----- Original Message ----- From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:41 PM Subject: Re: cellphones (L3)
> > From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > From: "Andrew Crystall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > On 20 Jun 2002 at 11:16, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > > > It's not the heat. It's the effect on your chemistry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting that the energy in the individual microwave > photons > > > > are enough to affect the chemical bonds on a molecular level? That > is > > > > certainly true with gamma or X-rays, that's why heating alone does > not > > > > explain radiation damage. But microwave photons? > > > > > > *snickers* > > > > > > No, don't be silly plz. > > > The effect is on reactions happening at the time. > > > > > > > Hmm, since I am a physicist, I tend to think of chemical reactions as > > complex atomic physics. So, I thought it is possible that there is an > > second order effect of low level EM radiation that I'm not thinking > about. > > Thus, I asked a chemist, and, with the usual disclaimer of not being > his > > exact field, stated that he couldn't think of it either. He referenced > a > > web site that discussed EM fields and the effect on chemical reactions, > but > > these were high power fields, and the effects were consistent with > heating. > > > > So, we've established its not a heating effect, and not an ionizing > > radiation effect. So, what is the effect? Can you reference a source > > other than the claims of damage to human cells that documents how low > level > > EM fields act to change the rate/nature of chemical reactions? If it > is > > basic chemistry, and doesn't involve heating or ionizing radiation, > then > > surely there must be a straightforward chemical reference. (i.e. one > that > > doesn't involve biology). > > This finnish study I first quoted was showing changed protein structures > in cells exposed to cell phone radiation. I appreciate the effort you made finding references. However, they are not nearly as strong as one might think they are. This reference was a press release with no information It didn't discuss the control, the mechanism, etc. This is fairly important. There have been numerous documented false positive claims for illnesses caused by power lines. Most of them were do to either bad technique (including mistaking natural statistical fluctuations for signal). Further, it would be very peculiar if a low energy intensity, low energy per photon source of light would effect biochemistry while a tuned, far higher energy per photon source did not. This lowers the verisimilitude of any such report. In many ways, this is similar to the experimental "proofs" of cold fusion. Its not as extreme, but warning flags are raised when biologists make observations of a chemical catalyst by a nonbiological source that is inconsistant with the results of more clear cut experiments made by chemists. Also, warning flags are raised when a claim is made in a political environment, without reference to a publication well respected peer reviewed journal. Further, let me quote and interpret one of your sources, the FDA "A large number of biological effects have been reported in cell cultures and in animals, often in response to exposure to relatively low-level fields, which are not well established but which may have health implications and are, hence, the subject of on-going research." I interpret this as follows. There have been reports of biological effects. However, there hasn't been anything close to conclusive, repeatable evidence. However, since..if true..the implications are significant, people continue to research the potential problem. " It is not scientifically possible to guarantee those non-thermal levels of microwave radiation, which do not cause deleterious effects for relatively short exposures, will not cause long-term adverse health effects" In other words, one cannot prove the negative on this. > The mouse study I referenced showed changed brain structure in mice exposed to radiation. It claimed it. >A third study I read about last year showed a direct correlation between corneal > cancer and cell phone use. The evidence is stacking up. What was the statistical significance of that study? Were other studies done? Did any of them show anti-coincidence? Dan M.
