maestro64 said: The radiation you get hit from standing outside without human generated RF is greater than what you get from your cell phone or WiFi. ... Your smoke example it not a good one, since smoke from tobacco is not naturally occurring in our environment...
It isn't really a one-to-one comparison though. Again, if I'm understanding, you're talking about radiation strengths and absorption and high-energy particles and such. If you take an EMF strength meter and just stand outside, you'll get some amount of signal. If you hold it next to your cell phone or an Apple AirPod, you'll get a WAY higher signal strength, especially from my understanding, the AirPods (like 10x the phone!).
Cell phone signals aren't naturally occurring either. Yes, I may get some exposure to smoke from a wild-fire (like I did last year in northern BC!) or something like that, but adding 2nd hand smoke or actually smoking a cigarette is additional (and more concentrated/direct). I can't get away from all radiation, or even all man-made radiation, but I can control my exposure to devices right in my proximity, especially pressed right up against my body.
Unlike you I ran i EMC lab for many years, and have done measurement with very sophisticated equipment not some simple hand held devise. We had and $10M anechoic chamber I am very familiar with RF waves and what is in the background and what is not. The reason we test in chambers is because the background is so noisy with RF. Also, I have been exposed to RF from DC to 40GH and guess what I am still alive and well. The only issue with RF is if the energy carried on the wave is significant enough to begin heating an object this is frequency dependent and power level. So the 1 watt from your cell phone is no where near the required levels. Now stand in front of a microwave transmission dish and your insides will begin to bake.
As i said your personal genes are more of an issue on whether you will contract something than RF waves, but you missed that part of my comments.
in short, RF lacks the energy that ionizing radiation has to break chemical bonds, ionize atoms, and damage DNA
The following paper:
Neuroscience Letters 412 (2007) “Exposure to cell phone radiation up-regulates apoptosis genes in primary cultures of neurons and astrocytes”, 34–38.
... provides an extensive literature documenting that radio frequency and microwave radiation induced damage can lead to death in single
cell organisms [3], inhibit cell proliferation [9], cause DNA damage [11,32], and alter gene expression in different cell types
including brain cells as measured by gene microarrays [6,14,15].
The paper's own tests conclude that, with respect to cell damage: "Cell phone emissions thus have the potential
to cause dysfunction or death through activation of specific
intracellular cell death signaling pathways" ... i.e. the very damage to DNA that the AppleInsider crackpot 'report' flatly denies.
in short, RF lacks the energy that ionizing radiation has to break chemical bonds, ionize atoms, and damage DNA
The following paper:
Neuroscience Letters 412 (2007) “Exposure to cell phone radiation up-regulates apoptosis genes in primary cultures of neurons and astrocytes”, 34–38.
... provides an extensive literature documenting that radio frequency and microwave radiation induced damage can lead to death in single
cell organisms [3], inhibit cell proliferation [9], cause DNA damage [11,32], and alter gene expression in different cell types
including brain cells as measured by gene microarrays [6,14,15].
The paper's own tests conclude that, with respect to cell damage: "Cell phone emissions thus have the potential
to cause dysfunction or death through activation of specific
intracellular cell death signaling pathways" ... i.e. the very damage to DNA that the AppleInsider crackpot 'report' flatly denies.
In your comment, you're nicely skipping the intense RF flux that it required, more than 10000x the safe limit that the occupational exposure limits are based on, and more than 1,000,000 times the energy that an iPhone X delivers.
You'll note that I included in the article that you probably don't want a Navy radar in your bedroom.
In your comment, you're nicely skipping the intense RF flux that it required, more than 10000x the safe limit that the occupational exposure limits are based on, and more than 1,000,000 times the energy that an iPhone X delivers.
What are you talking about? Have you read the paper? They used a standard cellphone placed next to a petri dish, in both standby and ON modes. See pic:
In your comment, you're nicely skipping the intense RF flux that it required, more than 10000x the safe limit that the occupational exposure limits are based on, and more than 1,000,000 times the energy that an iPhone X delivers.
What are you talking about? Have you read the paper? They used a standard cellphone placed next to a petri dish, in both standby and ON modes. See pic:
I may be confusing it with one of your other sources. I'll take a look -- but as you're aware, single-cell organisms don't have something we do -- skin.
An ionizing radiation dose 1/10000 of threshold that has any biological effect on humans starts to impact single-celled organisms because of that, and other mitigating factors. So, I'm still not impressed as the AI piece had precisely zero to do with single-celled life.
