WiFi routers stunt growth/prevent germination of cress seeds

I doubt it.
Besides, what're you going to do?
We aren't all going to be Amish.

what does this imply for health effects on humans?

The effects of WiFi will cause an exponential increase of manletism.

Foil isn't really thick enough to produce skin effect where you can ground out everything properly. You need a thicker material. Metal roofing is actually fairly cheap. Just get some screws, a cordless drill, some wire, solder, soldering gun, and metal roofing. Just solder each panel of roofing to the ones it touches to ensure electrical contact. Then ground the entire thing. Nothing will be getting in or out regardless of how small the wavelength. Remember the floor, windows, and doors too.

If you don't need or want to retrofit something then just buy an all metal garage or storage building. Make a metal floor for it using roofing then normal floor over that. Make sure everything is connected and grounded and you are golden.

It doesn't imply anything. Humans are not plant seedlings.

pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/05/danish-school-experiment-with-wifi-routers-and-garden-cress-good-example-of-bad-science/

>How-to tinfoil Veeky Forums-style

RIP

good thing i'm a cress seed then

Surface intensity is what counts not how energetic the photons are.

This is what I was looking for, thanks!

>He recommended me to minimize mobile phone usage, and keeping the router turned off when not needed/few meters away.
The dose response curve is so steep it might as well be ignored for the bulk of high level effects. Histologically apparent damage is seen after 15 minutes of exposure, and remains for over 2 weeks (for Wi-Fi, GSM-900, GSM-1800, TETRA, etc).

There is no "just use it a little bit". You don't use it at all, and you keep it away from you, or you're going to be affected in a way that persists and is not fully reversible. It's that simple.

As always, I'll post some sources. First reviews, then primary literature. Understanding the history is important. It was known as early as the late 50's that non-thermal "non-ionizing" radiation affected biological systems. Altered Ca2+ flux and NO production were the earliest low level mechanistic findings. The damage is caused by oxidative and nitrosative stress, which is caused by chronically elevated intracellular calcium, which leads to greatly increased NO production, which reacts with superoxide to form peroxynitrite. Superoxide is removed by superoxide dismutase, yielding H2O2. NO reacts with superoxide 3 times faster than the action of superoxide dismutase. Hydrogen peroxide is remove by glutathione peroxidase / reductase. As glutathione stores are depleted and free radical production rises probability of inactivation of those enzymes increases, lipid peroxidation, DNA base oxidation, double and single strand breaks, etc occurs. Cell damage or death results. In the case of neurons a lot of damage can be taken before the soma is compromised enough to spur apoptosis.

Further reading on [i]Ca2+ and NO leading to oxidative stress.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2248324/

Reviews:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000599?via=ihub
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810017132.pdf

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24095003
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24113318

And read the bulk of William Ross Adey's post 50's work.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=adey wr

GSM-900 and continuous 900MHz field stuff:

Li 2015 - Alterations of cognitive function and 5-HT system in rats after long term microwave exposure
Ammari 2008 - Effect of a chronic GSM 900 MHz exposure on glia in the rat brain
Saikhedkar 2014 - Effects of mobile phone radiation (900 MHz radiofrequency) on structure and functions of rat brain
Mausset-Bonnefont 2004 - Acute exposure to GSM 900-MHz electromagnetic fields induces glialreactivity and biochemical modifications in the rat brain
Sahin 2015 - Deleterious impacts of a 900-MHz electromagnetic field on hippocampal pyramidal neurons of 8-week old Sprague Dawley male rats
Odaci 2015 - Maternal exposure to a continuous 900-MHz electromagnetic field provokes neuronal loss and pathological changes in cerebellum of 32-day-old female rat offspring
Kerimoglu 2016 - Pernicious effects of long-term, continuous 900-MHz electromagnetic field throughout adolescence on hippocampus morphology, biochemistry and pyramidal neuron numbers in 60-day-old Sprague Dawley male rats
Tkalec 2012 - Oxidative and genotoxic effects of 900 MHz electromagnetic fields in the earthworm Eisenia fetida
Boga 2015 - The effect of 900 and 1800 MHz GSM-like radiofrequency irradiation and nicotine sulfate administration on the embryonic development of Xenopus laevis
Hanci 2013 - The effect of prenatal exposure to 900-MHz electromagnetic field on the 21-old-day rat testicle
Brillaud 2007 - Effect of an acute 900 MHz GSM exposure on glia in the rat brain: A time-dependent study
Vecchio 2009 - Continuous exposure to 900 MHz GSM-modulated EMF alters morphological maturation of neural cells
Bas 2009 - 900 MHz electromagnetic field exposure affects qualitative and quantitative features of hippocampal pyramidal cells in the adult female rat

I also recommend reading the book "Nonlinear electrodynamics in biological systems" by WR Adey, 1984. The function of the cell membrane, nonequilibrium nonlinear electrodynamics in populations of cells, and the observation that cells functioned as coupled oscillators, was a rapidly expanding field from the 70's to the mid 90's. Decades of work to unravel how cells communicated, why they were affected by ELF - microwave fields, trying to create a model or set of heuristics with predictive power... All of it stripped of funding, fizzled out, and then suppressed to the point where the average member of the population believes they can only act via heating. Despite repeated observations to the contrary and the lack of any evidence or model to support the notion of local hotspots, and most studies detecting < 0.1C change in tissue temperature.

