What's new

Welcome to Japan Reference (JREF) - the community for all Things Japanese.

Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

Wi-Fi and headache

Muz1234

後輩
Joined
13 Aug 2014
Messages
474
Reaction score
23
Do you get any headache whenever you turn on the Wi-Fi of your computer? I cannot sleep whenever my computer is connected with the Wi-Fi router. The router is just like 8 to 10 feet the distance of my room.
 

Uncle Frank

SECURITY
Admin
Joined
21 May 2003
Messages
11,592
Reaction score
1,479
My WI-FI doesn't bother me , but sometimes my wife gives me a headache.
 

Uncle Frank

SECURITY
Admin
Joined
21 May 2003
Messages
11,592
Reaction score
1,479
She's from England. She works for a large law firm so if I don't behave , I will be left on the street with just my underwear after a divorce. She also is a very good shot with her pistol and if I ever cheat on her , I will look like Swiss cheese with so many holes in me. She wears the pants in my family.
 
Joined
21 Jun 2017
Messages
703
Reaction score
96
The "WiFi gives me a headache" thing has been thoroughly debunked, and it makes no sense when you understand how electromagnetic radiation works. People who claim to be sensitive to wireless react based on whether they think a router is nearby, not whether there actually is. Or in other words, it's the nocebo effect.

Simply put, we are being bombarded with electromagnetic radiation every single day from all directions, with sources ranging from cell phones to routers (yes, your neighbor's neighbor's router has a strong enough signal to reach you) to microwave ovens, which while shielded will always leak a tiny bit of excess microwaves (in fact your microwave oven can interfere with your wireless communication devices, depending on the circumstances). All of this radiation is non-ionizing, which means all it has the capability of doing is warming your skin by a fraction of a degree. So there isn't even a possible mechanism for any wireless communication device to give you a headache or cause any noteworthy effects. A little imperceptible warming never hurt anybody, and in fact you might welcome it during the winter.
 
Last edited:
Joined
4 Apr 2014
Messages
646
Reaction score
168
@Julie.chan you just gave me an idea of how to cut my gas bill when i move to Sapporo: buy a dozen of wi-fi routers to keep the place warm.
 
Joined
21 Jun 2017
Messages
703
Reaction score
96
I haven't done the calculations, but who knows? Maybe that'll save you 0.0000000000001 yen on your gas bill. 😜

Personally, I prefer to use the friction generated by tying my shoes to keep the place warm.
 

mdchachi

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
6 Mar 2003
Messages
4,286
Reaction score
1,602
Simply put, we are being bombarded with electromagnetic radiation every single day from all directions, with sources ranging from cell phones to routers (yes, your neighbor's neighbor's router has a strong enough signal to reach you) to microwave ovens, which while shielded will always leak a tiny bit of excess microwaves (in fact your microwave oven can interfere with your wireless communication devices, depending on the circumstances). All of this radiation is non-ionizing, which means all it has the capability of doing is warming your skin by a fraction of a degree. So there isn't even a possible mechanism for any wireless communication device to give you a headache or cause any noteworthy effects. A little imperceptible warming never hurt anybody, and in fact you might welcome it during the winter.
That's not entirely true. The biological non-thermal effects of RF radiation are not well studied and not well understood. In fact such studies are actively discouraged, not funded by government and industry. Hopefully in the end we will learn that are operating in safe limits but only time (and research) will tell. In the meantime I don't plan to dress myself in connected pants, shirts, jackets, eyeglasses anytime soon. Here's an example of one study that found biological effects
 
Joined
21 Jun 2017
Messages
703
Reaction score
96
That experiment isolated cow eyes, removed from the cow, in a lab. It also had a tiny sample size, easily small enough for statistical flukes to show up as seemingly significant results. This was also over 10 years ago, plenty of time for interested researchers to come up with much more conclusive results through bigger and better-designed tests.

What's more, I'm puzzled by how this is supposed to demonstrate "non-thermal" damage, when the variance caused by microwaves was clearly demonstrated to be temporary while the conductive heat test showed similar, but supposedly permanent results. It seems to me that this study suggests that electromagnetic radiation simply causes damage by moderately heating things up, and it seems like conductive heat is far worse when it comes to that than electromagnetic radiation.

Getting back to the point about these being tissue samples taken out of cows, by the way, that's an important point: taken out. When eyes are in their sockets, in a living and breathing organism, they are warmed up or cooled down to maintain optimal temperature, just like with the rest of the body. So if it's heating that's causing these effects, as seems to be the case, then they're going to be completely different in a live subject, if they even exist at all.

Overall, not a particularly convincing study.
 