While all the studies have been focused on the physical impact of the electromagnetic radiation, I believe the real skeletons are on the psychological side, where barely any studies have been conducted. I can personally attest from experience that I can form much clearer and coherent thoughts when I am away from electronics and Radio Frequency induced areas. When it comes to the harm from the Sun, the dangers are simply overblown. After all, if you are looking for evidence, we have hundreds of millions of years of safely evolving under the Sun to our current state of becoming Human. Nothing else has this length of a proven safety record. You can even say that Sun is a giver of life of all kinds and types, without which nothing would be existent.
Interesting point.
And, re: sun - I'd say (from the knowledge I've gleaned in the subject matter) that it is more our diets that is setting our systems up for failure, such that all these other things so easily trigger off cancer in one form or another. That, and all the environmental toxins that also help degrade our bodies and trigger off problems (like cancer).
maestro64 said: The only issue with RF is if the energy carried on the wave is significant enough to begin heating an object this is frequency dependent and power level. So the 1 watt from your cell phone is no where near the required levels. Now stand in front of a microwave transmission dish and your insides will begin to bake.
As i said your personal genes are more of an issue on whether you will contract something than RF waves, but you missed that part of my comments.
That's precisely what is in question here.... is heating or direct destruction of DNA the only concern? And, no, it isn't just one's genes. It's one's genes + environment. A gene isn't so directly determinative like that.
That's the problem here. The previous research was looking at damage to the cell or destruction of the DNA, which was seen as the only way to have an impact. We now know that impact has moved up a whole level to 'inputs' to the gene that impact gene expression.
Anyone interested in founding their opinion on hard science instead of swallowing whole the opinions of Mike Wuerthele (or anyone else) might like to browse the 5000 or so scientific studies here: http://justproveit.net/studies. There is one heck of a lot of peer reviewed science out there demonstrating the interference of non-natural electromagnetic radiation with the normal functioning of biological processes and I suggest it is time to inform ourselves and think for ourselves. Industry insiders are going to tell you what they want you to hear.
And there is way, way more that demonstrates the lack of interference. I'm familiar with the source you linked. You couldn't have picked a more agenda-based collection source if you had tried - which I expect you did.
Think for ourselves, indeed.
It's also pretty funny how you think I'm an "industry insider."
Certainly the source I linked has an agenda. It's there in its name: "justproveit.net". It's agenda is to offer evidence, including a large number of scientific studies, that some modern technologies are harmful and should not be in general use. i could equally have provided a huge number of other links to the science which suggests phones and routers are unsafe. To preempt anyone claiming "That's just one study" - or being put off by a long list of links - i chose a single site offering 5000 studies...
You write "There's a lot of bad "science" floating around about radio frequency and electromagnetic field exposure from Wi-Fi routers and the wireless network that your iPhone accesses. AppleInsider delves into the subject, and the actual science behind it." Would you care to cite and properly critique what you are dismissing as "bad science"?
I apologise if I have appeared mistakenly to include you in the category of industry insiders. You did write "AppleInsider delves into the subject", which seems to carry implications...
Anyone interested in founding their opinion on hard science instead of swallowing whole the opinions of Mike Wuerthele (or anyone else) might like to browse the 5000 or so scientific studies here: http://justproveit.net/studies. There is one heck of a lot of peer reviewed science out there demonstrating the interference of non-natural electromagnetic radiation with the normal functioning of biological processes and I suggest it is time to inform ourselves and think for ourselves. Industry insiders are going to tell you what they want you to hear.
And there is way, way more that demonstrates the lack of interference. I'm familiar with the source you linked. You couldn't have picked a more agenda-based collection source if you had tried - which I expect you did.
Think for ourselves, indeed.
It's also pretty funny how you think I'm an "industry insider."
Certainly the source I linked has an agenda. It's there in its name: "justproveit.net". It's agenda is to offer evidence, including a large number of scientific studies, that some modern technologies are harmful and should not be in general use. i could equally have provided a huge number of other links to the science which suggests phones and routers are unsafe. To preempt anyone claiming "That's just one study" - or being put off by a long list of links - i chose a single site offering 5000 studies...
You write "There's a lot of bad "science" floating around about radio frequency and electromagnetic field exposure from Wi-Fi routers and the wireless network that your iPhone accesses. AppleInsider delves into the subject, and the actual science behind it." Would you care to cite and properly critique what you are dismissing as "bad science"?
I apologise if I have appeared mistakenly to include you in the category of industry insiders. You did write "AppleInsider delves into the subject", which seems to carry implications...
There are 5000 studies showing a possible causality at high doses way, way above what has been set as the safe limit, which was then cut down 100x to the legal limit, yes. The site lacks the 10,000+ showing even less causality than the data used to set the legal limits.
So, Justproveit.net? Prove what, given that it lacks the latter 10,000?
