Talk:Microwave burn

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Eyes section[edit]

I added a Disputed-section template to the eyes section. The last paragraph mentions cataract caused in rabbits by exposure to 2.45 GHz. That would refute the claim that the required intensities would cause brain death, and also the claim that experiments on rabbits show that the ocular effects are confined to eyelids and conjuctiva. Ssscienccce (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fda.gov/radiation-emittingproducts/resourcesforyouradiationemittingproducts/ucm252762.htm#Microwave_Ovens_and_Health EllenCT (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microwave burn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209212757/http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2002/radarkorea to http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2002/radarkorea

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expand article and change name to RF burn?[edit]

Similar burns are caused by lower frequency radio waves and currents, produced for example by touching an antenna energized by a powerful radio transmitter, with the only difference being that the penetration depth of the current in the body is greater. Microwave burns are a type of radio frequency (RF) burns, which is the WP:COMMONNAME in electronics literature for this type of injury. [1], [2], [3], [4]. A good deal of the information in this article, with some modification, can apply to all RF burns. RF burns are the main hazard of working around high power radio equipment. I would suggest that this article be expanded to cover RF burns generally, and renamed RF burn. Material specific to microwaves can be given in a subsection on microwave burns. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is significant objection, I am going to move this page to RF burn or Radio frequency burn, and expand the content to cover this more inclusive subject. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph[edit]

I'm confused on why ionizing radiation is mentioned in the lead paragraph. It doesn't have any relationship with microwave burns; "in comparison with" isn't sufficient, it doesn't explain why microwave burns are being compared with cell damage caused by ionizing radiation in the first place. In addition that is the only place in the article where ionizing radiation is mentioned. I propose the segment mentioning ionizing radiation is removed 24.68.69.54 (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it has to be mentioned is that because the term “radiation” is used for radio waves (they are “electromagnetic radiation”) many nontechnical readers, who don’t understand the difference between ionizing and nonionizing, are scared microwaves may have the same health hazards as ionizing radiation like x-rays.

The sentence could probably be improved, however--Chetvorno^TALK 20:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved it - I consider my concern to now be resolved, I'm more happy with the lead paragraph now. 24.68.69.54 (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]