harmful Radio waves ... suddenly no one talk about it

[ADC-1995]

I think defining what is damaging and what is not is the key. The World Health Organization has a good overview and defines each type of radiation. Below are all taken from the site and sums it up. So “yes” and “no” for the potential effects of RF on tissue. Is it ionizing or non-ionizing, but don't stand in front of a gigawatt antenna and think it will not harm you.

Ionizing radiation (harmful)
Ionizing radiation is radiation with enough energy so that during an interaction with an atom, it can remove tightly bound electrons from the orbit of an atom, causing the atom to become charged or ionized.

Here we are concerned with only one type of radiation, ionizing radiation, which occurs in two forms - waves or particles.
Forms of electromagnetic radiation. These differ only in frequency and wave length.
Heat waves
Radio waves
Infrared light
Visible light
Ultraviolet light
X rays
Gamma rays

Longer wave length, lower frequency waves (heat and radio) have less energy than shorter wave length, higher frequency waves (X and gamma rays). Not all electromagnetic (EM) radiation is ionizing. Only the high frequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum which includes X rays and gamma rays is ionizing.
http://www.who.int/topics/radiation_non_ionizing/en/

Non-ionizing (non harmful) 
Non-ionizing radiation is the term given to radiation in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum where there is insufficient energy to cause ionization. It includes electric and magnetic fields, radio waves, microwaves, infrared, ultraviolet, and visible radiation.
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/about/what_is_ir/en/

[helius]

Ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation is not ionizing, but it does cause cancer by an indirect route, through formation of free radicals in the cell nucleus (a free radical is not an ion and will form at below the ionization potential). Ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation, although higher in energy than UVA, is also too weak to cause ionization, but it can damage DNA directly by forming thymine dimers. Indeed most organic chemistry happens at energy levels that are below the ionization potential.

This idea that energy that is less intense than X-rays is therefore biologically harmless is very strange, and one wonders what kind of warped thought process gave rise to it.

[Srbel]

"Harmful radio waves" .... suddenly we have discovered that there is nothing to talk about.   

Welcome to my ignore list, Richard.

[coppice]

Ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation is not ionizing, but it does cause cancer by an indirect route, through formation of free radicals in the cell nucleus (a free radical is not an ion and will form at below the ionization potential). Ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation, although higher in energy than UVA, is also too weak to cause ionization, but it can damage DNA directly by forming thymine dimers. Indeed most organic chemistry happens at energy levels that are below the ionization potential.

This idea that energy that is less intense than X-rays is therefore biologically harmless is very strange, and one wonders what kind of warped thought process gave rise to it.

Ultrasound can also be locally focussed by turbid biological fluids to an intensity that will break DNA chains. Modern medical ultrasound equipment appears to be entirely safe, but some of the early stuff used really high intensity levels. It used to worry some people I knew in the medical device industry at that time.

[Brumby]

Ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation is not ionizing, but it does cause cancer by an indirect route, .....

This is an example of one the    reactions i had to the "Non-ionizing (non harmful)" heading.

[vk6zgo]

Ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation is not ionizing, but it does cause cancer by an indirect route, .....

This is an example of one the    reactions i had to the "Non-ionizing (non harmful)" heading.

As a general rule it is correct.

Despite all the panic,you have to spend a long time in the sun or a "sunbed" to get skin cancer.
Statistics of exposure to RF over many years,& many people have shown no correlation between such exposure & cancer,or any other ailment.

Humans are a lot tougher than is popularly believed---they have been exposing themselves to massive amounts of electromagnetic radiation in the form of heat from open fires for millennia.

[amyk]

I used to work inside a large metal box with microwave radar equipment. As did many people I worked with and they'd been in there for 40+ years. We're all still here.

A couple of guys accidentally left a body part in front of a waveguide/funnel and ended up with a neat toasted square on themselves and a nice bacon smell but that was about it. That heals up nicely after a couple of weeks.

YMMV but meh.

Shit that scares me is big lathes. One slip up and your torso is gone in 2 seconds flat.

The real danger with microwaves is getting it in the eye, which does not sense heat and can easily get cooked. Otherwise it is entirely a thermal effect.

[timb]

There is a rise in breast cancer among women that stick a cell phone in their bra.

Hmm. I wonder if the rise in cervical cancer is related?

Fun Fact: A woman puts you inside her and later is diagnosed with cervical cancer. You could actually be the cause.

This message brought to you by HPV, the *new* sharing is caring disease.

[Brumby]

Ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation is not ionizing, but it does cause cancer by an indirect route, .....

This is an example of one the    reactions i had to the "Non-ionizing (non harmful)" heading.

As a general rule it is correct.

Despite all the panic,you have to spend a long time in the sun or a "sunbed" to get skin cancer.

A "general rule" that it's ok - followed by a statement that (at whatever dose) it is not?  This then begs the exact question I have put - where do you draw the line?

As for the 'heating effects' - are all heating effects benign?  If not, then the question arises once again - where do you draw the line?

[tggzzz]

A "general rule" that it's ok - followed by a statement that (at whatever dose) it is not?  This then begs the exact question I have put - where do you draw the line?
As for the 'heating effects' - are all heating effects benign?  If not, then the question arises once again - where do you draw the line?

