4 ms·

More low-level radiation access? (smartphones/computers/smartwatches) More refined sugar? Less physical activity? I really wonder what it could be, though.

michaelmrose 9y ago
Computers and phones don't provide any radiation of the variety you are thinking of. It's not merely a matter of degree it's a difference in category. For more info look up ionizing radiation.
- MichailP 9y ago
  Are you suggesting that microwave oven doesn't work because it doesn't use ionizing radiation? Nonionizing radiation CAN have effects on humans, and current regulations are only based on temperature effects i.e a proxy like a SAR value. But there can be many effects of nonionizing radiation even before it raises tissue temperature level.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    I believe michaelmrose is suggesting that while microwaves are indeed a form of (electromagnetic) radiation, "low-level radiation" usually refers to low-levels of ionizing radiation, not low-power EM sources. While fwdslash might indeed be talking about low-level microwaves, there are many in my experience who think that "radiation" only means "ionizing radiation" or "atomic radiation". (Hence, "nuke it in the microwave".) Again, in my experience, people who are aware of the distinction tend to write "More low-power microwaves" than "More low-level radiation". For a semblance of hard numbers, "low-level radiation" gives 735 hits in PubMed Central (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=%22low-level+radiation%22 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=%22low-level+radiatio... ) and 338 in PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22low-level+radiation%22 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22low-level+radia... ). '"low-level radiation" microwave" gives 32 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=%22low-level+radiation%22+microwave https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=%22low-level+radiatio... ) and 2 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22low-level+radiation%22+microwave https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22low-level+radia... ), respectively. One of the latter is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17886009 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17886009 where you can see "low-level radiation" is used to describe microwaves: "On the radar station area, blue tits nested in high exposed nest-boxes (67,0%) and great tit occupied mainly these boxes, which were exposed to low-level radiation", where that radiation is "pulse-modulated microwave radiation of 1,200-3,000 MHz." It's just not common. The topic, by the way, concerns sperm counts. You write "there can be many effects". Is a change in sperm count one of them? Many people have done experiments on the effect of microwaves from mobile phones on organisms. I was at a biology conference about 25 years ago where one of the speakers talked about their research, so surely this has been tested already. Also, radio and TV techs have been working with high-power EM for decades. There's so much power in the air around some towers that florescent tubes can glow. If low-power microwaves have an effect on fertility then we should have seen an effect on those workers long ago, yes?
    - MichailP 9y ago
      Not necessarily, what if it is long term effect? What if it is some kind of resonance involved, i.e. it only shows it face when there is certain geometry and frequency present? Plus there were some courts rulings about phones causing cancer ... [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/21/italian-court-rules-mobile-phone-use-caused-brain-tumour https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/21/italian-c...
      - eesmith 9y ago
        Courts never make mistakes in science? As I kid I visited a broadcast transmitter up on the mountains with its own hydropower generator. There was staff on-site who had worked there for years. How long do you think is needed to compare working 8 hours a day at a 500kW radio transmitter broadcasting all the time vs. holding a smartphone or using wifi with only a few hundred milliwatts? (mW values at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm .) Again, there's enough RF power from the transmitter to make a florescent bulb glow. The biophysics would pretty incredible, even unbelievable, for a certain geometry and frequency to make a difference. Microwaves are a few centimeters long, and longer than sperm or even the testes. What mechanism could make them so specific to frequency? But putting that aside, different countries use different frequencies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_frequencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_frequencies says "Many GSM phones support three bands (900/1,800/1,900 MHz or 850/1,800/1,900 MHz) or four bands (850/900/1,800/1,900 MHz), and are usually referred to as tri-band and quad-band phones, or world phones; with such a phone one can travel internationally and use the same handset.") If there were a significant problem with one specific frequency then it would appear in an epidemiology comparison. Fundamentally though, your line of questioning can have no end. What if it only affects people with one of about 30 point mutations? What if it's only for those who have a diet with an excess of selenium? What if it's only at a certain power level? What if ... what if .. what if? Each of these is hard to test, and given the difficulty of the biophysics it's hard to justify spending a lot of money when other options, including "More refined sugar?" and "Less physical activity?", seem more likely.
devbug 9y ago
Obesity.
- surfmike 9y ago
  That wouldn't explain why Latin American sperm counts hadn't fallen as well then.
vog 9y ago
> More low-level radiation access? (smartphones/computers/smartwatches) I don't get why people are so worried about this. The effects are so small, it is almost like worrying about undesirable side effects of homeopathy. (What if all this healthy "information" in the water also makes cancer cells more healthy?) Compared to that, the effects of more and more sugar consumption are huge and quickly visible. Same for missing physical activity. Also, much larger effects come from dirty drinking water, with "dirty" in every sense: chemical, biological, etc. Some countries even resort to chlorinate all their drinking water because they finally gave up keeping their water clean. Or, fine particulates in cities who fail to keep their air clean (read: almost all cities). These are real issues with huge effects. No need to exaggerate on tiny effects like wifi radiation, unless you are talking about nuclear radiation caused by vulcans or more recently, malfunctioning nuclear plants.

michaelmrose 9y ago

Computers and phones don't provide any radiation of the variety you are thinking of. It's not merely a matter of degree it's a difference in category. For more info look up ionizing radiation.