Bizarre, maddening, and disgusting. But par for the course. Started with the Navy and Airforce (in the US), was then largely taken over by telecom. By the early 2000's the process was more or less complete. Delusion and illusion became reality.

>are electromagnetic waves harmful?
>no, electromagnetic waves don't cause cancer
Stupid retard.

>hurr durr non-ionizing radiation can only cause chemical change in a system via heating and increased thermal motion
>hurr durr visible light interacts with proteins in my eye, sends signals down the optic nerve, and gets processed in my brain. Stuff is see changes my state, thereby causing chemical change.
>hurr durr sound waves in gases in the air interact with stuff in my ear, causing downstream chemical change secondary to my audtory processing machinery
>hurr durr what is signal transduction and amplification
>hurr durr how do I be and do an anything anytime anywhere
>hurr durr why did I see a naked woman and have my peepee get hard, non-ionizing fields can't cause chemical change in a system.
>my peepee must not be real
>none of this is real
>my naive model must be correct

And to further add, the end result of cell phones and wi-fi is a brief period of increasing birth defects and decreased viability of offspring, followed by infertility. Literature on germ line integrity with microwave exposure (morphological defects in sperm, DNA damage in sperm, lowered sperm count, edometrial damage in females, ovary follicle dysfunction, DNA damage to the egg, etc) is widespread and readily accessible. So I'll just skip to the end:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9261543
collectiveactionquebec.com/uploads/8/0/9/7/80976394/exhibit_r-62_magras_mice_study.pdf

Showed irreversible sterility after 5 generations in mice. It's not known how long it would take for a species with higher exposure, longer duration between birth and mating, and larger reproductive organs, but it's clear our fate remains the same.

Of note is also studies on novel object recognition and social behavior. People are clearly all fucked up as it stands, and it's only going to get worse.

Hey wait a minute Charles McGill, I thought you killed yourself. How did you work up the muster to use the internet?

Am I seeing this correctly that the author is getting all autistic over a high school "science" experiment?

When your perspective has been demonstrated to be false for over 60 years, but you have cultural "consensus" and bias on your side, you have to hit fast, hard, and constantly. And take what you can get.

The autism stems from induced tribalism. Microwaves being bad for you became a "thing", people who correctly said they were became branded as conspiracy theorists, idiots, and pseudoscientists. Thus, now insecure, fearful addicts, or laymen who need to align themselves with the "correct" "pro-progress" "pro-science" ethos to get their credit, group security, and gratification, must spout off. Always. It's just ritual behavior at this point. Force of habit.

Naval Medical Research Institute bibliography. Note the date. 1972.
justproveit.net/sites/default/files/prove-it/files/military_radiowave.pdf

I also recommend this publication:
microwavenews.com/
Especially their old issues. Very interesting history.

>It's a big enough deal to get press on ABC as proof that wifi is bad for you but anyone who thinks that schoolchildren are not the best scientists is an autist.
sure

What if their findings were in line with other studies?

Generally plants aren't killed outright, but most species will at least show alterations in chloroplast structure and distribution, and certain bark characteristics. Plants contain calcium channels, and therefore, are also affected.

>What if their findings were in line with other studies?
They aren't.
But lets say they were. It doesn't matter, if your methodology is bad your result is bad, doesn't matter if you are the best scientist in the world. A control is a control and a blind is a blind, you can't just decide to do it whatever way you want and expect people to take you seriously.

>look X thing is ruining society and will doom us all but Y conspiracy is trying to surpress it being known
you should try to change your posting style if you want to convince anyone, it's too associated with every sort of fringe Veeky Forums conspiracy
interesting stuff though, but what exact wifi power level is hazardous? Inside a server room for 8 hours a day? Having a household router in the other end of your room? Walking around with your cell phone in your pocket? Being in a city?

>I know a guy
I know an economist who keeps gold bars in his sock drawer. Doesn't mean he was right about the 2000 market collapse and that gold will be valuable during an apocalypse.

>you should try to change your posting style if you want to convince anyone
My posting style depends on my mood. The content never changes, just the angle.

>what exact wifi power level is hazardous
This was covered above.
Some aspects are near universal constants, like oxidative stress. Some aspects are highly conditional, being temporally and spatially adaptive, like ornithine decarboxylase activity, altered conformational behavior in membrane bound glycoproteins, generation of soliton waves, alteration of cell shape, rotation of certain parts of some proteins with respect to field orientation (ties in with pearl chain formation). Aspects like field strength tend to directional alterations in fluid / hemodynamics. A consequence generally being increased probability of fenton reaction autoxidation. This effect is generally apparent at field strengths >4T.

In the case of pulse modulated 2.45 GHz, you probably have SAR in mind. In which case it's more or less irrelevant, and non-linear. Effects are seen as low as 0.1mW / cm/2, but sometimes higher intensities display less of an effect. Sometimes there is a temporal component. Sometimes it's windowed around a given SAR. It depends on the frequency. With wi-fi however, there is an effect of histone deacetylase, and it has been shown to decoil and cause wave-like motion in DNA.

