g*z
7 楼
wifi辐射2mw?手机1w
m*e
13 楼
没见过脑残到这种程度的
见光不穿透皮肤,对人体除了热效应没别的影响。
微波可以穿透皮肤,影响内脏和神经系统,人的神经系统都是靠电信号传导指令的。
你站在200瓦电灯泡前啥不适都不会有,
你站在200瓦发射功率的100Mhz调频电台天线前1米,马上就感到头晕。
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 普朗克定律:光量子能量跟频率成正比,每个量子能量决定了对人伤害的性质,而辐射
: 强度只决定了这种伤害的程度积累。
: 手机辐射能级之低,最多也就是让人提问增加一丝(微型微波炉),好比微风拂面,比
: 它能级高一万倍的太阳光好比针扎屁股。小风吹一个小时也无所谓,轻轻扎你屁股一下
: 则会刺激多了。整天针扎屁股都无所谓,却怕小风吹一下,实在荒唐。
: 更别说手机、无线网本身的强度也才不到一瓦,也比太阳光照射低多了。
见光不穿透皮肤,对人体除了热效应没别的影响。
微波可以穿透皮肤,影响内脏和神经系统,人的神经系统都是靠电信号传导指令的。
你站在200瓦电灯泡前啥不适都不会有,
你站在200瓦发射功率的100Mhz调频电台天线前1米,马上就感到头晕。
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 普朗克定律:光量子能量跟频率成正比,每个量子能量决定了对人伤害的性质,而辐射
: 强度只决定了这种伤害的程度积累。
: 手机辐射能级之低,最多也就是让人提问增加一丝(微型微波炉),好比微风拂面,比
: 它能级高一万倍的太阳光好比针扎屁股。小风吹一个小时也无所谓,轻轻扎你屁股一下
: 则会刺激多了。整天针扎屁股都无所谓,却怕小风吹一下,实在荒唐。
: 更别说手机、无线网本身的强度也才不到一瓦,也比太阳光照射低多了。
m*e
17 楼
你仔细观察下,天天呆计算机前干活的男人,几乎个个都生女儿
空姐最容易得的,就是乳腺癌
辐射,即使是轻微可以忽略的辐射对人的影响是很深远的
当然政府出于某种考虑不愿意承认,也是可以理解的,生病死人都能产生巨大的gdp,
对社会是有好处的
但是,你作为一个个体,就不应该因为政府在宣传啥而对辐射的后果视而不见
15gallon
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 再说一遍,你找这种极端情况在pc版有什么意义,谁家有200w的广播设备?你要说我没
: 考虑极端情况我同意,你要说我别有用心或脑残,我只能说你别有用心或脑残,拿些跟
: 一般人生活不沾边的事情来骂仗。我说喝水对人没伤害,你说你见过一个连喝15gallon
: 撑死的,有意思么?
空姐最容易得的,就是乳腺癌
辐射,即使是轻微可以忽略的辐射对人的影响是很深远的
当然政府出于某种考虑不愿意承认,也是可以理解的,生病死人都能产生巨大的gdp,
对社会是有好处的
但是,你作为一个个体,就不应该因为政府在宣传啥而对辐射的后果视而不见
15gallon
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 再说一遍,你找这种极端情况在pc版有什么意义,谁家有200w的广播设备?你要说我没
: 考虑极端情况我同意,你要说我别有用心或脑残,我只能说你别有用心或脑残,拿些跟
: 一般人生活不沾边的事情来骂仗。我说喝水对人没伤害,你说你见过一个连喝15gallon
: 撑死的,有意思么?
i*x
19 楼
“你仔细观察下,天天呆计算机前干活的男人,几乎个个都生女儿”
典型民科言论,你说你自己头晕我没话说,你说用计算机的男人生女儿,我就再求个出
处。现在还有不天天用计算机的职业?大家都生女儿?我学计算机的同学都生的儿子。
“空姐最容易得的,就是乳腺癌”再求出处。
【在 m**********e 的大作中提到】
: 你仔细观察下,天天呆计算机前干活的男人,几乎个个都生女儿
: 空姐最容易得的,就是乳腺癌
: 辐射,即使是轻微可以忽略的辐射对人的影响是很深远的
: 当然政府出于某种考虑不愿意承认,也是可以理解的,生病死人都能产生巨大的gdp,
: 对社会是有好处的
: 但是,你作为一个个体,就不应该因为政府在宣传啥而对辐射的后果视而不见
:
: 15gallon
典型民科言论,你说你自己头晕我没话说,你说用计算机的男人生女儿,我就再求个出
处。现在还有不天天用计算机的职业?大家都生女儿?我学计算机的同学都生的儿子。
“空姐最容易得的,就是乳腺癌”再求出处。
【在 m**********e 的大作中提到】
: 你仔细观察下,天天呆计算机前干活的男人,几乎个个都生女儿
: 空姐最容易得的,就是乳腺癌
: 辐射,即使是轻微可以忽略的辐射对人的影响是很深远的
: 当然政府出于某种考虑不愿意承认,也是可以理解的,生病死人都能产生巨大的gdp,
: 对社会是有好处的
: 但是,你作为一个个体,就不应该因为政府在宣传啥而对辐射的后果视而不见
:
: 15gallon
h*u
22 楼
我很熟的两个学长都是生的儿子,你这仔细观察观察了多少样本?还是我观察得不够仔
细?
坐飞机受的是宇宙射线的辐射,强度跟照x光只差一两个数量级。但尽管如此,一年坐
个一百次飞机也不会对癌症产生直接影响,只能说有致癌可能性。
【在 m**********e 的大作中提到】
: 你仔细观察下,天天呆计算机前干活的男人,几乎个个都生女儿
: 空姐最容易得的,就是乳腺癌
: 辐射,即使是轻微可以忽略的辐射对人的影响是很深远的
: 当然政府出于某种考虑不愿意承认,也是可以理解的,生病死人都能产生巨大的gdp,
: 对社会是有好处的
: 但是,你作为一个个体,就不应该因为政府在宣传啥而对辐射的后果视而不见
:
: 15gallon
细?
坐飞机受的是宇宙射线的辐射,强度跟照x光只差一两个数量级。但尽管如此,一年坐
个一百次飞机也不会对癌症产生直接影响,只能说有致癌可能性。
【在 m**********e 的大作中提到】
: 你仔细观察下,天天呆计算机前干活的男人,几乎个个都生女儿
: 空姐最容易得的,就是乳腺癌
: 辐射,即使是轻微可以忽略的辐射对人的影响是很深远的
: 当然政府出于某种考虑不愿意承认,也是可以理解的,生病死人都能产生巨大的gdp,
: 对社会是有好处的
: 但是,你作为一个个体,就不应该因为政府在宣传啥而对辐射的后果视而不见
:
: 15gallon
i*x
41 楼
鉴于你扮演了个文盲的角色,我可以彻底解释一下我贴的图的含义,你就不必回了,学
学就好。
电磁辐射可以理解为光量子。光量子有两个指标,第一是能级,第二是幅度(功率)。
能级跟频率正比,决定了对人的影响性质。功率则决定了这种性质的影响的程度。
我贴的频率图可以理解为能级图,每往上一格能级强十倍。紫外线是个分界线,紫外以
上能级的光量子能伤害人体DNA,造成癌变风险,越往上风险越大,最上面是核辐射、
宇宙射线,然后是x光。紫外线以下无法伤害人体DNA,只能传递热量。可见光以下是微
波,再往下是各种手机、无线网、广播电视之类。
所以,紫外以上的辐射,再少对人都有伤害,当然太阳光里少量紫外线和x光无法完全
避免。而微波以下辐射只能传递热量,只要功率不大就没有关系。功率多大叫大?微波
炉功率500-1000w集中起来能烧饭。手机,路由则是1w不到的功率而且向四方发散。在
极其偶然的情况下,长时间手机辐射发热加上手机本身发热可以灼伤脸部,仅此而已。
如果把人放到1000w微波炉里或者工业级天线的发射点处当然能烧伤人体,但这跟正常
使用状况下的“辐射伤害”可以说毫无关系。
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你说说你,这就又开始胡搅蛮缠了。
: 你给的图里,有X-ray, gamma-ray。现在又正着眼睛撒谎说你值得是家用设别。
: 你家里有gamma-ray阿? 这打你脸也太容易了。
学就好。
电磁辐射可以理解为光量子。光量子有两个指标,第一是能级,第二是幅度(功率)。
能级跟频率正比,决定了对人的影响性质。功率则决定了这种性质的影响的程度。
我贴的频率图可以理解为能级图,每往上一格能级强十倍。紫外线是个分界线,紫外以
上能级的光量子能伤害人体DNA,造成癌变风险,越往上风险越大,最上面是核辐射、
宇宙射线,然后是x光。紫外线以下无法伤害人体DNA,只能传递热量。可见光以下是微
波,再往下是各种手机、无线网、广播电视之类。
所以,紫外以上的辐射,再少对人都有伤害,当然太阳光里少量紫外线和x光无法完全
避免。而微波以下辐射只能传递热量,只要功率不大就没有关系。功率多大叫大?微波
炉功率500-1000w集中起来能烧饭。手机,路由则是1w不到的功率而且向四方发散。在
极其偶然的情况下,长时间手机辐射发热加上手机本身发热可以灼伤脸部,仅此而已。
如果把人放到1000w微波炉里或者工业级天线的发射点处当然能烧伤人体,但这跟正常
使用状况下的“辐射伤害”可以说毫无关系。
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你说说你,这就又开始胡搅蛮缠了。
: 你给的图里,有X-ray, gamma-ray。现在又正着眼睛撒谎说你值得是家用设别。
: 你家里有gamma-ray阿? 这打你脸也太容易了。
V*K
42 楼
看你这么辛苦的跟那两个文盲较真真是感慨。你说不跟他们这些人较真的话,那些充斥
着网络的伪科学的脑残言论,什么微波炉用了会致癌、空姐多得乳腺癌、战斗机烧死兔
子,说不定就让没有辨别能力的普罗大众信以为真;但是跟这些人较真的话,你再讲道
理摆证据他们也不会相信你,他们摆明了就是为了跟你胡搅蛮缠,给你喂苍蝇吃。
有x
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 那个图就是给你们这些文盲长长见识,让你们看看真正对人有伤害的紫外以上能级跟手
: 机、微波炉漏出的那点能级的差异。你那个眼睛拐了看我说我贴了x ray家里就必须有x
: ray?我哪里提到x ray半个字了?我所提都是紫外以下,家庭环境的功率级别。喝水
: 喝多会撑死这种事情,我跟正常人讲话没必要提起,跟你这种水平的当然还是得提一下
: 否则你脑子转不过来
着网络的伪科学的脑残言论,什么微波炉用了会致癌、空姐多得乳腺癌、战斗机烧死兔
子,说不定就让没有辨别能力的普罗大众信以为真;但是跟这些人较真的话,你再讲道
理摆证据他们也不会相信你,他们摆明了就是为了跟你胡搅蛮缠,给你喂苍蝇吃。
有x
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 那个图就是给你们这些文盲长长见识,让你们看看真正对人有伤害的紫外以上能级跟手
: 机、微波炉漏出的那点能级的差异。你那个眼睛拐了看我说我贴了x ray家里就必须有x
: ray?我哪里提到x ray半个字了?我所提都是紫外以下,家庭环境的功率级别。喝水
: 喝多会撑死这种事情,我跟正常人讲话没必要提起,跟你这种水平的当然还是得提一下
: 否则你脑子转不过来
i*x
43 楼
睁开狗眼看看我几楼以上写的,如果你还说我没搞明白,只能说你自己没搞明白。
“辐射有energy和magnitude两个指标“
我在家用设备的低功率前提下用能级解释为什么手机路由辐射对人毫无影响,你跳出来
拿工业级大功率设备说热量也能伤人,只有两个解释。第一,你不知道能级和功率的区
