In civilized countries there very stringent rules on the level of exposure to RF radiation
You are free to not understand but it is not so complex:albbg said:I don't understand how can you be so sure about the safety to stay in front of an RF source if no heat can be reveald by the body.
No one have succeed to proof, at an accepted scientifically level, anything else then thermal effects.albbg said:More over, even if there is no clear scientific evidence about non-thermal effects, they are reported in many studies, accepted from someone and rejected by others, due to many reasons.
Guess you is thinking about that human body is a poor attenuator for EM freq. below 10 MHz => most of the energy will pass thru a body without affecting anything, which gradually changes with increasing frequency, above 10 GHz => most energy is absorbed already at skin level.albbg said:you have to take into account the mass of the tissue that is receiving the EM and the RF characteristics of that tissue at the frequency you want to consider.
An EM wave becomes weaker with distance but there is no final deep or distance.albbg said:Another factor is how deep the field penetrates inside the tissues
Non thermal effect due to that RF energy is absorbed, does probably not exist. It is a bit as turning off light-switch to investigate if someone is affected by the light. This kind of research is therapy for doctors that need to have a project to get subsidy.albbg said:But also no one succeded in proof the absence of non-thermal effects
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?