5 ms·

I remember a few years back reading how cellphone signals will cause mental disturbances. I'm not claiming it has, though sometimes I do think the world is goin

I remember a few years back reading how cellphone signals will cause mental disturbances. I'm not claiming it has, though sometimes I do think the world is going kind of bonkers. Just that eventually we will definitely stumble into something like this. Just like the Romans were oblivious drinking from lead pipes was causing their mental problems. If there's a mass psychosis event, would the people under going it even realize it was happening. We went from 1/150 to 1/36 Children with Autism in the last 20 years. Go back further, and it was practically unheard of.

dennis_jeeves2 3y ago
>cellphone signals will cause mental disturbances. I would think it goes way beyond that long term. > Just like the Romans were oblivious drinking from lead pipes was causing their mental problems. We are worse than the Romans in that regard, there is literature that suggests, that in general man made EMF waves are not safe and yet, immediate convenience trumps over any concerns of safety as with may other thing that people use. Bring up the subject and you will be labeled a pseudoscience indulger.
luxuryballs 3y ago
EMF could indeed be the next asbestos. The Invisible Rainbow is on audible and worth a listen, regardless of any surrounding well poison about the author (or maybe because of it.) There’s some very interesting history of electricity’s role in society starting from the mid 1700s.
- sho_hn 3y ago
  I hope you don't mind me pointing out the delicious irony of recommending an audiobook (requiring a mass communication network and electronic playback device) to sample a tome apparently on the subject of electricity invisibly killing birds and sickening people, when it is also available in dead-tree form.
  - luxuryballs 3y ago
    The book is good but not useful if you take it as FUD.
  - rokkitmensch 3y ago
    so tasty
closetnerd 3y ago
I swear this comment comes across as a bot.
- dukeofdoom 3y ago
  I'm not sure why you would think that. There's all kinds of substances that humans take (Alcohol, drugs) that change their mental state. Why is the idea that environmental pollutant could be doing the same, so rejected by people. Is it an ego thing ?
  - bamboozled 3y ago
    I think people take offence to the suggestion that there might be more autism.
    - vixen99 3y ago
      Yes and it tells us zilch about the reality of the situation.
      - bamboozled 3y ago
        It tells us we do hear a lot more about autism then we used too. It’s a talking point.
bamboozled 3y ago
Well we more recently had lead in petrol. Hard to believe we made that same mistake twice. I agree regarding the psychosis thing. When I read the comments section of politically themed YouTube videos I actually get scared how insane people have become.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
asveikau 3y ago
Psychosis has always been common. I believe single digit percentages of people experience it. If you know 100 people, maybe 1-4 of them experience psychosis. I have been close to two people who do. One of the major differences about why it's so visible right now is that the internet is enabling psychotic people to find like-minded psychotic people and form communities. Qanon is one example. "Gang stalking" is another. They find people with the same delusions and riff off of one another. In the olden days, one individual suffering from something like this can stay isolated, and their ideas do not travel that far. Today, they can find their tribe online. They can have meetups. They can act out their delusions en masse.
- dukeofdoom 3y ago
  I'm have a feeling the whole Qanon thing was orchestrated by government actors. The whole things reads like a scheme to lead people off track. Not that psychosis is not involved.
  - jahewson 3y ago
    Qanon is too hairbrained to have been conceived by such people.
hibikir 3y ago
While I can't quite say how big each effect is, it's undeniable that a big part of the difference in autism diagnosis is just the fact that we test at all. I grew up in the 80s, where the level for someone to be diagnosed with autism required being pretty close to non verbal. But if I look at my old classmates and think of people with significant sensory issues, social dysfunction and such, it's easy to imagine that today, a lot of them would be diagnosed as having at least some form of Asperger's today. Just like we had clearly gay kids, and others with behavior that today would indicate gender dysphoria. The kids with ADHD symptoms? They were just too active and refused to concentrate, no diagnosis outside of the most extreme cases. We have different standards and different levels of attention. We don't just re-diagnose adults, so it's possible that there is a higher rates today. Maybecaused by something you mention, or straight out selection. Still,ignoring the differences in diagnosis standards is going to get us, at the very least, exaggerated conclusions.
