7 ms·

Is this credible? Can someone with more experience weigh in on the mechanism behind this? My understanding of physics is that 5G wavelength is much longer than

Is this credible? Can someone with more experience weigh in on the mechanism behind this? My understanding of physics is that 5G wavelength is much longer than visible light (millimeter vs nanometer magnitudes) and visible light only really starts to get harmful in the UV+ spectrum. How can electromagnetic radiation in the millimeter range do anything but heat the tissue to a minimal degree? How can it be harmful?

carbocation 8y ago
This is much less convincing than a peer reviewed article would be. This is basically a list of concerned people.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tokai 8y ago
  Those people would be the ones doing the peer review of such a paper. If you want research literature, you can just click the links. Some of them are pointing to papers. Other to lists of scientists which you can then look up and read their works.
- dotancohen 8y ago
  A list of concerned people who area also engineers, scientists, and understand the field. And why shouldn't we demand that a new technology that affects large blanket areas populated by millions of humans be proven safe before it is deployed?
  - nabla9 8y ago
    >A list of concerned people who area also engineers, scientists, and understand the field. This is false. Just look at the list. It's full of homeopaths, electrosensitive people, 'independent researchers', people totally outside their fields, retirees, or people with degree but no research records in the field. As a Finn I looked at people from Finland in the list. All cranks.
    - bardworx 8y ago
      Excuse my ignorance; You used quotation marks around independent researcher. Is that because these are “regular” people who are doing research outside their expertise? I’ve always thought that an independent researcher was someone who studied within their field just had no monetary backing. Ex: a person with a PhD in X that does research on a subset of X, in their free time.
      - dekhn 8y ago
        your understanding is roughly correct. I met an independent researcher (Bob Edgar) who had sold his company to Intel and was bored. He started to attend seminars at Berkeley to find people who wanted his help, met a few folks, and ended up being one of the top people in the field of protein sequence alignment. At first, my advisor helped him by giving him an arbitrary appointment at Berkeley because otherwise journals wouldnt accept his papers because he was "independent". Eventually he reached the point where he could publish with his email address as affiliation (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15034147 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15034147). Of course, these days, he'd just publish to biorxiv and put the code in github.
        bardworx 8y ago
        Thank you for the explanation. Reading his CV (http://www.drive5.com/papers/resume.html http://www.drive5.com/papers/resume.html), it seems that even though he is a peer reviewed "Computational Biologist", his PhD is in Theoretical High-Energy Physics, who became a systems developer.
    - ColanR 8y ago
      I was curious, and did a google scholar search on the Finland folks. Didn't see anything to back up your claim. Just people who have expertise in related fields. Care to elaborate?
      - nabla9 8y ago
        Each of them are proponents of the Electromagnetic hypersensitivity theory. EHS has no scientific basis. It's either imaginary illness or not related to EM radiation. Prof. Osmo Hänninen has solid science background. After his retirement he has become a pseudo science crackpot. He supervised Dowsing PhD thesis in University of Oulu called "SPONTANEOUS MOVEMENTS OF HANDS IN GRADIENTS OF WEAK VHF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS". It caused a scandal and the PhD thesis was rejected as pseudoscience. http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789514297601.pdf http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789514297601.pdf
Roelven 8y ago
Just browsing the papers linked in the article you can find some relevant things: [Effects on trees and plants] The microwaves may affect vegetables. In the area that received radiation directly from “Location Skrunda Radio Station” (Latvia), pines (Pinus sylvestris) experienced a lower growth radio. This did not occur beyond the area of impact of electromagnetic waves. A statistically significant negative correlation between increase tree growth and intensity of electromagnetic field was found, and was confirmed that the beginning of this growth decline coincided in time with the start of radar emissions. Authors evaluated other possible environmental factors which might have intervened, but none had noticeable effects [103]. In another study investigating cell ultrastructure of pine needles irradiated by the same radar, there was an increase of resin production, and was interpreted as an effect of stress caused by radiation, which would explain the aging and declining growth and viability of trees subjected to pulsed microwaves. They also found a low germination of seeds of pine trees more exposed [104]. The effects of Latvian radar was also felt by aquatic plants. Spirodela polyrrhiza exposed to a power density between 0.1 and 1.8 μW/cm2 had lower longevity, problems in reproduction and morphological and developmental abnormalities compared with a control group who grew up far from the radar [105]. [source] https://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(09)00003-0/fulltext#Conclusions https://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(09...
- montenegrohugo 8y ago
  Huh. This does sound bad and honestly quite scary. Is there any theorizing made on how these plants get affected by radar? What exactly is the biological mechanism at play here?
  - ddebernardy 8y ago
    This article from a separate comment lists a few candidate mechanisms, plus another few preoccupying effects for millimeter wavelengths: https://twin.sci-hub.tw/6759/4e3bc086c40841aacf40b068776dc0f4/10.1016@j.envres.2018.01.016.pdf#view=FitH https://twin.sci-hub.tw/6759/4e3bc086c40841aacf40b068776dc0f... > 3.3.1. Oxidation mechanism of cellular harm > A well-studied potential mechanism of harm from radiofrequency radiation is one of cellular oxidation. Healthy biological systems require a balance of oxidation and antioxidation to fight infection and prevent disease (44, 45, 46). A review of the literature by Yakymenko et al. (2016) confirmed that in 93 of 100 studies, non-ionizing radio- frequency radiation caused a cellular stress response with excessive reactive oxygen species. He concluded, “oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure should be recognized as one of the primary mechanisms of the biological activity of this kind of radiation.”
clarkevans 8y ago
What do you mean by credible? They are asking for: To... halt the 5G RF-EMF expansion until independent scientists can assure that 5G... not be harmful To appoint...independent, truly impartial EMF & health scientists... to re-evaluate the health risks and...study the total and cumulative exposure Among other things, they are asking for scientific voice in the public policy space rather than the only voice being corporate lobbyists. What's wrong with this again?
- Tharre 8y ago
  > What's wrong with this again? That they make bogus claims like: "RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment." while providing no evidence for that claim or even a hypothesis about a mechanism that could potentially cause harm. Wireless technology wasn't invented yesterday, we have been studying it for decades. If they had actually found something new, they'd publish it in a respected journal (no, Bioinitiative is not one, it's pretty much the opposite). But they didn't do that, because they already knew what the result would be. Their statement that they want "truly impartial EMF & health scientists" simply means they want scientists who agree with their stated opinion, nothing more.
  - ColanR 8y ago
    They do back up their claims, and they give careful citations. > The world’s largest study (25 million US dollar) National Toxicology Program (NTP), shows statistically significant increase in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMF below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines followed by most countries. These results support results in human epidemiological studies on RF radiation and brain tumour risk. A large number of peer -reviewed scientific reports demonstrate harm to human health from EMFs. And their first citation in that paragraph [0] is a study from the U.S. National Toxicology Program. Don't say stuff like "they make bogus claims", please - you don't know that, and it's unprofessional. [0] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/01/055699 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/01/055699
    - 8y ago
gsich 8y ago
What 5G wavelength? Last I remember it can be operated in several different frequency bands ie 700 MHz to 5 GHz.
stephengillie 8y ago
Using the generic title "scientists" instead of a more specific demonym belies a lack of authorial credibility. Health "science" is rarely either.

