6 ms·
Wi-fi is an important threat to human health
- thosakwe 8y agoI'm still going to use it, though. Is there even any alternative at all?
- kyle_v 8y agoethernet?
- pmlnr 8y agoAs much as I'd like to agree, it's not, as many devices - think smartphones and tablet - doesn't come with ethernet ports; neither do macs any more. I have some of my home devices wired: tv, console, home server; but for laptops and smartphones, it gets tricky. It also wouldn't help getting rid of the neighbour's wifi, unless I get some sort of faraday-cage insulation.
- agumonkey 8y agoCould it be possible to have so NFC like inductive coupling for Gbit ETH ?
- HillaryBriss 8y ago> neither do macs any more iMacs and iMac Pros still have ethernet ports: https://www.apple.com/imac/specs/ https://www.apple.com/imac/specs/ https://www.apple.com/imac-pro/specs/ https://www.apple.com/imac-pro/specs/ and, I don't know how well it works, but it's possible to run ethernet over USB-C into a MacBook: https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HJKF2ZM/A/belkin-usb-c-to-gigabit-ethernet-adapter https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HJKF2ZM/A/belkin-usb-c-to...
- brokensegue 8y agomy phone didnt come with an ethernet port
- thosakwe 8y agoMost laptops today don't even come with an Ethernet port, let alone cell phones, which are virtually ubiquitous. The last purchase made in my family of an Ethernet-enabled system was running Windows XP.
- NickBusey 8y agoLet's assume I turn off all the WiFi devices in my house and only hard wire things. I can still see at least 7 WiFi networks from my neighbor's houses. Not to mention public spaces. I don't really think there is any way to avoid WiFi in most modern nations.
- jaimehrubiks 8y agoYou´re lucky then, I see around 40-60 everytime.
- LinuxBender 8y agoThere are paints and other materials that can block the signals. Even wire mesh added to the insulation can block signals.
- NickBusey 8y agoThat plan works assuming I never leave my house.
- LinuxBender 8y agoAgreed, though you probably spend a bit of time in your home and at work. Driving past wifi the signal strength will vary wildly and won't likely be as strong as the one you are sleeping around. It certainly won't be as powerful as cell sites.
- Gnarl 8y agoYou can buffer your body against some of the damage by increasing your intake of ordinary antioxidants (refs in my other comments on this thread).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gascan 8y agoYou can turn down the TX power on your router...
- gambiting 8y ago"Wi-Fi" covers at least two different frequencies - is the effect observable at both?
- wyldfire 8y agoFrom the study [1] introduction: > All the studies reviewed here were of Wi-Fi using the 2.4 GHz band, although there is also a 5 GHz band reserved for possible Wi-Fi use. The study is recent (brand new) so this strikes me as an oversight to describe this band as "reserved for possible use." [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393511...
- bretpiatt 8y agoFrom clicking through to Journal Full Abstract of the study they only looked at 2.4Ghz and not 5.0Ghz. This is a better link for the content: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393511... I don't know enough about wave transmissions to know if higher frequency would be more or less likely to cause issues, anyone?
- classichasclass 8y agoIn general, higher frequency implies higher energy, all things being equal. X-rays and gamma rays are very high frequency and therefore high-energy, and no one would dispute their deleterious effect on human health. However, a typical X-ray is somewhere around 30 petahertz (10^16) to 30 exahertz (10^19). Compare to 5GHz WiFi (10^6). We're not sure if this is physiologically relevant because the relationship between energy and health effects is not linear, and different tissues react in different ways. It's worth looking into, though my personal feeling is given the ubiquity of such radiation, we should be seeing a lot more effects and they should be measurable.
- nraynaud 8y agoI want to see a frequency response and a dose response before I believe in harmful microwaves. Being allergic to electromagnetic waves in France is like avoiding gluten on the West Coast, all the yoga practitioners claim to be able to feel it, but there is no scientific evidence. And the more we have electromagnetic waves in our environment because of the spreading of the technology, the later we die because medicine and healthcare move faster than the putative harm. What is certain, is that whatever the harm electromagnetic waves cause, it can't be huge like silicosis or asbestos, because we just don't see it in the statistics while intently staring at it, it has to be weak.
