9 ms·

I had to scroll for a while to get past the politics or explanations of how the radiation is produced. Here's the only explanation I could find of what "harmful

by skulk 5y ago

I had to scroll for a while to get past the politics or explanations of how the radiation is produced. Here's the only explanation I could find of what "harmful" entails: > Many biologists and electromagnetic field scientists believe the modulation of wireless devices makes the energy more biologically active, which interferes with our cellular mechanisms, opening up calcium channels, for example, and allowing calcium to flow into the cell and into the mitochondria within the cell, interfering with our natural cellular processes and leading to the creation of stress proteins and free radicals and, possibly, DNA damage. And, in other cases, it may lead to cell death.

mjburgess 5y ago
Indeed, a mumbojumbo word soup. Light from the sun is more powerful than cell phone radiation. Being outside, or by a window, is far more dangerous.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  The concern is not the power. Look: maybe it's baseless. Misrepresenting the claims and calling them "mumbojumbo" isn't a good way of determining that.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    > electromagnetic field scientists > modulation of wireless devices > makes the energy more biologically active > our cellular mechanisms > natural cellular processes > stress proteins and free radicals Define any of the above, and point to a reputable source when any of the above phrases are used. It's a collection of phrases which are all "off", like a foreign person with broken english.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      • No clue. • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation • No clue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_activity doesn't apply. (This is a crank warning sign.) • This is too generic to answer out of context. • Same as the above, perhaps with the naturalistic fallacy thrown in (also a crank warning sign). • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_hormone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_hormone and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-radical_theory_of_aging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-radical_theory_of_aging Of your six quotes, only two (maybe three) of them are crank warning signs, and two have clear, well-defined meanings.
      - coldpie 5y ago
        Two crank warning signs is a massive number for someone purporting to be a scientist or expert...
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        And there were a few others not quoted. But just because a crank is saying something, that doesn't mean it's wrong; this person seems inclined to complain about phones causing cancer independently of whether it's true, so his view shouldn't really affect what you think either way. I doubt he's right, but I'm not confident enough to laugh at him. Even relatively low-intensity radio waves affect neurons, so it's not like they have no effect on the body.
      - dariusj18 5y ago
        RE: #2 It's not about any single word, it's about the use of words together. ex. "modulation of wireless devices" is not just modulation, what does the phrase as a whole mean and what is it's actual relevance to the matter at hand? In this specific case why would they not cite references for that claim?
      - gus_massa 5y ago
        #6 Free radicals: It's very difficult to create free radicals with photons that has less energy than UV rays. And the photons of cell phones has a few order of magnitude less energy. The term is well defined, but it's almost impossible that it's relevant. Stress hormone: Your link is about hormones produced by glands, and in the sentence it looks like some modification of each cell. Again, the term is well defined, but I'm not sure they are talking about the same thing, and it's not very probable that it's relevant.
  - jellicle 5y ago
    The concern isn't the power now, after people point out that your cell phone is emitting less power than a single christmas tree light. Power absolutely was the concern, it was beaming energy right into your brain! Boiling your precious fluids! But power was shot down, so now it's not the power, it's the modulation! Except the Sun generates a tremendous mish-mash of modulated EM radiation, so "modulation" is also a nonsense argument. What's next for the Gish gallop crowd?
- netr0ute 5y ago
  The problem is, the sun is more powerful, but the wavelength of the visible/UV light means it can't get past our skin. Radio waves obviously can penetrate much farther and get to the areas that you would want to be concerned about.
  - aeternum 5y ago
    The sun also produces radio-waves, it generates very broad spectrum radiation, as do other natural celestial events.
    - netr0ute 5y ago
      I'm not sure about the specifics, but the sun is a blackbody radiator. As visible light is orders of magnitude higher frequency than regular radio waves (say, AWS which uses 1.9/2GHz), the amount of radio-level RF emitted by the sun isn't as high as you'd think. Also, if it did emit high enough levels of RF, we wouldn't be able to use any radios here in earth because the SNR could never be high enough.
      - sidewndr46 5y ago
        The sun is a blackbody radiator and does exactly what you think. However, RF from the sun basically only arrives at exactly one angle from the sky (or not at all, if it is night time). It does exactly what you describe, degrading SNR from signals in the same direction to the point of uselessness. If you've ever used satellite based services like television then you've probably experienced it. There is a long explanation here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-03-20/how-can-the-sun-mess-with-your-tv-and-radio/8363976 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-03-20/how-can-the-s... > The period in which the Sun passes behind a geostationary satellite is brief — about 10 minutes at most according to Dr Carter — but the noise is enough to degrade or completely disrupt radio and television broadcasts, as well as satellite internet.
        netr0ute 5y ago
