4 ms·

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That said, if we start with the premise that > Mobile phones emit radio frequency waves which, if absorbed by t

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That said, if we start with the premise that > Mobile phones emit radio frequency waves which, if absorbed by tissues, can cause heating and damage then there is no need to do a study. Knowing transmitted power, frequency, distance, SAR, and thermal conductivity of human tissues we can calculate how big the change in temperature can be (should be way less than one degree, not enough to cause any damage).

ncmncm 5y ago
Assuming that the only possible effect is heating guarantees not learning anything. Modulated E-M radiation has been demonstrated to produce profound biological effects that cannot be accounted for by heating. Each of an infinite variety of modulations has its own effect, most of them probably negligible. The ones that do have effect are the ones that are interesting. Back in the 80s, I attended a talk in Hungary where an American biologist showed growing beetle larvae to 4x normal size under magnetic stimulation. No heating there. At the time somebody in the US was succeeding, over many decades, in suppressing almost all research into biological effects of E-M exposure. About the only person with a free hand was George Becker, author of The Body Electric, because he worked for the Veterans Administration on what they hoped would lead to limb regeneration. Every controlled study of microwave exposure I have encountered used entirely unmodulated radiation at a single frequency, which is where we would expect the least effect.
- sobriquet9 5y ago
  I'm not sure how modulation could have an effect, but there certainly were studies that used modulated signals: > The studies used 2G and 3G frequencies and modulations still used in voice calls and texting in the United States https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/february2/index.cfm https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/februa...
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Being unsure is better, anyway, than feeling sure of something false.
    - alexvoda 5y ago
      Of course. "Being unsure (about the roundness of the earth, about the age of the world, about the origin of humans, about who built the pyramids, etc.) is better, anyway, than feeling sure of something false." The burden of proof is still on the one claming the existence of something.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        The burden of proof is on the person claiming a thing, existence or no. Insisting something does not happen, in the total absence of evidence, is exactly as wrong as claiming it does happen. Knowing there is no much evidence, it is absolutely dishonest to make the claim. The honest statement is that nobody knows.
        alexvoda 5y ago
        Very well, in that case, since there isn't much evidence, the honest claim is that you do not exist. For all I know, I am a brain in a vat and you are just a figment of my imagination. Playing the solipsism game does not make for a productive conversation.
  - Gnarl 5y ago
    @sobriquet9 "I'm not sure how modulation could have an effect". Look up voltage-gated ion-channels in cell-membranes. Good starting point: https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92 https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92
    - sobriquet9 5y ago
      The linked article shows biological effects of low frequency electromagnetic fields, then argues that cell phone signals contain low frequency components "in the form of on/off pulsations, modulation, and signal variability". But cell phones cannot really transmit at low frequencies because their antennas are too small compared to the wavelength. That's why they use high frequency carrier and modulate it. If you look at the spectrum of the transmitted signal, there's almost nothing at the low end. For this effect to exist, something in the living cells need to rectify the high-frequency radio signal. I wonder what it is. There are no semiconductors or p-n junctions inside the cells. There are bug detectors that work by using this principle, and they are not triggered by living tissue.
calibas 5y ago
Was anybody actually making the claim that increased cancer rates were due to heat? I always thought the idea was that electromagnetic fields by themselves can be genotoxic. It doesn't seem like the causality is something very mysterious either, we know electromagnetic fields have an effect on chemistry. It's the very nature of molecules to be affected by electromagnetism, so the idea that DNA can be damaged by electromagnetic fields isn't much of a stretch... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31297205/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31297205/
- sobriquet9 5y ago
  High-frequency electromagnetic field aka ionizing radiation (X-ray, gamma) is well known to be genotoxic because it can break molecular bonds. The question is how non-ionizing radiation can affect molecular structure, if not by heating. I don't think there is a well-understood mechanism of such effect.
  - Gnarl 5y ago
    When talking about RF effect on living things it helps to take a step back and look at the bigger picture: biology. Consider secondary effects like RF causing overproduction of reactive-oxygen-species (free radicals) leading to damage in exposed cells. Its well documented now. If you care to look.
- forum_ghost 5y ago
  They may not be directly genotoxic, but if they cause chronic inflammation all sorts of health issues can surface.
forum_ghost 5y ago
Human body is not a unibody macbook. What's the induced current in the sweat ducts, have you done the calculations by some chance? and closely situated small nerve fibers? and mast cells? Can that amount of current cause human mast cells to degranulate? Could it have impact on nerve signalling and the downstream inflammatory cascade? Has this been demonstrated in animal experiments? (guess in one try) How many degrees is needed for, say, pressure urticaria to cause anaphylaxis? (Literally unsolved question, you might get a nobel for it) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331357481_Human_sweat_ducts_as_helical_antennas_in_the_sub-THz_frequency_range-an_overview https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331357481_Human_swe... https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2020-0056/html?lang=en https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2020-00...

