4 ms·

Generally industrial exposure limits are set out of an abundance of caution. You don't prove that it's safe under all conditions and at all exposure levels befo

Generally industrial exposure limits are set out of an abundance of caution. You don't prove that it's safe under all conditions and at all exposure levels before you start using it - after all, nothing is. You assume that it may cause harm, and you continue to study. None of the studies you found demonstrated harm. To the best of my knowledge no study exists that demonstrates anything resembling a conclusive link between nonionizing EM radiation and harm (except for of course, acute heating, etc). Your first study, power lines and childhood leukemia. No study has ever shown that living near power lines leads to an increased risk of leukemia due to EM radiation, ever. Here's a pooled analysis combining individual-level data (29,049 cases and 68,231 controls) from 11 record-based studies. [1] Conclusion: in this first comprehensive pooled analysis of childhood leukaemia and distance to power lines, we found a small and imprecise risk for residences < 50 m of 200 + kV lines that was not explained by high magnetic fields. It is far more likely IMO to be associated with the chemicals used nearby. The same is true of wi-fi. And cell phones. [2] The same is true of other cancers near power lines. And that makes sense because it's non-ionizing EM. All non-ionizing EM radiation can do to your body is warm you up. Once it's acutely warming you up, you have much bigger problems. The reason you can't say it doesn't do anything is because it's fundamentally impossible to prove a negative, which is what you're asking. However, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the affirmative. It's safe. It's not really debated, no. [3] And of course, more studies are always welcome due to just how widespread these fields are. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-018-0097-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-018-0097-7 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297541/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297541/ [3] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/electromagnetic-fields-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r...

giantg2 5y ago
"It's safe. It's not really debated, no." If there wasn't still debate then there wouldn't still be studies questioning it. There are tons of studies that say something to the effect of non-thermal effects being debated/possible/etc. "that was not explained by high magnetic fields." Which does not rule out specific frequency, fluctuations in field exposure, etc. Your number 3 link acknowledges that some studies have found increased risks. "of which few studies have reported evidence of increased risk" WHO considers EMF to be a possible carcinogen and says that more studies are required. https://www.who.int/ceh/capacity/radiation.pdf https://www.who.int/ceh/capacity/radiation.pdf "All non-ionizing EM radiation can do to your body is warm you up." No, it can at least affect intracellular calcium. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcmm.12088 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcmm.12088 "The reason you can't say it doesn't do anything is because it's fundamentally impossible to prove a negative" Not really. If you properly control all the variables, you can measure the differences. This may not be feasible when studying humans, but typically a control group is used or comparison to the population. The studies have done this and show a correlation between higher risk and powerlines. They just haven't shown causation or the underlying mechanism, including the chemicals you mention (traffic exposure). "This association was not explained by exposure to high MF levels or by other measured confounders."
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > WHO considers EMF to be a possible carcinogen and says that more studies are required. That category simply means that it hasn't been ruled out - again, proving a negative. Nothing has established that link. The category that it's in (Group 2B) also contains coffee and pickled vegetables. But nobody's out there screaming about their potential to cause cancer - because they're safe too. [1] Group 2A ("probably carcinogenic", a higher classification than "possibly") includes any and all hot beverages consumed over 65C. ELF inclusion in group 2b was based on those leukemia studies you pointed to which, as my metastudy illustrated, do not actually conclude a carcinogenicity risk. However, due to the way risk management works, it will never be removed from category 2b because it cannot unequivocally be proven safe. > If there wasn't still debate then there wouldn't still be studies questioning it. There are tons of studies that say something to the effect of non-thermal effects being debated/possible/etc. Sure, and studies continue to be done on aspartame even though it's the single most studied compound in the history of the world. That doesn't mean there's not consensus. Consensus isn't unanimity. All the studies you dug up are "10th dentist" studies - you know, the ones who hate Oral B. And as for EM radiation and calcium channels - is that in vivo? At what level? How does that compare to exposure in the environments you are talking about? Is there any demonstrated harm there either? Does this kind of change have a conclusive link to cancer or anything else? Again, you're asking to disprove a negative for which there is no evidence. > Not really. If you properly control all the variables, you can measure the differences. This may not be feasible when studying humans, but typically a control group is used or comparison to the population. This theory about controlling for all the variables is why we have studies that show one day that eggs will kill you and your babies, and the next day that eggs are fantastic superfoods. You cannot do so with that many variables. Otherwise, you know, it would have been done by now. [1] https://www.coffeeandhealth.org/factsheet/coffee-and-iarc-what-are-the-facts https://www.coffeeandhealth.org/factsheet/coffee-and-iarc-wh...
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I'm basically tired of debating this, but feel the need to correct another inaccuracy. "That category simply means that it hasn't been ruled out - again, proving a negative. Nothing has established that link." This is not correct. IARC group 3 means something has not been ruled out. Group 2B means there have been findings that suggest a potential link but the data is not conclusive and needs further study. "And as for EM radiation and calcium channels - is that in vivo?" Referenced studies in the prior link included, mice, rats, in vitro, and in vivo. "At what level?" Types and levels varied by study. "How does that compare to exposure in the environments you are talking about?" Again, varies by the referenced studies, from weaker to stronger. "Is there any demonstrated harm there either?" Oxidative stress "Does this kind of change have a conclusive link to cancer or anything else?" Oxidative stress is linked to, and thought to be linked to, many issues.

