4 ms·

For example, imagine an enzyme that was designed to (a) receive microwave radiation You can't possibly design such a molecule unless you can come up with a way

For example, imagine an enzyme that was designed to (a) receive microwave radiation You can't possibly design such a molecule unless you can come up with a way to make it several centimeters long. (Folding doesn't count; a folded structure doesn't have anything close to the same electrical properties as a straight one.) The reason why non-ionizing radiation doesn't cause cancer at athermal levels is just that: physical size. To receive EM energy you need a structure that's a substantial fraction of the wavelength. But I am saying that physics cannot tell us that "low energy thing X" cannot do "high energy thing Y." It most certainly can.

carbocation 16y ago
You can't possibly design such a molecule unless you can come up with a way to make it several centimeters long. One would think that liquid water, which absorbs microwaves, would be a sufficient counterexample to your claim. I'm assuming that your last sentence is merely snark, or perhaps you didn't finish reading my post in its entirety. If you don't feel that the sentence immediately following the one that I quoted clarifies things, let me know.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  Heating of water is a bulk thermal effect. Absolutely nothing happens when you microwave a glass of water that wouldn't also happen if you heated it on the stove, or put it under a heat lamp. Only the spatial distribution of the heat is different. I'm assuming that your last sentence is merely snark, or perhaps you didn't finish reading my post in its entirety. I already have too many books on EM physics written by people who are actually familiar with the subject that I don't have time to read or understand. Uninformed online posts end up being skimmed, for better or worse.
  - carbocation 16y ago
    I already have too many books on EM physics written by people who are actually familiar with the subject Good, perhaps you can explain yourself in more detail, then, because your post seems quite wrong to me and I would like what I assume to be my misunderstanding to be corrected. Absolutely nothing happens when you microwave a glass of water that wouldn't also happen if you heated it on the stove, or put it under a heat lamp. I was always under the impression that your stove heated via conduction (e.g., the transfer of heat from molecules on the stove to molecules in the pan holding your water to molecules of water). I was also under the impression that microwaves heated water via a dielectric effect (i.e., the water molecules interacting with the microwaves directly and heating up due to their 'attempts' to align with the rapidly-oscillating field + friction). Finally, I was under the impression that heat lamps heated things via radiative (e.g., infrared) heating. Radiative, conductive, and dielectric heating can all warm up the right substance. But I cannot agree that "absolutely nothing [different] happens" since their mechanisms are quite distinct. Please tell me why this is incorrect. Now, once you deposit the thermal energy into the water by one of the three methods listed above, I think we can all agree that convection will cause it to dissipate in the same fashion, regardless of how you got it there.
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      >>Absolutely nothing happens when you microwave a glass of water that wouldn't also happen if you heated it on the stove, or put it under a heat lamp. I'd like to see someone superheat water on the stove or indeed boil water inside a block of ice under a heat lamp.
      - CamperBob 16y ago
        Yeah. Superheating. That's what must be causing all these new cases of cancer that have appeared since people began using hand-held cellular phones in the late 1980s. /rolls eyes
        pbhjpbhj 16y ago
        >>Absolutely nothing happens when you microwave a glass of water that wouldn't also happen [...] You can roll your eyes all you like it won't make that true. The parent made a general statement for which I believe there to be clear factual objection which I mentioned. The only logical contradiction would be to show the falsehood of such objection. I did consider saying "obviously this isn't the mechanism here" but I think the take-away is that you shouldn't make universal statements that are obviously false. This does actually then have a bearing on the matter in hand. If the universal is false then it opens the path for other unknown mechanisms to be considered that may also contradict such a universal statement. If people are willing to make such demonstrably false claims at such a low level then trusting them to clearly and accurately present the more complex situations becomes extremely difficult [for me]. Perhaps I'm unique in this but if you lie to me about one thing then I'm disinclined to believe you about another.
