Well, this is called argument-from-ignorance; as others have pointed out, science is pretty bad at proving negatives. So, no, there are no guarantees.
So what we do is we compile the information that we do have, and we try to study effects, establish correlations, and then -- if we're somewhat lucky -- we can reach a conclusion about causation. In the case of the question, "is X dangerous", mostly all we can do is rate it on a relative scale compared to other common things.
(I might get some of the following wrong, but hopefully only in detail. The gist should be correct.)
We know for example that most of the causes of, let's call it spontaneous illness -- tumors and certain diseases and the like -- in healthy adults is the result of damage to nuclear DNA. We also know that most such damaged cells, or cells that are the result of damage during recombination, are attacked and consumed by a person's own immune system. Most of the rest are never viable to begin with -- think of it as a computer program with a serious bug -- and many of the remaining don't produce any viable damaged cells during mitosis.
But, still, we should be cautious about things that do damage to DNA. So, what kinds of radiation do damage to DNA? Well, ionizing radiation does, and as far as we know, it's the only kind that does.
Factors like amplitude, total power, and phase are actually well understood. Scientists shy away from saying with absolute certainty that a particular wavelength is non-ionizing, because they have to take into account other factors, like total power involved. However, microwave radiation -- the 2.4 ghz part of the electromagnetic spectrum -- is pretty safely in the non-ionizing range.
Now, at sufficient power levels, microwaves might cause some minor amount of radiation damage to tissue, but it would have to be an enormous amount of power. Home wifi routers measure their radiation output in milliwatts. You're more susceptible to greater doses of radiation from standing too close to your microwave, and you could probably do that your entire life with no adverse effect.
(In case you're curious: microwaves heat things due to frequency resonance in molecules; i.e., they get certain kinds of molecules -- those containing water -- really excited without stripping their electrons. See also http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/howcook.html)
And all of this is of course aside from the numerous studies which have failed to produce any evidence so far of actual physiological sensitivity to cell phones and wifi and the like -- we're just visiting theory here.
So, how dangerous is it comparatively then?
You are at far more specific danger from walking around outside in the sunshine for just a few minutes than you are from wifi, in terms of ionizing radiation. Although much of the ultraviolet spectrum is non-ionizing, some of it is not, and a small portion of the heat from the sun is ionizing radiation.
And this is where the inconsistency in wifi paranoia comes out, because if you're really, truly that concerned about very very small amounts of radiation, then you shouldn't be venturing around outside wearing anything less than full clothing.
You're right but you miss the point about how people generally perceive danger - that is mainly in emotional, not rational way.
As you point out, science is bad at proving negatives. It is also very good at introducing new unknowns. Combine those two, and you may understand why sometimes people get so emotionally distressed about some new use of science.
And if you develop this thought even further, then you may find that healthy level of skepticism about some new technology is actually not so irrational, considering many unknowns it opens up.
Sometimes -- depending on the person -- you can respond to their emotional fear in a rational way, and it'll take their edge off a bit. :-)
If "cool-RR" had been hysterical, instead of asking questions and appearing at least somewhat curious, I wouldn't've bothered commenting.
And, I agree wholeheartedly that a healthy level of skepticism about new technology isn't a bad idea. Our opinions on what constitutes "healthy" may differ, though.
Comments
Well, this is called argument-from-ignorance; as others have pointed out, science is pretty bad at proving negatives. So, no, there are no guarantees.
So what we do is we compile the information that we do have, and we try to study effects, establish correlations, and then -- if we're somewhat lucky -- we can reach a conclusion about causation. In the case of the question, "is X dangerous", mostly all we can do is rate it on a relative scale compared to other common things.
(I might get some of the following wrong, but hopefully only in detail. The gist should be correct.)
We know for example that most of the causes of, let's call it spontaneous illness -- tumors and certain diseases and the like -- in healthy adults is the result of damage to nuclear DNA. We also know that most such damaged cells, or cells that are the result of damage during recombination, are attacked and consumed by a person's own immune system. Most of the rest are never viable to begin with -- think of it as a computer program with a serious bug -- and many of the remaining don't produce any viable damaged cells during mitosis.
But, still, we should be cautious about things that do damage to DNA. So, what kinds of radiation do damage to DNA? Well, ionizing radiation does, and as far as we know, it's the only kind that does.
Factors like amplitude, total power, and phase are actually well understood. Scientists shy away from saying with absolute certainty that a particular wavelength is non-ionizing, because they have to take into account other factors, like total power involved. However, microwave radiation -- the 2.4 ghz part of the electromagnetic spectrum -- is pretty safely in the non-ionizing range.
Now, at sufficient power levels, microwaves might cause some minor amount of radiation damage to tissue, but it would have to be an enormous amount of power. Home wifi routers measure their radiation output in milliwatts. You're more susceptible to greater doses of radiation from standing too close to your microwave, and you could probably do that your entire life with no adverse effect.
(In case you're curious: microwaves heat things due to frequency resonance in molecules; i.e., they get certain kinds of molecules -- those containing water -- really excited without stripping their electrons. See also http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/howcook.html)
And all of this is of course aside from the numerous studies which have failed to produce any evidence so far of actual physiological sensitivity to cell phones and wifi and the like -- we're just visiting theory here.
So, how dangerous is it comparatively then?
You are at far more specific danger from walking around outside in the sunshine for just a few minutes than you are from wifi, in terms of ionizing radiation. Although much of the ultraviolet spectrum is non-ionizing, some of it is not, and a small portion of the heat from the sun is ionizing radiation.
And this is where the inconsistency in wifi paranoia comes out, because if you're really, truly that concerned about very very small amounts of radiation, then you shouldn't be venturing around outside wearing anything less than full clothing.
You're right but you miss the point about how people generally perceive danger - that is mainly in emotional, not rational way.
As you point out, science is bad at proving negatives. It is also very good at introducing new unknowns. Combine those two, and you may understand why sometimes people get so emotionally distressed about some new use of science.
And if you develop this thought even further, then you may find that healthy level of skepticism about some new technology is actually not so irrational, considering many unknowns it opens up.
Sometimes -- depending on the person -- you can respond to their emotional fear in a rational way, and it'll take their edge off a bit. :-)
If "cool-RR" had been hysterical, instead of asking questions and appearing at least somewhat curious, I wouldn't've bothered commenting.
And, I agree wholeheartedly that a healthy level of skepticism about new technology isn't a bad idea. Our opinions on what constitutes "healthy" may differ, though.