GSM Association Slams Euro Call For Ban On Wireless In School 271
jhernik writes "The ongoing debate over the supposed dangers posed by mobile phone usage and wireless signals has exploded once again. An influential European committee has called for a ban on mobile phones and Wi-Fi networks in schools – the GSM Association has denounced the report as an 'unbalanced political assessment, not a scientific report.' The report made its recommendation to reduce mobile and wireless use in schools, despite admitting that there is a lack of clear scientific and clinical proof. However, it said the lack of proof was reason enough to restrict use, just in case, comparing mobile phone radiation to other things whose dangers were once unknown, such as asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco."
Re:Nice (Score:5, Informative)
i think u should head back and do some chem 101 and physics: electromagnetism. Radiation is radiation, if its at a low frequency for a long period of time you will have molecular activity, specifically what is called molecular jitter or vibration.
If you're exposed to a higher frequency for a shorter period of time, you'll just get activity sooner.
That's quite wrong actually. You will get very different types of activity depending on the frequency, because the frequency determines the energy per photon, and a molecule can only absorb a photon of electromagnetic radiation if its energy corresponds to the energy gap between two quantum states.
For microwaves you're talking about the rotational states of things like water molecules, and for infra-red, the vibrational states of covalent bonds. What we feel as temperature. Over time, the temperature can rise to the point where a chemical change will occur, but those changes absolutely will not occur unless the irradiated area actually gets hot. The human body is also really good at spreading and dissipating excess heat.
Higher frequency radiation can to act on the electrons in molecules directly, starting with visible light which can interact with electrons in the large orbitals of highly conjugated long-chain molecules and bring about conformational changes (this is how your eyes work). Ultra-violet light can break a covalent bond directly, damaging tissue and DNA or creating free radicals which then go on to do this damage. X-rays and gamma rays can blow an electron right out of an atom, creating interesting and exotic ions which could wreak all kinds of havoc in the body.
The first category of electromagnetic radiation, which includes wi-fi and mobile phones, is only dangerous if it is intense enough do deliver energy to your body faster than you can dissipate it. For example, if you're standing near a large fire. The latter type can trigger a cancer with a single "lucky" photon, which is why you should always wear a hat and sunscreen to minimise that chance.
I really wish people would understand this. Radiation is Radiation.
No. It's not. Really. This is true even without getting into the differences between electromagnetic radiation, particle-based radiation (alpha and beta rays), and radioactive material -- all of which are referred to as "radiation" in the popular media.
Re:Nice (Score:5, Informative)
C = lambda times nu...big deal, it's what I said without explaining how it works. You still haven't told me how an adverse effect is inversely proportional to a longer lambda. see I can use big words too. but still...explain if you want.
The thing is that there is a threshold. It's not just a direct proportionality. Photons with energy below the threshold of breaking chemical bonds aren't "a little bit dangerous" they're just not (individually) dangerous at all. Enough of them to cause heating can be dangerous, hence not standing near open furnaces nor putting oneself in the microwave, but at low intensity they just will not have the same effect on chemical substances that high frequency photons will have, no matter how long the exposure.
and if your standing near a particle emiter - such as a cell phone
A cell phone is not a particle emitter (in the sense of a particle being a thing with mass, not something with a localized wave-function). In general, high-velocity particles with mass (alpha and beta radiation) are much more dangerous than the photons you encounter in your daily life because they have vastly more energy.
if one lucky photon can on the off chance give you "cancer" what's the likely hood that prolonged exposure to radiation at a similiar frequency won't get you "lucky" again. really?
Similar frequency, sure. The longer you're exposed to UV radiation the higher the chance of something bad (e.g. melanoma) happening. However, if the photons are below the threshold of causing chemical change, as those from radio transmitters are, the length of exposure doesn't matter at all. None of the photons have enough energy to do anything significant.
If qualifications are important, I have a degree in physics and physical chemistry, but I got it a few years ago so I'll apologize in advance if the facts I "crammed" in there have faded a little.
Re:Can we get some peer review? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm too lazy to explain inverse-square law [wikipedia.org] to you, but I'm sure somebody on Wikipedia will...