tin foil hat! v2.0 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: electrolust
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 09:33:12 pm
content: https://www.amazon.com/EMF-Radiation-Protection-Cap-blocking/dp/B07C4G45Y2/best part is, you actually just get shipped a POS plain old hat! perfection.

author: nsrmagazin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 11:39:29 am
content: Theoretically such a hat can be made. The efficiency has to be tested, but what you need to protect is not only your head. Radio waves can cause cancer on any part of the body.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 07:02:41 pm
content: From the same Amazon page,Cell Phone EMF Protection Radiation Neutralizers, they should be locked up!https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01HIT4QXM

author: 0xdeadbeef
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 07:23:22 pm
content: Quote from: nsrmagazin on January 27, 2019, 11:39:29 amNah.Ionizingradiation can cause cancer. For anything that doesn't have the energy to cause ionization, there is no effect mechanism known that could cause cancer. There were so many studies done on non-ionizing radiation and there never were any conclusive results that would prove it would cause cancer. If at all, warming up the body tissue may facilitate the growth of cancer cells but that is also true for any other kind of warming.So normal radio waves up to visible light with a photon energy below 3eV won't cause cancer. Ultraviolet light and anything above (frequency wise, wavelength < 400nm ) can cause cancer as it's ionizing.

author: Raj
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 01:51:53 pm
content: Lol. I've herd that , tin hats increase radiation by reflecting em back into the head,like radar dish

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 03:12:33 pm
content: There is a substantial body of evidence that (strongish) RF can and does cause numerous biological changes to occur which can be measured, (often effects that in other contexts are known to cause problems). Nobody who is responsible claims that RF in a cell phone usage context is "harmless" as some people do. OTOH, the benefits we get from cell phones generally are substantial. So for that reason, people have them.What I think lies at the root of many of the problems is the fact that numerous arguably toxic - most definitely unhealthy environmental factors (various kinds of EMF can be shown to do this) causereactive oxygen specieswhich act as a form of depletion of a finite resource - glutathione, and at specific moments - gestation/cell differentiation (where ROS impacts expression of two genes Fyn and c-Cbl) is one, and when we get a bit older is another. Non-availability of a substance that is depleted, glutathione, can at times in the life cycle, be crucial.Without glutathione, apoptopsis (programmed cell death) becomes the only way a cell can prevent otherwise repairable DNA damage from possibly leading to cancers.And cell division is a finite resource - see "Hayflick Limit" etc. (An easy way exists to prevent this ROS depletion of glutathione from having as severe an impact as it would otherwise exists, supplementation with its rate-limiting precursor, the amino acid, n-acetylcysteine. (NAC) Irregardless of exposures of any kinds, as we get older the creation of AGE's in our tissue ("glycation") increases the amount of glutathione thats used up unavoidably, so NAC is a smart thing to take extra of for that reason alone.Note: in several studies, with several changes that occur, some antioxidants may have some protective effect.melatoninwas found in a few studies to be protective against some of the parameters that have been measured. In other words, melatonin taken during the daytime. Not in the evening to reduce sleep latency.Here is how the IARC puts their summary with regard to some of these non-heat, non-cancer endpoints. Note that the studies looked at by IARC in this particular monograph (102) are also several years old.It's worth it to read the original studies."5 .4 .3 Effects on genes, proteins and signallingpathwaysNo studies assessing gene expression inhumans exposed to RF radiation were identified,and only one pilot study assessed protein changesin exposed human subjects.Nearly 30 studies investigated gene/proteinchanges in rodents exposed to RF radiation.Many of these studies were unreliable due todeficiencies in the exposure system ormethodological shortcomings. The data from the remainingstudies are limited and present mixed resultswith no consistent pattern of response.A large number of studies have assessed theability of RF radiation to affect gene/proteinexpression and protein activation in human-derived cell lines in vitro. The majority of studiesassessing effects of RF radiation on expressionand activity of heat-shock proteins reported noeffect. A limited number of studies assessed theability of RF radiation to influence the activityof signal-transduction pathways in human cellsin vitro. Three studies found changes in MAPKsignalling, while another did not. The role ofreactive oxygen species in mediating these responsesis unclear.A total of 16 studies used high-throughputgenomics/proteomics approaches to evaluatethe effect of exposure to RF radiation on humancell lines in vitro. Many of these studies hadserious methodological shortcomings related topoor exposure conditions, inadequate statisticalanalysis, and lack of validation of alternativeapproaches. The remaining data were limited withno consistent pattern of response, but some studiesdemonstrated changes in both gene and proteinexpression, for some proteins in some cell lines.On the basis of the above considerations,the Working Group concluded that data fromstudies of genes, proteins and changes in cellularsignalling show weak evidence of effects from RFradiation, but did not provide mechanistic infor-mation relevant to carcinogenesis in humans.5 .4 .4 Other mechanistic end-pointsSeveral potential changes resulting fromexposure to RF radiation are summarized here.With the exception of changes in cerebral bloodflow, many of the other studies reviewed by theWorking Group provided conflicting, nega-tive or very limited information, which made itdifficult to draw conclusions, especially in rela-tion to carcinogenesis. These studies focused onelectrical activity in the brain, cognitive func-tion, general sensitivity to RF radiation andalterations in brain biochemistry. Even thoughthe relationship between alterations in cerebralblood flow during exposure to RF radiationcannot be directly related to carcinogenesis, theWorking Group concluded that the availabledata were sufficiently consistent to identify themas important findings.Some studies were conducted in experimentalanimals to explore the possibility that exposure toRF radiation in vivo may induce the production ofreactive oxygen species in multiple organs, mostfrequently brain, but also kidney, liver and eye.Markers of oxidative stress included increases inthe concentration of malondialdehyde (relatedto lipid peroxidation) and nitric oxide, enhancedactivities of antioxidant enzymes (superoxidedismutase, catalase, glutathione peroxidase)and pro-oxidant enzymes, and reductions inglutathione. Many of these studies are weakenedby methodological shortcomings in design, suchas absence of sham-exposed or cage-controlgroups, use of mobile phones as the exposuresource, and lack of dosimetry.A few studies in human cellsin vitroevalu-ated the possible role of exposure to RF radia-tion in altering levels of intracellular oxidantsor activities of antioxidant enzymes. One studyshowed a marginal effect, while other studiesdemonstrated an increase in activity withincreasing exposures. There were not enoughstudies to make a reasonable assessment of theconsistency of these findings. Additional studiesaddressed this issue in in-vitro systems withnon-human cells. While most of these did notfind changes, one study evaluated the formationof DNA adducts from reactive oxygen species(8-hydroxy-deoxyguanosine) and was able todemonstrate reversal of this effect by melatonin.While the overall evidence was inconclusive, theresults from in-vitro studies with animal modelsraise some concern.Overall, the Working Group concluded thatthere was weak evidence that exposure to RFradiation affects oxidative stress and alters thelevels of reactive oxygen species.Numerous studies have assessed the functionof the blood–brain barrier in rodents exposed toRF radiation at various intensities. Consistentresults from one laboratory suggest an increasein the permeability of the blood–brain barrier,but the majority of the studies, many of whichaimed at replicating published results, failed toobserve any effect on this point from exposureto either continuous or pulsed RF radiation. Theevidence that exposure to RF radiation alters theblood–brain barrier was considered weak.A few studies dealt with alterations inducedby RF radiation in cell differentiation or induc-tion of apoptosis in the brain or other organs.While most of the studies showed an association,the Working Group was not convinced that thesedata were of sufficient scientific rigour to assessapoptotic effects in these organs. An additional14 studies focused on apoptosis in culturedhuman cells. Only two studies demonstrated anincrease in apoptosis: one compared the resultsobserved in treated cells with controls that werenot subject to the same conditions as the exposedcells, while thermal effects may have had animpact in the other study. Finally, other in-vitrostudies with non-human cells gave essentiallynegative results, with the exception of one studythat demonstrated mixed results. The evidencethat exposure to RF radiation alters apoptosiswas considered weak.Multiple assaysin vitrowere conducted totest proliferation of primary cells or establishedcell lines by analysis of cell-cycle progressionand thymidine uptake, after exposure to variousintensities of RF radiation at various time intervals.Many of these studies used small samplesizes and description of experimental detailswas lacking in several cases. Studies with positiveresults showed increases and decreases in cellularreplication, and no consistent pattern could bediscerned. The evidence that RF radiation alterscellular replication was considered weak.Ornithine decarboxylase is an enzymeinvolved in the metabolism of polyamines,which are critical components of cellularreplication and differentiation processes. The activityof this enzyme was the object of several studiesin vitro in human and animal cells exposed toGSM900 and GSM1800 signals. Some of thesestudies showed significantly increased ornithinedecarboxylase activity. The result of one studysuggested that ornithine decarboxylase activitiesmay be reduced. It was unclear how thesechanges in activity relate to human cancer. Therewas weak evidence from in-vitro studies thatexposure to RF radiation alters ornithine decar-boxylase activity.The evidence that exposure to RF radiation, atintensities below the level of thermal effects, mayproduce oxidative stress in brain tissue and mayaffect neural functions was considered weak.

