On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:11 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Terry Blanton wrote: > >> Well, I only considered the energy in the range of 1 cm. A cell phone >> puts out about 100 mW peak of which you get about half with it hung in >> your ear. In ten seconds, you get about half a joule of radiation. >> > > But it's not ionizing radiation, which is why it probably doesn't matter. > Hold your conversation while sitting outdoors in the sunshine, and you get > a really whopping big dose of additional radiation -- and some of that stuff > from the Sun is UV, which *is* ionizing radiation, and it probably does a > lot more damage to you during your conversation than your phone does. > > The normal mode for using a cell phone is to hold it tight against your > head. Your head, frankly, doesn't contain much that's terribly sensitive -- > your brain cells hardly ever divide (neurons, never, other brain cells maybe > once in a while), and nothing in your head ever undergoes meiosis. There's > no ionizing radiation coming out of the phone, so what's it going to do to > your head? Scramble your thoughts? That should be obvious right away, and > it's not, so it's presumably not happening. Yes and that was why I was asking about breaking waves. I don't know much about it but in shallow water frequency improves at least a factor 100. Maybe this is sufficient for breaking chemical bond. > > > If you used a cell phone by, say, sitting on it, or holding it tight > against your abdomen, the story might be different, and the consequences a > lot more dire. But you don't. > > BTW I seem to recall there are some subtle effects from microwave radiation > on chemical reactions (I mean, aside from the effects of heating) which were > detected some time in the last few years, but they're subtle, and don't seem > likely to cause a lot of trouble for such a relatively inactive bunch of > cells as those constituting a brain. Since radio waves can excite rotational modes it can make a chemical bonding weaker. Is this what you have read? In electrical gradients and in magnetic fields the nucleus changes its rotation and radiate. This is also a small effect and should not alter chemical reactions David > > > > The CBE at 1 cm is on the order of an erg which is 10^-7 joule. I >> didn't bother to calculate the steradians occupied by your head. >> >> So yes, there are many variables. Have your read _Cell_ by Stephen >> King? Helluva an experiment we are performing on ourselves. >> >> Terry, via Crackberry (not) >> >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:36 PM, David Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Show this in better detail. it depends a lot on how close the mobile is. >>> Another factor is that we have like 100% exposure to cosmic radiation but >>> only 2% to mobile phones. >>> >>> If it is as bad as you say then we are smoked, or rather irradiated. >>> Specifically the gender cell productions is challenged and during the >>> last >>> decades the sperm quality has declined dramatically. Radiation is likely >>> used in meiotic recombination, a process in production of sperm cells and >>> ova. >>> >>> David >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Terry Blanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The CBE is about 5 to 6 orders of magnitude less than cell phone >>>> radiation. Also, cell phone radiation peaks near the microwave oven >>>> frequency. Doh! >>>> >>>> Terry >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:16 PM, David Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> In determining the hazard of mobile phones I came to think of one way >>>>> of >>>>> doing it. Compare the net effect from >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_background_radiation and other >>>>> natural >>>>> sources and compare that with phones. If phoneas are equal and less >>>>> then >>>>> there wouldn't be much of a problem. >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> -- David Jonsson Sweden phone callto:+46703000370
