3 ms·

>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-kno

>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 ago
I 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...

SemanticStrengh 4y ago

I 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...