Bad science: Bad science is reading a research paper title without context, and saying AHA, THIS PROVES MY AGENDA. Bad science is saying that RF exposure to a single-celled organism is a straight-across compare to mammalian life. Bad science is not assessing risk from the studies, and saying that "Well, gee, 5G or wi-fi is dangerous, because I have a one in a million chance of biological incidence at high doses well beyond what I'll be exposed to based on this study." That utterly fails a logic check, and is the definition of bad science.
Like I said about a page ago, calling wi-fi or 5G an unacceptable risk is ignoring many daily activities with much higher risks, for an assortment of reasons.
Let's go conservatively, and say that you're exposed to the high levels that are considered safe (which, again, the legal limits are 1/10 of that for a occupational exposure worker, and 1/100 of that for the general public). Here's an example of a similar risk at that sustained dose rate across your entire life: being hit by a meteorite and dying: http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/Natural_Disasters/impacts.htm
You are 10x more likely to be killed by lightning. Similarly, averaged across the entire US, you are 15x more likely to be killed by a tornado or hurricane. So, what's your definition of "unsafe" then?
One more time: read the last four paragraphs, and refute them. This has yet to happen through all these links, and Google searches that have been linked here.
Here's a concession for you, which I already said in the article, but I'll say it again: I don't want a Navy surface or air search radar in my room, pointed at my face. I don't want a commercial 5G tower antenna on my desk. I don't want these things, because they will exceed the safe limits, established by research and science.
And, as an aside, you're using the term "industry insider" as a cudgel, indicating some sort of larger scheme or agenda. As I have none, that seems inappropriate.
Anyone interested in founding their opinion on hard science instead of swallowing whole the opinions of Mike Wuerthele (or anyone else) might like to browse the 5000 or so scientific studies here: http://justproveit.net/studies. There is one heck of a lot of peer reviewed science out there demonstrating the interference of non-natural electromagnetic radiation with the normal functioning of biological processes and I suggest it is time to inform ourselves and think for ourselves. Industry insiders are going to tell you what they want you to hear.
And there is way, way more that demonstrates the lack of interference. I'm familiar with the source you linked. You couldn't have picked a more agenda-based collection source if you had tried - which I expect you did.
Think for ourselves, indeed.
It's also pretty funny how you think I'm an "industry insider."
Certainly the source I linked has an agenda. It's there in its name: "justproveit.net". It's agenda is to offer evidence, including a large number of scientific studies, that some modern technologies are harmful and should not be in general use. i could equally have provided a huge number of other links to the science which suggests phones and routers are unsafe. To preempt anyone claiming "That's just one study" - or being put off by a long list of links - i chose a single site offering 5000 studies...
You write "There's a lot of bad "science" floating around about radio frequency and electromagnetic field exposure from Wi-Fi routers and the wireless network that your iPhone accesses. AppleInsider delves into the subject, and the actual science behind it." Would you care to cite and properly critique what you are dismissing as "bad science"?
I apologise if I have appeared mistakenly to include you in the category of industry insiders. You did write "AppleInsider delves into the subject", which seems to carry implications...
There are 5000 studies showing a possible causality at high doses way, way above what has been set as the safe limit, which was then cut down 100x to the legal limit, yes. The site lacks the 10,000+ showing even less causality than the data used to set the legal limits.
So, Justproveit.net? Prove what, given that it lacks the latter 10,000?
Bad science: Bad science is reading a research paper title without context, and saying AHA, THIS PROVES MY AGENDA. Bad science is saying that RF exposure to a single-celled organism is a straight-across compare to mammalian life. Bad science is not assessing risk from the studies, and saying that "Well, gee, 5G or wi-fi is dangerous, because I have a one in a million chance of biological incidence at high doses well beyond what I'll be exposed to based on this study." That utterly fails a logic check, and is the definition of bad science.
Like I said about a page ago, calling wi-fi or 5G an unacceptable risk is ignoring many daily activities with much higher risks, for an assortment of reasons.
Let's go conservatively, and say that you're exposed to the high levels that are considered safe (which, again, the legal limits are 1/10 of that for a occupational exposure worker, and 1/100 of that for the general public). Here's an example of a similar risk at that sustained dose rate across your entire life: being hit by a meteorite and dying: http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/Natural_Disasters/impacts.htm
You are 10x more likely to be killed by lightning. Similarly, averaged across the entire US, you are 15x more likely to be killed by a tornado or hurricane. So, what's your definition of "unsafe" then?
One more time: read the last four paragraphs, and refute them. This has yet to happen through all these links, and Google searches that have been linked here.
