muppetry said: As for whether wireless signals are harmful in some other way - it has been extensively investigated. The only significant interaction of GHz RF with organic material is direct excitation of rotational modes in polarized molecules - a mechanism of direct heating. Since we know the radiation characteristics of the antennas involved, the radiated output power, and the absorbance characteristics of relevant molecules, it is relatively trivial to bound the heating effect in nearby organic matter.
What about interference with cellular communication or impact on gene expression? If you're not looking at the right stuff, it's pretty hard to say it isn't having an impact. Hopefully it isn't having a substantial negative impact. But the kind of impact this article addresses (and the studies I've ever seen) aren't taking into account the advances in our scientific understanding from the last decade or two.
Now you sound like you have descended into pseudo-science so it's difficult to address your question in any meaningful way. Are you suggesting that the established understanding of the interaction of RF with matter is incorrect? It's pretty basic physics. And which advances in our scientific understanding are you referring to? You don't write like a scientist of any flavor, so are you qualified to assess what has and has not been taken into account?
Not wrong. That said, assuming it's the AN/SPQ-9B, they're looking at about .5c - 1c whole body on that, which is still not enough to cause a problem. The SPY-1 is a little more intense.
…
“even though this writer has a background in practical exposure control."
Radar operator/tech writes detailed article debunking literal tinfoil conspiracies using actual science. Why do I get the feeling that you wrote this article in a matter of minutes? Maybe it’s the feeling that you could throw down some DED-length (circa RoughlyDrafted era) articles on this with PHD-depth?
Exposure control on a 688. Ionizing radiation and RF.
There are countless examples of people claiming science says some indisputable fact and then later science discovers it was wrong. This is as much a part of science as are the correct things it discovers. People so quickly forget this because they’re so desperate to believe in science, and completely forget ‘science’ is not fact but humanity’s attempt to study fact and therefore prone to continuous and unavoidable errors (some we may never discover).
I have no idea whether wireless frequencies are unhealthy, but I do know the more we change our environment the more likely it will be unhealthy to us. Structured radio waves designed to carry human information are not natural and we should at least be cautious and not make claims about the science behind it as if that means anything concrete.
Actually it is absolute science. It comes directly from Albert Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect for which he won the Nobel Prize in Physics. The visible light coming off a wax candle has a much higher chance of giving you cancer than the radio waves transmitted by a cell phone. Simply because the visible light photon is about 10,000 times as energetic as a radio wave photon. Have you ever heard of anyone worried about getting cancer from candles?
Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.
Thanks for the article, guys. I know I was one of the ones to mention the topic a while back. This isn’t at all my field, so having trustable, informed statements from people in the field is a must. It’s nice to see forum members who know their stuff, too. As to the WHO specifically, I have a link saved from a while back that I’ve not investigated because… well, it’s just one more thing you have to dig all the way into in order to get an actual idea out of it. Apparently a consortium of WHO scientists has expressed specific concerns about 5G regarding its effects after the buildout of a network which uses it. Whether they have the credentials they claim is one story, and whether their specific fears are reproducible is another. And there’s another which claims to show mammalian reproductive damage (as an example of exposure: 1 mW/cm2 for 2 h/day at 2.45 GHz for 120, 150 and 200 days). This one isn’t just a single study, but the methodology may well be faulty, among other things. Thanks again for the article and preemptively for any replies to these links. If nothing else, refutations will serve as a rebuttal of “faraday cage hat” conspiracies. What’s tinfoil supposed to stop, anyway?
You don't need to worry about it because you can't do anything about it.
See, this attitude scares me even more than any of the claims about cell phone and 5G radio waves. It doesn’t matter if either the skeptics or the stoics are right if this is the kind of thinking that pervades.
I was once told an old sea story how some folks used to warm themselves by being near the beam path of a DDG radar...
Not wrong. That said, assuming it's the AN/SPQ-9B, they're looking at about .5c - 1c whole body on that, which is still not enough to cause a problem. The SPY-1 is a little more intense.
I always take sea stories with a grain of salt. Sea salt.
I spent several years working in close proximity to radar beams from surface search, 3D air search, and fire control radars. These systems all have very high peak power, but due to the very short pulse width, spatial and elevation scanning, highly collimated and narrow nature of fire control radars, and power losses over distance the average power that those on the deck of a ship or land based radar are exposed to in the beam paths is quite low. All of these radars are non ionizing in nature. If there was an exposure concern from radar emissions then exposed personal would certainly be fitted with dosimeters in similar fashion as those who work in reactor and weapons compartments. I have done some google level inquiries into possible long term health concerns and most of the studies that I’ve found point to the radar signal generation electronics (high power vacuum tubes) in older radar systems leaking (ionizing) x-rays as being the most likely culprit for downstream health issues, not the transmitted, beamformed signals from the antennas.