- eu 8y agoCould we take suppliments to counter-ballance this?
- sgwae 8y agoI thought wifi is weak, but if you put a live creature in the microwave. There is little chance supplemants will help.
- canercandan 8y agoFunny nobody mentioned about Li-Fi yet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-Fi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-Fi
- teekert 8y agoPerhaps? Something like sunscreen? 2.4 GHz is the frequency at which water resonates so our bodies are already giant optimal absorbers of wifi energey, I wonder if anything would help.
- ben509 8y ago> 2.4 GHz is the frequency at which water resonates Answers by people who understand this better than me here [1], but 2.4GHz is not "the" resonant frequency, water has a number of frequencies it interacts with radiation. And water isn't going to behave like a tuning fork anyway, it would be more analogous to sand. Microwaves interact with water by dipole interaction, and they just unload heat. That's why wifi isn't going to do much to your body, any cooking of you being done by radiation is trivial compared to your own body heat. [1] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169173/what-is-the-resonant-frequency-of-liquid-water#169191 https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169173/what-is-t...
- agumonkey 8y agoAh well, I always claimed there was no harm in wifi signals .. because I lived surrounded by them for so long and had no issues... and now I feel sick :)
- trothamel 8y agoWithout commenting on if this is legitimate or not, a new band of spectrum for unlicensed use would be nice.
- hliyan 8y agoA related study by apparently the same author makes the following claim: "microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action" If that is true, then it is quite significant. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879308 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879308
- pitaj 8y agoDoes it say anything about how WiFi waves act on calcium channels?
- yread 8y agoIt says this: > The VGCCs each have a voltage sensor which is made up of 4 alpha helixes in the plasma membrane, with each such helix having 5 positive charges on it, for a total of 20 positive charges (Pall, 2015b). These voltage sensor helixes are each called S4 helixes because each is the fourth helix in a distinct multi-helix domain. Each of these voltage sensor charges is within the lipid bilayer part of the plasma membrane. The electrical forces on the voltage sensor are very high for three distinct reasons (Pall, 2015b, Pall, 2015a, Pall, 2016a). 1. The 20 charges on the voltage sensor make the forces on voltage sensor 20 times higher than the forces on a single charge. 2. Because these charges are within the lipid bilayer section of the membrane where the dielectric constant is about 1/120th of the dielectric constant of the aqueous parts of the cell, the law of physics called Coulomb's law, predicts that the forces on those charges will be approximately 120 times higher than the forces on charges in the aqueous parts of the cell. 3. Because the plasma membrane has a high electrical resistance whereas the aqueous parts of the cell are highly conductive, the electrical gradient across the plasma membrane is estimated to be concentrated about 3000-fold. The combination of these effects means that comparing the forces on the voltage sensor with the forces on singly charged groups in the aqueous parts of the cell, the forces on the voltage sensor are approximately 20 × 120 × 3000 = 7.2 million times higher (Pall, 2015b). The physics predicts, therefore, extraordinarily strong forces activating the VGCCs via the voltage sensor. It follows that the biology tells us that the VGCCs are the main target of the EMFs and the physics tells us why they are the main target. Thus the physics and biology are pointing in the same direction. If I ever write a paper I hope it will be more persuasive than this.
- classichasclass 8y agoI find this paper rather flawed (article link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393511... ). I don't claim to be an expert on EMF effects on the human body, but I interpret his core claim to be that because the seven effect studies he cites had insufficient power to determine there was no correlation, there must be correlation because "similar" EMF studies did show a response, and therefore the effects should be considered established (ergo the fairly clickbait title). I use quotes for similar because it doesn't seem they were all that similar, which is why he objects to the studies he references. If he had simply restricted himself to saying that more research was required because previous studies were inadequate (due to small sample size, methodological issues, etc.), I think this would have been a lot more defensible. Right now it reads like tinfoil hat time.
