Dementia, Tumors, DNA mutations from WIFI, Cellphones, Laptop etc.

WOW!! thanks for this article

Is it conceivable that the increased size of yellow and red areas are caused by increased accumulated skin temperature from holding the phone there for fifteen minutes?

Do we know physics and health physics?

OK, maybe I just hoped that there would be a better standard of scientific scrutiny on a nursing website. Particularly, I'd hope to see it from an oncology nurse writing about cancer causing radiation! Do you turn on critical thinking before reading alarmist BS? A tumor the "shape of an antenna?"

But then I realized that most nurses don't have much understanding of modern physics, health physics, or antenna and propagation. Then I realized that nobody even requires that we had highschool physics!

But... you still had Bio I, micro, and pathophysiology of neoplasms, right?

So, how about the physics?

So.. let's think about this. First, we are talking about VERY different types of radiation here. Cellphone's in the US mostly have 35cm wavelengths which have photon energies of about 3.5µeV but some phones like Sprint have the ability to do around 16cm wavelengths or about 7.8µeV. WiFi is about 12cm and 10µeV.

Two things to note here:
1. Different frequencies are absorbed at different rates.
2. These are VERY low energy forms of radiation and their absorption creates thermal vibrations, not ionizations. In other words, they heat matter rather than breaking bonds or creating free radicals (you need to do one of these two things in order to damage DNA). You could also damage DNA if you could heat it drastically... like cooking... but that cooks the cell... the organism... the flux is NOT high enough to do this. You'd physically notice!

Low level heating does not have a cumulative damaging dose effect like ionizing radiation. Otherwise, taking a lot of showers would give you cancer.

Just how much heat is there? Well, old analog cellphones sometimes went up to 5W PEP. New cellphones are 1-3W PEP. WiFi in your computer is usually 500mW PEP. Your home microwave is probably 1000W. That's why it is shielded, otherwise it could heat your tissues to the point of thermal damage (around 120F). You'd notice. It would hurt.

LETS PRETEND YOU DIDN'T KNOW ANY OF THAT PHYSICS? HOW COULD YOU CRITICALLY QUESTION THIS NONSENSE?

FROM A PATHOPHYSIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT, WHAT TISSUES ARE THE MOST PRONE TO NEOPLASM DUE TO RADIATION EXPOSURE?

Those that divide most frequently!!!!

That is why leukemia is one of the most common neoplasms in persons exposed to radiation. Bone marrow is the most radiosensitive tissues along with the GI epithelium!

If cellphone radiation was carcinogenic, people should be getting skin cancer, bone cancer, or leukemia! Not brain cancer!!! Additionally, those tissues all got higher doses than their brain as those tissues absorb that radiation on the way into the head! WiFi especially is not going to get any deeper than your skin!

CRITICAL THINKING IS FUN!

If we wished to examine the literature, we would find that there is no concensus in confirming that cell phone radiation causes cancer. We would find that the most authortitative longitudinal studies show that there is not an association. We would find that the claims against WiFi have no statistical backing and are usually made by persons with poor understanding and often a good fear of science, people who I would definitely label Luddites.

These people are afraid of the unknown and the unseen. WiFi and cellphone radiation is unknown and unseen. Nevermind that the photons have a fraction of the energy of visible light and the power of these devices is tiny.

What radiation does damage our DNA?
Just for education's sake, let's look at the lowest energy radiation (AKA light) that is known to cause DNA damage: UVA, the weakest form of ultraviolet light. which has a wavelength of 350nm and a photon energy of 3.5 eV. Let's look for a moment. 1 photon of UV-A has 1 MILLION times the energy of 1 photon put out by your iPhone. UVA still cannot damage DNA directly (like higher energy UVB), and only does so indirectly by causes free radicals inside the cell that may attack the DNA if they are not dealt with by cellular machinery.

Now think about the more energetic eletromagnetic radiation that we are scared of, like X-rays. We can have a 20KeV or an 80KeV X-ray. These cause direct ionization damage to tissue and DNA. A 50KeV X-ray photon has 15,000x the energy of a UVA photon. The X-ray photon is 15 BILLION times the energy of a photon from your iPhone. That's the energy you need to break bonds. Also, X-ray is highly penetrating radiation, unlike your UHF cellphone.

As my mother is fond of saying..."If electricity was discovered today, it would be banned for being too dangerous".

Just a thought (from my WIFI enabled laptop that sitting right on top of my ovaries and uterus).

No, don't any telecom stocks. CLEARLY YOU DIDN'T READ OR UNDERSTAND MY PREVIOUS POST.

I will point out that your "consensus" comes from these sources:

1. A youtube video with the watermark for earthcaresolutions.com who sell little sticky "radiation guards" for you cellphone that do two things:
a. jack crap
b. make them money

2. A crackpot newage website that is selling "frequency imprinters," "crystal harmonizers," "secret cures from ancient egypt," "water vortex magnetizers," and "the secrets of ancient geometry." If that didn't set off your bullcrap alarms, you need to recalibrate your brain.

3. Another youtube video that features a radio interview and links to a company selling... once again... magikal radiation filtering stickers.

None of your sources are peer reviewed. None of your sources are even worthy of debate. I've already addressed the lack of scientific basis. I have researched this subject. I submit that you have not nor do you understand the science behind it nor do you seem capable of discerning quality scientific sources from glaring purveyors of psuedoscience BS who are trying to sell you something.

Sorry to be harsh, but I have a very low tolerance for misinformation.

I know this sounds really dorky, but if someone's just chattering at me incessantly, I tend to use my cellphone to scratch, say, my forehead. So it's plausible.

Instead of relying on a YouTube video for your information (and it greatly mischaracterized the WHO's position) why not go to the source?

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/
Shorter version: http://www.who.int/features/qa/30/en/

Or let's look at the major studies:
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c...act/98/23/1707
Danish study. n=420,000 10 years
Conclusion: "We found no evidence for an association between tumor risk and cellular telephone use among either short-term or long-term users. Moreover, the narrow confidence intervals provide evidence that any large association of risk of cancer and cellular telephone use can be excluded."

THIS IS YOUR SWEDISH STUDY!!!!!!!!!!!! (obviously you didn't read it)
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...ract/161/6/526
Study looked at brain cancer patients who used cellphones and who didn't and looked at controls. n=1318
Conclusion: "The data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of glioma or meningioma."

I dare you to find me some reputable peer reviewed studies on WiFi that shows it has deleterious effects, much less cancer.

Try that instead of fear mongering and accusing me of being in on some big conspiracy as a stockholder in the evil empires out to kill us all. That's one heck of a dishonest debate tactic.