Comment by perching_aix | Hacker News Reader

Comment by perching_aix | Hacker News Reader

I don't quite understand why the authors consider their experiment a solid, novel evidence to alter safety standards, short for them imagining women shoving up Qi chargers into their uterus.

That said, I'm also unfamiliar with those mysterious "present safety standards" that "solely consider the thermal-effect of RM-EMF", so I can't even tell if that is actually true. The reason I'm even doubting that it is, because the field of photochemistry is like... pretty established. You'd think EM radiation resulting in heightened ROS production and other health effects are not missed by academia and regulation by now. Especially considering that this is the exact mechanism behind one of the most well known EM radiation health concerns, UV-radiation.

This is about mid range wireless charging [1] not Qi chargers. If something is charging your watch from across the room it's blasting your whole body.

The FCC limits RF exposure to 1.6 W/kg. [2] That's presumably the standard the authors argue is insufficient to prevent ~7MHz wireless chargers from inhibiting cell apoptosis.

[1] https://airfuel.org/

[2] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-devices-and-he...

But that's not a thermal thing? It's energy absorbed.

There is much you have misunderstood about the science and the regulation that I will need to say you have to read about it more.

> Especially considering that this is the exact mechanism behind one of the most well known EM radiation health concerns, UV-radiation.

The UV health risk is based on the thermal effect when it comes to cancer. And this is pretty much the only thing they look for in EMF health and safety. There is a concern the ROS do more than just cause cancer, like mood disoders, fatigue, immune issues, etc.

All of the studies that are regulating safety ONLY look at the thermal effect in regard to DNA damage.

> The UV health risk is based on the thermal effect when it comes to cancer.

As far as I'm aware no, it is well-established that like I said, it's the phototoxicity of UV:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13273-017-0002-0

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ultraviolet...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com