- gbrown 8y agoI'm also not an expert in this field, but I agree that the conclusions presented here appear at first glance to be much too strong. For one, we should all be highly skeptical of meta analyses to begin with - there is every incentive to report "significant" results, and a documented tendency for such studies to be preferentially published, so the current literature should be enriched with respect to rejections of the null. Also, did I miss it, or is there zero discussion about how the discussed publications were selected? A quick google search turns up lots of additional null results. The authors also do make some correct criticisms of common statistical mistakes. For example, it is true that failure to reject a null hypothesis is not evidence for that null hypothesis in a frequentist framework. Even so, we should consider the power to reject the null, which depends on: 1. The practical or clinical effect size 2. The sample size Even if we do detect statistically significant effects of EMF/WiFi, that in no way implies that the results are of practical significance. The cited studies do have small samples, but no discussion is given to the magnitude of effect which would be expected to have been detected. They also note that previous studies should have published their data and p-values, which is true. My takeaway is that more information is needed, and that we should hear from someone with a good grasp on all the relevant literature to see how representative these studies are. Also, this kind of thing would be clearer if we were all Bayesians, and published our data :P
- currymj 8y agoit's important to note that the nih.gov domain doesn't mean this is endorsed in any way by the NIH. (In case you were very shocked, like I was.) It's just a link to PubMed, which is an aggregator of journal articles hosted by the NIH's National Library of Medicine. Nearly any life sciences article published in any kind of journal, good or bad, would end up with an abstract on here. Evaluate it on its own merits.
- floren 8y agoYeah, it's published in "Environmental Research", a journal with an impact factor of 3.8. This is quite low. If the claims made by this paper are true, it has huge implications, so there's two possibilities: 'Science' and other prestigious journals are SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH due to INFLUENCE by BIG WIFI and passing up the opportunity to publish an incredibly important story, or the actual research is garbage.
- gbrown 8y agoImpact factors aren't really comparable across fields, or a general indication of the quality and rigor of particular journals. With that being said, I am skeptical of this paper.
- dang 8y agoCould you please not use allcaps for emphasis in HN comments? This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- floren 8y agoSorry dang, I'm imitating the, erm, peculiar writing style you'll see when this sort of thing comes up.
- wnevets 8y agothanks for pointing this out, I wasn't aware of this!
- 8y ago
- Exuma 8y agoUh oh... Let me pray that my radiation pad has done a good job D:
- Odenwaelder 8y agoSo are cars. The question is: Do we want to turn off Wifi for a minor health benefit?
- pasta 8y agoThat's the wrong question. A better question could be: Can we replace it with something better? Just like we are replacing combustion engines with electric engines.
- stefan_ 8y agoWhy Wi-Fi? What specifically makes Wi-Fi a threat but not all the other stuff using the 2.4 GHz band?
- yoz-y 8y agoGeneral public knows what Wi-Fi is, "radio waves in the 2.4GHz band" not so much.
- mygo 8y agoI dont think it’s making any claims, for or against, other EM frequencies. It’s just that their study was specific to Wi-fi, so that’s what they’re reporting on. Maybe they chose wifi in particular because it’s more relatable to the common person and quite ubiquitous on its own. They could draw more expansive conclusions in the future, if they want to. Or other curious scientists can pose that question and design an experiment / meta-analysis to answer it.
- csomar 8y agoProbably because Wifi is 1. known by the public and 2. is widely used (just polling here over 20 wifis around)
- r00fus 8y agoAnd what about 5-ish Ghz band WiFi?
- wyldfire 8y agoIf this turns out to be a hazardous effect, what could be used to mitigate VGCC activation? Presumably lower power signaling would be effective. But what if we allocated a different band (yes, I realize that this is much, much harder than it sounds)?
- Proven 8y agoAnother alarmist "study" by statist scientists
- hprotagonist 8y agohttps://www.nutricology.com/martin-pall-products/ https://www.nutricology.com/martin-pall-products/ i wonder if his medicines can help? ... single-author papers scream "crank" to me.
- thinkcomp 8y agoAgreed. He also thinks electromagnetic waves cause autism (and he's not an MD). http://www.autismone.org/content/martin-l-pall-ba-phd-autism-epidemic-caused-emfs-acting-calcium-channels-and-chemicals-actin http://www.autismone.org/content/martin-l-pall-ba-phd-autism...