Here's a concession for you, which I already said in the article, but I'll say it again: I don't want a Navy surface or air search radar in my room, pointed at my face. I don't want a commercial 5G tower antenna on my desk. I don't want these things, because they will exceed the safe limits, established by research and science.
And, as an aside, you're using the term "industry insider" as a cudgel, indicating some sort of larger scheme or agenda. As I have none, that seems inappropriate.
Perhaps you could extend your definition of bad science to include dismissing the studies listed on an entire website without bothering to look at them, because the website doesn't fit your agenda.
I agree that there are too many people who grab onto a headline or the title of a paper and attempt to use it to support their agenda without bothering properly to read or understand the content.
But that doesn't make the paper in question "bad science". It is the reader, not the science, at fault. To use the term "bad science" is to give the impression that the science is flawed, which is slanderous when not the science itself, but its misappropriation, is the issue.
I don't doubt, however, that there is bad science out there, in abundance. And talking of agendas:
This 2007 systematic review examined whether the source of funding of studies of the effects of low-level radiofrequency radiation is associated with the results of studies and found industry funded studies were substantially less likely to report effects.
“We examined the methodologic quality and results of experimental studies investigating the effects of the type of radiofrequency radiation emitted by handheld cellular telephones. We hypothesized that studies would be less likely to show an effect of the exposure if funded by the telecommunications industry, which has a vested interest in portraying the use of mobile phones as safe. We found that the studies funded exclusively by industry were indeed substantially less likely to report statistically significant effects on a range of end points that may be relevant to health. Conclusions: The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account.”
Your argument about risk is predicated on "a one in a million chance of biological incidence at high doses well beyond what I'll be exposed to based on this study". Well my assessment of risk is based on the immediate effects of the actual levels to which we are being exposed and it is not my choice to expose myself to those effects. (And in reply to your question elsewhere, no I don't use a mobile phone or wifi or tablet... or satnav or "smart" technology...) And although we cannot claim equivalence between a single celled organism and a more complex one, such as a human being, we do well to remember that our complexity is made up of single cells and more than half the DNA in our bodies is not human but that of single celled organisms with whose functionng our own is inextricably bound up. And at the level of our own cells, the tiniest of EMFs has an effect that is huge in its implications for our functioning (see, for instance, the work of Prof Martin Pall on voltage-gated calcium channels).
As for "safe limits, established by research and science" I'm sure you are aware that the limits deemed safe differ from country to country and the WHO/ICNIRP suggested safe levels are contested, regarded by many as outdated in the light of what science is now telling us.
Over 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries sent a declaration to officials of the European Commission today demanding a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 5G expansion. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer.”
“With hazards at those exposures, we are very concerned that the added exposure to 5G radiation could result in tragic, irreversible harm.”
“Peer-reviewed research has documented industry influence on studies of the health impacts of wireless radiation. We are insisting on a moratorium on 5G until non-industry research can be conducted to ensure the safety of the public.”
And yet in this entire thread I still haven't seen a single citation of a peer-reviewed study demonstrating any of these alleged effects - just links to newspaper articles, "health newsletters", petitions and unsupported assertions of harm.
Anyone interested in founding their opinion on hard science instead of swallowing whole the opinions of Mike Wuerthele (or anyone else) might like to browse the 5000 or so scientific studies here: http://justproveit.net/studies. There is one heck of a lot of peer reviewed science out there demonstrating the interference of non-natural electromagnetic radiation with the normal functioning of biological processes and I suggest it is time to inform ourselves and think for ourselves. Industry insiders are going to tell you what they want you to hear.
And there is way, way more that demonstrates the lack of interference. I'm familiar with the source you linked. You couldn't have picked a more agenda-based collection source if you had tried - which I expect you did.
Think for ourselves, indeed.
It's also pretty funny how you think I'm an "industry insider."
Certainly the source I linked has an agenda. It's there in its name: "justproveit.net". It's agenda is to offer evidence, including a large number of scientific studies, that some modern technologies are harmful and should not be in general use. i could equally have provided a huge number of other links to the science which suggests phones and routers are unsafe. To preempt anyone claiming "That's just one study" - or being put off by a long list of links - i chose a single site offering 5000 studies...
You write "There's a lot of bad "science" floating around about radio frequency and electromagnetic field exposure from Wi-Fi routers and the wireless network that your iPhone accesses. AppleInsider delves into the subject, and the actual science behind it." Would you care to cite and properly critique what you are dismissing as "bad science"?
I apologise if I have appeared mistakenly to include you in the category of industry insiders. You did write "AppleInsider delves into the subject", which seems to carry implications...