别,在我解释能级的贴子里大谈功率。第二,你故意混淆视听,拿跟正常人生活十万八
千里的工业级东西来吓唬普通用户。你说说是哪个吧。
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你这人胡搅蛮缠,跟疯狗一样。
: 粒子能量和照射强度,你到现在还没搞明白。
: 完全两个独立的问题, 这里除了你没有不懂的。不知道你现在还在尥蹶子是哪般
:
: 有x
“辐射有energy和magnitude两个指标“
我在家用设备的低功率前提下用能级解释为什么手机路由辐射对人毫无影响,你跳出来
拿工业级大功率设备说热量也能伤人,只有两个解释。第一,你不知道能级和功率的区
别,在我解释能级的贴子里大谈功率。第二,你故意混淆视听,拿跟正常人生活十万八
千里的工业级东西来吓唬普通用户。你说说是哪个吧。
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你这人胡搅蛮缠,跟疯狗一样。
: 粒子能量和照射强度,你到现在还没搞明白。
: 完全两个独立的问题, 这里除了你没有不懂的。不知道你现在还在尥蹶子是哪般
:
: 有x
w*a
44 楼
这下彻底暴露智商了。
800W是做饭的功率。
你身体里的自由基用不着800W就能变态。 你体内的单个细胞不怕死亡,就怕死不了。
DNA断一个链细胞就可能癌变。
你这个人的思考能力竟如此可笑。就看得懂吃喝拉撒的那点事。
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 鉴于你扮演了个文盲的角色,我可以彻底解释一下我贴的图的含义,你就不必回了,学
: 学就好。
: 电磁辐射可以理解为光量子。光量子有两个指标,第一是能级,第二是幅度(功率)。
: 能级跟频率正比,决定了对人的影响性质。功率则决定了这种性质的影响的程度。
: 我贴的频率图可以理解为能级图,每往上一格能级强十倍。紫外线是个分界线,紫外以
: 上能级的光量子能伤害人体DNA,造成癌变风险,越往上风险越大,最上面是核辐射、
: 宇宙射线,然后是x光。紫外线以下无法伤害人体DNA,只能传递热量。可见光以下是微
: 波,再往下是各种手机、无线网、广播电视之类。
: 所以,紫外以上的辐射,再少对人都有伤害,当然太阳光里少量紫外线和x光无法完全
: 避免。而微波以下辐射只能传递热量,只要功率不大就没有关系。功率多大叫大?微波
800W是做饭的功率。
你身体里的自由基用不着800W就能变态。 你体内的单个细胞不怕死亡,就怕死不了。
DNA断一个链细胞就可能癌变。
你这个人的思考能力竟如此可笑。就看得懂吃喝拉撒的那点事。
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 鉴于你扮演了个文盲的角色,我可以彻底解释一下我贴的图的含义,你就不必回了,学
: 学就好。
: 电磁辐射可以理解为光量子。光量子有两个指标,第一是能级,第二是幅度(功率)。
: 能级跟频率正比,决定了对人的影响性质。功率则决定了这种性质的影响的程度。
: 我贴的频率图可以理解为能级图,每往上一格能级强十倍。紫外线是个分界线,紫外以
: 上能级的光量子能伤害人体DNA,造成癌变风险,越往上风险越大,最上面是核辐射、
: 宇宙射线,然后是x光。紫外线以下无法伤害人体DNA,只能传递热量。可见光以下是微
: 波,再往下是各种手机、无线网、广播电视之类。
: 所以,紫外以上的辐射,再少对人都有伤害,当然太阳光里少量紫外线和x光无法完全
: 避免。而微波以下辐射只能传递热量,只要功率不大就没有关系。功率多大叫大?微波
i*x
66 楼
认英文的话,随便读读这些权威机构的报告吧。注意,别拿”没有证据证明辐射有害“
说话,再解释一遍,统计学的假设检验理论根本不可能给出辐射无害的证明,只能要么
证明辐射有害要么无法证明辐射有害。
In 2006 a large Danish group's study about the connection between mobile
phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000
Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.[21] A
2011 follow-up confirmed these findings.[22]
The authors reported the following conclusion:
Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use
of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at
the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal
interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones
require further investigation.
In the press release[25] accompanying the release of the paper, Dr.
Christopher Wild, Director of the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) said:
An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from
Interphone. However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call
time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied
by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation
of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.
A number of independent health and government authorities have commented on
this important study including The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency
Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) which said in a statement that:[26]
Until now there have been concerns that mobile phones were causing increases
in brain tumours. Interphone is both large and rigorous enough to address
this claim, and it has not provided any convincing scientific evidence of an
association between mobile phone use and the development of glioma or
meningioma. While the study demonstrates some weak evidence of an
association with the highest tenth of cumulative call time (but only in
those who started mobile phone use most recently), the authors conclude that
biases and errors limit the strength of any conclusions in this group. It
now seems clear that if there was an effect of mobile phone use on brain
tumour risks in adults, this is likely to be too small to be detectable by
even a large multinational study of the size of Interphone.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)
which said in a statement that:
On the basis of current understanding of the relationship between brain
cancer and use of mobile phones, including the recently published data from
the INTERPHONE study, ARPANSA:
concludes that currently available data do not warrant any general
recommendation to limit use of mobile phones in the adult population,
continues to inform those concerned about potential health effects that they
may limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where
reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by
texting; and
recommends that, due to the lack of any data relating to children and long
term use of mobile phones, parents encourage their children to limit their
exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by
using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting.
The Cancer Council Australia said in a statement that it cautiously welcomed
the results of the largest international study to date into mobile phone
use, which has found no evidence that normal use of mobile phones, for a
period up to 12 years, can cause brain cancer.
