3 ms·

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, becaus

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.

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.