You make good points here but do realize that RF energy and light are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. As to sun burns we are talking about UV energy which is very dangerous. In fact UV is often used to sterilize products and fluids.
So what I'm saying here is that safety discussions about electromagnetic energy have to take into account operating frequency. What is notable about police cars and the people inside, is the wide variation in frequencies they are exposed too. These devices operate over various power levels on purpose though. Even then I wouldn't advice looking directly into one of those radar guns.
Ionic radiation is compounding and non-ionic radiation is non-compounding. If you get a "sun-burn" today and another one next summer, those two burns compound and greatly increase your chances for melanoma. RF radiation is nonionic and non-compounding so it doesn't matter how many times you get hit.
A good example is police officers: they use low power cell phones, portable radios blasting 4-5 watts directly into their body, 50-100 watt mobile radios operating directly above them and 20-30 GHz radar radiating to their front and rear all while inside their squad cars. If non-compounding RF radiation was dangerous, police officers should have cancer after their first year on patrol.
This is a ridiculous statement. Terrific research is done in 'industries' all the time. Many company research teams have won Nobel science/medicine prizes. Large amounts of life-changing innovations have come from companies in the 20th century (including mobile telephony).
Moreover, any halfway smart company knows that is suicidal, from a profit maximization standpoint, to fudge this kind of analysis when large numbers of independent researchers across the globe can replicate their methods and analysis. Self-interest is entirely consistent with good research.
This is a ridiculous counter argument that depends on confounding the difference between research that is directed towards product development and research on product safety.
You're quite right if you restrict your argument to product development. But, apply it to product safety and it's patently absurd, as well as contrary to historical evidence.
Your comments demonstrate what is wrong with America these days. If there is something out there that can't be seen but might harm you it must be outlawed. Not because it has or or will cause harm but rather that it might for on sensitive individual out of billions. It is the same irrational fear of nuclear power plants and other invisibles that is frankly out of hand. One can look at Japan and realize that not one person has died yet from the nuclear plant failures there yet still we have this outlandish fear of nuclear power systems. ...
Your comments demonstrate what is wrong with America these days: knee jerk anti-government, anti-science, anti-rational, ... and so on, combined with an inability to comprehend things in any but the most simplistic terms.
I really can't understand how people can go totally crazed just because someone says that a little scientific investigation is a good thing, but, instead, somehow read into that that it's being claimed to be dangerous.
Why are so many of you afraid of searching for the truth by actually applying science to questions?
Whether or not cell phone radiation is dangerous (all information so far is that it's not), what you are reporting is rather definitelythe product of your imagination. For it to be otherwise, all science and logic would have to be suspect.
That's not true.
kcartesius claims: "Every time I use a cell phone for a longer period of time, I get a headache. Have been using all kinds of cell phones since the mid 90s. Since the headache goes away soon after a call is finished,"
You are correct that it's unlikely that the radiation from the cell phone causes it. However, it's entirely possible that it's real and not his imagination. It could be that there's a neuromuscular problem in his arm that causes him to get a headache when lifting his arm. Or perhaps he tilts his head in a certain way when using a cell phone and pinches a nerve, causing a headache. Instead of simply dismissing it as imagination, s/he should have it evaluated to determine the cause. Meanwhile, I would use a hands-free device or set the phone on speaker to avoid the headache if the claim is really true. (It seems rather strange that the person would continue to use cell phones for over 15 years without switching to a hands-free device if it really does cause him/her pain every time).
This is a ridiculous counter argument that depends on confounding the difference between research that is directed towards product development and research on product safety.
You're quite right if you restrict your argument to product development. But, apply it to product safety and it's patently absurd, as well as contrary to historical evidence.
No credible company conducts "product development" research without simultaneously conducting "product safety" research if/when it gets to the market test and product introduction stage. As I said before, it's suicidal. Why would any sane company spend gazillions on the former, then run the risk of foundering on the latter, especially when -- I repeat a point that your vacuous response specifically wants to ignore -- independent researchers can invalidate their findings and put them (and their shareholders) in legal jeopardy!?
This is not to say that companies and industries always get it right, or never hide or obfuscate the truth. The innuendo in your posts, however, is both incorrect and irresponsible. 'Historical evidence' in a vast majority of the cases -- indeed, in all but a handful of cases -- is the exact opposite.
Btw, the overwrought claim that you're making about deceptive research can be equally made about governments and academics, no? We can all name dozens and dozens of examples.