        I would have thought the signals from the sun would bounce around on ground terrain, making things like WiFi useless. Does this also mean I should try to shield my outdoor wireless devices from sunlight?
- bopbeepboop 5y ago
  You ignored the argument in your reply. The reason that cellphones operate on sunny days is modulation matters — me posting this on a cellphone while sitting in sunshine makes your point wrong. > Many biologists and electromagnetic field scientists believe the modulation of wireless devices makes the energy more biologically active, which interferes with our cellular mechanisms, ... The exact argument is you can’t compare the strength of signals alone when considering bio activity — just like strength alone doesn’t determine if a cellphone signal can be heard.
The_rationalist 5y ago
Well this can be easily measured empirically. Oxidative stress, byproducts, biomarkers and damages are trivial to identify so no one care to do the study or what?
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Do you know that nobody's done the study? The article makes it sound like this is the results of a study.
- swader999 5y ago
  Where are you going to find a control group that hasn't had exposure to man made emf? This really can't be studied now days.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    This isn't vampires. If there's a biological effect, it'll be visible even if someone attempts to induce it in an “impure” individual – unless you claim there's a one-shot permanent harmful effect that everybody in the world now has, that we've completely failed to notice.
    - swader999 5y ago
      I'm saying it will be extremely difficult to find human candidates that haven't been constantly exposed to man made pulsed emf fields that could serve as a control. So how do you study this now without controls?
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Less exposure and more exposure? That's not “no controls”.
aeternum 5y ago
EM fields are constantly modulated in nature with each slightly different medium they pass through. A rainbow for example is basically an EM modulation. Are they really claiming that cell-phone radiation is dangerous because it's like rainbows?
- istumbler 5y ago
  Wait until they hear about cosmic rays and neutron flux…
  - dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
    Nobody questions the negative effects of ionizing radiation. The issue in question is the influence of non-ionizing radiation beyond short-term thermal effects.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  I think it's talking about time modulation, not space modulation.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  I think you have to take into account the fact that your phone doesn't use the visible spectrum to communicate.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    How, exactly, would you take that into account?
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    Below the visible spectrum, no?
    - topspin 5y ago
      Way, way below.
  - 5y ago
istumbler 5y ago
All very speculative, note that these findings never come from physicists or engineers working on wireless technologies. If cell phones caused even a small increase in cancer rates we would be seeing a massive epidemic, what we see instead is a steady decline in overall cancer rates: https://www.statista.com/statistics/184566/deaths-by-cancer-in-the-us-since-1950/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/184566/deaths-by-cancer-...
- whatshisface 5y ago
  I'm not a fan of the cell phone EM theories necessarily, but both of the reasons you gave aren't sound. First off, physicists will not be the ones conducting studies about the biological impact of EM waves. That is the wrong department. Secondly, an overall decline could be compatible with dangerous phone rays if there is a larger effect going on in the opposite direction, for example the decreasing environmental concentrations of carcinogens which were discovered and banned recently.
  - biesnecker 5y ago
    Wouldn't we have seen a massive spike in head / mouth / throat cancer, though, even if the overall cancer rates had gone down?
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      We might, if we weren't messing with the “proportion smokers” control variable.
- skulk 5y ago
  > these findings never come from physicists or engineers working on wireless technologies It's not hard to believe that there's pressure from the telecom industry to not find out these kinds of things. However, it seems quite feasible for a lab today to rigorously measure the effect of cellphone radiation on voltage-gated calcium channels to verify these claims.
- dylan604 5y ago
rocqua 5y ago
Near the beginning the article states: > After reading many animal toxicology studies that found that this radiation could increase oxidative stress — free radicals, stress proteins and DNA damage Not knowing enough about chemistry, I could imagine the radiation being able to affect some of the weaker bonds in certain chemicals, breaking them, and creating more energetic new compounds. This could be damaging to among other things, DNA. I know the photo-voltaic effect means there is a certain threshold frequency needed to be able to affect such bonds. I have no idea whether there are any chemical bonds that can be affected by say 5.8Ghz radiation. (Highest frequency non 5G phones should be emitting)
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > I could imagine the radiation being able to affect some of the weaker bonds in certain chemicals, breaking them, Nope. Unless those bonds could break due to localised heating, that's not going to happen. Radio waves have lower per-photon energies than are required to break bonds (except really really weak ones, but those can barely be called bonds in the first place).
- jlglover 5y ago
  > I could imagine the radiation being able to affect some of the weaker bonds in certain chemicals What you are describing is ionizing radiation, which RF and microwave is not.
  - LinAGKar 5y ago
    Not really. Ionizing radiation can knock electrons out of atoms. This sounds like knocking atoms out of molecules. But the wavelength these radio waves is several cm, so it's dubious that they would affect individual atoms, or even individual cells.

