7 ms·

We've known the basic physics answer to this for ages, yet even my old physics teacher in high school used to say that he's careful around a lot of electromagne

We've known the basic physics answer to this for ages, yet even my old physics teacher in high school used to say that he's careful around a lot of electromagnetic radiation like WIFI router at home because he can't be sure it doesn't have an impact. Empirical evidence always helps, but in the discussion around science results etc. people always seem to forget that there's another important type of evidence, which is the mechanical understanding of a model/system. You don't really need empirical evidence to know what happens when you throw a ball in the air inside a locked box. Technically the laws of physics could magically change and produce a different outcome, but using your understanding of the mechanics of the underlying system you can predict that the ball is going to fall inside the box with a very low error rate. Still relevant since this applies to the new covid vaccines as well for example. People worrying about their potential negative effects are worrying for nothing, since even lacking long term empirical evidence we know how they work and have a deep mechanical understanding of mRNA vaccines, and they are not going to cause issues, period.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kstrauser 4y ago
This is true. If the study had shown an effect, it’d be big news because it would up-end what we know about chemistry.
- Gnarl 4y ago
  - Gnarl 4y ago
    Hint: its much more about biology than just chemistry.
  - micropunk 4y ago
    This is a spammy ad site. Please flag.
    - Gnarl 4y ago
      The reason for posting that link was b/c it contains a short perspective on the study in question. A TLDR; of sorts. But here's the study itself on the main authors ResearchGate page: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279863242_Oxidative_mechanisms_of_biological_activity_of_low-intensity_radiofrequency_radiation https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279863242_Oxidative...
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    Your going to need something better than that: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/28557/are-the-methods-and-conclusions-of-the-study-clear-connection-between-wireless https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/28557/are-the-m...
    - Gnarl 4y ago
      Your link is one person identifying as sceptic and who just circles around to the "non-ionizing can't harm" claim, again. The other attacks the publishing journal. Where were you going with this? None of the commenters seem to bother to discover that the science review in question looks at DNA-damage and oxidative-stress mediated through other pathways than direct ionization. As I said: its more about complex biology, than simple physics/chemistry. Its about the sum of parts, not the reductionism that plagues the field of RF and health.
      - SigmundA 4y ago
        Obviously if you have read their criticism its gets much further than "non-ionizing can't harm", its a criticism of the methods use to analyze data from other studies in cherry picking fashion, they did no actual testing themselves and could easily have statistical issues with the positive outcomes. Again there is no conclusive proof that RF exposure causes adverse non-thermal effects at cell phone power levels or even much higher power levels let alone being able to explain a mechanism that would cause those non-reproducible effects. If you have better information please post it, one paper from a questionable journal using questionable methods is not enough.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- dxhdr 4y ago
  Would it be big news? Forgive me for asking but why does UVA/UVB radiation cause skin cancer if it's non-ionizing? Especially from controlled sources like tanning beds. There has to be some pathway of mitochondrial dsyregulation/dysfunction induced by non-ionizing radiation that leads to DNA damage that leads to cancer that we don't fully understand. We don't understand what causes many types of cancers so I don't get the chemistry-knows-all stance.
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    UVBA/UVB are near ionizing, UVB is right at the transition point, they have enough energy to cause photochemical reactions that damage DNA but not enough to cause full ionization. The key concept is that it is based on the energy of the photons and that above a certain energy chemical reactions occur which can damage DNA. Radio waves are way way below this level of energy so for them to cause a non thermal effect would mean some new effect we have never seen before anywhere. No one is ruling it out completely but it is very unlikely with no plausible mechanism or data to back it up while UVA/UVB is well understood with respect to photon energy which is related to the ionizing threshold.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      > for them to cause a non thermal effect would mean some new effect we have never seen before anywhere 100% false. Practically everything that goes on in your body involves, one way or another, motion of ions in solution. Varying E-M fields induce electrical currents carried by such ions. Where and how matters. It is always a grave mistake to confuse your entire lack of knowledge of a topic with certainty about it.
      - SigmundA 4y ago
        There is absolutely no proof that cellphone levels of power induce ion motion as you have described, I can find some theoretical work at much higher power levels that proposes it as a mechanism but is not definitive. You need to do better than saying someone is wrong before proclaiming radical new information. Here is what I found: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69561-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69561-3
cbxyp 4y ago