author: GeoffreyF
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 03:15:56 pm
content: Quote from: nsrmagazin on January 27, 2019, 11:39:29 amActually radio waves do not cause cancer. Also, a tin foil hat, if it did anything could also concentrate radio waves into the brain - if it did anything at all. Learn the difference between RF and Ionizing radiation. RF can harm the body by heating - that's real. What you wrote is not.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 03:34:09 pm
content: The argument that says heating is the only problem caused by RF does not seem to be appropriate any more. Lots of other things can be shown to be happening, and those things are fairly well understood to be problematic in general.To give one example, creation of reactive oxygen species, is well understood to often become problematic and many decades of research exist on it, so its not reasonable to ignore it in the RF context.ROS creation and resultant cell damage in some contexts have a signaling function, for example, as a signal to the body it needs to build up more muscles somewhere. However that situation is not applicable to RF exposure.What needs to happen is that much more needs to be understood about ROS (from all sources) and its effects on the body before we allow peoples - especially involuntary, exposures to it to rise a great deal. That means they should all be treated as cumulative and high amounts of exposure to one source of it should reduce the allowed levels of other sources of ROS exposure, like many chemicals, radiation, mercury vapor from coal, etc.We're likely already facing a growing threat to human (and animal) reproductiondue to this Fyn and c-Cbl issue in particular. It's technically complicated and it does not serve society well to try to hide it.That problematic reactive oxygen species are created by a very large number of dangerous environmental chemicals, RF, radiation of many kinds, as well as elements like gaseous mercury - levels of which are rapidly rising, means that the sort of policy space land rush thats going on, as various entities basically try to grab as much potentially health impacting policy space to pollute in a great many different manners, as they can, as fast as they canshould be halted until we know more. There needs to be a moratorium on deregulation and things that act like it. A moratorium on all policy ratchets.Glutathione - is a specific chemical made in the body to protect cells, is a resource which is impacted by literally dozens of toxicants and toxicant-like pro-oxidant exposures including RF at the intracellular level, and we already know GSH depletion impacts an unborn child (It can cause serious birth defects) in its mothers womb based on GSH availability even at 'environmentally relevant' levels of common toxicants.We know that because feeding a mother GSH's precursor, NAC, prevents the adverse effect.Our understanding of all this is moving forward, but big holes exist in our knowledge that need to be filled. Its unwise to try to rush forward before we know more.In this larger context, where policy ratchets make re-regulation impossible (that is a big mistake) we still may be facing a situation where its wise to pull back on a bunch of different things, (we don't know yet)Given that, its just unwise to try to pretend RF exposure is a settled issue, when it isn't. Its one of a cluster of related issues that all should be considered - and regulated, together.

