Radiowaves and potential harm? Intensity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jlyu002@ucr.e
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Intensity Potential
AI Thread Summary
Radio waves are non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation with low frequency, posing minimal health risks compared to higher frequency radiation like UV, X-rays, and gamma rays. Intensity refers to the concentration of waves in a specific area, and while powerful sources can generate heat, typical exposure levels are not harmful. Microwaves, a type of radio wave, can heat water efficiently but are well-shielded to prevent injury. The risk from radio waves primarily involves thermal effects rather than radiation sickness. Overall, while caution is necessary around strong sources, everyday exposure to radio waves is generally considered safe.
jlyu002@ucr.e
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
I understand that radio waves have very low frequency, which means it is not ionizing as gamma and ultraviolet are, but while browsing the web, it seems that there are mixed point of views on its potential hazard to human health.

Hmm, if it is dangerous, why? Does it have to do with intensity? What does intensity really mean? Does Intensity mean there are many radio waves focused at a single point?

Can we impose light waves onto each other?

Sorry for the bombardment of questions and thank you in advance PhysicsForums Community!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, radio waves are electromagnetic radiation at the low frequency end of the whole range of EM and yes it is not ionizing radiation.
Above the radio range are microwave, infrared, and visible light, also none of which pose any radiation hazard.
UV just above visible light (UVA) also is not a hazard, but the higher frequencies are a risk, (UVB is fairly low risk unless exposure is prolonged, UVC a higher risk).
Above that are X rays and gamma rays which can be seriously hazardous, although X-rays are of course used routinely for medical diagnosis.
While the risk is there, the exposure is almost instantaneous and is not long enough for serious damage to be likely.
Gamma rays you do not want to be anywhere near, (like near a nuclear detonation for example).

While lower frequency EM is non-ionizing, a powerful source nearby can heat things up.
Standing too close to a fire (red/infra red) could burn you, but would not induce the kind of symptoms associated with 'radiation sickness'

There is a special case for microwaves at the frequency used for ovens.
These still are not ionizing, but are very efficient at heating up anything containing water.
Because of that they are well shielded and there is also a safety mechanism which prevent it from operating when the door is open and somebody could put their hands in.
However that risk is still just down to burning/scalding injury..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes jlyu002@ucr.e
rootone said:
Above the radio range are microwave,

just so the OP @jlyu002@ucr.e doesn't have any misunderstandings
Microwave EM is/are still radio wavesDave
 
  • Like
Likes jlyu002@ucr.e
rootone said:
Gamma rays you do not want to be anywhere near, (like near a nuclear detonation for example).

I have a bunch of good gamma emitters at home ... makes the Geiger counter click really well :wink:Dave
 
rootone said:
Gamma rays you do not want to be anywhere near, (like near a nuclear detonation for example).
We are exposed to natural gamma radiation all the time. It's a matter of dose, nuclear explosions lead to a huge dose while the natural background radiation does not.
jlyu002@ucr.e said:
Does Intensity mean there are many radio waves focused at a single point?
You cannot focus waves to regions significantly smaller than their wavelengths (there are a few exceptions but those are not relevant here). Focusing waves to a smaller region increases their intensity, yes.
Unless you are directly next to a powerful radio emitter (like climbing up the antenna), they won't heat anything in dangerous ways.
 
  • Like
Likes jlyu002@ucr.e
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top