Wi-fi? Why worry?

[SylasGaunt]

There's an episode of anti-transmitter hysteria here almost every month, with people organizing rallies to prevent transmitter towers from being erected near homes, etc.

It looks like some scam artists have found a new target with wi-fi...

It is a conspiracy.

To sell tin foil hats.

If I recall correctly some university students actually did a tin foil hat study.. turns out it attracts more CIA Mind Control waves to your brain instead of keeping them out.

[FuncoWilkerbean]

I'd rather deal with some minor health risks than to go without wireless portability.

[Darth Wong]

None of these radio waves are ionising. They're orders of magnitude below the energy requirements to sever or disrupt any molecular bond in the body, and they don't approach thermal limits either since I'm not cooking to death from watching TV or using my Wi-Fi router now.

People who fear wireless were strangely absent in convincing force when radio took off after Marconi et al. I wonder why.

Unfortunately, most people have no idea why it's important for radiation to be non-ionizing. I got into that argument a while ago with somebody who insisted that microwaves destroy the nutrient content of food by breaking molecules apart with their eeeevil radiation powers. I pointed out that it's non-ionizing, and got nothing but a blank-face reaction, followed by a repetition of the claim.

[NoXion]

Unfortunately, most people have no idea why it's important for radiation to be non-ionizing. I got into that argument a while ago with somebody who insisted that microwaves destroy the nutrient content of food by breaking molecules apart with their eeeevil radiation powers. I pointed out that it's non-ionizing, and got nothing but a blank-face reaction, followed by a repetition of the claim.

Wouldn't such molecular slaughter noticeably effect the taste? After all, taste is merely the detection of certain molecules, if I remember correctly. I can't say that I notice much of a difference between tinned macaroni cheese before and after it's been microwaved.

[Admiral Valdemar]

There are people out there who see cooking with microwaves as being no different to frying food on a lump of plutonium in your kitchen.

When I was around six or so, I saw my parents buy the microwave oven they still have now. I wondered what would happen if I'd turned it on with the door open (no such luck, safety department at Toshiba seemed to think about that eventuality) or if the shield was damaged. I looked up the whole workings of the machine in some clunky American encyclopedias we had and was disappointed I wouldn't be able to mutate bugs into horrific beasts in the device, just cook them.

I imagine the same ignorance here is what also stops nuclear power and cloning work. Yes, there are dangers, but people make a lot of money off blowing them out of all proportion or misleading people who failed high school science (or not, some classes are dismal).

[PeZook]

Health and food matters in general are a gigantic market for various scammers and quacks. It starts with microwaves "destroying nutrient value", whizzes by radiation scaremongering and magnetic therapy, and ends with artificially spun hysteria about food regulations. It doesn't help much that corporations try to sell dietary supplements by telling people they need to take pills daily or they will die!!!

[Molyneux]

None of these radio waves are ionising. They're orders of magnitude below the energy requirements to sever or disrupt any molecular bond in the body, and they don't approach thermal limits either since I'm not cooking to death from watching TV or using my Wi-Fi router now.

People who fear wireless were strangely absent in convincing force when radio took off after Marconi et al. I wonder why.

Unfortunately, most people have no idea why it's important for radiation to be non-ionizing. I got into that argument a while ago with somebody who insisted that microwaves destroy the nutrient content of food by breaking molecules apart with their eeeevil radiation powers. I pointed out that it's non-ionizing, and got nothing but a blank-face reaction, followed by a repetition of the claim.

Speaking as someone without much knowledge of the situation, but who'd like to know: why exactly is it important for radiation to be non-ionizing? What does ionizing radiation turn into ions?

[Darth Wong]

Speaking as someone without much knowledge of the situation, but who'd like to know: why exactly is it important for radiation to be non-ionizing? What does ionizing radiation turn into ions?

Ionizing radiation is energetic enough to knock electrons out of their shells, thus ionizing atoms. The thing is that these electron shells are critical to molecular bonding, so when you ionize atoms you tend to break molecular bonds.

Of course, these atoms won't stay ionized forever; unlike an investment bank, they will correct their balance sheets quickly. But in the process, they might end up in a different molecular configuration than they had before. That's why ionizing radiation can alter the DNA of a cell.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Speaking as someone without much knowledge of the situation, but who'd like to know: why exactly is it important for radiation to be non-ionizing? What does ionizing radiation turn into ions?

High energy particles splitting your DNA beyond the capability of molecular repair machines is a bad thing. Visible light can do this to certain molecules, for instance, producing thymine dimers which is simply a specific base in your genes bonding irreversibly.

EDIT: And strange, didn't show Mike's post before I submitted.

[Winston Blake]

Wouldn't such molecular slaughter noticeably effect the taste? After all, taste is merely the detection of certain molecules, if I remember correctly.

It would also affect the colour. After all, bleaches don't get rid of colouration molecules, they just alter them so they don't reflect light the same way. Anyway, if breaking bonds was evil in general, BBQing should be rallied against - charring meat, changing colour and taste, and creating small quantities of carcinogens.