Previously unaccounted mechanism proposed for cell phone radiation damage
April 29, 2011 by Deborah Braconnier 
(PhysOrg.com) -- The long running debate on whether cell phones are capable of damaging human tissue and causing health problems received new fuel from a paper published at arXiv by theoretical biologist Bill Bruno from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
Cell phones and the microwave photons they create have been looked at for some time as having the potential for causing damage and health issues to humans. One side shows evidence that cell signals have affected human behavior and health, while the other side says there is no epidemiological evidence and that microwave photons do not have enough energy to damage chemical bonds and biological tissue.
However, as Bruno points out in his paper, microwave photons can cause damage if the conditions are right. The main argument is that microwaves are not able to damage human tissue when the photon density in a cubic wavelength is less than one.
Bruno compares this to optical tweezers, which are able to manipulate and damage cells with the use of photons. Optical tweezers have large amounts of photons piled on each other creating a stronger force. It is this reasoning that Bruno believes that cell signals are capable of damaging human tissue because their photons per cubic wavelength are much greater than one.
Bruno has shown that the argument that microwaves cannot disrupt a chemical bond is no longer enough to say that cell phones are unable to damage human tissue. This new information will most definitely add more fuel to the cell phone debate. Bruno argues that the way current safe dosage limits are determined is not accurate because it does not take into account this tweezer-like notion into consideration.
More information: What does photon energy tell us about cellphone safety? arXiv:1104.5008v1 [q-bio.OT] http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5008
Abstract
It has been argued that cellphones are safe because a single microwave photon does not have enough energy to break a chemical bond. We show that cellphone technology operates in the classical wave limit, not the single photon limit. Based on energy densities relative to thermal energy, we estimate thresholds at which effects might be expected. These seem to correspond somewhat with many experimental observations.
© 2010 PhysOrg.com
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
30 comments
-
Research team claims to have found evidence Lake Cheko is impact crater for Tunguska Event,
18 comments
-
A Question relating Power
1 hour ago
-
Writing a book so im learning about things, i have some general questions please read
4 hours ago
-
Question about induced E field.
5 hours ago
-
Charging a capacitor in a tesla coil
5 hours ago
-
Water Rocket
8 hours ago
-
why do trucks have bigger brakes?
13 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - General Physics
More news stories
Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?
(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...
May 24, 2012 |
4.7 / 5 (15) |
40
|
Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed
(Phys.org) -- An international collaboration of scientists, including Thomas Blum, associate professor of physics, is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon – ...
May 25, 2012 |
4.2 / 5 (21) |
47
|
Lying in wait for WIMPs: Researchers seek to dramatically increase sensitivity of Large Underground Xenon detector
Although it's invisible, dark matter accounts for at least 80 percent of the matter in the universe. No one knows what it is, but most scientists would bet on weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs.
May 23, 2012 |
4 / 5 (7) |
15
|
Hall effect at the speed of light: How can you demonstrate relativistic effects with your mobile phone?
The relativistic Hall effect describing objects rotating at speeds comparable with the speed of light has been reported.
May 21, 2012 |
4.3 / 5 (3) |
8
Cloak of invisibility: Engineers use plasmonics to create an invisible photodetector
A team of engineers at Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania has for the first time used "plasmonic cloaking" to create a device that can see without being seen - an invisible machine that detects light. It is the first ...
May 21, 2012 |
4.8 / 5 (16) |
7
|
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors’ tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
SpotterRF debuts Radar Backpack Kit (w/ Video)
(Phys.org) -- SpotterRF has announced a special radar backpack kit designed to enhance situational awareness for soldiers on the ground. The company says its special radar is designed for warfighters as part ...
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update)
SpaceX's Dragon cargo vessel smells like a new car, said astronauts at the International Space Station after opening the hatches Saturday following the spacecraft's landmark mission to the orbiting lab.
Thousands of shellfish found dead in Peru
Thousands of crustaceans were found dead off the coast of Lima following the mystery mass death of dolphins and pelicans, the Peruvian Navy said Friday.
Astronomers seize last chance in lifetime for Venus Transit
Astronomers are gearing for one the rarest events in the Solar System: an alignment of Earth, Venus and the Sun that will not be seen for another 105 years.
Apr 29, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Apr 29, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (2)
Apr 29, 2011
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (8)
One might as well say it's POSSIBLE for pigs to fly if you squeeze enough of them into a box...
At least they appear to have given up the ghost as far as saying non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer.
Apr 29, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Apr 29, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (6)
This is an avenue for further study where before we didn't see one. This is a hypothesis that needs to be tested.
Apr 29, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
What this article states is the same thing with lower microwave frequencies.
It is not only possible but probable.
Apr 29, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Photonic tweezers are a far higher stacking of wave packets than a cell phone could ever generate. I'm with MM, this study is mostly meaningless.
There's a reason why it was published to arxiv and not the JoM.
Apr 29, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Apr 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Apr 30, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Apr 30, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Why?
Apr 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Because biology, or wetware, is extremely messy and any purely theoretical model should be considered dubious at best. Unlike physics, biology requires extensive physical trials and experimentation before any real effects can be claimed.
Apr 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Apr 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
They don't hit that bond at the same time so their effects aren't cumulative (the bond can't absorb 1/100th of a photon energy and wait for others to arrive).
Th only possibility would be quite simply to heat the environment until the pure kinetic energy becomes enough to cause damage but ... your 100 photons aren't nearly enough for that and once you start talking about larger numbers (and thus longer durations) the dissipation kicks in too.
Apr 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
A wrong analogy. A correct analogy would be a drop of water flying right through without interacting with you forehead in any way. It can keep dropping in that way for as long as it "likes" with no ill effect. In fact, such "drops" do pass through our foreheads all the time - they are called neutrinos. Do they bother you much?
So yes, it IS meaningless.
Apr 30, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
Now we invoke "magic water" in a analogy to dismiss another analogy, my what a mess.
rgds
James
May 01, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 01, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 01, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 01, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Photon density in the main beam from a GSM basestation is comparable to 1000 WW2 searchlights.
There are plenty of ways to damage cells without directly severing chemical bonds.
May 01, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Exactly! Ionization is not the only way to cause cancer, if it were we would not have to limit our exposure to sunlight and tanning beds or even cigarettes!
May 01, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 02, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
This violates what we know about how photon energies are added. Einstein didn't win his Nobel for relativity, he won his Nobel for explaining the photo-electric effect.
In essence, chemists of the day well knew that once the frequency of light fell below a threshold, it didn't matter how intense the light was, it didn't cause any effect at all. Only above a certain threshold was effect related to intensity.
This is just more garbage science from someone who almost certainly knows better.
May 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Name the ones that give you cancer related to energy. A cellphone is no different than putting a warm rock against your head...
Well first of all the sun DOES give off ionizing radiation
http://www.atsdr....s149.pdf
Look up UV-A and UV-B radiation. The dividing line between ionizing radiation falls in the UV spectrum.
Secondly how is comparing cigarettes and the mechanism they use to cause cancer to electromagnetic radiation helpful? Did comparing apples and oranges suddenly become sound logic and I missed it?