Comment Re:Undisclosed size? (Score 0) 140
who cares, it's Perl.
I absolutely am stubborn and until we have 2 or more generations of data on the effects of cell phone radiation on individuals, this matter won't be resolved. Had Bohr or Dirac caved to the scientific consensus at the time, we wouldn't have QM as we know it today. I'm not afraid to buck the status quo or go against the dogmatic views of those in the "know", nor do I cave to the political lobbying.
No I'm not stubborn without reasons. The point of this article - and what the board claims - is that we don't know. So we should not be taking chances with our childrens lives in anyway shape or form. Just because it appears innocuous obviously doesn't mean that it is. If later years proves that cell phone radiation isn't insidious and hazardous then so be it. Until such time, treat it like it is. This is not even touching on the fact that kids don't even need cellphones in any case.
Try to remember people, our understanding of electromagnetism is still relatively new. Even Maxwell made mistakes in his assumptions of its energy levels until Planck came along. Science is not truth...it is best guess. we are only seeing a part of the story and if you're paying attention the next day you realize you knew a little more than the day before.
The problem with science and people who deem themselves scientific is they use it too much like a religion. Each generation thinking they know more than the previous and eating up dogmatic beliefs in already "proven" research. These beliefs are never changed until those scientist die out or some abrupt paradigm shift occurs. What I'm encouraging here is for the individuals on the board to not only employ critical thinking but to do their own research, failing that, play it safe. However I digress, this is a technology forum. My stance here is analogous to me arguing to PETA why its okay to slap your bitch dog around once in awhile. It falls on deaf ears.
The thing is that there is a threshold. It's not just a direct proportionality. Photons with energy below the threshold of breaking chemical bonds aren't "a little bit dangerous" they're just not (individually) dangerous at all.
Whether a cell phone has any [long term] effects chemically still remains to be seen. I think that's the issue here. However regardless if the energy levels of the radio photons can or can not break chemical bonds, collectively [ or alone] they cause molecular jitter, which is enough to disrupt basic homeostasis. plain and simple.
Enough of them to cause heating can be dangerous, hence not standing near open furnaces nor putting oneself in the microwave, but at low intensity they just will not have the same effect on chemical substances that high frequency photons will have, no matter how long the exposure.
A cellphone to your head for n amount of time causes heating, or have you not spoken on the phone for that long a period? Even if it didn't, see the above paragraph. Even a short time produces molecular jitter and that is enough. Place that near a still developing child's skull and you have less shielding and a higher chance of "activity". yes I'm keeping that word
A cell phone is not a particle emitter (in the sense of a particle being a thing with mass, not something with a localized wave-function).
I understand you being specific here, maybe I should have said radiation emitter. I think someone on here said think it as being hit with a "air zooka"
Similar frequency, sure. The longer you're exposed to UV radiation the higher the chance of something bad (e.g. melanoma) happening. However, if the photons are below the threshold of causing chemical change, as those from radio transmitters are, the length of exposure doesn't matter at all. None of the photons have enough energy to do anything significant.
and that is what this is about right? Even if radio waves cause no immediate or calculated chemical change, molecular jitter can and does and we have no idea still of the long term biological effects. I believe a couple years ago you probably would have been one who filled up with leaded gasoline, enhaled asbestos and nicotine fumes secure in the knowledge of what you "knew". However snookums, you don't know what you don't know. There is already evidence of biological changes with a cell phone to your head, what that disrupts, what the long term consequences are we have no way of knowing.
I understand the majority of posts on here denouncing the action by this board. I get it. it is a ubiquitous, convenient and now a staple technology. Doesn't mean it's safe. Cars are great for time travel and savings but no one could have forseen the effects they would be having today. Just cause we can doesn't mean we should and history is always the best teacher. I err on the side of caution and abstract from the fundamental facts.
That's quite wrong actually. You will get very different types of activity depending on the frequency, because the frequency determines the energy per photon, and a molecule can only absorb a photon of electromagnetic radiation if its energy corresponds to the energy gap between two quantum states.
C = lambda times nu...big deal, it's what I said without explaining how it works. You still haven't told me how an adverse effect is inversely proportional to a longer lambda. see I can use big words too. but still...explain if you want.
The first category of electromagnetic radiation, which includes wi-fi and mobile phones, is only dangerous if it is intense enough do deliver energy to your body faster than you can dissipate it. For example, if you're standing near a large fire. The latter type can trigger a cancer with a single "lucky" photon, which is why you should always wear a hat and sunscreen to minimise that chance.
and if your standing near a particle emiter - such as a cell phone - you should wear proper shielding as well then right? if one lucky photon can on the off chance give you "cancer" what's the likely hood that prolonged exposure to radiation at a similiar frequency won't get you "lucky" again. really?
I really wish people would understand this. Radiation is Radiation. No. It's not. Really. This is true even without getting into the differences between electromagnetic radiation, particle-based radiation (alpha and beta rays), and radioactive material -- all of which are referred to as "radiation" in the popular media.
its called Electromagnetic Radiation for a reason. its Radiation whether that radiation is bad or good for you depends
If our planet was just a few units further or closer to the sun there would be no life on this planet. Which again leads me back to, its based on how long you are exposed to that radiation and the frequency of that radiation. the point is that individuals are still divided over whether there there is damage done or not, doesn't mean radiation from your phone doesn't cause activity to where it is pointed. People wake up and think for yourselves, each generation is the succesive's one guinea pig. Once the lobbying has been done and enough people have died I suppose then the truth will be out. In the interim, i use a wired connection when talking on my cell phone, I don't keep it in my lap and I don't quickly dismiss individuals who say they are sensitive to wifi signals either. Think for yourselves.
for the person pedantic enough to pic on my grammar and punctuation i was on my iphone but just for you...i'll keep writing this way. take that stick out your ass. if i was a world renowned physicist who couldn't speak english much less write and was posting on here would that make u take me less seriously? if you answered yes, we have nothing less to discuss.
Sea levels have risen and sea levels have fallen in the past.
Its just civilization has now cropped up and made these changes inconvenient. It used to be that man would migrate if his surroundings became inhospitable. Now they just try and control nature.
where the hell are my mod points
Elliptic paraboloids for sale.