>since even lacking long term empirical evidence we know how they work and have a deep mechanical understanding of mRNA vaccines, and they are not going to cause issues, period. Erm, our understanding of the mechanics of COVID vaccines has changed dramatically over the period since their introduction. Initially it was thought that they provided longterm immunity, now boosters. The manufacturer said that spike proteins would not escape the muscle. Pfizers own post marketing study shows that they spread thru out the body. In short, we do not have a deep understanding of the long term impacts, as evidenced by the unexpected drop in efficacy. It may be that so-called "leaky" vaccines such as the COVID vaccines, which do not produce neutralizing antibodies result in strains with worse potential lethality evolving, as is the what happened with Marek's disease in chickens. Initially, vaccine manufacturers and the CDC alike claimed that vaccines were producing neutralizing antibodies. Now 4 out of every 5 hospitalized cases of Covid in Canada have received their 1st, 2nd and third shots. In short, I hope you were kidding saying that.
- spacefracas 4y ago
  Please show where an rna vaccine claimed anything other than a reduction in severe disease and with duration tbd.
  - Vecr 4y ago
    The primary endpoint of the Pfizer trial was any symptomatic disease. That means they would monitor participants for symptoms, and if they had any they would be PCR tested to make sure it was not something else. They claimed the lower end of the 95 confidence interval relative risk reduction was ~90%. You can look at the prescribing guide on the FDA's website for more details. J&J did moderate to severe disease as the primary endpoint though.
  - aksss 4y ago
    The vaccine doesn’t make claims - let’s not anthropomorphize it. The drug companies, public policy authorities, and politicians make claims. Here’s a link from Pfizer themselves talking about the vaccine *preventing* COVID infection, not just severe symptoms. This is basic Google stuff. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-vaccine-candidate-against https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... Shall we move on to the talking heads from public health institutions and the politicians? I mean, examples abound and this would be a lay-up. Google is your friend here. But how can you be unaware of these claims after two years of drama over them in the global public square? Vaccine mandate propositions were largely predicated on the inflated expectations of efficacy - people lost their livelihoods over this. We’re not talking about flippant one-off statements here, but the confidence and endorsement that moves government and corporate policy.
toxik 4y ago
And these same people go out in the sun to get a tan. Talk about radiation doses.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  As someone deep into middle age with plenty of friends in their 50s, I strongly encourage young people to pay particular attention to their time spent in the sun. It is extremely obvious who has led a life outside without sun protection and who has spent most of their time indoors. It really does a number on your skin, especially your face (and scalp, if you are follicle challenged).
- Gnarl 4y ago
  What are the natural background levels of RF vs. sunlight from an evolutionary perspective? Consider whether organisms would spend energy evolving protections against a dominant spectrum of wavelengths vs. hardly measurable spectrum. Also, consider that the net resulting incidence voltage from unpolarised sunlight amounts to near zero, whereas man-made RF is polarized.
giantg2 4y ago
Are you saying that we understand the biological effects and their mechanisms for non-ionizing radiation exposure, or that we should be careful because we don't know all of them (specifically mechanisms)?
- yolo69420 4y ago
  super late response, but I'm saying we understand. EM radiation from your router is just way too low energy to enact any changes in the atoms making up the molecules in you for even chemical let alone biological effects to start playing a role. the only thing they can do is transfer some heat energy to you, orders of magnitude lower than your average light bulb in the office (certainly entirely incomparable to sunlight).
- ncmncm 4y ago
  In fact we don't understand their effects. And, we don't even understand what is important about details of the exposure. About all we do know is that modulation is critically important, and that certain modulations under certain conditions of very low power transfer have profound effects. Ask literally any biologist whether you should expect to be able to calculate the effects on an organism of some stimulus using only physical formulas.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    > About all we do know is that modulation is critically important, and that certain modulations under certain conditions of very low power transfer have profound effects. Citation needed. Seriously, the burden of proof is on you for such a statement. And be precise, which modulations, which conditions, what effects. "Certain" and "profound" are filler words in this situation. They mean nothing.
    - Gnarl 4y ago
      You may find this interesting on the topic of importance of modulation, polarization etc.: https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92 https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92
stinos 4y ago
We've known the basic physics answer to this for ages What is the authorative physics answer which proves this goes one way or another, applied to cell biology, in the human head?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  That, we don't know. We don't know because no one has studied it in any detail. What we do know is that you can't calculate biological consequences using known physics. Which should be obvious to anyone who knows any biology or physics.
  - hackernewds 4y ago
    That goes counter to the widely accepted belief in physicalism (which could be entirely misplaced)
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Again: ask any biologist how often they have used quantum field theory to discover whether a drug will work. It is not rocket science: biology is complicated and messy.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kstrauser 4y ago

This is true. If the study had shown an effect, it’d be big news because it would up-end what we know about chemistry.

