Author Topic: EM fields and radiation  (Read 857 times)

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
Re: EM fields and radiation
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2017, 09:02:34 AM »
I wouldn't be too quick to send in the white coat cavalry. We know nothing about this woman's age, family, financial or employment circumstances. Dalhousie simply said the husband was "long-suffering".

She's refusing medical treatment for a condition because of her phobia/obsession. If that's not a qualifier for mental assessment/treatment then I'm not sure what is.

She needs an X-ray for a medical condition and refuses to have one because it will killer her (she thinks).

"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur"
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.

Offline Abaddon

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 713
Re: EM fields and radiation
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2017, 02:15:43 PM »
I wouldn't be too quick to send in the white coat cavalry. We know nothing about this woman's age, family, financial or employment circumstances. Dalhousie simply said the husband was "long-suffering".

She's refusing medical treatment for a condition because of her phobia/obsession. If that's not a qualifier for mental assessment/treatment then I'm not sure what is.

She needs an X-ray for a medical condition and refuses to have one because it will killer her (she thinks).

We don't know the nature of the medical condition. It could be benign and not life threatening, in which case refusing an X-ray might not be too much of a problem. OTOH, it could be a life and death requirement which would be a very different kettle of fish.

Either way, it would be deeply unfair to put Dalhousie on the spot for that information. He has not permission to share someone else's medical details.

I shall refer back to my own recent experience. Had I refused x-ray on my ankle, the break was serious enough that it could potentially have been fatal (blood clots, internal bleeding and so forth). Ergo, I went straight from ER to surgery. One wouldn't think it, but such a serious break can kill you. As it is, I will get 90% or so back of previous function.

My point is not that I am in any way some sort of hero. My point is that delay simply increases the subsequent damage.

Offline bobdude11

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • Aviall, A Boeing Company
Re: EM fields and radiation
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2017, 01:26:36 PM »
I had hydrodyalation therapy on my left shoulder the other day and the surgeon stayed in the room as the needle has to be placed using an x-ray. He does wear a leather gown but his head and hands were exposed. I asked him about the dangers of working every day in such an environment but he said the only real danger was from cataracts in later life.

I did start a thread myself regarding the danger of multiple x-rays and the accumulative effects of these. Because of follow-ups to cancer treatment I have had in the Past 2.5 years:- 10 CT scans, 4 Chest X-rays and recently three hip X-Rays, two shoulder X-rays plus the X-rays used in my procedure, I should be glowing in the dark. As far as I know I have suffered no adverse effects from all this.

But I remember there were a lot of concerns regarding the safety of Microwaves (Re: cataracts in particular) in early days and the possibility of people boiling their brains with mobile phones, these fears are not uncommon. But in the years since we have had these devices, has there even one medical case of anything like this occurring?
I use a cell phone regularly and have never had an issue with my brain. My wife says I have been an idiot since she met me! :)
« Last Edit: April 18, 2017, 01:28:47 PM by bobdude11 »
Robert Clark - InfoSec Analyst for Aviall, a Boeing Company
CISSP, MISM, MCSE and some other alphabet certifications.
I am moving to Theory ... everything works in Theory

Offline jfb

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 36
Re: EM fields and radiation
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2017, 03:15:23 PM »
The problem is that the word "radiation" covers a lot of ground, which most people aren't aware of.

Typically, what you're worried about is ionizing radiation (high frequency EM radiation like UV, X-rays and gamma rays, high-energy charged particles or neutrons).  Most microwave sources (mw ovens, wifi access points, cell phones, etc.) don't have enough energy to do much (if any) damage.  High power radio transmitters can cook you if you stand next to them, but that's not going to happen unless you work on a radio tower or radar system and refuse to follow even the most basic safety protocols. 

X-rays do fall under ionizing radiation, but like botox, it's the dose that makes the poison.  One chest x-ray a year isn't going to cause any lasting damage. 

As for the subject of this thread, I have no useful advice other than to be patient.  I've found that irrational fears are incredibly hard to overcome without some kind of professional guidance. 

Offline Geordie

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Suspendisse enim veni; remaneat cognitio
Re: EM fields and radiation
« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2017, 07:17:18 PM »
And sometimes it's just shrug, who cares? My ex religiously puts our young children in speaker-phone mode whenever they talk on the phone, on the grounds that the RF at the source is hard on their little brains. Is she correct? I don't know. I go along with it; and in ten years, I haven't been bothered or curious enough to do even the most cursory research into it.

Certainly the RF is the most intense at the transmitting antenna, so that's good enough for me.

If I was a single parent, then I'd find out for sure (or as sure as is 'known' in mainstream pediatrics.)
.           She's on fire\  And she burns through the night at the speed of light\
             She's on fire\  With the heat of the beat right beneath her feet\
              She's on fire\  And the name of the game is to fuel her flame\
               She's on fire, fire, fire, fire, fire!

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 743
Re: EM fields and radiation
« Reply #20 on: April 19, 2017, 08:57:59 PM »
We're talking about 100 MILLIWATTS of power - from an omnidirectional antenna. At best, the amount of energy would heat the brain by fractions of a degree - measurable only under laboratory conditions. The natural temperature fluctuations in living tissue is much greater than what a small radio transmitter can do.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline Geordie

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Suspendisse enim veni; remaneat cognitio
Re: EM fields and radiation
« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2017, 10:41:45 PM »
We're talking about 100 MILLIWATTS of power - from an omnidirectional antenna. At best, the amount of energy would heat the brain by fractions of a degree - measurable only under laboratory conditions. The natural temperature fluctuations in living tissue is much greater than what a small radio transmitter can do.

That makes total sense to me. Will I share it with her? No. I just don't need the hassle (cough cough woo cough.)
.           She's on fire\  And she burns through the night at the speed of light\
             She's on fire\  With the heat of the beat right beneath her feet\
              She's on fire\  And the name of the game is to fuel her flame\
               She's on fire, fire, fire, fire, fire!