- verisimi 3y ago
  Maybe it's the definition of "normal" that is the real problem? If I use a pebble as my metric, some things we think of as 'small' would have to be counted as 'big'. The idea of abnormal is all wrong imo, but just the idea brings constraints with it.
- ProDemoNo 3y ago
  [dead]
Aurornis 3y ago
This study is in very young children who haven’t had cellular phones yet. RF radiation falls off very rapidly as you get away from the cell phone. The increased rate of autism is largely due to increased diagnosis. Autistic people existed long ago, but the diagnosis of Autism obviously didn’t exist in the distant past.
- ardaoweo 3y ago
  I agree. It's likely common that children with ADHD or autism diagnosis also have parents with such condition, but they were simply never diagnosed. At least in my family's case it's quite evident, though it took me a while to recognize.
Duwensatzaj 3y ago
There’s also some non-environmental reasons. 1) Increased diagnosis due to A) Increased awareness of the issue for both parents and medical staff. I think that one is clearly true. B) Rational response to educational incentives around relaxed testing for those diagnosed with syndromes. Extra testing time is big. During the Varsity Blues scandal it came out that you could buy paperwork for accommodations for around $5000. Or parents might see a legitimate issue and testing and in-school accommodations convince them that it’s worth getting their child diagnosed. C) Merging of Aspergers into autism. 2) Increased assortative mating for those with autism or those with autism risk. Some evidence here https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.28.358895v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.28.358895v1 As to why it might be increasing? A) Collapse of traditional paths to marriage. If you’re less likely to meet mates by meeting them at church or other community events with a more wide spread selection of people, are you more likely to meet someone else on the spectrum? B) Increased career rewards for those with autistic tendencies, so less need to find a non-autistic spouse.
- sph 3y ago
  While you make very good points, I think as society we are quite quick at discounting unknown unknowns in this case. Science and diagnostic methods have advanced a lot, but it is not at all improbable that there is some kind of man-made factor that also caused an increase in incidence of autism (or any other modern chronic disease, such as ADHD like I am). Being an unknown unknown, we literally cannot know until x decades later we find out, "ah yes, we used this chemical everywhere that had a measurable developmental effect on newborn. Whoopsie". Yet everyone keeps saying that's nonsense, let alone insulting and insensitive to even suggest that's the case. I am not saying there is proof for the contrary, mind you, just science and laymen should avoid the hubris of thinking we haven't made a mistake along the way. It would not be the first time. Radium in toothpaste, cigarettes for sore throat, cocaine in health tonics, DDT, teflon, and the other hundred teratogen chemicals we have given pregnant women over the decades.
  - falserum 3y ago
    Problem is that unknown unknows are not actionable. You dont even know what or where to look for them. (Though I agree regarding hubris part)
mkl95 3y ago
> We went from 1/150 to 1/36 Children with Autism in the last 20 years. Go back further, and it was practically unheard of. Sounds like doctors got better at diagnosing people on the spectrum.
- BobbyTables2 3y ago
  Some diseases have guaranteed diagnosis rates… For example, osteoporosis is diagnosed based on how many standard deviations one is away from the mean. In other words, they aren’t diagnosing an actual medical issue — they are simply guaranteeing a particular rate of incidence!!!
chaxor 3y ago
The cell phone study literature you may be thinking of is on certain types of gliomas. There are also studies on other cancers in different tissues showing similar findings, for which the common link appears to be the cell emission. There is a decent amount of evidence around this, though of course there are some assumptions made that are difficult to show directly (such as RF causing changes over intermittent use for years on living tissue from direct observations of hypothesized mechanisms, either RNA, protein or otherwise.). The typical argument is 'it is significantly altered in individuals that use devices more, has a "dose/time-dependent" effect, and convincing ipsilateral patterning', paired with 'there are changes in cell behavior under RF in vitro'. So a leap made is sticking the two together, but it's not a completely crazy one.
- el_benhameen 3y ago
  I’m genuinely interested in the evidence. Do you have any of the studies you’re referencing handy? I’ve done a general search, but so far I haven’t see anything significant.

