EMF - Dangerous?

I know someone, who has some, shall we say, possbily not credible beliefs.
But one really stumped me, and it's the concept that localised EMF (electro magnetic fields) can damage your cells, he said something to do with calcium. It was all very tin foil hat.

He thinks that WiFi on your phones, WiFi routers and Bluetooth can cause health problems.

I wanted to know, is there any credible scientific fact for this? Or maybe even against, i just can't seem to find much information on it at all.

Thanks in advance

Other urls found in this thread:

mastsanity.org/health/213-the-cell-phone-and-the-cell-the-role-of-calcium.html
time.com/5069317/california-mobile-phone-radiation/
cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1522-2586(200007)12:1<2::AID-JMRI2>3.0.CO;2-V/full
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/37/4/001/meta
bbc.com/news/science-environment-37276219
pnas.org/content/113/39/10797.abstract
duckduckgo.com/?q=RFR-11_28-research-summary.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28144597
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24982785
shieldite.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/RFR-11_28-research-summary.pdf
ehtrust.org/scientists-and-doctors-demand-moratorium-on-5g-warning-of-health-effects/
sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140508163644.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

No mechanism is known for non ionizing radiation to damage cells. End of thread.

Probably referring to mastsanity.org/health/213-the-cell-phone-and-the-cell-the-role-of-calcium.html
This seems to be an "EMF is killing us all" site. Decide for yourself.

California has issued warnings time.com/5069317/california-mobile-phone-radiation/

The American Cancer Society doesn't outright dismiss it cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet but they don't seem very concerned.

>In the absence of ferromagnetic foreign bodies, there is no replicated scientific study showing a health hazard associated with magnetic field exposure and no evidence for hazards associated with cumulative exposure to these fields.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1522-2586(200007)12:1<2::AID-JMRI2>3.0.CO;2-V/full

Intro to non-ionizing radiation
Quality review, breaks each type of commercial/medial/industrial EMF source into categories, explains that under some conditions yes they can be harmful, but no the WIFI receivers are not giving you brain tumors.
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/37/4/001/meta

not true

Microwave radiation (aka wifi) can temporarily sterilize a male. It was researched as a form of male contraceptive. Some guy on /diy/ even make carbonfiber testicle cooker. It was quite impressive.

Ball warmer guy is completely bonkers though and does what he does for reasons only understandable by him

Okay, true, the heating effect of specific wavelengths of microwave radiation on water can result in damaging tissues. If you teabagged your router while wrapping your balls and the router in a microwave reflective material and left it there for hours you might have an issue.

That's fucking stupid though. If you're across the room from it, it's literally less warming to your balls than a single candle. Wi-Fi routers output in a broad area with less than a Watt of power. A single candle can easily put out several dozen Watts. An incandescent light bulb similarly puts out a lot of heat, albeit less energy as heat than a candle. Should we be worried about the effect of indoor lighting on testicles?

>indoor lighting
This isn't about heating, it's about high frequency waves. So yes, it's like indoor lighting as fluorescent bulbs mess with your eyes and brainwaves due to their high frequency flicker rate.
So high-frequency RF waves are certainly interfering with our vibrating body system and our brainwaves. I'm sure its not that extremely damaging at mostly low power levels, but you can notice when it's there and when it's not. I'm going to do some sample studies to prove you can feel the EM energy. Even if its not extreme at current levels, it's important to take into consideration the effects as the number of devices connected to the Internet and other forms of radio is skyrocketing with every man and his toaster on the interwebs. RF does not cleanly pass through the body, much of it is absorbed, and so will have some kind of physical effect.

Not true.

If you lie in a forest for long enough, photosynthesis complex I and II can metabolize co2 and water into sugars which get then burnt into ADP, allowing plant matter to perform a variety of functions such as mitosis, potentially causing an entire tree to grow and causing you to die by asphyxiation because a tree grew on you.

The light coming out of fluorescent lights is way higher frequency (nanometers) than microwaves (microns, millimeters)

>I'm sure its not that extremely damaging at mostly low power levels, but you can notice when it's there and when it's not.
No, you cannot.
You literally cannot.
Anything you produce that claims you can will be bollocks and unreproduceable.

Challenge accepted

>The heart generates the largest electromagnetic field in the body. The electrical field as measured in an electrocardiogram (ECG) is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the brain waves recorded in an electroencephalogram. The magnetic component of the heart’s field, which is around 100 times stronger than that produced by the brain, is not impeded by tissues and can be measured several feet away from the body with Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID)-based magnetometers (1). We have also found that the clear rhythmic patterns in beat-to-beat heart rate variability are distinctly altered when different emotions are experienced. These changes in electromagnetic, sound pressure, and blood pressure waves produced by cardiac rhythmic activity are “felt” by every cell in the body, further supporting the heart’s role as a global internal synchronizing signal.
It is possible that these fields could be interfering with each other affecting who we are and what it means to be balanced and human.

It's also possible that you're not a subhuman who just wants to feel special and enlightened, but I wouldn't call it plausible.

Many studies have already been performed to see whether humans can detect RF activity in their vicinity such as from wifi. They cannot.

Also, the high frequency waves ARE the heating mechanism. That's how microwaves work.

>but you can notice when it's there and when it's not.


My sister-in-law believes this. Even demonstrating to her that she could actually not tell when the router, or the cell phone, or the half-dozen other things she was sure made her feel unwell, were turned on or of did not convince her she was wrong.

I don't deny that fact I'm saying that there is more to it than heating effects

bbc.com/news/science-environment-37276219
pnas.org/content/113/39/10797.abstract

You're leaking shit

Repeated large samples will reveal the truth

Citation

Cry about it

I can't cry I'll fist your mom instead

duckduckgo.com/?q=RFR-11_28-research-summary.pdf

fields? no
cell phone EM radiation? yes
even wifi can damage your sperm
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28144597
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24982785

But twue bewievers will not accept it.

shieldite.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/RFR-11_28-research-summary.pdf

ehtrust.org/scientists-and-doctors-demand-moratorium-on-5g-warning-of-health-effects/

A cell tower every 10-20 houses for 5g... Wot

Higher frequencies have shorter ranges. Basic physics.

>fields? no
>cell phone EM radiation? yes
Might you enlighten me how you differentiate between (I assume) electromagnetic "fields" and "cell phone EM radiation"?
Also
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24982785
>It is impossible to imagine a modern socially–active man who does not use mobile devices and/or
computers with Wi–Fi function.
Fuck your paper.

>doesn't know the difference between a field and radiation
>posts on Veeky Forums

i meant the pollution factor not the basic physics! so theres gonna be higher frequencies at a greater density. yay
there are alternatives such as sending signals through the earth or using very low power technology which doesnt exist yet

sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140508163644.htm
If we aren't gonna be nice to nature we aren't gonna be around much longer