by skulk 5y ago

mjburgess 5y ago

Indeed, a mumbojumbo word soup. Light from the sun is more powerful than cell phone radiation. Being outside, or by a window, is far more dangerous.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
The concern is not the power. Look: maybe it's baseless. Misrepresenting the claims and calling them "mumbojumbo" isn't a good way of determining that.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  > electromagnetic field scientists > modulation of wireless devices > makes the energy more biologically active > our cellular mechanisms > natural cellular processes > stress proteins and free radicals Define any of the above, and point to a reputable source when any of the above phrases are used. It's a collection of phrases which are all "off", like a foreign person with broken english.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    • No clue. • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation • No clue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_activity doesn't apply. (This is a crank warning sign.) • This is too generic to answer out of context. • Same as the above, perhaps with the naturalistic fallacy thrown in (also a crank warning sign). • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_hormone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_hormone and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-radical_theory_of_aging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-radical_theory_of_aging Of your six quotes, only two (maybe three) of them are crank warning signs, and two have clear, well-defined meanings.
    - coldpie 5y ago
      Two crank warning signs is a massive number for someone purporting to be a scientist or expert...
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        And there were a few others not quoted. But just because a crank is saying something, that doesn't mean it's wrong; this person seems inclined to complain about phones causing cancer independently of whether it's true, so his view shouldn't really affect what you think either way. I doubt he's right, but I'm not confident enough to laugh at him. Even relatively low-intensity radio waves affect neurons, so it's not like they have no effect on the body.
    - dariusj18 5y ago
      RE: #2 It's not about any single word, it's about the use of words together. ex. "modulation of wireless devices" is not just modulation, what does the phrase as a whole mean and what is it's actual relevance to the matter at hand? In this specific case why would they not cite references for that claim?
    - gus_massa 5y ago
      #6 Free radicals: It's very difficult to create free radicals with photons that has less energy than UV rays. And the photons of cell phones has a few order of magnitude less energy. The term is well defined, but it's almost impossible that it's relevant. Stress hormone: Your link is about hormones produced by glands, and in the sentence it looks like some modification of each cell. Again, the term is well defined, but I'm not sure they are talking about the same thing, and it's not very probable that it's relevant.
- jellicle 5y ago
  The concern isn't the power now, after people point out that your cell phone is emitting less power than a single christmas tree light. Power absolutely was the concern, it was beaming energy right into your brain! Boiling your precious fluids! But power was shot down, so now it's not the power, it's the modulation! Except the Sun generates a tremendous mish-mash of modulated EM radiation, so "modulation" is also a nonsense argument. What's next for the Gish gallop crowd?
netr0ute 5y ago
The problem is, the sun is more powerful, but the wavelength of the visible/UV light means it can't get past our skin. Radio waves obviously can penetrate much farther and get to the areas that you would want to be concerned about.
- aeternum 5y ago
  The sun also produces radio-waves, it generates very broad spectrum radiation, as do other natural celestial events.
  - netr0ute 5y ago
    I'm not sure about the specifics, but the sun is a blackbody radiator. As visible light is orders of magnitude higher frequency than regular radio waves (say, AWS which uses 1.9/2GHz), the amount of radio-level RF emitted by the sun isn't as high as you'd think. Also, if it did emit high enough levels of RF, we wouldn't be able to use any radios here in earth because the SNR could never be high enough.
    - sidewndr46 5y ago
      The sun is a blackbody radiator and does exactly what you think. However, RF from the sun basically only arrives at exactly one angle from the sky (or not at all, if it is night time). It does exactly what you describe, degrading SNR from signals in the same direction to the point of uselessness. If you've ever used satellite based services like television then you've probably experienced it. There is a long explanation here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-03-20/how-can-the-sun-mess-with-your-tv-and-radio/8363976 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-03-20/how-can-the-s... > The period in which the Sun passes behind a geostationary satellite is brief — about 10 minutes at most according to Dr Carter — but the noise is enough to degrade or completely disrupt radio and television broadcasts, as well as satellite internet.
      - netr0ute 5y ago
        I would have thought the signals from the sun would bounce around on ground terrain, making things like WiFi useless. Does this also mean I should try to shield my outdoor wireless devices from sunlight?
bopbeepboop 5y ago
You ignored the argument in your reply. The reason that cellphones operate on sunny days is modulation matters — me posting this on a cellphone while sitting in sunshine makes your point wrong. > Many biologists and electromagnetic field scientists believe the modulation of wireless devices makes the energy more biologically active, which interferes with our cellular mechanisms, ... The exact argument is you can’t compare the strength of signals alone when considering bio activity — just like strength alone doesn’t determine if a cellphone signal can be heard.

The_rationalist 5y ago

Well this can be easily measured empirically. Oxidative stress, byproducts, biomarkers and damages are trivial to identify so no one care to do the study or what?

wizzwizz4 5y ago
Do you know that nobody's done the study? The article makes it sound like this is the results of a study.
swader999 5y ago
Where are you going to find a control group that hasn't had exposure to man made emf? This really can't be studied now days.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  This isn't vampires. If there's a biological effect, it'll be visible even if someone attempts to induce it in an “impure” individual – unless you claim there's a one-shot permanent harmful effect that everybody in the world now has, that we've completely failed to notice.
  - swader999 5y ago
    I'm saying it will be extremely difficult to find human candidates that haven't been constantly exposed to man made pulsed emf fields that could serve as a control. So how do you study this now without controls?
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      Less exposure and more exposure? That's not “no controls”.

aeternum 5y ago

EM fields are constantly modulated in nature with each slightly different medium they pass through. A rainbow for example is basically an EM modulation. Are they really claiming that cell-phone radiation is dangerous because it's like rainbows?

istumbler 5y ago
Wait until they hear about cosmic rays and neutron flux…
- dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
  Nobody questions the negative effects of ionizing radiation. The issue in question is the influence of non-ionizing radiation beyond short-term thermal effects.
wizzwizz4 5y ago
I think it's talking about time modulation, not space modulation.
BobbyJo 5y ago
I think you have to take into account the fact that your phone doesn't use the visible spectrum to communicate.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  How, exactly, would you take that into account?
- Nicksil 5y ago
  Below the visible spectrum, no?
  - topspin 5y ago
    Way, way below.
- 5y ago

istumbler 5y ago

All very speculative, note that these findings never come from physicists or engineers working on wireless technologies. If cell phones caused even a small increase in cancer rates we would be seeing a massive epidemic, what we see instead is a steady decline in overall cancer rates: https://www.statista.com/statistics/184566/deaths-by-cancer-in-the-us-since-1950/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/184566/deaths-by-cancer-...

whatshisface 5y ago
I'm not a fan of the cell phone EM theories necessarily, but both of the reasons you gave aren't sound. First off, physicists will not be the ones conducting studies about the biological impact of EM waves. That is the wrong department. Secondly, an overall decline could be compatible with dangerous phone rays if there is a larger effect going on in the opposite direction, for example the decreasing environmental concentrations of carcinogens which were discovered and banned recently.
- biesnecker 5y ago
  Wouldn't we have seen a massive spike in head / mouth / throat cancer, though, even if the overall cancer rates had gone down?
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    We might, if we weren't messing with the “proportion smokers” control variable.
skulk 5y ago
> these findings never come from physicists or engineers working on wireless technologies It's not hard to believe that there's pressure from the telecom industry to not find out these kinds of things. However, it seems quite feasible for a lab today to rigorously measure the effect of cellphone radiation on voltage-gated calcium channels to verify these claims.
dylan604 5y ago

rocqua 5y ago

Near the beginning the article states: > After reading many animal toxicology studies that found that this radiation could increase oxidative stress — free radicals, stress proteins and DNA damage Not knowing enough about chemistry, I could imagine the radiation being able to affect some of the weaker bonds in certain chemicals, breaking them, and creating more energetic new compounds. This could be damaging to among other things, DNA. I know the photo-voltaic effect means there is a certain threshold frequency needed to be able to affect such bonds. I have no idea whether there are any chemical bonds that can be affected by say 5.8Ghz radiation. (Highest frequency non 5G phones should be emitting)

wizzwizz4 5y ago
> I could imagine the radiation being able to affect some of the weaker bonds in certain chemicals, breaking them, Nope. Unless those bonds could break due to localised heating, that's not going to happen. Radio waves have lower per-photon energies than are required to break bonds (except really really weak ones, but those can barely be called bonds in the first place).
jlglover 5y ago
> I could imagine the radiation being able to affect some of the weaker bonds in certain chemicals What you are describing is ionizing radiation, which RF and microwave is not.
- LinAGKar 5y ago
  Not really. Ionizing radiation can knock electrons out of atoms. This sounds like knocking atoms out of molecules. But the wavelength these radio waves is several cm, so it's dubious that they would affect individual atoms, or even individual cells.