哇靠,恭喜你!
如果你有辦法舉證的話
你就有望拿到諾貝爾醫學獎了!
你拿到獎之後別忘了宣揚你最早是在PCDVD發表這個劃世紀的結論的
讓大家都沾點光

另外小弟愚昧而無知地想請教這位大師
如果波長長,功率也低的基地台無線電波會傷害人體
那波長遠短於無線電波,同屬於電磁波的可見光不會呢?
還是兄臺驚人的結論是以後大家要避免曬太陽,最好連電燈都不要用了!!??

一堆實驗室都有研究，會傷害到什麼程度還沒下定論，但是 radio frequency emissions 是會傷害人體卻是不爭的事實。這沒什麼諾貝爾獎的問題。:jolin:

此文的那位仁兄沒有講是否可見光會傷害人類，她只講一點：基地台無線電波會傷害。這才是重點。不懂為何很多網兄拿手機、微波爐等等出來講？

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/

請把它看完,WHO的結論是無法找到可以明確證實電磁波會傷害人體的證據
WHO對EMF的研究從1996年展開,對所有WHO會員國的科學組織開放參與研究

如果你還是覺得像世界衛生組織,加拿大皇家學院之類的組織發表的這個結論
是在幫財團背書,拿了多少好處,那我也沒話說了

或者你有什麼更新的證據,你可以寄到 去

引述自WHO結論

Health effects

RF fields penetrate exposed tissues to depths that depend on the frequency - up to a centimetre at the frequencies used by mobile phones. RF energy is absorbed in the body and produces heat, but the body's normal thermoregulatory processes carry this heat away. All established health effects of RF exposure are clearly related to heating. While RF energy can interact with body tissues at levels too low to cause any significant heating, no study has shown adverse health effects at exposure levels below international guideline limits.

我把WHO的報告提出來了,換兄臺你把你的證據拿出來
哪一個權威組織的報告說電磁波確定對人體有傷害?

哈∼ WHO 的理論被大家攻擊的很慘...
英國 National Radiological Protection Board 的 Chairman 就講說：“I don’t think we can put our hands on our hearts and say mobile phones are safe,”
況且 WHO 另外一篇講微波爐影響的文章，就有講到：Scientists are also investigating the possibility that effects below the threshold level for body heating occur as a result of long-term exposure... The current debate is centred on whether long-term low level exposure can evoke biological responses and influence people's well being... 可是妳給的手機文章完全不提 Long-term Low Level Exposure... 可見作弊心態嚴重。另外，也是出自於 WHO，說：that children are especially vulnerable because of their thinner skulls and developing nervous systems. 要是對人體完全無害，那幹嘛講那句話？更可笑的是，再該篇文章中 WHO 竟然講 Low Level Exposure 是 Biological effects，然後講 Biological effects are measurable responses to a stimulus or to a change in the environment. These changes are not necessarily harmful to your health. For example, listening to music, reading a book, eating an apple or playing tennis will produce a range of biological effects...

現在 WHO 全都一句話帶過：no study has shown adverse health effects。呵呵∼講的真好呀... 加拿大皇家學院組織背書？您該不會沒有看過 Ontario Nuclear Power is Clean 的****吧... 誰在後面背書？然後誰講一堆有的沒的的 Choice 問題，最後結論是 Nuclear is the best choice？

NRPB?
NRPB的報告你看過嗎?
2003年AGNIR(Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation)上呈給NRPB的報告中做出這樣的結論:
‘although there has been a wide range of diverse exposures and biological models investigated, no consistent pattern has emerged from the cellular studies of RF exposure’

另外,ICNIRP(International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection)
在2004/12有關電磁波健康影響的流行病學報告在這裡:
Review of the Epidemiologic Literature on RF and Health. Environmental Perspectives 112 (17): 1741-1754; Dec. 2004.
結論我直接告訴你:
Results of epidemiologic studies to date give
no consistent or convincing evidence of a
causal relation between RF exposure and any
adverse health effect. On the other hand, these
studies have too many deficiencies to rule out
an association.

