8 ms·

We had a physics teacher who thought cell phones may cause brain damage and my immediate thought was to ask him about the electron well discussion we had had pr

We had a physics teacher who thought cell phones may cause brain damage and my immediate thought was to ask him about the electron well discussion we had had previously when discussing ionizing radiation and how the mechanism for damage from cell phone waves was basically impossible. He still stuck to his concern but didn't offer up a proposed mechanism for harm. The radio waves used for cell phones are between about 800 and 2000 Mhz. Visible light which we all know is not a concern is 490 to 790...terahertz. You don't get to ionizing radiation until you get to roughly 2400 terahertz which is roughly 10 eV. Was very frustrating learning all that physics just for dumbasses to claim your brain was getting fried so they could sell you a sticker with a metal screen for $40 that does nothing.

forum_ghost 5y ago
1 watt laser can burn through your eyeball. 1 watt regular LED is a fun Christmas decoration. Details matter. There are theories that radio waves can activate small nerve fibres that are located closely to the edge of your skin, where EMF can penetrate, even if only couple millimetres deep. Those nerve fibres are often located near the mast cells, which form part of your innantr immune system, and have a two-way communication with your CNS via these fibers. Constant inflammation driven by mast cells is a proven cause of autoimmune disease and increased risks of cancer, osteoporosis, many other chronic illness. It’s not just ionisation that can do that. That’s only one mechanism. Induce enough inflammation and you could have risks of cancer go up, and not only locally, like skin cancer, but systemically as well, because the immune cells release mediators into the systemic circulation, and in rare cases even causes anaphylaxis, like with solar urticaria: https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/what-is-solar-urticaria https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/what-is-s...
- SigmundA 5y ago
  Cellphone transmitters are not coherent, they are like LED christmas decorations except lower power.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    False. Again.
    - SigmundA 5y ago
      Really so cellphones are actually microwave lasers, cool!
      - alexvoda 5y ago
        We do actually have microwave lasers, which IIRC predate lasers, called masers. Of course, there is no cellphone equipped with such a thing.
        nuvious 5y ago
        Masers are cool. My dad worked in an optics lab that used Masers in college and they used Styrofoam for lenses because it's transparent in the microwave spectrum and induces refraction well.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - forum_ghost 5y ago
    >Cellphone transmitters are not coherent, they are like LED christmas decorations except lower power. The point is neither one produces ionizing radiation. There are other mechanisms by which non-ionizing radiation can induce cancers, such as the one I've described.
    - SigmundA 5y ago
      >There are other mechanisms by which non-ionizing radiation can induce cancers, such as the one I've described. Link please, there are no proven mechanisms such as you describe I am aware of. Your only link points to sun exposure and UVB rays which are near ionizing and cause cancer through DNA damage based on photon energy. Your example of a laser vs led is on point because its purely based on inverse-square, watt per kg and and thermal heating of tissue which is the only known mechanism which cellphone RF frequencies can cause tissue damage and only at orders of magnitude more power levels.
- nuvious 5y ago
  > There are theories that radio waves can activate small nerve fibres that are located closely to the edge of your skin, where EMF can penetrate, even if only couple millimetres deep. Great. Can you provide a reference to this premise at all? There are theories doesn't mean there are verifiable observations to support them. You based your entire argument on this, and eventually connected to a WebMD reference to a condition caused by exposure to solar energy... ...which is orders and orders of more magnitude greater energy than microwave transmitters used in cell phone... ...also a cell phone transmitter maxes out at 1 watt to the antenna and solar energy at the earth's surface is 1000 watts per meter... ...oh yeah, and SOLAR FLUX UNCLUDES UV RADIATION WHICH IS IONIZING RADIATION! Provide a peer reviewed reference to your proposed mechanism that actually connects it to damage in DNA that leads to cancer in the context of cell phones please.