There are 5000 studies showing a possible causality at high doses way, way above what has been set as the safe limit, which was then cut down 100x to the legal limit, yes. The site lacks the 10,000+ showing even less causality than the data used to set the legal limits.
So, Justproveit.net? Prove what, given that it lacks the latter 10,000?
Bad science: Bad science is reading a research paper title without context, and saying AHA, THIS PROVES MY AGENDA. Bad science is saying that RF exposure to a single-celled organism is a straight-across compare to mammalian life. Bad science is not assessing risk from the studies, and saying that "Well, gee, 5G or wi-fi is dangerous, because I have a one in a million chance of biological incidence at high doses well beyond what I'll be exposed to based on this study." That utterly fails a logic check, and is the definition of bad science.
Like I said about a page ago, calling wi-fi or 5G an unacceptable risk is ignoring many daily activities with much higher risks, for an assortment of reasons.
Let's go conservatively, and say that you're exposed to the high levels that are considered safe (which, again, the legal limits are 1/10 of that for a occupational exposure worker, and 1/100 of that for the general public). Here's an example of a similar risk at that sustained dose rate across your entire life: being hit by a meteorite and dying: http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/Natural_Disasters/impacts.htm
You are 10x more likely to be killed by lightning. Similarly, averaged across the entire US, you are 15x more likely to be killed by a tornado or hurricane. So, what's your definition of "unsafe" then?
One more time: read the last four paragraphs, and refute them. This has yet to happen through all these links, and Google searches that have been linked here.
Here's a concession for you, which I already said in the article, but I'll say it again: I don't want a Navy surface or air search radar in my room, pointed at my face. I don't want a commercial 5G tower antenna on my desk. I don't want these things, because they will exceed the safe limits, established by research and science.
And, as an aside, you're using the term "industry insider" as a cudgel, indicating some sort of larger scheme or agenda. As I have none, that seems inappropriate.
Perhaps you could extend your definition of bad science to include dismissing the studies listed on an entire website without bothering to look at them, because the website doesn't fit your agenda.
I agree that there are too many people who grab onto a headline or the title of a paper and attempt to use it to support their agenda without bothering properly to read or understand the content.
But that doesn't make the paper in question "bad science". It is the reader, not the science, at fault. To use the term "bad science" is to give the impression that the science is flawed, which is slanderous when not the science itself, but its misappropriation, is the issue.
I don't doubt, however, that there is bad science out there, in abundance. And talking of agendas:
This 2007 systematic review examined whether the source of funding of studies of the effects of low-level radiofrequency radiation is associated with the results of studies and found industry funded studies were substantially less likely to report effects.
“We examined the methodologic quality and results of experimental studies investigating the effects of the type of radiofrequency radiation emitted by handheld cellular telephones. We hypothesized that studies would be less likely to show an effect of the exposure if funded by the telecommunications industry, which has a vested interest in portraying the use of mobile phones as safe. We found that the studies funded exclusively by industry were indeed substantially less likely to report statistically significant effects on a range of end points that may be relevant to health. Conclusions: The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account.”
Your argument about risk is predicated on "a one in a million chance of biological incidence at high doses well beyond what I'll be exposed to based on this study". Well my assessment of risk is based on the immediate effects of the actual levels to which we are being exposed and it is not my choice to expose myself to those effects. (And in reply to your question elsewhere, no I don't use a mobile phone or wifi or tablet... or satnav or "smart" technology...) And although we cannot claim equivalence between a single celled organism and a more complex one, such as a human being, we do well to remember that our complexity is made up of single cells and more than half the DNA in our bodies is not human but that of single celled organisms with whose functionng our own is inextricably bound up. And at the level of our own cells, the tiniest of EMFs has an effect that is huge in its implications for our functioning (see, for instance, the work of Prof Martin Pall on voltage-gated calcium channels).
As for "safe limits, established by research and science" I'm sure you are aware that the limits deemed safe differ from country to country and the WHO/ICNIRP suggested safe levels are contested, regarded by many as outdated in the light of what science is now telling us.
Okay, then. Here's my takeaway. You don't like the risk, and that's fine -- and you've taken steps to minimize it. That's good, and it's your choice. I am genuinely glad that you have the conviction of your beliefs to change your behavior. You draw your safe line in a different spot than I do.
You're right, I don't like the aggregator site, because it literally has a declared agenda. It doesn't mean that I haven't read a great deal of the research that they post from the original venues, coupled with the formal education I have spanning two decades to process it. Note that this doesn't mean that you don't.
However, none of this changes the fact that the risk, and observed biological effects, from low dose rates of RF are profoundly minute to begin with, and around five orders of magnitude lower than the simple act of driving a car.
