3 ms·
I think it's less about the heating of body tissue, but how EM fields affect the body's own bio-electric functions. There's no way getting around the fact that
by lizardactivist 4y ago
I think it's less about the heating of body tissue, but how EM fields affect the body's own bio-electric functions.
There's no way getting around the fact that electrically charged particles are affected by EM fields.
- eesmith 4y agoAt that level of generality you need to remember that light from a lamp is also an EM field. Radiant heat from a fireplace is infrared - also an EM field. We know that UV light, which starts around 400 nm, causes damage beyond its heating effects, so yes, EM fields in general can be a problem. But 835 MHz is about 30 cm wavelength - far larger than the size of the cells, much less the molecules in the cell. With 25+ years of research, including epidemiological studies of people working with or living near high-power transmitters, there's very little evidence that RF causes problems beyond simple heating.
- nazgulnarsil 4y agoThis seems over confident that what we see in terms of measures is all there is in terms of health.
- eesmith 4y agoWhy does it not seem like reasonable confidence? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_device_radiation_and_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_device_radiation_and_...