Radiation Exposure

[SG-17]

Off the top of my head, Everyday Technology that produces Radiation

*Microwave Ovens
*Computers (Safe Levels)
*Mobile Phones
*Televisions (Safe Levels since 1970's)
*Tanning Beds

One must differentiate between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Microwaves, for example, produce non-ionizing radiation. They can't hurt you.

Unless, well, you are inside of a microwave oven or hugging a microwave generator.



The worst that non-ionizing radiation can do to you is give you burns (only specific wavelengths) or damage your eyes (again only specific wavelengths and in concentrated doses).

 

[Trekker4747]

Off the top of my head, Everyday Technology that produces Radiation

*Microwave Ovens
*Computers (Safe Levels)
*Mobile Phones
*Televisions (Safe Levels since 1970's)
*Tanning Beds

One must differentiate between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Microwaves, for example, produce non-ionizing radiation. They can't hurt you.

Unless, well, you are inside of a microwave oven or hugging a microwave generator.



The worst that non-ionizing radiation can do to you is give you burns (only specific wavelengths) or damage your eyes (again only specific wavelengths and in concentrated doses).

Being in a microwave... wouldn't be pleasant. But not because of the microwaves themselves but because of how the oven is designed to scatter and emit the microwaves and, of course, the power behind them in the oven.

But they're not "cancer causing" harmful. They're simply not able to penetrate into the skin that much.

 

[farmkid]

Consider this. On the spectrum radiation from TV/Radio signals, cellphone signals and the radiation used in microwaves are all less powerful than light itself. So if your microwave or cell-phone can cause severe radiation so can the light from your lamp. The radiation generated from these common devices is mostly harmless. The waves are too large to damage DNA and cause cancer. Consider that the the entire planet has been saturated in EM radiation from radio and TV signals for somewhere around 80 years. If radiation from these devices were a problem then there'd be a pandemic. Cell-phones also have been around for something like 30 years and have been saturating the environment greatly for the last 10-15 years. Any problems from cell-phone "radiation" would've been seen by now as everyone would be effected.

All infra-red wavelengths of radiation (from electro magentism through visible light) is mostly harmless to people. Radiation from man-made devices isn't powerful enough or small enough to present any health risks.

You're right. Just to clarify...I think what you mean by "too big" or "small enough" refers to wavelength. Wavelength is essentially a measure of the energy of any given photon. Only the shortest wavelengths, from the UV range and shorter, are energetic enough to break DNA or cause other chemical anomalies, so therefore anything from the visible light range and longer (less energetic) won't cause DNA damage.

 

[Trekker4747]

Yeah, I get the "energetic" and "wave length" things mixed up a lot. I know the fundamentals but some of the details are muddy, esp. now that I'm pretty close to falling asleep.

 

[farmkid]

^While I don't know the fears of everyone else, but I don't think anyone is fearing "death by radiation" -it's the mutations that are dangerous; it only takes one mutation in one gene in one cell for you to develop cancer.

That's not exactly true. A cell must do several things in order to become cancerous. I must escape growth control mechanisms, stimulate blood vessel growth, and avoid detection by the immune system. If it's going to become malignant and spread, it must also lose its attachment to neighboring cells and acquire the ability to migrate. There are probably other things I'm not thinking of at the moment as well. Fortunately, a single mutation can't do all that.

 

[Trekker4747]

Well, I'm playing it safe!

Yep.

No more exposure to light for me!

 

[STR]

Its just occured to me the potential amount of Radiation thats lurking in any given developed area, we might actually "Absorb enough Radiation to guarantee our Grandchildren Glow in the Dark"

For years, many people thought that using Mobile (Cellular) Phones were a long term health hazard, sure theres some basis in it, but to absorb the amount of Radiation necesary to guarantee long term health effects, you'd need to make 8 hour calls on a daily basis

No, just no. Absolutely no. A cellphone will not do anything to you unless you short the battery and cause it to burst into flames. The radio emissions are harmless, outputting less than a single watt per hour. No cancer, no nothing. If radios could cause cancer, they guy that changes the collision lights on top of the Sears Tower would look like the elephant man because he's exposed to 100,000 watts from a half dozen different TV stations.