In summary, if you can physically interact with the emitting device, it is too close. If you can see it, it's too close. If you can conceive of seeing it, it's too close. It's not a matter of saturation. Just one person with a cell phone is enough.

>Naval Medical Research Institute
From your paper
>Note: These effects are listed without comment or endorsement since the literature abounds with conflicting reports. In some cases the basis for reporting an "effect" was a single or non-statistical observation which may have been drawn from a poorly conceived (and poorly executed) experiment.

Wow much respect for these guys having to sift through these papers in 72. There is also a line earlier that basically boils down to "We are tired of this shit so we stopped reading the papers half way through the bunch."

>If you can see it, it's too close
do you live in the fucking woods or what

Inverse-square law and thickness of tissues when comparing humans and mice plays a big role I'm sure. Too bad we know next to nothing at all about the human body.

Which is in line with its purpose. To document and collate all prior literature on the topic and guide further research. Contradiction doesn't mean "they probably did it wrong", it means, "we're seeing something, there are patterns but we don't yet know what the hell or why."

What do you think the Navy does, sit on its hands and wait for stuff to happen? They've historically been the biggest source of funding for R&D of new technology.

refer to my earlier posts, and read everything William Ross Adey (WR Adey) has his name on, and everything by Suzanne Bawin. They were in the point of history when things started coming together. Also, research the Hodgkin-Huxley and Fluid Mosaic cell membrane models. Very interesting. Adey's 1984 book "Nonlinear electrodynamics in biological systems" is also pertinent.

Rural, but not rural enough. Anywhere I go, everyone has phones and every building has wifi. Driving down the interstate I see cell towers everywhere, often built next to schools and high density apartment complexes.

The only approaches I've seen for minimizing damage centers around anti-oxidant intake and calcium channel blockers. iNOS blockers are unfortunately, generally toxic. Vitamin C and E levels are important, magnesium and zinc attenuate some effects. Celastrus Paniculatus seeds, Ginkgo Biloba, ginseng, magnolia bark, and phenibut are all useful.

Maybe, but probably not. When was the last time anyone lost signal because their head was between the phone and the tower? Or because they were in a crowd and the phone was in their pocket? Penetration depth is sufficient to nullify any such factors. 5G however is deliberately including scattering as a primary part of its transmission technique.

>"we're seeing something, there are patterns but we don't yet know what the hell or why."
Did you read a different quote than I did because what I read was "the literature abounds with conflicting reports" and the person then literally put quotes around the word effect.

>When was the last time anyone lost signal because their head was between the phone and the tower?

Heh, I don't even own a phone, so I can't really answer those questions. However, everyone else has a really shitty time with their phones all the time all over the place. Reception is shotty in this area so small factors like what you speak of seem to matter. Which doesn't really help either of us with any proper info.

Your problems might be better solved with a mycologist and therapy than ginkgo and ginseng. EMF sensitivity is confirmed psychosomatic in origin and people who suffer can't tell when the evil electronic device is on or off.

*psychologist how the fuck did that correct to mycologist nobody fucking uses that word.

fuck you mycology is a respectable field of science

Different user here, we are talking about scientific peer reviewed papers and the reviews on them. I'm not sure how your post factors into that.

Conflicting reports stemming from frequency used, modulation, emitting apparatus, measurement devices and parameters, statistical analysis method, etc. It's a complex area. If you took my advice and read even half of what I've suggested, you'd see why and how various researchers responded in their methodologies. It will give you the means to better understand the present.

It's not the case where I am. Unfortunately you either have solid reception, or known spotty patches. Patches which are rapidly disappearing.

Ginseng is highly estrogenic, so I don't consume it.

>EMF sensitivity is confirmed psychosomatic in origin
This is false. Elevated sensitivity, in the brain, has been well studied and correlates either with prior damage, or long term chemical exposure. Fungal infections can also play in. Seizure threshold post concussion being an obvious example.

I meant no disrespect my anger at my spell check lead me to say something I didn't mean.

>microwavenews.com/
literally luddites haha what the fuck where did you crawl out of

>The autism stems from induced tribalism. Microwaves being bad for you became a "thing", people who correctly said they were became branded as conspiracy theorists, idiots, and pseudoscientists. Thus, now insecure, fearful addicts, or laymen who need to align themselves with the "correct" "pro-progress" "pro-science" ethos to get their credit, group security, and gratification, must spout off. Always. It's just ritual behavior at this point. Force of habit.

Dude what

Post doesn't make sense.

Start here:
microwavenews.com/back-issues/1981

Summarized:
-Cultural tribalism
"you believe X and I don't, therefore you are the other. And I will fight the other with the people that are like me."
-Group security and intragroup positive feedback loops
"I'm supposed to believe XYZ and say A when B, because that's my perceived accepted and consensus view, and I am gratified by conforming with it."
-Dumb, fearful, and delusional people
"The notion that I'm trapped around things that are bad for you, and am emotionally attached to those things, is uncomfortable and terrifying. Therefore I must get rid of the bad feel by locking down."

