Print

Print


Briefly, and I hope one of our professional geneticists on the list will
weigh in on this, the notion that cancer is caused only by the breaking of
DNA covalent bonds is about a generation out of date. A cancer cell is one
whose regulatory machinery has been altered, and there are many ways this
can happen, subtle and not so subtle, including epigenetic effects etc etc.

MB

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Chandler Davis <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Will some physical scientist help me clarify the question
> of whether microwave radiation COULD cause cancer?  Robert
> L. Park, to whom I am grateful for much enlightenment on
> many matters, tirelessly reiterates that the only known
> way for electromagnetic radiation to cause cancer is by
> breaking a bond in DNA, and this requires a photon of
> much higher frequency than microwaves have.  This seems
> to me to be relevant but incomplete, for reasons I will
> give, but Park didn't reply to my query on the point
> (probably misidentifying me as a microwave-alarmist), so
> I'm looking for help from others.
>        What we must talk about is a high-amplitude wave
> at a frequency too low to break organic bonds, by a factor
> of a few million.  Right?  Park says it doesn't matter how
> high the amplitude is: strengthening the microwave signal
> is (in his metaphor) just increasing the number of rocks
> you try to throw across the Potomac, this doesn't get any
> of them across the river because EACH ROCK has too low an
> energy.  I object that this isn't the whole story, because
> a periodic wave is not exactly sinusoidal, the sine wave at
> its fundamental frequency comes accompanied by harmonics at
> multiples thereof.  In quantum terms, that means that the
> electromagnetic signal consists of photons at the energy
> belonging to the fundamental frequency, accompanied by a
> cloud of photons at multiples of that energy.  Now (as I
> have explained to many undergraduate classes) the higher
> the harmonic the lower the amplitude: for the n-th
> harmonic, the amplitude goes down like 1/n, meaning that
> the power goes down like 1/n^2.  By the time n is around
> a million, this factor is around a trillion.  But not zero.
> (True, a very smooth wave has weaker higher harmonics.)
> In order to be sure a very very strong microwave signal
> could not break a chemical bond, I would have to know
> quantitatively HOW strong.
>        Maybe somebody here will tell me the numbers on
> this, I haven't looked them up.  It seems evident even
> without having the numbers that putting a mobile phone to
> my ear will not endanger me.  Thus I am as mystified as
> Park by the new, more credible study pointing to some
> correlation with cancer.  But it also seems to me that
> further discussion of the matter ought to include the
> little wrinkle of HIGHER HARMONICS.
>                        Chandler
>



-- 
******************************************
Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
New York University

Email:  [log in to unmask]
Web:    michaelbalter.com
NYU:    journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/
******************************************

“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
                                                  --John Kenneth Galbraith