WiFi and human health

[immad]

It's a different frequency range, but here it is shown that extremely low frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields (ELF-PEMF) can have beneficial effects, at a really low field strength. So ionization is not all there is to EMF-biological systems interactions.

well let's restrict my my earlier conjecture to answering the specific question 'can they cause cancer?', because cancer is a direct result of damage to DNA, which by definition is a process that must involve the breaking of chemical bonds

but i mean, come on... UV radiation you are exposed to from standing in the sun at a summer picnic is about 10^16Hz

E=4.13×10^(-15)eV*s)((10^16)s^-1)=41.3eV

41.3eV=6.6x10^(-21)kJ

a wifi signal is 6 orders of magnitude less energetic

Have a look at the paper mentioned earlier. Those signals are pretty low frequency (<10 kHz), while still producing clinically measurable and relevant effects. Now depression is not cancer, but still, it says something imho.

 

[atara]

lets look at this rationally.

the frequency band for wifi is 2.5GHz to 5.0GHz, so let's just assume 5.0GHz for calculation

using the formula E=hv, where h is planck's constant and v is frequency

E = (4.13×10^(-15)eV*s)(5000000000s^-1) = 0.00002065eV

0.00002065eV = 3.30849461×10^(-27)kJ

the bond dissociation energy for hydrocarbons is ~400kJ/mol!

NO, a wifi signal cannot cause cancer or otherwise harm living systems because it is not energetic enough to break chemical bonds (by orders of magnitude)

(somebody double check my math, i'm high. but i've done this calculation before sober in class, wifi and cellphones are harmless)

Roger, I already posted a version of this very calculation up above. Unfortunately, this isn't sufficient to prove what you want it to. What isn't accounted for here is the required energy to modify the activity of an enzyme, which, as these are extraordinarily sensitive catalysts, requires much less of a perturbation than would ionization!

Consider: a human being will die if its brain heats up just 5 kelvins above normal body temperature. Normal systems don't behave this way, and obviously 5 degrees isn't breaking any bonds. But the logic you've posted would lead us to conclude that 5 kelvins is "harmless" -- anything but!

Of course why should we care: the claim contradicts experimental evidence, which is accounted for in the many studies cited in the article. I strongly suggest you read them before you criticize them; otherwise, you will probably continue to ignoratio elenchi...

As usual: my point is not that the claims are correct. My point is that they cannot be dismissed without proper consideration.

because cancer is a direct result of damage to DNA, which by definition is a process that must involve the breaking of chemical bonds

[citation so desperately needed]

 

[Roger&Me]

Consider: a human being will die if its brain heats up just 5 kelvins above normal body temperature. Normal systems don't behave this way, and obviously 5 degrees isn't breaking any bonds. But the logic you've posted would lead us to conclude that 5 kelvins is "harmless" -- anything but!

the brain has a significant amount of mass and a lot of it is water... i wonder how much energy it would take to heat it up by 5K. i don't feel like calculating that number right now but its almost certainly vastly more than 10^-27kJ. water has a very high molar heat capacity. it probably takes a lot of energy to heat a brain up by 5K now that I think about it

[citation so desperately needed]

oh come on, lol

i don't have journal access anymore since i graduated. i guess i could search pubmed; but how do you suggest a cell that has totally intact, undamaged, DNA could start proliferating in a rapid, unchecked manner? such growth must be signaled for somehow. i thought it was a basic assumption of modern cancer research that damage to DNA was a necessary step in the mechanism underlying cancer

Have a look at the paper mentioned earlier. Those signals are pretty low frequency (<10 kHz), while still producing clinically measurable and relevant effects. Now depression is not cancer, but still, it says something imho.

i will take a look at it

As usual: my point is not that the claims are correct. My point is that they cannot be dismissed without proper consideration.

i definitely agree. i'm just saying i don't foresee any epidemics being caused by exposure to very low energy EM waves. also to my knowledge the issue has been studied re:cellphones and no increase in the prevalence of disease was noted. again i don't have journal access anymore but i will search for citation and if i find it i will edit and post.

 

[ebola?]

i definitely agree. i'm just saying i don't foresee any epidemics being caused by exposure to very low energy EM waves.

Right. If I understand correctly though, this is not what's under debate. Rather, the question is whether common EM fields can alter enzymatic activity in some discernible way, and the current hypotheses remain quite speculative.

ebola