[kstrauser]

There is no such thing as artificial forms of RF. They're all wiggling photons.

If nature gave us a flute, and man discovered how to make a bass guitar, all though they sound different the only real difference is that the bass guitar is wiggling air molecules more slowly than a flute would. There is zero, nil, no distinction whatsoever between a "natural" and "synthetic" photon wiggling at a given frequency.

> you are much less likely to get sunburn if you get plenty of natural (or artificial) infrared.

I'm gonna need to see a source for that.

[FollowingTheDao]

> There is no such thing as artificial forms of RF. They're all wiggling photons.

This is categorically untrue.

Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914

[avidiax]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38915555

[kstrauser]

Horseshit. Sorry, but there are times to be tactful, and times to be blunt, and this is bluntly idiotic. I got as far as 2 sentences in:

> All types of man-made EMFs/EMR - in contrast to natural EMFs/EMR - are polarized.

which is so unbelievably wrong, like, completely out of touch with reality levels of incorrect, that I see no value in reading further.

[FollowingTheDao]

Incorrect? What is incorrect? It looks like you do not know enough to comment with anything of substance.

Linear Polarization Antennas in Radio and Wireless Communication Systems

https://resources.system-analysis.cadence.com/blog/msa2021-l...

and

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8811421

[kstrauser]

I have an FCC certification vouching that I know what those words mean. Your linked diatribe says, quote, "All types of man-made EMFs/EMR". All. Antennas are polarized because that's the easiest way to build them, and the polarization has nice properties.

A standard incandescent lightbulb creates about 100W of unpolarized RF from around 400THz to 750THz. It is manmade, it's an RF emitter, it is not polarized, and it's something everyone older than the age of around 10 has spent their entire lives around.

So either the author is completely wrong in sentence number 2, or they're implying that visible light isn't RF. Either way, they're wrong, and you can ignore the rest of their claims.

[FollowingTheDao]

> Your linked diatribe says, quote, "All types of man-made EMFs/EMR". All. Antennas are polarized because that's the easiest way to build them, and the polarization has nice properties.

You are comparing light bulbs to wireless communications? What is your point? He says "All types of man-made EMFs/EMR", not "all types of manmade energy". It is clear he does not think that light bulbs are dangerous. So now you are just being confusing on purpose to muddy the water.

But if you bother to READ the whole article you would see he agrees with you:

"Natural EMR/EMFs (cosmic microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, gamma rays) and several forms of artificially triggered electromagnetic emissions (such as from light bulbs with thermal filaments, gas discharge lamps, x-rays, lasers, etc.) are not polarized. "

You know we were talking about EMFs from data communication types of man-made EMFs/EMR"s, but you are being ignorant on purpose, becasue you cannot even read anything that is new and conflicts with your ideas.

[kstrauser]

> You are comparing light bulbs to wireless communications? What is your point?

Visible light and Wi-Fi are the same physical phenomenon, just at different frequencies.

> several forms of artificially triggered electromagnetic emissions (such as from light bulbs with thermal filaments, gas discharge lamps, x-rays, lasers, etc.) are not polarized.

So, he contradicts himself.

Also:

> Natural EMR/EMFs (cosmic microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, gamma rays) [...] are not polarized.

Oh yes they absolutely can be, and frequently are. Polarized sunglasses are specifically made to block the polarized light reflecting off lakes, snow, sand, or other surfaces. Does the author consider light reflecting off a lake to be unnatural, or is it the OK kind of polarized because it's "natural"?

[Dylan16807]

> at a given frequency

I'm pretty sure their point is that certain frequencies are getting a lot more power than is naturally possible. Not that the photons are special in some way.

[kstrauser]

I'm not so sure. Even in these threads we see specious distinctions between "natural" and "man-made" EMF.

But even then, it's impossible to discuss without talking about relative strengths. Wi-Fi transmits at about 100mW at full strength. For math purposes, let's assume it's a point source broadcasting in all directions. (That's not that much of a wild assumption, either.) The surface area of a sphere with a radius of 1m is about 12.5 m^2. On average, then, the Wi-Fi RF strength at 1m away is about 0.008W/m^2.

The sun above us delivers about 1360W/m^2 of RF radiation, or approximately 170,000 times the radiation of standing a meter from a Wi-Fi router. If it's across the room, 4m away, the ratio is closer to 3,000,000:1.

Even if our bodies responded to "man-made" radiation differently than the "good, natural" kind, there's so very little of it relatively that it can't make much of a difference. I mean, ever look at a 100W lightbulb? If Wi-Fi were at 400THz instead of 2.4GHz so that you could see it, it would be one thousandth as bright. There's just not enough power there to do anything meaningful to us.

[Dylan16807]

> There's just not enough power there to do anything meaningful to us.

Unless specific frequency bands cause problems because something very specific is triggered.

Sure, wifi may only be hitting you with 1 milliwatt per square meter. But between 2.4GHz and 2.5GHz the sun only hits you with... if I did the math right, and just accounting for blackbody emissions, around 10 picowatts per square meter.

We're probably fine, but whether it's fine can't be proven with a simple physics calculation that ignores spectrum.