Uncle Frank

SECURITY
Admin
Joined
21 May 2003
Messages
11,592
Reaction score
1,479
Those bastards plucked my eyes out !!
bc.jpg
 

mdchachi

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
6 Mar 2003
Messages
4,286
Reaction score
1,602
That experiment isolated cow eyes, removed from the cow, in a lab. It also had a tiny sample size, easily small enough for statistical flukes to show up as seemingly significant results. This was also over 10 years ago, plenty of time for interested researchers to come up with much more conclusive results through bigger and better-designed tests.

What's more, I'm puzzled by how this is supposed to demonstrate "non-thermal" damage, when the variance caused by microwaves was clearly demonstrated to be temporary while the conductive heat test showed similar, but supposedly permanent results. It seems to me that this study suggests that electromagnetic radiation simply causes damage by moderately heating things up, and it seems like conductive heat is far worse when it comes to that than electromagnetic radiation.

Getting back to the point about these being tissue samples taken out of cows, by the way, that's an important point: taken out. When eyes are in their sockets, in a living and breathing organism, they are warmed up or cooled down to maintain optimal temperature, just like with the rest of the body. So if it's heating that's causing these effects, as seems to be the case, then they're going to be completely different in a live subject, if they even exist at all.

Overall, not a particularly convincing study.
My point was not this particular study. My point is that there are studies that have pointed to non-thermal effects AND that, rather then trying to get to the bottom of what kind of effects there are and to set limits accordingly, this sector is very much underfunded/actively discouraged and the authorities are taking a head in the sand approach. (It's not good for business to add additional limits or bring potential dangers to light.) Keep in mind that historically health risks in this area have been identified only after they noticed that people were dying or getting sick. From Madame Curie's terrible death from radiation to WW2 radar operators who were the canary in the mines when it was noticed that they had high incidences of brain cancer many years after the war. But if the effects are subtle they may never come to light without active research. I don't know how you can confidently say "there's no such thing." At best we can say "we don't know." There is a ton of possibly biased information and poor/incomplete research on both sides and I certainly don't have time to wade through it all. For example something like this. I can't tell how well they are doing the science. All I can do is try to be prudent "just in case." I'm not going to stop using my cell phone or electronics but I'm not going to put my wifi router on my bedstand next to my head either. Certainly not without my aluminum foil night cap!
28523
 
Joined
21 Jun 2017
Messages
703
Reaction score
96
My point is that there are studies that have pointed to non-thermal effects
I already expressed my contention with the authors' assertion that the effects are "non-thermal". Do you have a response to that? If I have misread the study, I would like to hear what I have misread.

AND that, rather then trying to get to the bottom of what kind of effects there are and to set limits accordingly, this sector is very much underfunded/actively discouraged and the authorities are taking a head in the sand approach.
Do you have any evidence of "this sector" being "underfunded" or "actively discouraged"?

It's not good for business to add additional limits or bring potential dangers to light.
That would depend on what business you're talking about, would it not?

If you're talking about, say, the ethernet cable business, surely they would have something to gain if they could demonstrate that wireless is harmless. The only businesses I can think of that have a vested interest in keeping wireless communication going are those that deal exclusively in wireless communication, like cell phone companies and wireless device manufacturers. Most businesses would be completely neutral, while some would actually have a vested interest in reducing wireless communication.

But regardless, the implication here seems to be that businesses are conspiring to keep the public from learning about dangerous effects of their products, kind of like the asbestos conspiracy and the leaded gasoline conspiracy. That's a serious allegation; if it is indeed what you meant to imply, then do you have any evidence for this?

Keep in mind that historically health risks in this area have been identified only after they noticed that people were dying or getting sick. From Madame Curie's terrible death from radiation to WW2 radar operators who were the canary in the mines when it was noticed that they had high incidences of brain cancer many years after the war.
By "this area", I assume you must be referring to electromagnetic radiation. However, the only cases of health risks from electromagnetic radiation come from ionizing radiation, such as ultraviolet light. If you would like to contend that all electromagnetic radiation is dangerous, that's quite a claim considering we depend on radiation within a part of the electromagnetic spectrum (visible light) to see. In fact, visible light carries with it more energy than the microwaves and radio waves you express concern for, so should it not be more dangerous? And yet, I have never heard once of an activist suggesting that lightbulbs cause cancer. (The sun does cause cancer, but that's because of ionizing ultraviolet radiation.)

I don't know how you can confidently say "there's no such thing." At best we can say "we don't know."
The same way I can confidently say that there's no such thing as the 口裂け女, or ghosts, or werewolves, or vampires. Actually, that's a bit unfair; at least there's a known mechanism for something like the 口裂け女 to exist. There is no known mechanism for non-ionizing radiation to do anything other than heat things up.