Chief Executive Officer, Professor Ian Olver, said findings from the
Interphone study, conducted across 13 countries including Australia, were
consistent with other research that had failed to find a link between mobile
phones and cancer.
This supports previous research showing mobile phones don’t damage cell DNA
, meaning they can’t cause the type of genetic mutations that develop into
cancer,” Professor Olver said.
However, it has been suggested that electromagnetic fields associated with
mobile phones may play a role in speeding up the development of an existing
cancer. The Interphone study found no evidence to support this theory.
A Danish study (2004) that took place over 10 years found no evidence to
support a link. However, this study has been criticized for collecting data
from subscriptions and not necessarily from actual users. It is known that
some subscribers do not use the phones themselves but provide them for
family members to use. That this happens is supported by the observation
that only 61% of a small sample of the subscribers reported use of mobile
phones when responding to a questionnaire.[21][27]
A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "the data do not
support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk
of glioma or meningioma."[28]
A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "The study suggests
that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade
after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer
term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."[29]
A German study (2006) that states "In conclusion, no overall increased risk
of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users;
however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed
before firm conclusions can be drawn."[30]
A joint study conducted in northern Europe that draws the conclusion that "
Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in
relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed
part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before
firm conclusions can be drawn."[31]
Other studies on cancer and mobile phones are:
A Swedish scientific team at the Karolinska Institute conducted an
epidemiological study (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile
phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk of
acoustic neuroma, a type of benign brain tumor. The increase was not noted
in those who had used phones for fewer than 10 years.[32]
The INTERPHONE study group from Japan published the results of a study of
brain tumour risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach:
determining the SAR inside a tumour by calculating the radio frequency field
absorption in the exact tumour location. Cases examined included glioma,
meningioma, and pituitary adenoma. They reported that the overall odds ratio
(OR) was not increased and that there was no significant trend towards an
increasing OR in relation to exposure, as measured by SAR.[33]
In 2007, Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden,
reviewed published epidemiological papers (2 cohort studies and 16 case-
control studies) and found that:[34]
Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.
Link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.
Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell
handset is used.
One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after
ten years or more.
In a February 2008 update on the status of the INTERPHONE study IARC stated
that the long term findings ‘…could either be causal or artifactual,
related to differential recall between cases and controls.’[35]
Wikinews has related news: Media reports exaggerate cell phone cancer
risk
A publication titled "Public health implications of wireless technologies"
cites that Lennart Hardell found age is a significant factor. The report
repeated the finding that the use of cell phones before age 20 increased the
risk of brain tumors by 5.2, compared to 1.4 for all ages.[36] A review by
Hardell et al. concluded that current mobile phones are not safe for long-
term exposure.[37]
In a time trends study in Europe, conducted by the Institute of Cancer
Epidemiology in Copenhagen, no significant increase in brain tumors among
cell phone users was found between the years of 1998 and 2003. "The lack of
a trend change in incidence from 1998 to 2003 suggests that the induction
period relating mobile phone use to brain tumors exceeds 5–10 years, the
increased risk in this population is too small to be observed, the increased
risk is restricted to subgroups of brain tumors or mobile phone users, or
there is no increased risk."[38]
On 31 May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (
Group 2B). The IARC assessed and evaluated available literature and studies
about the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF),
and found the evidence to be "limited for carcinogenicity of RF-EMF, based
on positive associations between glioma and acoustic neuroma and exposure".
The conclusion of the IARC was mainly based on the INTERPHONE study, which
found an increased risk for glioma in the highest category of heavy users (
30 minutes per day over a 10﹜ear period), although no increased risk was
found at lower exposure and other studies could not back up the findings.
The evidence for other types of cancer was found to be "inadequate". Some
members of the Working Group opposed the conclusions and considered the
current evidence in humans still as “inadequate”, citing inconsistencies
between the assessed studies.[2][39]
Researchers at the National Cancer Institute found that while cell phone use
increased substantially over the period 1992 to 2008 (from nearly zero to
almost 100 percent of the population), the U.S. trends in glioma incidence
did not mirror that increase.[40]
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你找一片无害的论文出来就行了。
: 我觉得人家敢做敢当实名发表。 离比你张嘴就喷的更接近事实。
说话,再解释一遍,统计学的假设检验理论根本不可能给出辐射无害的证明,只能要么
证明辐射有害要么无法证明辐射有害。
In 2006 a large Danish group's study about the connection between mobile
phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000
Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.[21] A
2011 follow-up confirmed these findings.[22]
The authors reported the following conclusion:
Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use
of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at
the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal
interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones
require further investigation.
In the press release[25] accompanying the release of the paper, Dr.
Christopher Wild, Director of the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) said:
An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from
Interphone. However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call
time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied
by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation
of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.
A number of independent health and government authorities have commented on
this important study including The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency
Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) which said in a statement that:[26]
Until now there have been concerns that mobile phones were causing increases
in brain tumours. Interphone is both large and rigorous enough to address
this claim, and it has not provided any convincing scientific evidence of an
association between mobile phone use and the development of glioma or
meningioma. While the study demonstrates some weak evidence of an
association with the highest tenth of cumulative call time (but only in
those who started mobile phone use most recently), the authors conclude that
biases and errors limit the strength of any conclusions in this group. It
now seems clear that if there was an effect of mobile phone use on brain
tumour risks in adults, this is likely to be too small to be detectable by
even a large multinational study of the size of Interphone.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)
which said in a statement that:
On the basis of current understanding of the relationship between brain
cancer and use of mobile phones, including the recently published data from
the INTERPHONE study, ARPANSA:
concludes that currently available data do not warrant any general
recommendation to limit use of mobile phones in the adult population,
continues to inform those concerned about potential health effects that they
may limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where
reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by
texting; and
recommends that, due to the lack of any data relating to children and long
term use of mobile phones, parents encourage their children to limit their
exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by
using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting.
The Cancer Council Australia said in a statement that it cautiously welcomed
the results of the largest international study to date into mobile phone
use, which has found no evidence that normal use of mobile phones, for a
period up to 12 years, can cause brain cancer.
Chief Executive Officer, Professor Ian Olver, said findings from the
Interphone study, conducted across 13 countries including Australia, were
consistent with other research that had failed to find a link between mobile
phones and cancer.
This supports previous research showing mobile phones don’t damage cell DNA
, meaning they can’t cause the type of genetic mutations that develop into
cancer,” Professor Olver said.
However, it has been suggested that electromagnetic fields associated with
mobile phones may play a role in speeding up the development of an existing
cancer. The Interphone study found no evidence to support this theory.
A Danish study (2004) that took place over 10 years found no evidence to
support a link. However, this study has been criticized for collecting data
from subscriptions and not necessarily from actual users. It is known that
some subscribers do not use the phones themselves but provide them for
family members to use. That this happens is supported by the observation
that only 61% of a small sample of the subscribers reported use of mobile
phones when responding to a questionnaire.[21][27]
A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "the data do not
support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk
of glioma or meningioma."[28]
A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "The study suggests
that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade
after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer
term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."[29]
A German study (2006) that states "In conclusion, no overall increased risk
of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users;
however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed
before firm conclusions can be drawn."[30]
A joint study conducted in northern Europe that draws the conclusion that "
Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in
relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed
part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before
firm conclusions can be drawn."[31]
Other studies on cancer and mobile phones are:
A Swedish scientific team at the Karolinska Institute conducted an
epidemiological study (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile
phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk of
acoustic neuroma, a type of benign brain tumor. The increase was not noted
in those who had used phones for fewer than 10 years.[32]
The INTERPHONE study group from Japan published the results of a study of
brain tumour risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach:
determining the SAR inside a tumour by calculating the radio frequency field
absorption in the exact tumour location. Cases examined included glioma,
meningioma, and pituitary adenoma. They reported that the overall odds ratio
(OR) was not increased and that there was no significant trend towards an
increasing OR in relation to exposure, as measured by SAR.[33]
In 2007, Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden,
reviewed published epidemiological papers (2 cohort studies and 16 case-
control studies) and found that:[34]
Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.
Link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.
Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell
handset is used.
One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after
ten years or more.
