What do you guys think of these facts from I Fucking Love Science? Are they actually factual?

How though? The energies of the light isn't enough to cause any physical harm.

Study?

The problem here is that the focus isn't really in understanding new and interesting things. The focus is on bashing people who "disagree".

All 5 of these things are so painfully obvious. Why spend so much time worrying about them? I will never understand why people get so worked up over the kooks and trolls who deny evidence. You're never going to win them over. Why is it so important that they have to agree with you? The best part about science is that the evidence is real whether the crazies believe it or not.

If you really "fucking love science" why don't you go and fucking learn something new instead of trying to force everyone else to think exactly the way you do?

Interaction with the charge groups that comprise voltage gated calcium channel's voltage sensing subunit. Activation of which requires all charge groups being moved in roughly the same direction at nearly the same time, which in turn activates the two high affinity zones of its other subunits, and this is what occurs during normal physiological conditions and proper signalling.

Aberrant VGCC activation causes chronically elevated intracellular Ca2+. Which causes an upregulation of iNOS, overwhelmed NO processing pathways, which eventually downregulates superoxide dismutase activity, leading to the formation of peroxynitrite, single strand breaks, double strand breaks, etc. There are also some ideas in biophysics about the coiled coil structure of DNA causing it to act like a fractal antenna, and the nature of networks of cells acting as coupled oscillators, which leads to altered electron transport, etc. Which I don't really understand very well. The former is composed of well traced out pathways and their pathological states.

What is most important is that this is not new. These are not newage revelations. We knew these fields were active, and we knew about specific high activity windows as far back as the early 60's. 2.45Ghz was being studied specifically in the 70's, it caused immunological changes in the (rat) brain.

Naval Medical Research Institute Bibliography of US and Soviet research:
ufile.io/aw3nr (is there a better host?)

Two reviews. Follow citations:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000599?via=ihub
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/

Proof of concept for a link between autism and overactive VGCCs:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_syndrome

And just to add on, this isn't revolutionary stuff. There isn't really any great change in thinking. It's just signal transduction. The input from your eyes "causes chemical change" via a chain of effects spurred by visible light. A non-ionizing form of radiation. All of your senses do the same thing.

Imagine something sensory that causes a massive release of dopamine, in the presence of an agent that inhibits its reuptake. That dopamine will now sit in the open where it is subject to autoxidation via fenton reaction, MAO breakdown, and formation of reactive quinones. All of which are damaging enough that they can spur apoptosis in the cell, and as a cluster, are often the cause of brain damage from various drugs.

All of this via signal transduction. It's just how machines work.

>All 5 of these things are so painfully obvious.
this

but some of these are not deductively true which causes stupid arguments like
I.E. vaccines work
>one vaccine doesnt work/a rare issue appears
>people argue this statement is wrong now based on rare vaccine issue

Who seriously argues against climate change? It's one thing to argue about the anthropomorphic affects on the climate but to argue against change doesn't happen much at all.
It's so interesting to me that climate change got coopted as the catch all phrase for global warming when it already had real value before hand. It's so confusing to me especially because it does validate any argument.

Doesn't* validate

The problem with stuff like IFLS isn't it being factually incorrect.

>it's this idiot again

This sounds very conspiracy theory-ish to me. The paper is pretty clear that no precise target is known. The effect of emf on vgcc's is cited in a paper from 20 years ago but it only really takes about elf range and microwaves. ELF is basically non existent outside of those giant sub arrays but microwaves are used in alot of shit. Still, despite the source showing convincing evidence that vgcc's are affected, it didn't seem to provide any evidence that this is in fact happening. Considering how prolific microwaves are, there should be at of observable evidence out there.

Certainly interesting though. I was a radio tech in the Navy, and the old adage for radar techs was that they will only ever produce female offspring

>Earth is flat
>Vaccines don't work
>Chemtrails are real
>Climate change is a hoax
Popsci fags BTFO

fuck off back to

Can someone refute this guy? I'm getting nervous here. Well-articulated, seemingly scientific, I'm too much of a brainlet to know if he's talking out of his ass. Also, question to the guy: you implied chemtrails are real. Could you elaborate?