There is a ton of possibly biased information and poor/incomplete research on both sides and I certainly don't have time to wade through it all. For example something like this. I can't tell how well they are doing the science.
If you don't actually accept the conclusions of a research paper, I don't see any possible purpose for linking to said paper except to spread fear.

All I can do is try to be prudent "just in case." I'm not going to stop using my cell phone or electronics but I'm not going to put my wifi router on my bedstand next to my head either. Certainly not without my aluminum foil night cap!
Being cautious "just in case" something that could not possibly happen by any currently know mechanism happens seems to me to not be a particularly prudent thing to do. If you can justify any weak possibility with "better safe than sorry", then I assume you've built a bomb shelter for the nuclear war with North Korea, right? At least that possible event has a known mechanism by which it can occur. Or how about wearing a full respirator just in case you come into contact with someone who has smallpox? Again, we know a plausible mechanism for this to happen.

But taking unnecessary precautions can easily have harmful effects. For one, the psychological effects of worrying over nothing are very real and can shorten your life span. For another, these precautions can sometime cost you more money or waste more of your time. But in some cases, your "precautionary" decisions can even have substantial negative consequences. Just consider the anti-vaccer lobby. Today, children around the world are literally dying from measles, a disease of the past that can easily be beaten with vaccinations, simply because a bunch of ignorant parents were convinced by a fraudulent study that vaccines might cause autism and didn't allow their children to get the vaccines that could save not only their lives, but the lives of other children as well. These parents, not truly understanding what they were dealing with, decided to not vaccinate their children "just in case" the vaccine caused autism. That "cautious" decision directly led to the deaths of thousands of children.

Of course, that's an extreme example, and pointlessly shutting off or moving your router isn't going to cause anything that severe. But you get the idea: taking precautions is only a reasonable course of action when you have good evidence to suggest that a threat is real. That evidence just isn't there for non-ionizing radiation; there is no evidence whatsoever that it can do anything other than heat stuff up.
 

mdchachi

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
6 Mar 2003
Messages
4,286
Reaction score
1,602
I already expressed my contention with the authors' assertion that the effects are "non-thermal". Do you have a response to that? If I have misread the study, I would like to hear what I have misread.
They felt it was non-thermal effects and you don't. I believe they are better qualified than you. So for now I believe them until I hear something credible that says otherwise.
Do you have any evidence of "this sector" being "underfunded" or "actively discouraged"?
Of course you will find many claims of this if you search for it but my main source are from engineer acquaintances. One in particular.
He doesn't have any axe to grind but has been in the field for about 40 years now. By "field" I mean his field is antenna design/wireless communications.
He's currently working on DSRC standards. And he basically says what I am saying which is "we don't really know for sure."
And he's somewhat concerned about it because he works with equipment at power levels much higher than you or I will ever be exposed to.
If you're talking about, say, the ethernet cable business, surely they would have something to gain if they could demonstrate that wireless is harmless. The only businesses I can think of that have a vested interest in keeping wireless communication going are those that deal exclusively in wireless communication, like cell phone companies and wireless device manufacturers. Most businesses would be completely neutral, while some would actually have a vested interest in reducing wireless communication.

But regardless, the implication here seems to be that businesses are conspiring to keep the public from learning about dangerous effects of their products, kind of like the asbestos conspiracy and the leaded gasoline conspiracy. That's a serious allegation; if it is indeed what you meant to imply, then do you have any evidence for this?
By industry I meant any of those in the business of wireless communications or those that depend on them such as device manufacturers.
It's not conspiracy. It's common sense. If I'm a tobacco company, I'm not going to spend time investigating if tobacco causes cancer.
I might spend some efforts on confirming that tobacco doesn't cause cancer though.
What incentive does industry have to seriously research the possibilities of public health effects? What incentive does the government have
(government that's traditionally controlled by industry)? The only incentive they have is the nebulous idea of public health.
When weighed against corporate profits and the economy what do you think will happen?
Unless you think tobacco company behavior was an aberration. I think that sort of thing is the norm with a difference in degree of legality and morality.
Look at power plants. Coal mining. etc.

By "this area", I assume you must be referring to electromagnetic radiation. However, the only cases of health risks from electromagnetic radiation come from ionizing radiation, such as ultraviolet light. If you would like to contend that all electromagnetic radiation is dangerous, that's quite a claim considering we depend on radiation within a part of the electromagnetic spectrum (visible light) to see. In fact, visible light carries with it more energy than the microwaves and radio waves you express concern for, so should it not be more dangerous? And yet, I have never heard once of an activist suggesting that lightbulbs cause cancer. (The sun does cause cancer, but that's because of ionizing ultraviolet radiation.)
According to an impeccable source the UV radiation in sunlight is non-ionizing.