No matter how many times we repeat the mantra that “correlation does not imply causation,” it never quite sinks in.
Mike Wuerthele said: There isn't any. The study you're referring to has never been reproduced.
I wasn't referring to a study... but that's kind of what I'm saying... the study has yet to be done (to be reproduced). The old studies are looking at things in terms of direct cellular damage, or old views of how DNA worked.
muppetry said: Now you sound like you have descended into pseudo-science so it's difficult to address your question in any meaningful way. Are you suggesting that the established understanding of the interaction of RF with matter is incorrect? It's pretty basic physics. And which advances in our scientific understanding are you referring to? You don't write like a scientist of any flavor, so are you qualified to assess what has and has not been taken into account?
Not pseudo-science, modern science... epigenetics. Not incorrect, but incomplete. That DNA has far more than one function (i.e.: you don't have to damage the DNA to impact what proteins are produced).
I'm not a biologist, though my original degree was in electronic engineering. I've also worked with RF in doing compliance work with CRTs and such years ago, as well as holding an amateur radio license. The concepts aren't completely foreign. So, I'm probably not as qualified as some, but I also follow enough science (and I think understand it well enough) to make some relevant connections.
One's sources are also important. Back in grad-school, the real scientists in some of my science related classes laughed at me for suggesting the idea of junk DNA was way overblown. Well, what are we up to now... like high-80s% functional in what was thought to be junk? I didn't know that because I'm a brilliant geneticist, but because I was following the work of people who were following the brilliant geneticists, while my classmates were decades behind (even though they worked in the field).
Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.
Thanks for the article, guys. I know I was one of the ones to mention the topic a while back. This isn’t at all my field, so having trustable, informed statements from people in the field is a must. It’s nice to see forum members who know their stuff, too. As to the WHO specifically, I have a link saved from a while back that I’ve not investigated because… well, it’s just one more thing you have to dig all the way into in order to get an actual idea out of it. Apparently a consortium of WHO scientists has expressed specific concerns about 5G regarding its effects after the buildout of a network which uses it. Whether they have the credentials they claim is one story, and whether their specific fears are reproducible is another. And there’s another which claims to show mammalian reproductive damage (as an example of exposure: 1 mW/cm2 for 2 h/day at 2.45 GHz for 120, 150 and 200 days). This one isn’t just a single study, but the methodology may well be faulty, among other things. Thanks again for the article and preemptively for any replies to these links. If nothing else, refutations will serve as a rebuttal of “faraday cage hat” conspiracies. What’s tinfoil supposed to stop, anyway?
You don't need to worry about it because you can't do anything about it.
See, this attitude scares me even more than any of the claims about cell phone and 5G radio waves. It doesn’t matter if either the skeptics or the stoics are right if this is the kind of thinking that pervades.
While I've got a lot going on, the first few sources I checked in the "specific concerns" and "mammalian reproductive damage" study were non-reproducible, or had no controls against other exposures other than RF. It's a busy few weeks, but I'll put it on my to-do list.
muppetry said: Now you sound like you have descended into pseudo-science so it's difficult to address your question in any meaningful way. Are you suggesting that the established understanding of the interaction of RF with matter is incorrect? It's pretty basic physics. And which advances in our scientific understanding are you referring to? You don't write like a scientist of any flavor, so are you qualified to assess what has and has not been taken into account?
Not pseudo-science, modern science... epigenetics. Not incorrect, but incomplete. That DNA has far more than one function (i.e.: you don't have to damage the DNA to impact what proteins are produced).
OK - can you cite a peer-reviewed source for the assertion that low-power GHz RF affects gene activation?
Folks we do not need physics 101 class, anyone who thinks RF waves are going to hurt then, you better build yourself a faraday cage. Even if humans did not create RF devices, everyday you are bombarded with RF waves. The earth is covered in RF so you can not escape it. RF and magnetic waves are all over the place, where do think static come from on the radio. Face it everyday your hit with frequencies from DC to light and beyond, if your concern your better get in your tin suit.
I'm so tired of people who fail to understand this trying to tell everyone their electronics are going to kill us.
muppetry said: OK - can you cite a peer-reviewed source for the assertion that low-power GHz RF affects gene activation?
Nope... but can you? My point being, has it even been studied to any degree yet? I'm guessing not.
