Let's talk about Wi-Fi and cellular phones

Bump.

Your skin absorbs microwaves far better than the atmosphere. You are hit by some amount of all EM radiation from space constantly.

There is zero change microwaves are penetrating your body and altering any kind of biochemical reaction.

There's a stark dependency pertaining to wireless technologies, it's unlikely that any health concerns have a chance at negating their prevalence due to the practical faculties which wireless technologies possess.

The invention of more innocuous and more efficient substitutes are our only hope in eradicating wireless technologies near ubiquitously.

>Your skin absorbs microwaves far better than the atmosphere.
This is incorrect. Instead of showing you why, I'll just ask for a source.

You're arguing against findings from multiple in vivo studies, by the way. As well as basic physics.

WiFi was studied as being malignant in effect towards plant growth; and those fuckers have cell walls.

The growth of plants is retarded and sometimes halted indefinitely dependent of the proximity of the plants to the radiation source. So

You're just making shit up now.

That's what I thought.
Run along now.

I'm not your Google bitch, asshat

EM from my phone passes through walls, yet you imply that it doesn't pass into the head when the transmitter is placed directly next to it? Do you actually believe that?

This is partly due to microwave's specificity towards water and metal, and partly a function of frequency. In general, higher frequency means lower probability of penetration depth, lower is in the inverse.

And yet, again, as you say a cell phone demonstrably isn't knocked out by humid, rainy, etc weather. Or even solid bodies of water. It's mostly metal lattices that cause problems.

Literally who gives a fuck what it does to a calcium channel in an assay - show some evidence of an effect in animals or stop spouting rubbish.

Yet microwaves are demonstrably capable of delivering energy to water, viz the microwave oven. The quanta of a weak signal is the same as a strong signal, it's a matter of degree not difference.

I wasn't arguing with you. My post was mainly a deterrent for anyone who would unnecessarily go down the wrong avenue, given that the topic was already a(n incorrectly) pre-supposed inability to penetrate the skin. As though they're just absorbed, or scattered on contact, despite the same signal being able to pass through walls and even bone.

Hold on a moment. I no longer have access to my list of literature, and my brain is full of kava. I'll try to reconstruct / re-find some of the papers I have in mind.

(Although I'll be omitting the papers on HSP70 elevation as it's been well documented and its mechanism is known, and readily suppressed by administration of L-type VDCC blockers)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27346366
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25749756
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23949848
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12728960

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802593

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4011850
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879308

Bump.

Bump again.

I'm partly here to educate, and partly want the satisfaction of seeing some of the more hardcore pseudoscientists around here begin the process of admitting their view of how things are might be false.

The birth of awareness, and the subsequent proper risk assessment, is a beautiful thing.

they're all either indian or repeated authors

find different articles with different authors with different experiments and persistent results. people might start believing you then.

Come back when you've read passed the abstract.

I might sometime in the future.
I'm just giving you the problems that people might point out.

While I do think there are certainly some effects (actually I'm sure there are lots), do you really think that getting the public informed about this will change anything at all?

>I might sometime in the future.
I recommend you do, it's very interesting. The reviews cite hundreds of other studies. There are a lot of other studies and meta-analysis out there as well. It's been known that microwaves interact with biological systems for decades. Look into the research on increasing BBB permeability for chemotherapty drug entry, and using magnetic fields to alter bone growth before plate fusion.

>I'm just giving you the problems that people might point out.
Appreciated. I realized that as well but didn't feel like searching for too long, or leaving a wall of links. Chose those that were further along the logical chain and focused specifically on hsp70 and VDCCs.

It's not a citation fight. If people want to look further they can.

>do you really think that getting the public informed about this will change anything at all?
No. While I don't really know, and it could go a number of ways, history makes it very clear how this tends to pan out and supports my cynicism quite well. Humans are pitiful at risk assessment and changing their core habits, and a lot of people view their phone like a friend. They'll even cross the road barely able to struggle to look up from their phone, while their kid is practically wandering around in traffic. "Woops".

Humans are very tribal, and as social feedback loops accumulate some proportion of people will begin to avoid wireless. 60+% likely won't. Best case scenario superior alternatives are developed. The bare minimum for a satisfying outcome for me, is people beginning to be aware and honest. It's all about honesty and the stripping of delusion. Do whatever stupid shit you want, as long as you're honest and don't hide behind pseudoscience as you irrationally ride the waves as though we're new to this game. We've done it all before, we'll do it all again.

...