4 ms·

Just because the electromagnetic radiation is on a different wavelength than f.e. gamma radiation or x-ray radiation does not mean it DOESN'T affect matter on l

Just because the electromagnetic radiation is on a different wavelength than f.e. gamma radiation or x-ray radiation does not mean it DOESN'T affect matter on low or high level. People "believe" in the effects of x-rays on living tissue because we have established these effects as facts. People "believe" in the microwave oven, too. But for some reason, people refuse to believe that EMR on this wavelength could have any negative effects what so ever on living tissue and cellwork. Why? Is it because everyone knows how low power we're talking about in the case of home wifi, and also know enough about physics to conclude that the implied power is too weak to cause effect? Probably not. Is it society clouding their judgement and critical mind? Probably. "Of course it's harmless - it's used everywhere!" The old saying of "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" comes to mind. I would personally not be surprised if these suspicions were found to be true further down the road. The crowd that blatantly laughs and goes "oh boy!" at the claims come out as nothing less than ignorant fools, and the crowd of suspicious paranoiacs comes out as, well, uh, a wee bit paranoid. Both camps would probably benefit by keeping their noise down a bit until we have had enough time to let our studies' output grow, and given our statistics time to mature and settle.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
But for some reason, people refuse to believe that EMR on this wavelength could have any negative effects what so ever on living tissue and cellwork. Anyone who took high school physics learned about the photoelectric effect - if a single photon does not contain the ionization energy, no ionization occurs [1]. This is supported by a huge number of experiments and is a generic conclusion of quantum mechanics. The only effect wifi can have on trees, people, etc, is the generation of a tiny amount of heat. If you can disprove this, you will get a Nobel prize in physics. I wrote a paper on the topic, see the citations for a lot of background material (my paper is just math, don't bother with it): http://cims.nyu.edu/~stucchio/pubs/dipole_delta.pdf http://cims.nyu.edu/~stucchio/pubs/dipole_delta.pdf [1] Not true at high intensity, i.e. in a high powered laser beam or microwave resonating cavity.
- hackermom 16y ago
  "The only effect wifi can have on trees, people, etc, is the generation of a tiny amount of heat." This is a very bold claim. People said something just as harmless about x-rays in its heyday, too. Today we know it has absolutely profound effects on living cells even at moderate power, and we know it indeed also has an effect of the negative kind at low power given proper time and exposure. How can you be so sure that the GHz spectrum of EMR happen to be as harmless as you imply?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    People said something just as harmless about x-rays in its heyday, too. That's a ridiculous statement. Before understanding QM, no reasonable person would make any such claims. Anyone who claimed that these "x-rays" (named "x" because we didn't know what they were) had no effect on matter, except to be absorbed by it, was a moron. I don't think any credible scientist made this claim, but feel free to cite one. Once we understood they were EM waves at higher frequency than UV light, it is very simple to deduce they might cause ionization. Once we developed quantum mechanics and time-dependent perturbation theory, it was just a matter chugging through the calculations. Literally millions of experiments have confirmed that QM works really fucking well. If Ephoton > Ebond, you get O(I) ionization. If Ephoton < Ebond you get O(I^2) ionization, which is really small (unless I is huge). I stand by my statement: if you disprove this, you will overturn the past 100 years of physics. We will need to throw away every single QM textbook written since the 50's. You will receive the next Nobel prize. Future textbooks will forever refer to "Newton, Einstein, and hackermom."
nollidge 16y ago
"Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" is false. Absence of evidence can very well mean evidence of absence depending on how hard we've looked. People have looked really hard for evidence of Bigfoot and found nothing worthwhile, and it is reasonable to conclude that Bigfoot does not exist.
- hackermom 16y ago
  By this stretch of logic of yours, the various photographs supposedly depicting Bigfoot must thusly be concluded to be reasonable evidence of Bigfoot's existence :)

yummyfajitas 16y ago

But for some reason, people refuse to believe that EMR on this wavelength could have any negative effects what so ever on living tissue and cellwork. Anyone who took high school physics learned about the photoelectric effect - if a single photon does not contain the ionization energy, no ionization occurs [1]. This is supported by a huge number of experiments and is a generic conclusion of quantum mechanics. The only effect wifi can have on trees, people, etc, is the generation of a tiny amount of heat. If you can disprove this, you will get a Nobel prize in physics. I wrote a paper on the topic, see the citations for a lot of background material (my paper is just math, don't bother with it): http://cims.nyu.edu/~stucchio/pubs/dipole_delta.pdf http://cims.nyu.edu/~stucchio/pubs/dipole_delta.pdf [1] Not true at high intensity, i.e. in a high powered laser beam or microwave resonating cavity.

hackermom 16y ago
"The only effect wifi can have on trees, people, etc, is the generation of a tiny amount of heat." This is a very bold claim. People said something just as harmless about x-rays in its heyday, too. Today we know it has absolutely profound effects on living cells even at moderate power, and we know it indeed also has an effect of the negative kind at low power given proper time and exposure. How can you be so sure that the GHz spectrum of EMR happen to be as harmless as you imply?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  People said something just as harmless about x-rays in its heyday, too. That's a ridiculous statement. Before understanding QM, no reasonable person would make any such claims. Anyone who claimed that these "x-rays" (named "x" because we didn't know what they were) had no effect on matter, except to be absorbed by it, was a moron. I don't think any credible scientist made this claim, but feel free to cite one. Once we understood they were EM waves at higher frequency than UV light, it is very simple to deduce they might cause ionization. Once we developed quantum mechanics and time-dependent perturbation theory, it was just a matter chugging through the calculations. Literally millions of experiments have confirmed that QM works really fucking well. If Ephoton > Ebond, you get O(I) ionization. If Ephoton < Ebond you get O(I^2) ionization, which is really small (unless I is huge). I stand by my statement: if you disprove this, you will overturn the past 100 years of physics. We will need to throw away every single QM textbook written since the 50's. You will receive the next Nobel prize. Future textbooks will forever refer to "Newton, Einstein, and hackermom."

nollidge 16y ago

"Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" is false. Absence of evidence can very well mean evidence of absence depending on how hard we've looked. People have looked really hard for evidence of Bigfoot and found nothing worthwhile, and it is reasonable to conclude that Bigfoot does not exist.

hackermom 16y ago
By this stretch of logic of yours, the various photographs supposedly depicting Bigfoot must thusly be concluded to be reasonable evidence of Bigfoot's existence :)