7 ms·

This is scary if true, because it opens up all kinds of doors for external EM fields modifying human cognition doesn’t it?

by zionic 5y ago

politician 5y ago
Maybe those folks worried about 5G were on to something...
- owlbynight 5y ago
  Spoiler: They weren't
  - imcoconut 5y ago
    Why are you so confident? It seems a fair number of experts have well justified doubts based on studies of already deployed lower energy radiation. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no... > Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions: “Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.” The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals. > The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats. > Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.
    - jotm 5y ago
      Yeah, it is certainly possible that it affects health. However, since we decided to live with such technology as a society, we'll have to deal with it. People living in cities (or anywhere really) don't complain much about the massive amount of exhaust from cars, which is definitely proven to be bad for everyone's health despite all attempts at reducing it. It's just there, we won't give up cars, so everyone just kind of ignores it.
      - hosh 5y ago
        Well, we didn’t complain about 70 years of leaded gasoline exhaust either … but maybe our society had collectively lost the capability to understand the damage.
        politician 5y ago
        We’re ready to hyperventilate about spent nuclear fuel stored hundreds of miles away at the bottom of a vault under a desert, so I don’t think we’ve collectively lost the ability to be persuaded by charismatic people.
      - rixed 5y ago
        It seemed to me we are getting rid of exhaust gases in big cities, via stricter regulations on engine emissions, exhaust gas recirculation, catalytic converters, stop and go systems, lower speed limits, car free areas, electrification, etc, with very visible results. So the car analogy seems a bad exemple to discourage progress.
        jotm 5y ago
        As I said, it's not enough. As long as they exist, they're causing health problems. You just can't filter enough of the gases. But moving to full electric can solve that quite well (putting the dangerous emissions far away). Batteries are getting safer, too.
    - owlbynight 5y ago
bzmrgonz 5y ago
So Havana syndrome????
throwawayForMe2 5y ago
There is the (unsuccessful?) God Helmet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
hosh 5y ago
Robert Becker wrote a book about the em field on the effects of the body, though I don’t think the book talked much about its effect on the mind. He did write the book to raise the flag about the unintended consequence of electrifying everything. If consciousness is not exclusive to neurons, then how much affect does the consciousness have on shaping the body … and how much does the body shape the mind?

This is scary if true, because it opens up all kinds of doors for external EM fields modifying human cognition doesn’t it?

by zionic 5y ago

This is scary if true, because it opens up all kinds of doors for external EM fields modifying human cognition doesn’t it?

politician 5y ago

Maybe those folks worried about 5G were on to something...

owlbynight 5y ago
Spoiler: They weren't
- imcoconut 5y ago
  Why are you so confident? It seems a fair number of experts have well justified doubts based on studies of already deployed lower energy radiation. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no... > Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions: “Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.” The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals. > The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats. > Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.
  - jotm 5y ago
    Yeah, it is certainly possible that it affects health. However, since we decided to live with such technology as a society, we'll have to deal with it. People living in cities (or anywhere really) don't complain much about the massive amount of exhaust from cars, which is definitely proven to be bad for everyone's health despite all attempts at reducing it. It's just there, we won't give up cars, so everyone just kind of ignores it.
    - hosh 5y ago
      Well, we didn’t complain about 70 years of leaded gasoline exhaust either … but maybe our society had collectively lost the capability to understand the damage.
      - politician 5y ago
        We’re ready to hyperventilate about spent nuclear fuel stored hundreds of miles away at the bottom of a vault under a desert, so I don’t think we’ve collectively lost the ability to be persuaded by charismatic people.
    - rixed 5y ago
      It seemed to me we are getting rid of exhaust gases in big cities, via stricter regulations on engine emissions, exhaust gas recirculation, catalytic converters, stop and go systems, lower speed limits, car free areas, electrification, etc, with very visible results. So the car analogy seems a bad exemple to discourage progress.
      - jotm 5y ago
        As I said, it's not enough. As long as they exist, they're causing health problems. You just can't filter enough of the gases. But moving to full electric can solve that quite well (putting the dangerous emissions far away). Batteries are getting safer, too.
  - owlbynight 5y ago

bzmrgonz 5y ago

So Havana syndrome????

throwawayForMe2 5y ago

There is the (unsuccessful?) God Helmet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

hosh 5y ago

Robert Becker wrote a book about the em field on the effects of the body, though I don’t think the book talked much about its effect on the mind. He did write the book to raise the flag about the unintended consequence of electrifying everything. If consciousness is not exclusive to neurons, then how much affect does the consciousness have on shaping the body … and how much does the body shape the mind?