AM, said:

I'm covering all the cases here — it can't be ionization because of the wavelength, and it can't be the heat.

Sorry I do not understand . Are you saying the heat is too low and the wavelength is to long to cause ionization .

[swansont]

nec209, on 31 December 2011 - 07:49 PM, said:

Sorry I do not understand . Are you saying the heat is too low and the wavelength is to long to cause ionization .

Yes. Can't do thermal damage, can't ionize.