Anyone interested in founding their opinion on hard science instead of swallowing whole the opinions of Mike Wuerthele (or anyone else) might like to browse the 5000 or so scientific studies here: http://justproveit.net/studies. There is one heck of a lot of peer reviewed science out there demonstrating the interference of non-natural electromagnetic radiation with the normal functioning of biological processes and I suggest it is time to inform ourselves and think for ourselves. Industry insiders are going to tell you what they want you to hear.
And there is way, way more that demonstrates the lack of interference. I'm familiar with the source you linked. You couldn't have picked a more agenda-based collection source if you had tried - which I expect you did.
Think for ourselves, indeed.
It's also pretty funny how you think I'm an "industry insider."
Certainly the source I linked has an agenda. It's there in its name: "justproveit.net". It's agenda is to offer evidence, including a large number of scientific studies, that some modern technologies are harmful and should not be in general use. i could equally have provided a huge number of other links to the science which suggests phones and routers are unsafe. To preempt anyone claiming "That's just one study" - or being put off by a long list of links - i chose a single site offering 5000 studies...
You write "There's a lot of bad "science" floating around about radio frequency and electromagnetic field exposure from Wi-Fi routers and the wireless network that your iPhone accesses. AppleInsider delves into the subject, and the actual science behind it." Would you care to cite and properly critique what you are dismissing as "bad science"?
I apologise if I have appeared mistakenly to include you in the category of industry insiders. You did write "AppleInsider delves into the subject", which seems to carry implications...
There are 5000 studies showing a possible causality at high doses way, way above what has been set as the safe limit, which was then cut down 100x to the legal limit, yes. The site lacks the 10,000+ showing even less causality than the data used to set the legal limits.
So, Justproveit.net? Prove what, given that it lacks the latter 10,000?
Bad science: Bad science is reading a research paper title without context, and saying AHA, THIS PROVES MY AGENDA. Bad science is saying that RF exposure to a single-celled organism is a straight-across compare to mammalian life. Bad science is not assessing risk from the studies, and saying that "Well, gee, 5G or wi-fi is dangerous, because I have a one in a million chance of biological incidence at high doses well beyond what I'll be exposed to based on this study." That utterly fails a logic check, and is the definition of bad science.
Like I said about a page ago, calling wi-fi or 5G an unacceptable risk is ignoring many daily activities with much higher risks, for an assortment of reasons.
Let's go conservatively, and say that you're exposed to the high levels that are considered safe (which, again, the legal limits are 1/10 of that for a occupational exposure worker, and 1/100 of that for the general public). Here's an example of a similar risk at that sustained dose rate across your entire life: being hit by a meteorite and dying: http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/Natural_Disasters/impacts.htm
You are 10x more likely to be killed by lightning. Similarly, averaged across the entire US, you are 15x more likely to be killed by a tornado or hurricane. So, what's your definition of "unsafe" then?
One more time: read the last four paragraphs, and refute them. This has yet to happen through all these links, and Google searches that have been linked here.
Here's a concession for you, which I already said in the article, but I'll say it again: I don't want a Navy surface or air search radar in my room, pointed at my face. I don't want a commercial 5G tower antenna on my desk. I don't want these things, because they will exceed the safe limits, established by research and science.
And, as an aside, you're using the term "industry insider" as a cudgel, indicating some sort of larger scheme or agenda. As I have none, that seems inappropriate.
Perhaps you could extend your definition of bad science to include dismissing the studies listed on an entire website without bothering to look at them, because the website doesn't fit your agenda.
I agree that there are too many people who grab onto a headline or the title of a paper and attempt to use it to support their agenda without bothering properly to read or understand the content.
But that doesn't make the paper in question "bad science". It is the reader, not the science, at fault. To use the term "bad science" is to give the impression that the science is flawed, which is slanderous when not the science itself, but its misappropriation, is the issue.
I don't doubt, however, that there is bad science out there, in abundance. And talking of agendas:
This 2007 systematic review examined whether the source of funding of studies of the effects of low-level radiofrequency radiation is associated with the results of studies and found industry funded studies were substantially less likely to report effects.
“We examined the methodologic quality and results of experimental studies investigating the effects of the type of radiofrequency radiation emitted by handheld cellular telephones. We hypothesized that studies would be less likely to show an effect of the exposure if funded by the telecommunications industry, which has a vested interest in portraying the use of mobile phones as safe. We found that the studies funded exclusively by industry were indeed substantially less likely to report statistically significant effects on a range of end points that may be relevant to health. Conclusions: The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account.”