Gnarl 4y ago
- Gnarl 4y ago
  Hint: its much more about biology than just chemistry.
- micropunk 4y ago
  This is a spammy ad site. Please flag.
  - Gnarl 4y ago
    The reason for posting that link was b/c it contains a short perspective on the study in question. A TLDR; of sorts. But here's the study itself on the main authors ResearchGate page: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279863242_Oxidative_mechanisms_of_biological_activity_of_low-intensity_radiofrequency_radiation https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279863242_Oxidative...
- SigmundA 4y ago
  Your going to need something better than that: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/28557/are-the-methods-and-conclusions-of-the-study-clear-connection-between-wireless https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/28557/are-the-m...
  - Gnarl 4y ago
    Your link is one person identifying as sceptic and who just circles around to the "non-ionizing can't harm" claim, again. The other attacks the publishing journal. Where were you going with this? None of the commenters seem to bother to discover that the science review in question looks at DNA-damage and oxidative-stress mediated through other pathways than direct ionization. As I said: its more about complex biology, than simple physics/chemistry. Its about the sum of parts, not the reductionism that plagues the field of RF and health.
    - SigmundA 4y ago
      Obviously if you have read their criticism its gets much further than "non-ionizing can't harm", its a criticism of the methods use to analyze data from other studies in cherry picking fashion, they did no actual testing themselves and could easily have statistical issues with the positive outcomes. Again there is no conclusive proof that RF exposure causes adverse non-thermal effects at cell phone power levels or even much higher power levels let alone being able to explain a mechanism that would cause those non-reproducible effects. If you have better information please post it, one paper from a questionable journal using questionable methods is not enough.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
dxhdr 4y ago
Would it be big news? Forgive me for asking but why does UVA/UVB radiation cause skin cancer if it's non-ionizing? Especially from controlled sources like tanning beds. There has to be some pathway of mitochondrial dsyregulation/dysfunction induced by non-ionizing radiation that leads to DNA damage that leads to cancer that we don't fully understand. We don't understand what causes many types of cancers so I don't get the chemistry-knows-all stance.
- SigmundA 4y ago
  UVBA/UVB are near ionizing, UVB is right at the transition point, they have enough energy to cause photochemical reactions that damage DNA but not enough to cause full ionization. The key concept is that it is based on the energy of the photons and that above a certain energy chemical reactions occur which can damage DNA. Radio waves are way way below this level of energy so for them to cause a non thermal effect would mean some new effect we have never seen before anywhere. No one is ruling it out completely but it is very unlikely with no plausible mechanism or data to back it up while UVA/UVB is well understood with respect to photon energy which is related to the ionizing threshold.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    > for them to cause a non thermal effect would mean some new effect we have never seen before anywhere 100% false. Practically everything that goes on in your body involves, one way or another, motion of ions in solution. Varying E-M fields induce electrical currents carried by such ions. Where and how matters. It is always a grave mistake to confuse your entire lack of knowledge of a topic with certainty about it.
    - SigmundA 4y ago
      There is absolutely no proof that cellphone levels of power induce ion motion as you have described, I can find some theoretical work at much higher power levels that proposes it as a mechanism but is not definitive. You need to do better than saying someone is wrong before proclaiming radical new information. Here is what I found: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69561-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69561-3

cbxyp 4y ago

>since even lacking long term empirical evidence we know how they work and have a deep mechanical understanding of mRNA vaccines, and they are not going to cause issues, period. Erm, our understanding of the mechanics of COVID vaccines has changed dramatically over the period since their introduction. Initially it was thought that they provided longterm immunity, now boosters. The manufacturer said that spike proteins would not escape the muscle. Pfizers own post marketing study shows that they spread thru out the body. In short, we do not have a deep understanding of the long term impacts, as evidenced by the unexpected drop in efficacy. It may be that so-called "leaky" vaccines such as the COVID vaccines, which do not produce neutralizing antibodies result in strains with worse potential lethality evolving, as is the what happened with Marek's disease in chickens. Initially, vaccine manufacturers and the CDC alike claimed that vaccines were producing neutralizing antibodies. Now 4 out of every 5 hospitalized cases of Covid in Canada have received their 1st, 2nd and third shots. In short, I hope you were kidding saying that.