dennis_jeeves2 3y ago

>cellphone signals will cause mental disturbances. I would think it goes way beyond that long term. > Just like the Romans were oblivious drinking from lead pipes was causing their mental problems. We are worse than the Romans in that regard, there is literature that suggests, that in general man made EMF waves are not safe and yet, immediate convenience trumps over any concerns of safety as with may other thing that people use. Bring up the subject and you will be labeled a pseudoscience indulger.

luxuryballs 3y ago

EMF could indeed be the next asbestos. The Invisible Rainbow is on audible and worth a listen, regardless of any surrounding well poison about the author (or maybe because of it.) There’s some very interesting history of electricity’s role in society starting from the mid 1700s.

sho_hn 3y ago
I hope you don't mind me pointing out the delicious irony of recommending an audiobook (requiring a mass communication network and electronic playback device) to sample a tome apparently on the subject of electricity invisibly killing birds and sickening people, when it is also available in dead-tree form.
- luxuryballs 3y ago
  The book is good but not useful if you take it as FUD.
- rokkitmensch 3y ago
  so tasty

closetnerd 3y ago

I swear this comment comes across as a bot.

dukeofdoom 3y ago
I'm not sure why you would think that. There's all kinds of substances that humans take (Alcohol, drugs) that change their mental state. Why is the idea that environmental pollutant could be doing the same, so rejected by people. Is it an ego thing ?
- bamboozled 3y ago
  I think people take offence to the suggestion that there might be more autism.
  - vixen99 3y ago
    Yes and it tells us zilch about the reality of the situation.
    - bamboozled 3y ago
      It tells us we do hear a lot more about autism then we used too. It’s a talking point.

bamboozled 3y ago

Well we more recently had lead in petrol. Hard to believe we made that same mistake twice. I agree regarding the psychosis thing. When I read the comments section of politically themed YouTube videos I actually get scared how insane people have become.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

asveikau 3y ago

Psychosis has always been common. I believe single digit percentages of people experience it. If you know 100 people, maybe 1-4 of them experience psychosis. I have been close to two people who do. One of the major differences about why it's so visible right now is that the internet is enabling psychotic people to find like-minded psychotic people and form communities. Qanon is one example. "Gang stalking" is another. They find people with the same delusions and riff off of one another. In the olden days, one individual suffering from something like this can stay isolated, and their ideas do not travel that far. Today, they can find their tribe online. They can have meetups. They can act out their delusions en masse.

dukeofdoom 3y ago
I'm have a feeling the whole Qanon thing was orchestrated by government actors. The whole things reads like a scheme to lead people off track. Not that psychosis is not involved.
- jahewson 3y ago
  Qanon is too hairbrained to have been conceived by such people.

hibikir 3y ago

While I can't quite say how big each effect is, it's undeniable that a big part of the difference in autism diagnosis is just the fact that we test at all. I grew up in the 80s, where the level for someone to be diagnosed with autism required being pretty close to non verbal. But if I look at my old classmates and think of people with significant sensory issues, social dysfunction and such, it's easy to imagine that today, a lot of them would be diagnosed as having at least some form of Asperger's today. Just like we had clearly gay kids, and others with behavior that today would indicate gender dysphoria. The kids with ADHD symptoms? They were just too active and refused to concentrate, no diagnosis outside of the most extreme cases. We have different standards and different levels of attention. We don't just re-diagnose adults, so it's possible that there is a higher rates today. Maybecaused by something you mention, or straight out selection. Still,ignoring the differences in diagnosis standards is going to get us, at the very least, exaggerated conclusions.