    - CamperBob 16y ago
      At this point, of course, you've moved the goalposts to the thermal side of the field. Are we talking about 'teaching the controversy' of athermal effects, or of thermal ones? ... Radiative, conductive, and dielectric heating can all warm up the right substance. But I cannot agree that "absolutely nothing [different] happens" since their mechanisms are quite distinct. Please tell me why this is incorrect. The mechanisms are not the least bit distinct at the molecular level. In each of these cases, heating occurs by simple friction. It comes down to the difference between a chemical change and a physical change. Microwaving the water, shining a light on it, or cooking it on a stove burner will cause physical changes. Ionizing radiation causes chemical changes. The distinction between these two types of effects isn't just important, it's the only one that matters.
Daniel_Newby 16y ago
"To receive EM energy you need a structure that's a substantial fraction of the wavelength." The axons of nerve cells are millimeters to meters long. It's also an open question just how sensitive neurological processes are to externally applied voltage. Neurons are polarized to about 50 mV, so a noisy oscillator composed of neurons could be measurably affected by a few millivolts of imposed potential. Fortunately it would be a statistical effect of similar magnitude to dietary changes or mechanical vibration, so the health effects would be microscopic. "It most certainly can." Stick a neon bulb in a microwave oven. The result is spectacular ionization resulting in bulk plasma formation, via nonthermal effects. And before you complain, certain proteins have a highly-hydrophobic cavity that does a remarkable impersonation of a vacuum chamber, and which would tend to accumulate noble gases. The actual argument against this being a problem is not Sci Am's half-assed physics theory but practical data. Many people have implanted pacemakers and nerve stimulators that apply substantial electrical potentials to living tissues: muscle, peripheral nerves, even the brain itself. No apparent pathology results over thousands of patient years of intensive use.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  Stick a neon bulb in a microwave oven. The result is spectacular ionization resulting in bulk plasma formation, via nonthermal effects. Funny, the same thing happens if I hold it near a Van de Graaff generator. Do you suppose we should apply the precautionary principle, and avoid combing our hair on a dry day? The axons of nerve cells are millimeters to meters long. In a medium that is not distinguishable from the rest of their environment at RF. This whole thread falls into the "not even wrong" category. I'm sorry I interfered, at this point.
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
> To receive EM energy you need a structure that's a substantial fraction of the wavelength. Fractal antennae don't work then? Oh wait. But at least self-similarity is rare in natural systems ... oh, fiddlesticks. </sarcasm>
- CamperBob 16y ago
  No, not at these scales, they don't. As with any other antenna, the lowest frequency at which a fractal antenna is effective is still strongly influenced by the size of its largest dimension.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    Again, as with your other objection you're defending a invalid statement claimed as a universal truth that is demonstrably false. >>To receive EM energy you need a structure that's a substantial fraction of the wavelength. Except you don't and again the point is that it is non-obvious (or at least was) that fractal antennae would work and again this leads us to the position that we shouldn't simply assume we know the truth of extremely complex systems and particularly not based on hand-wavy false statements. --- Edit: FWIW I don't believe that cell-phones|mobiles cause cancer (generally, though I can imagine there are very specific instances where it might occur and that there are doubtless mechanisms that we don't understand at play).
    - CamperBob 16y ago
      Sigh. Yes. You're right. You win. Anything will "work" as an antenna at any frequency. You can match your radio's antenna stage to the impedance of a wet noodle, a nerve cell, or an intracellular vacuum cavity with the right network. Whether the antenna ends up electrically distinct from any other object in the vicinity is another question entirely. As I suggested before I have neither the time nor the qualifications to offer lectures on EM physics, nor to calibrate my words carefully enough to keep them from being recast by verbal anklebiters, so I'll grant you the point.
      - 16y ago

