3 ms·

It's a crazy field. It's quite obvious that most of the effects are purely psychosomatic. The effects are related to appearances rather than reality--for ex

It's a crazy field. It's quite obvious that *most* of the effects are purely psychosomatic. The effects are related to appearances rather than reality--for example, there is a small correlation between visible high tension power lines and health. But not to the actual EMF strength. Same thing you see elsewhere--people with health issues moving to undesirable but not bad housing because that's what they can afford. I've also been in multiple online discussions where various people were sensitive to sounds that most people don't hear--typically devices that messed with magnetic fields at frequencies in the ultrasonic range. (Say, many switching power supplies.) Something a little bit loose wiggles in the field and you get an ultrasonic whine. None have struck me as kooks--but consider what happens when someone doesn't pay enough attention to detail. Is it the Wi-Fi radiation or it's power supply? Plenty of people fall for the obvious item in figuring out food reactions, I would expect to see some in other areas. And what if there actually is something of a basis? We have plenty of examples of inadvertent AM radios, including from dental fillings. Clearly, it's possible to receive radio energy in freaky ways--the AM radio is the obvious case because it carries a signal whose reception manifests in a detectable way. What if the "electrosensitives" are actually people who have some natural resonance in the brain with some common transmitter? It wouldn't take a lot of energy to generate spurious brain activity. Mistaken generalization certainly seems within the realm of possibility. Note that I'm *not* suggesting any direct harm here, just interference.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jerf 2y ago
I'm open to both harm and interference, but what keeps me skeptical about these people's claims is that the effect level always seems to be hovering at the phantom p-ghost level... that is, exactly the level you'd expect if you keep running low powered experiments and occasionally, whether deliberately or otherwise, you end up with a p-hacked experiment that seems to maybe suggest something is there, until you look again. It's a common pattern and generally means no, there is nothing there, just p-hacked phantoms. If you claim Wifi gives you a headache within a few minutes, and I put you in a Faraday cage with a Wifi router, and your headache flares up precisely when the wifi router's lights blinks, but not when it is actually on, because for the purposes of the experiment the two indications have been severed, then that's pretty conclusive in my opinion that there's nothing there for that person. And that experiment has been done, and that's exactly the result that came out. Now, that doesn't therefore prove that no radio waves ever affect any human in any way, and it also doesn't prove that there isn't "something" going on in the person reporting headaches (they could getting headaches and just dead wrong about why; goodness knows I've spent enough of my life in that exact situation myself, I'm in no position to complain! add a bit of trying to get the result they expect and/or want and it's not hard to understand what's going on), but it does seem to leave us with a dearth of evidence to date that radio waves have immediately detectable impacts.
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  And that sort of test should be done. Just be careful about isolation! (Remember the EM-drive, physics said it shouldn't work but tests showed a small effect with widely varying results. The electric current of the power supply, flowing through a wire in a magnetic field. There's also the contraptions that will rise if sufficient voltage is applied. It works--in atmosphere.) And remember what I said about ultrasonic sounds from power supplies? Someone who doesn't understand how to test and was sensitive to one device might believe they're sensitive to all.
  - jerf 2y ago
    "physics said it shouldn't work but tests showed a small effect with widely varying results" A valid point, and why I phrased it as I did. If you claim that Wifi gives you a headache in, say, 5 minutes, then that's a strong signal that can be tested for. If it fails, then there's a lot of statistical power there. If you claimed that being in a Wifi field for a few days gave you a headache, then my answer is... actually that you're very unlikely to be correct because carefully testing such a problem requires individual trials that take weeks apiece, which you have almost certainly not done. I know from experience; I've done some of my own personal health optimization that takes similar time frames. Some of my results have required years to determine because of the insensitivity of the testing and how long a single trial takes to get significance, and I still wouldn't be my life I've got all the details correct.
- schiffern 2y ago
  >If... your headache flares up precisely when the wifi router's lights blinks, but not when it is actually on... then that's pretty conclusive... ...of nothing, because that's also how the body will react to known stressors. A recovering alcoholic can feel sick at the mere smell of alcohol (simultaneous stimuli), but that's not "pretty conclusive" evidence that drinking alcohol has no deleterious effects. That "experiment" is only evidence of one thing: that you can trick people using Psych 101 combined with bad experimental design. If you wanted to actually prove or disprove the effect, a properly designed experiment would omit the trickery (or at least run a matrix experiment with a trickery/no-trickery variable).
throw273748 2y ago
There is nothing crazy about that. Some birds are very sensitive to radio, it disturbs their build in compass [1]. So there is some substance to similar claims. And right now there is no conclusive evidence, radio does not cause headaches in some edge cases. Plus moving to such place brings many practical benefits. No mobile phones severely limits type of people one will interact with. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2014.1103 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2014.110...
- cpncrunch 2y ago
  RCTs show that patients experience symptoms when told the radio is on, but not when it's actually on. See e.g. the TV programme with Richard Hammond a while back ("should I be worried about..." I think it was called).
  - throw273748 2y ago
    Some polarised TV documentary is not a proof... Scientific study would be nice. Also read the study on birds I linked. They are only sensitive to specific frequencies. We still have no idea how it works. And science around antennas is super complex, calculating something like dipole sensitivity and angles for human body....
    - cpncrunch 2y ago
      Yes, the TV doc was just an example. Have you looked to see what RCTs there are? People are not birds, and we can't navigate using a compass in our heads as far as I'm aware.
  - LorenPechtel 2y ago
    I'm sure most are wrong. I'm just not sure all are wrong. And I believe that if there's an effect it's not actually lasting harm.
whatshisface 2y ago
>typically devices that messed with magnetic fields at frequencies in the ultrasonic range. (Say, many switching power supplies.) Something a little bit loose wiggles in the field and you get an ultrasonic whine. High-frequency sounds can end up driving nonlinear oscillators that emit lower-frequency sounds, and all magnetics wiggle - solid elasticity is enough looseness. If I had a whining switching power supply that would be my guess. Of course, some switching power supplies are simply designed to switch at 20khz...