verisimi 3y ago
Maybe it's the definition of "normal" that is the real problem? If I use a pebble as my metric, some things we think of as 'small' would have to be counted as 'big'. The idea of abnormal is all wrong imo, but just the idea brings constraints with it.
ProDemoNo 3y ago
[dead]

Aurornis 3y ago

This study is in very young children who haven’t had cellular phones yet. RF radiation falls off very rapidly as you get away from the cell phone. The increased rate of autism is largely due to increased diagnosis. Autistic people existed long ago, but the diagnosis of Autism obviously didn’t exist in the distant past.

ardaoweo 3y ago
I agree. It's likely common that children with ADHD or autism diagnosis also have parents with such condition, but they were simply never diagnosed. At least in my family's case it's quite evident, though it took me a while to recognize.

Duwensatzaj 3y ago

There’s also some non-environmental reasons. 1) Increased diagnosis due to A) Increased awareness of the issue for both parents and medical staff. I think that one is clearly true. B) Rational response to educational incentives around relaxed testing for those diagnosed with syndromes. Extra testing time is big. During the Varsity Blues scandal it came out that you could buy paperwork for accommodations for around $5000. Or parents might see a legitimate issue and testing and in-school accommodations convince them that it’s worth getting their child diagnosed. C) Merging of Aspergers into autism. 2) Increased assortative mating for those with autism or those with autism risk. Some evidence here https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.28.358895v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.28.358895v1 As to why it might be increasing? A) Collapse of traditional paths to marriage. If you’re less likely to meet mates by meeting them at church or other community events with a more wide spread selection of people, are you more likely to meet someone else on the spectrum? B) Increased career rewards for those with autistic tendencies, so less need to find a non-autistic spouse.

sph 3y ago
While you make very good points, I think as society we are quite quick at discounting unknown unknowns in this case. Science and diagnostic methods have advanced a lot, but it is not at all improbable that there is some kind of man-made factor that also caused an increase in incidence of autism (or any other modern chronic disease, such as ADHD like I am). Being an unknown unknown, we literally cannot know until x decades later we find out, "ah yes, we used this chemical everywhere that had a measurable developmental effect on newborn. Whoopsie". Yet everyone keeps saying that's nonsense, let alone insulting and insensitive to even suggest that's the case. I am not saying there is proof for the contrary, mind you, just science and laymen should avoid the hubris of thinking we haven't made a mistake along the way. It would not be the first time. Radium in toothpaste, cigarettes for sore throat, cocaine in health tonics, DDT, teflon, and the other hundred teratogen chemicals we have given pregnant women over the decades.
- falserum 3y ago
  Problem is that unknown unknows are not actionable. You dont even know what or where to look for them. (Though I agree regarding hubris part)

mkl95 3y ago

> We went from 1/150 to 1/36 Children with Autism in the last 20 years. Go back further, and it was practically unheard of. Sounds like doctors got better at diagnosing people on the spectrum.

BobbyTables2 3y ago
Some diseases have guaranteed diagnosis rates… For example, osteoporosis is diagnosed based on how many standard deviations one is away from the mean. In other words, they aren’t diagnosing an actual medical issue — they are simply guaranteeing a particular rate of incidence!!!

chaxor 3y ago

The cell phone study literature you may be thinking of is on certain types of gliomas. There are also studies on other cancers in different tissues showing similar findings, for which the common link appears to be the cell emission. There is a decent amount of evidence around this, though of course there are some assumptions made that are difficult to show directly (such as RF causing changes over intermittent use for years on living tissue from direct observations of hypothesized mechanisms, either RNA, protein or otherwise.). The typical argument is 'it is significantly altered in individuals that use devices more, has a "dose/time-dependent" effect, and convincing ipsilateral patterning', paired with 'there are changes in cell behavior under RF in vitro'. So a leap made is sticking the two together, but it's not a completely crazy one.

el_benhameen 3y ago
I’m genuinely interested in the evidence. Do you have any of the studies you’re referencing handy? I’ve done a general search, but so far I haven’t see anything significant.