I'd love to know it isn't harmful, as then I wouldn't be concerned with finding alternatives to decrease the time the phone is against my head, or to embrace Apple's AirPods, etc.
My objection here, is the positive assertion that it is safe and not to worry... based on several decades-old science (that we now know is incomplete, or even in error in regards to how DNA functions).
Folks we do not need physics 101 class, anyone who thinks RF waves are going to hurt then, you better build yourself a faraday cage. Even if humans did not create RF devices, everyday you are bombarded with RF waves. The earth is covered in RF so you can not escape it. ...
Yes, but at much lower levels than if you hold a cell phone on your ear. And, if it is hurting us, then wouldn't reducing it be better (even if we can't realistically eliminate it)? Due to idiots breaking the law here locally, I sometimes get exposed to 2nd hand smoke. But, then should I just start smoking, because I'm being exposed to it anyway? That doesn't make any sense. What is in question here, is precisely whether it does hurt us or not. We don't know yet. The right studies haven't been done.
... RF lacks the energy that ionizing radiation has to break chemical bonds, ionize atoms, and damage DNA.
This isn't what most people who are warning about it, are concerned with. You don't have to break chemical bonds or damage DNA to have an impact.
Good point.
The problem with this article is that it only looks at 2 ways that RF interacts with our bodies, ionisation and heating. There are other mechanisms for emf to interact with our bodies, and new studies are being done all the time.
e.g.
Rats exposed to 2.45GHz of non-ionizing radiation exhibit behavioral changes https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29153770
muppetry said: OK - can you cite a peer-reviewed source for the assertion that low-power GHz RF affects gene activation?
Nope... but can you? My point being, has it even been studied to any degree yet? I'm guessing not.
I'd love to know it isn't harmful, as then I wouldn't be concerned with finding alternatives to decrease the time the phone is against my head, or to embrace Apple's AirPods, etc.
My objection here, is the positive assertion that it is safe and not to worry... based on several decades-old science (that we now know is incomplete, or even in error in regards to how DNA functions).
Folks we do not need physics 101 class, anyone who thinks RF waves are going to hurt then, you better build yourself a faraday cage. Even if humans did not create RF devices, everyday you are bombarded with RF waves. The earth is covered in RF so you can not escape it. ...
Yes, but at much lower levels than if you hold a cell phone on your ear. And, if it is hurting us, then wouldn't reducing it be better (even if we can't realistically eliminate it)? Due to idiots breaking the law here locally, I sometimes get exposed to 2nd hand smoke. But, then should I just start smoking, because I'm being exposed to it anyway? That doesn't make any sense. What is in question here, is precisely whether it does hurt us or not. We don't know yet. The right studies haven't been done.
Yeah, but here's the thing -- it isn't hurting us. In these decades of observations, if not outright studies, there are no greater prevalences of mutations or cancers attributable to RF.
I understand where you're coming from, and what you're talking about, and addressed it in discussing ALARA -- but the observational data doesn't bear out your conclusions. For example, in the case of ionizing radiation, we knew that there was damage well before we knew the exact mechanism of that damage.
There just isn't that observed damage from RF.
If you don't want to hold the phone to your head to maximize distance from the transmitted in the phone, then don't hold it to your head. I've got no problem with you doing what you want either way.
Good question. That's probably something a biologist would have to figure out, but they would be looking at how gene expression and cellular function varies under the influence of the environment, in this case RF, and how cellular communication might be impacted (i.e.: how cells function in bigger systems in regard to the others).
Mike Wuerthele said: Yeah, but here's the thing -- it isn't hurting us. In these decades of observations, if not outright studies, there are no greater prevalences of mutations or cancers attributable to RF. ... There just isn't that observed damage from RF.
Well, not that we know of. There have been a lot of various increase/decreases in health issues, and we're just starting to figure some of them out. For example, we're starting to learn that the bad science around lowering fats in diets (which was based on bad research) is a likely factor in the increase in various cognitive diseases. I'm just saying, I don't think we've studied it enough to really know.
And, again, mutations or cancers might not be what we're looking for. You don't need to mutate the DNA to change the proteins it produces. Most of what I've been able to find (nongenotoxicity related) has been limited to a few studies with mixed results. I think it's too new to have a lot of data yet. We're just figuring out that it's a thing, let alone having developed good methods to study it. (This is from 2013 but gets into it a bit... https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6492114 )
As I mentioned above, it was only about a decade ago that most biologists thought the majority of our genome was what they called 'junk DNA.' We now know that actually most of the genome is functional and in some way, regulates gene expression. We're also starting to discover how much the environment impacts this, as well.