In a February 2008 update on the status of the INTERPHONE study IARC stated
that the long term findings ‘…could either be causal or artifactual,
related to differential recall between cases and controls.’[35]
Wikinews has related news: Media reports exaggerate cell phone cancer
risk
A publication titled "Public health implications of wireless technologies"
cites that Lennart Hardell found age is a significant factor. The report
repeated the finding that the use of cell phones before age 20 increased the
risk of brain tumors by 5.2, compared to 1.4 for all ages.[36] A review by
Hardell et al. concluded that current mobile phones are not safe for long-
term exposure.[37]
In a time trends study in Europe, conducted by the Institute of Cancer
Epidemiology in Copenhagen, no significant increase in brain tumors among
cell phone users was found between the years of 1998 and 2003. "The lack of
a trend change in incidence from 1998 to 2003 suggests that the induction
period relating mobile phone use to brain tumors exceeds 5–10 years, the
increased risk in this population is too small to be observed, the increased
risk is restricted to subgroups of brain tumors or mobile phone users, or
there is no increased risk."[38]
On 31 May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (
Group 2B). The IARC assessed and evaluated available literature and studies
about the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF),
and found the evidence to be "limited for carcinogenicity of RF-EMF, based
on positive associations between glioma and acoustic neuroma and exposure".
The conclusion of the IARC was mainly based on the INTERPHONE study, which
found an increased risk for glioma in the highest category of heavy users (
30 minutes per day over a 10﹜ear period), although no increased risk was
found at lower exposure and other studies could not back up the findings.
The evidence for other types of cancer was found to be "inadequate". Some
members of the Working Group opposed the conclusions and considered the
current evidence in humans still as “inadequate”, citing inconsistencies
between the assessed studies.[2][39]
Researchers at the National Cancer Institute found that while cell phone use
increased substantially over the period 1992 to 2008 (from nearly zero to
almost 100 percent of the population), the U.S. trends in glioma incidence
did not mirror that increase.[40]
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你找一片无害的论文出来就行了。
: 我觉得人家敢做敢当实名发表。 离比你张嘴就喷的更接近事实。
w*a
68 楼
所以既然没有证明无害的论文, 为什么你icefox就敢说无害?
我倒是找到了老鼠DNA算上的论文。
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 认英文的话,随便读读这些权威机构的报告吧。注意,别拿”没有证据证明辐射有害“
: 说话,再解释一遍,统计学的假设检验理论根本不可能给出辐射无害的证明,只能要么
: 证明辐射有害要么无法证明辐射有害。
: In 2006 a large Danish group's study about the connection between mobile
: phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000
: Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.[21] A
: 2011 follow-up confirmed these findings.[22]
: The authors reported the following conclusion:
: Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use
: of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at
我倒是找到了老鼠DNA算上的论文。
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 认英文的话,随便读读这些权威机构的报告吧。注意,别拿”没有证据证明辐射有害“
: 说话,再解释一遍,统计学的假设检验理论根本不可能给出辐射无害的证明,只能要么
: 证明辐射有害要么无法证明辐射有害。
: In 2006 a large Danish group's study about the connection between mobile
: phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000
: Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.[21] A
: 2011 follow-up confirmed these findings.[22]
: The authors reported the following conclusion:
: Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use
: of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at
i*x
71 楼
你那个国内烂校学报的”科研“结论跟以下所有结论矛盾的时候,你说我们该信谁呢?
In 2006 a large Danish group's study about the connection between mobile
phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000
Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.[21] A
2011 follow-up confirmed these findings.[22]
The following studies of long time exposure have been published:
The 13 nation INTERPHONE project – the largest study of its kind ever
undertaken – was published in 2011 and did not find a solid link between
mobile phones and brain tumours.[23]
The International Journal of Epidemiology published[24] a combined data
analysis from a multi national population-based case-control study of glioma
and meningioma, the most common types of brain tumour.
The authors reported the following conclusion:
Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use
of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at
the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal
interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones
require further investigation.
In the press release[25] accompanying the release of the paper, Dr.
Christopher Wild, Director of the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) said:
An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from
Interphone. However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call
time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied
by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation
of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.
A number of independent health and government authorities have commented on
this important study including The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency
Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) which said in a statement that:[26]
Until now there have been concerns that mobile phones were causing increases
in brain tumours. Interphone is both large and rigorous enough to address
this claim, and it has not provided any convincing scientific evidence of an
association between mobile phone use and the development of glioma or
meningioma. While the study demonstrates some weak evidence of an
association with the highest tenth of cumulative call time (but only in
those who started mobile phone use most recently), the authors conclude that
biases and errors limit the strength of any conclusions in this group. It
now seems clear that if there was an effect of mobile phone use on brain
tumour risks in adults, this is likely to be too small to be detectable by
even a large multinational study of the size of Interphone.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)
which said in a statement that:
On the basis of current understanding of the relationship between brain
cancer and use of mobile phones, including the recently published data from
the INTERPHONE study, ARPANSA:
concludes that currently available data do not warrant any general
recommendation to limit use of mobile phones in the adult population,
continues to inform those concerned about potential health effects that they
may limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where
reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by
texting; and
recommends that, due to the lack of any data relating to children and long
term use of mobile phones, parents encourage their children to limit their
exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by
using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting.
The Cancer Council Australia said in a statement that it cautiously welcomed
the results of the largest international study to date into mobile phone
use, which has found no evidence that normal use of mobile phones, for a
period up to 12 years, can cause brain cancer.
Chief Executive Officer, Professor Ian Olver, said findings from the
Interphone study, conducted across 13 countries including Australia, were
consistent with other research that had failed to find a link between mobile
phones and cancer.
This supports previous research showing mobile phones don’t damage cell DNA
, meaning they can’t cause the type of genetic mutations that develop into
cancer,” Professor Olver said.
However, it has been suggested that electromagnetic fields associated with
mobile phones may play a role in speeding up the development of an existing
cancer. The Interphone study found no evidence to support this theory.
A Danish study (2004) that took place over 10 years found no evidence to
support a link. However, this study has been criticized for collecting data
from subscriptions and not necessarily from actual users. It is known that
some subscribers do not use the phones themselves but provide them for
family members to use. That this happens is supported by the observation
that only 61% of a small sample of the subscribers reported use of mobile
phones when responding to a questionnaire.[21][27]
A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "the data do not
support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk
of glioma or meningioma."[28]
A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "The study suggests
that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade
after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer
term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."[29]
A German study (2006) that states "In conclusion, no overall increased risk
of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users;
however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed
before firm conclusions can be drawn."[30]
A joint study conducted in northern Europe that draws the conclusion that "
Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in
relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed
part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before
firm conclusions can be drawn."[31]
Other studies on cancer and mobile phones are:
A Swedish scientific team at the Karolinska Institute conducted an
epidemiological study (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile
phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk of
acoustic neuroma, a type of benign brain tumor. The increase was not noted
in those who had used phones for fewer than 10 years.[32]
The INTERPHONE study group from Japan published the results of a study of
brain tumour risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach:
determining the SAR inside a tumour by calculating the radio frequency field
absorption in the exact tumour location. Cases examined included glioma,
meningioma, and pituitary adenoma. They reported that the overall odds ratio
(OR) was not increased and that there was no significant trend towards an
increasing OR in relation to exposure, as measured by SAR.[33]
In 2007, Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden,
reviewed published epidemiological papers (2 cohort studies and 16 case-
control studies) and found that:[34]
Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.
Link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.
Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell
handset is used.
One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after
ten years or more.
In a February 2008 update on the status of the INTERPHONE study IARC stated
that the long term findings ‘…could either be causal or artifactual,
related to differential recall between cases and controls.’[35]
Wikinews has related news: Media reports exaggerate cell phone cancer
risk
A publication titled "Public health implications of wireless technologies"
cites that Lennart Hardell found age is a significant factor. The report
repeated the finding that the use of cell phones before age 20 increased the
risk of brain tumors by 5.2, compared to 1.4 for all ages.[36] A review by
Hardell et al. concluded that current mobile phones are not safe for long-
term exposure.[37]
In a time trends study in Europe, conducted by the Institute of Cancer
Epidemiology in Copenhagen, no significant increase in brain tumors among
cell phone users was found between the years of 1998 and 2003. "The lack of
a trend change in incidence from 1998 to 2003 suggests that the induction
period relating mobile phone use to brain tumors exceeds 5–10 years, the
increased risk in this population is too small to be observed, the increased
risk is restricted to subgroups of brain tumors or mobile phone users, or
there is no increased risk."[38]
On 31 May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (
Group 2B). The IARC assessed and evaluated available literature and studies
about the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF),
and found the evidence to be "limited for carcinogenicity of RF-EMF, based
on positive associations between glioma and acoustic neuroma and exposure".
The conclusion of the IARC was mainly based on the INTERPHONE study, which
found an increased risk for glioma in the highest category of heavy users (
30 minutes per day over a 10﹜ear period), although no increased risk was
found at lower exposure and other studies could not back up the findings.