carbocation 16y ago

You can't possibly design such a molecule unless you can come up with a way to make it several centimeters long. One would think that liquid water, which absorbs microwaves, would be a sufficient counterexample to your claim. I'm assuming that your last sentence is merely snark, or perhaps you didn't finish reading my post in its entirety. If you don't feel that the sentence immediately following the one that I quoted clarifies things, let me know.

CamperBob 16y ago
Heating of water is a bulk thermal effect. Absolutely nothing happens when you microwave a glass of water that wouldn't also happen if you heated it on the stove, or put it under a heat lamp. Only the spatial distribution of the heat is different. I'm assuming that your last sentence is merely snark, or perhaps you didn't finish reading my post in its entirety. I already have too many books on EM physics written by people who are actually familiar with the subject that I don't have time to read or understand. Uninformed online posts end up being skimmed, for better or worse.
- carbocation 16y ago
  I already have too many books on EM physics written by people who are actually familiar with the subject Good, perhaps you can explain yourself in more detail, then, because your post seems quite wrong to me and I would like what I assume to be my misunderstanding to be corrected. Absolutely nothing happens when you microwave a glass of water that wouldn't also happen if you heated it on the stove, or put it under a heat lamp. I was always under the impression that your stove heated via conduction (e.g., the transfer of heat from molecules on the stove to molecules in the pan holding your water to molecules of water). I was also under the impression that microwaves heated water via a dielectric effect (i.e., the water molecules interacting with the microwaves directly and heating up due to their 'attempts' to align with the rapidly-oscillating field + friction). Finally, I was under the impression that heat lamps heated things via radiative (e.g., infrared) heating. Radiative, conductive, and dielectric heating can all warm up the right substance. But I cannot agree that "absolutely nothing [different] happens" since their mechanisms are quite distinct. Please tell me why this is incorrect. Now, once you deposit the thermal energy into the water by one of the three methods listed above, I think we can all agree that convection will cause it to dissipate in the same fashion, regardless of how you got it there.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >>Absolutely nothing happens when you microwave a glass of water that wouldn't also happen if you heated it on the stove, or put it under a heat lamp. I'd like to see someone superheat water on the stove or indeed boil water inside a block of ice under a heat lamp.
    - CamperBob 16y ago
      Yeah. Superheating. That's what must be causing all these new cases of cancer that have appeared since people began using hand-held cellular phones in the late 1980s. /rolls eyes
      - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
        >>Absolutely nothing happens when you microwave a glass of water that wouldn't also happen [...] You can roll your eyes all you like it won't make that true. The parent made a general statement for which I believe there to be clear factual objection which I mentioned. The only logical contradiction would be to show the falsehood of such objection. I did consider saying "obviously this isn't the mechanism here" but I think the take-away is that you shouldn't make universal statements that are obviously false. This does actually then have a bearing on the matter in hand. If the universal is false then it opens the path for other unknown mechanisms to be considered that may also contradict such a universal statement. If people are willing to make such demonstrably false claims at such a low level then trusting them to clearly and accurately present the more complex situations becomes extremely difficult [for me]. Perhaps I'm unique in this but if you lie to me about one thing then I'm disinclined to believe you about another.
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    At this point, of course, you've moved the goalposts to the thermal side of the field. Are we talking about 'teaching the controversy' of athermal effects, or of thermal ones? ... Radiative, conductive, and dielectric heating can all warm up the right substance. But I cannot agree that "absolutely nothing [different] happens" since their mechanisms are quite distinct. Please tell me why this is incorrect. The mechanisms are not the least bit distinct at the molecular level. In each of these cases, heating occurs by simple friction. It comes down to the difference between a chemical change and a physical change. Microwaving the water, shining a light on it, or cooking it on a stove burner will cause physical changes. Ionizing radiation causes chemical changes. The distinction between these two types of effects isn't just important, it's the only one that matters.

Daniel_Newby 16y ago

"To receive EM energy you need a structure that's a substantial fraction of the wavelength." The axons of nerve cells are millimeters to meters long. It's also an open question just how sensitive neurological processes are to externally applied voltage. Neurons are polarized to about 50 mV, so a noisy oscillator composed of neurons could be measurably affected by a few millivolts of imposed potential. Fortunately it would be a statistical effect of similar magnitude to dietary changes or mechanical vibration, so the health effects would be microscopic. "It most certainly can." Stick a neon bulb in a microwave oven. The result is spectacular ionization resulting in bulk plasma formation, via nonthermal effects. And before you complain, certain proteins have a highly-hydrophobic cavity that does a remarkable impersonation of a vacuum chamber, and which would tend to accumulate noble gases. The actual argument against this being a problem is not Sci Am's half-assed physics theory but practical data. Many people have implanted pacemakers and nerve stimulators that apply substantial electrical potentials to living tissues: muscle, peripheral nerves, even the brain itself. No apparent pathology results over thousands of patient years of intensive use.

CamperBob 16y ago
Stick a neon bulb in a microwave oven. The result is spectacular ionization resulting in bulk plasma formation, via nonthermal effects. Funny, the same thing happens if I hold it near a Van de Graaff generator. Do you suppose we should apply the precautionary principle, and avoid combing our hair on a dry day? The axons of nerve cells are millimeters to meters long. In a medium that is not distinguishable from the rest of their environment at RF. This whole thread falls into the "not even wrong" category. I'm sorry I interfered, at this point.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

> To receive EM energy you need a structure that's a substantial fraction of the wavelength. Fractal antennae don't work then? Oh wait. But at least self-similarity is rare in natural systems ... oh, fiddlesticks. </sarcasm>

CamperBob 16y ago
No, not at these scales, they don't. As with any other antenna, the lowest frequency at which a fractal antenna is effective is still strongly influenced by the size of its largest dimension.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  Again, as with your other objection you're defending a invalid statement claimed as a universal truth that is demonstrably false. >>To receive EM energy you need a structure that's a substantial fraction of the wavelength. Except you don't and again the point is that it is non-obvious (or at least was) that fractal antennae would work and again this leads us to the position that we shouldn't simply assume we know the truth of extremely complex systems and particularly not based on hand-wavy false statements. --- Edit: FWIW I don't believe that cell-phones|mobiles cause cancer (generally, though I can imagine there are very specific instances where it might occur and that there are doubtless mechanisms that we don't understand at play).
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    Sigh. Yes. You're right. You win. Anything will "work" as an antenna at any frequency. You can match your radio's antenna stage to the impedance of a wet noodle, a nerve cell, or an intracellular vacuum cavity with the right network. Whether the antenna ends up electrically distinct from any other object in the vicinity is another question entirely. As I suggested before I have neither the time nor the qualifications to offer lectures on EM physics, nor to calibrate my words carefully enough to keep them from being recast by verbal anklebiters, so I'll grant you the point.
    - 16y ago