downside of the electro magnetic radiation
There are many obvious and hidden dangers in the world around us, making it a frightening place. Some of these hidden risks are fairly clear, like the risk of an electrical shock from exposed wiring. Some are less obvious, such as the risks that UV radiation poses to one’s skin and eyes, which are well known but frequently ignored by most people until it is too late. About one in five people in the US alone will develop skin cancer.
Ironically, while the threat posed by something like UV radiation is frequently overstated, the same cannot be said for other forms of electromagnetic radiation. The distinction between what is and isn’t deemed harmful appears to be made all too frequently solely on the basis of whether it is or isn’t ‘natural’ radiation. In contrast to EM radiation from a microwave or 5G wireless transceiver, which is harmful because it is man-made, UV radiation from the Sun cannot be harmful because it is “natural.” This is, of course, backward.
Instead of dismissing such irrational fears of radiation, let’s examine the science of radiation and how people categorize “danger,” such as in the case of 5G cell towers.
Non-ionizing radiation is not warned of, only ionizing radiation is.
If you have any questions about radiation, start by finding out if it is ionizing. The energy of ionizing radiation is sufficient to dislodge electrons from their orbits inside of atoms. Since our cells have repair mechanisms in place to undo the damage incurred from the background radiation to which we are constantly exposed, ionizing radiation is therefore by definition harmful. If it enters reproductive cells, ionizing radiation can result in heritable genetic diseases as well as cancers and immediate tissue damage. Gamma rays and charged particles with enough energy to indirectly ionize atoms, such as alpha and beta radiation, are two types of ionizing radiation.
Instead, non-ionizing radiation moves molecules by creating an electromagnetic field. Consider the microwave oven, which emits non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of about 2.45 GHz, which is effective at influencing the dipole moment of water molecules. In a process known as dielectric heating, the water molecules start to release their kinetic energy as heat by switching between various orientations quickly in an alternating EM field. The crucial distinction is that non-ionizing radiation simply raises the temperature of the water without altering its chemical composition.
Because it lies on the line between non-ionizing and ionizing radiation, ultraviolet light is an interesting exception because even its non-ionizing forms can be harmful to people. Despite not being ionizing, UV light in the UV-A through UV-C range still harms DNA and a portion of the eye. Because it disrupts DNA and RNA, UV-C radiation is used to sterilize surfaces in laboratories and hospitals, killing both bacteria and viruses. Extreme UV (EUV), which is highly ionizing and has a slight overlap with UV-C, typically only passes through a vacuum.
Radiation Heat from Non-Ionizing Radiation
According to the dielectric heating principle, all non-ionizing radiation has the same impact on the human body and alters the dipole moment of molecules in our tissues. causing regional heating. This is why it feels warm to stand in the sunlight, in front of an IR heating lamp, or next to an active radar dish. Infrared (IR)-sensitive sensors are frequently used to measure what we experience as “heat” radiating off objects, for instance with IR cameras.
Even though this kind of radiation can also damage cell membranes in extreme circumstances, doing so requires a lot more energy. By the time that occurs, the heat generated will have been transported by the blood into the center of the body, interfering with vital enzymatic and other processes. It is almost always fatal to alter this core body temperature, and you would die before any cellular damage could take place.
Additionally, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation (EMR) mainly affects the skin and the tissues directly beneath it because the depth of EMR penetration into biological tissue sharply decreases after about 10 MHz. Before the disruption of cell membranes there becomes an issue, one’s core body temperature will have reached and exceeded lethal levels, in the form of heat stroke.
The Psychology of Fear
A crucial survival skill is the ability to recognize dangers in one’s environment and decide how to respond to them. Fear is the feeling connected to the perception of such a threat. Fear reactions can be justified (justified responses) or irrational (phobias). An actual threat may also be completely disregarded or mitigated using presumptive factors. An illustration of the latter is the very real risk posed by alcohol and tobacco use when they are used as coping mechanisms for stress and other similar conditions.
This selective approach to environmental threats frequently leads to a patchwork of mitigating factors and perceived threats where none exist. Paranoia and the phobia mentioned earlier are two mental illnesses that can cause these imagined threats. When someone has paranoia, anxiety and fear can exaggerate a thought or idea to the point of delusion and irrationality. These delusions frequently include conspiracy theories, with a person or group being implicated as being responsible for the perceived threat. Cognitive bias, meanwhile, makes it difficult for people to understand information that could alter their opinions.