The evidence for other types of cancer was found to be "inadequate". Some
members of the Working Group opposed the conclusions and considered the
current evidence in humans still as “inadequate”, citing inconsistencies
between the assessed studies.[2][39]
Researchers at the National Cancer Institute found that while cell phone use
increased substantially over the period 1992 to 2008 (from nearly zero to
almost 100 percent of the population), the U.S. trends in glioma incidence
did not mirror that increase.[40]
Cognitive effects[edit]
A 2009 study examined the effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation (
RFR) emitted by standard GSM cell phones on the cognitive functions of
humans. The study confirmed longer (slower) response times to a spatial
working memory task when exposed to RFR from a standard GSM cellular phone
placed next to the head of male subjects, and showed that longer duration of
exposure to RFR may increase the effects on performance. Right-handed
subjects exposed to RFR on the left side of their head on average had
significantly longer response times when compared to exposure to the right
side and sham-exposure.[41]
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity[edit]
Main article: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Some users of mobile handsets have reported feeling several unspecific
symptoms during and after its use; ranging from burning and tingling
sensations in the skin of the head and extremities, fatigue, sleep
disturbances, dizziness, loss of mental attention, reaction times and memory
retentiveness, headaches, malaise, tachycardia (heart palpitations), to
disturbances of the digestive system. Reports have noted that all of these
symptoms can also be attributed to stress and that current research cannot
separate the symptoms from nocebo effects.[42]
Genotoxic effects[edit]
A meta-analysis (2008) of 63 in vitro and in vivo studies from the years
1990–2005 concluded that RF radiation was genotoxic only in some conditions
and that the studies reporting positive effects evidenced publication bias.
[43]
A meta-study (2009) of 101 publications on genotoxicity of RF
electromagnetic fields showed that 49 reported a genotoxic effect and 42 not
. The authors found "ample evidence that RF-EMF can alter the genetic
material of exposed cells in vivo and in vitro and in more than one way".[44]
In 1995, in the journal Bioelectromagnetics, Henry Lai and Narenda P. Singh
reported damaged DNA after two hours of microwave radiation at levels deemed
safe according to U.S. government standards.[45]
In December 2004, a pan-European study named REFLEX (Risk Evaluation of
Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field (EMF)
Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods), involving 12 collaborating
laboratories in several countries showed some compelling evidence of DNA
damage of cells in in-vitro cultures, when exposed between 0.3 to 2 watts/kg
, whole-sample average. There were indications, but not rigorous evidence of
other cell changes, including damage to chromosomes, alterations in the
activity of certain genes and a boosted rate of cell division.[46]
Research published in 2004 by a team at the University of Athens had a
reduction in reproductive capacity in fruit flies exposed to 6 minutes of
900 MHz pulsed radiation for five days.[47]
Subsequent research, again conducted on fruit flies, was published in 2007,
with the same exposure pattern but conducted at both 900 MHz and 1800 MHz,
and had similar changes in reproductive capacity with no significant
difference between the two frequencies.[48]
Following additional tests published in a third article, the authors stated
they thought their research suggested the changes were “…due to
degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of
their constituent cells …”.[49]
Australian research conducted in 2009 by subjecting in vitro samples of
human spermatozoa to radio-frequency radiation at 1.8 GHz and specific
absorption rates (SAR) of 0.4 to 27.5 W/kg showed a correlation between
increasing SAR and decreased motility and vitality in sperm, increased
oxidative stress and 8-Oxo-2'-deoxyguanosine markers, stimulating DNA base
adduct formation and increased DNA fragmentation.[50]
Sleep and EEG effects[edit]
Sleep, EEG and waking rCBF have been studied in relation to RF exposure for
a decade now, and the majority of papers published to date have found some
form of effect. While a Finnish study failed to find any effect on sleep or
other cognitive function from pulsed RF exposure,[51] most other papers have
found significant effects on sleep.[52][53][54][55][56][57] Two of these
papers found the effect was only present when the exposure was pulsed (
amplitude modulated), and one early paper found that sleep quality (measured
by the amount of participants' broken sleep) improved.
While some papers were inconclusive or inconsistent,[58][59] a number of
studies have now demonstrated reversible EEG and rCBF alterations from
exposure to pulsed RF exposure.[60][61][62][63] German research from 2006
found that statistically significant EEG changes could be consistently found
, but only in a relatively low proportion of study participants (12 - 30%).[
64]
Brain glucose consumption[edit]
A team led by Dr. Nora Volkow, head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse,
used advanced imaging technology to monitor glucose consumed in the brain.
They found that even weak cell phone radiation alters brain activity near
cell phone antenna. Environmental Working Group now recommends cell phone
users limit their exposure to cell phone radiation by for example looking
for cell phone models that emitts low radiation.[65]
Behavioural effects[edit]
A study on mice offspring suggested that cell phone use during pregnancy may
cause behavioural problems that resemble the effects of ADHD.[66]
Sperm count and sperm quality[edit]
A number of studies have shown relationships between mobile telephone use
and reduced sperm count and sperm quality. Peer reviewed studies have shown
relationships using statistical questionnaire techniques,[67][68][69][70][71
] controlled experiments on living humans,[72] and controlled experiments on
sperm outside the body.[73][74][75][76]
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has a web page entitled "Cell Phone
Radiation Damages Sperm, Studies Show" published August 2013. The EWG page
reviews and tabulates studies showing relationships between mobile phone use
and low sperm count and sperm quality.[77]
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 紫外线伤害DNA是实验室验证的
: 电磁波损害大鼠DNA也是实验室验证的。
In 2006 a large Danish group's study about the connection between mobile
phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000
Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.[21] A
2011 follow-up confirmed these findings.[22]
The following studies of long time exposure have been published:
The 13 nation INTERPHONE project – the largest study of its kind ever
undertaken – was published in 2011 and did not find a solid link between
mobile phones and brain tumours.[23]
The International Journal of Epidemiology published[24] a combined data
analysis from a multi national population-based case-control study of glioma
and meningioma, the most common types of brain tumour.
The authors reported the following conclusion:
Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use
of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at
the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal
interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones
require further investigation.
In the press release[25] accompanying the release of the paper, Dr.
Christopher Wild, Director of the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) said:
An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from
Interphone. However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call
time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied
by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation
of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.
A number of independent health and government authorities have commented on
this important study including The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency
Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) which said in a statement that:[26]
Until now there have been concerns that mobile phones were causing increases
in brain tumours. Interphone is both large and rigorous enough to address
this claim, and it has not provided any convincing scientific evidence of an
association between mobile phone use and the development of glioma or
meningioma. While the study demonstrates some weak evidence of an
association with the highest tenth of cumulative call time (but only in
those who started mobile phone use most recently), the authors conclude that
biases and errors limit the strength of any conclusions in this group. It
now seems clear that if there was an effect of mobile phone use on brain
tumour risks in adults, this is likely to be too small to be detectable by
even a large multinational study of the size of Interphone.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)
which said in a statement that:
On the basis of current understanding of the relationship between brain
cancer and use of mobile phones, including the recently published data from
the INTERPHONE study, ARPANSA:
concludes that currently available data do not warrant any general
recommendation to limit use of mobile phones in the adult population,
continues to inform those concerned about potential health effects that they
may limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where
reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by
texting; and
recommends that, due to the lack of any data relating to children and long
term use of mobile phones, parents encourage their children to limit their
exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by
using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting.
The Cancer Council Australia said in a statement that it cautiously welcomed
the results of the largest international study to date into mobile phone
use, which has found no evidence that normal use of mobile phones, for a
period up to 12 years, can cause brain cancer.
Chief Executive Officer, Professor Ian Olver, said findings from the
Interphone study, conducted across 13 countries including Australia, were
consistent with other research that had failed to find a link between mobile
phones and cancer.
This supports previous research showing mobile phones don’t damage cell DNA
, meaning they can’t cause the type of genetic mutations that develop into
cancer,” Professor Olver said.
However, it has been suggested that electromagnetic fields associated with
mobile phones may play a role in speeding up the development of an existing
cancer. The Interphone study found no evidence to support this theory.
A Danish study (2004) that took place over 10 years found no evidence to
support a link. However, this study has been criticized for collecting data
from subscriptions and not necessarily from actual users. It is known that
some subscribers do not use the phones themselves but provide them for
family members to use. That this happens is supported by the observation
that only 61% of a small sample of the subscribers reported use of mobile
phones when responding to a questionnaire.[21][27]
A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "the data do not
support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk
of glioma or meningioma."[28]
A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "The study suggests
that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade
after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer
term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."[29]
A German study (2006) that states "In conclusion, no overall increased risk
of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users;
however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed
before firm conclusions can be drawn."[30]
A joint study conducted in northern Europe that draws the conclusion that "
Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in
relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed
part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before
firm conclusions can be drawn."[31]
Other studies on cancer and mobile phones are:
A Swedish scientific team at the Karolinska Institute conducted an
epidemiological study (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile
phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk of
acoustic neuroma, a type of benign brain tumor. The increase was not noted
in those who had used phones for fewer than 10 years.[32]
The INTERPHONE study group from Japan published the results of a study of
brain tumour risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach:
determining the SAR inside a tumour by calculating the radio frequency field
absorption in the exact tumour location. Cases examined included glioma,
meningioma, and pituitary adenoma. They reported that the overall odds ratio
(OR) was not increased and that there was no significant trend towards an
increasing OR in relation to exposure, as measured by SAR.[33]
In 2007, Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden,
reviewed published epidemiological papers (2 cohort studies and 16 case-
control studies) and found that:[34]
Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.
