The thing is, when you're arguing with creationists, you don't start rambling about specific obscure DNA markers that somebody found last week. It invites nitpicking of the sort seen in this thread, and your argument suffers the death of a thousand cuts. ("Yes, but couldn't God have put that endogenous intronic retrovirus there to test our faith? You can't prove he didn't!")

Earlier I said, paraphrasing, "Non-ionizing radiation doesn't turn into ionizing radiation." Was that correct? No, it was not, because you can use an optical frequency multiplier to demonstrate such an effect on the bench, or a microscope that uses wack-ass femtosecond lasers and shit to stimulate fluorophores in living tissue. Is it even remotely useful to hedge your words with all of these corner cases when trying to persuade people with a typical American high school science education that their iPhones aren't cooking their brains? I'd say that the answer to that question is also "No."

Life's too short, radiation or no radiation.

You'd want to ask an actual physicist for one for the specifics of how multiphoton fluorescence works; I only play one on TV. From what I gather in the Wikipedia article, it requires some pretty exotic conditions, as the probability of a quantum UV transition being stimulated by two coincident IR photons is extremely low even when you're trying to make it happen on purpose.

Optical frequency multiplication by itself is not that new or exotic, so if you're fishing for a yes/no answer, the answer is "Yes, under certain conditions you can observe non-ionizing photons stimulating the emission of ionizing ones." You can also manufacture gold with a particle accelerator -- does that vindicate alchemy?

Sorry, I'm not your professor. You might spend some time on Wikipedia -- an example of what you're asking about might be the so-called "gamma knife." Individual beams of ionizing radiation converge on the spot to be treated, delivering an increased dose where it's needed without doing as much harm to the surrounding tissue.

Then you either use ionizing radiation to begin with, or you use nonionizing radiation in a thermal capacity.

No, the logical extreme would be multiple RF photons hitting the same molecule at the same time thus ionizing it.

Which isn't going to happen.

Sure, but if your point was irrelevant, why'd you even bring it up?

If we took the argument to its logical extreme, I could assert that moving water can create ionizing radiation. Then, when someone argues with me, I'll fondly recall that one (hypothetical) time back at Science Camp when I rigged an X-ray tube up to a water wheel. Optical multipliers are almost that far removed from what's being discussed.

I've done it myself in the lab - a 10Mw picosecond pulse neodymium YAG laser puts out light in the infrared (non-ionizing). But with frequency doubling optics you get green light. And you can then combine the green light and some of the infrared and get ultraviolet (ionizing) radiation out. (And incidentally, I was a physic postdoc at the time - that's how you get to play with such cool expensive toys.)

The phrase "that's not even wrong" comes to mind. Your nonlinear optical crystals aren't doing anything applicable in a discussion of microwaves. But yes, if my brain ever evolves a broadband comb generator with femtosecond recovery times, I'll indeed start to worry about how it might interact with my cell phone.

Thermal effects. Visible-light lasers harm living cells by burning them up.

So non-ionizing radiation could in theory interact in a way to produce ionizing energy. No, they can't. Take a physics class, then post.

I'm guessing you meant 'transparent'

If the answer involves giving money to Sony, then you asked the wrong question.

Regulatory capture has proven to be a much bigger problem than deregulation, I think. It seems better not to give the government so much power in the first place.

Put another way, a government that's big enough to give Exxon and the MPAA everything they want is big enough to take it away from you.

Furthermore, what's the difference between a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because you stole some CDs, and a police officer pointing a gun at you and throwing you in jail because of a law that the corporation running the state jail drafted put through the legislature through bribery - sorry, I meant campaign contributions?

Gee, Wally, maybe you should've thought of that before you gave the government so much power in the first place.

u mad bro?

Well, Hitler certainly regretted his choice of iOS.