carbocation 8y ago

This is much less convincing than a peer reviewed article would be. This is basically a list of concerned people.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tokai 8y ago
Those people would be the ones doing the peer review of such a paper. If you want research literature, you can just click the links. Some of them are pointing to papers. Other to lists of scientists which you can then look up and read their works.
dotancohen 8y ago
A list of concerned people who area also engineers, scientists, and understand the field. And why shouldn't we demand that a new technology that affects large blanket areas populated by millions of humans be proven safe before it is deployed?
- nabla9 8y ago
  >A list of concerned people who area also engineers, scientists, and understand the field. This is false. Just look at the list. It's full of homeopaths, electrosensitive people, 'independent researchers', people totally outside their fields, retirees, or people with degree but no research records in the field. As a Finn I looked at people from Finland in the list. All cranks.
  - bardworx 8y ago
    Excuse my ignorance; You used quotation marks around independent researcher. Is that because these are “regular” people who are doing research outside their expertise? I’ve always thought that an independent researcher was someone who studied within their field just had no monetary backing. Ex: a person with a PhD in X that does research on a subset of X, in their free time.
    - dekhn 8y ago
      your understanding is roughly correct. I met an independent researcher (Bob Edgar) who had sold his company to Intel and was bored. He started to attend seminars at Berkeley to find people who wanted his help, met a few folks, and ended up being one of the top people in the field of protein sequence alignment. At first, my advisor helped him by giving him an arbitrary appointment at Berkeley because otherwise journals wouldnt accept his papers because he was "independent". Eventually he reached the point where he could publish with his email address as affiliation (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15034147 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15034147). Of course, these days, he'd just publish to biorxiv and put the code in github.
      - bardworx 8y ago
        Thank you for the explanation. Reading his CV (http://www.drive5.com/papers/resume.html http://www.drive5.com/papers/resume.html), it seems that even though he is a peer reviewed "Computational Biologist", his PhD is in Theoretical High-Energy Physics, who became a systems developer.
  - ColanR 8y ago
    I was curious, and did a google scholar search on the Finland folks. Didn't see anything to back up your claim. Just people who have expertise in related fields. Care to elaborate?
    - nabla9 8y ago
      Each of them are proponents of the Electromagnetic hypersensitivity theory. EHS has no scientific basis. It's either imaginary illness or not related to EM radiation. Prof. Osmo Hänninen has solid science background. After his retirement he has become a pseudo science crackpot. He supervised Dowsing PhD thesis in University of Oulu called "SPONTANEOUS MOVEMENTS OF HANDS IN GRADIENTS OF WEAK VHF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS". It caused a scandal and the PhD thesis was rejected as pseudoscience. http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789514297601.pdf http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789514297601.pdf

