by dedeleco » 26/10/10, 02:28
It all depends on varying levels of sensitivity depending on the individual and which serve to set the standards !!
For UV, in general we resist a lot to those of the sun !!
Except hypersensitive, moon children who can only go out at night and who are prohibited from fluorescent lamp with their low UV, too strong nevertheless for these moon children, who risk cancer at the slightest UV (DNA repair system deficient in them) !!
For electromagnetic radiation, too, we don't all have the same sensitivity, with mechanisms not cleared up, which means that the standards refuse to consider that living beings can detect radio waves or weak electromagnetic fields, as does any radio or portable station !!
The standards only consider the heating of the waves, which allows high values as long as one does not cook the living being !!
When we see that all other physical phenomena are used and detected by living beings at the maximum possible level of sensitivity:
sound or touch an inter-atomic distance for the movement of the eardrum
chemical odors a molecule in butterflies or dogs
light, almost the photon.
Alors it is totally illogical to believe that living things are incapable of doing what a radio does, detect electromagnetic fields millions of times weaker than those which cause annoying heating !!
The electric field is used by catfish and detected very weak by sharks !!
Bacteria, birds and even our brain have cells with magnetite Which make it possible to detect the Earth's magnetic field by aligning these bacteria !!
People become allergic or hypersensitive to weak electromagnetic fields!
It is therefore almost certain that standards out of ignorance underestimate the dangers and that it is good to protect oneself much more than what the current standards impose.
In the past, standards have almost always underestimated the danger until it is clearly visible with indisputable short-term deaths.
Pesticides, radioactivity (their discoverers like M Curie, his daughter Iréne and Joliot died from it), asbestos, and many other products, were very underestimated!
So it is certain that the dangers and effects of electromagnetic fields are underestimated !!
The problem is very complex and therefore very controversial, but believing in the validity of current standards for laptops and fluorescent lamps is the same as believing asbestos in the flocking of buildings without danger in the years 1900 to 1970 !!
So do not use your laptop far from the brain, even when not in use, and keep your eyes and head away from fluorescent lamps as much as possible !!
0 x