Simple, age old. Easily manipulated drives.

>Cultural tribalism
What makes you immune to cultural tribalism?
If tribalism is a defense then it is by definition also applicable to you and your beliefs.

>Start here:
why should I waste my time reading luddite propaganda on some other website when you're here right now? I came here to laugh at you

I only have internal, self derived culture. Never having much part in culture, along with a period of deconstruction, stripped my cultural baggage. Lack of desire, and therefore ability, to connect, along with long term social isolation, allows you to watch the world as an outsider. I don't have any social feedback loops I'm part of, no outside ties, binds, pressures, fear, or demands. People's lack of dynamic behavior or meaningful response to prior stimuli eventually lets an outsider watch the world as though through a pane of glass, and see it like a series of arbitrarily subdividable machines, at arbitrary scales. With very simple laws that have disappointingly great predictive power.

It takes a sort of a split mindedness I'm well suited for, for certain historical reasons. I don't have a group, I don't have a place, I get along with everyone which means not truly getting along with anyone. That's the short of it and me.

Existing anywhere, anytime, means cultural indoctrination of some form. And you can never really get back to the base layer of all of it once it's already built up, but you can do pretty well. My life has made me live in hell on so many layers that looking up eventually seems pleasant by comparison, and unfortunately not many of its fruits have even been able to help anything, for anyone, anywhere. For whatever reason, I'm able to see and accept, and have few emotional or intellectual barriers. And no matter what, all I can do is watch. Occasionally getting roped in and trying to get out as quickly as possible. And all the while, nobody will listen.

Things don't need to be so awful for everyone all the time.

That's like laughing at someone while you're paying to have your brain scooped out, cooked, and fed to you. Yep, you sure are clever!

>this whole entire post
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHHHHAAAAAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Ask a question, get an answer.

You tinfoil boys are pretty damn funny.

There has been a lot of study of the effects of EMF on human health. I read a book that summarized the whole thing about 5 years ago. It concerned a period of time around the late 1960s to 80s where a hysteria developed around flawed, incomplete, and erroneous research. This snowballed into something very much like the "Anti-vaxxers" movement, except people were paranoid of living near any power lines.

It is still very much an active paranoid subject. I have listened to podcast where electrical engineers and various people promulgate the belief that EMF will mess up your brain... especially Halogen light bulbs as I recall.

The gist was there is little to no evidence EMF fields have any adverse health effects except for very strong fields very close to tissue or obvious, known dangers (don't stand in front of powerful microwave emitters- about as common sense as, don't climb into a microwave oven and turn it on.

You should entertain more skepticism in the subject, it is out there, and it is well informed by research.

Yeah, what happens when lightning hits your roof?

I'll just say one more thing. We are beset on all sides by hidden dangers. We know about chemical pollution in air, water, soil, and food. And we know there are things we don't know.

But chemical changes in biological systems from electromagnetic fields isn't well supported. So when I hear about cancer clusters I think poisoning by chemical agents. When I read about broad statistical mortality I think about the proximal causes that are apparent and measurable and well studied.

I am widely read and very skeptical. EMF being dangerous on the casual level doesn't even rate. That being said, the general case of electronics in one's living area maybe being deleterious to health is a viable subject.

For instance we know you are losing IQ points just by having a smartphone nearby. We know Ozone is generated by power transformation. We know that narrow bands of visible light common to fluorescent lights negatively affects melatonin production. And the gross amounts of various toxic pesticides in food are monitored and measurable. So why are people getting cancer? Lets look at some very obvious reasons:

Prior and up to the 1980s, it was common to add lead to gasoline which was spewed out everywhere into the environment, in uncatalyzed exhaust streams. Not much attention was paid to lead and asbestos in building materials. So there are lots of definite proximate causes of symptoms we are worried about.

you can do some interesting chemical reactions by blasting the everliving fuck out of shit with lasers, which cause simultaneous absorption of multiple photons in one transition, absorbing energy higher than what is required for ionization

I don't have a source because I read about this like 10 years ago and forgot all the details. But you can absorb energy higher than one photon at a given wavelength with enough intensity, which is exactly the case when you're very close to transmitters that have to overcome inverse square to get a signal across a sizable distance

What was the title of the book, and why did you trust it over the research?

Now just think about the cost of updating all that infrastructure. A lot of existing technology -would not be possible-, if it conformed to proper safety standards. Power lines, industrial machinery. Microwave diathermy and fracture healing technology was surfacing in medicine, along with MRI. On the military side, radar installations everywhere. There were many players, and many hands trying to make bigger pies.

Refer to my prior posts, starting here.
Read all of it. Your post very clearly communicates that you don't know anywhere near as much as you think. In your following post you mention chemical pollution, which is well researched as acting synergistically with low energy fields.

>Prior and up to the 1980s, it was common to add lead to gasoline which was spewed out everywhere into the environment
Leaded fuel is widely used in aircraft, and remains used in private aircraft up to the present. Full removal is planned for 2018.