  - forum_ghost 5y ago
    Solar urticaria has nothing to do with ionizing radiation. as per the CDC, UVA is not ionizing. You can review this on cdc.gov, and maybe inform them they are wrong? A discovery that ionizing radiation is the causative factor of anaphylaxis in solar urticaria would probably get you quite a few awards. Looking forward to your contributions to health sciences. It also doesn't matter, as the same occurs with infrared: google "heat urticaria". def not ionizing? You can use this link www.google.com to confirm, and also this one maybe: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov maybe also google "cold urticaria"? is negative (inverse?) infrared ionizing? Pressure urticaria is also cool, no radiation required at all. Given the subject matter at hand is quite involved and requires fairly up to date expertise in neurology, allergy and immunology, oncology and dermatology to be able to evaluate mechanisms at hand, I have prepared for you a decent list of peer reviewed materials to begin your preparation: a) ISBN: 0-87893-106-6 b) ISBN: 9780123851574 c) ISBN: 9780199558322 d) ISBN: 978-1-62618-166-3 e) ISBN: 978-92-4-157238-5 f) ISBN: 3034808372 g) ISBN: 9783034808378 h) ISBN: 978-92-76-29839-7 Once you have covered the basics in the above peer reviewed literature, most of which is even approved for training, you will then have no difficulty at all accepting the following: 1) Mast cells are located at the junction point of the host and external environment. 2) EMF penetrates into the skin tissue by several millimiters. 3) There is voluminous clinical evidence of mast cell degranulation by non-ionizing radiation 4) Mast cells produce inflammation, both local AND systemic. 5) Chronic inflammation causes DNA damage and increases risks of cancer and many other diseases. Clinical implications of the interplay between EMF and mast cells is an ongoing area of research. There is like less than 90 papers published on this specific topic, which is miniscule. However, you should not review those papers until after you completed with basics. Looking forward to your contributions.
amelius 5y ago
It's a bit bold to only consider ionization as a possible cause of damage. Molecular chemistry where e.g. protein clusters copy DNA, is very intricate, and introducing electromagnetic resonances in such processes could be potentially disruptive. It's not just your receiver that picks up energy from radio waves, molecules can too (even without losing electrons). In fact, someone cannot prove mobile phones are safe once and for all unless they tested the entire set of frequencies used in future phone models too.
- rndphs 5y ago
  At the molecular level, basically all photon modes associated with the thermal energy (or lower) will be already thermally occupied. E = hf = k_bT/2. This frequency at room temperature is about 30THz. So on the microscopic level, any frequencies under 30THz are constantly irradiated by thermal fields anyway. Edit: Furthermore, the Gibb's free energy of any molecular process determines the reversibility of the process at a given temperature. Any molecular process with Gibb's free energy that is lower than the thermal mean energy is going to be essentially a reversible equilibrium process, and stimulating it with radiation will only shift the equilibrium very slightly I believe. I think it's for this reason that we don't see radio catalysed reactions in chemistry, unlike photocatalysed reactions.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    I.e., at random: thus not inducing any coherent electric current, so irrelevant to the discussion. The only other subjects that induce such confident statements of fact from the profoundly ignorant are economics and politics.
    - rndphs 5y ago
      But the only electric current on the molecular level is coherent current...? Chemical reactions are not macroscale phenomena, and so it shouldn't really matter if the energy comes from a random distribution or not. Also please don't insinuate that I'm "profoundly ignorant", that certainly isn't relevant to the discussion.