Your comments demonstrate what is wrong with America these days: knee jerk anti-government, anti-science, anti-rational, ... and so on, combined with an inability to comprehend things in any but the most simplistic terms.
Sorry, but you're the one with the anti-rational, anti-science, anti-government view. You're defending someone who has taken a very strong 'guilty until proven innocent' stand - and there's absolutely no way to scientifically prove innocence, so the phone companies MUST be guilty to anyone with that view.
I really can't understand how people can go totally crazed just because someone says that a little scientific investigation is a good thing, but, instead, somehow read into that that it's being claimed to be dangerous.
That's not what happened. kerryb took the view that the phone companies were guilty and were hiding evidence. I pointed out that this isn't true and that the matter has been extensively studied and no evidence of harm has been found. I further stated that there's nothing wrong with further research, it is not appropriate to start from the standpoint that the industry is guilty and covering up known danger (using the tobacco industry as an analogy) - because extensive research from governments and academics also shows that there's no evidence of harm at this point. If further research indicates that there is some harm, it's not evidence of a coverup, but rather evidence that scientific methods have improved.
No credible company conducts "product development" research without simultaneously conducting "product safety" research if/when it gets to the market test and product introduction stage. As I said before, it's suicidal. Why would any sane company spend gazillions on the former, then run the risk of foundering on the latter, especially when -- I repeat a point that your vacuous response specifically wants to ignore -- independent researchers can invalidate their findings and put them (and their shareholders) in legal jeopardy!?
This is not to say that companies and industries always get it right, or never hide or obfuscate the truth. The innuendo in your posts, however, is both incorrect and irresponsible. 'Historical evidence' in a vast majority of the cases -- indeed, in all but a handful of cases -- is the exact opposite.
Btw, the overwrought claim that you're making about deceptive research can be equally made about governments and academics, no? We can all name dozens and dozens of examples.
Actually, it goes beyond that. If there was no evidence at all, then anonymouse and kerryb's position might be a little more plausible. But there is already mountains of evidence from universities, governments, and industry on the matter, none of it showing any measurable effect.
I'm all in favor of further research. First, the technology has improved and the researchers could do a better job today than they could 15 years ago (for example, 15 years ago, cell phone radiation had to be estimated while today it would be easy to make a small detector to sit behind the ear to measure actual radiation dosages). Second, cell phone usage is far more widespread now than it was 15 years ago. Not only do far more people use cell phones, but they are used many more hours per day. Third, there's much more history. We probably have at least 50, maybe 100 times as many man-years of cell phone usage history as we had then, so if there's an effect that accumulates slowly, it would be easier to pick up now (for example, if cell phone usage caused a type of cancer that takes 10 years to appear, virtually no one would have had it in the mid-90s, but plenty of people might have it now). Finally, the phones themselves may have changed. I'm not sure, but I think that the radiation level is lower than it was 15 years ago. That is partially countered by the fact that the antenna is generally closer to your head in current phones.
When you combine all those things, it is absolutely reasonable to want to have another look at the matter. It is not, however, reasonable to take the 'guilty until proven innocent' view that some people are taking.
What Nagrome said is correct, as is what you just said. Ionizing radiation COMES FROM emission of particles from atoms through radioactive decay, and causes ionization.
C
Ionizing radiation also comes from sources other than radioactive decay, such as nuclear fusion and things like synchrotron and bremsstrahlung (yeah, they're related) radiation.
One can look at Japan and realize that not one person has died yet from the nuclear plant failures there yet still we have this outlandish fear of nuclear power systems.
This information is incorrect.
Even if it were correct, it is not the proper inquiry upon which to base an opinion on the safety of nuclear power.
Let me offer a rebuttal in the form of an example: Microwave is considered to be a non-ionising radiation. Depending on the intensity of the radiation, it can cause death. If you want to verify that for yourself, put your Mom's cat in the microwave and cook on high for a couple minutes.
The debate here is " whether wireless radiation carcinogenic". Microwave ovens push 2.4 GHz from 600-1200 watts, much more powerful than any cell phone or other consumer RF device. Water doesn't cause cancer, but that can kill you too. So the argument of my Mother's cat in the microwave (sorry Mom) is apple's to oranges.
You make good points here but do realize that RF energy and light are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. As to sun burns we are talking about UV energy which is very dangerous. In fact UV is often used to sterilize products and fluids.