>Not much attention was paid to lead and asbestos in building materials.
Toxicity of a given agent is generally known well before it's widely deployed. It was the case for arsenic green pigments, it was the case for industrial asbestos exposure, it was the case for DDT, glyphosate, and all manner of other things. We just ride the waves, and never learn. The case if the same for EMF.

If you have a retrofit inside a room then the results are the same even if you didn't have the room setup like that. For a metal building, it is the same as any metal building. They are all ready grounded, just not autistically-so.

There's nothing tinfoil about TV License vans. If you have everything in a Faraday cage, they can't detect shit.

An excerpt from "Joint Actions of Environmental Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields and Chemical Pollution in Cancer Promotion", Adey 1990.

"
Do these EM fields constitute a health hazard? Based on available epidemiological data and laboratory studies, it has become increasingly clear that these fields acting either alone or in conjunction with chemicals that occur as environmental pollutants may constitute a potential health hazard. Much has been accomplished in the past decade in establishing a firm base of new knowledge, despite a grave and growing lack of research funds and also entrenched and often self-serving attitudes among influential groups who have denied the possibility of adverse effects, based simply on their a priori positions.
[...]

Potential hazards of these fields relate to athermal tissue interactions where tissue heating is not the significant factor in the observed effects. By definition, ionizing radiation is not involved. From a public health aspect, we should recognize at the outset the principal
nay-sayers against the potential health hazards of athermal EM fields. Engineers have taken the view that if it cannot fry the subject, it cannot hurt him. Physiologists have maintained that equilibrium phenomena, which they have believed to be the prime determinants of excitation at cell membranes, would not be influenced by such weak fields and therefore that they are of no physiological significance. Physicists not sufficiently informed in nonequilibrium long-range interactions and the vast burgeoning of new knowledge in quantum mechanics in their chosen field have stoutly maintained that these fields are too weak to disrupt even a hydrogen bond by
an increase in thermal energy. All three views are erroneous because they ignore the fundamental importance of highly cooperative processes in biomolecular systems, based on long-range atomic interactions in nonlinear, nonequilibrium electrodynamics, and the quantum physical interactions that now emerge as the key phenomena in biomolecular systems.

As we move towards the twenty-first century, elucidation of mechanisms underlying these interactions at the cellular and molecular level will become matters ofurgency. At the same time, implementation ofpublic policies that would mitigate risks from these exposures may impact heavily on existing industrial practices and on important aspects of environmental planning in housing and urban development. At this stage, it is of paramount importance that the significance of these issues no longer be ignored.
"

Adey worked on this since the 70's out of UCLA, then later the VA (Loma Linda). I hate to rely on the authoritative angle, but do you really think someone works in a very specific area of their field for 30+ years, receives funding from many sources (including the US government), and is just bullshitting around?

If you know anything about the history, know who was involved, when, where, and why. Watch how a field evolved and fizzled, read a large mass of the literature, this attitude is obnoxious bordering on asinine. It is nonsensical. Which is fine if you say some dumb stuff for a while, then actually read up a bit and do some thinking, then change your mind. But you can't even get these types to start on step 1, shut up, and read the damn material.

>Engineers, Physiologists and physicists say I'm a moron but they don't know anything, I know more than those guys because proceeds to use bunch of buzzwords.
This is the same tactic used to defend free energy machines.

Clearly you've never tried to discuss any aspect biology with a physicist. Biophysicists are the only sort that may have an opinion that isn't arrogant fluff.

Again, research the history of unraveling cell membrane excitation.

Also, google "coupled oscillator". Terms you don't understand are not necessarily buzzwords.

>Clearly you've never tried to discuss any aspect biology with a physicist.
I haven't but I'm currently discussing it with a tinfoil hat wearing non biophysicist who managed to find enough random web links to convict him of his already held personal delusions and now wants to spread it as far as possible.

>What was the title of the book, and why did you trust it over the research?

I don't remember. It described the arc of the initial flawed study, the social hysteria, the subsequent studies that refuted the original study. Basically the original studies' methods were so flawed their conclusions were erroneous.

The commentary was about how hysterias can develop in society that stem, ironically, from scientific research.

>Now just think about the cost of updating all that infrastructure. A lot of existing technology -would not be possible-, if it conformed to proper safety standards. Power lines, industrial machinery.

UL standards are safety standards. Those were the standards in question. Exhaustive review found no evidence of harm.

As to my own background, I read the book out of class while getting a BS in biology. I participated in genetics research. Prior to that I studied botany. I have already seen the pic and know the study you referred to in the original post. I researched it, found no basis in fact, no body of work replicating it, and so dismissed it.

>Toxicity of a given agent is generally known well before it's widely deployed.

That is not an accurate statement. Chemical toxicity is assumed to be safe unless proven otherwise, which is not the same thing as saying its toxicity is known. Even when toxicity is generally established, for instance, chlorpyrifos pesticides, its release is still possible due to political lobbying and legislative malfeasance, or for example, mercury, which is allowed in many processes. MTBEs foams. Endocrine disruptors in plastics. The list goes on and on.

So my problem with EMF being a cause of disease is that there is little research supporting it. And my point is there are tons of other proximal causes of cancer that are well known and studied.