Your argument about risk is predicated on "a one in a million chance of biological incidence at high doses well beyond what I'll be exposed to based on this study". Well my assessment of risk is based on the immediate effects of the actual levels to which we are being exposed and it is not my choice to expose myself to those effects. (And in reply to your question elsewhere, no I don't use a mobile phone or wifi or tablet... or satnav or "smart" technology...) And although we cannot claim equivalence between a single celled organism and a more complex one, such as a human being, we do well to remember that our complexity is made up of single cells and more than half the DNA in our bodies is not human but that of single celled organisms with whose functionng our own is inextricably bound up. And at the level of our own cells, the tiniest of EMFs has an effect that is huge in its implications for our functioning (see, for instance, the work of Prof Martin Pall on voltage-gated calcium channels).
As for "safe limits, established by research and science" I'm sure you are aware that the limits deemed safe differ from country to country and the WHO/ICNIRP suggested safe levels are contested, regarded by many as outdated in the light of what science is now telling us.
Okay, then. Here's my takeaway. You don't like the risk, and that's fine -- and you've taken steps to minimize it. That's good, and it's your choice. I am genuinely glad that you have the conviction of your beliefs to change your behavior. You draw your safe line in a different spot than I do.
You're right, I don't like the aggregator site, because it literally has a declared agenda. It doesn't mean that I haven't read a great deal of the research that they post from the original venues, coupled with the formal education I have spanning two decades to process it. Note that this doesn't mean that you don't.
However, none of this changes the fact that the risk, and observed biological effects, from low dose rates of RF are profoundly minute to begin with, and around five orders of magnitude lower than the simple act of driving a car.
On this last point, let's agree to disagree. Over and out.
Over 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries sent a declaration to officials of the European Commission today demanding a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 5G expansion. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer.”
“With hazards at those exposures, we are very concerned that the added exposure to 5G radiation could result in tragic, irreversible harm.”
“Peer-reviewed research has documented industry influence on studies of the health impacts of wireless radiation. We are insisting on a moratorium on 5G until non-industry research can be conducted to ensure the safety of the public.”
And yet in this entire thread I still haven't seen a single citation of a peer-reviewed study demonstrating any of these alleged effects - just links to newspaper articles, "health newsletters", petitions and unsupported assertions of harm.
Could I kindly ask the writer of the article to disclose his credentials in the field?
Direct message sent with specifics, but it comes as no surprise to any AI regular that I am a US submarine force veteran. Plus, we discuss it on the AI podcast that will be released tomorrow morning.
And, to reference a previous question of yours that I missed -- I'm not ignoring scientific consensus. It's just not what you think it is.
There is no observable data that says that RF is doing any damage at all.
Look into a great talk by Devra Davis. I would say she is a great middle grounder on the subject and she does raises concerns and justifies them quite well.
Which is why you then turn to Stats. They’ll tell you which way a problem is going. In this case the stats just don’t support there being a connection that hasn’t been found.
Actually they do. If you think otherwise you may want to look into it.
My wife has to avoid certain stores because the flicker of the lights gives her migraines. I attribute this not to radio frequency radiation, rather to visible frequency EMF, similar to how certain frequencies can cause seizures.
The whole point of science is that you look at the evidence, develop a theory and test it. If the new evidence doesn't match the theory, you must either change the theory or explain the discrepancy. Science never claims to be infallible, just the best current explanation of our understanding of the world.
You approach is more "a scientist was wrong once, so I don't believe in any science. Instead I'm going to come up with a random theory and stick with it and completely ignore any other evidence or theories." Taken to its extreme, your theory dictates that you should be living in a cave or a tree, as that is the most 'unchanged' environment and therefore the most healthy. Of course, the 100% natural ultraviolet radiation from the sun must be absolutely healthy and could never cause cancer, right?
Your last sentence is quite a stretch.
However, I do agree on most what you said. Hence, I nudge you to take a good look into actual data. There is enough evidence on RF and EMF frequencies having effects on the human body. Skip the news headlines and dig into the actual data.
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.
Dont stop there. You can go back a few decades more and you´ll find there´s actually a lot more that is known regarding this subject.
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?
Comments
As i said your personal genes are more of an issue on whether you will contract something than RF waves, but you missed that part of my comments.
The following paper:
... provides an extensive literature documenting that radio frequency and microwave radiation induced damage can lead to death in single cell organisms [3], inhibit cell proliferation [9], cause DNA damage [11,32], and alter gene expression in different cell types including brain cells as measured by gene microarrays [6,14,15].
The paper's own tests conclude that, with respect to cell damage: "Cell phone emissions thus have the potential to cause dysfunction or death through activation of specific intracellular cell death signaling pathways" ... i.e. the very damage to DNA that the AppleInsider crackpot 'report' flatly denies.