forum_ghost 5y ago

1 watt laser can burn through your eyeball. 1 watt regular LED is a fun Christmas decoration. Details matter. There are theories that radio waves can activate small nerve fibres that are located closely to the edge of your skin, where EMF can penetrate, even if only couple millimetres deep. Those nerve fibres are often located near the mast cells, which form part of your innantr immune system, and have a two-way communication with your CNS via these fibers. Constant inflammation driven by mast cells is a proven cause of autoimmune disease and increased risks of cancer, osteoporosis, many other chronic illness. It’s not just ionisation that can do that. That’s only one mechanism. Induce enough inflammation and you could have risks of cancer go up, and not only locally, like skin cancer, but systemically as well, because the immune cells release mediators into the systemic circulation, and in rare cases even causes anaphylaxis, like with solar urticaria: https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/what-is-solar-urticaria https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/what-is-s...

SigmundA 5y ago
Cellphone transmitters are not coherent, they are like LED christmas decorations except lower power.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  False. Again.
  - SigmundA 5y ago
    Really so cellphones are actually microwave lasers, cool!
    - alexvoda 5y ago
      We do actually have microwave lasers, which IIRC predate lasers, called masers. Of course, there is no cellphone equipped with such a thing.
      - nuvious 5y ago
        Masers are cool. My dad worked in an optics lab that used Masers in college and they used Styrofoam for lenses because it's transparent in the microwave spectrum and induces refraction well.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- forum_ghost 5y ago
  >Cellphone transmitters are not coherent, they are like LED christmas decorations except lower power. The point is neither one produces ionizing radiation. There are other mechanisms by which non-ionizing radiation can induce cancers, such as the one I've described.
  - SigmundA 5y ago
    >There are other mechanisms by which non-ionizing radiation can induce cancers, such as the one I've described. Link please, there are no proven mechanisms such as you describe I am aware of. Your only link points to sun exposure and UVB rays which are near ionizing and cause cancer through DNA damage based on photon energy. Your example of a laser vs led is on point because its purely based on inverse-square, watt per kg and and thermal heating of tissue which is the only known mechanism which cellphone RF frequencies can cause tissue damage and only at orders of magnitude more power levels.
nuvious 5y ago
> There are theories that radio waves can activate small nerve fibres that are located closely to the edge of your skin, where EMF can penetrate, even if only couple millimetres deep. Great. Can you provide a reference to this premise at all? There are theories doesn't mean there are verifiable observations to support them. You based your entire argument on this, and eventually connected to a WebMD reference to a condition caused by exposure to solar energy... ...which is orders and orders of more magnitude greater energy than microwave transmitters used in cell phone... ...also a cell phone transmitter maxes out at 1 watt to the antenna and solar energy at the earth's surface is 1000 watts per meter... ...oh yeah, and SOLAR FLUX UNCLUDES UV RADIATION WHICH IS IONIZING RADIATION! Provide a peer reviewed reference to your proposed mechanism that actually connects it to damage in DNA that leads to cancer in the context of cell phones please.
- forum_ghost 5y ago
  Solar urticaria has nothing to do with ionizing radiation. as per the CDC, UVA is not ionizing. You can review this on cdc.gov, and maybe inform them they are wrong? A discovery that ionizing radiation is the causative factor of anaphylaxis in solar urticaria would probably get you quite a few awards. Looking forward to your contributions to health sciences. It also doesn't matter, as the same occurs with infrared: google "heat urticaria". def not ionizing? You can use this link www.google.com to confirm, and also this one maybe: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov maybe also google "cold urticaria"? is negative (inverse?) infrared ionizing? Pressure urticaria is also cool, no radiation required at all. Given the subject matter at hand is quite involved and requires fairly up to date expertise in neurology, allergy and immunology, oncology and dermatology to be able to evaluate mechanisms at hand, I have prepared for you a decent list of peer reviewed materials to begin your preparation: a) ISBN: 0-87893-106-6 b) ISBN: 9780123851574 c) ISBN: 9780199558322 d) ISBN: 978-1-62618-166-3 e) ISBN: 978-92-4-157238-5 f) ISBN: 3034808372 g) ISBN: 9783034808378 h) ISBN: 978-92-76-29839-7 Once you have covered the basics in the above peer reviewed literature, most of which is even approved for training, you will then have no difficulty at all accepting the following: 1) Mast cells are located at the junction point of the host and external environment. 2) EMF penetrates into the skin tissue by several millimiters. 3) There is voluminous clinical evidence of mast cell degranulation by non-ionizing radiation 4) Mast cells produce inflammation, both local AND systemic. 5) Chronic inflammation causes DNA damage and increases risks of cancer and many other diseases. Clinical implications of the interplay between EMF and mast cells is an ongoing area of research. There is like less than 90 papers published on this specific topic, which is miniscule. However, you should not review those papers until after you completed with basics. Looking forward to your contributions.

amelius 5y ago

It's a bit bold to only consider ionization as a possible cause of damage. Molecular chemistry where e.g. protein clusters copy DNA, is very intricate, and introducing electromagnetic resonances in such processes could be potentially disruptive. It's not just your receiver that picks up energy from radio waves, molecules can too (even without losing electrons). In fact, someone cannot prove mobile phones are safe once and for all unless they tested the entire set of frequencies used in future phone models too.

rndphs 5y ago
At the molecular level, basically all photon modes associated with the thermal energy (or lower) will be already thermally occupied. E = hf = k_bT/2. This frequency at room temperature is about 30THz. So on the microscopic level, any frequencies under 30THz are constantly irradiated by thermal fields anyway. Edit: Furthermore, the Gibb's free energy of any molecular process determines the reversibility of the process at a given temperature. Any molecular process with Gibb's free energy that is lower than the thermal mean energy is going to be essentially a reversible equilibrium process, and stimulating it with radiation will only shift the equilibrium very slightly I believe. I think it's for this reason that we don't see radio catalysed reactions in chemistry, unlike photocatalysed reactions.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  I.e., at random: thus not inducing any coherent electric current, so irrelevant to the discussion. The only other subjects that induce such confident statements of fact from the profoundly ignorant are economics and politics.
  - rndphs 5y ago
    But the only electric current on the molecular level is coherent current...? Chemical reactions are not macroscale phenomena, and so it shouldn't really matter if the energy comes from a random distribution or not. Also please don't insinuate that I'm "profoundly ignorant", that certainly isn't relevant to the discussion.