The same way I can confidently say that there's no such thing as the 口裂け女, or ghosts, or werewolves, or vampires. Actually, that's a bit unfair; at least there's a known mechanism for something like the 口裂け女 to exist. There is no known mechanism for non-ionizing radiation to do anything other than heat things up.
That's a silly argument. That's like Big Tobacco saying that "there's no known mechanism that tobacco causes cancer." That may well be true but "not known" does not mean there is no correlation (let alone causation).
Are you an expert in this field? I'm not. But as I pointed out, it seems that it's well accepted that non-ionizing UV light causes skin cancer.
Even this government page while correctly pointing out that non-ionizing radiation isn't known to cause cancer doesn't claim that it's risk free.

If you don't actually accept the conclusions of a research paper, I don't see any possible purpose for linking to said paper except to spread fear.
Actually I did accept them. I didn't read the paper in detail but it seemed reasonable.
And now that I've read the British Columbia page linked above which says that non-ionizing microwaves are known to cause cataracts then the conclusions don't seem all that groundbreaking.
Being cautious "just in case" something that could not possibly happen by any currently know mechanism happens seems to me to not be a particularly prudent thing to do. If you can justify any weak possibility with "better safe than sorry", then I assume you've built a bomb shelter for the nuclear war with North Korea, right? At least that possible event has a known mechanism by which it can occur. Or how about wearing a full respirator just in case you come into contact with someone who has smallpox? Again, we know a plausible mechanism for this to happen.
Now you're going off the deep end. Put another way, if I know that a higher incidence of cops are getting testicular cancer despite all the scientists saying the level of radiation coming out of their radar guns is safe (non-ionizing) and there is no known mechanism that could cause this am I going to rest my radar gun in my crotch? No I don't think so.

But taking unnecessary precautions can easily have harmful effects. For one, the psychological effects of worrying over nothing are very real and can shorten your life span. For another, these precautions can sometime cost you more money or waste more of your time.
When I put on my seat belt, I'm not worried about getting in a car accident. This whole line of argument is a waste of time. I wasn't talking about taking drastic measures so it's pointless to mention the extremes.
But in some cases, your "precautionary" decisions can even have substantial negative consequences. Just consider the anti-vaccer lobby. Today, children around the world are literally dying from measles, a disease of the past that can easily be beaten with vaccinations, simply because a bunch of ignorant parents were convinced by a fraudulent study that vaccines might cause autism and didn't allow their children to get the vaccines that could save not only their lives, but the lives of other children as well. These parents, not truly understanding what they were dealing with, decided to not vaccinate their children "just in case" the vaccine caused autism. That "cautious" decision directly led to the deaths of thousands of children.
Also not very pertinent. There is very strong scientific data regarding the benefits of vaccines. So it's not at all prudent or cautious or benign to not vaccinate.

Of course, that's an extreme example, and pointlessly shutting off or moving your router isn't going to cause anything that severe. But you get the idea: taking precautions is only a reasonable course of action when you have good evidence to suggest that a threat is real. That evidence just isn't there for non-ionizing radiation; there is no evidence whatsoever that it can do anything other than heat stuff up.
I'm not convinced there is "no evidence whatsoever." Even if that is so, "no evidence" does not equal "impossible." If they do find effects (as they apparently have in the case of cataracts) then that is more impetus to figure out the mechanism. Typically in this sort of thing, the effects are found first. Figuring out the mechanisms come later. The whole point you're making of "we don't know a mechanism that could cause such a thing" as being evidence of there being no possibility of issues doesn't make any sense. The science will get eventually done one way or another but it will take decades to sort it out.

This whole thing reminds me of the shoe-fitting fluoroscope. Even though the danger from X-rays were well known from shortly after they were discovered in the 1890s, these low powered devices were installed and used for decades. I guess there was no known mechanism that these things could cause harm. Yet they did.

Let's check back in on this thread in 10 or 20 years and see what has come up in the meantime. I hope it all turns out as you think.
But I think even 20 years will be too short timeframe. Time will tell.
 
Joined
21 Jun 2017
Messages
703
Reaction score
96
They felt it was non-thermal effects
So, you admit that the assertion that the effects were "non-thermal" was an unsubstantiated opinion?

my main source are from engineer acquaintances. One in particular.
Gossip is not evidence. It's not even a citation I can check.

