> ...terahertz waves penetrate many materials as effectively as X-rays but deposit far less energy and therefore cause less damage. Less damage? How about "no

> ...terahertz waves penetrate many materials as effectively as X-rays but deposit far less energy and therefore cause less damage. Less damage? How about "no damage at all"? Terahertz radiation is on the opposite side of visible light from the ionizing frequencies. And where the hell are they getting this "penetrate materials as effectively as X-Rays" business? It penetrates roughly the same materials as existing microwave systems, and lacks the single most commonly-known feature of X-rays, since it only penetrates a couple of millimeters into human flesh. IIRC terahertz radiation is worse at penetration than microwaves, but I'm not too certain of that. At least they have decent numbers for the range and they mention the increased channel capacity. I'll bet they got those numbers from the research paper and tried to bullshit a description of what THz radiation is. edit: I just reread that and I feel like it comes off as more harsh than I intended and more certain than I am of most of those facts. I was bothered by the conflation of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.