DEAR EDITOR:
I never like to personalize a difference of opinion. Very bad
form and all that! However, when one has been severely misquoted,
it is unavoidable.
DEAR EDITOR:
I never like to personalize a difference of opinion. Very bad form and all that! However, when one has been severely misquoted, it is unavoidable.
In his Feb. 3 letter to the editor Mr. Coté asserts I agreed with him that “heat, or radiation, tends to have the ability, at the molecular, or what we otherwise consider to be the very smallest levels, to cause chemical separations in such constructs as DNA. Mr. Lyons and I both know this to be true.” To the contrary, my Dec. 6 letter said exactly the opposite. However, his letter does serve the useful purpose of letting me make the same point again more emphatically
Mr. Coté apparently does not understand, or chooses not to understand, the critical distinction between ionizing radiation, such a ultraviolet, x-ray and gamma ray radiation, and radio frequency range radiation. His claim would indeed be true for the very energetic photons that convey the energy of ultraviolet rays, x-rays and gamma rays. These photons can sever the chemical bonds in any molecule including DNA. However, the subject here is radio frequency radiation.
No reputable, mainstream scientist would ever agree that radio frequency radiation has this same ability. The photons of radio frequency radiation are far too weak; actually 100,000 times too weak. Consequently, radio frequency range radiation has never been categorized as carcinogenic.
Mr. Coté is correct in asserting that excessive heating can damage DNA, provided the heating is so extreme that you reach tissue temperatures of about 109 degrees. Human cells and tissue eventually die at this temperature level. However, the regulatory limits for radio frequency radiation heating are so stringent that reaching such tissue temperatures is totally impossible. The actual limit for the general public is set to prevent a rise in body temperature exceeding ~ 0.002 oC or, equivalently, ~ 0.004 oF; i.e., from 98.6 oF to 98.604 oF. Such a minute temperature rise would never actually be observed due to the body’s ability to compensate with increased blood circulation, breathing, and perspiration.
I would also like to take this opportunity to correct another apparent misunderstanding by Mr. Coté. Recently, Mr. Coté was quoted as saying “Someone told me that standing next to a microwave transmitter was like looking into a microwave oven with the door open.” Now, you can’t actually operate a microwave oven with the door open. The oven design regulations dictate that the power supply must be interrupted at two independent locations when the door is opened. However, I estimated the microwave intensity at the door while in use and found that it would be about 85 times the FCC limits for publicly accessible areas around microwave transmitters at the frequency (2 GHz) for PCS (Personal Communication Systems) and about 150 times the FCC limits for cell phone frequencies (900 MHz). Compared to the maximum intensities actually measured around cell phone base stations, the microwave “open door” intensities are 8,500 and 15,000 times higher, respectively … Obviously, Mr. Coté needs a more reliable source of information, but I’m truly surprised that he didn’t recognize the statement was so inaccurate.
Since Mr.Coté is the principal advocate of this local microwave radiation scare, I believe it would be helpful if he would explain why his perception of microwave hazards is not supported by any regulatory organization, scientific advisory panel, or microwave standards setting committee in the U.S., Canada, or Europe. The consensus opinion of all these mainstream, scientific organizations is that there is no credible evidence to date of any harmful human health effects from exposure to radio frequency range, electromagnetic radiation within the established regulatory limits and, based on the underlying scientific understanding described in the first paragraph above, none is expected! Somehow, I still find these latter organizations far more credible.
Mark F. Lyons, Gilroy
Submitted Tuesday, Feb. 11 to ed****@ga****.com