No, heating effects are not necessarily benign. The worst case for cellphones is the cornea, since it is exposed and has a poor blood supply so heat is poorly removed an it experiences larger temperature rises. Basically the cornea is "cooked" and cataracts form.

The critical factor is the temperature(s) at which the protein(s) in the cornea start to "denature" (an obsolete concept meaning "change shape") as they do when cooked. The rate of deterioriation is typically an exponential factor based on that temperature.  The only remaining factor is the relationship between incident power/frequency, and temperature rise.

Both the temperature and rate are easily measured in the lab and are well understood. Similarly the relationship between power, frequency and temperature rise is easily determined by experiment. In short, all those factors are well understood.

Are there other factors? Despite looking for many decades, none have been found. If someone makes the extraordinary claim there are other factors, it is up to them to provide extraordinary proof. It is not up to others to refute any such claims.

[helius]

I am not aware of any results that show a specific sensitivity to RF. However, scalar electric or magnetic fields have been studied in relation to biological effects for many decades: from changing plant growth patterns to altering consciousness, their effects are many.

[VK5RC]

Remember that frequency of the EMR is a critical factor, EMR does not start to ionise molecular bonds till the soft X-Ray portion of the spectrum, as Radiant heat is a lot closer to that potion of the spectrum than radio, the EMR worried guys should be MUCH more worried about the radiative heater (hundreds of watts and you sit next to it for hours) or wood fire than mobile phones or WiFi.

[Zero999]

Remember that frequency of the EMR is a critical factor, EMR does not start to ionise molecular bonds till the soft X-Ray portion of the spectrum, as Radiant heat is a lot closer to that potion of the spectrum than radio, the EMR worried guys should be MUCH more worried about the radiative heater (hundreds of watts and you sit next to it for hours) or wood fire than mobile phones or WiFi.

IR and the high microwave end of the spectrum is absorbed at the surface. The danger with RF is lower frequencies penetrate the human body more deeply and can harm internal organs such as the brain.

[Tinkerer]

I took a class on bioelectrics once and looked at the data. The effects from all this EM stuff is either nonexistant or on the order of .01% increase in cancer rates.
In other words, its not really worth worrying about if any effects even do exist.

[Richard Crowley]

I took a class on bioelectrics once and looked at the data. The effects from all this EM stuff is either nonexistant or on the order of .01% increase in cancer rates.
In other words, its not really worth worrying about if any effects even do exist.

Be careful what you say.  Srbel may put you on his ignore list!   

[Dongulus]

am waiting for the connected toilet seat to check if your poop is OK.

Me too, it is surprising, how many illness can be detected just by analyzing poo and wee.
But think about the implications of smart connected devices. They work from batteries, and they dont need to be recharged every day, like phones. They have like a CR2032 and work years from it, or maybe AA and half a year.
Your laptop or phone will generate orders of magnitude more RF.
So, i'm not worried.

[Richard Crowley]

am waiting for the connected toilet seat to check if your poop is OK.

Me too, it is surprising, how many illness can be detected just by analyzing poo and wee.

They have been predicting for a long time having "smart toilets" that could do urinalysis "on the fly".
We already have home medical equipment that have built-in cell phones so the docs can check up on you. Dunno whether they "push" data or are available to "polled" on demand?  (Or maybe some of each kind.)

The medical school at the uni where I used to work has the world's first proton accelerator outside a research lab.   Its about half the size of the Australian Synchrotron. It is used exclusively for medical treatment and they have several output beams which are scheduled almost 7x24x365.  I know several people who were treated for prostate cancer there.  Apparently you can manipulate protons so the beam focuses at some distance from the lens, reducing heating/damage to unaffected tissue.  But I'm not familiar enough with the physics and I've never studied it at depth.

[Brumby]

I took a class on bioelectrics once and looked at the data. The effects from all this EM stuff is either nonexistant or on the order of .01% increase in cancer rates.
In other words, its not really worth worrying about if any effects even do exist.

This might be correct for everyday situations - but there is no such qualification in statements like these.

I could specify a set of conditions that anybody here with RF experience would get cold shivers, so there IS a point at which danger exists - where my question still stands: "Where do you draw the line?"


Let me throw this very specific scenario out there for comment:
Conditions:
 * Type of energy: Unmodulated carrier RF
 * Frequency: 2.4GHz
 * Exposure time: 1 hour
 * Power:
    1uW - - - - - - - 1mW - - - - - - - 1W - - - - - - - 1kW - - - - - - - 1MW - - - - - - - 1GW

Where do you draw the line?

[vk6zgo]

I took a class on bioelectrics once and looked at the data. The effects from all this EM stuff is either nonexistant or on the order of .01% increase in cancer rates.
In other words, its not really worth worrying about if any effects even do exist.

This might be correct for everyday situations - but there is no such qualification in statements like these.

I could specify a set of conditions that anybody here with RF experience would get cold shivers, so there IS a point at which danger exists - where my question still stands: "Where do you draw the line?"