>Still, despite the source showing convincing evidence that vgcc's are affected, it didn't seem to provide any evidence that this is in fact happening
That guy also never provides any evidence that any biochemical changes actually translate to large-scale impacts on human health.

The key link is purely supposition.

You have to remember that there is a difference between plausibility and actuality, and between existence of a mechanism and impact of that mechanism on human health.

That guy presents evidence that certain RFs can cause biochemical changes in certain proteins. What is lacking is: have those changes been demonstrated to be relevant to health? The answer is no, we don't have evidence for that. In fact, if you look at the observational evidence we have, negative health effects really only start to be a concern if you consistently do something like stand in front of an active microwave radar dish, and those aren't necessarily due to the same mechanism in question here.

This is not just an academic question. It's not unheard of for toxic factors that seemed dangerous in cell culture and animal studies to turn out to have no meaningful impact on population-level health. There's also a question of dose - if these effects do have an impact on human health, at what dose is the effect swamped out by other factors?

That user likes to snow people with links to papers and reviews to bolster his argument but if you actually examine it he's lacking critical links in his logic train. Biological plausibility does not equal biological reality.

some of them are true, some of them are false

Yes, they are correct. They could literally say "1+1=2" and Veeky Forums would get buttmad

The problem is usually seen as the fact that because people deny shit like this, it starts fucking everyone else up.

Example: Current US president says climste change is Chinese hoax and says vaccines caused autism

Meanwhile
>gmo's and gluten LITERALLY cause cancer by being bad for my second brain, AKA the gut XXDDDD
Being stupid isn't something that's limited to the left or right. In fact, it may be even a little worse on the left because they're so smug about it.

I stopped using Facebook several years ago, but when I did I remember that IFL was fucking horrible at their science reporting (though they're about average for most Facebook pages).

They rarely cite actual papers, they overgeneralise results, spend far too much time on making shit memes rather than on actually educating people. It's a perfect recipe for clickbait, but hardly screams "I fucking love science". People like the page because they think it makes them look good, taking the stance that they "love science".

The particular example in OP is just pure stupidity. All of those facts are obvious, but if you're trying to convince someone that doesn't believe them then calling them stupid is a bad way of doing that.

[math]\text{W}.\text{s}^{-1} = \text{kg}.\text{m}^2.\text{s}^{-4}[/math]

In all seriousness, that's actually retarded.

>Hillary/liberals aren't right wing
You should probably study up on politics before commenting on them. You seem pretty smug about a topic you don't know much about.

Were they talking about radiant flux or some shit?

you should probably work on your reading comprehension before commenting at all

Can you explain why the left would dislike GMOs or gluten? I can only think of you describing liberals.

He's been refuted time and time again, yet will come back to new threads with the same bullshit links and deliberately misinterpreted studies so he can act smug about how enlightened he is and how "sooner or later blah blah toys." He is completely beyond any reasoning and is a worse spammer than lungcancer retard.

tldr Microwaves and ELF such as fucking AC power like the whole US has isn't bad for you unless you stand inside of a running microwave oven, and this total moron spams his links in the hopes that people who aren't biologists or electrical engineers will take him seriously.

warosu.org/sci/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=voltage gated
Behold.

*or physicists or anybody who's passed physics 2/chemistry 1 or anybody with a hobbyist level understanding of electronics etc.

Before you all jump down my throat.

>All 5 of these things are so painfully obvious.
Not to a significant portion of the US. Including the president.

Even more so if they had included evolution and the age of the earth.

Bad page
I stopped following them when they said GM products were good because they're "scientific" and leaving it at that, basically boiling "science" down to a buzzword

Jesus you guys are fucking stupid.

No he cant. Because of muh [insert typical pol bs]

To put it summarily, the main issue with your refutation is that everything you just said is wrong. And already covered by what I've said, and the papers linked. You either do not know this because you didn't read them or the citations, or, you've chosen to act disingenuously.

