Would it be big news? Forgive me for asking but why does UVA/UVB radiation cause skin cancer if it's non-ionizing? Especially from controlled sources like tanning beds. There has to be some pathway of mitochondrial dsyregulation/dysfunction induced by non-ionizing radiation that leads to DNA damage that leads to cancer that we don't fully understand.

We don't understand what causes many types of cancers so I don't get the chemistry-knows-all stance.

UVBA/UVB are near ionizing, UVB is right at the transition point, they have enough energy to cause photochemical reactions that damage DNA but not enough to cause full ionization. The key concept is that it is based on the energy of the photons and that above a certain energy chemical reactions occur which can damage DNA.

Radio waves are way way below this level of energy so for them to cause a non thermal effect would mean some new effect we have never seen before anywhere. No one is ruling it out completely but it is very unlikely with no plausible mechanism or data to back it up while UVA/UVB is well understood with respect to photon energy which is related to the ionizing threshold.

> for them to cause a non thermal effect would mean some new effect we have never seen before anywhere

100% false. Practically everything that goes on in your body involves, one way or another, motion of ions in solution. Varying E-M fields induce electrical currents carried by such ions. Where and how matters.

It is always a grave mistake to confuse your entire lack of knowledge of a topic with certainty about it.

There is absolutely no proof that cellphone levels of power induce ion motion as you have described, I can find some theoretical work at much higher power levels that proposes it as a mechanism but is not definitive.

You need to do better than saying someone is wrong before proclaiming radical new information.

Here is what I found: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69561-3

Either there is evidence, or there isn't. With entire absence if evidence, your protestations of impossibility are exposed as threadbare wishful thinking.

Your going to need something better than that: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/28557/are-the-m...

Your link is one person identifying as sceptic and who just circles around to the "non-ionizing can't harm" claim, again. The other attacks the publishing journal. Where were you going with this?

None of the commenters seem to bother to discover that the science review in question looks at DNA-damage and oxidative-stress mediated through other pathways than direct ionization. As I said: its more about complex biology, than simple physics/chemistry. Its about the sum of parts, not the reductionism that plagues the field of RF and health.

Obviously if you have read their criticism its gets much further than "non-ionizing can't harm", its a criticism of the methods use to analyze data from other studies in cherry picking fashion, they did no actual testing themselves and could easily have statistical issues with the positive outcomes.

Again there is no conclusive proof that RF exposure causes adverse non-thermal effects at cell phone power levels or even much higher power levels let alone being able to explain a mechanism that would cause those non-reproducible effects.

If you have better information please post it, one paper from a questionable journal using questionable methods is not enough.

Hint: its much more about biology than just chemistry.

This is a spammy ad site. Please flag.

The reason for posting that link was b/c it contains a short perspective on the study in question. A TLDR; of sorts. But here's the study itself on the main authors ResearchGate page: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279863242_Oxidative...