He's currently working on DSRC standards.
So?

And he's somewhat concerned about it because he works with equipment at power levels much higher than you or I will ever be exposed to.
I don't know, I use a microwave oven pretty regularly and that's possibly some of the highest-energy non-ionizing radiation you're likely to work with.

But riddle me this: if he suddenly knows more about non-ionizing radiation than anyone else because he "works with it", I guess I must be a world expert on how scanners work, right? Because I use them every day in my job?

It's not conspiracy. It's common sense.
I don't know, a cover-up of evidence showing harm caused by several products for a century seems to me like a conspiracy. Do you disagree that the asbestos industry cover-up was a conspiracy, for example?

If I'm a tobacco company, I'm not going to spend time investigating if tobacco causes cancer.
Yes, but if you look at tobacco as an example, tobacco's effects are very subtle and yet, despite their use becoming widespread around the same time as non-ionizing radiation (in the form of broadcast radio), evidence for harmful effects of smoking was found decades ago. You can even see old black-and-white TV programs talking about the issue; that's how old the discovery is! The tobacco industry then conspired to distort the truth and sow seeds of doubt within the public, but the evidence was still available. With non-ionizing radiation, on the other hand, no evidence has been found of harm whatsoever in roughly that same time period.

Incidentally, the timeframe is similar for asbestos, too. There's a reason I cited these conspiracies as examples. The asbestos industry was aware of the dangers of asbestos mere decades after its use became widespread, and many common people were well aware of the problem, too (workers, especially, who regularly sued or tried to sue their workplaces for the asbestosis they got). It was only through one of the biggest corporate conspiracies in history that the public was kept unaware of the hazards for so long.

I might spend some efforts on confirming that tobacco doesn't cause cancer though.
To my knowledge, the tobacco industry never tried to research their way out of the public concern; they set up a supposed research effort to distract the public from the issue.

If you want to talk about a real case of an industry trying to use research to keep the public from knowing the truth, a far better comparison is the sugar industry, but the sugar industry cover-up is incredibly recent (just a few decades ago), much more recent than the cover-up would have to be for non-ionizing radiation.

What incentive does industry have to seriously research the possibilities of public health effects? What incentive does the government have
(government that's traditionally controlled by industry)? The only incentive they have is the nebulous idea of public health.
As I said, it would depend on the industry. As for governments, North Korea seems to be not very fond of wireless communication, so I'm sure they would be a strong proponent of showing that non-ionizing radiation is harmful if they could do so. So again, it depends on what government you're talking about. Not everyone has the same agenda. That's why tobacco's health effects were discovered, even in spite of the tobacco industry actively trying to cover up research showing them.

But as I pointed out, it seems that it's well accepted that non-ionizing UV light causes skin cancer.
Looking into it, I see you're right; UV light is mostly non-ionizing. I always thought that all UV light was ionizing radiation.

That being said, the fact that visible light, much more common than microwaves or radio waves, is much closer to ionizing radiation in the spectrum than either still remains. And since we're not using ultraviolet radiation for wireless communication, can we agree to talk about only wavelengths at least as long as the visible spectrum?

Put another way, if I know that a higher incidence of cops are getting testicular cancer despite all the scientists saying the level of radiation coming out of their radar guns is safe (non-ionizing) and there is no known mechanism that could cause this am I going to rest my radar gun in my crotch?
Don't you think the higher incidence could be due to some other factor, like the average age or sex of police officers? I don't know what controls they did since I can't read the paper and the abstract doesn't say much of anything, but I don't think it's particularly prudent to just immediately assume it must be the radar gun.

Also, again, that's a rather old paper. It's as old as me, in fact. If the idea that radar guns cause testicular cancer is valid, there should be some proper evidence for it by now, not a weak observational study of a few hundred people.

When I put on my seat belt, I'm not worried about getting in a car accident.
Perhaps you should be. Car crashes kill millions of people every year. It's one of the biggest known killers in the modern world. That's why we wear seatbelts; we have clear evidence of the dangers of driving, and clear evidence that seatbelts improve outcomes significantly.

Even if that is so, "no evidence" does not equal "impossible."
OK, in that case, what if I told you that aliens from another planet are going to invade next year and the only way to fight back is by spraying them with water? Not impossible, right? So better stock up on those water guns. You know, "just in case".

Typically in this sort of thing, the effects are found first. Figuring out the mechanisms come later. The whole point you're making of "we don't know a mechanism that could cause such a thing" as being evidence of there being no possibility of issues doesn't make any sense.
Going back to the tobacco and asbestos industries, it was known that tar and asbestos fibers, respectively, were being embedded in the lungs of smokers and asbestos industry workers, respectively, so again, at that sort of timeline, some sort of mechanism for radio waves and microwaves to do something other than heat stuff up should have been discovered by now.