author: 0xdeadbeef
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 05:14:22 pm
content: Ionizing radiation can create oxygen radicals while non-ionizing radiation can't. The borderline here is pretty clear and well understood. Of course there are tons of other things that might cause gene damage through radicals or other means, but let's not mix things up. There still is no evidence whatsoever and no effect mechanism known how non-ionizing radiation could cause gene damage. Stating anything else is speculation at best.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 05:38:11 pm
content: Could you please elaborate what you are saying in a bit more detail?If I characterized what you are claiming below as you saying that'no amount of RF is likely to cause any health related detrimental effect on health'would I be accurate or not?I don't want to put any words in your mouth. I don't like it when others try to do that to me, so I won't do it here.Are you saying that in terms of regulation, since in your opinion, there are no adverse health effects, except ones related perhaps to heating, that there should be no limits on RF beyond ones which use temperature rise as their measuring stick?You should know that in fact there are lots of other, measurable impacts. Its not as cut and dried as you claim. Not by a long shot. Is that still your position?Quote from: 0xdeadbeef on January 28, 2019, 05:14:22 pmIf you learn more about the chemistry of oxidative stress that would be helpful to understanding exactly what it means to cells, where it matters.pro-oxidant environmental chemicals impact on Fyn and c-Cbl is critically dependent on adequate levels of glutathione in early stages of life (while a embryo's precursor cells are rapidly dividing and turning into whatever they will become - in a process of cell differentiation.) And very sensitive to its lack of availability at that point.Thats a completely different thing than the creation of DNA repair adducts (cell damage, possibly leading to cancers) typically much later in life, another stage in life where non-availability of glutathione is dangerous, and much more common because of the Schiff reaction and glycation of our body's tissues. (in a sense, our 'meat' undergoes a similar change to what would happen if it had been cooked, causing systemic inflammation and a using up, an unavoidable using up of more GSH.)

author: 0xdeadbeef
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 05:59:41 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 28, 2019, 05:38:11 pmI think I did that already.Quote from: cdev on January 28, 2019, 05:38:11 pmWell, putting my statements this way would be the definition of putting words in my mouth. Nobody would argue that playing around with a magnetron can cause severe damage. But it's actually heat damage, not gene damage as ionizing radiation like X-rays or even ultraviolet light can do.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 06:08:22 pm
content: Right!If a transmitter was directly beneath you and the wavelength was pretty short, a conical reflector (like a horn) or a corner cube shape made up of three perpendicular surfaces of RF reflective material (like the corner of a box) indeed likely would reflect the RF back in the direction from whence it had come increasing the RF density immediately below itself.Quote from: Raj on January 28, 2019, 01:51:53 pmI don't know for sure if anything like an RF protective suit exists, (say, for working on antennas while they are pumping signals?) which would be likely to enclose the head as well, but frankly, I would be surprised if they didn't. Of course, they would likely also reflect your body's heat so I would suspect they would be uncomfortably hot in warm weather. Still, much preferable to being microwaved, literally.

author: GeoffreyF
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 06:15:48 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 28, 2019, 03:12:33 pmRF Exposure causes heat, it does so in different types of tissue depending on wavelength. Heat damages tissues. The heat is (of course) in proportion to power levels.There is a lot written about this. You should read it before you ramble on. Yes, RF Exposure should be treated with respect AND KNOWLEDGE which is part of respect.This is an Electronics blog and as such it is about Physics, not magical speculation.

author: alienozi
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 09:36:28 pm
content: This a BIG

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 10:08:53 pm
content: Why the urgency? Making decisions that could impact the health of so many people is a huge responsibility.I'm sorry, the 'Trust us, we're experts' approach doesn't cut it in science any more than it does in real life.Official panels, such as the one that published an official sounding report in the UK recently, especially have a responsibility to be accurate.This is an analysis ofhow accurately they portrayed the research which they cited, what they included and what they left out.You can look up the papers and see for yourself if the panel was telling the truth about the conclusions they cited. The paper is entitled:Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation.and it can be found on PubMed athttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27902455

author: GreyWoolfe
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 02:01:25 am
content: At least it doesn't look like a colander.

author: GeoffreyF
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 04:05:57 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 28, 2019, 10:08:53 pmSo you are advocating for "Trust us we are not even educated on the subject"? Nobody is asking anyone to trust someone merely because they are experts. However you have to read and understand the science. That's available to you but instead you offer silly rhetoric, not any thoughts for what you write. You really should read the subject. You have not.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 04:32:50 pm
content: Did you even read the official UK government report they are criticizing? You should read it, read its references, and then read the criticism of it's biased reporting of same. Once you've done that, then you should repost. It seems to me that you don't even understand what I was saying.Quote from: GeoffreyF on January 29, 2019, 04:05:57 pmI do read the scientific literature, frequently, and generally, I understand it well enough to discuss it intelligently.Anybody should be able to follow the steps I outlined above and seewhat the paper is getting at.Read it and the panel report they are examining, and the references the panel cited, and then ask yourself, did the official panel accurately summarize that research, or not, did they attempt to communicate the results they cited accurately, or not?

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 07:55:58 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 28, 2019, 10:08:53 pmWritten by Sarah J. Starkey, an "independent researcher" with no scientific affiliation, who does not seem to have publishedanythingelse on radiofrequency safety.Sorry cdev. This is obviously a pet topic of yours, but you don't have much street cred with me on this one. The increasing use of boldface in your posts does not help.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 08:17:27 pm
content: Except thepoints made by Ms. Starkeyare good ones, as you can see if you read the advisory panel report, read the papers its citing, and see how she identifies what has been left out. She's undeniably right. And there is no excuse for it. They were clearly trying to mislead their readership.As thats the criticism, its right.What does she say that's wrong, in your opinion? Could you identify it for me, specifically?Quote from: ebastler on January 29, 2019, 07:55:58 pm

