New Zealand Parents Removed Wi-Fi From Their Childrens' School Because 'Wi-Fi Causes Cancer'

[GatorBait]

I could be wrong, but from my understanding by increasing the amount of particles you are hit with you don't affect the cell mutation, instead you just heat up the cell.  Given how weak the heat output is of a router (hugging a router and you won't get cooked)...this is why it is dangerous around microwave towers, not because of cancer, but if you get in the way you will cook yourself....which cooking your innards is much more deadly.

 

The fact is people hear radiation and assume it is bad, without understanding that certain types of radiation cause less cell mutation.

YES! Could not have said it better.

It is tricky to visualize, because when we talk about photons, we are taking about energy but it has weird properties in that it acts both as a wave and as a physical particle. It has force but no mass! I think this is the source of the confusion.

Photons are individual packets of energy. They can be converted to heat, electricity, etc.... To damage (disrupt the electron's orbit), a photon needs to be above a certain energy. Without that, the electron caries on as if nothing happened (non-ionizing radiation).

[IPCharger]

Sooner or later we will all get cancer (that's if we don't die from something else first).

[Maxibonbits]

Having more cables is probably more likely to cause harm.

 

If I ever get cancer, I am pretty confident it isn't going to be from wi-fi signals.

[Scheer]

There is radiation yes, but it's not supposed to be harmful. But radiation is radiation right? 

 

It is non-ionizing radiation, so it would take a massive amount of it to harm you. Your microwave actually produces more radiation than a cell phone tower does, let alone a wifi router.

 

As for the cell towers with microwave links, the big ones are typically 2 watt radios, the only way they can harm you is if you point the waveguide cable at your eyeball for a while. I believe it was 6Ghz that has roughly the same wavelength as the human eye. The FM radio band is particularly dangerous to the human body with a small band of frequencies that the wavelengths are the same as the heights of people, but you would need to be very close to the antennas (on the tower itself, or close by at the same elevation level as the antennas) for it to be a concern.

 

I've stood in front of a microwave dish for over an hour with no ill-effect thus far, so I'm not too worried about radiation. I've only had radiation sickness once, and that was from a remote site that never had much care put into maintaining it and had lots of leaks in the waveguide, but the site had over 60 antennas on it and it took about 2 hours before I started getting headaches. I then spent 15 minutes outside the shelter and was good for another 2 hours of work inside.

[LAwLz]

Wow, what a load of bullshit.

Some facts so that everyone is on the same page here:

1) Not all radiation is bad. Radiation just means "energy traveling through vacuum/air/solid objects". Heat is radiation. Visible light is radiation. So just because WiFi produces radiation (the radio waves it uses to send data with) does not mean it is harmful.

2) Basically everything can cause cancer. Seriously, being out in the sun can cause it, eating a banana can cause it, being close to another human being can cause it, just existing can cause it. Everyone has a tiny tiny risk of getting cancer, no matter how your life style is.

3) WiFi does not cause cancer. It simply does not. There is no creditable scientific study that shows it does, but there are a ton which shows that it doesn't.

 

I feel bad for Wyman. They lost their son and are most likely devastated by it, like any caring parent would be. That's not an excuse to throw logic and reason out the window and go on a witch hunt though. The iPod didn't kill their son, bad luck killed their son.

 

Here are some quotes from major researches:

 

UK's Protection Agency:

 

The 348-page review found no “conclusive” evidence that cellphone use causes cancer, infertility or a threat to brain function.

“Overall, the results of studies have not demonstrated that the use of mobile phones causes brain tumours or any other type of cancer,” the group said. “The evidence suggests that radio frequency field exposure below guideline levels does not cause symptoms in humans.”

 

The Federal Communications Commission:

 

We are confident that, as set, the emissions guidelines for devices pose no risks to consumers.

 

American Cancer Society:

 

As noted above, the RF waves given off by cell phones don't have enough energy to damage DNA directly or to heat body tissues. Because of this, many scientists believe that cell phones aren't able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported this theory, finding that RF waves do not cause DNA damage.

 

Some scientists have reported that the RF waves from cell phones produce effects in human cells (in lab dishes) that might possibly help tumors grow. However, several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion.

 

Conclusion of the Danish cohort study:

 

Conclusions In this update of a large nationwide cohort study of mobile phone use, there were no increased risks of tumours of the central nervous system, providing little evidence for a causal association.

 

Seriously, you could make a blanket out of cellphones and use it every night for your entire life and it probably would not affect you other than it being uncomfortable like hell.

 

Cellphones (and other radio waves send/received by stuff like routers and cellphones) are not ionized radiation. What does that mean? It means that the waves are not powerful enough to ionize atoms. For those of you who failed or haven't taken basic physics classes yet, it means they are nowhere near powerful enough to tear electrons from an atom. Ionizing radiation (like gamma rays and beta rays) are what you should be worried about. If they hit your cells, they can cause your atoms to drop electrons which in turn can damage cells and increase the risk of cancer.