It's a crazy field. It's quite obvious that *most* of the effects are purely psychosomatic. The effects are related to appearances rather than reality--for ex

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jerf 2y ago

I'm open to both harm and interference, but what keeps me skeptical about these people's claims is that the effect level always seems to be hovering at the phantom p-ghost level... that is, exactly the level you'd expect if you keep running low powered experiments and occasionally, whether deliberately or otherwise, you end up with a p-hacked experiment that seems to maybe suggest something is there, until you look again. It's a common pattern and generally means no, there is nothing there, just p-hacked phantoms. If you claim Wifi gives you a headache within a few minutes, and I put you in a Faraday cage with a Wifi router, and your headache flares up precisely when the wifi router's lights blinks, but not when it is actually on, because for the purposes of the experiment the two indications have been severed, then that's pretty conclusive in my opinion that there's nothing there for that person. And that experiment has been done, and that's exactly the result that came out. Now, that doesn't therefore prove that no radio waves ever affect any human in any way, and it also doesn't prove that there isn't "something" going on in the person reporting headaches (they could getting headaches and just dead wrong about why; goodness knows I've spent enough of my life in that exact situation myself, I'm in no position to complain! add a bit of trying to get the result they expect and/or want and it's not hard to understand what's going on), but it does seem to leave us with a dearth of evidence to date that radio waves have immediately detectable impacts.

LorenPechtel 2y ago
And that sort of test should be done. Just be careful about isolation! (Remember the EM-drive, physics said it shouldn't work but tests showed a small effect with widely varying results. The electric current of the power supply, flowing through a wire in a magnetic field. There's also the contraptions that will rise if sufficient voltage is applied. It works--in atmosphere.) And remember what I said about ultrasonic sounds from power supplies? Someone who doesn't understand how to test and was sensitive to one device might believe they're sensitive to all.
- jerf 2y ago
  "physics said it shouldn't work but tests showed a small effect with widely varying results" A valid point, and why I phrased it as I did. If you claim that Wifi gives you a headache in, say, 5 minutes, then that's a strong signal that can be tested for. If it fails, then there's a lot of statistical power there. If you claimed that being in a Wifi field for a few days gave you a headache, then my answer is... actually that you're very unlikely to be correct because carefully testing such a problem requires individual trials that take weeks apiece, which you have almost certainly not done. I know from experience; I've done some of my own personal health optimization that takes similar time frames. Some of my results have required years to determine because of the insensitivity of the testing and how long a single trial takes to get significance, and I still wouldn't be my life I've got all the details correct.
schiffern 2y ago
>If... your headache flares up precisely when the wifi router's lights blinks, but not when it is actually on... then that's pretty conclusive... ...of nothing, because that's also how the body will react to known stressors. A recovering alcoholic can feel sick at the mere smell of alcohol (simultaneous stimuli), but that's not "pretty conclusive" evidence that drinking alcohol has no deleterious effects. That "experiment" is only evidence of one thing: that you can trick people using Psych 101 combined with bad experimental design. If you wanted to actually prove or disprove the effect, a properly designed experiment would omit the trickery (or at least run a matrix experiment with a trickery/no-trickery variable).

throw273748 2y ago

There is nothing crazy about that. Some birds are very sensitive to radio, it disturbs their build in compass [1]. So there is some substance to similar claims. And right now there is no conclusive evidence, radio does not cause headaches in some edge cases. Plus moving to such place brings many practical benefits. No mobile phones severely limits type of people one will interact with. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2014.1103 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2014.110...

cpncrunch 2y ago
RCTs show that patients experience symptoms when told the radio is on, but not when it's actually on. See e.g. the TV programme with Richard Hammond a while back ("should I be worried about..." I think it was called).
- throw273748 2y ago
  Some polarised TV documentary is not a proof... Scientific study would be nice. Also read the study on birds I linked. They are only sensitive to specific frequencies. We still have no idea how it works. And science around antennas is super complex, calculating something like dipole sensitivity and angles for human body....
  - cpncrunch 2y ago
    Yes, the TV doc was just an example. Have you looked to see what RCTs there are? People are not birds, and we can't navigate using a compass in our heads as far as I'm aware.
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  I'm sure most are wrong. I'm just not sure all are wrong. And I believe that if there's an effect it's not actually lasting harm.

whatshisface 2y ago

>typically devices that messed with magnetic fields at frequencies in the ultrasonic range. (Say, many switching power supplies.) Something a little bit loose wiggles in the field and you get an ultrasonic whine. High-frequency sounds can end up driving nonlinear oscillators that emit lower-frequency sounds, and all magnetics wiggle - solid elasticity is enough looseness. If I had a whining switching power supply that would be my guess. Of course, some switching power supplies are simply designed to switch at 20khz...