Daily reminder that ELF to upper microwave band radiation interacts with the voltage sensing sub-unit of voltage gated calcium channels, leading to chronically elevated intracelluar calcium, overactivity of Ca2+ regulated machinery and processes, and ultimately increased NO synthesis that cannot be properly processed through standard channels and thus in the presence of superoxide forms peroxynitrite. Ignoring the high level signalling and regulatory functions of VGCCs (such as neurotransmitter release in the CNS, as well as synapse and dendritic spine maintenance / formation), this is the low level mechanism leading to oxidative and nitrosative stress, and subsequent DNA damage and deleterious effects on other cellular structures. This entire chain of effects is completely eliminated by VGCC blockers both in cultured cell lines, and in vivo. The influx of extracellular calcium is also immediate upon exposure,
Daily reminder that ELF to upper microwave band radiation interacts with the voltage sensing sub-unit of voltage gated...
Other urls found in this thread:
sciencedirect.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
twitter.com
Sauce.
thanks brainlet
Also, check out the Bioinitiative report.
>Ctrl+f
>Infertile
>No results
>Ctrl+f
>cancer
>No results
Which shouldn't be surprising since one study looks at neuro-psychiatric effects and the other seems to be more of a "proof of concept".
Also the first one seems to be basing a lot of their conclusions off of self-reports with out discriminating for those that already believe that living near mobile phone masts make you ill, and since a lot of these studies have small samples, and because of the vagueness of the issues, that could easily bias the meta-analysis.
Still interesting.
They're addicted: Addicts don't care about consequences no matter how serious (e.g., fentanyl). And most people are too stupid to realize radio signals cause brain damage. They never read a single science book but they know-it-all.
Can you actually imagine most guys caring if their kid is born mentally retarded because their sperm is deformed? Most guys just leave or divorce when the going gets tough (and dealing with autistic kids is brutally tough on parents). Women too could learn of the mental damage caused to unborn children from studies in the UK: but that doesn't stop them from having their phone down near their crotch all the time; or on top of their bulging stomach. Drug addicts only care about their fix, diversion, distraction and staying in denial.
Most people don't have any brain (learning they treasure) to worry about: so it's damaging the retards that should be worried the most, about what little brain they have; and the associated immune system damage it's causing.
I imagine dementia and global disease (zika, chicka, bubo) are going to be major issues when the chronic cell-phone addicts grow bigger, but fail to mature or learn even basic common sense. Play cell-phone games and the mind can do nothing else but wither and die.
Follow the citations.
Double and single strand DNA breaks are well documented in the literature, as is the evidence of a biologically plausible mechanism for direct causation. The epidemiology has also remained consistent for decades.
There is no more room for individual belief here than there is for what happens if you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. The data is there, and we know what we're seeing. The option is always either to accept what we observe and learn about the universe, or to retreat into fantasy and magical thinking within the broader empire of illusion. Unfortunately we live in a post-factual society that has embraced and normalized the notion of personal, relative truth, above the search or even desire for objective and absolute truth. This is ironically little different than a fact oriented culture that has all its "facts" consistently wrong, as far as ultimate outcomes.
From any sane epistemological framework, it's conclusive. I hope you do continue to investigate. You'll find people are incredibly addicted and put up a number of initial barriers. some surmountable, some not. It brings to mind the image of some old grandmotherly type saying to a kid "If everyone was jumping off a cliff would you do it too?" in response to the "everyone is doing it!" mental sinkhole. Naturally people say "of course not!", and they feel it viscerally. It wouldn't be them. Not them. They wouldn't follow the herd. They'd see the signs. They would be able to break away. No, not me, I'm my own person... but really even more naturally, the answer is actually yes. Yes they would. Yes they do. And yes they will. Past present and foreseeable future all tell the same story again and again. Think a bit about that.
>Follow the citations.
I followed your links and found nothing that supported what you said. I'm not trawling through the literature, I'm far too lazy for that.
Then you've already made your choice. You were given the means and chose not to use them.
As always, there will be consequences.
Yes I made the choice to ignore someone who can't substantiate what they're saying.
Changes nothing.
Well I don't have to worry about cancer, because I wear my special jumper, and that protects me from it.
>So what if I can't substantiate it, it changes nothing.
Ultimately it takes the greatest strength to put in effort and give people a chance, despite perpetually meeting the same results. Omnipresent disgust for people's fear and stupidity is far easier, even if it eventually boxes you in and induces a form of learned helplessness.