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 08:53:23 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 29, 2019, 08:17:27 pmSkimming the article backwards, the first passage that caught my eye was on page 498, right column. Mrs. Starkey refers to a study which examined the potential benefits of RF therapy in mice with Alzheimer-type disease. And she concludes that the observed health benefits were potentially due to the fact that the mice were kept in shielded cages during the intervals between radiation exposure, so they were shielded from all that nasty environmental background radiation.That's tinfoil hat territory, clearly. I don't think I am interested enough to read further.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 10:08:58 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on January 27, 2019, 07:02:41 pmcheck this review for that productMy friend who is a certified nutritional counselor tested me on these and it really does work. She understands how to do muscle testing because she does this for foods, etc and she does it with her clients. She also helped me to understand about homeopathy and neutralizing verses blocking and why these don't change the EMF meters because they are "neutralizing" the damaging effects. So glad she showed me how these work. I now have a new and better understanding of the dangers of EMF's.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 10:48:12 pm
content: Oh my goodness, for the sake of completeness, I went - I just went looking, for those studies on Alzheimers and I found them.They are easy to find.There are a number of them. I don't know enough about this to weigh in on it.One paper theorizes that an observed effect (reduction) of some kinds of RF on beta-amyloid pathology may be due to RF modulation of levels of "transthyretin".Read them for yourself. Here is another.. this looks interesting. If this turns out to be helpful, thats great. Alzheimers is a horrible disease.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25505755https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4204502/<<< Full textFormat: AbstractJournal of Biomedical and Physical Engineering. 2013 Sep 17;3(3):109-12. eCollection 2013 Sep.Exposure to mobile phone radiation opens new horizons in Alzheimer's disease treatment.Mortazavi S, Shojaei-Fard M, Haghani M, Shokrpour N, Mortazavi S.AbstractAlzheimer's disease, the most common type of dementia and a progressive neurodegenerative disease, occurs when the nerve cells in the brain die. Although there are medications that can help delay the development of Alzheimer's disease, there is currently no cure for this disease. Exposure to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation may cause adverse health effects such as cancer. Looking at the other side of the coin, there are reports indicating stimulatory or beneficial effects after exposure to cell phone radiofrequency radiation. Mortazavi et al. have previously reported some beneficial cognitive effects such as decreased reaction time after human short-term exposure to cell phone radiation or occupational exposure to radar microwave radiation. On the other hand, some recent reports have indicated that RF radiation may have a role in protecting against cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease. Although the majority of these data come from animal studies that cannot be easily extrapolated to humans, it can be concluded that this memory enhancing approach may open new horizons in treatment of cognitive impairment in Alzheimer disease.KEYWORDS:Alzheimer; Microwave; Mobile Phone; Non-Ionizing Radiation; Radiofrequency (RF)PMID:25505755PMCID:PMC4204502----------Is that relevant? Well, I don't know. But I can tell you, as its something Ive read a fair enough about, very low (DC) voltages can be shown to both promote and inhibit neuron growth, depending on where they are applied. Electrical currents are biologically active, this should be obvious as its been known for a long long time. Just deal with it.Quote from: ebastler on January 29, 2019, 08:53:23 pm-----

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 04:35:17 pm
content: There are indications Alzheimers is related to gum disease.Anyway, localized non-ionizing radiation is a problem, because it can induce changes in the tissues. It is not damage; it is tissue adaptation to the presence of added (thermal) energy. As the adaptation is a slow process, it is a long-term exposure issue, and very difficult to pare out from statistical data. It is also likely the amount of energy is not as big a factor as the gradient is. (So, a big space heater you sit in front of every day is unlikely to cause any tissue changes, but a small warm rock you keep in the same pocket every day all day may be. That sort of adaptation is extremely common in evolutionary terms: skin callouses, for example. As an organ, skin has evolved to deal with that sort of stress/damage; your internal organs haven't. Except for the liver, which also deals with constant biological stress by filtering out toxins etc. from your blood, and is pretty good at regenerating itself.)Instead of tin foil foolery, all you need to do defuse those risks with cell phones is to not store the thing in your pocket next to your gonads all day every day. Considering current RF energy levels, just a few inches is likely enough to completely defuse those risks (becauser2). Besides, when keeping it e.g. on your desk, its antenna is better placed without surrounding materials absorbing the RF EM, which means the device uses less power for transmission, and your batteries will last longer too.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 05:34:53 pm
content: Oral health is really important in reducing systemic inflammation. Periodontal health is really important for vascular health generally. Incidences of 'dementia' of all kinds are linked to vascular health.Gum disease = bacteria that enter the bloodstream and cause inflammation, including neuroinflammation.All sorts of inflammatory biomarkers which are tied to Alzheimers are influenced by oral health.A growing body of evidence shows that curcumin, the active constituent in turmeric, seems to prevent the development of Alzheimers in people who get a lot of it. It also likely improves gum health.Dozens of phytonutrients impact the gums and have activity against bacteria and fungi. They are just as useful against multidrug resistant bacteria as they are against other bacteria. They offer promise of helping treat antibiotic resistant bacteria.I'm sure I will get criticism from some folks here for saying this, because it sounds sort of new-agey, but its a fact thatplants - our fellow living things, have developed numerous technologies, which we likely are only beginning to learn. They deserve the credit.....Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 30, 2019, 04:35:17 pmShouldn't that be obvious to people!But somehow it isn't.Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 30, 2019, 04:35:17 pmIt seems to me that in order to sell many phones legally in the past, they had to offer some solution so that people could carry the phones a bit farther from their bodies. Although they don't any more, it still would be a smart idea to do so.Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 30, 2019, 04:35:17 pmYup, and use a hands-free headset if you spend a lot of time on cell phones.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 07:15:53 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 30, 2019, 04:35:17 pmI found an article I once came across:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6275325/nokia-sued-mobile-phone-caused-brain-tumour-claims/QuoteI know a few people who are answering calls on their mobiles most days all day for work and they haven't had any problems yet from radiation sickness.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 09:50:16 pm
content: Looking at the huge IARC monograph 102 about RF, one thing is clear, a great many people represent the WHO (IARC is part of WHO) as saying RF has "no effect", as in no effect whatsoever.They are misrepresenting the situation, which is complex.Also, for what its worth, IARC classifies RF as a "possible human carcinogen Group 2B".Not as unequivocally safe. So, the sensible thing is to look through the findings of the numerous studies which have been done and keep up with the situation.One has to scan. Most of the findings are not damning, but some are not reassuring, either, and there are situations where heavy phone use, in particular seems to be a bad idea. Note also that these are the mobile phones of today and yesteryear, and that the phone system seems likely to involve substantially more power and far more base stations, involving a wider range of frequencies with 5G in the future.The IARC web site with its list of monographs is athttps://monographs.iarc.frThe most relevant one is #102(https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono102.pdf)The following is at the very end."This Volume of the IARC Monographsprovides an evaluation of the carcinogenic hazardsassociated with exposure to electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency range (30 kHz to300 GHz). Human exposures to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields can occur from use of personal devices (e.g. mobile telephones, cordless phones, Bluetooth, and amateur radios), fromoccupational sources (e.g. high-frequency dielectric and induction heaters, high-poweredpulsed radars), and from environmental sources (e.g. mobile-phone base stations, broadcastantennae, and medical applications). The general population receives the highest exposurefrom transmitters close to the body, including hand-held devices such as mobile telephones.Typical exposures to the brain from mobile-phone base stations and from television andradio stations are several orders of magnitude lower than those from second-generation GSMhandsets, while 3G phones emit, on average, about 100 times less radiofrequency energythan GSM phones. Similarly, the average output power of Bluetooth wireless hands-free kits isestimated to be around 100 times less than that of mobile phones.An IARC Monographs Working Group reviewed epidemiological evidence, cancer bioassays,and mechanistic and other relevant data to reach conclusions as to the carcinogenic hazard tohumans from exposure to these electromagnetic fields. With”limited evidence” for carcinogenicity in humans based on an increased risk of glioma – a malignant brain tumour – among heavy users of mobile telephones, radiofrequency electromagnetic fields were classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B).