So what I'm saying here is that safety discussions about electromagnetic energy have to take into account operating frequency. What is notable about police cars and the people inside, is the wide variation in frequencies they are exposed too. These devices operate over various power levels on purpose though. Even then I wouldn't advice looking directly into one of those radar guns.
My example of a "sun burn" was used as a common example of ionizing radiation and the compounding effects. Why would you advise not looking directly into a low power radar transmitter? If you're going to avoid looking directly into objects, I would recommend lasers.
The debate here is " whether wireless radiation carcinogenic". Microwave ovens push 2.4 GHz from 600-1200 watts, much more powerful than any cell phone or other consumer RF device. Water doesn't cause cancer, but that can kill you too. So the argument of my Mother's cat in the microwave (sorry Mom) is apple's to oranges.
Sure I was exaggerating. In your example of police officers would develop cancer within a year if RF was dangerous was just as ridiculous. It is a matter of degrees. In the case of the police they are taking precautions. Their radio is not pointing at their head it is mounted on their tool belt. The radar is pointing away from them and the in car radio's antenna is outside the vehicle shielded by the steel roof of the car.
My original post was a statement of precaution and accepting the possibility that there may be long term effects of constant radiation emitted by cell phones held close to the head, which is not an original thought. Many scientists have suggested that there may be risks especially in children. Your statements, on the other hand, seem to dismiss any possibility of danger of cell phone usage whatsoever, which unless you have some vested interest in people holding cell phones to their head, seems like a foolish premise to support given there is little data available. Cell phones have only been in use for less than 30 years and the handheld version for maybe half that. Only in the past few years has the cell phone become ubiquitous and even shorter time for adolescents and children to be using them. The data set is far too small to draw any conclusions especially since the typical environmental exposure types of cancer usually take decades before even producing symptoms.
Sure I was exaggerating. In your example of police officers would develop cancer within a year if RF was dangerous was just as ridiculous. It is a matter of degrees. In the case of the police they are taking precautions. Their radio is not pointing at their head it is mounted on their tool belt. The radar is pointing away from them and the in car radio's antenna is outside the vehicle shielded by the steel roof of the car.
My original post was a statement of precaution and accepting the possibility that there may be long term effects of constant radiation emitted by cell phones held close to the head, which is not an original thought. Many scientists have suggested that there may be risks especially in children. Your statements, on the other hand, seem to dismiss any possibility of danger of cell phone usage whatsoever, which unless you have some vested interest in people holding cell phones to their head, seems like a foolish premise to support given there is little data available. Cell phones have only been in use for less than 30 years and the handheld version for maybe half that. Only in the past few years has the cell phone become ubiquitous and even shorter time for adolescents and children to be using them. The data set is far too small to draw any conclusions especially since the typical environmental exposure types of cancer usually take decades before even producing symptoms.
So you're telling me a 4 watt transmitter using a longer wavelength (lower frequency with better penetration characteristics) is safer next to your torso then a 0.6 watt transmitter next to your head? Also, a lot of the new public safety portables have the antenna on the mic cable which sits on the officers shoulder. Side lobes still leak RF back to the transmitting source so it doesn't matter where you point the antenna. And the antenna is placed external to the vehicle to increase it's sensitivity and inhibit loss, not for officer safety.
So you're telling me a 4 watt transmitter using a longer wavelength (lower frequency with better penetration characteristics) is safer next to your torso then a 0.6 watt transmitter next to your head? Also, a lot of the new public safety portables have the antenna on the mic cable which sits on the officers shoulder. Side lobes still leak RF back to the transmitting source so it doesn't matter where you point the antenna. And the antenna is placed external to the vehicle to increase it's sensitivity and inhibit loss, not for officer safety.
I'm telling you that radiation is dangerous to biological systems. A small amount of radiation is less dangerous than a large dose of radiation. Constant exposure is more dangerous than infrequent exposure.
You seem to be very knowledgable about radio systems, however, I can only offer my opinions based on my 20 years of working in medical radiology which is not exactly the same field of expertise.
So you're telling me a 4 watt transmitter using a longer wavelength (lower frequency with better penetration characteristics) is safer next to your torso then a 0.6 watt transmitter next to your head? Also, a lot of the new public safety portables have the antenna on the mic cable which sits on the officers shoulder. Side lobes still leak RF back to the transmitting source so it doesn't matter where you point the antenna. And the antenna is placed external to the vehicle to increase it's sensitivity and inhibit loss, not for officer safety.
