3 ms·

> So the authors observed increased markers of damage I'm not in that field, but the way I read the article, they claim that a lot of other articles support th

by acqq 8y ago

> So the authors observed increased markers of damage I'm not in that field, but the way I read the article, they claim that a lot of other articles support their claim, namely that the DNA could be damaged by EM radiation which is not "ionizing." But this particular article doesn't seem to contribute any new proof, and the only "new" message of the article is: "DNA is, the way we understand it 'a fractal antenna', therefore even non-ionizing EM radiation 'could' be dangerous." But the proof of that claim on the level of physics is not explicit (not in a way I'd expect to read about it). Especially their kind-of claim that even 60 Hz EMF can influence DNA in damaging way is still very... let's say, suspicious, to me. If somebody would actually prove something like that, I'd expect he or she would get more Nobel prizes at once... it's that much far away from what we understand. The wavelength of the EMF of 60 Hz is 3000 miles in the air. How can such a change affect anything in any DNA in any cell of any living organism, even if we accept any "fractalness" of it I can't even imagine. Even if we accept that the longest cell is in the range of 1 meter, the wavelength of 60 Hz is 5 million times longer! So even a 1 m wide DNA would "surf" on a 5 million times longer "wave." You can say "but it's fractal" as much as you want, I'd need more than that, for me it still doesn't appear different from "it's sprinkled with the dust of fairy." On another side, the "obvious" statistics of some problems appearing should be enough even if the mechanism is not known. Given the amount of the EMF we live with, something should give us enough information... Note that they mention "the stress response" of the cells and that since "the stress response is activated by other stimuli that are potentially harmful to cells (Kultz 2003), it is clear that the stress response is a natural protective mechanism" which could actually mean that the cells remain "more protected."

bsder 8y ago
> Especially their kind-of claim that even 60 Hz EMF can influence DNA in damaging way is still very... let's say, suspicious, to me. Yeah, I really don't understand why these kinds of people always mumble about 60Hz. That's the biggest red flag for bogosity. We have had so much extremely high intensity 60Hz flying around for so long that the effects should be obvious. If you just simply don't mention 60Hz at all, your claims get a lot harder to refute.
- acqq 8y ago
  And we also know which wavelengths do affect the cells: the wavelengths shorter, not longer, than 200-something nanometers (i.e. < 0.2e-6 m). That is, UV light and all shorter EM, like X-rays (specifically < 0.01e-6 m). That's at least 1e13 times shorter than 5000km of 60 Hz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_germicidal_irradiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_germicidal_irradia... All the living organisms get a lot of EMF of longer wavelengths: the plain, sub-UV light, for the start. Much closer to the UV (e.g. blue light ~ 0.45e-6 m).
yongjik 8y ago
I sorta agree with you, but to be a pedantic bastard, a single hydrogen atom can absorb and emit 21cm radio wave[1], so molecular sizes don't completely rule out radio absorption. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line
- acqq 8y ago
  But note that that kind absorption doesn't mean that such hydrogen atom becomes "less" or more the same "hydrogen" than before. The electron remains "there" in both states: its magnetic moment gets to be either parallel or anti-parallel to that of the proton, that's all. Also note that the "mean lifetime of the excited state" of that electron which still remains bound to the proton (that is, of the "higher energy" moment of the electron) is "of around 10 million years." So all this is relevant for the observations of the light passing through the universe, that is, when we worry about the photons traveling the many light years of space, but not relevant when we worry about if electrons remain by the same atom or not. Compared to all that, the ionizing radiation (UV and shorter, that is, measured in nanometers or smaller, and not in centimeters) does remove or add the electrons around, changing the properties of the atom, and as soon as the electron is being hit by the photon. That is why it is provably damaging. Of course, there's never only one wavelength of the photons, it's always a distribution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spe... But that would still mean that the potential for the damage is order of magnitudes bigger by the "plain" light than by the infrared, micro, radio or 60 Hz waves. The photon energy is proportional to the frequency (i.e. more Hz more energy): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%E2%80%93Einstein_relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%E2%80%93Einstein_relati...

by acqq 8y ago

bsder 8y ago

> Especially their kind-of claim that even 60 Hz EMF can influence DNA in damaging way is still very... let's say, suspicious, to me. Yeah, I really don't understand why these kinds of people always mumble about 60Hz. That's the biggest red flag for bogosity. We have had so much extremely high intensity 60Hz flying around for so long that the effects should be obvious. If you just simply don't mention 60Hz at all, your claims get a lot harder to refute.

acqq 8y ago
And we also know which wavelengths do affect the cells: the wavelengths shorter, not longer, than 200-something nanometers (i.e. < 0.2e-6 m). That is, UV light and all shorter EM, like X-rays (specifically < 0.01e-6 m). That's at least 1e13 times shorter than 5000km of 60 Hz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_germicidal_irradiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_germicidal_irradia... All the living organisms get a lot of EMF of longer wavelengths: the plain, sub-UV light, for the start. Much closer to the UV (e.g. blue light ~ 0.45e-6 m).

yongjik 8y ago

I sorta agree with you, but to be a pedantic bastard, a single hydrogen atom can absorb and emit 21cm radio wave[1], so molecular sizes don't completely rule out radio absorption. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line

acqq 8y ago
But note that that kind absorption doesn't mean that such hydrogen atom becomes "less" or more the same "hydrogen" than before. The electron remains "there" in both states: its magnetic moment gets to be either parallel or anti-parallel to that of the proton, that's all. Also note that the "mean lifetime of the excited state" of that electron which still remains bound to the proton (that is, of the "higher energy" moment of the electron) is "of around 10 million years." So all this is relevant for the observations of the light passing through the universe, that is, when we worry about the photons traveling the many light years of space, but not relevant when we worry about if electrons remain by the same atom or not. Compared to all that, the ionizing radiation (UV and shorter, that is, measured in nanometers or smaller, and not in centimeters) does remove or add the electrons around, changing the properties of the atom, and as soon as the electron is being hit by the photon. That is why it is provably damaging. Of course, there's never only one wavelength of the photons, it's always a distribution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spe... But that would still mean that the potential for the damage is order of magnitudes bigger by the "plain" light than by the infrared, micro, radio or 60 Hz waves. The photon energy is proportional to the frequency (i.e. more Hz more energy): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%E2%80%93Einstein_relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%E2%80%93Einstein_relati...