3 ms·

From clicking through to Journal Full Abstract of the study they only looked at 2.4Ghz and not 5.0Ghz. This is a better link for the content: https://www.scienc

From clicking through to Journal Full Abstract of the study they only looked at 2.4Ghz and not 5.0Ghz. This is a better link for the content: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393511... I don't know enough about wave transmissions to know if higher frequency would be more or less likely to cause issues, anyone?

classichasclass 8y ago
In general, higher frequency implies higher energy, all things being equal. X-rays and gamma rays are very high frequency and therefore high-energy, and no one would dispute their deleterious effect on human health. However, a typical X-ray is somewhere around 30 petahertz (10^16) to 30 exahertz (10^19). Compare to 5GHz WiFi (10^6). We're not sure if this is physiologically relevant because the relationship between energy and health effects is not linear, and different tissues react in different ways. It's worth looking into, though my personal feeling is given the ubiquity of such radiation, we should be seeing a lot more effects and they should be measurable.