how does frequency impact the unhealthiness of radio waves?

>I live near an airport, and my most current hypothesis is the ILS system
> transmits a 1020 HZ morse-code identifier that I think I am sensitive to.
> I
> have read that the lower the frequency, the less energy in the radio wave.
> Does that mean that lower frequencies should have less impact on human
> health than high frequencies? I have also read that lower frequency waves
> penetrate the body more deeply that high frequency - that seems odd to me
> since they have less energy why should they penetrate more?
>
> --
> Paul Coffman
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

>
> I live near an airport, and my most current hypothesis is the ILS system
> transmits a 1020 HZ morse-code identifier that I think I am sensitive to.
> I
> have read that the lower the frequency, the less energy in the radio wave.
> Does that mean that lower frequencies should have less impact on human
> health than high frequencies? I have also read that lower frequency waves
> penetrate the body more deeply that high frequency - that seems odd to me
> since they have less energy why should they penetrate more?
>
> --
> Paul Coffman
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>

>I think there is often some confusion. If one considers a single photon,
> then
> its energy is proportional to frequency. This is why UV light and X-rays
> are
> so damaging (but at least our bodies have repair systems in place for
> those).
> Most photo-chemistry involves a single photon.
>
> At lower frequencies, a single photon is probably harmless, but if there's
> a transmitter it's emitting astronomical numbers of photons, all in phase.
> With many
> photons one can begin to forget about quantum mechanics and think about
> classical electrodynamics.
>
> According to one of Allan Frey's early papers, low frequencies tend to be
> reflected by the skin, while high ones are absorbed in the skin, so the
> most
> transmission into the skull is at about 2 GHz (Frey was uncertain about
> what
> frequency the reflection started, but claimed to see a reduction due to
> absorbtion
> starting around 7 GHz). Again this changes when you
> get up to X-rays which are not absorbed by the skin, and below RF it's
> different
> too. A person can touch a high voltage Tesla coil, make a huge spark, and
> not die, possibly not
> feel a thing, perhaps due to the skin effect, or just because the
> frequency
> is high enough to not directly
> stimulate neurons. But I don't know if Tesla coil exposure is safe in the
> long
> term.
>
> Around 300 MHz the wavelength is 1 m, so a human is about the right size
> for
> an antenna.
>
> The ability of water to absorb RF decreases at low frequencies, but that
> might
> not be of much comfort if one is standing near a radio tower.
>
> To me the full story remains complicated and obscure, but hopefully the
> above
> makes some sense.
>
> Bill
>
>

>
> Regarding photons, photon chemistry, there is a specialist for that.
>
> Look at:
> http://www.unifiedphysics.com/
> and
> http://www.biophotonicsresearchinstitute.com/index.htm
>
> The sparks from a Tesla coil inhibit a high voltage (several thousand
> Volt)
> but at a very low Amps.
>
> Greetings,
> Charles Claessens
> member Verband Baubiologie
> www.milieuziektes.nl
> www.milieuziektes.be
> www.hetbitje.nl
> checked by Bitdefender
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Bruno" <[hidden email] <wbruno%40gmail.com>>
> To: <[hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 17:29
> Subject: Re: [eSens] how does frequency impact the unhealthiness of radio
> waves?
>
> >I think there is often some confusion. If one considers a single photon,
> > then
> > its energy is proportional to frequency. This is why UV light and X-rays
> > are
> > so damaging (but at least our bodies have repair systems in place for
> > those).
> > Most photo-chemistry involves a single photon.
> >
> > At lower frequencies, a single photon is probably harmless, but if
> there's
> > a transmitter it's emitting astronomical numbers of photons, all in
> phase.
> > With many
> > photons one can begin to forget about quantum mechanics and think about
> > classical electrodynamics.
> >
> > According to one of Allan Frey's early papers, low frequencies tend to
> be
> > reflected by the skin, while high ones are absorbed in the skin, so the
> > most
> > transmission into the skull is at about 2 GHz (Frey was uncertain about
> > what
> > frequency the reflection started, but claimed to see a reduction due to
> > absorbtion
> > starting around 7 GHz). Again this changes when you
> > get up to X-rays which are not absorbed by the skin, and below RF it's
> > different
> > too. A person can touch a high voltage Tesla coil, make a huge spark,
> and
> > not die, possibly not
> > feel a thing, perhaps due to the skin effect, or just because the
> > frequency
> > is high enough to not directly
> > stimulate neurons. But I don't know if Tesla coil exposure is safe in
> the
> > long
> > term.
> >
> > Around 300 MHz the wavelength is 1 m, so a human is about the right size
>
> > for
> > an antenna.
> >
> > The ability of water to absorb RF decreases at low frequencies, but that
> > might
> > not be of much comfort if one is standing near a radio tower.
> >
> > To me the full story remains complicated and obscure, but hopefully the
> > above
> > makes some sense.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
>
>
>

