more on radiation
2011-Jun-05, Sunday 09:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mellowtiggerAs a continuation of my radon post, there is more news recently about radiation.
wireless network:
It seems like studies continually find contradictory results, sometimes good news but sometimes bad news. Even Dutch researchers who said there appeared to a link between wifi hotspots and tree damage are cautious about how they explain their findings. My guess is that the traditional dinky wireless setup in the home is no cause for concern. Larger, higher-power wifi is still on my "Dubious" list until the contradictions finally stop. I sit in my cubicle just a few meters from such a transmitter. I don't worry about it, but I do consider myself a living test tube in the ongoing experiment. :)
cell phones:
The World Health Organization recently announced that cell phones might cause cancer. Different sides in the debate continue working to shore up their position. The WHO scientists themselves seemed to emphasize that their decision was mostly cautionary rather than reacting to any definitive results. On the everything-is-dangerous side, the Environmental Working Group has published a handy table of SAR values for cell phones. SAR is the "specific absorption rate" of energy from a cell phone that gets aborbed by the body. The Federal Communications Commission limits SAR to 1.6 watts per kilogram.
I think that sticking anything electrical next to your brain for long durations is a bad idea. We already know that strong magnetic fields affect blood, since it's been legitimately proposed now and again as a way to effect therapeutic medicine. It's not unreasonable to wonder if low power electromagnetic fields might affect other substances like bone.
I never had any particular worry about cell phones until I got my current job. A few months after getting the cell phone for on-call work, I developed this spot on my waist (pictured at right). It's placed near where I keep the smartphone on my waist for taking support calls. It's not exactly where the clip attaches, maybe 2 finger widths away, but perhaps the weight is dragging on my belt and rubbing this area nearby? It never grew larger, and it feels kind of rough like a callous, so I never did panic. Hopefully it will slowly disappear as I give up my on-call duty in 2 more weeks, when I no longer have to keep a phone tethered to my body.
nuclear reactors:
Scientific American released a map combining locations of nuclear fission power reactors and earthquake susceptibility in mainland USA. It's an interesting starting point for discussion. I don't especially worry about an earthquake-nuclear catastrophe here. I've never purchased any iodine pills even though I live an hour's drive from 2 aging nuclear reactors. That map, though, does leave me wondering what they were thinking in California.
I'm much more concerned about storage of nuclear fission waste products. A movie called "Into Eternity" was released in 2010. It explores the Onkalo (Finnish for "hiding place") facility in Finland for storing nuclear waste. It makes the point that construction began in the 20th century, continues in the 21st century, and will not finish until the 22nd century. It has to last 100,000 years (when the waste becomes safe again), and even the pyramids of Egypt are only about 6,000 years old. No human empire has lasted as many centuries as will be needed to keep nuclear waste safe from human abuse or environmental accidents. Apparently, the USA already has 71,862 tons of nuclear waste and no place to permanently store it.
The movie is available online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AWcle6lM_Q
It's an interesting story.
wireless network:
It seems like studies continually find contradictory results, sometimes good news but sometimes bad news. Even Dutch researchers who said there appeared to a link between wifi hotspots and tree damage are cautious about how they explain their findings. My guess is that the traditional dinky wireless setup in the home is no cause for concern. Larger, higher-power wifi is still on my "Dubious" list until the contradictions finally stop. I sit in my cubicle just a few meters from such a transmitter. I don't worry about it, but I do consider myself a living test tube in the ongoing experiment. :)
cell phones:
The World Health Organization recently announced that cell phones might cause cancer. Different sides in the debate continue working to shore up their position. The WHO scientists themselves seemed to emphasize that their decision was mostly cautionary rather than reacting to any definitive results. On the everything-is-dangerous side, the Environmental Working Group has published a handy table of SAR values for cell phones. SAR is the "specific absorption rate" of energy from a cell phone that gets aborbed by the body. The Federal Communications Commission limits SAR to 1.6 watts per kilogram.
I think that sticking anything electrical next to your brain for long durations is a bad idea. We already know that strong magnetic fields affect blood, since it's been legitimately proposed now and again as a way to effect therapeutic medicine. It's not unreasonable to wonder if low power electromagnetic fields might affect other substances like bone.I never had any particular worry about cell phones until I got my current job. A few months after getting the cell phone for on-call work, I developed this spot on my waist (pictured at right). It's placed near where I keep the smartphone on my waist for taking support calls. It's not exactly where the clip attaches, maybe 2 finger widths away, but perhaps the weight is dragging on my belt and rubbing this area nearby? It never grew larger, and it feels kind of rough like a callous, so I never did panic. Hopefully it will slowly disappear as I give up my on-call duty in 2 more weeks, when I no longer have to keep a phone tethered to my body.
nuclear reactors:
Scientific American released a map combining locations of nuclear fission power reactors and earthquake susceptibility in mainland USA. It's an interesting starting point for discussion. I don't especially worry about an earthquake-nuclear catastrophe here. I've never purchased any iodine pills even though I live an hour's drive from 2 aging nuclear reactors. That map, though, does leave me wondering what they were thinking in California.
I'm much more concerned about storage of nuclear fission waste products. A movie called "Into Eternity" was released in 2010. It explores the Onkalo (Finnish for "hiding place") facility in Finland for storing nuclear waste. It makes the point that construction began in the 20th century, continues in the 21st century, and will not finish until the 22nd century. It has to last 100,000 years (when the waste becomes safe again), and even the pyramids of Egypt are only about 6,000 years old. No human empire has lasted as many centuries as will be needed to keep nuclear waste safe from human abuse or environmental accidents. Apparently, the USA already has 71,862 tons of nuclear waste and no place to permanently store it.
The movie is available online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AWcle6lM_Q
It's an interesting story.