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-ionizi

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.