200 ms·

Some people do believe that non ionizing radiation has effects other than those produced by the added thermal energy (or that the thermal effects are in some wa

Some people do believe that non ionizing radiation has effects other than those produced by the added thermal energy (or that the thermal effects are in some way significant). The actual scientific evidence for this is minimal though.

manicdee 7y ago
In scientific endeavours we only ever find what we were looking for. If we weren’t looking for non-thermal effects in cells we won’t see them, especially if our model of a cellular mass is a lump of ballistics gel, or a computer model of a skin surface in terms of resistive and capacitative networks. The reason the scientific evidence is minimal is that we have been using simplistic models of human bodies for RF testing.
jcims 7y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676010/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676010/ Essentially EM fields alternating in the low to medium frequency bands (~100khz-1mhz) can disrupt cell processes by physically jiggling the polar molecules that make up portions of miotic spindles/microtubules. Among presumably other things this effect is being investigated as a cancer fighting mechanism called 'tumor treating fields'. The carrier frequency of mobile phones is obviously far beyond the range in question, but there could be signal modulation components that alternate RF power levels in this frequency range.
- avian 7y ago
  If your phone emits any non-trivial amounts of RF power at 100 kHz-1MHz frequencies, regardless of whether this comes from intermodulation products or something else, it doesn't pass existing EMC regulations and can't be legally sold to consumers. This is something that is already (or should be, in theory) rigorously tested for everything that's put on the consumer market (from your cheapest USB charger to your iPhone).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - lima 7y ago
    Not a given if said USB charger is cheaply produced in China.
    - avian 7y ago
      Yes, you can debate how much imported (or for that matter, domestically produced) stuff is actually tested, but the fact remains that existing laws and regulations do cover this, even if enforcement is maybe lacking.
      - lima 7y ago
        I'm an ham radio operator, and shortwave spectrum pollution is sadly a big problem despite very strict regulations. The unfortunate reality is that the market is flooded with noisy devices, often cheaply produces overseas, that vastly exceed legal limits (chargers and other rectifiers, plasma televisions, powerline adapters, and much more). Enforcement is difficult due to how widespread these devices are. In many places, the noise floor is to high that long-range shortwave radio communications all but impossible.
        craftinator 7y ago
        Or cheaply produced in the US... Most tech I've bought from Shenzhen recently has been of better quality than domestically produced equivalents
        zaptidizap 7y ago
        I think police cars should measure it.
        lima 7y ago
        It can take hours to pinpoint the location of a specific transmitter with skilled equipment operators.
- cududa 7y ago
  Oh bull. There is no way to prove RF modifies microtubules.
  - phyzome 7y ago
    This seems false on its face. Surely that would be a straightforward experiment.
    - zaptidizap 7y ago
      It was
  - jcims 7y ago
    https://youtu.be/voVa7Pj2xUg https://youtu.be/voVa7Pj2xUg There’s definitely an effect. It’s in clinical trials right now.
_sbrk 7y ago
> Some people do believe that non ionizing radiation has effects other than those produced by the added thermal energy Some people believe vaccines cause Down's Syndrome. "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period." - Michael Crichton (https://tinyurl.com/vcxj2ex https://tinyurl.com/vcxj2ex)
- triceratops 7y ago
  "If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus." Appears to contradict "What is relevant is reproducible results." Aren't reproducible results a form of consensus?
  - ColanR 7y ago
    > Aren't reproducible results a form of consensus? Not in the least. "Reproducible results" represents the technical and methodological ability to confirm that an effect is real. "Consensus" is whether a political body is willing to admit that the effect is real. And we all know politics finds truth to be...
    - Shikadi 7y ago
      I think this is a semantic argument... If 100 independent scientists reproduce results, those results themselves are a scientific consensus, are they not?
      - craftinator 7y ago
        Yes, at that point the political consensus adopts the results of rigorous scientific testing as it's new bling
oliv__ 7y ago
Just as a counterpoint to what everyone seems to be saying here: there most definitely is science that points towards RF fields having negative health effects for humans, and it is plentiful. The fact that no-one talks about any of this just goes to show the extent of the lobbying done by the telecom industry. https://www.emfdata.org/en https://www.emfdata.org/en
- ColanR 7y ago
  > The fact that no-one talks about any of this just goes to show the extent of the lobbying done by the telecom industry. If monsanto could do it, then others can too. I'm impressed by how quickly everyone decided that the scientific cover-up monsanto pulled off was a one-time event that couldn't possibly happen anywhere else.
- rpwverheij 7y ago
  Exactly. Thank you for sharing that. I was wondering if there is a place that collects this. Not sure if you're related to the site, but when clicking through to an article the site shows german, even though Im visiting in English.

