What's so funny?
Radio wave have very long wavelength.Obviously you don't even have the fundementals.
To consider yourself on the same level with me is in itself arrogance.
I think time for you to to keep silence already.
Looking at the chart,it already says it all.
Long wavelength=low frequency=low energy
Short wavelength=high frequency=high energy
Last edited by Giorgio; 22nd January 2009 at 03:57 PM.
I was trying to "enlighten" you only... since you claimed to be more "enlightened" then me... so I just learn from you loh...
but u are sprouting something which you have INCOMPLETE knowledge and your tail is showing...
I don't know what nonense are you talking about man.
I have already told you what is ionizing particles.
How to calculate energy.
And what radiation is all about.
Whatever it is,you have a thick skull and to begin,you started with personal remarks.Clearly obvious that you are not a science student because a science student back their facts with claim and not name callings.
The relationship between energy and freqency is shown by me already.
Apart from that,there is no foolproof method to determine if IR can really cause cancer because we are not conducting a test in a control enviroment.
In the field,that is when human are out in the enviroment,many factor can result in cancer.To assure you,you don't even need RADIATION OR A TOXIC DIET TO GIVE YOU CANCER.
You can eat normally and live a 100% healthy live which is not scientifically possible but let's just say it is.
There is still a chance of YOU getting cancer because your body,whenever the mRNA starts to read the DNA,it makes mistake too irregardless of whatever repair mechanism there is.It reduces the chance but not elimate it.
You want 100% sure result?
Build me a lab and a giant microwave,get inside and thereafter i will seal it and vaccum it.
This is a control enviroment and i assure you,whatever result produce,it will be 100% ACCURATE.
I hate to say this but you're like a stubborn mute.
Theorectical result and field test are totally different.
mathematically,in a reaction,let's say i can obtain 100g of carbon dioxide by burning.
however,in a real practical, I WILL NEVER BE ABLE To.
Because the product will be loss either by being trapped in the beaker,test tube or the collision of atom isn't 100%.
Theorectical is always theorectical,flawless in a mathematical sense.
The biggest favour you can do for yourself is to borrow a book from the libary and read it.
This topic runs too deep for you.
Last edited by Giorgio; 22nd January 2009 at 05:37 PM.
First you throw your theory about e=hf... now you say theory is theory only... so which is which?
Even with theory only... you also say microwave and UV is used for sterilizing... since it affect bacteria cells... your cells are different meh?
so have you a conclusion for or against the thread... cuz your answer is still open ended.
Seriously,why am i even talking to you.
Are all cells the same?Do you not know that certain bateria thrive in volcano?some in the artic?
That said,cancerous cells are alot easier to kill as compared to normal cells.Don't ask why,i did read up sometime back.
Likewise,HIV virues are killed once exposed to atmospheric condition.
Why do you care about my conclusion?I here to state my argument against flawed concept.
let me rephrase my question...
on what basis is the concept flawed?
to further clarify my question...
you mentioned E=hf... then again you also mention theory are just theory.
you mention in order to get 100% accurate result... extensive tests are required..
So both theory and practical are out currently... so how are you to say that the concept is flawed in the first place?
"Classical example, from a post above, is a handphone in the car - the RF energy gets largely trapped in the metal chassis, increasing exposure of the driver/passengers. On top of that, the phone will increase its transmission power to stay in contact with the base from which it is shielded by the car."
"There is not a single mechanism for mutations. RF exposure can also result in mutations. The most direct effect of RF is heating of tissue, which can knock the biochemistry out of its normal regime, which can potentially lead to mutations as well."
So, 3rd time asking, what is the usual rise in human tissue temperature due to typical handphone radiation?
I'm telling you that if you don't believe that UV/xray and gamma rays are more hamrful,you can use the mathematical formula E=hf.
The wavelength and frequency of all these are quantified.
Sub the relevant value in and make comparism between each wavelength.It'll prove that the energy of each EMW is related to it's frequency.
You don't need extensive test for this because it's mathematical proven with the conduct of experiment.
To find time needed to fill a bottle.
Take V divide by flow rate right?