Then again, if radio waves could cause cancer, so would visible light. The backlight that you're reading this text on would be giving you eye cancer. Of course, the idea that a light bulb would give you cancer is asinine to most people. So it is with radios. In reality, non-ionizing radiation affects you the same way it does my leftovers: it just warms them up, because it's vibrating molecules, but cannot break them. Ever.

But in general i've just been thinking about the potential of "Radiation Poisoning" thats lurking here and there, we are all so reliant on Technology that in conjunction with not taking proper care in Sunlight we could all be putting ourselves at further risk

Only if you play around with chunks of uranium ore. See, uranium gives out ionizing radiation. That means it's powerful enough to strip electrons from your atoms, destabilizing molecules (like DNA). Radio, infrared and visible light are all non-ionizing radiation. They cannot break molecular bonds, therefore they cannot alter your body's chemistry, therefore no poisoning, or cancer, or anything. Ultraviolet, X-rays, Gamma Rays and cosmic rays are all ionizing, and will #### you up in short order. Fortunately, society regulates the dangerous stuff and limits your exposure.

You can stand right outside a nuclear power plant and get a higher does from the small amounts of ionizing radiation from the radioisotopes in the rocks around you (not to mention the UV-rays from the sun) than you're getting from the reactor itself.

 

[SVD]

...
*Televisions (Safe Levels since 1970's)
...

I like to sit ~8 ft away from our new 32 inch LCD TV. The old folks in my life STILL believe that sitting that close to that big a set exposes one to unhealthy levels of radiation that pokes millions of tiny, unrepairable-by-biology, holes in ones face REGARDLESS of the technology used in the TV itself.

Granted, likely not good for the eyes, but gimme a break!

 

[trekkiedane]

Cell-phones also have been around for something like 30 years and have been saturating the environment greatly for the last 10-15 years. Any problems from cell-phone "radiation" would've been seen by now as everyone would be effected

Yes and no; during the those thirty years the involved technology has changed tremendously: the antenna is not this thing you pull out of the device and hold away from your body -it's a lot closer to your head these days - and the signal has changed from analogue to digital... but I believe you're right, we would have seen the tip of the iceberg by now if there was any serious danger.

^While I don't know the fears of everyone else, but I don't think anyone is fearing "death by radiation" -it's the mutations that are dangerous; it only takes one mutation in one gene in one cell for you to develop cancer.

That's not exactly true. A cell must do several things in order to become cancerous. I must escape growth control mechanisms, stimulate blood vessel growth, and avoid detection by the immune system. If it's going to become malignant and spread, it must also lose its attachment to neighboring cells and acquire the ability to migrate. There are probably other things I'm not thinking of at the moment as well. Fortunately, a single mutation can't do all that.

Right, but it's still that single -last, if you will- mutation that gets ya': there are probably millions and millions of cells in any given body with damaged genes at any given moment (for all sorts of reasons) and it really only takes one of those to start the chain-reaction that ends in your (painful?!) death.

 

[Trekker4747]

...
*Televisions (Safe Levels since 1970's)
...

I like to sit ~8 ft away from our new 32 inch LCD TV. The old folks in my life STILL believe that sitting that close to that big a set exposes one to unhealthy levels of radiation that pokes millions of tiny, unrepairable-by-biology, holes in ones face REGARDLESS of the technology used in the TV itself.

Granted, likely not good for the eyes, but gimme a break!

You could sit with your face planted to a 1940s era TV screen's picture and you wouldn't get any harmful "radiation" exposure or damage your eyes in any meaningful way.

You do not harm your eyes by using them.

The only thing you might get is some eye-strain from trying to concentrate on a single point for too long a time and from staring a fairly bright light. Eye strain is easily shrugged off with some minimal eye activity and rest.

TVs DO NOT CAUSE CANCER.

Radios do not cause cancer (funny how that one is never used even though they use the same "radiation" that TVs do.)

Microwaves do not cause cancer.

Cellphones do not cause cancer.

Light does not cause cancer. (Other than ultra-violet light which might cause cancer in the right circumstances.)

 

[Holdfast]

^^ Too many words. Hulk smash.

Too many gamma rays will do that to you...