manicdee 7y ago

In scientific endeavours we only ever find what we were looking for. If we weren’t looking for non-thermal effects in cells we won’t see them, especially if our model of a cellular mass is a lump of ballistics gel, or a computer model of a skin surface in terms of resistive and capacitative networks. The reason the scientific evidence is minimal is that we have been using simplistic models of human bodies for RF testing.

jcims 7y ago

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676010/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676010/ Essentially EM fields alternating in the low to medium frequency bands (~100khz-1mhz) can disrupt cell processes by physically jiggling the polar molecules that make up portions of miotic spindles/microtubules. Among presumably other things this effect is being investigated as a cancer fighting mechanism called 'tumor treating fields'. The carrier frequency of mobile phones is obviously far beyond the range in question, but there could be signal modulation components that alternate RF power levels in this frequency range.

avian 7y ago
If your phone emits any non-trivial amounts of RF power at 100 kHz-1MHz frequencies, regardless of whether this comes from intermodulation products or something else, it doesn't pass existing EMC regulations and can't be legally sold to consumers. This is something that is already (or should be, in theory) rigorously tested for everything that's put on the consumer market (from your cheapest USB charger to your iPhone).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lima 7y ago
  Not a given if said USB charger is cheaply produced in China.
  - avian 7y ago
    Yes, you can debate how much imported (or for that matter, domestically produced) stuff is actually tested, but the fact remains that existing laws and regulations do cover this, even if enforcement is maybe lacking.
    - lima 7y ago
      I'm an ham radio operator, and shortwave spectrum pollution is sadly a big problem despite very strict regulations. The unfortunate reality is that the market is flooded with noisy devices, often cheaply produces overseas, that vastly exceed legal limits (chargers and other rectifiers, plasma televisions, powerline adapters, and much more). Enforcement is difficult due to how widespread these devices are. In many places, the noise floor is to high that long-range shortwave radio communications all but impossible.
      - craftinator 7y ago
        Or cheaply produced in the US... Most tech I've bought from Shenzhen recently has been of better quality than domestically produced equivalents
      - zaptidizap 7y ago
        I think police cars should measure it.
        lima 7y ago
        It can take hours to pinpoint the location of a specific transmitter with skilled equipment operators.
cududa 7y ago
Oh bull. There is no way to prove RF modifies microtubules.
- phyzome 7y ago
  This seems false on its face. Surely that would be a straightforward experiment.
  - zaptidizap 7y ago
    It was
- jcims 7y ago
  https://youtu.be/voVa7Pj2xUg https://youtu.be/voVa7Pj2xUg There’s definitely an effect. It’s in clinical trials right now.

_sbrk 7y ago

> Some people do believe that non ionizing radiation has effects other than those produced by the added thermal energy Some people believe vaccines cause Down's Syndrome. "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period." - Michael Crichton (https://tinyurl.com/vcxj2ex https://tinyurl.com/vcxj2ex)

triceratops 7y ago
"If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus." Appears to contradict "What is relevant is reproducible results." Aren't reproducible results a form of consensus?
- ColanR 7y ago
  > Aren't reproducible results a form of consensus? Not in the least. "Reproducible results" represents the technical and methodological ability to confirm that an effect is real. "Consensus" is whether a political body is willing to admit that the effect is real. And we all know politics finds truth to be...
  - Shikadi 7y ago
    I think this is a semantic argument... If 100 independent scientists reproduce results, those results themselves are a scientific consensus, are they not?
    - craftinator 7y ago
      Yes, at that point the political consensus adopts the results of rigorous scientific testing as it's new bling

oliv__ 7y ago

Just as a counterpoint to what everyone seems to be saying here: there most definitely is science that points towards RF fields having negative health effects for humans, and it is plentiful. The fact that no-one talks about any of this just goes to show the extent of the lobbying done by the telecom industry. https://www.emfdata.org/en https://www.emfdata.org/en

ColanR 7y ago
> The fact that no-one talks about any of this just goes to show the extent of the lobbying done by the telecom industry. If monsanto could do it, then others can too. I'm impressed by how quickly everyone decided that the scientific cover-up monsanto pulled off was a one-time event that couldn't possibly happen anywhere else.
rpwverheij 7y ago
Exactly. Thank you for sharing that. I was wondering if there is a place that collects this. Not sure if you're related to the site, but when clicking through to an article the site shows german, even though Im visiting in English.