4 ms·
You could have a point if you put a little bit more effort into your rant. As it stands you are making a couple of factual errors, as others noted. THz is non-
by tpfour 8y ago
You could have a point if you put a little bit more effort into your rant. As it stands you are making a couple of factual errors, as others noted.
THz is non-ionizing, for one.
- weberc2 8y agoWhat an odd comment. What are the errors and who noted them? Right now there's only one "correction" and it appears to be in agreement with the original post. Did the OP reverse his point or am I misunderstanding someone?
- tpfour 8y agoNoobermin mentioned that OP compares a power vs an intensity (different units). OP suggests that THz radiation is ionizing - it is not. OP maintains that a lightbulb emits "10-100x" more radiation than a cellphone - at what frequencies? Is he talking about power or intensity?
- SigmundA 8y agoI did quickly write out the post without putting much thought or research into it. On power vs intensity since our distance from the sun is relatively fixed intensity is a better unit while distance from a radio tower is variable so power is a better unit. I also figured that a smart crowd like this would appreciate that you would be exposed to much less radiation standing next to the tower than standing in the sun and that it falls off at inverse square from the tower. So I always forget technically ionizing UV is not in the terahertz range, however ionizing like damage to human biology does start in that range and is not a thermal effect. The lightbulb statement was power and again was just a quick way of trying put it in perspective.