That takes care of the first two paragraphs. The third is irrelevant and misrepresentative. Dose response curve, relative to a given frequency and intensity, has been repeatedly demonstrated in culture and in mice. For a very long time. Back in the 60's microwaves were being investigated for augmenting bone growth, fracture repair, etc. Modern day they're being investigated for treatment of brain tumors, ironically. Why? They're known to increase the permeability of the blood brain barrier to the point where you'll see albumin staining, this allows chemotherapy agents to better get to places they would not otherwise. There are FDA approved devices for clinical depression that use pulsed fields. For many years spontaneous remission of treatment resistant depression was noted after people received an MRI. Hm... perhaps because VGCCs are part of the control system for neurotransmitter release, perhaps the patients weren't simply relieved by the notion of progress (psychogenic)?

>but if you actually examine it
You shouldn't talk about your future in past tense.

This occurs at subthermal levels. SAR is largely irrelevant. microgauss is often a better measure.

>they cause brain damage, immune dysfunction, and potentiate various cancers.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which you do not have. isn't evidence at all, let alone extraordinary.

The claim is not extraordinary.

Elaborate your concerns further.

Um, sorry sweetie, not all science is truthful

>muh jews
>muh biotrufs
Evo psych is a trash field. I think it's worth exploring but it's got a whole load of epistemological problems.

>SAR is largely irrelevant
Yeah sure.

Your claim runs contrary to decades of accepted hazards of various forms of RF. Furthermore, your citations for such hazards are a gish gallop of papers published by quacks, websites authored by quacks, and a handful of factual papers which you almost certainly deliberately misinterpret, as they don't back up your claims in the least. I've seen you refuted multiple times here, and I've seen you try to move your delusions to /diy/ and get laughed out of there too. I know I'm wasting my time responding to you and that no amount of facts or arguing could change your mind, but I also know that if Veeky Forums lets ridiculous claims like yours go unrefuted, you'll take that as acceptance and continue to scare people who don't know any better.

I also distinctly remember you "refuting" points that nobody made on /diy/, almost as if you don't care about anything other than how many posts you make.

Kill yourself please.

>Earth is not flat
lel strawman is full of straw.
>Chemtrails aren't a thing
Go watch any documentary about corporate/government pollution cover ups, it's what they do. Who knows what toxic additives are ending up in jet fuel that are being kept underwraps for profit.

>Who knows what toxic additives are ending up in jet fuel that are being kept underwraps for profit.
Anybody can. Go to your local airport and buy some Jet-A and Jet-B, find out what's in them, and blow this big conspiracy wide open.

Good luck getting military grade fuel which is far more toxic.

Military fuel is used in far smaller quantities than commercial fuel.

82863-50-1 Look up this number.
Also fun fact: 100LL (avgas) is more toxic than jet fuel.
If you actually want toxic military fuels, Hydrazine is used for the F-16's EPU.

I forgot, here's a riddle for you:
What's a byproduct of the combustion of hydrocarbons such as jet fuel?

>Your claim runs contrary to decades of accepted hazards of various forms of RF.
Go on.

> Furthermore, your citations for such hazards are a gish gallop of papers published by quacks
Elaborate.

>websites authored by quacks
Such as?

>and a handful of factual papers which you almost certainly deliberately misinterpret, as they don't back up your claims in the least.
More.
And also, explain your usage of the word "factual". Explain how you're making your delineation.

>continue to scare people who don't know any better.
There's poetic beauty in a delusional false shepherd.

You're just a bunch of wishy wash. Calm on down, user. I think the most positive experience for you lies in being given enough rope to hang yourself, and that's what's beginning right now.

Because THESE PEOPLE VOTE

They are not harmless

>There's poetic beauty in a delusional false shepherd.
As I read this back though, I also know this was me once. In a way. I accepted that there was a possibility of impact on human health, but that it was probably trivial, thermal, and that its mechanics were unknown. All of that was false, and it took a while, and intellectual honesty, to get passed that ingrained bullshit.

