6 ms·
No, no it is not. People don't appreciate just how totally insignificant the amount of energy transmitted from RF communications into the body are. They are ord
by thunderbird120 4y ago
No, no it is not. People don't appreciate just how totally insignificant the amount of energy transmitted from RF communications into the body are. They are orders of magnitude less that literally almost anything else you experience on a daily basis. On top of that, the energy of the photons used for RF communications is at minimum 10,000 lower that what is necessary to induce the breakage and formation of chemical bonds which rules out 99.9% of potential biological mechanisms for action. You know what energy does have photons with enough energy to do that? Sunlight. In the grand scheme of things impacting our health in the modern world calling RF energy background noise would be overstating its significance. There are plenty of other real things which are much more concerning such as the health impacts on the body of synthetic organic compounds which have become overwhelmingly prevalent in daily life.
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago>if you had allocated 5 seconds of your time reading more than the title and writing a dismissal You're quoting one paper from a scientist who is very well-known for holding a niche position on this topic. Do you study in this field? If not, how are you judging the merit of the paper? How well do you understand it? Why did you pick this one paper, rather than from a multitude of others that exist suggesting low-level non-ionizing radiation exposure at low MW frequencies is safe? Did you survey the literature? Or did you pick a paper that aligns with a pre-existing concern or opinion on the topic?
- SemanticStrengh 4y agoI have expertise in pharmacology and have read many meta-analysises on Wi-Fi and 5G. see my anwser to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=SemanticStrengh#31294172 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=SemanticStrengh#3129...
- tzs 4y ago> Why did you pick this one paper, rather than from a multitude of others that exist suggesting low-level non-ionizing radiation exposure at low MW frequencies is safe? Has anyone studied low-level non-ionizing radiation in an environment that has a high level of other things that are carcinogenic? DNA can conduct current and this appears to play a role in the mechanism of DNA replication and the finding and repairing of damage during replication [1]. I wonder if it would be possible for low energy fields to interfere with that mechanism? That would not cause cancer, but it might prevent a cell from avoiding a cancer from some other mechanism that it otherwise would have avoided. There have been some studies that claim DNA can act as a fractal antenna, responding well to wavelengths much longer than you would expect a conventional antenna so small to react to. However I think all of those studies are from just one research team, and I haven't seen anyone trying to reproduce them. [1] https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/electrons-use-dna-wire-signaling-dna-replication-54208 https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/electrons-use-dna-wire-si...
- thunderbird120 4y agoI don't have enough points on my account to downvote. I do however have a graduate degree in a biology field and I'm telling you that the consensus on this field is very clear regardless. People not involved in research don't tend to understand that just because there are academic papers claiming something doesn't mean that people in the field actually believe that that let alone that its actually true. Low sample sizes and flawed studies abound. The amount of energy required for non-ionizing radiation to cause significant biological effects is orders of magnitude higher than anything you will experience from a wifi or cell phones. Don't sleep on a AN/SPY-6 and you'll be okay.
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
- thunderbird120 4y agoI am aware of many of the studies being referenced in those reviews. You should be aware that sticking a handful of rats in a box and microwaving them has almost become a running joke because most of those studies tell you absolutely nothing concrete about the effects of normal levels of RF radiation on rats, let alone on humans. Peer review means less than you might think. For less demanding journals it usually just means you didn't do anything egregiously wrong and for very low impact journals you can usually get published if you have a pulse and have correctly formatted your manuscript. People usually don't publish null results. When people do publish positive results in contentious subjects you generally expect them to be rigorous and with high statistical support. A p value of 0.05 is not good enough because I know there are a lot more than 20 groups out there microwaving rats looking for something to publish. This is why when I click on that first review, look up the first study I see it reference, and see that the researchers are making claims using experimental groups of only 6 rats it makes me want to die. I'm not going to continue this discussion further.
- lostgame 4y ago
- anotherhue 4y agoWi-Fi debuted in the late eighties, so the 1971 referenced seemed odd. I looked into it and it was part of the early research on powerful RF emissions. There were some uncomfortable images of the effects on rabbits eyes, etc. To suggest that WLAN causes similar issues is absurd due to both the enormous EIRP difference and the very psychological point that many other (higher power) uses of the frequency have been effect for some time but of all of them, only the one marketed to consumers caused issue.
- SemanticStrengh 4y agoWhat is absurd is to deny the extensive empirical evidence https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=31294558&goto=threads%3Fid%3DSemanticStrengh%2331294558 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=31294558&goto=threads%...
- anotherhue 4y agoCan you speak to why Wi-Fi in particular, is suspect? CW GSM handsets held close to the head, CB Radios, 433 garage door openers or RC cars, DECT cordless phones, microwave ovens, Bluetooth 3G/4G/5G cell signals, ...all surely should be equally concerning if the RF is to blame.
- SemanticStrengh 4y agoThey are probably not less worrying if they are in the same frequency range.