To be fair, it's just impossible to say which is worse. While longer wavelength radiation is more penetrating, shorter wavelengths have more energy and have the potential to cause more damage. Sometimes there's a window - where radiation of a certain frequency does more damage than radiation either above OR below that frequency. It's simply impossible to predict the effect of any given frequency and power on the human body - which is why the FCC is doing additional testing.
No credible company conducts "product development" research without simultaneously conducting "product safety" research if/when it gets to the market test and product introduction stage. ...
Right, that's why we never have products on the market that cause consumer harm and never hear of companies suppressing negative research results.
To be fair, it's just impossible to say which is worse. While longer wavelength radiation is more penetrating, shorter wavelengths have more energy and have the potential to cause more damage. Sometimes there's a window - where radiation of a certain frequency does more damage than radiation either above OR below that frequency. It's simply impossible to predict the effect of any given frequency and power on the human body - which is why the FCC is doing additional testing.
How do shorter wavelengths have more energy? If I'm transmitting 150 MHz at 4 watts, does that have less energy than 900 MHz at 0.6 watts? I can modulate more data onto the 900 MHz carrier but it won't have more energy. And specifically, what damages are being caused by the radio frequency radiation?
Actually, it goes beyond that. If there was no evidence at all, then anonymouse and kerryb's position ...
This explains why none of your responses seem to have anything to do with what I've written. My "position" is not the same as his "position", despite acknowledging that he has a point that he pushed too far. You should try to not let your emotions cloud your comprehension.
How do shorter wavelengths have more energy? If I'm transmitting 150 MHz at 4 watts, does that have less energy than 900 MHz at 0.6 watts? I can modulate more data onto the 900 MHz carrier but it won't have more energy. And specifically, what damages are being caused by the radio frequency radiation?
That's exactly what should be studied. Studies that some seem to be opposed to because we already know everything there is to know.
Comments
So what I'm saying here is that safety discussions about electromagnetic energy have to take into account operating frequency. What is notable about police cars and the people inside, is the wide variation in frequencies they are exposed too. These devices operate over various power levels on purpose though. Even then I wouldn't advice looking directly into one of those radar guns.
This is a ridiculous counter argument that depends on confounding the difference between research that is directed towards product development and research on product safety.
You're quite right if you restrict your argument to product development. But, apply it to product safety and it's patently absurd, as well as contrary to historical evidence.
Your comments demonstrate what is wrong with America these days: knee jerk anti-government, anti-science, anti-rational, ... and so on, combined with an inability to comprehend things in any but the most simplistic terms.
I really can't understand how people can go totally crazed just because someone says that a little scientific investigation is a good thing, but, instead, somehow read into that that it's being claimed to be dangerous.
Why are so many of you afraid of searching for the truth by actually applying science to questions?
That's not true.
kcartesius claims: "Every time I use a cell phone for a longer period of time, I get a headache. Have been using all kinds of cell phones since the mid 90s. Since the headache goes away soon after a call is finished,"
You are correct that it's unlikely that the radiation from the cell phone causes it. However, it's entirely possible that it's real and not his imagination. It could be that there's a neuromuscular problem in his arm that causes him to get a headache when lifting his arm. Or perhaps he tilts his head in a certain way when using a cell phone and pinches a nerve, causing a headache. Instead of simply dismissing it as imagination, s/he should have it evaluated to determine the cause. Meanwhile, I would use a hands-free device or set the phone on speaker to avoid the headache if the claim is really true. (It seems rather strange that the person would continue to use cell phones for over 15 years without switching to a hands-free device if it really does cause him/her pain every time).
No credible company conducts "product development" research without simultaneously conducting "product safety" research if/when it gets to the market test and product introduction stage. As I said before, it's suicidal. Why would any sane company spend gazillions on the former, then run the risk of foundering on the latter, especially when -- I repeat a point that your vacuous response specifically wants to ignore -- independent researchers can invalidate their findings and put them (and their shareholders) in legal jeopardy!?
This is not to say that companies and industries always get it right, or never hide or obfuscate the truth. The innuendo in your posts, however, is both incorrect and irresponsible. 'Historical evidence' in a vast majority of the cases -- indeed, in all but a handful of cases -- is the exact opposite.
Btw, the overwrought claim that you're making about deceptive research can be equally made about governments and academics, no? We can all name dozens and dozens of examples.
