top sections

Why microwave radiation studies provide different answers?

FeaturedWhy microwave radiation studies provide different answers?

When the studies are funded by related companies, the ones that use this bandwidth in lucrative manners, tend to statistically conclude different that those funded by independent endeavors. The numbers are there to be analyzed. It should be strange enough to doubt about the veracity of some. Anyway, there is conclusive data that points to an increasing risk, like the World Health Organization tagging microwave radiation as a possible cause of cell mutations. Sometimes these mutations bring fatal consequences. They mention the "precautionary principle".

Simply having a doubt, no one could easily conceive how the radiation exposure in this frequency augments each month or the existence of residential zones with high power emitters. The market even uses any higher speed, so more power, as a commercial method to increase demand and sales.

The "precautionary principle" of course doesn't mean using it in hospitals, schools or any institution of this kind. Some form of wireless technology should be safe, but today there's not enough development to have a definitive study. The nature of electromagnetic waves stays as a theory, with questions, and pieces that seem roughly placed, to match. Solving a puzzle, if a piece is not at hand, using a fork instead. Leaving energy as obvious, penetration, absorption, reflectivity and refraction look the four main variables —in theory— and then microwave radiation seems the most dangerous one in the non-ionizing area below visible light because it penetrates, produces absorption moving the molecules (at least heat, and kinetic energy to interact) and at the same time the refraction index as usual of different mediums produce reflection leading to more complex phenomena.

Rate this item
(0 votes)
Comment article
Bookmark This Page