Let me throw this very specific scenario out there for comment:
Conditions:
 * Type of energy: Unmodulated carrier RF
 * Frequency: 2.4GHz
 * Exposure time: 1 hour
 * Power:
    1uW - - - - - - - 1mW - - - - - - - 1W - - - - - - - 1kW - - - - - - - 1MW - - - - - - - 1GW

Where do you draw the line?

Sorry,but that isn't specific at all.

Are you talking about real power ( I^2R) or EIRP?

If real power,what kind of antenna? (The signal strength in any direction,of an isotropic radiator fed with 1kW will look like that of  a 30dB gain antenna fed with 1W in its direction of maximum directivity .)

How far away?

[Red Squirrel]

Personally I prefer to go wired for anything stationary, not because of it being "harmful" but just because you need to run power to it anyway, or mess with batteries. If you have 50 different gadgets around the house that are running on batteries even though it can last years you will find yourself at some point having to change all these batteries.  If you have something that's wired and self contained it's always powered, and it's also safe from any potential hackers that may be able to heck said devices... a lot of these "smart home" things arn't made with security in mind at all.  I rather have everything wired to a central server, then make that server available on the wireless network if I want to control it from a phone.  At least it's a single point of security to worry about.  It also means less RF in the air and less potential for interference.   

Now start modifying these things to transmit in the kw range, and yeah, you might get cancer.    Most wireless devices tend to transmit in the mw range I believe. (mili, not mega).

[tggzzz]

Where do you draw the line?

You asked that question before and I provided you with the answer, and the answer has not changed. I suggest you read it.

Note that at 2.4GHz the answernhas been very well studied, and that domestic microwave ovens leak up to 1W and that people stand very close to those. I would not put my eyeballs anywhere near a domestic microwave oven with unknown provenance.

[miguelvp]

Who has the signature: don't become the antenna? I think it's Sue but not sure (no pun intended)

[Brumby]

I took a class on bioelectrics once and looked at the data. The effects from all this EM stuff is either nonexistant or on the order of .01% increase in cancer rates.
In other words, its not really worth worrying about if any effects even do exist.

This might be correct for everyday situations - but there is no such qualification in statements like these.

I could specify a set of conditions that anybody here with RF experience would get cold shivers, so there IS a point at which danger exists - where my question still stands: "Where do you draw the line?"


Let me throw this very specific scenario out there for comment:
Conditions:
 * Type of energy: Unmodulated carrier RF
 * Frequency: 2.4GHz
 * Exposure time: 1 hour
 * Power:
    1uW - - - - - - - 1mW - - - - - - - 1W - - - - - - - 1kW - - - - - - - 1MW - - - - - - - 1GW

Where do you draw the line?

Sorry,but that isn't specific at all.

Are you talking about real power ( I^2R) or EIRP?

OK - let's go for EIRP

If real power,what kind of antenna? (The signal strength in any direction,of an isotropic radiator fed with 1kW will look like that of  a 30dB gain antenna fed with 1W in its direction of maximum directivity .)

N/A

How far away?

For a number, how about 1m.

Anything else needed?

Where do you draw the line?

You asked that question before and I provided you with the answer, and the answer has not changed. I suggest you read it.

A response was posted, but the question was not answered.

Note that at 2.4GHz the answernhas been very well studied, and that domestic microwave ovens leak up to 1W and that people stand very close to those. I would not put my eyeballs anywhere near a domestic microwave oven with unknown provenance.

... yet here you acknowledge the very issue I have been trying to address.  On these, your very own words: "anywhere near" I ask - just how close do you mean?



My point in all of this is rather simple - and I have tried to make it clear.  At some point much, if not all, radiation - both ionising and non-ionising - becomes harmful.  I simply want to know when that transition occurs - and if it's a fuzzy line, just how fuzzy it is.

Yes, I know there will be a number of parameters - frequency, power, duration, distance, etc., etc., etc. and certainly the conditions are not likely to be commonly occurring (we would hope) - but nobody here seems to want to look past the simplistic answers.

[tggzzz]

People have spent a lot of time and money looking "beyond the simplistic answers". The non-simple answers are, unsurprisingly, complex.

What research have you done to try and find the answers?

Expecting people here to provide very long answers to a casual question is, um, optimistic. You will have to do the research necessary for you to be able to know all the parameters that affect the answer. And then you will have an appreciation of why answers cannot be exact.

[Brumby]

People have spent a lot of time and money looking "beyond the simplistic answers". The non-simple answers are, unsurprisingly, complex.

I am fully aware that the non-simple answers are complex.

What research have you done to try and find the answers?

Expecting people here to provide very long answers to a casual question is, um, optimistic. You will have to do the research necessary for you to be able to know all the parameters that affect the answer. And then you will have an appreciation of why answers cannot be exact.

The point of my question was not to have numerical answers dished up to me, but to see if there was anyone who was willing to concede my question had any validity and try to address it.  Most of the responses were dismissive - and your latest one was the only one that stood out as at least declaring the issue as being a complex one to answer.  It would seem I should now take the horse as dead and completely flogged.


I do not doubt that I have annoyed some of the members here and for that I do apologise - but not for asking the question.

Nevertheless, at this point I will step down from the soapbox.