Sorry, but you're the one with the anti-rational, anti-science, anti-government view. You're defending someone who has taken a very strong 'guilty until proven innocent' stand - and there's absolutely no way to scientifically prove innocence, so the phone companies MUST be guilty to anyone with that view.
That's not what happened. kerryb took the view that the phone companies were guilty and were hiding evidence. I pointed out that this isn't true and that the matter has been extensively studied and no evidence of harm has been found. I further stated that there's nothing wrong with further research, it is not appropriate to start from the standpoint that the industry is guilty and covering up known danger (using the tobacco industry as an analogy) - because extensive research from governments and academics also shows that there's no evidence of harm at this point. If further research indicates that there is some harm, it's not evidence of a coverup, but rather evidence that scientific methods have improved.
No one is afraid of searching for the truth - or, at least, I certainly am not. I just object to 'guilty until proven innocent' as the starting point.
Actually, it goes beyond that. If there was no evidence at all, then anonymouse and kerryb's position might be a little more plausible. But there is already mountains of evidence from universities, governments, and industry on the matter, none of it showing any measurable effect.
I'm all in favor of further research. First, the technology has improved and the researchers could do a better job today than they could 15 years ago (for example, 15 years ago, cell phone radiation had to be estimated while today it would be easy to make a small detector to sit behind the ear to measure actual radiation dosages). Second, cell phone usage is far more widespread now than it was 15 years ago. Not only do far more people use cell phones, but they are used many more hours per day. Third, there's much more history. We probably have at least 50, maybe 100 times as many man-years of cell phone usage history as we had then, so if there's an effect that accumulates slowly, it would be easier to pick up now (for example, if cell phone usage caused a type of cancer that takes 10 years to appear, virtually no one would have had it in the mid-90s, but plenty of people might have it now). Finally, the phones themselves may have changed. I'm not sure, but I think that the radiation level is lower than it was 15 years ago. That is partially countered by the fact that the antenna is generally closer to your head in current phones.
When you combine all those things, it is absolutely reasonable to want to have another look at the matter. It is not, however, reasonable to take the 'guilty until proven innocent' view that some people are taking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celemourn
What Nagrome said is correct, as is what you just said. Ionizing radiation COMES FROM emission of particles from atoms through radioactive decay, and causes ionization.
C
Ionizing radiation also comes from sources other than radioactive decay, such as nuclear fusion and things like synchrotron and bremsstrahlung (yeah, they're related) radiation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
One can look at Japan and realize that not one person has died yet from the nuclear plant failures there yet still we have this outlandish fear of nuclear power systems.
This information is incorrect.
Even if it were correct, it is not the proper inquiry upon which to base an opinion on the safety of nuclear power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Let me offer a rebuttal in the form of an example: Microwave is considered to be a non-ionising radiation. Depending on the intensity of the radiation, it can cause death. If you want to verify that for yourself, put your Mom's cat in the microwave and cook on high for a couple minutes.
The debate here is " whether wireless radiation carcinogenic". Microwave ovens push 2.4 GHz from 600-1200 watts, much more powerful than any cell phone or other consumer RF device. Water doesn't cause cancer, but that can kill you too. So the argument of my Mother's cat in the microwave (sorry Mom) is apple's to oranges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You make good points here but do realize that RF energy and light are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. As to sun burns we are talking about UV energy which is very dangerous. In fact UV is often used to sterilize products and fluids.
So what I'm saying here is that safety discussions about electromagnetic energy have to take into account operating frequency. What is notable about police cars and the people inside, is the wide variation in frequencies they are exposed too. These devices operate over various power levels on purpose though. Even then I wouldn't advice looking directly into one of those radar guns.
My example of a "sun burn" was used as a common example of ionizing radiation and the compounding effects. Why would you advise not looking directly into a low power radar transmitter? If you're going to avoid looking directly into objects, I would recommend lasers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson
The debate here is " whether wireless radiation carcinogenic". Microwave ovens push 2.4 GHz from 600-1200 watts, much more powerful than any cell phone or other consumer RF device. Water doesn't cause cancer, but that can kill you too. So the argument of my Mother's cat in the microwave (sorry Mom) is apple's to oranges.
Sure I was exaggerating. In your example of police officers would develop cancer within a year if RF was dangerous was just as ridiculous. It is a matter of degrees. In the case of the police they are taking precautions. Their radio is not pointing at their head it is mounted on their tool belt. The radar is pointing away from them and the in car radio's antenna is outside the vehicle shielded by the steel roof of the car.