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2019, 02:25:15 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 31, 2019, 01:30:09 amI am sorry if I offended you but I never said you were wrong.I am just waiting one day for them to see if they suffer from radiation sickness.I did say they didn't have it yet.Again sorry if that offended you as I didn't mean to and to waste your time.I thought it was about non ionizing radiation.I attached that article that I did quote for one person that did have problems with their ear.In 2005 I brought a Logitech G7 mouse. Everytime I used it my eyes use to hurt and I started to see floaters in my eyes and it only did it on that particular one. I used it once again and it eyes felt swore so I stopped using it as I suspect it was giving me eye problems or damage. became paranoid. I went the opticians who said that is normal when we older. I can't prove it but I still got it in case I can one day. Now that has a 2.4Ghz receiver.I have used the nano receivers of the new ones I get for customers and they don't give me headaches or eye aches so it seems to vary.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2019, 06:02:36 am
content: Have you ever taken NAC? n-acetylcysteine is a precursor of glutathione. It might be interesting to see if it prevents whatever issues you notice from devices you suspect are causing some health effect.I just dump it into water, stir it and drink it. You might want to check it out.It will raise your body's level of glutathione if you take it daily. It helps prevent hearing loss, and a bunch of other different health problems as well.The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition recommends older people take it, to restore glutathione levels to approximately where they are in younger people.You also might want to try melatonin. Three of the studies mentioned in the IARC monograph found that melatonin prevented the changes in biomarkers they observed.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2019, 06:40:39 am
content: Green tea extract - containing green tea catechins, may be helpful for your eyes.Refs:Biochimie. 2017 Jun;137:46-55. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2017.02.016. Epub 2017 Mar 8.Green tea flavanols protect human γB-crystallin from oxidative photodamage.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28285129Effect of Green Tea Polyphenol Epigallocatechin-3-gallate on the Aggregation of αA(66-80) Peptide, a Major Fragment of αA-crystallin Involved in Cataract Development.Kumar V et al. Curr Eye Res. (2017)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28628342Green tea (Camellia sinensis) protects against selenite-induced oxidative stress in experimental cataractogenesis.Gupta SK et al. Ophthalmic Res. (2002)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12297700

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2019, 07:17:37 am
content: Quote from: cdevYou don't have a country flag in your profile, but you must be American.I am not aware of any other country where dietary supplements qualify as a hobby.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2019, 09:12:26 pm
content: This is one of the papers that the IARC monograph mentions. It's from 1997.There are a lot of studies that find some parameter is changed, but which don't map to an endpoint, like 'cancer' within the sample size or studies they used.....It probably doesn't take much (distance) for the field strength from a small home device, to be substantially reduced, because of the inverse square rule.There is another more recent paper lower down.Lai H & Singh NP (1997).Melatonin and a spin-trapcompound block radiofrequency electromagneticradiation-induced DNA strand breaks in rat brain cells.Bioelectromagnetics, 18: 446–454.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1521-186X(1997)18:6<446::AID-BEM7>3.0.CO;2-2https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9261542AbstractEffects of in vivo microwave exposure on DNA strand breaks, a form of DNA damage, were investigated in rat brain cells. In previous research, we have found that acute (2 hours) exposure to pulsed (2 microseconds pulses, 500 pps) 2450-MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RFR) (power density 2 mW/cm2, average whole body specific absorption rate 1.2 W/kg) caused an increase in DNA single- and double-strand breaks in brain cells of the rat when assayed 4 hours post exposure using a microgel electrophoresis assay. In the present study, we found that treatment of rats immediately before and after RFR exposure with either melatonin (1 mg/kg/injection, SC) or the spin-trap compound N-tert-butyl-alpha-phenylnitrone (PBN) (100 mg/kg/injection, i.p.) blocks this effects of RFR. Since both melatonin and PBN are efficient free radical scavengers it is hypothesized that free radicals are involved in RFR-induced DNA damage in the brain cells of rats. Since cumulated DNA strand breaks in brain cells can lead to neurodegenerative diseases and cancer and an excess of free radicals in cells has been suggested to be the cause of various human diseases, data from this study could have important implications for the health effects of RFR exposure.Here is another much newer paper, this one has free full text..This is fairly typical of what Ive seen. I am not making any judgment, I don't really have the time to investigate this issue in any way, nor do I feel qualified in any way to do that. I am just trying to make people aware of the fact that this is a active controversy, a fairly complex one.J Microsc Ultrastruct. 2017 Oct-Dec; 5(4): 230–241.Published online 2017 Jun 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmau.2017.05.006PMCID: PMC6025784PMID: 30023259Protective effects of melatonin and omega-3 on the hippocampus and the cerebellum of adult Wistar albino rats exposed to electromagnetic fieldshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025784/