I didn't initially have this opinion and was actually resistant. But once a seed of uncertainty is planted, I'll eventually have to unravel the matter. I think accepting the world as it really is has more to do with the absence of bias, and the presence of a negative bias. I used a wireless keyboard and mouse, would use wireless stuff if it made sense, but have never really liked cell phones. People's behavior with them disgusted me from the get-go.

I just didn't have sufficient investment, emotionally or monetarily. The only barrier is accepting that you have some degree of brain damage and that everything you see, and everyone you know, is in a state of accelerating decay. Chronic pain makes you used to knowing that no matter you go, or who you are, you're trapped and nothing really changes. And you have to find some measure of peace. Ultimately, my psychological barriers are artificially low. I have yet to find any approach where I can make the fruits of this accessible to other people. You are an example of my failures.

>The commentary was about how hysterias can develop in society that stem, ironically, from scientific research.
A valid commentary, but one that has to be held conservatively and used very cautiously. Part of what you stated assumes universal legitimacy, which in this matter is difficult to present. For example many cell types (either lacking or poor in L-type voltage gated calcium channels), will by some measurements, fail to respond to a continuous 900MHz field. Other cell types, like osteoclasts, in the same field, will fail to respond adequately to the binding of parathyroid hormone, an obvious and major functional change. Likewise for other parameters.

The subject is far too complex, and too multifaceted, to be dismissed out of hand on the basis of a small and possibly cherrypicked sampling of studies where the authors dun goofed it up, or someone managed to make it look like they had.

You have brain damage? Why should I listen to anything you say? What if it's the type of damage that makes you a paranoid idiot?

why do you need it all to be grounded? Conductors naturally prevent EM from penetrating the surface because the electrons in the conduction band are free to move and cancel any electric field. As far as I'm aware, no grounding is required.

So in laymen terms, how does this effect a person?

>Your post very clearly communicates that you don't know anywhere near as much as you think.

My point is that there are dangers present in the typical household which have well-established links to the kinds of problems cited as effects of exposure to the kinds of energy fields in a typical house. How you control for these effects in epidemiology is critical for your study.

If you want to go hunt down research I am sure its out there. But don't cherry pick.

The links to publications you cited aren't strong evidence for the conclusion that EMF fields are generally dangerous. I looked at them. The experimental methods for testing biological cell cultures and induced EMF aren't conclusive for cells in whole organisms.

One of the papers you cited used microwaves to prove ill effects on rats. I can imagine if you put a rat in a microwave bad things might happen. It seems like good research but you can't extrapolate to typical EMF fields from common electrical devices in the home.

AFAIK, low energy electromagnetic fields don't have the energy to really affect chemical systems, or have anywhere near the energy to "ionize" molecules. Electromagnetic fields decline in power with the square of distance as I recall from basic physics. For instance, a graphic from the link you proved from NASA research. In order to really feel a high energy field and have it do damage you'd have to be standing, in this case, in the generating dish, closer to the center. At the edges its just 5% of the energy. at the "Site exclusion zone it is a tenth of that. So you can see how quickly the power level drops as you move just a short distance away from the source.

So for typical applications you are just never going to get much useful energy. As I recall the worst thing you could have happen is holding a cell phone to your head could in theory cause changes in nearby cells but you'd have to have the phone glued to your head all day long maybe for years.

Example, Adey's 2000 study "Spontaneous and Nitrosourea-induced Primary Tumors of the Central Nervous System in Fischer 344 Rats Exposed to Frequency-modulated Microwave Fields" found a -reduction- in tumor incidence. It was funded by Motorola, who subsequently cut all funding and bailed on future planned research. They didn't want an effect of any kind. They went elsewhere.

Overall, the literature has been very consistent if you take the time to parse it all out. Contradiction is generally superficial. I recommend reading Adey, Bawin, and Lubin's research in the 70's. Much of it used chimps with surgically implanted electrodes and plugs. A very expensive and at this point, unethical approach. Will never be followed up on directly.

Of course, and so do you. I've been around microwaves and pulsed fields. Therefore I have brain damage. It's a simple equation. Though significantly less compared to other people, I imagine. Less exposure, good diet, etc.

You're not picking up on this very fast, and you're reaching. Major cell loss is generally seen in the dentate gyrus and various serotonergic systems, uni and crossmodal information integration is also crippled in mice. Which is likely why you're having trouble. Probably have a cell phone around and are sitting near a wifi router.

>Leaded fuel is widely used in aircraft, and remains used in private aircraft up to the present. Full removal is planned for 2018.

I didn't know that! Crazy to think after all this time knowing the general toxicity of lead in the environment we'd still allow its legal release

As you know what they say (and believe): the solution to pollution is dilution.

>For instance, a graphic from the link you proved from NASA research. In order to really feel a high energy field and have it do damage you'd have to be standing, in this case, in the generating dish, closer to the center. At the edges its just 5% of the energy. at the "Site exclusion zone it is a tenth of that. So you can see how quickly the power level drops as you move just a short distance away from the source.

