4 ms·
Before I took an interest in amateur radio I always thought that there was zero evidence of non-ionizing radiation being dangerous. Like you. I thought it was e
by nickysielicki 5y ago
Before I took an interest in amateur radio I always thought that there was zero evidence of non-ionizing radiation being dangerous. Like you. I thought it was established science that it was safe. Then I came across some recent papers and came to learn that NIR is definitely associated with the disruption of cells, and it’s not because of localized heating.
Go do a Google Scholar search for “non-ionizing radiation dangerous cell phones” and you’ll find a bunch of results from 15 years ago that say it’s perfectly safe, and another bunch of articles from the past 5 years saying the opposite.
It’s not quite the same risk as chain smoking cigarettes, but it’s definitely there.
Edit: link, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749116309526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02697...
- Aloha 5y agoIt's field strength that's the key here - and the field strength from a cell phone is basically impossibly low.
- dekhn 5y agoYes, it's correct non-ionzing radation has detectable effects on cells, some of which are deleterious. It's still not quite enough (given the lack of strong epidemiological evidence) to make any arguments for or against 5G.
- nickysielicki 5y ago> It's still not quite enough (given the lack of strong epidemiological evidence) to make any arguments for or against 5G. Definitely not. But to me it’s enough to give the benefit of the doubt to the author and keep reading, even when they carelessly overstate the risk.
- dekhn 5y agoThe author publishes roughly the same article in several venues on an annual basis, but interestingly, there is absolutely zero high quality epidemiological evidence supporting his position. Even at Berkeley he's a bit of an outsider with this position.