Roelven 8y ago

Just browsing the papers linked in the article you can find some relevant things: [Effects on trees and plants] The microwaves may affect vegetables. In the area that received radiation directly from “Location Skrunda Radio Station” (Latvia), pines (Pinus sylvestris) experienced a lower growth radio. This did not occur beyond the area of impact of electromagnetic waves. A statistically significant negative correlation between increase tree growth and intensity of electromagnetic field was found, and was confirmed that the beginning of this growth decline coincided in time with the start of radar emissions. Authors evaluated other possible environmental factors which might have intervened, but none had noticeable effects [103]. In another study investigating cell ultrastructure of pine needles irradiated by the same radar, there was an increase of resin production, and was interpreted as an effect of stress caused by radiation, which would explain the aging and declining growth and viability of trees subjected to pulsed microwaves. They also found a low germination of seeds of pine trees more exposed [104]. The effects of Latvian radar was also felt by aquatic plants. Spirodela polyrrhiza exposed to a power density between 0.1 and 1.8 μW/cm2 had lower longevity, problems in reproduction and morphological and developmental abnormalities compared with a control group who grew up far from the radar [105]. [source] https://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(09)00003-0/fulltext#Conclusions https://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(09...

montenegrohugo 8y ago
Huh. This does sound bad and honestly quite scary. Is there any theorizing made on how these plants get affected by radar? What exactly is the biological mechanism at play here?
- ddebernardy 8y ago
  This article from a separate comment lists a few candidate mechanisms, plus another few preoccupying effects for millimeter wavelengths: https://twin.sci-hub.tw/6759/4e3bc086c40841aacf40b068776dc0f4/10.1016@j.envres.2018.01.016.pdf#view=FitH https://twin.sci-hub.tw/6759/4e3bc086c40841aacf40b068776dc0f... > 3.3.1. Oxidation mechanism of cellular harm > A well-studied potential mechanism of harm from radiofrequency radiation is one of cellular oxidation. Healthy biological systems require a balance of oxidation and antioxidation to fight infection and prevent disease (44, 45, 46). A review of the literature by Yakymenko et al. (2016) confirmed that in 93 of 100 studies, non-ionizing radio- frequency radiation caused a cellular stress response with excessive reactive oxygen species. He concluded, “oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure should be recognized as one of the primary mechanisms of the biological activity of this kind of radiation.”

clarkevans 8y ago

What do you mean by credible? They are asking for: To... halt the 5G RF-EMF expansion until independent scientists can assure that 5G... not be harmful To appoint...independent, truly impartial EMF & health scientists... to re-evaluate the health risks and...study the total and cumulative exposure Among other things, they are asking for scientific voice in the public policy space rather than the only voice being corporate lobbyists. What's wrong with this again?

Tharre 8y ago
> What's wrong with this again? That they make bogus claims like: "RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment." while providing no evidence for that claim or even a hypothesis about a mechanism that could potentially cause harm. Wireless technology wasn't invented yesterday, we have been studying it for decades. If they had actually found something new, they'd publish it in a respected journal (no, Bioinitiative is not one, it's pretty much the opposite). But they didn't do that, because they already knew what the result would be. Their statement that they want "truly impartial EMF & health scientists" simply means they want scientists who agree with their stated opinion, nothing more.
- ColanR 8y ago
  They do back up their claims, and they give careful citations. > The world’s largest study (25 million US dollar) National Toxicology Program (NTP), shows statistically significant increase in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMF below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines followed by most countries. These results support results in human epidemiological studies on RF radiation and brain tumour risk. A large number of peer -reviewed scientific reports demonstrate harm to human health from EMFs. And their first citation in that paragraph [0] is a study from the U.S. National Toxicology Program. Don't say stuff like "they make bogus claims", please - you don't know that, and it's unprofessional. [0] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/01/055699 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/01/055699
  - 8y ago

gsich 8y ago

What 5G wavelength? Last I remember it can be operated in several different frequency bands ie 700 MHz to 5 GHz.

stephengillie 8y ago

Using the generic title "scientists" instead of a more specific demonym belies a lack of authorial credibility. Health "science" is rarely either.