There are countless examples of people claiming science says some indisputable fact and then later science discovers it was wrong. This is as much a part of science as are the correct things it discovers. People so quickly forget this because they’re so desperate to believe in science, and completely forget ‘science’ is not fact but humanity’s attempt to study fact and therefore prone to continuous and unavoidable errors (some we may never discover).
I have no idea whether wireless frequencies are unhealthy, but I do know the more we change our environment the more likely it will be unhealthy to us. Structured radio waves designed to carry human information are not natural and we should at least be cautious and not make claims about the science behind it as if that means anything concrete.
Actually it is absolute science. It comes directly from Albert Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect for which he won the Nobel Prize in Physics. The visible light coming off a wax candle has a much higher chance of giving you cancer than the radio waves transmitted by a cell phone. Simply because the visible light photon is about 10,000 times as energetic as a radio wave photon. Have you ever heard of anyone worried about getting cancer from candles?
No, but one can gets skin cancer from the too much sunshine,which is basically the same radiation as the candle light.
Nevertheless I am not worried. Radiation from wireless networks is very limited in power: 2 Watt for a mobile phone, 0.1 Watt for wireless router, 80 Watt for a 2G/3G/4G base station. A microwave emits the same radiation as a mobile phone and is about 1000W. Luckily it is shielded, but a leaking microwave might be a much bigger threat to our health.
Mobile networks were first launched in 1990 in the Scandinavia countries. If there was a real danger, we should see this already in the cancer statistics in these countries, even if there is a long incubation period.
I think this article misunderstands science, which is a way of investigating the world, rather than a producer of facts. Science tells us that wireless signals won't likely harm us from ionizing radiation. However, that's not the same thing as wireless signals being harmless. Science can only tell us about things that we've investigated. That's why it's so interesting — because we're always learning new things. That said, you have to pick what you're going to worry about, and wireless signals is pretty low on my list.
Yours is a typical argument made by non-scientists. "We need to worry about it because -- who knows?" It's pure scare-mongering of the sort that the anti-vaxxers use. Even if you subscribe to the idea that there may be some undiscovered X-factor out there that will cause a yet-unknown condition, you can always turn to the epidemiological studies. There is no measurable difference in the health between those who live closer to RF fields and those who live far away. The world is filled with actual dangers that are actual health and safety risks. But RF is not among them. Why not instead spend your energy working on real issues that have demonstrable cause and effect? You're trying to stomp imaginary ants while you're surrounded by elephants.
Mobile networks were first launched in 1990 in the Scandinavia countries. If there was a real danger, we should see this already in the cancer statistics in these countries, even if there is a long incubation period.
Or, closer to Silicon Valley, seeing the numbers of dead people (oh all right, even just cancer clusters) around the likes of Sutro Tower in SF, hosting multiple kilowatts of transmission. Further, AM radio transmitters were much more powerful at one time.
There is no overwhelming evidence for or against and it is common knowledge and clear as day that on the effects of RF exposure the science is still out.
It is important for a discussion such as this here, to have good information and not pompous statements. To that effect please peruse following links to a reputable publication suitable to this discussion:
Just remember: How long had cement been widely used before it was found that cement dust causes cancer? How long had asbestos been used before it was irrefutable that it causes cancer? How long did it take WHO to classify cold cuts as a class one carcinogen?
And many more dependant on technology, understanding and circumstance
Comments
Now you sound like you have descended into pseudo-science so it's difficult to address your question in any meaningful way. Are you suggesting that the established understanding of the interaction of RF with matter is incorrect? It's pretty basic physics. And which advances in our scientific understanding are you referring to? You don't write like a scientist of any flavor, so are you qualified to assess what has and has not been taken into account?
See, this attitude scares me even more than any of the claims about cell phone and 5G radio waves.
I spent several years working in close proximity to radar beams from surface search, 3D air search, and fire control radars. These systems all have very high peak power, but due to the very short pulse width, spatial and elevation scanning, highly collimated and narrow nature of fire control radars, and power losses over distance the average power that those on the deck of a ship or land based radar are exposed to in the beam paths is quite low. All of these radars are non ionizing in nature. If there was an exposure concern from radar emissions then exposed personal would certainly be fitted with dosimeters in similar fashion as those who work in reactor and weapons compartments. I have done some google level inquiries into possible long term health concerns and most of the studies that I’ve found point to the radar signal generation electronics (high power vacuum tubes) in older radar systems leaking (ionizing) x-rays as being the most likely culprit for downstream health issues, not the transmitted, beamformed signals from the antennas.
