[lynguist]

Radiation is easy:

There is ionizing radiation (that affects matters as it travels through it) and non-ionizing radiation (that doesn’t affect matters as it travels through it).

X-ray is of the first kind. Decay radiation is of the first kind.

Wireless communications radio is of the second kind.

You should really focus on pollution and not on non-issues. Btw: air pollution killed more people over the same period than did Covid.

[marginalia_nu]

This is sort of a naive dichotomy of radiation. Ionizing radiation is unique in that it can ionize particles, which is bad, but ionization isn't the only way you can affect matter that is bad.

If you put a bug under a magnifying glass on a sunny day you're exposing it to non-ionizing radiation. Ask the bug whether only ionizing radiation is harmful.

Here's non-ionizing radiation affecting metal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i2OVqWo9s0

Does this mean all non-ionizing radiation is bad? That 5G vaccines cause covid antennas? Of course not. That's ridiculous. But it's also ridiculous to brush off all non-ionizing radiation as harmless.

[cogman10]

> But it's also ridiculous to brush off all non-ionizing radiation as harmless.

I disagree. There's more than enough empirical data that shows non-ionizing radiation is safe. Consider, for example, how many people work at or live near MW emitters (like radio stations).

You don't find that populations around those emitters have higher incidents of health problems.

But further, we aren't finding an increase in tumors/cancers in places where people very commonly store their non-ionizing radiation devices (pants pockets).

Taken one step further, when you step out into the sunlight, you are being exposed to several watts worth at several frequencies of ionizing (UV) and non-ionizing radiation. Orders of magnitudes more than you'd see from any device. Yet, what we see is that people that work out in the sun most commonly experience skin cancer/damage and nothing else.

The fear over non-ionizing radiation comes from ignorance and nothing more.

To your bug example, yes, if you concentrate non-ionizing radiation up to 100W+ at a single point, it'll burn that point. But that's a strawman of the situation. No wireless tech is doing that in the slightest.

[feet]

Is it possible for non-ionizing radiation to impact the rate of chemical reactions?

[cogman10]

Yes.

But that's not as scary as it sounds. Chemical reactions speed up and slow down based on temperature. In other words, getting under a blanket or walking in the cold are impacting the rate of chemical reactions in your body.

Non ionizing radiation (such as infrared) can heat you up impacting chemical reactions. However, it's impacting you less than the impact of the lightbulb in your room (which throws off anywhere from 10 to 100W of non-ionizing radiation).

[feet]

I apologize, I should have been more specific. My question was specifically about non-heat related effects

[blueflow]

I thought sunlight was ionizing radiation? We literally get irradiation damage (sunburns) from it.

[marginalia_nu]

Sure. The energetic end of the visible spectrum is weakly ionizing, more so in the UV spectrum. But ionization is not why the bug starts smoking.

You can start a fire with a sufficiently high powered infrared laser too.

[nickff]

I think it's worth noting that a magnifying glass actually blocks/filters out UVB, and substantially reduces UVA. Feynman famously watched Trinity with only a truck windshield to protect him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)

[BurningFrog]

Yes, heat from radiation can also be damaging.

Fortunately we are well equipped to sense and avoid heat.

[titzer]

Microwaves are non-ionizing but can cause localized heating, ala the Microwave oven. But the amount of power needed to raise any amount of tissue appreciable amounts is very high.