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2019, 04:47:32 pm
content: Quote from: MrMobodies on January 31, 2019, 02:25:15 amNo, I apologize. I didn't read your answer that way, and overreacted. I deleted the post, but shall explain why.Radiation is not nearly as dangerous as people believe. It is scary, because it is invisible.There is absolutely no reason to worry about radiation sickness (which is actually a combination of the instant cell damage due to ionizing radiation, and widespread cell death later on as the repair mechanisms give up; there is this "lull" in between, where dying people feel fine, and think they made it) with respect to RF. Simply put, RF does not have enough energy to ionize (ie. damage your DNA or cell structures directly at all).All the talk about ionizing radiation is exactly the same thing as the talk on the safety of depleted uranium. There is no ionizing radiation in either.However, uranium is a deadly heavy metal. Even when ingesting highly radioactive uranium isotopes, you do not die of radiation: you die from heavy metal poisoning. Roughly speaking, half of the dose that causes 50% mortality rate when ingesting radioactive isotopes, already causes 50% mortality rate due to heavy metal poisoning. Or, in layman speech, being not very precise: uranium, even highly radioactive uranium, is twice as deadly chemically as it is due to being radioactive. Twice.One of my unfortunate buttons is misdirection in physical matters. Even when talking to students, and trying to explain this, I always get at least one smart-alec saying something like"they wouldn't use depleted uranium is weaponry if it is not safe, so you must be wrong". Well, I'm not; this is very well known phenomena. Worse yet, when used in bunker-busters, part of the depleted uranium load vaporizes, and the rest liquefies, and when it re-solidifies, it tends to generate lots of tiny little spherules, like small ball bearings, that get ingested by plants (tubers) and animals, and eventually end up in humans, causing typical heavy metal poisoning problems like malformed babies.(Heavy metals do damage tissues and DNA, but they do it chemically. Furthermore, animals are particularly poor at self-chelation wrt. heavy metals like uranium; they accumulate in the body instead, and keep doing their chemical damage until you do die.)So, as you can see, the only sane thing to do would be to label depleted uranium a war crime like dum-dum bullets (tipped with a droplet of mercury, to achieve the same effect but by design rather than "as an unfortunate side effect"). People, even scientists and engineers who ignore this, just make my brain boil.Now, the key point here is that RF radiation (electromagnetic fields at RF wavelengths) not having enough energy to do any direct damage, does not make it always safe either. Like with depleted uranium, theotherpossible effects are what worry me.With RF, you can split them into two categories: localized thermal, and molecule exitation. Localized thermal is what I described with the hot stone analog. Most of your body does not care, but your brain and your gonads do care. Especially for men, as the reason we have that wrinkly little sack (mine being 'UUUGE, of course), is for thermal control, and to help avoid immune responses killing the gametes.I know it sounds like odd to think that localized thermal effects would be dangerous, but fact is, it is actually closely related to inflammatory response. Simply put, when you get a fever, it is caused by your own body, as an effort to kill the invaders. The increased temperature also triggers the immune defense into action. It looks like to me -- and the fact that this is not really being researched by anyone yet -- that causing localized thermal increase is likely to trigger the immune defense. Even a low-level continuous inflammatory response is dangerous, because there are indications that that may be one of the ways autoimmune diseases can start. So, continuous localized thermal effects are not known to be safe, although we do not know epidemiologically (statistically) what kind of risks it actually poses; but we do know several pathways it can lead to severe health risks.(Non-localized thermal effects, like sitting in a hot room, or in front of a space heater, do not trigger the immune defense in the same way, because it is not localized. Even though we wear lots of clothes now, we are actually better adapted to a very wide range of temperatures than most animals.)The molecular excitation is slightly different, because individual cells or even molecules may act as antennae, absorbing "lots" of energy, while the nearby tissue is basically unaffected. While this energy is not enough to cause ionization, it is possible it causes isomeric changes. And isomeric changes are at the core of prions -- prions being just ordinary proteins whose structure has changed into one that replicates on contact. So, we know at least one serious risk path that leads into Kuru or Mad Cow Disease. We just do not know the epidemiological/statistical risk yet; it could be close enough to zero, we just do not know.Those are the unknown dangers I worry about wrt. beam-forming. Ionizing radiation and radiation sickness is just not a factor at all here; and any attempt to pull the discussion towards that is just a red herring, distracting from the actual questions that should be discussed.Note that experiments on single beam-forming devices, or devices working on the same frequencies, is unlikely to find the real risk cases. We know from efficient laser technology that to pump up the energy for a specific reaction, you usually need two or three different energy steps (one to prime the target molecules to a suitable metastable energy state, and the other to push from that to an energy level that will immediately fall back to base energy state (or much lower energy state, anyway); in lasers, this latter energy provided by a photon, and the result being two photons with the same energy and phase as the energy-contributing photon, being emitted).Testing beam-forming devices for such effects would be hellishly expensive, and unreliable: absence of proof is not proof of absence. It is just much more cost-effective, and in the opinion of those excited by the beam-forming technology, the risks outlined here are just too unlikely to warrant the cost or delay.I disagree, and use depleted uranium and e.g.thalidomideas examples why: the cost is high, but the cost of being wrong is literally monstrous. In my opinion, mistakes and diversions like that should be one of the very rare cases where the death penalty should be mandatory for all involved.

author: gamalot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2019, 05:01:09 pm
content: Did I tell you that I am from China?

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2019, 05:28:59 pm
content: Why are they wearing pots as hats? From experience, I know they do not work as helmets: all you get is a bumpandringing in your ears. And being metal, they conduct heat away, so they don't work as hats either, unless you're trying to freeze your ears off. Why?

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2019, 05:37:23 pm
content: How do you know the thermal gradient related to skin depth and penetration does not effect cognitive function?Nothing in nature exactly makes heating microwaves to evolve with.It might shift brain function ever so slightly. Probobly not easy to percieve. A tumor would cause a much greater thermal profile change and only some people with brain tumors experiance cognitive changes.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2019, 05:44:44 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on February 01, 2019, 05:37:23 pmIt does, but the effects are completely negative, when the air is cold enough. The first effect is a brainfreeze, if you happen to have sensitive nerves near where the pot touches your skin; like eating too big a bite of ice or icecream, and getting that sharp pain. (It is funny that that pain feels in the head, even though the affected nerve is in your throat.)Oh, you meant from microwave radiation or such? That I do not know. We couldn't get our microwave to work when the door is open.

author: gamalot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2019, 06:47:35 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 01, 2019, 05:28:59 pm"Miaofengshan Advanced Qigong training, Beijing. The pot on the head should converge the universe force to strengthen the telepathy"https://china-underground.com/2014/01/23/rise-and-fall-of-the-qigong-frenzy-in-china-when-superstition-and-science-collide/

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2019, 07:29:09 pm
content: .

