Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is acknowledged in the paper that ionizing radiation is known to be dangerous for short exposure. The article believes that non-ionizing radiation can also be dangerous for long periods of time. In my opinion, there is a possibility for weak low frequency fields to weakly disrupt protein synthesis. Since low frequency fields are essentially static on the chemical timescale, the "instantaneous field" (actually just static) could change protein reaction pathways by lifting an energy state degeneracy, such as in the DC Stark effect. If this occured during an electron transfer process in the proteins that make other proteins, then it could result in making 2 originally equal reaction pathways different in rate and thus result in a very slight protein imbalance, which can snowball over long periods of time.
The problem of actually solving this, of course, is immense given the huge disparities in time scale between the chemical timescale of femtoseconds to nanoseconds and the health timescale of years and decades, and the spatial scale between the molecular level and the whole body level.
Erm, no. electron energy level is quantized, it is not a continuous process. If the required energy for the photon is A, then ten photons of the energy A/10 or even a hundred won't do a thing. This is one of the fundamental principles of quantum physic---energy is quantized and happens at discrete interval instead of continuous levels.
Anyone have any similar experiences or an explanation perhaps? To put it in some sort of context, the processor and all the "hot" parts of the laptop were less than 5 centimeters away from my..umm..tracts(?).
Damn !!!!! i am carrying four phones now a days , I am not going to cross 40![]()


I think you are misunderstanding my phrasing. I have said nothing about photons in my entire post; instead I was refering to a classical external field lifting an electronic state degeneracy. Since low frequency fields are basically static at the chemical timescale, we can ignore their existence as photons, and use a semiclassical description of quantized electrons interacting with the classical field. I don't know why you would treat microwaves as photons; the classical description is much better.
For example, an external magnetic field B gives the Hamiltonian an extra potential energy term such that E = - u . B where u and B are the (vector) magnetic moments and classical magnetic fields, respectively. In the absence of other torques, - u . B will only have 2 answers: uB or -uB, since dipoles either align with or against the field at equilibrium. Electron magnetic dipole moments come only from the electron spin. This results in the creation of two eigenstates through the external field where only one previously existed: the eigenstate corresponding to H = K + V + uB and H = K + V - uB. It is not important what the eigenstates actually are, since in general V is extremely complex in real materials, just that a new eigenstate is created through the application of an external field. This is well documented and is called the Zeeman effect. An analogous electric field effect also exists and is called the Stark effect.
If a protein synthesis step has a spin-dependent state, the lifting of a degeneracy and creating a new eigenstate could influence the reaction. Lets say the protein has a critical reaction step such as a state where an electron is in a triplet state and is Pauli-forbidden from decaying into a lower energy level. This means that there are 2 energy levels with 2 electrons; one electron is spin up and in the upper level due to an excitation, one electron is in the lower level and also spin up. The electron in the upper level is forbidden from decaying into the lower level due to the Pauli exclusion principle until thermal fluctuations flip its spin. However, if an external field is applied, it splits the energy levels through the Zeeman and/or Stark effects; the upper electron can decay into one of the new energy levels easily. This influences the rate of the reaction, and may snowball into health effects.
Radio wave is treated as photons because like all electromagnetic radiations, they are a collection of photons in different frequency and consequently, energy levels. (Where did I mentioned microwave? 3G communication frequency run between 850MHz and 1900MHz, barely reaching the lower end of microwave range at the highest frequency and more the six orders of magnitudes below the frequency of the visible light and more the nine orders below the minimum threshold for ionization radiation)
The reason microwave is treated in quantum physical model instead of the classic model is because the mechanism of DNA damage is through the ionization of the atoms in the DNA molecule (mainly during its replication process). Direct cell death due to strong radiation can occur, but the level of radiation required for such process is generally only seen in a leaking reactor or nuclear bomb instead of a cellphone. Yes, under Zeeman's effect, electrons will split into different energy levels in the presence of magnetic field, but none of them involves ionization of the atom and certainly not at the level of magnetic field generated by a cellphone.
Basically, it is like saying cellphone is killing you, but at a rate slower than the natural sunlight is killing you.
Yes, sunlight is indeed harmful to you, but the problem is that the penetration depth is relatively shallow. Microwave penetration depth is deep. Also, I don't know of many who design RF equipment using the quantum view. For frequencies lower than IR, 99% of the time it is better to use the semiclassical approach of classical fields interacting with quantized electrons, or a purely classical approach.
The paper does not necessarily mention DNA damage due to ionization, but perhaps selective protein expression which changes normal cell translation or transcription which then changes its DNA. What I'm trying to say with the Zeeman splitting is that the creation of a new degenerate state that is not spin-forbidden can open up new, unwanted reaction pathways that influence protein synthesis. That is all. I'm not saying the paper is right. I'm saying that the paper can be considered and should not be outright dismissed.
Chip design took into account of quantum physic since decades ago, but that is not the point of the discussion. The topic of the discussion started at cell damage and its relationship with electromagnetic waves, which does involve quantum physics or more specific, the energy requirement to remove electrons from the atom.
I did mention that it may have some effect in my last post, but at the same time, the opening article implies it is extreme dangerous to the level that it will have non-stochastic effects. That is the stupid part.
Yes!
thank u.
regardless one should take precaution.I am sorry, but the article is plain stupid. Here are a few things:
1. EM related subjects are hardly "not taught". It is one of the most fundamental course in electrical engineering.
2. The type of radiation that can damage DNA is called ionizing radiation. That's when the photon's energy is high enough to knock electrons off the orbit and potentially break DNA strands when it replicate. There is a strict energy threshold for ionizing radiation and cell phone is no where near that. Also, sunlight is also an EM radiation. In fact, the photons in visible light have higher energy than communication EM waves.
3. Your brain is just about the least vulnerable place to ionizing radiation. The reason is neurons do not divide rapidly. The most vulnerable place in your body to radiation is arguably the bone marrow since it replicates constantly to make blood.
regardless one should take precaution.
1. the instructions tell users that cellphones should be at least 4" away from your ears when talking. better use a hands free to talk or text.
2. Does more harm to small children than adults. chlidren's brain is not fully developed yet.