Radiatin question

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Radiatin question

KathyB

Someone sent us this radiation exposure chart in defense of using a laptop.

Would a laptop wi-fi exposure computer qualify on the rating somewhere?

Or is wi-fi in a different category, so cannot be compared?

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Kathy

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Radiatin question

Marc Martin
Administrator
On September  6, KathyB <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Someone sent us this radiation exposure chart in defense of using a laptop.

Not sure how this chart could be used to defend laptop exposure --
this chart assumes that all forms of radiation are equal, so
the only thing that matters is exposure.  Such an assumption is
absurd -- it ignores frequencies, waveforms, magnetic/electric fields,
the longitudinal/scalar/tesla component, etc.

Marc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Radiatin question

rolf
In reply to this post by KathyB
I remember when this came out, and I think it is a very nice display, but it only applies to ionizing radiation, as it says at the top. The unit used is the Sievert, which only applies to ionizing radiation. But there is a footnote saying that cellphones don't emit ionizing radiation, and therefore do not cause cancer. That is probably not true. I think there is plenty of evidence that subthermal nonionizing radiation can cause cancer. Even the WHO says so! Wi-Fi also is non-ionizing radiation, like cellphones, but at a higher frequency (2.4 GHz or 5.6 GHz).

Rolf


On Sep 6, 2012, at 7:00 AM, KathyB wrote:

>
> Someone sent us this radiation exposure chart in defense of using a laptop.
>
> Would a laptop wi-fi exposure computer qualify on the rating somewhere?
>
> Or is wi-fi in a different category, so cannot be compared?
>
> http://xkcd.com/radiation/
>
> Kathy
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eSens/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eSens/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [hidden email]
    [hidden email]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [hidden email]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Radiatin question

KathyB

I thank you both for the explanations.

Kathy




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Radiatin question

Snoshoe
Microwaves ARE in fact, ionizing radiation. This has been known for a long time, and science has not taken the effort to see that this knowledge is corrected in the mainstream.

The categorization of the various frequencies needs to be reclassified to high and low ionizing.

How I explain it to people sometimes, is; "You can cook your egg on high heat, or you can cook your egg on low heat, but in the end, the egg is still cooked!"

You can do a quick search on the definition of ionization, and then see that yes, indeed, microwaves along with other sections of the electromagnetic spectrum are ionizing, as are chemical/redox. reactions.

If the public really understood this, they might not be quite so addicted to this stuff, but these days, who knows.

~ Snoshoe



--- In [hidden email], KathyB <calicocat477@...> wrote:

>
>
> I thank you both for the explanations.
>
> Kathy
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Radiatin question

KathyB
Snoshoe,

Yes it would be nice if the public would realize they are cooking themselves w this crap.

I used the scan your own food line at the grocery store. I was done & looking in my purse for my keys. The person behind me  washolding on to their phone like it was a lifeline.

Back when I used mine it was put away in my purse unless I needed to make a call.

I sent info to 1 relative who doesn't seem to care about the harm of microwaves.  We'll see how they do w their health.

Kathy





-
From: snoshoe_2 <[hidden email]>
Subject: [eSens] Re: Radiatin question
To: [hidden email]
Date: Sunday, September 9, 2012, 12:04 PM
















 



 


   
     
     
      Microwaves ARE in fact, ionizing radiation. This has been known for a long time, and science has not taken the effort to see that this knowledge is corrected in the mainstream.



The categorization of the various frequencies needs to be reclassified to high and low ionizing.



How I explain it to people sometimes, is; "You can cook your egg on high heat, or you can cook your egg on low heat, but in the end, the egg is still cooked!"



You can do a quick search on the definition of ionization, and then see that yes, indeed, microwaves along with other sections of the electromagnetic spectrum are ionizing, as are chemical/redox. reactions.



If the public really understood this, they might not be quite so addicted to this stuff, but these days, who knows.



~ Snoshoe



--- In [hidden email], KathyB <calicocat477@...> wrote:

>

>

> I thank you both for the explanations.

>

> Kathy

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>





   
     

   
   






 










[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]