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2019, 08:04:09 pm
content: Priceless photograph!This brings up a lot of confliting emotions in me. I think these kinds of things are a good argument for making real higher education available to anybody that can handle it, as long as they make substantial progress.Also, what is the difference between Tai Chi and Qigong? I used to live in San Francisco and there one constantly sees people performing Tai Chi, lots of people, not all of them Chinese, its popular with people of all ages. Ive always been curious about it and have thought of it as similar to yoga.However, in SF, I never saw the kinds of positions in the pictures, Am i correct in that Tai Chi is a traditional practice like yoga and qigong is - likely a lot of phony stuff?Tai Chi looks to me like it might be useful for people, say in improving one's balance, and generally keeping the mind sharp, as with yoga.Quote from: gamalot on February 01, 2019, 06:47:35 pmIt would be easy to make stupid comments about the people in the pictures but the fact is all of the same kinds of things have happened here in the US at various times too.I think we need to improve people's understanding of real science so that its harder for people to take advantage of the ignorant.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2019, 08:50:37 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on February 01, 2019, 08:04:09 pmMy sentiments exactly. At one point in history, people here refused to eat potatoes, because they thought they are poisonous.(Well, technically they were right; the stem and leaves are poisonous. But, the tubers are safe. Potatoes and tomatoes are in the nightshade family, some parts of which do have poisonous alkaloids. Yet, potatoes are one of the rare veggies that can keep you relatively healthy even with a very limited diet, and that was very important during those times. Before spuds, up till 1800s, Finns cultivated turnips. Lots and lots of turnips. Nowadays, it seems we run on potatoes and coffee: 60 kg and 10 kg per person per year, respectively.)Quote from: cdev on February 01, 2019, 08:04:09 pmThis. Critical thinking and the scientific method should be taught from toddlers forwards; and also why things like magical thinking and confusing correlation to causation are so emotionally interesting and easy, but fundamentally wrong and counterproductive, for all of us. You do not even need to be smart to understand that; you only need good teachers.Which is exactly why it makes me soto see the same counterproductive things repeated from generation to generation.Are you sure there is no self-depracting humour involved? Like Pastafarians (praised be his noodly appendages) being allowed to wear colanders on their head in drivers license photos?

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2019, 08:56:08 pm
content: Yes, I don't think you get the same thermal profile from any other sort of heating vs microwave of various frequencies to the brain.A tumor should make abnormal thermal behavior as well though, since the cells are not in proper configuration.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2019, 10:54:50 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on February 01, 2019, 08:56:08 pmThey do, and thermal detection of tumours (as a noninvasive, non-ionizing-radiation-involving detection technique)is a real thing.I am not a medical physicist, so I cannot tell if the temperature difference is just a result of increased blood flow, increased energy use by the abnormally growing cells, part of the immune response, or what; or even if we actually know.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2019, 04:15:59 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 01, 2019, 04:47:32 pmSo maybe it was something else that affected my eyes and it happens to be coincidental at the times I used it.I used a lot of CRT monitors for most of the day back then and that could cause problems.QuoteThe "smart alecs" can't be sure of everything.Sorry if I sounded like a smart alec.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2019, 04:38:43 am
content: You should go to an eye doctor and get your eyes examined if they are bothering you. Lots of eye illnesses exist which can cause vision loss if left untreated. Glaucoma is a common one. So are cataracts.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2019, 04:41:43 am
content: Quote from: cdev on February 03, 2019, 04:38:43 amI did, they tested them and they said there was nothing wrong with my eyes.I was recommended another optician and I am about to book.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2019, 11:12:21 am
content: Quote from: MrMobodies on February 03, 2019, 04:15:59 amjhajjajajajahahha the military industrial complex being 'safe'.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2019, 09:06:22 pm
content: Quote from: MrMobodies on February 03, 2019, 04:15:59 amEyes are very sensitive devices, and just like the hair cells in your ear, the cone and rod cells in your eyes are very sensitive to damage. In neither case is ionization involved; it is more about fatigue. To avoid this, eyes saccade; they do small movements constantly, to ensure the "load" on every cell varies. If you immobilize eyes, keeping a flashlight in a fixed position is probably enough to cause damage (although I do not dare hazard a guess as to the timescale involved -- minutes, probably). The photoreception phenomena in these cells is amazing, because at low light intensities, one to three photons are enough to trigger a perception to the brain. As I understand it, it is the photochemical effect that "fatigues", possibly causing long-lasting or permanent damage. In the ear, very loud sounds mechanically fracture the hair cells. (Misfiring of such damaged cells is one mechanism tinnitus can occur.)Photokeratitis, also known as snow-blindness, is from over-exposure to UV light (sun, electric arcs, and so on), and is basically sunburn in the cornea and conjunctiva, the two outermost layers of the eye (in front of the lens), and is a completely different thing. (Although CRTs did emit UV light, it was much less than from say an ordinary incandescent bulb, so unless there was something wrong with the fluorescent coating of the CRT, we can probably rule that out.) You can tell photokeratitis from other eye-related effects, because it really feels like there is sand in your eye, making scratches in the pupil/lens are, on the surface of the eye.(When I lived north of the arctic circle as a kid, February-March-April usually had some excellent snow days, with a bright sky. If you went into the fell country, everything from the ground to the sky was an uniform white-blue, and without sunglasses, you'd get snowblindess very easily. I always wore ski glasses, the ones that cover the untire upper face, with a foam rim touching the face all around.)With CRT monitors, there are two mechanisms that can cause severe eye-related issues.First is how the CRT beam traverses the screen, and is essentially a very bright moving dot that changes in intensity. While there are rules-of-thumb for this refresh rate as a function of the decay rate of the phosphor used, some people are more sensitive to others. I myself had a NEC Multisync 14" monitor with an ATi VGA Wonder: whenever I was writing some code or something for longer spells, I had to tweak the text mode timings to have at least 80-90Hz refresh rates (which was over its specs, actually), to reduce the stress I felt in my eyes.The second is the color (spectral makeup) of the actual phosphor. See "retinohypothalamic tract" for details. It is basically directly wired to your internal circadian clock.Even today, when using a LED-backlit IPS panel, I have to constantly adjust the screen brightness to match my surrounding light level, for maximum comfort. I don't care what anyone says whether that matters; I've done quite diligent experiments, and it does help. My display brightness also seems to be much lower compared to others.As I age, I've become more and more sensitive to flicker. When tired, I cannot work under fluorescent lights; the flicker in my peripheral vision becomes noticeable and tiring. (I've mentioned elsewhere that one of my projects is to rewire a two-light floor lamp to flickerless adjustable-current LED ones. It is directly related; I need one for late night reading.)Quote from: MrMobodies on February 03, 2019, 04:15:59 amNo, it just poke me in a wrong spot; the error was mine.If it matters to anyone, I only blow up like that when I consider the other a peer/colleague, both in analytical capability and background knowledge. Never when teaching or explaining stuff. It is only when I perceive my argument being completely ignored, by someone I consider a peer or colleague, I cannot seem to control my negative emotional response at all. (In particular, I still haven't learned how to "let it go".) Apologies for that; it is something I actively work on.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2019, 10:19:38 pm
content: There is a very good book by Ben Goldacre that should be read by some commentators on here called "Bad Science" in it he shows how many people including some who should know better get things like statistics and facts wrong. In many cases deliberately in order to sell things like vitamin pills and other wonder potions.

