Quantcast

Author Topic: Mobile radiation, does this makes sense?  (Read 703 times)

Cataceous

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile radiation, does this makes sense?
« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2019, 07:51:05 pm »

How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/
...

Quote
This article does not argue that cell phones and other wireless technologies are necessarily dangerous; that is a matter for scientists to decide.
I am not a medical doctor; any suggestions are meant to be discussed with your doctor.
Age: 57, Ht: 5'10", Wt: 158 lbs
Protocol: 18 mg T enanthate subQ qod, 250 IU hCG subQ qod, 70 mcg anastrozole qod, 6.25 mg DHEA orally bid
7-12/2018 test results: TT: 800 ng/dL, E2: 31 pg/mL LC/MS-MS, DHEA-S: 264 ug/dL (49-344)—SHBG ~30 nmol/L

Cataceous

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile radiation, does this makes sense?
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2019, 07:59:20 pm »
Quote
The Nation has not been able to find a single insurance company willing to sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation. “Why would we want to do that?” one executive chuckled ...

Two words: "Breast implants". There's little consolation in being vindicated years after your company was bankrupted by innuendo and junk science. There are thousands of lawyers on the prowl hoping to repeat this disgrace.
I am not a medical doctor; any suggestions are meant to be discussed with your doctor.
Age: 57, Ht: 5'10", Wt: 158 lbs
Protocol: 18 mg T enanthate subQ qod, 250 IU hCG subQ qod, 70 mcg anastrozole qod, 6.25 mg DHEA orally bid
7-12/2018 test results: TT: 800 ng/dL, E2: 31 pg/mL LC/MS-MS, DHEA-S: 264 ug/dL (49-344)—SHBG ~30 nmol/L

Peak Testosterone Forum

Re: Mobile radiation, does this makes sense?
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2019, 07:59:20 pm »


jacob2001

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile radiation, does this makes sense?
« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2019, 08:36:22 pm »
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-15/california-parents-want-cell-phone-tower-taken-down-because-kids-just-keep-getting

The above links to an article in zerohedge containing a slightly fresher set of opinions and references to material on whether mobile phones and cellular networks may cause health problems, cancer in particuliar. The author’s opinions may be exaggerated given the current evidence, so read with caution and look through the hyperbolae for the actual references as opposed to relying on what he says.

Links contained includes ones to some reasonably respected publications such as Scientific American and distinguish between near and far field radiation fields and discuss the question of precisely how long term exposure to non ionising radiation might be carcinogenic. One hypothethis is the possibility of oxidative stress caused by radio frequency waves interacting with metabolic cellular processes involving charged particles, i.e.  electrons and ions.

The jury is still out of course and even evidence of tumours in rats isn't yet fully convincing, but it still comes as no surprise to me that an electromagnetic wave could potentially interact with cells in the brain in which processes involve charged particles and anyone who has any kind of familiarity with basic electromagnetism should find it hard to disagree with that in principle.


 

Cataceous

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile radiation, does this makes sense?
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2019, 03:22:56 am »
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-15/california-parents-want-cell-phone-tower-taken-down-because-kids-just-keep-getting
...

It's a very unbalanced article. Regarding the rodent study, he conveniently forgot to mention that "A seemingly paradoxical finding ... is that the rats exposed to the cellphone radiation actually lived longer than the controls." This is noted in a better article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/health/cell-phones-cancer.html

Quote

...
The rodents in the studies were exposed to radiation nine hours a day for two years, more than people experience even with a lot of cellphone use, so the results cannot be applied directly to humans ...
...
He said that nearly 20 animal studies on this subject have been done, “with the vast majority coming up negative with respect to cancer.
...
The Food and Drug Administration issued a statement saying it respected the research by the toxicology program, had reviewed many other studies on cellphone safety, and had “not found sufficient evidence that there are adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radio-frequency exposure limits.”

The statement, from Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the F.D.A.’s center for devices and radiological health, also said, “Even with frequent daily use by the vast majority of adults, we have not seen an increase in events like brain tumors.”

