• chaogomu@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    1 year ago

    From the last time this was posted, radio frequency radiation, not nuclear radiation.

    It’s an important distinction.

    RF strength violations have more to do with the signal range and possible interference with other signals than health impacts.

    • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      And the people this article is targeting isn’t the people that could bother to learn the difference.

      Explaining ionization to someone who doesn’t grasp the concept that atoms are too small to see without special laboratories isn’t easy.

      • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah

        rADiaTiOn!!1!

        The sun packs ionizing electromagnetic waves it heats up our whole planet with, and that gives us cancer. But that wouldn’t make a good headline I guess.

    • QuinceDaPence@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Which is why “spurious emission” is the proper term to use.

      The point where you can call it a “radiation hazard” when talking about RF is if it’s at the point where RF Burns are a possibility which a phone is just not capable of.