giantg2 5y ago

"It's safe. It's not really debated, no." If there wasn't still debate then there wouldn't still be studies questioning it. There are tons of studies that say something to the effect of non-thermal effects being debated/possible/etc. "that was not explained by high magnetic fields." Which does not rule out specific frequency, fluctuations in field exposure, etc. Your number 3 link acknowledges that some studies have found increased risks. "of which few studies have reported evidence of increased risk" WHO considers EMF to be a possible carcinogen and says that more studies are required. https://www.who.int/ceh/capacity/radiation.pdf https://www.who.int/ceh/capacity/radiation.pdf "All non-ionizing EM radiation can do to your body is warm you up." No, it can at least affect intracellular calcium. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcmm.12088 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcmm.12088 "The reason you can't say it doesn't do anything is because it's fundamentally impossible to prove a negative" Not really. If you properly control all the variables, you can measure the differences. This may not be feasible when studying humans, but typically a control group is used or comparison to the population. The studies have done this and show a correlation between higher risk and powerlines. They just haven't shown causation or the underlying mechanism, including the chemicals you mention (traffic exposure). "This association was not explained by exposure to high MF levels or by other measured confounders."

arcticbull 5y ago
> WHO considers EMF to be a possible carcinogen and says that more studies are required. That category simply means that it hasn't been ruled out - again, proving a negative. Nothing has established that link. The category that it's in (Group 2B) also contains coffee and pickled vegetables. But nobody's out there screaming about their potential to cause cancer - because they're safe too. [1] Group 2A ("probably carcinogenic", a higher classification than "possibly") includes any and all hot beverages consumed over 65C. ELF inclusion in group 2b was based on those leukemia studies you pointed to which, as my metastudy illustrated, do not actually conclude a carcinogenicity risk. However, due to the way risk management works, it will never be removed from category 2b because it cannot unequivocally be proven safe. > If there wasn't still debate then there wouldn't still be studies questioning it. There are tons of studies that say something to the effect of non-thermal effects being debated/possible/etc. Sure, and studies continue to be done on aspartame even though it's the single most studied compound in the history of the world. That doesn't mean there's not consensus. Consensus isn't unanimity. All the studies you dug up are "10th dentist" studies - you know, the ones who hate Oral B. And as for EM radiation and calcium channels - is that in vivo? At what level? How does that compare to exposure in the environments you are talking about? Is there any demonstrated harm there either? Does this kind of change have a conclusive link to cancer or anything else? Again, you're asking to disprove a negative for which there is no evidence. > Not really. If you properly control all the variables, you can measure the differences. This may not be feasible when studying humans, but typically a control group is used or comparison to the population. This theory about controlling for all the variables is why we have studies that show one day that eggs will kill you and your babies, and the next day that eggs are fantastic superfoods. You cannot do so with that many variables. Otherwise, you know, it would have been done by now. [1] https://www.coffeeandhealth.org/factsheet/coffee-and-iarc-what-are-the-facts https://www.coffeeandhealth.org/factsheet/coffee-and-iarc-wh...
- giantg2 5y ago
  I'm basically tired of debating this, but feel the need to correct another inaccuracy. "That category simply means that it hasn't been ruled out - again, proving a negative. Nothing has established that link." This is not correct. IARC group 3 means something has not been ruled out. Group 2B means there have been findings that suggest a potential link but the data is not conclusive and needs further study. "And as for EM radiation and calcium channels - is that in vivo?" Referenced studies in the prior link included, mice, rats, in vitro, and in vivo. "At what level?" Types and levels varied by study. "How does that compare to exposure in the environments you are talking about?" Again, varies by the referenced studies, from weaker to stronger. "Is there any demonstrated harm there either?" Oxidative stress "Does this kind of change have a conclusive link to cancer or anything else?" Oxidative stress is linked to, and thought to be linked to, many issues.