标题： 对威廉·布鲁诺博士所著《光子能量能告诉我们关于手机安全的什么》的评估 显示英文标题

标题： An Assessment of "What does photon energy tell us about cellphone safety" by Dr. William Bruno

摘要： 布鲁诺博士断言一个众所周知的事实，即手机在经典领域内辐射微波。 他说，这意味着光子能量与评估安全性无关。 他引用光学镊子作为电磁辐射生物相关非热效应的例子，布鲁诺得出结论，认为所有其他关于微波非热效应的报告很可能都是有效的。 他寻求基于手机能量密度小于kBT的安全阈值。 这一建议及相关想法产生的阈值比目前的值低许多数量级。 虽然布鲁诺正确地指出手机微波辐射通常处于经典领域，但他使用了奇特的估计（每立方波长的光子数），这使情况被夸大了超过20个数量级。 他误解了光学镊子的工作原理，并忽视了它们显著的热效应。 他轻信了缺乏充分支持的非热效应声明。 他错误地认为kBT是材料中的平均热能（每立方波长或每细胞）。 实际上并非如此。 它是材料中每个分子每个自由度的平均能量的两倍。 热能密度是(1/2)kBT X（分子的平均自由度数）X（阿伏伽德罗常数）。 （阿伏伽德罗常数是6 X 1026个分子/摩尔。） 因此，布鲁诺提出的安全阈值低了超过1025倍。 使用正确的平均热能值会使这些阈值接近当前的标准。 在他的分析中，他忽略了活体组织的折射率，n\cong 9，或者微波区域中的吸收长度，{\alpha } \cong 1 cm-1。 显示英文摘要

摘要： Dr. William Bruno asserts the well-known fact that cell phones radiate microwaves in the classical regime. This, he says, means that the photon energy is not relevant to assessing safety. Citing optical tweezers as an example of biologically relevant non-thermal effects of electromagnetic radiation, Bruno concludes that all other reports of non-thermal effects from microwaves are likely valid. He seeks safety thresholds based upon requiring that cell phone energy density be less than kBT. This proposal and related ideas produce thresholds many orders of magnitude below present values. While Dr. Bruno is correct that cell phone microwave radiation is generally in the classical regime, he uses peculiar estimates (number of photons per cubic wavelength) that overstate the circumstance by more than 20 factors of ten. He misunderstands the operation of optical tweezers and ignores their significant thermal effects. He credulously accepts poorly supported claims of non-thermal effects. He mistakenly believes that kBT is the average thermal energy (per cubic wavelength or per cell) in materials. It is not. It is twice the average energy per molecule per degree of freedom in the material. The thermal energy density is (1/2)kBT X (average number of degrees of freedom of the molecules) X (Avogadro's number). (Avogadro's number is 6 X 1026 molecules/mole.) Thus, Bruno's proposed safety thresholds are more than 1025 too low. Using the correct value for the average thermal energy would place the thresholds close to today's standards. Throughout his analysis he neglects the index of refraction of living tissue, n \cong 9, or the absorption length, {\alpha} \cong 1 cm-1, in the microwave region.