Even though the danger from X-rays were well known from shortly after they were discovered in the 1890s, these low powered devices were installed and used for decades.
Aha, now you're getting into the meat of the issues: the dangers of X-rays were well-known. It just took a while for the evidence to build and for the public to stop misusing them because of it. The same would go for radon, which was once used for all kinds of dangerous things, like toothpaste and alternative medicine.

But radio waves were discovered around that time, too. They, too, went into widespread use. And yet, no evidence whatsoever has been discovered of negative effects in all this time.

Let's check back in on this thread in 10 or 20 years and see what has come up in the meantime. I hope it all turns out as you think.
It's already been 10 or 20 years since the weak studies you referenced were conducted. And it's been around a century since broadcast radio became commonplace. Why do you believe another decade or two will change anything?
 
Joined
21 Jun 2017
Messages
703
Reaction score
96
Correction: radium, not radon. Sorry; I was struggling to remember the name and the word I kept coming up with was "Radeon" (that's the name of an AMD GPU line, for those who don't know), which was obviously incorrect, and "radon" was the next thing I came up with. I'm not even sure what that is, to be honest.
 

johnnyG

先輩
Joined
23 Dec 2010
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
831
I'm in hospital right now using their free wi-fi. It's slow as sh!t and sometimes just chokes to a stop.

Now that gives me a headache.!
 

Uncle Frank

SECURITY
Admin
Joined
21 May 2003
Messages
11,592
Reaction score
1,479
Sorry to hear you are in the hospital Johnny , hope you escape soon and heal fast.
 

mdchachi

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
6 Mar 2003
Messages
4,286
Reaction score
1,602
Sorry to keep you waiting. I'm sure you were anxiously awaiting my reply. lol.
So, you admit that the assertion that the effects were "non-thermal" was an unsubstantiated opinion?
No. I admit to not having studied the paper in any depth. It's just one paper and I just put forward as one example where studies were done where such claims were made. The authors claim to have seen effects that differed from thermal effects. I have no reason to doubt them. I haven't seen a credible alternative opinion. And, again, this one study wasn't the point.
Gossip is not evidence. It's not even a citation I can check.
If you want citations to check, then go search for the research. Here's some you can start with:
FYI.
I don't know, I use a microwave oven pretty regularly and that's possibly some of the highest-energy non-ionizing radiation you're likely to work with.
If it's constructed correctly you won't see much of it outside the oven.
But riddle me this: if he suddenly knows more about non-ionizing radiation than anyone else because he "works with it", I guess I must be a world expert on how scanners work, right? Because I use them every day in my job?
It's not because he works with it. It's because he's a research scientist and engineer and has had to actually look into these things in some depth.
And he has a front seat on the table when FCC & Industry is in the room and can see the games they play. By "games" I mean taking action such as setting standards and regulations that are not based on thorough science.
I don't know, a cover-up of evidence showing harm caused by several products for a century seems to me like a conspiracy. Do you disagree that the asbestos industry cover-up was a conspiracy, for example?
That's why I said it's a matter of degree. Some things are criminal. Some are willful ignorance. Some are just simple unknowns.
Yes, but if you look at tobacco as an example, tobacco's effects are very subtle and yet, despite their use becoming widespread around the same time as non-ionizing radiation (in the form of broadcast radio), evidence for harmful effects of smoking was found decades ago. You can even see old black-and-white TV programs talking about the issue; that's how old the discovery is! The tobacco industry then conspired to distort the truth and sow seeds of doubt within the public, but the evidence was still available. With non-ionizing radiation, on the other hand, no evidence has been found of harm whatsoever in roughly that same time period.
I don't know why you keep claiming there is "no evidence." That link I put up above seems to bring up some. Or do you think they are all poor science and conspiracy theories like the anti-vaccers? By the way, even vaccines are not 100% safe.
Incidentally, the timeframe is similar for asbestos, too. There's a reason I cited these conspiracies as examples. The asbestos industry was aware of the dangers of asbestos mere decades after its use became widespread, and many common people were well aware of the problem, too (workers, especially, who regularly sued or tried to sue their workplaces for the asbestosis they got). It was only through one of the biggest corporate conspiracies in history that the public was kept unaware of the hazards for so long.

