Talk:Non-ionizing radiation

message: As Kgrr suggested below, I also think the table should list the exposure level required to be dangerous. Cell phones, wifi, and microwave ovens are indeed similar wavelengths, but one operates on power levels a million times higher. As written, the article might lead someone to think that the risks of each are the same.BBGun06 (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Health Risks

message: Is there a reason this article focuses on biological effects of non-ionizing radiation?
The article should define the ionization barrier properly 
...then name types of non-ionizing radiation
*Ultraviolet
*Visible
*Infra-red
*Microwave and RF
*Radiowaves
*Low frequency RF  
Then the article should briefly address the hazards of each
(Aren't these hazards too vague? The listed effects are ominous and as such make these forms of radiation seem more dangerous than they are. Perhaps listing the amount of exposure required to bring about these effects and how serious these effects would be would give people a more accurate portrait of the health risks.)
*ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION
:*Biological effects
:*Effects on the Skin
:*Effects on the Eyes
:*Other Hazards
:*Occupational Exposure Standards
:*Protection Against Overexposure
:*Recommended Maximum Permissible Exposure Levels
*VISIBLE AND INFRARED, LASERS
:*Biological effects
:*Effects on the Skin
:*Effects on the Eyes
:*Other Hazards
:*Occupational Exposure Standards
*MICROWAVE AND RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION
:*Biological effects
:*Effects on the Skin
:*Effects on the Eyes
:*Other Hazards
:*Occupational Exposure Standards
*LOW FREQUENCY RF
:*Biological effects
:*Effects on the Skin
:*Effects on the Eyes
:*Other Hazards
:*Occupational Exposure Standards
Kgrr 15:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Types

message: ===Journal/Conference===
*
===Government===
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The number 1 reference for this article, for an EPA site, is a broken link.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilest oreo (talk • contribs) 09:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: references

message: *
*
*
*
*
*
*
The number 1 reference for this article, for an EPA site, is a broken link.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilest oreo (talk • contribs) 09:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Government

message: Under health risks the article state that non-ionizing radiation is non-mutagenic but this is not strictly true. UV light is capable of acting as a mutagen without the need for ionization. It can act on DNA and produce pyrimidine dimers leading to chromosomal lesions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.8.99 (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, 2.5 eV/photon can ionize DNA  2.5 eV is even less energy than visible light. Chemical bonds change the ionization potential, so the removal of UV and visible light only applies in a universe where there are electrons but no binding (this is just silly for many cases like Hydrogen where the. Obviously, DNA is an important thing to think of when you are concerned about ionization, not sure why this article would exclude it from consideration. 018 (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

text: It's also a bit of an inaccuracy that quantum energy is required for mutagenesis. There are other causes of DNA damage (such as free radicals) that do not require ionizing radiation (nice summary from the UK National Grid here: ). Of course, there still needs to be evidence between non-ionizing radiation and free radical creation, but it isn't reasonable to assume that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause DNA strand breaks because it isn't ionizing. topazg (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

text: The radiation biologist is right. The internally consistent WP position has now been changed to reflect the subtle fact that non-ionizing EM radiation with enough energy to cause single-photon chemical bond changes and free radical formation, can act very much like ionizing radiation, without having enough energy (quite) to be technically ionizing. So nearly all UV is non-ionizing and yet is mutagenic and carcinogenic. Its effects are far beyond thermal. There's even some evidence for such effects of visible and near IR in skin. These without question produce free radicals and molecular damage by mechanisms which are not simply thermal. Visible light produces free radicals in plant leaves, which is why they are all full of carotenoids, for example. The debate on non-thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation has now shifted to microwwave and RF, simply because there is no debate anymore about UV and visible light. UV and visible light do have non-thermal radiation effects on molecules, so such quantum effects are not just a property of ionizing radiation. For reasons that are easy to see, when you think about it. SBHarris 00:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-ionizing radiation not mutagenic? 

message: I'm very surprised that under the three infrared sections in this article, the only sources cited are remote controls and lasers.  As far as I know, there are many sources of infrared radiation, such as black-body radiation from most objects, including the sun.  I believe this should be changed.  ~~Zeuskabob  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.50.194 (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, of course. This part of the article isn't finished. Feel free to add stuff. SBHarris 22:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of radiation 

message: It's very mysterious. SBHarris 23:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Later. Nevermind. It had a __NOTOC__ line. That did it. SBHarris 00:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can somebody tell me what is inhibiting the automatic creation of a content box in this article??

message: Adding a note here, going to try and integrate the below.
* Here. Shaded0 (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: this whole article is just more disinformation and lies about things that are terrible for humans but make big companies tons of money so they invest in professional liars to run their propaganda campaigns and silence dissention. reminds me of flouride, gmo, chemtrails, vaccines, nonexistent laptops, diaries, and pedophiles et cetera. Snarevox (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: NTP research on cell phones

message: The current version of the article links to an 80 minute podcast which has a qz.com article listed as a source for the topic, which in turn links to another article on the same website, and only then does it link to the draft reports page of the US NTP. => https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/about/org/sep/trpanel/meetings/docs/2018/march/index.html
Should the current reference be changed to a direct link to the draft page, and later the released study itself?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.159.238.172 (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  I do not have time to review the NTP study in full. However, WP advises using secondary references to the study rather than directly including, per WP:USINGPRIMARY. The edits by Cmt7613 it critical of the current state of the page, but I do not think it bears removing the content entirely. Someone more knowledgeable on this please revise. Thanks. Shaded0 (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  how long have you been employed in the pr department at at&t?? are you guys currently hiring? Snarevox (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to NTP 2018 study