- Gnarl 8y agoOne of the U.S. leading autism experts (Harvard MD) has co-written papers on the plausible link between low-level electromagnetic field exposure and autism spectrum disorders. The key here is also: oxidative stress, brain inflammation and blood-brain-barrier damage - as in Dr. Palls review. Ref 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24095003 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24095003 Ref 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24113318 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24113318
- thinkcomp 8y agoShe is also a quack, and hardly one of the "leading autism experts" in the United States. http://sethmnookin.com/2011/04/20/researcher-who-does-not-meet-the-standard-of-reliability-required-by-case-law-good-enough-for-pbss-newshour/ http://sethmnookin.com/2011/04/20/researcher-who-does-not-me... http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2016/10/1730-martha-herbert.html http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2016/10/1730-martha-herber...
- gtt 8y ago>>... single-author papers scream "crank" to me. Not necessary. Consider this: https://scholar.google.ru/citations?user=qc6CJjYAAAAJ&hl=ru&oi=sra https://scholar.google.ru/citations?user=qc6CJjYAAAAJ&hl=ru&...
- adfm 8y agoThis is sensationalist. Wi-Fi is a brand based around a protocol. If they're talking about low power microwave transmission, they'll have to include cell phones, microwave ovens, and everything else. Not to say RF can't be dangerous, but something like this just feeds the tin hat folks (which, BTW are just big wave guides. You'll need to wrap yourself like a potato for best results ;)
- eamike261 8y agoThere is a difference between "sensationalist" and using a term that the general public knows. Wi-Fi means something to the average person, whereas "radio waves in the 2.4GHz band" sounds like some obscure thing that doesn't apply to daily life.
- Gnarl 8y agoNothing new. This review just dares to aggregate and conclude on other reviews which have established that modulated, polarized, low-level microwave transmissions (like f.x. WiFi) causes effects like significant oxidative cell stress which is a known precursor to a whole host of health effects - cancer included. Dr. Pall offers a mechanistic explanation for the repeatedly established effects: the activation of voltage-gated calcium channels that sit in every cell membrane. Signals like WiFi can trigger those, allowing calcium to flood the cell and set off a cascade of effects leading to said oxidative stress. Add in non-stop radiation exposure and your bodies antioxidant reserves will surely deplete. So basically you now have a mechanism allowing low-level, non-ionizing radiation to indirectly cause the same damage to DNA as ionizing radiation does. There you go. Cancer epidemic explained. Is there anything you can do? Yes, first line of defense is to reduce your exposure and neutralize some of the added oxidative stress by upping your intake of antioxidants. See Dr. Yakymenko's blog for more: http://carelessscience.com/blog2017/electrohypersensitivity-oxidative-stress-healthy-diet/ http://carelessscience.com/blog2017/electrohypersensitivity-...
- pas 8y agoThis sounds interesting. Are there big cohort studies of the effects? (How easy it is to separate this from better cancer detection methods?) What type of cancers are being induced by this? What's the effect size?
- jkmcf 8y agoVaguely related: "EINSTEIN DIDN'T WIN the Nobel Prize for the theory of relativity. He won it for showing that you don't need to worry about radiation from your cell phone." - https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Einstein-Your-Cell-Phone-and-You-2707605.php https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Einstein-Yo... More specifically, http://ap.io/blog/radiofrequency/ http://ap.io/blog/radiofrequency/, The gist being if the photons don't have enough energy to affect your atoms, your don't need to worry too much. Since the power falls off proportional to 1/d^2, just don't use your router/cellphone as a pillow. The whole "human body is complicated and it could possibly affect you in some other way" is certainly a good place to investigate, but probably really hard to demonstrate without drastically increasing the density and power to unusual levels.
- Gnarl 8y ago"...showing that you don't need to worry about radiation from your cell phone". Dude. Will you please - PLEASE - just read the biological evidence and move on from that outdated (physicists) argument about photon energy. It is now amply established that low-level microwave radiation causes oxidative stress which can damage DNA and increase your risk of inflammation and cancer. Its an indirect effect. Little to do with photon energy alone.
- Shikadi 8y agoWhat evidence?
- gbenzzz 8y agoMy MIL is convinced that WiFi is the cause of all of her skin issues and headaches. She quit her job because IT refused to move one of their routers from near her office. She sleeps in a Faraday cage :-|
- frandroid 8y agoSo her headaches should be resolved? On the other hand, quitting her job might have done that alone ;)