To my knowledge, the tobacco industry never tried to research their way out of the public concern; they set up a supposed research effort to distract the public from the issue.
They actively funded "science" that undermined real science. Tried to prove that secondhand smoke is not dangerous, for example.
If you want to talk about a real case of an industry trying to use research to keep the public from knowing the truth, a far better comparison is the sugar industry, but the sugar industry cover-up is incredibly recent (just a few decades ago), much more recent than the cover-up would have to be for non-ionizing radiation.
I'm not claiming there is a conspiracy/coverup for the effects of RF exposure. I wouldn't be surprised if there were but I don't believe so. As I said before, there is a bias in place and that's why we see these things happen time and time again.
As I said, it would depend on the industry. As for governments, North Korea seems to be not very fond of wireless communication, so I'm sure they would be a strong proponent of showing that non-ionizing radiation is harmful if they could do so. So again, it depends on what government you're talking about. Not everyone has the same agenda. That's why tobacco's health effects were discovered, even in spite of the tobacco industry actively trying to cover up research showing them.
I was talking about the U.S. government primarily.
Looking into it, I see you're right; UV light is mostly non-ionizing. I always thought that all UV light was ionizing radiation.

That being said, the fact that visible light, much more common than microwaves or radio waves, is much closer to ionizing radiation in the spectrum than either still remains. And since we're not using ultraviolet radiation for wireless communication, can we agree to talk about only wavelengths at least as long as the visible spectrum?
If I read correctly, the definition of ionizing radiation has more to do with the power of the radiation and not the frequency.
And there isn't widespread agreement regarding the exact point ionizing radiation becomes non-ionizing.
Don't you think the higher incidence could be due to some other factor, like the average age or sex of police officers? I don't know what controls they did since I can't read the paper and the abstract doesn't say much of anything, but I don't think it's particularly prudent to just immediately assume it must be the radar gun.
Yes it certainly could. The authors said they could find nothing else in common and that more research is needed.
So it's far from conclusive but that would be enough of an indication for me to not keep my radar gun between my legs. It would not be a big lifestyle change.
Also, again, that's a rather old paper. It's as old as me, in fact. If the idea that radar guns cause testicular cancer is valid, there should be some proper evidence for it by now, not a weak observational study of a few hundred people.
Not really. Most likely those old radar guns are no longer in use. And most likely radar guns now use less power or different technology such as laser. There are many reasons why the effect could have been real yet has "disappeared."
Perhaps you should be. Car crashes kill millions of people every year. It's one of the biggest known killers in the modern world. That's why we wear seatbelts; we have clear evidence of the dangers of driving, and clear evidence that seatbelts improve outcomes significantly.
True. I definitely should stop handling my phone less that's for sure.
OK, in that case, what if I told you that aliens from another planet are going to invade next year and the only way to fight back is by spraying them with water? Not impossible, right? So better stock up on those water guns. You know, "just in case".
Now you're trolling me. I don't even understand how this thread got so long. There's no question that we don't know all there is to know about the effects of RF exposure on biological tissue.
Going back to the tobacco and asbestos industries, it was known that tar and asbestos fibers, respectively, were being embedded in the lungs of smokers and asbestos industry workers, respectively, so again, at that sort of timeline, some sort of mechanism for radio waves and microwaves to do something other than heat stuff up should have been discovered by now.
Yes and there are many studies that claim to have found such things.
So why are you so insistent that there is no such thing and cannot be such a thing?
Note, I'm not saying there is. I am only saying we don't know. So I have nothing to prove here.
Aha, now you're getting into the meat of the issues: the dangers of X-rays were well-known. It just took a while for the evidence to build and for the public to stop misusing them because of it. The same would go for radon, which was once used for all kinds of dangerous things, like toothpaste and alternative medicine.
None of these things were "well known" at the beginning. They were all thought to be safe at low levels until it was found otherwise.
And that's where we are in the cycle with RF exposure. It may end up being safe at the current levels or it may end up following the path of all these other hazards we've been takling about -- smoke, asbestos, lead, sugar, etc.
By the way you have been focusing on the "non-ionizing" thing. The mechanism is really not my concern.
It may very well be that some of these devices are spitting out ionizing radiation or that it turns out that the radiation is ionizing in certain tissues at levels that were thought not to be ionizing.
But radio waves were discovered around that time, too. They, too, went into widespread use. And yet, no evidence whatsoever has been discovered of negative effects in all this time.
Why do you keep saying there is no evidence? Have you performed a thorough literature review on the topic?
Here's the link a third time. Google Scholar
It's already been 10 or 20 years since the weak studies you referenced were conducted. And it's been around a century since broadcast radio became commonplace. Why do you believe another decade or two will change anything?
Because cancer often takes many years appear and if the levels are low it will take a long time to come to light if ever.
By the way, the causes of cancer are not well understood even now so it could very well be happening in front of our faces.
We are all so exposed it would be very difficult to see any trends like they saw in the police radar gun study.