Though I've never been a cell phone user, and I have never liked how people acted with / about cell phones. I understand the utility, what they afford, but looking at the prices alone. It's completely absurd, bordering on asinine. I didn't have too much sunk into wireless stuff and no real emotional investment either.

That likely confers a significant advantage in accepting the truth. The truth certain certainly does not set you free, nor does it generally make you happy. But I'd rather be net trapped than delusional and degrading.

>Websites authored by quacks

bioinitiative.org/participants/
You've repeatedly cited this, a website which claims that electric/electromagnetic hypersensitivity exists among other claims that nobody who knew the slightest about RF would take seriously, indicating that you're a layman at best. If I went through debunking everything you ever sourced or posting what the studies actually claimed instead of how you personally interpreted them, I would be here for hours and you'd post them anyways after the thread 404s, as you've been doing for years

>>and a handful of factual papers which you almost certainly deliberately misinterpret, as they don't back up your claims in the least.
The one example I remember from the last time I bothered to waste my time talking to you was one where the exposure levels were over four hundred times more than a cell phone's ERP for five or more hours per day which POSSIBLY led to negative health effects in rats, which you then proceeded to use to """"""""""prove"""""""""" that cell towers and wireless internet and elf (power lines) will change your behavior and mess up your voltage gated calcium channels.

>And also, explain your usage of the word "factual". Explain how you're making your delineation.
Papers with actual studies and evidence grounded in reality.

My cell phone is a 20 dollar tracfone that I've used a total of 150 minutes on in four years. I have no emotional or financial investment in the health effects of RF. What I do have an emotional investment in is not letting Veeky Forums become like /pol/ or /g/, where the accepted truth of a subject is whatever gets spammed the most, and in not having your pseudoscientific garbage end in regulations or other actions which would make my and other people's lives harder because your feelings are hurt.

I know you want to LARP as an enlightened saviour in a sea of sheep, but sometimes reality has to get in the way of your dreams.

>who knows what toxic additives

Fucking everyone that thinks to look. It's not like you have to have a clearance to buy jet fuel. Military jet fuels are nearly identical to their civilian counter parts.

Dude, run for president. With your superior intellect you will definitely win, and as president you could change just everything that's wrong with this country.

>a website which claims that electric/electromagnetic hypersensitivity exists
It probably does. People who are infected with certain fungi or bacteria, have a predisposition to certain types of inflammation, or have overactive mast cells could be far more susceptible.

>among other claims that nobody who knew the slightest about RF would take seriously
Go on. Such as?
You're still doing it.

>If I went through debunking everything you ever sourced or posting what the studies actually claimed instead of how you personally interpreted them
While that could be true, I don't actually think you can. You've certainly not shown the slightest indication of that capacity, regardless of if your ultimate output after this great endeavor was valid.

>as you've been doing for years
I've done this at most 5 times since ~January.

>you was one where the exposure levels were over four hundred times more than a cell phone's
Be more specific. Also bear in mind that thermals aren't directly relevant, and dose response curve with respect to intensity, is non-linear. Read the material. Especially that which includes the older Soviet stuff. Though the modern studies say much the same, they lack the sheer breadth of the endeavors in that time period.

>Papers with actual studies and evidence grounded in reality.
Such as? Elaborate on how you're making your delineation.

>My cell phone is a 20 dollar tracfone that I've used a total of 150 minutes on in four years.
Good. Your dendritic arborization should be more intact than the average control.

>lives harder because your feelings are hurt.
It might feel more difficult for a while, but it's for the best for everyone. Yourself included.

>I know you want to LARP as an enlightened saviour in a sea of sheep
Pot and kettle.

don't be mad at the phone because you didn't slide into the dms

dms?

Brainlet here. How do I keep my dendritic arborization intact?

>no UR the retard xDDD

VDIEO GAMES

Avoidance of pulsed fields at microwave frequencies, exercise, and a decent diet. What constitutes a proper lifestyle does have hard mechanical underpinnings, but is pretty diverse and not really worth saying too much about in the abstract.