You're concept is flawed in the sense that you feel so hype up that microwave and radiowave are a Great risk to human health and you said that heating of tissue is the cause of cancer.
It is not!
Anything lesser than UV does not posess enough energy to quantify as energetic and thus does not fall under the category IONIZING.
You need a great amount of energy to deprotonate an atom/molecule.
Microwave,radiowave,IR does not have that amount of energy to perform such a task.
Since they do not have the energy to knock an electron out of an atom,they cannot unstablize the atom in the body which can cause abnormal growth of cells.
But if you were to say that prolong exposure to radiowave and microwave can cause health effect then it probaly will but i believe that the likely hood is very low.
There are too many baseline for cancerous cell to initiate in the body.
Let me explain...
1. We are natural organism of this planet, thus for us to exist today, our biology should have evolved to take into account of our environment. Thus our bodies already have adapted to counter those radiation that are naturally occurring. (therefore we all can stop being scarstic and say radiation exist everywhere and we are still ok... that is because we have adapted naturally)
2. The main intent of the thread is about man-made transmission, be it low freq or superhigh freq. This is where my POV differ from you.... because of...
a. you are grabbing whatever "theory" and dumping here without the context of application... granted all else the same the higher the frequency, the higher the power.... but look at it the other way... 10KWatts of Red light have the SAME power as 10KWatts of UV which also have the same power as 10KWatts of X-ray. Hence my contest with your E=hf thing, cuz that's only half the equation.... using the same power that you derive from an X-ray and apply that same power to any other frequency... the area under the curve is constant/same, cuz amplitude changes...(and I can assure you... the effect can be as bad)
b. The effects of man-made transmission is yet to be concluded...
... even after 4 years of study by EU scientist...
how then can you be so sure that man-made radiation (be it RF or whatever) have no compounding effects. It's already proven that once subjected to radiations that while naturally occurring, but unnatural in our evolution, can have life-long effects...
...case to the point...
Your last para you even agree that prolonged exposure to man made radiation can have detrimental effects... true, to add on, my point is given mankind's technological development and increasing reliance of transmitters... how much is ok, and how much is going to be detrimental? 20 years ago..mabbe we have a couple of radio/tv transmitters in Sg... now on average, almost every Singaporean have a personal transmitter (HP/wifi..etc). And for the case of things like wi-fi... it gets more powerful every generation.
So to co-relate my 2 points... how can you even say that it's wrong to be hype about transmission risk to health when scientist themselves are inconclusive.... did you know something they don't to make your stand?
First and forefost,what is called 'naturally adapted'?
We don't naturally adapt to background radiation.Infact we don't adapt to it.Background radiation cannot harm us.But nonetheless,they are still RADIATION.
Anything that half life decay has radiation irregardless of their level of radiation emitted.
Again what is called man made tranmission?You are talking about technology here.The focus is on science!Technology is null here and cannot be used as an abstract for an argument.
There is no such thing as man made transmission.Electromagetic waves are not created by man.They exisit freely in natural state.
Human merely implemented this science into microwave oven and other long distance communication devices.
10W of IR and 10W of UV,the only thing you need to know is,the IR is still non-ionizing.
NOBODY knows how much is ok and how much will get you cancer.
It's like asking me,how much 2nd hand smoke can we break in before we get cancer.
THERE IS NO REAL ANSWER because too many factor in the enviroment plays a part.
You are asking for something no one can give you an answer.
What i have done all along is not to answer what you asked because it cannot be determine.What i did till now was to explain the concept and nature of certain EMW.
I said it before and times again.You want a 100% accurate dead spot on result on how much radiation is ok before cancer cells are initiate,go build a vaccum tank and subject yourself to pure radiation.
This is accurate because there is only A subject and A TEST.
Apart from that,on no ground can you determine how much and when a person gets cancer because you just cant!
It's pretty similar to electronics product being tested in the lab.Been tested to withstand blah blah blah but when it goes out-field,some die in a day.
pls change the thread title to Radiation 101 or FAQ on Radiation or everything u want to know abt radiation but dont know what to ask.