MichailP 9y ago
Are you suggesting that microwave oven doesn't work because it doesn't use ionizing radiation? Nonionizing radiation CAN have effects on humans, and current regulations are only based on temperature effects i.e a proxy like a SAR value. But there can be many effects of nonionizing radiation even before it raises tissue temperature level.
- eesmith 9y ago
  I believe michaelmrose is suggesting that while microwaves are indeed a form of (electromagnetic) radiation, "low-level radiation" usually refers to low-levels of ionizing radiation, not low-power EM sources. While fwdslash might indeed be talking about low-level microwaves, there are many in my experience who think that "radiation" only means "ionizing radiation" or "atomic radiation". (Hence, "nuke it in the microwave".) Again, in my experience, people who are aware of the distinction tend to write "More low-power microwaves" than "More low-level radiation". For a semblance of hard numbers, "low-level radiation" gives 735 hits in PubMed Central (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=%22low-level+radiation%22 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=%22low-level+radiatio... ) and 338 in PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22low-level+radiation%22 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22low-level+radia... ). '"low-level radiation" microwave" gives 32 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=%22low-level+radiation%22+microwave https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=%22low-level+radiatio... ) and 2 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22low-level+radiation%22+microwave https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22low-level+radia... ), respectively. One of the latter is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17886009 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17886009 where you can see "low-level radiation" is used to describe microwaves: "On the radar station area, blue tits nested in high exposed nest-boxes (67,0%) and great tit occupied mainly these boxes, which were exposed to low-level radiation", where that radiation is "pulse-modulated microwave radiation of 1,200-3,000 MHz." It's just not common. The topic, by the way, concerns sperm counts. You write "there can be many effects". Is a change in sperm count one of them? Many people have done experiments on the effect of microwaves from mobile phones on organisms. I was at a biology conference about 25 years ago where one of the speakers talked about their research, so surely this has been tested already. Also, radio and TV techs have been working with high-power EM for decades. There's so much power in the air around some towers that florescent tubes can glow. If low-power microwaves have an effect on fertility then we should have seen an effect on those workers long ago, yes?
  - MichailP 9y ago
    Not necessarily, what if it is long term effect? What if it is some kind of resonance involved, i.e. it only shows it face when there is certain geometry and frequency present? Plus there were some courts rulings about phones causing cancer ... [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/21/italian-court-rules-mobile-phone-use-caused-brain-tumour https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/21/italian-c...
    - eesmith 9y ago
      Courts never make mistakes in science? As I kid I visited a broadcast transmitter up on the mountains with its own hydropower generator. There was staff on-site who had worked there for years. How long do you think is needed to compare working 8 hours a day at a 500kW radio transmitter broadcasting all the time vs. holding a smartphone or using wifi with only a few hundred milliwatts? (mW values at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm .) Again, there's enough RF power from the transmitter to make a florescent bulb glow. The biophysics would pretty incredible, even unbelievable, for a certain geometry and frequency to make a difference. Microwaves are a few centimeters long, and longer than sperm or even the testes. What mechanism could make them so specific to frequency? But putting that aside, different countries use different frequencies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_frequencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_frequencies says "Many GSM phones support three bands (900/1,800/1,900 MHz or 850/1,800/1,900 MHz) or four bands (850/900/1,800/1,900 MHz), and are usually referred to as tri-band and quad-band phones, or world phones; with such a phone one can travel internationally and use the same handset.") If there were a significant problem with one specific frequency then it would appear in an epidemiology comparison. Fundamentally though, your line of questioning can have no end. What if it only affects people with one of about 30 point mutations? What if it's only for those who have a diet with an excess of selenium? What if it's only at a certain power level? What if ... what if .. what if? Each of these is hard to test, and given the difficulty of the biophysics it's hard to justify spending a lot of money when other options, including "More refined sugar?" and "Less physical activity?", seem more likely.

devbug 9y ago

Obesity.

surfmike 9y ago
That wouldn't explain why Latin American sperm counts hadn't fallen as well then.

vog 9y ago

> More low-level radiation access? (smartphones/computers/smartwatches) I don't get why people are so worried about this. The effects are so small, it is almost like worrying about undesirable side effects of homeopathy. (What if all this healthy "information" in the water also makes cancer cells more healthy?) Compared to that, the effects of more and more sugar consumption are huge and quickly visible. Same for missing physical activity. Also, much larger effects come from dirty drinking water, with "dirty" in every sense: chemical, biological, etc. Some countries even resort to chlorinate all their drinking water because they finally gave up keeping their water clean. Or, fine particulates in cities who fail to keep their air clean (read: almost all cities). These are real issues with huge effects. No need to exaggerate on tiny effects like wifi radiation, unless you are talking about nuclear radiation caused by vulcans or more recently, malfunctioning nuclear plants.