我是不知道你扯微坡爐出來幹啥
你先查一查MicroWave的Frequency跟RadioWave是不是一樣再說
再說你說的全部都只是"possibility"
WHO跟其他報告都沒有說無線電波"一定","絕對"沒有負面作用
NRPB的結論很謙遜地說:
‘In aggregate the research published since the IEGMP report does not give cause for concern. The weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse health effects from exposures to RF fields below guideline levels, but the published research on RF exposures and health has limitations, and mobile phones have only been in widespread use for a relatively short time. The possibility therefore remains open that there could be health effects from exposure to RF fields below guideline levels; hence continued research is needed.’
他說沒有辦法保證無線電波絕對對人體無害,因此相關研究仍須進行
但是"The weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse health effects from exposures to RF fields below guideline levels"
很明顯目前沒有證據證明無線電波是有害的
閣下之前不是言之鑿鑿說"一堆研究都說有害"嗎?
"有害"跟"無法確定完全無害"之間的差距可是很大的

我繼續等你提出"電磁波確定有害"的報告出來

皇家學院為核能背書很奇怪嗎?
麻省理工學院的跨學科研究也幫核能背書耶
在全球碳排放的問題層出不窮的時候,核能為什麼不是Best Choice?
Scientific American最近才剛有專文討論這個問題
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ar...0000&sc=I100322
你有興趣可以看一看
另外我提醒你,我們的主題是電磁波
核能的事到此為止,或者你另闢主題
你看不起皇家學院,你可以自己到它網站去表達你的意見
http://www.rsc.ca/

Microwave 從 1Ghz 到 300Ghz 都叫 Microwave，而 Microwave 是 Radiowave 的一種... 微波爐使用 2.45Ghz...
原文講的 Wireless 無線基地台使用 2.4Ghz ISM band...
不一樣嗎？為什麼不能扯微波爐進來？
所以我們為何能否認其他使用 radiowave 的科技？
我們這邊就不談軍事雷達之類的高 SAR 值的東西，就談家用的器具就可。所以微波爐也該再被討論其中。Walky-talky、數位電視、WiMax... ... 都該被攤開討論。好，所以核能的事情就討論到這邊吧。

另外，回到原先報告的問題。
NRPB（現在好像不叫 NRPB？）：The radio waves that are directed towards the head of the phone user penetrate into the body tissues for a few cm and tend to be absorbed. In being absorbed, they give up their energy to the body tissues and this adds to the energy being produced by the body’s metabolism.
Up to a point, the body is able to accommodate extra energy being absorbed in its tissues, but beyond this point, temperature rises or thermoregulatory responses can occur.

妳給的 ICNIRP(International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) 報告 Table 9 上面不是有寫 Result： 19/20 participants reported symptoms during the tests; compared with women during sham exposure, relative number of symptoms reported by female subjects during analog exposure was 0.28, digital 900MHz, 0.79; digital 1,800MHz, 0.72; among men, number of symptoms during any RF exposure situation was 0.85 compared with sham exposure。

或許我們對 "有害" 的定義相差很大。我再這邊認為只要引起不舒適身裡反應就該稱為有害而不是等到癌症以後。例如我之前提的，吃不太乾淨的時候引起身體不舒適就是有害，但是可能只是身體調適而已，不是發生什麼病症。WHO 統稱為 Biological Effect 而非 Hazard，果然用其他名詞就可以帶過一切呀。

您說呀∼為何 WHO 說無害後，又講說建議 9 歲小孩以下不要用手機？ :rolleyes:

另外，任何一個研究組織所作的報告內容，不管是否是 RSC，您不該只看最後的評斷。在這上面您應該一個 case 一個 case 進去看發生的症狀。畢竟不管怎樣講，任何一個研究報告結尾都可以以 number not significant enough with population distribution 帶過，進可攻退可守。可是 Case 的細節逃不過眼睛。這種報告結尾誰敢明寫說 "對！手機就是絕對有害。"？記得之前跟一位老教授聊天口非橫沒的講他之前做過這種報告時，就講說不少人跟他警告過不管結果是什麼保守講就好。為什麼保守講呢？有些事情 100% 確定並且發表成論文並且成功 defense 後會出問題的... 例如現在香煙的問題一樣。

況且今天一個重要組織發表手機是否有害時，您知道重點在哪嗎？重點在：是否該開始入手手機相關產品類股... ...

既然有這麼多爭議,肯定不是[不爭的事實].XD!

這種問題不是網路上聲音大或聲援多就能得到真相的, 也許過了多年以後, 發現事實時, 那些說人家無知的人還不是龜在那裡裝沒這回事, 我自己也用手機, 但我絕不敢批評持電波(電磁波...ect.)有害人體論的人如何如何, 因為我不知道, 就是這麼簡單,

至於商家, 碰到這樣的消費者還能怎麼辦? 如樓主自己遇上的情況, 你若費心反洗腦或教育或爭辯, 其他來店的消費者聽到片斷, 因而影響購物行為, 損失的是誰? 我認為無線設備安全與否在購買前就可以收集相關資訊了, 這和產品的好壞完全無關, 用這種理由退貨很可笑, 但如前所說, 商家有輸無贏, 就當他是用品質很差等等其他理由來退, 退貨讓耳根清靜較好!