Link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.
Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell
handset is used.
One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after
ten years or more.
In a February 2008 update on the status of the INTERPHONE study IARC stated
that the long term findings ‘…could either be causal or artifactual,
related to differential recall between cases and controls.’[35]
Wikinews has related news: Media reports exaggerate cell phone cancer
risk
A publication titled "Public health implications of wireless technologies"
cites that Lennart Hardell found age is a significant factor. The report
repeated the finding that the use of cell phones before age 20 increased the
risk of brain tumors by 5.2, compared to 1.4 for all ages.[36] A review by
Hardell et al. concluded that current mobile phones are not safe for long-
term exposure.[37]
In a time trends study in Europe, conducted by the Institute of Cancer
Epidemiology in Copenhagen, no significant increase in brain tumors among
cell phone users was found between the years of 1998 and 2003. "The lack of
a trend change in incidence from 1998 to 2003 suggests that the induction
period relating mobile phone use to brain tumors exceeds 5–10 years, the
increased risk in this population is too small to be observed, the increased
risk is restricted to subgroups of brain tumors or mobile phone users, or
there is no increased risk."[38]
On 31 May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (
Group 2B). The IARC assessed and evaluated available literature and studies
about the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF),
and found the evidence to be "limited for carcinogenicity of RF-EMF, based
on positive associations between glioma and acoustic neuroma and exposure".
The conclusion of the IARC was mainly based on the INTERPHONE study, which
found an increased risk for glioma in the highest category of heavy users (
30 minutes per day over a 10﹜ear period), although no increased risk was
found at lower exposure and other studies could not back up the findings.
The evidence for other types of cancer was found to be "inadequate". Some
members of the Working Group opposed the conclusions and considered the
current evidence in humans still as “inadequate”, citing inconsistencies
between the assessed studies.[2][39]
Researchers at the National Cancer Institute found that while cell phone use
increased substantially over the period 1992 to 2008 (from nearly zero to
almost 100 percent of the population), the U.S. trends in glioma incidence
did not mirror that increase.[40]
Cognitive effects[edit]
A 2009 study examined the effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation (
RFR) emitted by standard GSM cell phones on the cognitive functions of
humans. The study confirmed longer (slower) response times to a spatial
working memory task when exposed to RFR from a standard GSM cellular phone
placed next to the head of male subjects, and showed that longer duration of
exposure to RFR may increase the effects on performance. Right-handed
subjects exposed to RFR on the left side of their head on average had
significantly longer response times when compared to exposure to the right
side and sham-exposure.[41]
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity[edit]
Main article: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Some users of mobile handsets have reported feeling several unspecific
symptoms during and after its use; ranging from burning and tingling
sensations in the skin of the head and extremities, fatigue, sleep
disturbances, dizziness, loss of mental attention, reaction times and memory
retentiveness, headaches, malaise, tachycardia (heart palpitations), to
disturbances of the digestive system. Reports have noted that all of these
symptoms can also be attributed to stress and that current research cannot
separate the symptoms from nocebo effects.[42]
Genotoxic effects[edit]
A meta-analysis (2008) of 63 in vitro and in vivo studies from the years
1990–2005 concluded that RF radiation was genotoxic only in some conditions
and that the studies reporting positive effects evidenced publication bias.
[43]
A meta-study (2009) of 101 publications on genotoxicity of RF
electromagnetic fields showed that 49 reported a genotoxic effect and 42 not
. The authors found "ample evidence that RF-EMF can alter the genetic
material of exposed cells in vivo and in vitro and in more than one way".[44]
In 1995, in the journal Bioelectromagnetics, Henry Lai and Narenda P. Singh
reported damaged DNA after two hours of microwave radiation at levels deemed
safe according to U.S. government standards.[45]
In December 2004, a pan-European study named REFLEX (Risk Evaluation of
Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field (EMF)
Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods), involving 12 collaborating
laboratories in several countries showed some compelling evidence of DNA
damage of cells in in-vitro cultures, when exposed between 0.3 to 2 watts/kg
, whole-sample average. There were indications, but not rigorous evidence of
other cell changes, including damage to chromosomes, alterations in the
activity of certain genes and a boosted rate of cell division.[46]
Research published in 2004 by a team at the University of Athens had a
reduction in reproductive capacity in fruit flies exposed to 6 minutes of
900 MHz pulsed radiation for five days.[47]
Subsequent research, again conducted on fruit flies, was published in 2007,
with the same exposure pattern but conducted at both 900 MHz and 1800 MHz,
and had similar changes in reproductive capacity with no significant
difference between the two frequencies.[48]
Following additional tests published in a third article, the authors stated
they thought their research suggested the changes were “…due to
degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of
their constituent cells …”.[49]
Australian research conducted in 2009 by subjecting in vitro samples of
human spermatozoa to radio-frequency radiation at 1.8 GHz and specific
absorption rates (SAR) of 0.4 to 27.5 W/kg showed a correlation between
increasing SAR and decreased motility and vitality in sperm, increased
oxidative stress and 8-Oxo-2'-deoxyguanosine markers, stimulating DNA base
adduct formation and increased DNA fragmentation.[50]
Sleep and EEG effects[edit]
Sleep, EEG and waking rCBF have been studied in relation to RF exposure for
a decade now, and the majority of papers published to date have found some
form of effect. While a Finnish study failed to find any effect on sleep or
other cognitive function from pulsed RF exposure,[51] most other papers have
found significant effects on sleep.[52][53][54][55][56][57] Two of these
papers found the effect was only present when the exposure was pulsed (
amplitude modulated), and one early paper found that sleep quality (measured
by the amount of participants' broken sleep) improved.
While some papers were inconclusive or inconsistent,[58][59] a number of
studies have now demonstrated reversible EEG and rCBF alterations from
exposure to pulsed RF exposure.[60][61][62][63] German research from 2006
found that statistically significant EEG changes could be consistently found
, but only in a relatively low proportion of study participants (12 - 30%).[
64]
Brain glucose consumption[edit]
A team led by Dr. Nora Volkow, head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse,
used advanced imaging technology to monitor glucose consumed in the brain.
They found that even weak cell phone radiation alters brain activity near
cell phone antenna. Environmental Working Group now recommends cell phone
users limit their exposure to cell phone radiation by for example looking
for cell phone models that emitts low radiation.[65]
Behavioural effects[edit]
A study on mice offspring suggested that cell phone use during pregnancy may
cause behavioural problems that resemble the effects of ADHD.[66]
Sperm count and sperm quality[edit]
A number of studies have shown relationships between mobile telephone use
and reduced sperm count and sperm quality. Peer reviewed studies have shown
relationships using statistical questionnaire techniques,[67][68][69][70][71
] controlled experiments on living humans,[72] and controlled experiments on
sperm outside the body.[73][74][75][76]
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has a web page entitled "Cell Phone
Radiation Damages Sperm, Studies Show" published August 2013. The EWG page
reviews and tabulates studies showing relationships between mobile phone use
and low sperm count and sperm quality.[77]
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 紫外线伤害DNA是实验室验证的
: 电磁波损害大鼠DNA也是实验室验证的。
V*K
73 楼
张嘴就喷?2333333
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19851891
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20371881
我还等你指教800W的LINAC呢
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你找一片无害的论文出来就行了。
: 我觉得人家敢做敢当实名发表。 离比你张嘴就喷的更接近事实。
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19851891
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20371881
我还等你指教800W的LINAC呢
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你找一片无害的论文出来就行了。
: 我觉得人家敢做敢当实名发表。 离比你张嘴就喷的更接近事实。
w*a
75 楼
你把你自己贴的东西读一遍,你也就不这么丢人现眼了
However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call
time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied
by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation
of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 你那个国内烂校学报的”科研“结论跟以下所有结论矛盾的时候,你说我们该信谁呢?
: In 2006 a large Danish group's study about the connection between mobile
: phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000
: Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.[21] A
: 2011 follow-up confirmed these findings.[22]
: The following studies of long time exposure have been published:
: The 13 nation INTERPHONE project – the largest study of its kind ever
: undertaken – was published in 2011 and did not find a solid link between
: mobile phones and brain tumours.[23]
: The International Journal of Epidemiology published[24] a combined data
However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call
time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied
by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation
of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 你那个国内烂校学报的”科研“结论跟以下所有结论矛盾的时候,你说我们该信谁呢?