The possibility of DNA damage from non-ionizing radiation is of concern, but "We don’t feel like we understand enough about the results to be able to place a huge degree of confidence in the findings," Dr. Bucher said.
I am not a medical doctor; any suggestions are meant to be discussed with your doctor.
Age: 57, Ht: 5'10", Wt: 158 lbs
Protocol: 18 mg T enanthate subQ qod, 250 IU hCG subQ qod, 70 mcg anastrozole qod, 6.25 mg DHEA orally bid
7-12/2018 test results: TT: 800 ng/dL, E2: 31 pg/mL LC/MS-MS, DHEA-S: 264 ug/dL (49-344)—SHBG ~30 nmol/L

Peak Testosterone Forum

Re: Mobile radiation, does this makes sense?
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2019, 03:22:56 am »


jacob2001

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile radiation, does this makes sense?
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2019, 06:50:43 pm »
The NY Times article is “better” is it? How? In the sense that it agrees more with certain preconceptions and doesn't delve deeply enough into the science to possibly begin answering important questions that any half competent scientist should be asking?

The article I linked to contains references which look into issues such as near vs far field radiation fields, pathways to cellular interference and how RF waves may cause damage such as by increasing oxidative stress and presents evidence of raised probabilities of certain tumours due to long term exposure to mobile radiation as well as other effects such as possibly extended lifetimes.



Cataceous

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile radiation, does this makes sense?
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2019, 07:12:54 pm »
The NY Times article is “better” is it? How? In the sense that it agrees more with certain preconceptions and doesn't delve deeply enough into the science to possibly begin answering important questions that any half competent scientist should be asking?

The article I linked to contains references which look into issues such as near vs far field radiation fields, pathways to cellular interference and how RF waves may cause damage such as by increasing oxidative stress and presents evidence of raised probabilities of certain tumours due to long term exposure to mobile radiation as well as other effects such as possibly extended lifetimes.

The NYT article is "better" in that it doesn't editorialize with outlandish statements like:

Quote
The radiation that we are constantly being bombarded with by the cell phone industry is one of the greatest environmental scandals in history...
...
The science is exceedingly clear, but we just keep on ignoring it.
...
This is a health crisis unlike anything that we have ever witnessed in all of U.S. history.

The NYT article makes it clear that the science is not exceedingly clear, and that the majority of studies do not support the proposition that cell phone use is doing massive harm to the general population. Endless speculation about possible mechanisms for harm doesn't have much meaning when the harm itself is unproven. Remember, the rats getting zapped lived longer.
I am not a medical doctor; any suggestions are meant to be discussed with your doctor.
Age: 57, Ht: 5'10", Wt: 158 lbs
Protocol: 18 mg T enanthate subQ qod, 250 IU hCG subQ qod, 70 mcg anastrozole qod, 6.25 mg DHEA orally bid
7-12/2018 test results: TT: 800 ng/dL, E2: 31 pg/mL LC/MS-MS, DHEA-S: 264 ug/dL (49-344)—SHBG ~30 nmol/L

jacob2001

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile radiation, does this makes sense?
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2019, 04:42:39 am »
As I said in my post you need to look through the hyperbolae and examine the referenced material. The NY Times article leads nowhere interesting, it just amounts to “move on, nothing to see here” whereas the zerohedge one leads to papers dealing with the highly pertinent issues I mentioned and alluded to some time ago earlier on in this thread. For anyone with the slightest scientific imagination and common sense there is some interesting biophysics going on and it is far from obvious that long term RF exposure from mobile transmissions would be incapable of health damage.

Cataceous

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile radiation, does this makes sense?
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2019, 06:33:54 am »
I suppose it's human nature to be overly concerned about such risks, which are at the limits of detection, if they even exist. Presumably this is because they're based on unseen forces, which makes them spookier. Alarmist articles aid and abet the hysteria in order to get clicks. But they don't mention that we're hundreds to thousands of times more likely to be killed in a traffic accident, or even just by falling down.
I am not a medical doctor; any suggestions are meant to be discussed with your doctor.
Age: 57, Ht: 5'10", Wt: 158 lbs
Protocol: 18 mg T enanthate subQ qod, 250 IU hCG subQ qod, 70 mcg anastrozole qod, 6.25 mg DHEA orally bid
7-12/2018 test results: TT: 800 ng/dL, E2: 31 pg/mL LC/MS-MS, DHEA-S: 264 ug/dL (49-344)—SHBG ~30 nmol/L

Peak Testosterone Forum

Re: Mobile radiation, does this makes sense?
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2019, 06:33:54 am »