Consider this. On the spectrum radiation from TV/Radio signals, cellphone signals and the radiation used in microwaves are all less powerful than light itself. So if your microwave or cell-phone can cause severe radiation so can the light from your lamp. The radiation generated from these common devices is mostly harmless. The waves are too large to damage DNA and cause cancer. Consider that the the entire planet has been saturated in EM radiation from radio and TV signals for somewhere around 80 years. If radiation from these devices were a problem then there'd be a pandemic. Cell-phones also have been around for something like 30 years and have been saturating the environment greatly for the last 10-15 years. Any problems from cell-phone "radiation" would've been seen by now as everyone would be effected.

All infra-red wavelengths of radiation (from electro magentism through visible light) is mostly harmless to people. Radiation from man-made devices isn't powerful enough or small enough to present any health risks.

While your core message is along the right track, your thinking is seriously confused and jumbled up, as is some of your terminology, causing you to sound quite incoherent.

To clarify:

As has been mentioned, the key primary distinction is between ionising and non-ionising radiation. Non-ionising radiation can heat through excitation, but cannot ionise, regardless of magnitude, due to its low frequency nature. The reason there's a relatively discrete difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation, despite the continuous variation of the electro-magnetic spectrum is that you need a specific amount of energy carried in each photon of incident radiation to actually create ions. Below that, no matter how many photons hit an atom, they cannot ionise it, only make it vibrate faster. So they can heat, but cannot ionise. So below a certain frequency (as Energy = planck constant x frequency), you have non-ionising radiation, and above that, you have ionising radiation. The cross-over point is within the UV portion of the EM spectrum.

Despite this, it is theoretically possible for non-ionising radiation to have negative health effects, but the mechanism would be solely through heat effects, and their sequelae. And you need quite high intensity to result in significant heating. Still, it's theoretically possible that chronic low-level heating may have some effects we haven't realised yet. The odds are low, though.

The risk from ionising radiation is generally thought to follow the NLT model I described upthread.

 

[JWD75]

What worries me are CT scans. I had a CT scan done several years ago because I have chronic headaches. It was done to check to see if the pain was being caused by a brain tumor. The scan came out clear, but now I find out that the scan could potentially cause the very thing that it was looking for.

 

[deck5]

What worries me are CT scans. I had a CT scan done several years ago because I have chronic headaches. It was done to check to see if the pain was being caused by a brain tumor. The scan came out clear, but now I find out that the scan could potentially cause the very thing that it was looking for.

I wouldn't worry. A single head CT is about equivalent to a transatlantic round-trip flight.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Too many words. Hulk smash.

Too many gamma rays will do that to you...

Heh. I thought that went by unnoticed.

 

[Holdfast]

^ Never.

What worries me are CT scans. I had a CT scan done several years ago because I have chronic headaches. It was done to check to see if the pain was being caused by a brain tumor. The scan came out clear, but now I find out that the scan could potentially cause the very thing that it was looking for.

While I personally would request an MRI rather than a CT under those circumstances, both because they use non-ionising radiation and are better at detecting soft-tissue abnormalities, if a CT was the only available option, I'd certainly prefer having a scan than not having a scan if there was a question of an intracranial mass! Besides, while a CT carries a fairly significant degree of radiation, in terms of your lifetime acceptable dose under an NLT model, it's still pretty damn low risk.

But you highlight an important point in medical investigations (and treatments, actually). With any intervention, there is a certain risk of harm, as well as benefit. No intervention is always 100% safe. So every time, there should be a weighing up of risk vs benefit. Radiologists are actually pretty aggressive about this these days, and won't do scans they feel are clinically unjustified.

 

[SVD]

...
Granted, likely not good for the eyes, but gimme a break!

You could sit with your face planted to a 1940s era TV screen's picture and you wouldn't get any harmful "radiation" exposure or damage your eyes in any meaningful way.

You do not harm your eyes by using them.

The only thing you might get is some eye-strain from trying to concentrate on a single point for too long a time and from staring a fairly bright light. Eye strain is easily shrugged off with some minimal eye activity and rest.
...

That's what I figured.

 

[scotpens]

^^ Too many words. Hulk smash.

Too many gamma rays will do that to you...

Not to mention what they can do to man-in-the-moon marigolds.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Now that was obscure.