: In 2006 a large Danish group's study about the connection between mobile
: phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000
: Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.[21] A
: 2011 follow-up confirmed these findings.[22]
: The following studies of long time exposure have been published:
: The 13 nation INTERPHONE project – the largest study of its kind ever
: undertaken – was published in 2011 and did not find a solid link between
: mobile phones and brain tumours.[23]
: The International Journal of Epidemiology published[24] a combined data
w*a
76 楼
Consequently, the whole-body 1800 MHz GSM-like RF radiation exposure may
lead to oxidative destruction as being indicators of subsequent reactions
that occur to form oxygen toxicity in tissues.
这是你给出的东西里面的原话。
你到底是给我找证据支持我呢还是反对我啊?
【在 V*****K 的大作中提到】
: 张嘴就喷?2333333
: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19851891
: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20371881
: 我还等你指教800W的LINAC呢
lead to oxidative destruction as being indicators of subsequent reactions
that occur to form oxygen toxicity in tissues.
这是你给出的东西里面的原话。
你到底是给我找证据支持我呢还是反对我啊?
【在 V*****K 的大作中提到】
: 张嘴就喷?2333333
: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19851891
: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20371881
: 我还等你指教800W的LINAC呢
i*x
77 楼
文盲你今天丢脸次数够了,我打脸打得手都累了,你用了这么久电脑也快得癌了吧,今
天我先下课,啥时你皮痒了再来找我
studied
investigation
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.7
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你把你自己贴的东西读一遍,你也就不这么丢人现眼了
: However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call
: time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied
: by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation
: of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.
天我先下课,啥时你皮痒了再来找我
studied
investigation
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.7
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你把你自己贴的东西读一遍,你也就不这么丢人现眼了
: However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call
: time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied
: by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation
: of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.
w*a
80 楼
你算个毛阿你给总结。
我就爱引用原文,还是你给贴出来的
"... mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer
risk is merited."
还有你队友给出的证据
“Consequently, the whole-body 1800 MHz GSM-like RF radiation exposure may
lead to oxidative destruction as being indicators of subsequent reactions
that occur to form oxygen toxicity in tissues.”
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 你个文盲不知道科学研究是怎么做的我实在没义务教你。相对论现在还有人做实验见小
: 误差呢,你就说相对论不正确了?人家要继续研究你就说辐射肯定会致癌?你这种科盲
: 真是科学家的心病。
: 最后总结一下,如果手机辐射能致癌,那比它能量功率都强万倍的阳光就能瞬间把人杀
: 死。你如果出门不带脸基尼就别来这逼叨叨。
:
: ★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.7
我就爱引用原文,还是你给贴出来的
"... mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer
risk is merited."
还有你队友给出的证据
“Consequently, the whole-body 1800 MHz GSM-like RF radiation exposure may
lead to oxidative destruction as being indicators of subsequent reactions
that occur to form oxygen toxicity in tissues.”
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 你个文盲不知道科学研究是怎么做的我实在没义务教你。相对论现在还有人做实验见小
: 误差呢,你就说相对论不正确了?人家要继续研究你就说辐射肯定会致癌?你这种科盲
: 真是科学家的心病。
: 最后总结一下,如果手机辐射能致癌,那比它能量功率都强万倍的阳光就能瞬间把人杀
: 死。你如果出门不带脸基尼就别来这逼叨叨。
:
: ★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.7
i*x
81 楼
你今天显出了自己不懂物理,不懂数学,不懂统计,连wi都不会查,就靠满地打滚获胜
。你到现在都没回答我问题:1、手机是否致癌?2、比手机能级高万倍,功率也强很多
的太阳光致不致癌?我再加一个:你出门穿不穿脸基尼?哈哈哈
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.7
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你算个毛阿你给总结。
: 我就爱引用原文,还是你给贴出来的
: "... mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer
: risk is merited."
: 还有你队友给出的证据
: “Consequently, the whole-body 1800 MHz GSM-like RF radiation exposure may
: lead to oxidative destruction as being indicators of subsequent reactions
: that occur to form oxygen toxicity in tissues.”
。你到现在都没回答我问题:1、手机是否致癌?2、比手机能级高万倍,功率也强很多
的太阳光致不致癌?我再加一个:你出门穿不穿脸基尼?哈哈哈
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.7
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你算个毛阿你给总结。
: 我就爱引用原文,还是你给贴出来的
: "... mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer
: risk is merited."
: 还有你队友给出的证据
: “Consequently, the whole-body 1800 MHz GSM-like RF radiation exposure may
: lead to oxidative destruction as being indicators of subsequent reactions
: that occur to form oxygen toxicity in tissues.”
i*x
82 楼
今天你上网不知道产生了多少癌细胞?想想明早晒晒太阳这种强万倍、功率也大得多的
辐射,你颤抖了吗?一定要戴脸基尼哦!别忘了贴个照片来支持你的观点!
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.7
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你算个毛阿你给总结。
: 我就爱引用原文,还是你给贴出来的
: "... mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer
: risk is merited."
: 还有你队友给出的证据
: “Consequently, the whole-body 1800 MHz GSM-like RF radiation exposure may
: lead to oxidative destruction as being indicators of subsequent reactions
: that occur to form oxygen toxicity in tissues.”
辐射,你颤抖了吗?一定要戴脸基尼哦!别忘了贴个照片来支持你的观点!
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.7
【在 w*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你算个毛阿你给总结。
: 我就爱引用原文,还是你给贴出来的
: "... mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer
: risk is merited."
: 还有你队友给出的证据
: “Consequently, the whole-body 1800 MHz GSM-like RF radiation exposure may
: lead to oxidative destruction as being indicators of subsequent reactions
: that occur to form oxygen toxicity in tissues.”
m*e
83 楼
蠢透了你
电磁波频率较低的时候波动性为主,辐射损伤主要通过谐振的形式表现,比如微波辐射
伤害
电磁波频率较高的时候粒子性为主,辐射损伤主要是单光子撞击后的能量转移破坏生物
体。
介于这两者之间,比如可见光,危害性就小得多了,这也是地球上能存在生命的原因。
你这个蠢货把辐射伤害归结于电磁波频率高低,是很愚蠢的。
非常低的Khz级别低频电磁波虽然单光子能量很低,但是场强足够高的时候也能对人体
内部器官也能产生巨大的伤害,但是同样场强的可见光,却只能产生轻微的皮肤热灼伤。
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 你今天显出了自己不懂物理,不懂数学,不懂统计,连wi都不会查,就靠满地打滚获胜
: 。你到现在都没回答我问题:1、手机是否致癌?2、比手机能级高万倍,功率也强很多
: 的太阳光致不致癌?我再加一个:你出门穿不穿脸基尼?哈哈哈
:
: ★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.7
电磁波频率较低的时候波动性为主,辐射损伤主要通过谐振的形式表现,比如微波辐射
伤害
电磁波频率较高的时候粒子性为主,辐射损伤主要是单光子撞击后的能量转移破坏生物
体。
介于这两者之间,比如可见光,危害性就小得多了,这也是地球上能存在生命的原因。
你这个蠢货把辐射伤害归结于电磁波频率高低,是很愚蠢的。
非常低的Khz级别低频电磁波虽然单光子能量很低,但是场强足够高的时候也能对人体
内部器官也能产生巨大的伤害,但是同样场强的可见光,却只能产生轻微的皮肤热灼伤。
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 你今天显出了自己不懂物理,不懂数学,不懂统计,连wi都不会查,就靠满地打滚获胜
: 。你到现在都没回答我问题:1、手机是否致癌?2、比手机能级高万倍,功率也强很多
: 的太阳光致不致癌?我再加一个:你出门穿不穿脸基尼?哈哈哈
:
: ★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.7
i*x
84 楼
懒得跟民科废话了,自己读去吧。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation
Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is radiation that carries enough energy to
liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them. Ionizing
radiation comprises subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at
relativistic speeds, and electromagnetic waves on the short wavelength end
of the electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma rays, X-rays, and the upper vacuum
ultraviolet part of the ultraviolet spectrum are ionizing, whereas the lower
ultraviolet, visible light (including laser light), infrared, microwaves,
and radio waves are considered non-ionizing radiation. The boundary is not
sharply defined, since different molecules and atoms ionize at different
energies.
“非常低的Khz级别低频电磁波虽然单光子能量很低,但是场强足够高的时候也能对人
体内部器官也能产生巨大的伤害”废话,你把人放到微波炉里去转当然会灼伤,这还用
你教?这跟本楼讨论的路由手机辐射有半天关系吗?
