3 ms·

It's not for this particular study, but here is a possible mechanism for RF harm that I've been wondering about for a long time, and it drives me up the wall th

It's not for this particular study, but here is a possible mechanism for RF harm that I've been wondering about for a long time, and it drives me up the wall that people think I'm crazy for mentioning it. I'm also tired of the "it's not dangerous unless it's ionizing" dogma. 1) we know DNA is an electrical conductor. This is work by Jackie Barton, et. al, Caltech, she's been talking about it on the talks circuit for about 10 years but the papers are now coming out. 2) it seems like DNA error correcting enzymes use electrical potentials and current (or rather lack of current due to mutations causing geometric disruptions in DNA and "opening the circuit") to reduce the search space and make mutation repair more efficient. 3) high frequency RF can induce current in DNA. 4) it's important to note that this mechanism (RF can jam error correction) does not itself cause mutations so standard tests like the Ames test, blasting mice with RF, or related, will miss the mechanism, especially in well-controlled lab environments. An experiment would need to be set up to directly test error repair. Yeast might be a good model species since there is a comprehensive knockout library so you could see if the relative repair rate is unaffected in repair-deficuent strains. Anyways. It should be a relatively easy Nobel prize if someone wants it. I'm not a scientist anymore, so I don't really have access to what I need to do this.

krisoft 4y ago
> It should be a relatively easy Nobel prize if someone wants it. Whether or not someone wants it is not the big question. The big question is if the theory verifies. Sadly they are not giving out Nobel prizes for carefully and painstakingly disproving theories proposed in anonymous HN comments. So whoever embarks on such a series of experiments has to judge the probability of the theory being true in their decision making. Besides it sounds like you are proposing a new and unknown chemistry effect. Why wouldn’t you go and try to investigate that proposed effect in a test tube first? Living things are super complicated. If you can find a chemical reaction which goes differently in the presence of non-ionizing radiation that alone could be interesting. (Of course the experiment better show that the difference is not due to simple heating.)

krisoft 4y ago

> It should be a relatively easy Nobel prize if someone wants it. Whether or not someone wants it is not the big question. The big question is if the theory verifies. Sadly they are not giving out Nobel prizes for carefully and painstakingly disproving theories proposed in anonymous HN comments. So whoever embarks on such a series of experiments has to judge the probability of the theory being true in their decision making. Besides it sounds like you are proposing a new and unknown chemistry effect. Why wouldn’t you go and try to investigate that proposed effect in a test tube first? Living things are super complicated. If you can find a chemical reaction which goes differently in the presence of non-ionizing radiation that alone could be interesting. (Of course the experiment better show that the difference is not due to simple heating.)