>
> Bill -
>
> Your statements seem contrary to Charles:
>
> And indeed, lower frequencies do penetrate more than higher frequencies.
>
> So I am more confused:)
>
> On 10/11/07, charles <[hidden email]<charles%40milieuziektes.be>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding photons, photon chemistry, there is a specialist for that.
> >
> > Look at:
> > http://www.unifiedphysics.com/
> > and
> > http://www.biophotonicsresearchinstitute.com/index.htm
> >
> > The sparks from a Tesla coil inhibit a high voltage (several thousand
> > Volt)
> > but at a very low Amps.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Charles Claessens
> > member Verband Baubiologie
> > www.milieuziektes.nl
> > www.milieuziektes.be
> > www.hetbitje.nl
> > checked by Bitdefender
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Bruno" <[hidden email] <wbruno%40gmail.com><wbruno%40gmail.com>>
> > To: <[hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com> <eSens%40yahoogroup
> s.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 17:29
> > Subject: Re: [eSens] how does frequency impact the unhealthiness of
> radio
> > waves?
> >
> > >I think there is often some confusion. If one considers a single
> photon,
> > > then
> > > its energy is proportional to frequency. This is why UV light and
> X-rays
> > > are
> > > so damaging (but at least our bodies have repair systems in place for
> > > those).
> > > Most photo-chemistry involves a single photon.
> > >
> > > At lower frequencies, a single photon is probably harmless, but if
> > there's
> > > a transmitter it's emitting astronomical numbers of photons, all in
> > phase.
> > > With many
> > > photons one can begin to forget about quantum mechanics and think
> about
> > > classical electrodynamics.
> > >
> > > According to one of Allan Frey's early papers, low frequencies tend to
> > be
> > > reflected by the skin, while high ones are absorbed in the skin, so
> the
> > > most
> > > transmission into the skull is at about 2 GHz (Frey was uncertain
> about
> > > what
> > > frequency the reflection started, but claimed to see a reduction due
> to
> > > absorbtion
> > > starting around 7 GHz). Again this changes when you
> > > get up to X-rays which are not absorbed by the skin, and below RF it's
> > > different
> > > too. A person can touch a high voltage Tesla coil, make a huge spark,
> > and
> > > not die, possibly not
> > > feel a thing, perhaps due to the skin effect, or just because the
> > > frequency
> > > is high enough to not directly
> > > stimulate neurons. But I don't know if Tesla coil exposure is safe in
> > the
> > > long
> > > term.
> > >
> > > Around 300 MHz the wavelength is 1 m, so a human is about the right
> size
> >
> > > for
> > > an antenna.
> > >
> > > The ability of water to absorb RF decreases at low frequencies, but
> that
> > > might
> > > not be of much comfort if one is standing near a radio tower.
> > >
> > > To me the full story remains complicated and obscure, but hopefully
> the
> > > above
> > > makes some sense.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Paul Coffman
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>

> It is confusing. I believe 2 GHz penetrates more than 9 GHz.
>
> And probably 60 Hz penetrates more than 100 kHz.
>
> X-rays and gamma rays penetrate best of all.
>
> So, it depends which range you're considering. It's not a monotonic
> function.
>
> There is a peak around 1 or 2 GHz. There's probably a minumum somewhere
> between there and 60 Hz?
>
> Bill

>
> There are 2 IEEE publications which address this issue directly:
>
> IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to
> Electromagnetic Fields, 0-3 kHz
>
> and
>
> IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
> Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz
>
> They have data and nice graphs showing what they consider "safety levels"
> of
> exposure at the various frequencies. Although their conclusions about what
> is "safe" are not based on non-thermal effects, the point is clearly shown
> that the human body absorbs electromagnetic fields in a non-linear
> fashion.
>
> You can see a summary graph at the bottom of
> http://www.lessemf.com/standard.html
> Note that the 30 MHz to 300 MHz range is the most dangerous (best
> absorbed).
>
> Emil
>
> > It is confusing. I believe 2 GHz penetrates more than 9 GHz.
> >
> > And probably 60 Hz penetrates more than 100 kHz.
> >
> > X-rays and gamma rays penetrate best of all.
> >
> > So, it depends which range you're considering. It's not a monotonic
> > function.
> >
> > There is a peak around 1 or 2 GHz. There's probably a minumum somewhere
> > between there and 60 Hz?
> >
> > Bill
>
>  
>

> Emil -
>
> If I read that graph correctly, 1Khz is the worst frequency. Am I
> correct?
> The frequency of this ILS morse code thing is 1020 Hz, which is smack dab
> in
> the middle of that lowest line.
>
> On 10/11/07, Less EMF Inc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> There are 2 IEEE publications which address this issue directly:
>>
>> IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to
>> Electromagnetic Fields, 0-3 kHz
>>
>> and
>>
>> IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
>> Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz
>>

> Emil -
>
> If I read that graph correctly, 1Khz is the worst frequency. Am I
> correct?
> The frequency of this ILS morse code thing is 1020 Hz, which is smack dab
> in
> the middle of that lowest line.
>
> On 10/11/07, Less EMF Inc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> There are 2 IEEE publications which address this issue directly:
>>
>> IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to
>> Electromagnetic Fields, 0-3 kHz
>>
>> and
>>
>> IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
>> Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz
>>
>> They have data and nice graphs showing what they consider "safety levels"
>> of
>> exposure at the various frequencies. Although their conclusions about
>> what
>> is "safe" are not based on non-thermal effects, the point is clearly
>> shown
>> that the human body absorbs electromagnetic fields in a non-linear
>> fashion.
>>
>> You can see a summary graph at the bottom of
>> http://www.lessemf.com/standard.html
>> Note that the 30 MHz to 300 MHz range is the most dangerous (best
>> absorbed).
>>
>> Emil
>>
>> > It is confusing. I believe 2 GHz penetrates more than 9 GHz.
>> >
>> > And probably 60 Hz penetrates more than 100 kHz.
>> >
>> > X-rays and gamma rays penetrate best of all.
>> >
>> > So, it depends which range you're considering. It's not a monotonic
>> > function.
>> >
>> > There is a peak around 1 or 2 GHz. There's probably a minumum somewhere
>> > between there and 60 Hz?
>> >
>> > Bill
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul Coffman
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>