Ask HN: Studies into long term exposure to “non-ionising” radiation? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Studies into long term exposure to “non-ionising” radiation?

5 pointspermo-w8 comments

Sometimes I feel concerned that 3g, 4g and 5g could have some interference with brain waves or that rather than non-ionising, they are just very very slightly ionising, enough to be missed in a small scale experiment but adding up over a long time, and especially getting worse as more and more waves are being transmitted.

Perhaps this is just paranoia and lack of scientific knowledge, but not knowing concerns me, and I’m reluctant to just trust what is generally held to be true

View on HN

PubMed is a great resource for this kind of research.

There's not a lot out there that would support non-ionizing radiation causing widespread health issues. Most of it is targeted to specific individuals or diseases.

There are some studies that show EMF from high-tension lines can slightly increase specific kinds of pediatric cancers, but don't show the same effects on adults (UK study of about 6000 kids was the best I've seen). There have been several papers suggesting a link between exposure to cellular frequencies and wifi and decreased sperm count. There has also been research suggesting a link between cell phone use and specific types of brain tumors.

I wouldn't be too concerned. You can take basic measures to reduce your exposure by small changes. Using speakerphone instead of holding the phone to your head, or sleeping with the phone on the other side of the room for example (understanding that the RF radiation is about 1/4 the original power when you double your distance from the source is helpful to estimate your reductions). You can schedule your router to turn off the wifi durning the hours you normally sleep. Use ethernet instead of wifi whenever possible.

Thank you!

RF energy is all around us in the form of background radiation, which has existed since the beginning of the universe. Radio isn't some kind magic that humans have created; we have just learned to make use of the phenomena.

Those radio bands have been used in use long enough for use to know that there are no designable health effects on people. If there were then we would expect to see higher numbers of cancers in people that own cell phones, or live close to RF transmitters. Mobile communications signals are simply not strong enough to influence the electrical signals in the brain.

People are exposed to much higher levels of radiation in the form of light. In the US alone, 9500 people are diagnosed with skin cancer every day; a large number of which is caused by exposure to UV largely from the sun.

From [0]:

> The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use

For reference Group 2B is defined as "Possibly carcinogenic to humans" and includes among other things:

- Aloe vera, whole leaf extract

- Pickled vegetables (traditional Asian)

- Acrylic fibres

And has lower risk than level 3 tha tincludes

- Coffee

- Tea

- Ceramic implants

- Dental materials

- Fluorescent lighting

[0] https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf

Interesting. Thank you

Indirectly - all visible light is non-ionising and of much, much higher frequency than that used by telecommunications devices - and we have all of human history to suggest that light isn't dangerous.

Sorry to be pedantic, but a portion of UV light is non-ionizing and can still lead to photochemical reactions that aren't insignificant. For example 660nm light can be combined with methylene blue to make it toxic, which is taken advantage of in photodynamic therapy (PDT).

I did some research on PDT as an undergraduate in university and the absorption of light by cells. I'm not in the medical field, but from what I understand most of the biological effects from lower energies just come from the heating of cells.

Wikipedia has a very brief chart on the biological affects of non-ionizing radiation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation#Health_...

And don't forget simple facts like bright lights can blind people. Blanket statements like "(non-ionizing) light isn't dangerous" often have holes in them.

You seem to be implying that higher frequency is more harmful than the lower frequency communication bands. Lower frequencies will have different effects, but may still be harmful. Take VHF and vision problems due to the eyeballs' lack of adequate heat dissipation, for example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com