If non-ionizing radiation (like heat or visible light or WiFi) hits an electron, it will just be absorbed our bounce off and NOT tear the electron away.

 

If your parents tells you to turn your phones off at night it is probably because they themselves are ignorant about it and instead of doing research they eliminate the imaginary risk because that doesn't require them to think.

[LAwLz]

O.k. Given these facts what kind of energy does WiFi produce + how much damage could it do to cells? WiFi has a very large wave length (12.5 cm!) and a frequency of 2.4 GHz (upto 5 GHz). From this you can calculate the EM energy WiFi produces (remember you would need a value of 10 eV or higher to knock electrons off of the atoms / molecules of DNA to cause damage - introduce errors - eventually lead to cancer cells). What eV is produced by WiFi? @ one / 100,000 eV! No where near enough energy to knock off electrons!

I like your posts but this part I don't get. How did you use wave length and frequency to calculate EM energy? Wave length and frequency means the same thing. If you know the frequency you can calculate the wavelength and vice versa.

 

λ = C/F

 

λ = wavelength in meters

C = Speed of light (in meters per second)

F = frequency (in Hz)

 

0.12491352416 = 299792458 / 2400000000

 

You don't mention the amplitude of the wave either, which I would assume is important for calculating the EM energy.

 

 

I see what you mean. It makes sense when thinking about how quantum mechanics works... There is no linear relation between the number of particles and the "damage" caused by them.

Ehh, what? Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with it, and I don't see how you could even make a comparison between this and something in quantum mechanics.

[NIC ROBERTOOO]

I like your posts but this part I don't get. How did you use wave length and frequency to calculate EM energy? Wave length and frequency means the same thing. If you know the frequency you can calculate the wavelength and vice versa.

λ = C/F

λ = wavelength in meters

C = Speed of light (in meters per second)

F = frequency (in Hz)

0.12491352416 = 299792458 / 2400000000

You don't mention the amplitude of the wave either, which I would assume is important for calculating the EM energy.

Ehh, what? Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with it, and I don't see how you could even make a comparison between this and something in quantum mechanics.

Wavelength and frequency are related to each other, not the same thing.

And yes, amplitude is related to the energy of the wavelength, and is found:

E=hf

And you'd be surprised how much quantum mechanics has to do with everyday stuff

[LAwLz]

Wavelength and frequency are related to each other, not the same thing.

And yes, amplitude is related to the energy of the wavelength, and is found:

E=hf

And you'd be surprised how much quantum mechanics has to do with everyday stuff

Oh right. I shouldn't have said "same thing" since one is the length and one is how many waves there are each second. What I meant was that if you have one you can work out the other. You basically only have 1 measurement. How can you calculate the effect with just that?

 

I don't get how quantum mechanics is relevant in this conversation either. The waves are just not strong enough to knock away an electron. That's it. No need to bring quantum mechanics into the conversation.

[GatorBait]

Oh right. I shouldn't have said "same thing" since one is the length and one is how many waves there are each second. What I meant was that if you have one you can work out the other. You basically only have 1 measurement. How can you calculate the effect with just that?

 

I don't get how quantum mechanics is relevant in this conversation either. The waves are just not strong enough to knock away an electron. That's it. No need to bring quantum mechanics into the conversation.

Because we are talking about PHOTONS - massless energy, AKA radiation. You can describe the type of radiation using FREQUENCY or WAVELENGTH because of constants (values that are always the same, never change) like PLANCK'S CONSTANT and the SPEED OF LIGHT. If you know FREQUENCY then you know WAVELENGTH because of the CONSTANTS mentioned (and vice versa). It is just a standard to refer to the type of radiation we are talking about using WAVELENGTH. It makes it easier for scientists & physicians if we all use the same language. So WAVELENGTH it is!

We are saying that QUANTUM MECHANICS is important here because we are describing effects of ELECTROMAGNETISM. This was a very important realization that PHOTONS exist with the so called DUALITY: they have properties of PARTICLES & WAVES at the same time! QUANTUM MECHANICS got us here so we could calculate things like ENERGY. Bringing QUANTUM MECHANICS into the conversation is relevant, because small things like PHOTONS behave in strange ways that you can not compare to larger objects that we are more familiar with. If you only knew NEWTONIAN PHYSICS, you could not understand how this stuff works and why some radiation is very dangerous (ionizing radiation) and some is essential to life (infrared radiation keeps us warm).

Getting back to the the more narrow question of is WiFi dangerous? Checkout this link for a nice video summary on RADIATION:

http://youtu.be/uJ3ea9fa6CA

[LAwLz]

Because we are talking about PHOTONS - massless energy, AKA radiation. You can describe the type of radiation using FREQUENCY or WAVELENGTH because of constants (values that are always the same, never change) like PLANCK'S CONSTANT and the SPEED OF LIGHT. If you know FREQUENCY then you know WAVELENGTH because of the CONSTANTS mentioned (and vice versa). It is just a standard to refer to the type of radiation we are talking about using WAVELENGTH. It makes it easier for scientists & physicians if we all use the same language. So WAVELENGTH it is!