My original post was a statement of precaution and accepting the possibility that there may be long term effects of constant radiation emitted by cell phones held close to the head, which is not an original thought. Many scientists have suggested that there may be risks especially in children. Your statements, on the other hand, seem to dismiss any possibility of danger of cell phone usage whatsoever, which unless you have some vested interest in people holding cell phones to their head, seems like a foolish premise to support given there is little data available. Cell phones have only been in use for less than 30 years and the handheld version for maybe half that. Only in the past few years has the cell phone become ubiquitous and even shorter time for adolescents and children to be using them. The data set is far too small to draw any conclusions especially since the typical environmental exposure types of cancer usually take decades before even producing symptoms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Sure I was exaggerating. In your example of police officers would develop cancer within a year if RF was dangerous was just as ridiculous. It is a matter of degrees. In the case of the police they are taking precautions. Their radio is not pointing at their head it is mounted on their tool belt. The radar is pointing away from them and the in car radio's antenna is outside the vehicle shielded by the steel roof of the car.
My original post was a statement of precaution and accepting the possibility that there may be long term effects of constant radiation emitted by cell phones held close to the head, which is not an original thought. Many scientists have suggested that there may be risks especially in children. Your statements, on the other hand, seem to dismiss any possibility of danger of cell phone usage whatsoever, which unless you have some vested interest in people holding cell phones to their head, seems like a foolish premise to support given there is little data available. Cell phones have only been in use for less than 30 years and the handheld version for maybe half that. Only in the past few years has the cell phone become ubiquitous and even shorter time for adolescents and children to be using them. The data set is far too small to draw any conclusions especially since the typical environmental exposure types of cancer usually take decades before even producing symptoms.
So you're telling me a 4 watt transmitter using a longer wavelength (lower frequency with better penetration characteristics) is safer next to your torso then a 0.6 watt transmitter next to your head? Also, a lot of the new public safety portables have the antenna on the mic cable which sits on the officers shoulder. Side lobes still leak RF back to the transmitting source so it doesn't matter where you point the antenna. And the antenna is placed external to the vehicle to increase it's sensitivity and inhibit loss, not for officer safety.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveJacobson
So you're telling me a 4 watt transmitter using a longer wavelength (lower frequency with better penetration characteristics) is safer next to your torso then a 0.6 watt transmitter next to your head? Also, a lot of the new public safety portables have the antenna on the mic cable which sits on the officers shoulder. Side lobes still leak RF back to the transmitting source so it doesn't matter where you point the antenna. And the antenna is placed external to the vehicle to increase it's sensitivity and inhibit loss, not for officer safety.
I'm telling you that radiation is dangerous to biological systems. A small amount of radiation is less dangerous than a large dose of radiation. Constant exposure is more dangerous than infrequent exposure.
You seem to be very knowledgable about radio systems, however, I can only offer my opinions based on my 20 years of working in medical radiology which is not exactly the same field of expertise.
To be fair, it's just impossible to say which is worse. While longer wavelength radiation is more penetrating, shorter wavelengths have more energy and have the potential to cause more damage. Sometimes there's a window - where radiation of a certain frequency does more damage than radiation either above OR below that frequency. It's simply impossible to predict the effect of any given frequency and power on the human body - which is why the FCC is doing additional testing.
Right, that's why we never have products on the market that cause consumer harm and never hear of companies suppressing negative research results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
To be fair, it's just impossible to say which is worse. While longer wavelength radiation is more penetrating, shorter wavelengths have more energy and have the potential to cause more damage. Sometimes there's a window - where radiation of a certain frequency does more damage than radiation either above OR below that frequency. It's simply impossible to predict the effect of any given frequency and power on the human body - which is why the FCC is doing additional testing.
How do shorter wavelengths have more energy? If I'm transmitting 150 MHz at 4 watts, does that have less energy than 900 MHz at 0.6 watts? I can modulate more data onto the 900 MHz carrier but it won't have more energy. And specifically, what damages are being caused by the radio frequency radiation?
This explains why none of your responses seem to have anything to do with what I've written. My "position" is not the same as his "position", despite acknowledging that he has a point that he pushed too far. You should try to not let your emotions cloud your comprehension.
Actually, the debate is whether it should be studied whether cell phones are associated with any harmful effects.
That's exactly what should be studied. Studies that some seem to be opposed to because we already know everything there is to know.