伤。
【在 m**********e 的大作中提到】
: 蠢透了你
: 电磁波频率较低的时候波动性为主,辐射损伤主要通过谐振的形式表现,比如微波辐射
: 伤害
: 电磁波频率较高的时候粒子性为主,辐射损伤主要是单光子撞击后的能量转移破坏生物
: 体。
: 介于这两者之间,比如可见光,危害性就小得多了,这也是地球上能存在生命的原因。
: 你这个蠢货把辐射伤害归结于电磁波频率高低,是很愚蠢的。
: 非常低的Khz级别低频电磁波虽然单光子能量很低,但是场强足够高的时候也能对人体
: 内部器官也能产生巨大的伤害,但是同样场强的可见光,却只能产生轻微的皮肤热灼伤。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation
Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is radiation that carries enough energy to
liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them. Ionizing
radiation comprises subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at
relativistic speeds, and electromagnetic waves on the short wavelength end
of the electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma rays, X-rays, and the upper vacuum
ultraviolet part of the ultraviolet spectrum are ionizing, whereas the lower
ultraviolet, visible light (including laser light), infrared, microwaves,
and radio waves are considered non-ionizing radiation. The boundary is not
sharply defined, since different molecules and atoms ionize at different
energies.
“非常低的Khz级别低频电磁波虽然单光子能量很低,但是场强足够高的时候也能对人
体内部器官也能产生巨大的伤害”废话,你把人放到微波炉里去转当然会灼伤,这还用
你教?这跟本楼讨论的路由手机辐射有半天关系吗?
伤。
【在 m**********e 的大作中提到】
: 蠢透了你
: 电磁波频率较低的时候波动性为主,辐射损伤主要通过谐振的形式表现,比如微波辐射
: 伤害
: 电磁波频率较高的时候粒子性为主,辐射损伤主要是单光子撞击后的能量转移破坏生物
: 体。
: 介于这两者之间,比如可见光,危害性就小得多了,这也是地球上能存在生命的原因。
: 你这个蠢货把辐射伤害归结于电磁波频率高低,是很愚蠢的。
: 非常低的Khz级别低频电磁波虽然单光子能量很低,但是场强足够高的时候也能对人体
: 内部器官也能产生巨大的伤害,但是同样场强的可见光,却只能产生轻微的皮肤热灼伤。
m*e
85 楼
蠢货都没看明白我在说什么
to
Ionizing
lower
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 懒得跟民科废话了,自己读去吧。
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation
: Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is radiation that carries enough energy to
: liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them. Ionizing
: radiation comprises subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at
: relativistic speeds, and electromagnetic waves on the short wavelength end
: of the electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma rays, X-rays, and the upper vacuum
: ultraviolet part of the ultraviolet spectrum are ionizing, whereas the lower
: ultraviolet, visible light (including laser light), infrared, microwaves,
: and radio waves are considered non-ionizing radiation. The boundary is not
to
Ionizing
lower
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: 懒得跟民科废话了,自己读去吧。
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation
: Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is radiation that carries enough energy to
: liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them. Ionizing
: radiation comprises subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at
: relativistic speeds, and electromagnetic waves on the short wavelength end
: of the electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma rays, X-rays, and the upper vacuum
: ultraviolet part of the ultraviolet spectrum are ionizing, whereas the lower
: ultraviolet, visible light (including laser light), infrared, microwaves,
: and radio waves are considered non-ionizing radiation. The boundary is not
m*e
88 楼
啥也不懂少说几句,回家去读个phd再来得瑟别人是民科。
不是死咬着不放就能证明你是对的,有时候死咬着不放的恰恰是无赖
对了,我发现你时间真多,昨天我睡了,今天忙了一天,回头发现你还在满世界地
咬着不放
哈哈哈哈。。。。。太鸡巴有战斗力了!
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: “非常低的Khz级别低频电磁波虽然单光子能量很低,但是场强足够高的时候也能对人
: 体内部器官也能产生巨大的伤害”废话,你把人放到微波炉里去转当然会灼伤,这还用
: 你教?这跟本楼讨论的路由手机辐射有半天关系吗?
: 我说的是电离辐射会直接伤害DNA造成癌变,哪怕很小的计量都会,你说的则是低能级
: 的微波辐射也会灼伤人体,这矛盾嘛?蠢货你看明白了吗?
不是死咬着不放就能证明你是对的,有时候死咬着不放的恰恰是无赖
对了,我发现你时间真多,昨天我睡了,今天忙了一天,回头发现你还在满世界地
咬着不放
哈哈哈哈。。。。。太鸡巴有战斗力了!
【在 i****x 的大作中提到】
: “非常低的Khz级别低频电磁波虽然单光子能量很低,但是场强足够高的时候也能对人
: 体内部器官也能产生巨大的伤害”废话,你把人放到微波炉里去转当然会灼伤,这还用
: 你教?这跟本楼讨论的路由手机辐射有半天关系吗?
: 我说的是电离辐射会直接伤害DNA造成癌变,哪怕很小的计量都会,你说的则是低能级
: 的微波辐射也会灼伤人体,这矛盾嘛?蠢货你看明白了吗?
i*x
93 楼
发信人: helvnxu (Mizzle), 信区: Hardware
标 题: Re: 5Ghz是不是比2。4ghz的辐射更强?
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Sep 7 11:25:20 2014, 美东)
学过物理的都知道,波长越短穿透性强。
为什么总有人喜欢信口开河,那笃定的口气说得跟真的一样。还是在普遍高学历的
mitbbs上。
[回复] [回信给作者] [本篇全文] [本讨论区] [修改] [删除] [转寄] [转贴] [收藏]
[举报] [ 22 ]
发信人: helvnxu (Mizzle), 信区: Hardware
标 题: Re: 5Ghz是不是比2。4ghz的辐射更强?
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Sep 7 11:34:53 2014, 美东)
我很熟的两个学长都是生的儿子,你这仔细观察观察了多少样本?还是我观察得不够仔
细?
坐飞机受的是宇宙射线的辐射,强度跟照x光只差一两个数量级。但尽管如此,一年坐
个一百次飞机也不会对癌症产生直接影响,只能说有致癌可能性。
【在 m**********e 的大作中提到】
: 没见过脑残到这种程度的
: 见光不穿透皮肤,对人体除了热效应没别的影响。
: 微波可以穿透皮肤,影响内脏和神经系统,人的神经系统都是靠电信号传导指令的。
: 你站在200瓦电灯泡前啥不适都不会有,
: 你站在200瓦发射功率的100Mhz调频电台天线前1米,马上就感到头晕。
标 题: Re: 5Ghz是不是比2。4ghz的辐射更强?
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Sep 7 11:25:20 2014, 美东)
学过物理的都知道,波长越短穿透性强。
为什么总有人喜欢信口开河,那笃定的口气说得跟真的一样。还是在普遍高学历的
mitbbs上。
[回复] [回信给作者] [本篇全文] [本讨论区] [修改] [删除] [转寄] [转贴] [收藏]
[举报] [ 22 ]
发信人: helvnxu (Mizzle), 信区: Hardware
标 题: Re: 5Ghz是不是比2。4ghz的辐射更强?
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Sep 7 11:34:53 2014, 美东)
我很熟的两个学长都是生的儿子,你这仔细观察观察了多少样本?还是我观察得不够仔
细?
坐飞机受的是宇宙射线的辐射,强度跟照x光只差一两个数量级。但尽管如此,一年坐
个一百次飞机也不会对癌症产生直接影响,只能说有致癌可能性。
【在 m**********e 的大作中提到】
: 没见过脑残到这种程度的
: 见光不穿透皮肤,对人体除了热效应没别的影响。
: 微波可以穿透皮肤,影响内脏和神经系统,人的神经系统都是靠电信号传导指令的。
: 你站在200瓦电灯泡前啥不适都不会有,
: 你站在200瓦发射功率的100Mhz调频电台天线前1米,马上就感到头晕。
Z*o
98 楼
理论上高频点的危害是要强一点
相关阅读
恶霸上那些超便宜的SD卡都是假货吧?这个ATX机箱可以放EEB大板基于Xeon E3-1225 v3之类cpu的服务器有什么意义?棒子太坏了Owncloud 很慢下一台台式机 要上m。2 raid0有人试过两块SSD用RAID 0连起来么?上次没抢到双路工作站/服务器的朋友如果还想要,可联系我android ADT的电脑小米要做笔记本电脑求推荐办公室用的 printer //scanner//copier正在虚拟机里运行Server 2016 preview在双路狂魔的带领下本版掀起了一股双路歪风国内有比小米盒子更好的机顶盒吗?手又痒了,想整一个xeon和ecc的服务器有意义吗?显卡太吵了怎么办:(一个8gb硬盘的电脑能装win7么微软11月发布W10 新版正式版ebay上淘来的笔记本的问题网上买的SSD寄来的时候带小螺丝刀吗?