Yes I know that, and I have already shown how to calculate it assuming you are in a vacuum. That doesn't answer my question though. How did you calculate the energy with just the frequency and wavelength? Also, how come you don't need amplitude to calculate it?

 

 

We are saying that QUANTUM MECHANICS is important here because we are describing effects of ELECTROMAGNETISM. This was a very important realization that PHOTONS exist with the so called DUALITY: they have properties of PARTICLES & WAVES at the same time! QUANTUM MECHANICS got us here so we could calculate things like ENERGY. Bringing QUANTUM MECHANICS into the conversation is relevant, because small things like PHOTONS behave in strange ways that you can not compare to larger objects that we are more familiar with. If you only knew NEWTONIAN PHYSICS, you could not understand how this stuff works and why some radiation is very dangerous (ionizing radiation) and some is essential to life (infrared radiation keeps us warm).

Oh get off your high horse already. I understand why some radiation is very dangerous perfectly well (and I have already explained it earlier in the thread). What I don't get is why Alex870 said:

I see what you mean. It makes sense when thinking about how quantum mechanics works... There is no linear relation between the number of particles and the "damage" caused by them.

I don't really see why he would bring up quantum mechanics in that sentence.

[Imaginaerum]

I don't really see why he would bring up quantum mechanics in that sentence.

[GatorBait]

Yes I know that, and I have already shown how to calculate it assuming you are in a vacuum. That doesn't answer my question though. How did you calculate the energy with just the frequency and wavelength? Also, how come you don't need amplitude to calculate it?

 

 

Oh get off your high horse already. I understand why some radiation is very dangerous perfectly well (and I have already explained it earlier in the thread). What I don't get is why Alex870 said:

I don't really see why he would bring up quantum mechanics in that sentence.

Sorry to make your feathers ruffle. Was not intended. Apologies, sincerely.

Why is amplitude not used in the calculations for energy like the energy in a wave in the sea?

I'm a little fuzzy on that. ... It has to do with that concepts like amplitude do not apply to an individual photon (it is about probabilities). Only frequency (or wavelength) are used to calculate energy of a photon. Mass is zero and speed are constant. If you increase the # of photons, you increase intensity which is used to equate to amplitude, but intensity and amplitude don't apply to individual photons.

When it starts to get weird with Quantum Mechanics, I just accept it because it works.

Have a great n happy new year!

[LAwLz]

Why is amplitude not used in the calculations for energy like the energy in a wave in the sea?

I'm a little fuzzy on that. ... It has to do with that concepts like amplitude do not apply to an individual photon (it is about probabilities). Only frequency (or wavelength) are used to calculate energy of a photon. Mass is zero and speed are constant. If you increase the # of photons, you increase intensity which is used to equate to amplitude, but intensity and amplitude don't apply to individual photons.

When it starts to get weird with Quantum Mechanics, I just accept it because it works.

But what's the formula you used to calculate the effect with?

I am on your side in that I don't think WiFi or cellphones radiates harmful radiation (and so are all scientific studies regarding the subject), but what I don't get is the way you came to the conclusion. I am just interested in how you calculated it.

[GatorBait]

But what's the formula you used to calculate the effect with?

I am on your side in that I don't think WiFi or cellphones radiates harmful radiation (and so are all scientific studies regarding the subject), but what I don't get is the way you came to the conclusion. I am just interested in how you calculated it.

Energy of a photon = Planck constant*speed of light. /. Wavelength

Energy of a photon = frequency *Planck constant

Photon frequency = speed of light / wavelength

Electron Volts or Joules are the typical energy units used (eV favored because the amounts in Joules is so small)

[ViruZ_HUN]

We all here will die becuze of the tech.

 

 

R.I.P everyone, its better to say it now then never

[Levis95l]

I wouldn't recomend sleeping with a phone etc. under your pillow... But yeah, getting rid of wifi helps nothing.

[mr moose]

 

Except when it comes from a quantum physicist or is actually relevant to the conversation.

[NIC ROBERTOOO]

Oh right. I shouldn't have said "same thing" since one is the length and one is how many waves there are each second. What I meant was that if you have one you can work out the other. You basically only have 1 measurement. How can you calculate the effect with just that?

I don't get how quantum mechanics is relevant in this conversation either. The waves are just not strong enough to knock away an electron. That's it. No need to bring quantum mechanics into the conversation.

For a wave that is not EMF, it's velocity is found by v= wavelength×frequency. (Obviously as it's units are m/s). But emf travels at the SoL, so it's pretty much useless in this conversation

Sorry, I was just clarifying for you before

[Crabtr]

This is the reason I have to give my mom my iPod at night! And I can't argue with her or else...

You could always find other pseudo-science and make her scared of the world, I'm sure that'd backfire though...

[mr moose]

You could always find other pseudo-science and make her scared of the world, I'm sure that'd backfire though...

yeah, she'd probably drag him of to a Amish commune. :lol: