3 ms·

Not to feed the trolls but here is one example: Tumor Treating Fields are an FDA-approved mechanism for treating certain cancers (mostly gliomas). The exact m

by jcims 5y ago

Not to feed the trolls but here is one example: Tumor Treating Fields are an FDA-approved mechanism for treating certain cancers (mostly gliomas). The exact mechanism isn’t understood, but it seems that prolonged exposure to low power alternating electrical fields in the 100-500kHz region interferes with cell mitosis [1]. I haven’t read about it recently but at the time the speculation was that it was basically disrupting microtubule formation by physically agitating polar molecules involved with the process. The application from Optune and others uses contact electrodes to drive a small potential gradient though the skull and into the brain. We know radio frequency also affects polar molecules, mostly to heat up meals. Obviously at multi-GHz carrier frequencies we wouldn’t expect to see this behaivor emerge. However, most digital protocols don’t operate with continuous carriers..the break comms into frames and do things like frequency hopping at much lower periodicity than the carrier. If there was something dumping energy into the cytoplasm on a 2-10 microsecond interval, it could have similar effects. Do i think 5g is going to cure brain cancer? Probably not, but the body is ridiculously complex and can be surprising. I think we just have to find a way to be able to talk about these concerns fruitfully rather than just try to squash them, because that’s generally where the trouble seems to start. 1 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33080774/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33080774/

therein 5y ago
Thank you. Pretty much the answer I wanted to give, but much better than I could. And I am not just trying to latch onto the first unknown that's brought up under my comment, these are very similar to the concerns that I had in mind and wanted to bring up. At the wavelengths we would now be dealing with and exposing ourselves to, there may be - and with some evidence already pointing there probably being surprising and not immediately intuitive (mostly) biological interactions or disruptions to interactions our biology relies on that we are yet unaware or haven't understood leading to phenomenons we haven't considered such as the example you've given.
- jcims 5y ago
  I tend to be a bit of a fence rider when it comes to these types of things. Re: 5g we have so much accumulated knowledge and experience dealing with RF that the likelihood that we're going to be caught completely offguard and have no reasonable mitigation seems pretty low. At the same time, it's pretty obvious that our biology didn't have an opportunity to adapt to the types of energy we're putting into the environment and we'd be well served to keep an open mind about what the possible effects could be and how we would test and/or monitor for them. There are other contemporary topics that suffer this same pathology. Reasonable questions raised in good faith get slapped down regularly and I think we pay a collective price for it. Of course some questions aren't reasonable and certainly not all are raised in good faith, so it's not exactly an easy problem to solve.
  - monetus 5y ago
    I keep wondering if any insects are going to discombobulated by thinking along those lines - but am a complete layman
    - jcims 5y ago
      Affected, absolutely. Unknown to what degree or if it would be any worse then the billions smashed on windshields or fogged out of existence every year. Interesting paper on using EM simulations on finely detailed insect models to determine net energy absorption and associated properties: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3
jdiez17 5y ago
Keep in mind that the EM field described in that study is quite strong and the transmitter is very close (actually in contact with the patient's skin). They talk about field intensities of 0.6V/cm. That means that if you put the two probes of a multimeter in the air separated by 1cm, it would read 0.6V. That's quite a lot. I'm not sure how to translate that to RF power, but it is many orders of magnitude more intense than what you could ever expect to receive from a mobile phone tower. Radio receivers are basically very fast and very sensitive voltmeters that work with field strengths on the order of microvolts per meter.
- jcims 5y ago
  Totally agree there's extremely limited risk here from towers. The broader issue to me is that all of the conspiracy talk and bizarre science fiction around the topic of 5G (or vaccines or flat earth) has created a sort of conversational countermeasure where its acceptable to clap back and shut the topic down any time people appear to be wandering in those woods. As a result, some folks with legitimate questions and concerns end up frustrated and looking for answers elsewhere. Endless patience for off the wall ideas isn't a sustainable option either, so I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I just wish we were maybe a step or two in that direction.
  - lumost 5y ago
    I asked for more details on the implication as the parent quote > what's happening to that energy? The common wisdom would say it heats up but that's not guaranteed. As the first and second laws of thermodynamics are well understood and tested theoretical principals that have been experimentally and theoretically verified for ~170 years, there is far more than "the common wisdom" backing the expectation that the system would heat up. A common conversational tactic to lead the conversation into conspiracy territory is to cast unsubstantiated doubt on a settled topic - then frame the orthodox view as something pushed by an "establishment". A far more interesting discussion emerges when data is presented, or absent data a plausible mechanism for harm. There is nothing wrong with studying the biological effects of EM fields. We certainly know that small quantities of Benzene, or Arsenic have large impacts on biological organisms - and that biological organisms react to certain portions of the EM spectrum in complex manners e.g. Visible light, and infrared. However we do have some good bounds on how much impact there can be and where it is likely to emerge based on ~120 years of radio spectrum deployments.

by jcims 5y ago

therein 5y ago

Thank you. Pretty much the answer I wanted to give, but much better than I could. And I am not just trying to latch onto the first unknown that's brought up under my comment, these are very similar to the concerns that I had in mind and wanted to bring up. At the wavelengths we would now be dealing with and exposing ourselves to, there may be - and with some evidence already pointing there probably being surprising and not immediately intuitive (mostly) biological interactions or disruptions to interactions our biology relies on that we are yet unaware or haven't understood leading to phenomenons we haven't considered such as the example you've given.

jcims 5y ago
I tend to be a bit of a fence rider when it comes to these types of things. Re: 5g we have so much accumulated knowledge and experience dealing with RF that the likelihood that we're going to be caught completely offguard and have no reasonable mitigation seems pretty low. At the same time, it's pretty obvious that our biology didn't have an opportunity to adapt to the types of energy we're putting into the environment and we'd be well served to keep an open mind about what the possible effects could be and how we would test and/or monitor for them. There are other contemporary topics that suffer this same pathology. Reasonable questions raised in good faith get slapped down regularly and I think we pay a collective price for it. Of course some questions aren't reasonable and certainly not all are raised in good faith, so it's not exactly an easy problem to solve.
- monetus 5y ago
  I keep wondering if any insects are going to discombobulated by thinking along those lines - but am a complete layman
  - jcims 5y ago
    Affected, absolutely. Unknown to what degree or if it would be any worse then the billions smashed on windshields or fogged out of existence every year. Interesting paper on using EM simulations on finely detailed insect models to determine net energy absorption and associated properties: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3

jdiez17 5y ago

Keep in mind that the EM field described in that study is quite strong and the transmitter is very close (actually in contact with the patient's skin). They talk about field intensities of 0.6V/cm. That means that if you put the two probes of a multimeter in the air separated by 1cm, it would read 0.6V. That's quite a lot. I'm not sure how to translate that to RF power, but it is many orders of magnitude more intense than what you could ever expect to receive from a mobile phone tower. Radio receivers are basically very fast and very sensitive voltmeters that work with field strengths on the order of microvolts per meter.

jcims 5y ago
Totally agree there's extremely limited risk here from towers. The broader issue to me is that all of the conspiracy talk and bizarre science fiction around the topic of 5G (or vaccines or flat earth) has created a sort of conversational countermeasure where its acceptable to clap back and shut the topic down any time people appear to be wandering in those woods. As a result, some folks with legitimate questions and concerns end up frustrated and looking for answers elsewhere. Endless patience for off the wall ideas isn't a sustainable option either, so I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I just wish we were maybe a step or two in that direction.
- lumost 5y ago
  I asked for more details on the implication as the parent quote > what's happening to that energy? The common wisdom would say it heats up but that's not guaranteed. As the first and second laws of thermodynamics are well understood and tested theoretical principals that have been experimentally and theoretically verified for ~170 years, there is far more than "the common wisdom" backing the expectation that the system would heat up. A common conversational tactic to lead the conversation into conspiracy territory is to cast unsubstantiated doubt on a settled topic - then frame the orthodox view as something pushed by an "establishment". A far more interesting discussion emerges when data is presented, or absent data a plausible mechanism for harm. There is nothing wrong with studying the biological effects of EM fields. We certainly know that small quantities of Benzene, or Arsenic have large impacts on biological organisms - and that biological organisms react to certain portions of the EM spectrum in complex manners e.g. Visible light, and infrared. However we do have some good bounds on how much impact there can be and where it is likely to emerge based on ~120 years of radio spectrum deployments.