Fearmongering about the safety of wireless technology and “unnatural” radiation, such as that from alternating current mains wiring inside homes, has increased over the years. Since 1903, these people have been referred to as “radiophobes,” and some claim to be extremely sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. Countries like Switzerland have banned 5G due to the “proven harmful effects of HF-EMF” because of widespread radiation phobia. It has also influenced politicians to make disastrous decisions.
Studies ostensibly demonstrate that radiation exposure levels significantly lower than those recommended by the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) (PDF) leads to an increase in a variety of cancers. In addition, World Health It has been determined that the risk from RF (radiofrequency EM) is “Group 2B,” which stands for “possible human carcinogen.” While this is going on, articles from reputable publications promote conspiracy theories by implying that, similar to the tobacco industry, the truth about the risks associated with RF EMR is being withheld from us.
Most recently, a rumor that 5G is somehow connected to or to blame for the SARS-CoV-2 (more commonly known as “coronavirus”) pandemic has surfaced. As a result, some people have gone so far as to literally torch towers that house 5G and other wireless transceivers. The millimeter-wave (20+ GHz) portion of 5G that causes people concern has a very low range, as [Joel Hruska] at ExtremeTech points out succinctly, so the majority of the “5G radiation” that we would experience would be in the same frequency range as 4G (LTE) and WiFi.
Do you already feel frightened?
The goal of the scientific method is to carefully consider and learn how everything in our environment functions, whether at the macroscopic, microscopic, or quantum levels. Many questions are raised when a group of people asserts that they can somehow “sense” electromagnetic fields to the extent that it influences their physical health. The main one is that there is no biological mechanism by which a person could be impacted by EMR.
Naturally, it wouldn’t be science if this made it impossible for researchers to design rigorous tests involving volunteers who insisted they had hypersensitivity. After twenty-eight of these studies by different researchers, another team of scientists would compile a review article to summarize the findings. It should not be surprising that there was no sign of EM (hyper)sensitivity.
The only remaining question is whether non-ionizing radiation, which is emitted by WiFi access points and cell towers, is actually harmful as some claim. If the tissue was heated significantly, it most definitely could be. The radiation from 4G and 5G wireless towers, as well as from a cell phone held next to one’s head during a conversation, produce very little heating due to the low power levels involved. So that’s that?
The most convincing evidence to disprove the idea that RF radiation from cell phones is harmful may come from the largest experiment ever carried out, involving more than five billion cellphone users. Tumors or other adverse effects have not increased in tandem with the absolutely astounding increase in RF radiation exposure over the past few decades as cell phones became more common. not from analog cellphone networks, 2G, 3G, 4G, WiFi, or WiFi.
The US National Cancer Institute also provides this information in their fact sheet along with a thorough list of the cohort, experimental, and other studies. They draw attention to the absence of effects besides thermal heating. The outcomes are most likely caused by other uncontrolled factors, particularly when experimental studies have been unable to identify any biological mechanisms utilizing exposure to low levels of RF EMR. Findings regarding tumors and other negative effects could not be replicated, and cohort studies, which are infamously unreliable, should be taken with a grain of salt. The NCI and several other organizations agree with Cancer Research UK. That’s what science is.
Since anxious and paranoid people are demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt that RF EMR, such as that used with cellphones, is “absolutely safe,” this seems to be the crux of the problem. Unfortunately, unlike mathematics, science only deals with evidence, not proof. Science can easily disprove a theory, but it cannot prove that something is safe; it can only rule out potential causes of harm. That’s what’s being done right now.
We can confidently state that non-ionizing radiation has no effects beyond the thermal ones, with the exception of UV radiation, which is an extreme case. Is it possible that future studies will prove our earlier conclusions about the safety of RF EMR were unfounded? The data and evidence regarding cellphone usage since the 1980s, as well as any carefully conducted studies, do not support any assertions that cellphone use is harmful in any way.
To this day, the only observable negative effects of smartphone use are tripping over open manhole covers, bumping into light posts, and obviously causing traffic accidents. The best advice is to only use a cellphone when it is safe to do so and to avoid using one while walking or operating a vehicle. Furthermore, use caution when believing unreliable information that you haven’t independently verified from anyone. When in doubt, consult a reputable expert in the field.
Safeguard your privacy while enjoying wireless freedom. Additionally, halt destroying cell towers.