If you want to place your face against those running microwaves to warm up your cheeks feel free.
If you get brain cancer at least you will be confident that it wasn't because that.
 
Last edited:
Joined
21 Jun 2017
Messages
703
Reaction score
96
The authors claim to have seen effects that differed from thermal effects. I have no reason to doubt them.
I do see a reason to doubt them. Regardless, no harm was found by the researchers, and I already pointed out how limited the study was.

If it's constructed correctly you won't see much of it outside the oven.
There's always leakage. No shielding is perfect. That's why microwave ovens can still interfere with wireless communication devices.

It's not because he works with it. It's because he's a research scientist and engineer and has had to actually look into these things in some depth.
And he has a front seat on the table when FCC & Industry is in the room and can see the games they play. By "games" I mean taking action such as setting standards and regulations that are not based on thorough science.
It's still hearsay mixed with an argument from authority.

I don't know why you keep claiming there is "no evidence."
It's an easily falsifiable claim. Show me the research providing evidence of harm from radio waves or microwaves that doesn't have something to do with making an object too hot.

If I read correctly, the definition of ionizing radiation has more to do with the power of the radiation and not the frequency.
No, when the "energy" of radiation is talked about, that's a reference to the effect of different frequencies. You can't give microwaves or radio waves enough "energy", per wave, to make them ionizing. All you can do is pile on more and more of them, which is what microwave ovens do. If the frequency is higher (which is what you have to do to give the radiation more "energy" in that sense), it wouldn't be microwaves anymore.

And there isn't widespread agreement regarding the exact point ionizing radiation becomes non-ionizing.
Yes, but it's a point above the visible spectrum, and well above microwaves and radio waves.

There's no question that we don't know all there is to know about the effects of RF exposure on biological tissue.
And we also don't know all there is to know about the effects of coffee drinking, and coffee is known to be slightly carcinogenic (it increases your risk for stomache cancer).

We don't need to know everything to pragmatically say that, yeah, these frequencies of radiation we've been bombarded with for a century with no apparent effects are perfectly fine.

Note, I'm not saying there is. I am only saying we don't know. So I have nothing to prove here.
We don't know 100% for sure that 9-11 wasn't an inside job, either. So I guess truthers have nothing to prove, right?

And we don't know 100% for sure that the universe wasn't created by a deity. So I guess creationists have nothing to prove, right?

You can't ever 100% prove a null hypothesis. That's why you put the burden of proof on claims that can be proven. Safety of a thing is the null hypothesis; it cannot be proven. What can be proven is hazards of a thing.

Why do you keep saying there is no evidence? Have you performed a thorough literature review on the topic?
Here's the link a third time. Google Scholar
I could read a thousand scientific papers. You would still tell me that I haven't been thorough enough.

You, on the other hand, could provide just a few conclusive research papers showing harmful effects of radio waves, and that would be sufficient to prove that radio waves are harmful.

Ergo, those who claim that radio waves are hazardous have the burden of proof. Until then, the rational assumption is that they are perfectly safe.

Because cancer often takes many years appear and if the levels are low it will take a long time to come to light if ever.
And what of the fact that our use of radio waves has been going on longer than most people have been alive as of 2019?

We are all so exposed it would be very difficult to see any trends like they saw in the police radar gun study.
We're far more exposed to the sun, and yet we found strong evidence for the sun causing cancer.

[X-rays] were all thought to be safe at low levels until it was found otherwise.
They are. That's why hospitals and dentists use them. What was learned was exactly what that safe level is.

It may very well be that some of these devices are spitting out ionizing radiation or that it turns out that the radiation is ionizing in certain tissues at levels that were thought not to be ionizing.
Do you have any evidence to support this hypothesis?

If not, we can throw it out unless and until evidence is found.

It may end up being safe at the current levels or it may end up following the path of all these other hazards we've been takling about -- smoke, asbestos, lead, sugar, etc.
For what it's worth, let me clarify that at times when no hazards were known for asbestos, tobacco use, and lead, there was no good reason to avoid them. It's only now that we have evidence of their hazards that we have good reason to avoid them. (Lead's danger has been known for millennia, though, so it's not really a good example.)
 

Muz1234

後輩
Joined
13 Aug 2014
Messages
474
Reaction score
23
Seriously, I slept a bit better when I switch Wi-Fi off during the night. It reminds me of pre-Wi-Fi days when I get lots of good sleep.
 
Top Bottom