3 ms·

That linked research is discussing the effects of high energy (between 0 and 1000W, with written analyses of the 150W and 300W conditions) 2.45GHz radiation on

That linked research is discussing the effects of high energy (between 0 and 1000W, with written analyses of the 150W and 300W conditions) 2.45GHz radiation on the catalyzing properties of specific chemical reactions (CuO-Cu-ZSM-5, BaMnO3, and BaFeO3 catalysts with NO). I certainly was presuming that your vague memories from a standard class you took decades ago were about the common, statistical changes in molecular geometry as a function of heat, and it is possible that your class was discussing the bleeding edge of chemical synthesis at the time ("Since the use of MWs for synthesis reactions first appeared in 1986"). Regardless, the obvious test would be to measure the specific chemical effects on DNA under specific low energy microwave frequencies.

pasbesoin 9y ago
Yeah, ok, I may look like an idiot. But I've read a lot of comments, over the years, to the effect that non-ionizing radiation simply can't be a factor, because it doesn't remove electrons and break chemical bonds. And my own, very limited but -- for me, at least, elucidating -- educational experience has been that that is not the case. Non-ionizing radiation can affect chemical reactions. So, if cell phone radiation is not risk factor in cancer, the argument needs to go further than, "It's non-ionizing." Your mention of the energy level / quantity of the non-ionizing radiation involved in the link I managed to find, I find to be a pertinent difference. Anyway, sorry for any annoyance. P.S. I upvoted your response, by the way. I appreciate it, and I didn't mean to come across as confrontational, if I did.
- DoctorOetker 9y ago
  While I am highly skeptical of RF radiation as a significant cause of cancer, I sympathize with your attitude. Quite disingenious is the ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation dichotomy. I guess this is historically rooted in the cancerous effects of gammma photons. Consider the following dilemma: is visible red light ionizing radiation? If not: how can the non-ionizing red light trigger chemical reactions? or are the cones that sense red light strictly thermal sensors (i.e. bolometers)? If yes: perhaps we should ban all visible light :) I prefer this example because * it is not a hypothetical radiation influence, i.e. most of us can see a red strawberry, in a sense this is a benign photo-chemical reaction, even though red light is typically not classified as 'ionizing', nobody denies cones can sense red light. * beccause it illustrates that 'ionizing-ness' is not only dependent upon the characteristics of the radiation, but also on the characteristics of the subjected reagents/cellular structures/... which would be a monumental task to verify the harmlessness for all used radio frequencies and all subject reagents/cellullar structures/... That said, we have bigger problems with other carcinogenous things/behaviours/... so I think the antenna scares are relatively unfounded, although we should keep an open mind for when a more serious effect is ever reported, after all we are using parts of the spectrum that I suspect were virtually completely absent as potential evolution pressures in the past.

pasbesoin 9y ago

Yeah, ok, I may look like an idiot. But I've read a lot of comments, over the years, to the effect that non-ionizing radiation simply can't be a factor, because it doesn't remove electrons and break chemical bonds. And my own, very limited but -- for me, at least, elucidating -- educational experience has been that that is not the case. Non-ionizing radiation can affect chemical reactions. So, if cell phone radiation is not risk factor in cancer, the argument needs to go further than, "It's non-ionizing." Your mention of the energy level / quantity of the non-ionizing radiation involved in the link I managed to find, I find to be a pertinent difference. Anyway, sorry for any annoyance. P.S. I upvoted your response, by the way. I appreciate it, and I didn't mean to come across as confrontational, if I did.

DoctorOetker 9y ago
While I am highly skeptical of RF radiation as a significant cause of cancer, I sympathize with your attitude. Quite disingenious is the ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation dichotomy. I guess this is historically rooted in the cancerous effects of gammma photons. Consider the following dilemma: is visible red light ionizing radiation? If not: how can the non-ionizing red light trigger chemical reactions? or are the cones that sense red light strictly thermal sensors (i.e. bolometers)? If yes: perhaps we should ban all visible light :) I prefer this example because * it is not a hypothetical radiation influence, i.e. most of us can see a red strawberry, in a sense this is a benign photo-chemical reaction, even though red light is typically not classified as 'ionizing', nobody denies cones can sense red light. * beccause it illustrates that 'ionizing-ness' is not only dependent upon the characteristics of the radiation, but also on the characteristics of the subjected reagents/cellular structures/... which would be a monumental task to verify the harmlessness for all used radio frequencies and all subject reagents/cellullar structures/... That said, we have bigger problems with other carcinogenous things/behaviours/... so I think the antenna scares are relatively unfounded, although we should keep an open mind for when a more serious effect is ever reported, after all we are using parts of the spectrum that I suspect were virtually completely absent as potential evolution pressures in the past.