Heres that illustration

Altered neurotransmitter release, altered hormone regulation and release (esp melatonin and cortisol), increased amyloid beta generation, increased damage to various cell structures up to possible cell death, altered functional characteristics in the brain, heart, digestive system, damage to reproductive (germ line) cells, leading to reduced fertility and higher rate of birth defects. Sperm quality has been steadily dropping for the last 20 years, and greatly picked up in the last 10.

Etc. Most systems are affected. The first review (by Martin Pall) puts it in layman's terms on the neurological front.

Daily reminder that VGCCanon is a crackpot who has been proven time after time to be misrepresenting his sources but continues to post his stale pasta.

assimilate, you can't not use technology even if you think it causes health issues
leaded fuel in aircraft? I could see that in private aircraft maybe but jetfuel burns very cleanly, it's a lot more refined than even unleaded gasoline ...right?
>I have no source

Thanks for putting it into laymen terms, now how about some perspective.

I know my semen production is good, my brain works well - I have a great memory, and I sleep like a baby every single night.

What is the derivation of bodily functions compared to the norm? Is it so drastic or within reasonable parameters?

>How you control for these effects in epidemiology is critical for your study.
And when epidemiological studies agree with your primary mechanistic data, and what you know about a system, its reliability is strengthened. You use this to inform your risk assessment and notion of feasibility.

>I looked at them. The experimental methods for testing biological cell cultures and induced EMF aren't conclusive for cells in whole organisms.
Many studies used mice, tested their behavior, and cut their brains up and looked at them. You didn't look at anything.

>I can imagine if you put a rat in a microwave bad things might happen.
SARs were published and are generally lower than 0.1 mW/cm/2. Tissue heating is under 0.1C. The implication that the mice were being cooked is false, and their exposure levels were much lower than existing safety standards.

>AFAIK, low energy electromagnetic fields don't have the energy to really affect chemical systems, or have anywhere near the energy to "ionize" molecules.
Refer to:
>So you can see how quickly the power level drops as you move just a short distance away from the source.
Not relevant for reasons already stated. Low SAR != low effect, we're not talking about heating.

>you'd have to have the phone glued to your head all day long maybe for years.
So which is, does it cause an effect or not? You're contradicting yourself right and left.

user, stop stumbling around and just do the research. One of these days I'll have a well serialized post typed up with a long list of studies categorically breaking down the observed effects on a given system, and linking to literature that may explain why a given result is positive or negative. But for now, I've given you enough. There will be no further communication, do yourself a favor, and just put in the effort.

>user, stop stumbling around and just do the research. One of these days I'll have a well serialized post typed up with a long list of studies categorically breaking down the observed effects on a given system, and linking to literature that may explain why a given result is positive or negative. But for now, I've given you enough. There will be no further communication, do yourself a favor, and just put in the effort.

>I won't prove it you just have to find the proof yourself.
Sure

>I know my semen production is good
Sperm integrity, and how? Ran a comet assay on your sperm? Looked at morphological characteristics?

>my brain works well
>I have a great memory
Relative to what? It may be so, but bear in mind the limitations for you to judge what that actually means.

>What is the derivation of bodily functions compared to the norm? Is it so drastic or within reasonable parameters?
In some areas it's drastic, in others it's not or it's condition. Neurotransmitter release and EEG rhythms in areas of the hippocampus, in humans, are altered. Genetics likely play a role.

Like I said above, one day I'll type out a better post. If you look at the timestamp of my first post, you'll understand that I'm tired. Read some of the literature posted, especially the autism related papers. They function as one of the best reviews.

The key phrases in these studies is "continuous" and "acute".

My general skepticism, having some experience working with cell cultures and molecular biology, is that it is very tricky to maintain experimental control. And you can't support the idea, for example, that acute radiation exposure to earthworms supports the idea that low energy EMF affects people in typical situations.

In only shows that IF you crank up the energy and really marinate your test subject you can find evidence of some damage and/or compensatory biological response. Is this practical evidence of danger to the public? Not really. But it does support the idea that fields can have some effect and perhaps the precautionary principle should be followed- common sense- but it is no reason to think normal everyday exposures have much effect. Best possible advice, don't hold your cell phone next to your head so much.

>Bizarre, maddening, and disgusting. But par for the course. Started with the Navy and Airforce (in the US), was then largely taken over by telecom. By the early 2000's the process was more or less complete. Delusion and illusion became reality.

I get your conspiracy logic. But I don't think there is much evidence that typical EMF exposure has much real effect on people's health.

I still think the clear and present danger to human health and welfare comes from the known and unknown measurable chemical pollutants in the environment and in bodies. But this is my bias- I find it far easier to accept the biochemical and molecular bonding having biological effects since these mechanisms can be more easily isolated and studied.

So for me, when people propose EMF as a cause of cancer, I ask, why choose this when the mechanism of action proposed is not well understood, when you have much stronger evidence for a proximal cause in the various chemical and molecular species in a typical environment?

Yes okay, I have it all saved.

user, do I literally have to come and spoonfeed you? Bring over a big stack of studies, tuck you in, and read you some bedtime stories? Will that help, if I come over and literally read it for you? I guess what follows is the realization that even if I read it for you, I can't understand it for you. Maybe pulsed fields will be able to force that kind of brain activity eventually, if they can't already.

