921
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
921 points (100.0% liked)
Political Humor
1520 readers
172 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well, the only physics in EM that could be an issue is that the near-field isn't the same as the far-field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
What is the issue?
That the E field is very strong in the near-field.
Yes, as your Wikipedia entry eloquently explains. Understood.
But what is the actual "issue" you've identified?
The usual refrain that only ionizing radiation can affect DNA is valid for the far-field, where photons are "fully formed" as it were, and therefore e=hf applies. In the near-field, you can transfer energy efficiently at far lower frequencies than you'd expect. But that works well in gases. Not entirely sure how much effect that can have on a bag of water, ie you and me. But it's there. Does that count as an "issue" or an issue?
Do you think the science that's been done to understand health effects from cell phones/towers have so far failed to account for the near and far fields?
You'd be surprised. People think microwaves work by making water molecules resonate. And I've heard that from engineers and physicists. So they must believe that the near-field of low frequency RF affects liquids.
To say that the thousands upon thousands of hours spent doing good science trying to understand how cell phones/towers affect health were in vain because they failed to account for one of the most fundamental concepts of EM is an extraordinary claim. It's up to you now to support this extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence that all of these scientists were doing bad science.
Until then, all you're doing is FUD.