See pic:
And, re: sun - I'd say (from the knowledge I've gleaned in the subject matter) that it is more our diets that is setting our systems up for failure, such that all these other things so easily trigger off cancer in one form or another. That, and all the environmental toxins that also help degrade our bodies and trigger off problems (like cancer).
That's precisely what is in question here.... is heating or direct destruction of DNA the only concern? And, no, it isn't just one's genes. It's one's genes + environment. A gene isn't so directly determinative like that.
That's the problem here. The previous research was looking at damage to the cell or destruction of the DNA, which was seen as the only way to have an impact. We now know that impact has moved up a whole level to 'inputs' to the gene that impact gene expression.
You write "There's a lot of bad "science" floating around about radio frequency and electromagnetic field exposure from Wi-Fi routers and the wireless network that your iPhone accesses. AppleInsider delves into the subject, and the actual science behind it." Would you care to cite and properly critique what you are dismissing as "bad science"?
I apologise if I have appeared mistakenly to include you in the category of industry insiders. You did write "AppleInsider delves into the subject", which seems to carry implications...
Bad science: Bad science is reading a research paper title without context, and saying AHA, THIS PROVES MY AGENDA. Bad science is saying that RF exposure to a single-celled organism is a straight-across compare to mammalian life. Bad science is not assessing risk from the studies, and saying that "Well, gee, 5G or wi-fi is dangerous, because I have a one in a million chance of biological incidence at high doses well beyond what I'll be exposed to based on this study." That utterly fails a logic check, and is the definition of bad science.
Like I said about a page ago, calling wi-fi or 5G an unacceptable risk is ignoring many daily activities with much higher risks, for an assortment of reasons.
Let's go conservatively, and say that you're exposed to the high levels that are considered safe (which, again, the legal limits are 1/10 of that for a occupational exposure worker, and 1/100 of that for the general public). Here's an example of a similar risk at that sustained dose rate across your entire life: being hit by a meteorite and dying: http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/Natural_Disasters/impacts.htm
You are 10x more likely to be killed by lightning. Similarly, averaged across the entire US, you are 15x more likely to be killed by a tornado or hurricane. So, what's your definition of "unsafe" then?
One more time: read the last four paragraphs, and refute them. This has yet to happen through all these links, and Google searches that have been linked here.
Here's a concession for you, which I already said in the article, but I'll say it again: I don't want a Navy surface or air search radar in my room, pointed at my face. I don't want a commercial 5G tower antenna on my desk. I don't want these things, because they will exceed the safe limits, established by research and science.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18246230
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14653376
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15746860 ;
This is a random, quick selection from the site. All three studies use real phones only, and two show NO causality.
Perhaps you could extend your definition of bad science to include dismissing the studies listed on an entire website without bothering to look at them, because the website doesn't fit your agenda.
I agree that there are too many people who grab onto a headline or the title of a paper and attempt to use it to support their agenda without bothering properly to read or understand the content.
But that doesn't make the paper in question "bad science". It is the reader, not the science, at fault. To use the term "bad science" is to give the impression that the science is flawed, which is slanderous when not the science itself, but its misappropriation, is the issue.
I don't doubt, however, that there is bad science out there, in abundance. And talking of agendas:
Huss, Anke, et al. “Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies.”Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 115, no. 1, 2007, pp. 1-4.
This 2007 systematic review examined whether the source of funding of studies of the effects of low-level radiofrequency radiation is associated with the results of studies and found industry funded studies were substantially less likely to report effects.
Further studies drawing similar conclusions here: https://ehtrust.org/science/research-industry-influence-emfs/
Your argument about risk is predicated on "a one in a million chance of biological incidence at high doses well beyond what I'll be exposed to based on this study". Well my assessment of risk is based on the immediate effects of the actual levels to which we are being exposed and it is not my choice to expose myself to those effects. (And in reply to your question elsewhere, no I don't use a mobile phone or wifi or tablet... or satnav or "smart" technology...) And although we cannot claim equivalence between a single celled organism and a more complex one, such as a human being, we do well to remember that our complexity is made up of single cells and more than half the DNA in our bodies is not human but that of single celled organisms with whose functionng our own is inextricably bound up. And at the level of our own cells, the tiniest of EMFs has an effect that is huge in its implications for our functioning (see, for instance, the work of Prof Martin Pall on voltage-gated calcium channels).
As for "safe limits, established by research and science" I'm sure you are aware that the limits deemed safe differ from country to country and the WHO/ICNIRP suggested safe levels are contested, regarded by many as outdated in the light of what science is now telling us.