>Hm... perhaps because VGCCs are part of the control system for neurotransmitter release, perhaps the patients weren't simply relieved by the notion of progress (psychogenic)?
Nice supposition.

>You either do not know this because you didn't read them or the citations, or, you've chosen to act disingenuously.
I've read your papers before. They don't support your arguments.

The noose tightens. He feels his feet are less solid on the ground, but his hands will not stop pulling the rope, as if to "try it on". All that remains is to reach for the lever, the final barrier.

>Avoidance of pulsed fields at microwave frequencies
How?

joke's on you m8, I just got here plus I was only pretending to like video games
>tfw you've outdebatted yet another brainlet

foil, lots of it

>Nice supposition.
I thought so too. Makes like, total sense man. Someone should study that! Wait, they already did and made an FDA approved device that works on the same principles...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_electromagnetic_field_therapy#Depression
assisianimalhealth.com/technology/

Nice snarkiness. Yes, some of the cycles in an MRI can indeed do similar things.

>vaccines work

nobody's saying that they don't.

Since you've seen the light and practiced all this EMF avoidance, what changes have you seen?

>I've read your papers before. They don't support your arguments.
Go on.

>How?
Don't know. It's not easy. In some places, it's not possible.

I think the point was clear though. Granted it's a bad way to say it

Shalom, dumpass. That isn't me.

>It probably does.
I should have stopped reading your post there. Show me a study that proves it exists, since you're so scholarly.

>among other claims that nobody who knew the slightest about RF would take seriously
Oh lel, just reading through while collecting bullshit, they claim that RF causes GMOs, which also implies they hate GMOs.
Real fantastic source you got there.
bioinitiative.org/whats-new-2/

>as you've been doing for years
>I've done this at most 5 times since ~January.
warosu.org/sci/thread/S8318308
September 2016. I confused you with a similar poster who I saw back in 2014, I apologize.

>Such as? Elaborate on how you're making your delineation.
>Explain what evidence and reality are
You're on Veeky Forums and you don't know this?

>Good. Your dendritic arborization should be more intact than the average control.
I live next to powerlines though and there's a radio station within line of sight of my house, and there's cosmic background microwaves and there's electrical noise from all the power supplies in my house and so on. According to you, I should be a depressed cripple such as yourself () by now.

>It might feel more difficult for a while, but it's for the best for everyone. Yourself included.
>Hey guys no more AC or radio anything because there's a possible risk we haven't observed in reality of you changing your behavior. Back to the 1800s with you.

>>I know you want to LARP as an enlightened saviour in a sea of sheep
>Pot and kettle.
Sticks and stones.

>I won't accept what you say as terminus until it aligns with my beliefs
>I-I am enlightened! Not simply contrarian

I bet you believe in god you fag

It's the opposite for me. I was a... decent control subject, starting out. Though not for my whole lifespan. Got a job where I had to use wifi and bluetooth everyday, and it does change you. It's hard to describe how. People assume that the claim is you walk near to a wifi router, a device, a whatever, and ALL OF A SUDDEN NIGHT AND DAY, I FEEL IT, I HAVE BEEN CHANGED! Which is ridiculous. Think abut everyday life. Your state. Your moods. Your abilities. How much of the underlying basis, and genesis of a given state, or state change, do you actually understand? You might focus on metacognitive stuff and extreme self consciousness and recognize a broad pattern, but even then. For the totality of your experience, self, and state, how much do you really know?

Over time it just guides and biases the mind down certain avenues and into certain patterns. It's difficult to filter out what's what, but the thing I noticed most is I became more apathetic in certain ways. Less apt to bother. Tired more easily, was more disinclined in general. Mentally I thought faster, and sometimes more clearly, but the overall quality of the thought was much less and biased towards convergence. I slept much more poorly. Comparatively things just felt wrong. Then my thyroid failed. It's possible it was on its way anyway, and people will opportunistically claim confirmation bias, but it seems quite coincidental. Likely a predisposed thyroid was done in. A large chunk of a very small chunk of doubt in my mind was erased. Thyroid is even enlarged on the same side that would receive the bulk of exposure.

