Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
I don't think there was much correct about it.
...
Personally, I'd like to see little more unbiased, long-term scientific study on the effect of all the new EM sources we've created in the last century.
For that matter, I'd like to see more study in capturing that ambient EMR to power all our devices...cuz, heck, if it turns out there is enough energy there to hurt us, we might as well put it to good use!
ApK
|
Obviously, if RF creates heat when absorbed, too much heat can cook or kill tissue.
All of the studies I pointed out in the link indicate that more study is needed. They are empirical statistical studies based on the opinions of the participants about their causative experiences, and even though they came to the conclusion that the wireless devices are safe, our usage patterns are changing and we need REAL scientific studies.
And as I mentioned multiple times in previous posts, ELF does have biological effects which are known to cause potential harm (leukemia) in growing children. But higher frequencies do not travel as far into the body due to the "skin effect", and are absorbed (converted to heat) much closer to the surface of the body. Other than heat damage and discomfort, the biological effects are minimal until you reach frequencies high enough (beyond long wave ultraviolet "black light") where the photon energy is high enough to damage DNA in the skin cells. Too much wireless exposure at too high an energy level can heat the eyes, causing cataracts, but that is from the heat damage.
It is just that at the low levels that we use for wifi, and the fact that ebook devices are held at arms length, means that we have far less risk of getting tumors from our wifi ebooks than we get benefit from their wireless features. A risk/reward factor leans heavily in the reward direction.
None of those things are
incorrect, as stated above and in past posts that you indirectly reference in your claim. And I posted plenty of correct facts and resources, backed by significant study from reliable sources. In fact, I think that I posted a LOT more correct facts than you give credit for (i.e.
not much).