Is RF Radiation More Dangerous Than We Think?

From the WHO site:

"To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating. Further, research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and self-reported symptoms, or "electromagnetic hypersensitivity"."

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/

I guess it would not be as simple as studying cells and cell structures to see if they are sympathetic to EMR across the spectrum and at all levels anticipated.

I recall news about real-time electron microscopy here.

There is no such thing as "real time."

"Remember the Frogs" (like the Alamo and U.S.S. Maine)!

What's the difference between a slowly cooked FROG and a fast cooked FROG? when both are dead in the end!

"New analysis, published by RF Globalnet, shows that children are particularly susceptible..."

Oh, I thought that they were going say that the poor and homeless are impacted the most.

There remains only the mindless, which are difficult to test.

A ships company electrician walks across the flight deck during a lull in flight ops, the bundle of fluorescent lamps he is carrying suddenly flashes brightly. The startled electrician drops the bundle which shatters on the deck.

It is not magic, it is merely the long range search radar sweeping through 24/7. The signal is strong enough to effect a tape recorder 5 decks below near the water line. the antenna is about 80' above the flight deck.

I hope it wasn't dangerous.

Long range search RADARS will not light flourescent tubes at 80 ft. Long range RADARS are in the X band (3500 Mhz) and possibly as low as VHF. Only Fire Control RADAR can do this.

Sorry, but the X-band APS-20E, 2MW, 2880MHz, long-range search radar in our EC-121 "Warning Star" planes could light-off a wad of steel-wool at the end of a runway..and I'm sure that today's new ship-board units probably have MORE power.

Don't know what happened to my earlier reply. APS is airborn, please tell me how it could radiate 80' above the flight deck? I doubt even routine testing doesn't include radiating. Are you really suggesting an EM can walk across the flight deck carrying flourescent tubes during full flight ops? However it is listed as a "search RADAR", I stand corrected.

I mentioned the injection of some portion of the signal or a harmonic thereof, cutting through the tape head of a reel to reel tape deck in a compartment at the waterline. The sweep definitely excited the tubes on the flight deck (even the pieces), at that distance and power, there is back scatter. The pulses matched the RPM of the antenna. The antenna was about as big as a Fud.

Most young people (teens and 20-somethings) use text far more than use voice. I wonder what the case is with grade-schoolers? Is there a study on that? If they mainly use voice, that's another reason to not get them cell phones.

We got our 10 year old a basic cell phone and he never uses it.

Never takes it to school and has to be reminded to take it when he goes to the park at the end of the street.

16 YO uses text.

I use speaker phone exclusively, and listen to and dictate text messages with voice.

I think if it was dangerous I would be showing some signs, along with everybody else age 55 and older. The fact is our lifespan is longer now and that should be a factor in any answer to the question. And even if it was dangerous, what could we possibly do about it?

It has been argued that, just as it took decades before we saw the long-term effects of smoking, we still may not have seen the long-term effects of cell phone use. I think it's totally absurd of parents to get smart phones for grade school kids just because some other knucklehead parents have. Safety is not an excuse--in today's world grade school kids should not be walking to or from school or the bus stop alone.

Touche!

If they are that ill-prepared for the world, what does that say about parenting and about the education system?

Testicular cancer at age 60? ..............Naw.......however, it is soft tissue cancer......Naw...... Are kids soft tissue?

What indeed....

Those tin foil hats are useless unless grounded.

Does that "grounding" stake for Tin Hats go through the foot, or does it go through the heart...I forget?

As the frequency of the radiation increases it begins to adopt the properties of light. In the case of microwave radiation I believe aluminum foil would be an effective reflector.

In the case of light; the angle of reflectance is equal to the angle of incidence. Perhaps it is this property that allows RF scattering from multi-faceted reflective surfaces?

It has also been proposed that reflectance is a property that involves absorption and then re-radiation. In this case specific multi-faceted materials would be very effective in reducing RCS.

Gee, maybe I better quit listening to my crystal radio. We used to light up florescent lamps with a Tesla coil.

My girlfriend was concerned we were getting EMF radiation from the three phase transformers across the street. I did a little research and found we were getting far more from the coffeemaker in the kitchen and the transformers were so well shielded you couldn't detect anything five feet away.

I once had a cheap electric fan at work, back in the days of CRT computer monitors. The motor was poorly shielded, and the monitor display got distorted whenever the fan was turned on.

No. It isn't.

Analysis of a basic RLC circuit could lead to the inference that any resonant response of the human nervous system may be individually specific. This would explain why only a small number of people within a large population group could be affected by identical exposure to specific frequencies.
"---the human body absorbs RF energy more effectively at a frequency where body length is about .4 the wave length and the body's long axis is aligned with the incoming electric-field polarization. This condition is known as "whole-body resonance." Further - "for an average male adult weighing about 70 kilograms and about 1.75 meters tall, the maximum RF energy uptake would be at about 60 MHz, close to TV channel 2, and not far removed from the 6- meter band." (2)
The above gives the approximate values for the frequencies for "whole body resonance", which could be interpreted to mean a cylindrical object with some conductive value. However, the nervous system (or components thereof) could be viewed as a much less massive subsystem of significant different effective length and with a much higher Q value due to both structure and chemical composition. The "Q Value" being defined as the sharpness or reactivity of the system to field at or near specific resonant frequency.
Although field density is most commonly cited as the most important variable in environmental exposure, frequency has a much greater impact on resonant capable systems.

The laws of physics are universal. If long thin membranes exist as part of the human nervous system, then the potential for resonant effect exists.

2. The ARRL UHF/Microwave Experimenter's Manual

"This would explain why only a small number of people within a large population group could be affected by identical exposure to specific frequencies."

Or it could be in their head. That would explain it, too.

I tend to not get too excited about fantastic claims which are at the extreme limits of detection.

Low level RF poisoning seems to be one of these issues. There have been huge numbers of exhaustive studies that all basically produce inconclusive results. However, there are a number of groups that seem ready to run off the cliff based on those inconclusive studies and the speculations they inspire.

"Low level RF poisoning" -- wow - that's a term I have never heard before.

I was simply stating that frequency is as an important variable as field density when considering environmental exposure; and suggesting that that the human nervous system MAY be individually unique when resonant response is considered.

I guess the argument boils down to what is acceptable field strengths and there are published field densities for given frequencies over time that a "safe".

However, there is always background chatter that the published limits are way too high, yet no clear evidence to support the claims of the chatter. Additionally, the delta between the published safe limits and what some people are claiming is causing health issues is large.

So, we are not talking about an argument of adjusting the limits slightly, but by a gross margin - based on unsubstantiated evidence.

With such a large disparity the effects of body resonance seems to be a mute point in my mind.

Why are European exposure limits so much lower?

I don't know. Europe tends to always go overboard when it comes to standards. Just look at RoHS.

We are beginning to recognize a paradigm shift in our thinking about RF radiation.

I am worrying about your "paradigm class" irradiation you are getting. ;-)

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/09.pdf

Information for the dying laymen.

Why are you referencing ionizing radiation when discussing RF exposure?

Gavilan, its obvious you have worked with and understand RF.

And lyn, you're always the voice of reason and commons sense.

The health effects, if any, will be epidemilogical.

In the year 2030, ask ppl :

1. how many hours per day do you use your cellphone? For how many years?

2. do you have brain cancer or lymphoma?