• Ferrous@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yes, as your Wikipedia entry eloquently explains. Understood.

      But what is the actual “issue” you’ve identified?

      • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        The usual refrain that only ionizing radiation can affect DNA is valid for the far-field, where photons are “fully formed” as it were, and therefore e=hf applies. In the near-field, you can transfer energy efficiently at far lower frequencies than you’d expect. But that works well in gases. Not entirely sure how much effect that can have on a bag of water, ie you and me. But it’s there. Does that count as an “issue” or an issue?

        • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          Does that count as an “issue” or an issue?

          Do you think the science that’s been done to understand health effects from cell phones/towers have so far failed to account for the near and far fields?

          • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            You’d be surprised. People think microwaves work by making water molecules resonate. And I’ve heard that from engineers and physicists. So they must believe that the near-field of low frequency RF affects liquids.

            • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 days ago

              To say that the thousands upon thousands of hours spent doing good science trying to understand how cell phones/towers affect health were in vain because they failed to account for one of the most fundamental concepts of EM is an extraordinary claim. It’s up to you now to support this extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence that all of these scientists were doing bad science.

              Until then, all you’re doing is FUD.