More strength than I have. I just watch people destroy themselves and don't say a thing. Avoid exposure as much as possible. Etc. I have become a tired, apathetic, weak person. Behaviorally little different than a trapped animal.
Make sure you're properly grounded.
The existence of a mechanism does not automatically guarantee the existence of a large-scale health effect.
Even if all of the things you hypothesize are true and there is an interaction between gated channels and EMR, you have yet to demonstrate a mechanistic link between aberrant stimulation of gated channels and human health.
Read the papers.
I did. The mechanistic link between aberrant gated channel activation and detrimental health effects is almost entirely handwaved.
For example, the authors lay out a series of pieces of evidence suggesting that alteration in gated channel activity could result in a small increase in single or double strand break events in DNA. However, saying that SSB/DSB events may occur is nothing new or consequential. Every cell in your body experiences hundreds to thousands of DSB events every day just from normal biological activity, and that's before you add the effect of any carcinogens. The overwhelming majority of DSB events are resolved silently, perfectly, and without consequence for overall human health.
It's not enough to describe just a potential biochemical mechanism by which a cell might be altered. You also have to link those biochemical changes to actual diseases, or nobody is going to give a shit.
Your idea of a "mechanistic link" is approaching a solipsistic level of incredulity, a standard I think is artificially high and likely impossible to satisfy.
Again, we can't have a dialogue unless you've read, understood, and accepted the papers. Read some of the citations, look at eg the comet assays and tell me the damage "silently resolves". The low level mechanics have been laid out. They are not "hypothesized", they are not a consequence of a theoretical model, they're experimentally verified and have been replicated repeatedly. Epidemiological studies agree.
You're not approaching this scientifically, and you're being intellectually dishonest. The other possibility is you don't have the knowledge or background to interpret the material, but in either case your requests are non-sensical. The material is there if you want it.
Anyway, I gotta go. You need to stop putting this in a vacuum. We know how these pathways work and what generally happens in these kinds of conditions. There's nothing mysterious about the high level macro effects, and absolutely nothing to suggest there would be.
The main things left to more rigorously plot out is the "dose response" in respect to frequency, pulse pattern, and intensity. It is known that there are high activity windows and that dose response curve at a given frequency is often non-linear relative to intensity. The effects on the CNS, beyond widespread neurodegeneration and malformation of synapses (which depend on extracellular Ca2+ for various signalling), it's also not fully clear how altered neurotransmitter release will affect a given system. There is a clear neuro-endocrine "exhaustion" however.
Imagine how disappointing it would be for these people if they ever got through the denial. All this technology they feel like they can't live without, the dawn of a new age, interwoven with one's every experience, thought, action, desire, drive. And yet, it's killing them. Mangling their children. But the addict clings on. No, no, everything is a mystery, everything will be just fine, I don't have to change. Never!
Least Li-Fi might get rid of Wi-Fi in public spaces.
WOOOOW SUCH WISE
;^)
I dispute your use of "almost" in the first sentence.
>>Again, we can't have a dialogue unless you've read, understood, and accepted the papers
As I said, I have.
And asking someone to demonstrate a mechanistic link from a biological phenomena to human health effects is not an impossible to satisfy threshold. If such a link exists and the health effects are more than trivial, it should be easy to demonstrate.
>You're not approaching this scientifically, and you're being intellectually dishonest.
Spinning a story out of whole cloth by selectively ignoring the gaps in your account is what's intellectually dishonest.
>And asking someone to demonstrate a mechanistic link from a biological phenomena to human health effects is not an impossible to satisfy threshold.
That it hasn't already happened for you suggests that it is.
>ignoring the gaps
Elaborate. In full.
Actually, I have much less time than I thought and you take too long to respond. This is the end of our exchange.
I suggest you read the citations, and track down the Soviet and US Navy studies / bibliography that was compiled dating back to the 50's. Your mechanistic reductionism is very easily satisfied if it simply looks.
I thought you were leaving. ;) Funny how nobody who throws a fit and takes their ball home stays away from the playground for very long.
>Elaborate. In full.
You refuse to acknowledge the "some magic happens" step that must exist between the proposed alterations in gated channel-initiated signaling pathways and human health consequences.
Even the papers you've cited in this thread acknowledge that no link has been proven, merely suggested. They're full of language like "may provide" and "seems likely".
You started this thread with language that reads like you were handing down accepted facts, when at BEST you have supposition.