ncmncm 5y ago

Assuming that the only possible effect is heating guarantees not learning anything. Modulated E-M radiation has been demonstrated to produce profound biological effects that cannot be accounted for by heating. Each of an infinite variety of modulations has its own effect, most of them probably negligible. The ones that do have effect are the ones that are interesting. Back in the 80s, I attended a talk in Hungary where an American biologist showed growing beetle larvae to 4x normal size under magnetic stimulation. No heating there. At the time somebody in the US was succeeding, over many decades, in suppressing almost all research into biological effects of E-M exposure. About the only person with a free hand was George Becker, author of The Body Electric, because he worked for the Veterans Administration on what they hoped would lead to limb regeneration. Every controlled study of microwave exposure I have encountered used entirely unmodulated radiation at a single frequency, which is where we would expect the least effect.

sobriquet9 5y ago
I'm not sure how modulation could have an effect, but there certainly were studies that used modulated signals: > The studies used 2G and 3G frequencies and modulations still used in voice calls and texting in the United States https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/february2/index.cfm https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/februa...
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Being unsure is better, anyway, than feeling sure of something false.
  - alexvoda 5y ago
    Of course. "Being unsure (about the roundness of the earth, about the age of the world, about the origin of humans, about who built the pyramids, etc.) is better, anyway, than feeling sure of something false." The burden of proof is still on the one claming the existence of something.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      The burden of proof is on the person claiming a thing, existence or no. Insisting something does not happen, in the total absence of evidence, is exactly as wrong as claiming it does happen. Knowing there is no much evidence, it is absolutely dishonest to make the claim. The honest statement is that nobody knows.
      - alexvoda 5y ago
        Very well, in that case, since there isn't much evidence, the honest claim is that you do not exist. For all I know, I am a brain in a vat and you are just a figment of my imagination. Playing the solipsism game does not make for a productive conversation.
- Gnarl 5y ago
  @sobriquet9 "I'm not sure how modulation could have an effect". Look up voltage-gated ion-channels in cell-membranes. Good starting point: https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92 https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92
  - sobriquet9 5y ago
    The linked article shows biological effects of low frequency electromagnetic fields, then argues that cell phone signals contain low frequency components "in the form of on/off pulsations, modulation, and signal variability". But cell phones cannot really transmit at low frequencies because their antennas are too small compared to the wavelength. That's why they use high frequency carrier and modulate it. If you look at the spectrum of the transmitted signal, there's almost nothing at the low end. For this effect to exist, something in the living cells need to rectify the high-frequency radio signal. I wonder what it is. There are no semiconductors or p-n junctions inside the cells. There are bug detectors that work by using this principle, and they are not triggered by living tissue.

calibas 5y ago

Was anybody actually making the claim that increased cancer rates were due to heat? I always thought the idea was that electromagnetic fields by themselves can be genotoxic. It doesn't seem like the causality is something very mysterious either, we know electromagnetic fields have an effect on chemistry. It's the very nature of molecules to be affected by electromagnetism, so the idea that DNA can be damaged by electromagnetic fields isn't much of a stretch... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31297205/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31297205/

sobriquet9 5y ago
High-frequency electromagnetic field aka ionizing radiation (X-ray, gamma) is well known to be genotoxic because it can break molecular bonds. The question is how non-ionizing radiation can affect molecular structure, if not by heating. I don't think there is a well-understood mechanism of such effect.
- Gnarl 5y ago
  When talking about RF effect on living things it helps to take a step back and look at the bigger picture: biology. Consider secondary effects like RF causing overproduction of reactive-oxygen-species (free radicals) leading to damage in exposed cells. Its well documented now. If you care to look.
forum_ghost 5y ago
They may not be directly genotoxic, but if they cause chronic inflammation all sorts of health issues can surface.

forum_ghost 5y ago

Human body is not a unibody macbook. What's the induced current in the sweat ducts, have you done the calculations by some chance? and closely situated small nerve fibers? and mast cells? Can that amount of current cause human mast cells to degranulate? Could it have impact on nerve signalling and the downstream inflammatory cascade? Has this been demonstrated in animal experiments? (guess in one try) How many degrees is needed for, say, pressure urticaria to cause anaphylaxis? (Literally unsolved question, you might get a nobel for it) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331357481_Human_sweat_ducts_as_helical_antennas_in_the_sub-THz_frequency_range-an_overview https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331357481_Human_swe... https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2020-0056/html?lang=en https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2020-00...