Radiation Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist in the history of mankind, received the Nobel Prize not for his work on the theory of relativity, but for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. Why was it considered so important that Einstein himself called it his most revolutionary contribution to Mirabilis ? Because it was the first independent confirmation of the photon concept that Planck had introduced a few years earlier. The concept of the photon was fundamentally different from what was understood up to that point about light itself, which was known as an electromagnetic wave of frequency ¸ and wavelength ¸ that traveled with speed c, because Light was considered to be in quantized packets of energy h, h being a new constant introduced by Planck. Unlike classical waves, which can carry any (continuous) amount of energy, light waves can only carry integer multiples of a fundamental discrete unit of energy.
The photoelectric effect is the phenomenon by which electrons are emitted when light strikes a metal (or other surface). This effect was studied long before Einstein’s work, and experiments had shown that photoelectrons were emitted only when the frequency of the incident light exceeded a threshold, regardless of intensity. However, the number of photoelectrons produced above the threshold was actually proportional to the intensity. These observations could not be explained using the classical wave patterns of light. If we assume that there is a threshold energy (now called a work function) that must be exceeded before electrons can be emitted, we can always achieve this requirement for classical waves by increasing the intensity accordingly. However, the experiments gave the opposite result.
This is where Einstein and the photon come into the picture. If we keep in mind the idea that the energy per photon is quantified in units of frequency, and that a photon of sufficient energy is required to generate a photoelectron, it is easy to see that there is a threshold frequency for the effect. it occurs. Furthermore, the number of photoelectrons is proportional to the number of photons or their total energy in the electromagnetic field. Einstein was therefore able to explain all observations of the photoelectric effect with the reasonable assumption that the transition accompanied by the emission of an electron is mediated by a photon of the appropriate energy. This makes sense because the transition occurs from one energy level where the electrons are bound to another where the electrons are free; There are no other levels that can be used as a “stepping stone”, even if there are intermediate levels. This explanation is so beautiful and easy to understand that it is now found in high school textbooks. But we must not forget how revolutionary it was when it was first proposed 100 years ago, and how far it deviates from generally accepted ideas about light. It is no surprise that only a genius like Einstein could make this leap.
This is currently our accepted understanding of all bond-splitting processes: such processes involve a transition by a single photon with sufficient frequency (or energy), but a million photons below a threshold frequency cannot cause the transition. Are. Or not even a billion. Think of it this way: even if you have one cannon that can fire a shell at a distance of 1 km, you cannot hit a target 10 km away with 10 cannons. The range of the guns just doesn’t match. Similarly, if you can jump 10 feet, you can also jump a river 10 feet wide. But you cannot help 9 other people of similar ability to cross a 100 feet wide river.
This is where the issue of cell phone radiation and its suspected link to cancer comes into play. Cancer is caused by mutations in the cell division mechanism (the process by which bonds break), leading to uncontrolled proliferation of cells. X-rays cause such mutations, which is why X-ray technicians have to wear lead aprons. Ultraviolet rays from the Sun, which are not blocked by the ozone layer, can cause skin cancer in people whose pigmentation is not strong enough to block UV rays. Therefore, people with fair skin should use UV-blocking cream before spending time in the sun. But visible light cannot cause such mutations. It is below the limit. And this is true for any low-frequency electromagnetic waves, such as infrared, microwave, radio waves, and the common radio waves used for cell phones (900 MHz). This means that the cell phone’s photon (I use the word “photon” to symbolize quantized electromagnetic field) does not have enough energy to cause a mutation in the DNA at that point. Regardless of their power, the number of photons increases, but they are all below the threshold to cause cancer. They do not have enough energy to break bonds and cause mutations. If you live near a cell tower, the power levels will be higher than if you were just using your cell phone, but rest assured that all photons are harmless.
And yes, if you emit enough photons at frequencies below threshold, you can heat matter. h. By increasing their vibrational energy. This is why you feel hot when you go out in the sun. Visible and infrared photons don’t cause cancer, but they can make you hot. But this is because the density of energy falling from the Sun to Earth (so-called “solar energy”) is typically 1000 W/m², while at the base of a cell phone tower its density is tens of thousands of times less, about 0.1 W. /m². No wonder you don’t feel hot when you stand next to a cell phone tower. This is exactly how a microwave oven works: It heats the food inside by emitting microwave photons. The typical frequency of these photons is 2.45 GHz, which is 2.5 times the frequency of a cell phone. And the oven requires about 700 W of power to run. A small part of this electricity leaks out, but the photons are harmless, so no one needs to worry. Otherwise microwave ovens would not be used so frequently today.
Although mobile phone radiation is considered less harmful, organizations such as WHO want to proceed with caution and base their recommendations on “epidemiological studies” comparing cancer incidence and other health indicators between mobile phone users and non-users. Let’s based it. Because there are cowards who take advantage of the fear of gullible and ill-informed people and claim to have scientifically documented evidence of such harmful effects. In the 80s and 90s, similar unscientific claims were made about the dangers posed by power lines. Power lines operate at a very low frequency of 50 Hz (a million times lower than mobile phone frequencies), but with very high power density. The noise died down when all epidemiological studies failed to show any link between power lines and general health, including cancer. This was not surprising, as there is no scientific basis for the existence of such a relationship. But scientists and doctors have to waste their precious time on such studies, because the common man will not be satisfied until these studies are completed.
Similar miscreants told us that radiation from computer monitors was a health hazard, and they made a lot of money selling “radiation filters” that block that radiation. But most of us can sit in front of a computer all day and it has no health consequences (except for the occasional back ache, which is caused by poor posture, not radiation!). Will present real evidence that someone has a brain tumor. “Radiation from cell phones causes cancer because we are “talking on our cell phones all the time.” This is a famous logical fallacy called “post hoc ergoprothoc”: Just because A followed B Did not mean that A caused B. This is not the text of the argument, but to establish a cause-effect relationship, you must at least show that the absence of B implies the absence of A. epidemiological studies ok That’s what they do. Epidemiological studies test whether there is a statistically significant association between cell phone use and cancer incidence that is convincing enough to establish a cause-and-effect relationship (just one or two No, by studying a large number of people. And believe me, not all of us (mobile phone users) unknowingly. Participating in large epidemiological studies.
The total number of mobile phone users in the world is now 80%, which is 1,000 times more than 20 years ago. Everyone from poor farmers in African villages to rich businessmen in Europe uses mobile phones. Yet, during this time, there has been no significant increase in the incidence of cancers (such as brain tumors) associated with mobile phones. Surely the billions of mobile phone users around the world are now suffering some kind of adverse effect from their mobile phones? The reason we should really be concerned is that the modern, industrialized world is full of carcinogens, from pesticides in the food we eat to industrial pollutants in our air and water, but the radiation from cell phones is one of them.
Read Also:
- Effects of Mobile Radiations And Its Prevention
- Role Of Ayurveda In The Management Of Mobile Phone Radiation Exposure
- Mobile Phone Radiations and Its Impact on Birds, Animals and Human Beings
- Effect Of Mobile Phone Radiation On Human Brain
- Mobile Tower Radiation and Its Impact on Human Body in Whole World
Leave a Reply