Man, here there's a widespread belief that the HPV vaccine sterilises girls and it's designed on purpose by the WHO to do it.

>My anecdotal experience attributed arbitrarily to RF disproves reality

>It's the opposite for me.
Everyone reading this probably already knew
This

>Shalom, dumpass. That isn't me.
I'll just reference it when it applies to you.

>they claim that RF causes GMOs
If something damages DNA and increases the probability of error by repair machinery, then yes, it has genetically modified an organism. The claim is logically true, though I now understand why Martin Pall's name disappeared from their page. They want population momentum, and know the already existing tribalism is the best way to seed it. They've become too political.

>>Explain what evidence and reality are
Elaborate on how you're making your delineation. It means exactly what it says, plot out systematically and mechanically what you mean when you use these words.

>I live next to powerlines though and there's a radio station within line of sight of my house
So how much of your state at a given time is influenced by these factors, how much of your future? You don't know. How could you? The studies indicating inhibition of melatonin secretion, and increase in amyloid beta generation, make this particularly troubling. Alzheimers patients also, generally, are found to have fungal colonization in various regions. Amyloid beta looks like it may be more smoke than fire.

>I should be a depressed cripple such as yourself
I'm neither (meaningfully) depressed, nor crippled.

>Sticks and stones.
Kettle, pot.

I have no resentment towards the idea of a creator, or a higher intelligence. I wouldn't bother putting myself in the agnostic / atheist framework either way though. My ultimate question ("God" rephrased) is if the means for the universe to be what it is, and do what it does, is entirely self contained, or reliant on something "external". The problem with many traits attributed to monotheistic deities is omniscience and omnipresence. I do not believe the creator must be all knowing nor all seeing. That assertion doesn't make sense unless you're simply trying to say God is the universe.

Already addressed. Implicitly answers the question.

...

Why would that blow your mind?

I'm 781.

Test is full of problems and faulty underlying assumptions. That's a problem with its format in general. You either must have massive amounts of detailed questions weighted by a well tuned system, or minimal questions about complex things that carry broad assumptions.

Not a good test.

Explain to me why an infant, almost right after birth, requires a hepatitis B vaccine.

Explain to me why they shouldn't?

Perinatal (from mother to son during birth) is one of the most common forms of transmittion of the HBV and, unlike in adults, very early infections tend to become chronic (98% of the times if I remember correctly) which can progress to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma even decades later. By vaccinating at that moment really helps preventing this transmission, of course later you have to reinforce with other dosages to achieve a good antibody titer. It's all explained more deeply in Medical Virology textbooks and in the WHO guidelines.

>implying anybody on Veeky Forums goes to university
Everybody knows universities are just marxist SJW brainwashing factories anyway, take the red pill my man.

wheres
your
fucking
research
journal
to
prove
your
statement

I'm not a fan of the page, but everything in that post is factual.

Flat earth theory is being promoted so that it can be used as a straw man for legitimate conservative theories, like everything else on that list. Note how they list the straw-man first.

That was caused primarily by atrazine. Though post metabolic prescription junk accumulating in public water supplies probably plays a role as well.

IFLS is such bullshit 90% of the time. I thought it was interesting when my facebook friends would share their "facts" but after a while I realized it was all political SJW bullshit so I stopped following them. A lot of their stuff needs to be fact checked first.

Why do you people make this exact post every time you see something you disagree with or hurts your feelings? It's annoying and you post it all the time.

Post some research to back up your garbage faggot.

Read the thread.

What if I believe man went to the moon to mine the ingredients to make chemtrails and autism-inducing vaccines?

You might be on to something. Aliens that set up a base on the dark side of the moon, and engineered a subset of the early human population for some purpose (Europeans). They likely still remain, perhaps their facilities were discovered and technology reverse engineered. Not all of the discoveries would have filtered into the collective sphere, either.

It's also very possible the human species is being purged.

This even communism isn't exactly left, unless you open the borders, remove the police and kill all white males you're just a right winger extremist