spacefracas 4y ago
Please show where an rna vaccine claimed anything other than a reduction in severe disease and with duration tbd.
- Vecr 4y ago
  The primary endpoint of the Pfizer trial was any symptomatic disease. That means they would monitor participants for symptoms, and if they had any they would be PCR tested to make sure it was not something else. They claimed the lower end of the 95 confidence interval relative risk reduction was ~90%. You can look at the prescribing guide on the FDA's website for more details. J&J did moderate to severe disease as the primary endpoint though.
- aksss 4y ago
  The vaccine doesn’t make claims - let’s not anthropomorphize it. The drug companies, public policy authorities, and politicians make claims. Here’s a link from Pfizer themselves talking about the vaccine *preventing* COVID infection, not just severe symptoms. This is basic Google stuff. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-vaccine-candidate-against https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... Shall we move on to the talking heads from public health institutions and the politicians? I mean, examples abound and this would be a lay-up. Google is your friend here. But how can you be unaware of these claims after two years of drama over them in the global public square? Vaccine mandate propositions were largely predicated on the inflated expectations of efficacy - people lost their livelihoods over this. We’re not talking about flippant one-off statements here, but the confidence and endorsement that moves government and corporate policy.

toxik 4y ago

And these same people go out in the sun to get a tan. Talk about radiation doses.

rootusrootus 4y ago
As someone deep into middle age with plenty of friends in their 50s, I strongly encourage young people to pay particular attention to their time spent in the sun. It is extremely obvious who has led a life outside without sun protection and who has spent most of their time indoors. It really does a number on your skin, especially your face (and scalp, if you are follicle challenged).
Gnarl 4y ago
What are the natural background levels of RF vs. sunlight from an evolutionary perspective? Consider whether organisms would spend energy evolving protections against a dominant spectrum of wavelengths vs. hardly measurable spectrum. Also, consider that the net resulting incidence voltage from unpolarised sunlight amounts to near zero, whereas man-made RF is polarized.

giantg2 4y ago

Are you saying that we understand the biological effects and their mechanisms for non-ionizing radiation exposure, or that we should be careful because we don't know all of them (specifically mechanisms)?

yolo69420 4y ago
super late response, but I'm saying we understand. EM radiation from your router is just way too low energy to enact any changes in the atoms making up the molecules in you for even chemical let alone biological effects to start playing a role. the only thing they can do is transfer some heat energy to you, orders of magnitude lower than your average light bulb in the office (certainly entirely incomparable to sunlight).
ncmncm 4y ago
In fact we don't understand their effects. And, we don't even understand what is important about details of the exposure. About all we do know is that modulation is critically important, and that certain modulations under certain conditions of very low power transfer have profound effects. Ask literally any biologist whether you should expect to be able to calculate the effects on an organism of some stimulus using only physical formulas.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  > About all we do know is that modulation is critically important, and that certain modulations under certain conditions of very low power transfer have profound effects. Citation needed. Seriously, the burden of proof is on you for such a statement. And be precise, which modulations, which conditions, what effects. "Certain" and "profound" are filler words in this situation. They mean nothing.
  - Gnarl 4y ago
    You may find this interesting on the topic of importance of modulation, polarization etc.: https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92 https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92

stinos 4y ago

We've known the basic physics answer to this for ages What is the authorative physics answer which proves this goes one way or another, applied to cell biology, in the human head?

ncmncm 4y ago
That, we don't know. We don't know because no one has studied it in any detail. What we do know is that you can't calculate biological consequences using known physics. Which should be obvious to anyone who knows any biology or physics.
- hackernewds 4y ago
  That goes counter to the widely accepted belief in physicalism (which could be entirely misplaced)
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Again: ask any biologist how often they have used quantum field theory to discover whether a drug will work. It is not rocket science: biology is complicated and messy.