ARM-based desktop computer ? (Hybrid computers ?: Low + High performance ;))
|
Prev: 2 new instructions for marker scanning for Skybuck's Universal Code 6.
Next: ARM-based desktop computer ? (Hybrid computers ?: Low + High performance ;))
From: Skybuck Flying on 11 Jun 2010 20:06 What I am worried about is that wifi/gsm/umts signals might become the "asbest" of the 21th century. Asbest is very dangerous and cancerous if only they had known better back in those days it wouldn't have become such a major problem/plague. It seems none-of-the-lessons of asbest have been learned by electronics industry. And no I do not feel guilty about downloading games of which I know that I would have never bought them anyway... Bye, Skybuck.
From: Robert Myers on 11 Jun 2010 20:17
On Jun 11, 7:15 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:8924b$4c119251$54190f09$23647(a)cache5.tilbu1.nb.home.nl... > > > I suspect that the energy in the wifi/gsm/wireless signals go through the > > human body and might trigger DNA changes to certain cells/parts of the body. > > Yeah, you and plenty of other people. > > It's been extensively researched; the results are generally somewhere between > "it seems quite harmless" and "pretty inconclusive, really hard to say." So > while no one would suggest it's 100% certain that such low-energy EM waves are > harmless, it does seem pretty clear that if they do create harm, it's a very, > VERY small risk in the grand scheme of things. > > At some point you have to decide if the conveniences of modern technology are > worth the risk given science's best asesssment of what those risks are. None > of your great-great-great grandparents was ever killed by driving down an > interstate highway too fast... although it wouldn't have been unheard of for > them to be killed from something as simple a relatively small cut on, say, > their foot while walking along a beach that then became infected and > eventually killed them. But just as surely as they'd love to have had > penicillin -- thereby decreasing their risk of death -- they just as surely > would have liked automobiles, despite the well-known increase in the risk of > death from them (especially for young guys like *you*, Skybuck!). > > Does it bother you to stand in front of a light bulb? You're getting > *hundreds* of watts there at *many terahertz* after all... makes your WiFi > gear seem absolutely puny! > As a professor of chemistry at one of our lesser local institutions pompously informed me, photons from cell phone radiation aren't strong enough to break the relevant chemical bonds (like, gosh, I never would have known from all that time studying physics), thus leading to possible mutations. What apparently didn't occur to him is that structural kinetics of proteins *could* be affected by the relatively low energy but coherent radiation from wireless devices. It would be really premature to conclude that there is no risk. People were dying of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) in significant numbers by the time clinicians opened their minds wide enough to accept prions as a cause. I agree that the kind of wild speculation you are responding to is unhelpful, but the history of environmental hazards to health is littered with premature dismissals of potential risks. Robert. |