>The key phrases in these studies is "continuous" and "acute".
Uh, no, they aren't. Continuous can either refer to continuous wave (non-modulated), or continuous exposure. Intermittent exposure (what you're incorrectly calling "acute") does not use higher exposure levels. It's the same level put into windows of time to simulate typical human usage.

>radiation exposure to earthworms supports the idea that low energy EMF affects people in typical situations.
Acts on the same cellular machinery, yielding a similar higher level effect.

>But I don't think there is much evidence that typical EMF exposure has much real effect on people's health.
Your mantra doesn't make the research go away, nor does belief shape reality. The universe is going to do what it does, regardless of what you think and feel.

>when people propose EMF as a cause of cancer
Carcinogenesis is a relevant factor, but ultimately, at best a distraction. I prefer to focus on brain damage and functional changes.

The mechanism of action is well understood, and there is absolutely no competing agent with similar descriptive power. Calcium channel activation is clear and demonstrated. Read the literature, end of story.

Goodnight.

>Research exists that proves me right.
>Pseudoscience still contains the word science.
You are really doing wonders in convincing me you are an idiot.

> For example many cell types (either lacking or poor in L-type voltage gated calcium channels), will by some measurements, fail to respond to a continuous 900MHz field. Other cell types, like osteoclasts, in the same field, will fail to respond adequately to the binding of parathyroid hormone, an obvious and major functional change. Likewise for other parameters.

The general problem with cell culture studies is that they are imperfect models, hard to measure, maintain, and behave predictably. Why an osteoclast would not bind to parathyroid hormones in a cell culture may or may not have anything to do with the 900mhz field...

My experiments with cell cultures told me that, unless you are, like, superhumanly perfect in management and isolation practices, you are going to get contamination with other microflora which can induce a wide range of interference with whatever you are trying to measure, whether enzymatic action, DNA damage, or morphology. It is punishingly time consuming and painstaking to proceed with this type of research and actually come to a useful conclusion. So, not having reviewed these studies, but with full knowledge of the problems inherent with this type of research, I take a very large grain of salt when I encounter them. This is why replication is so important.

Until there is a much larger set of experiments with the WI-FI and seed germination, I wouldn't conclude any proof was found.

I would generally, cautiously, admit that "Acute" and "continuous" exposure to

> homogeneous RF-EMF at field levels of 10, 23, 41 and 120 V m−1 for a period of 2 h
or
> 23 V m−1 (4 h) and field modulation (80% AM 1 kHz sinusoidal)

...might in fact be BAD. But I'm not going to suspect typical low level exposure from household electrical fields will have much if any affect just based on what I know about physics, biology and what I've read.

You're more focused on the audience, that's your function. No one is genuinely this selectively stupid.

Anyway, I really am going to sleep. So goodnight buddy boyo', hope you change yourself.

Further reading:
Cain 1987, "Evidence that Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields Inhibit Coupling of Adenylate Cyclase by Parathyroid Hormone in Bone Cells"
Bawin 1996, "Extremely-Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields Disrupt Rhythmic Slow Activity in Rat Hippocampal Slices"
Bawin 1978, "Ionic factors in release of Ca2+ from chicken cerebral tissue by electromagnetic fields"

More modern research can be found with a cursory pubmed search using what I've already mentioned. Read it if you're going to, don't if you won't. I feel like you're talking to yourself more than me. You're convincing yourself. Repeating the same phrases over and over. eg:
>based on what I know about physics, biology and what I've read.
You've been told how and why what you thought you knew was wrong and incomplete, but failed to respond to it in any way. Which says just about all of it.

Could someone tell a brainlet like me why this guy is a conspiratorial jackass? Why doesn't anyone know of his "wisdom" of that's the case?

>>But I don't think there is much evidence that typical EMF exposure has much real effect on people's health.
>Your mantra doesn't make the research go away, nor does belief shape reality. The universe is going to do what it does, regardless of what you think and feel.

I am not threatened by questions. I'll review some of the updates in the EMF field and adjust my views as new studies and evidence come in. Its obviously an important field of inquiry and I hope its not getting less funding than it deserves.

I can't tell you but these sorts of people aren't satisfied unless the entire world conforms to their ideas
no offense bronyou might actually be onto something, more power to you

People do know, it's just perpetually not acted on. Regulatory bodies fail to act (for various reasons), and therefore various factors prevent the bulk of the population from changing. At this point, it's not possible to change. No one will ever go back to a pre-cell phone mode of function before the point when things are already terminally fucked.

Hell, the autism review I posted above was out of Harvard. Martin Pall is professor emeritus in biochemistry at Washington State. Etc. A lot of people know and have the brains to stay away from toxic stimuli. Many people are too easily confused and tricked into thinking the waters are muddied and contradictory. Most people don't care and function as though nothing will be bad as long as everyone else is doing it. If everyone stops doing, they'll stop doing it too and be just fine, no cost. A common heuristic.

>these sorts of people aren't satisfied unless the entire world conforms to their ideas
This is true for everyone. Everything is about control. People feel discomfort when they cannot control parts of their life and environment which is required for comfort, via their value system.

Good ol' case of veiled stating the obvious.