No matter how many times we repeat the mantra that “correlation does not imply causation,” it never quite sinks in.
Not pseudo-science, modern science... epigenetics.
Not incorrect, but incomplete.
That DNA has far more than one function (i.e.: you don't have to damage the DNA to impact what proteins are produced).
I'm not a biologist, though my original degree was in electronic engineering. I've also worked with RF in doing compliance work with CRTs and such years ago, as well as holding an amateur radio license. The concepts aren't completely foreign. So, I'm probably not as qualified as some, but I also follow enough science (and I think understand it well enough) to make some relevant connections.
One's sources are also important. Back in grad-school, the real scientists in some of my science related classes laughed at me for suggesting the idea of junk DNA was way overblown. Well, what are we up to now... like high-80s% functional in what was thought to be junk? I didn't know that because I'm a brilliant geneticist, but because I was following the work of people who were following the brilliant geneticists, while my classmates were decades behind (even though they worked in the field).
OK - can you cite a peer-reviewed source for the assertion that low-power GHz RF affects gene activation?
I'm so tired of people who fail to understand this trying to tell everyone their electronics are going to kill us.
My point being, has it even been studied to any degree yet? I'm guessing not.
I'd love to know it isn't harmful, as then I wouldn't be concerned with finding alternatives to decrease the time the phone is against my head, or to embrace Apple's AirPods, etc.
My objection here, is the positive assertion that it is safe and not to worry... based on several decades-old science (that we now know is incomplete, or even in error in regards to how DNA functions).
Yes, but at much lower levels than if you hold a cell phone on your ear.
And, if it is hurting us, then wouldn't reducing it be better (even if we can't realistically eliminate it)?
Due to idiots breaking the law here locally, I sometimes get exposed to 2nd hand smoke. But, then should I just start smoking, because I'm being exposed to it anyway? That doesn't make any sense.
What is in question here, is precisely whether it does hurt us or not. We don't know yet. The right studies haven't been done.
The problem with this article is that it only looks at 2 ways that RF interacts with our bodies, ionisation and heating. There are other mechanisms for emf to interact with our bodies, and new studies are being done all the time.
e.g.
Rats exposed to 2.45GHz of non-ionizing radiation exhibit behavioral changes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29153770
Effects of mobile phone radiation (900 MHz radiofrequency) on structure and functions of rat brain.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24861496
2.45 GHz Microwave Radiation Impairs Learning and Spatial Memory
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26396154
Effects on hormones of pregnant rats
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26578367
(source: http://truthallergy.com/we-are-being-zapped/)
And, again, mutations or cancers might not be what we're looking for. You don't need to mutate the DNA to change the proteins it produces. Most of what I've been able to find (nongenotoxicity related) has been limited to a few studies with mixed results. I think it's too new to have a lot of data yet. We're just figuring out that it's a thing, let alone having developed good methods to study it. (This is from 2013 but gets into it a bit... https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6492114 )
As I mentioned above, it was only about a decade ago that most biologists thought the majority of our genome was what they called 'junk DNA.' We now know that actually most of the genome is functional and in some way, regulates gene expression. We're also starting to discover how much the environment impacts this, as well.
hosting multiple kilowatts of transmission. Further, AM radio transmitters were much more powerful at one time.
A great topic for sure!
There is no overwhelming evidence for or against and it is common knowledge and clear as day that on the effects of RF exposure the science is still out.
It is important for a discussion such as this here, to have good information and not pompous statements. To that effect please peruse following links to a reputable publication suitable to this discussion:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/2091065-relax-your-phone-probably-isnt-going-to-give-you-cancer/amp/
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/dn20530-cellphones-are-possibly-carcinogenic/amp/
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/dn25694-wireless-devices-a-health-threat-during-pregnancy/amp/
You would do well to err on the side of caution.
Just remember:
How long had cement been widely used before it was found that cement dust causes cancer?
How long had asbestos been used before it was irrefutable that it causes cancer?
How long did it take WHO to classify cold cuts as a class one carcinogen?
And many more dependant on technology, understanding and circumstance
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/02/21/cellphone-radiation-linked-to-tumors.aspx
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/01/06/cell-phone-use-brain-cancer-risk.aspx
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9146186/Mobile-phones-could-damage-unborn-babies-researchers-claim.html
https://www.cnet.com/news/wi-fi-is-killing-trees-study-finds/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/wifi-internet-family-dangerous-health/
https://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/brain-cancer-fears-over-heavy-mobile-phone-use/2008/03/31/1206850768836.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7199659.stm