author: GeoffreyF
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2019, 02:00:41 am
content: Quote from: cdev on January 28, 2019, 03:12:33 pmThat was really long had lots of big words. It had no references, no comparison of information or sources and it is complete bullshit. Radio frequencies selectively heat tissues depending on their dimensions and dielectric properties. Heat then harms these tissues as heat is wont to do. Perfusion of blood and lymph can cool these tissues to some degree, preventing harm but if there is enough energy and little enough cooling, harm occurs.This process of selective heating is a DIRECT FUNCTION of wave length in the material itself.Real academic discussions don't string sentences and words together to impress. They actually have sources and thoughts about those sources.It doesn't matter how big a "body of evidence" there is if it isn't actually evidence. "Strongish RF" - RIGHT THERE - that is ridiculous because wavelength matters bubba.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2019, 06:20:54 pm
content: Quote from: GeoffreyF on February 26, 2019, 02:00:41 amYour words shows that you know nothing about electromagnetic fields and about biological processes inside human body.Just try to read some literature about it before posting such bullshit.For example, do you know that cardiovascular system of human is a very complicated electrical system which is sensitive to electrical pulses and some frequencies?Do you know what is pacemaker of the heart? This is a group of cells at the top of your heart which sends out an electrical impulses. These electrical impulses controls your heart rhythms. Sometimes peacemaker can fail for some reason. In such case your heart has alternative mechanics to produce emergency electrical impulses to continue blood circulation in emergency mode and keep you alive. It works like watchdog system in the electronics. And cardiovascular system is controlled with electrical impulses from your brain.Do you realize that human body is a complicated electrical system?Do you know that your body produces it's own EMF and can be affected with external EMF impact in the same way as usual electronic device.Do you know that EMF can affect electronic devices? You can simply check it with your radio receiver, it can be easily affected with a strong EMF from your transmitter.And this is not heating effect.Just learn how radio works.This is very strange that you don't know about that. Because these simple things is learned in the school. And ham radio amator should know these basic things very well.International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use. Here is official press release:https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdfThe external electric and magnetic fields have a theoretical potential to affect the functions of different body systems through generating electric impulses within them. Most sensitive to EMF influence are the cardiovascular and nervous systems, particularly the autonomic nervous system responsible, among others, for neurovegetative regulation of the cardiovascular function.The experimental studies conducted thus far indicate that EMF within radio-, microwave and power frequencies can produce measurable biological effects.However, there is no simple relation between the biological and health effects.This is why scientists performing study research in this area. Yes, according to FDA, current standard of RF power level for cellular phone transmitters is safe for health. But this is doesn't means that any EMF can harm human body just by heating effect only. The human body is a complicated electric and chemical system and any external electrical or chemical impact can potentially affect it.Regarding to these tin foil hat, this is just a joke. It can works as wideband antenna or as a reflector on UHF band, but it cannot protects you from EMF sources like cellular base stations. Some people don't understand that, but they don't works with transmitters and don't have enough knowledge, so their mistake can be forgiven. But this is very strange that ham radio amator with a license don't understand these basic things

author: GeoffreyF
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 03:39:35 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 28, 2019, 06:20:54 pmYes I realize everything you asked about. There is nothing strange here. Instead of asking questions and making insinuations without any basis at all - explain exactly how particular RF frequencies will effect those biological processes. You won't be able to. If you want to try, reference real science and actual engineering. You rattle on claiming what I do not know and you never show any knowledge at all of your own.Nobody would write your silly bullshit if they understood how different frequencies affect different things differently and how electrical currents are induced. No? OK - explain it in engineering and physics terms.As I said, particular frequencies, and levels of power can effect particular parts olf the body but not in a single way that you mentioned. YOU ACTUALLY MISSED THE REAL EFFECTS AND HOW THEY HAPPEN. Instead vague bullshit. That is really stunning. Instead you have this kind of mystical and not specific, silly hand wave.I am an Amateur Extra, the highest class of license. As you can find out for yourself, that is very similar in technical knowledge to the Commercial GROL. My US license is W1GCF. You can verify that on the FCC web site. Try to pass that test yourself. YES the license includes demonstrated knowledge of RF Safety, how to achieve high levels of power safely and the symptoms of failing to do so. (which are not what you mentioned)https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jspThis is an engineering blog. You want to learn something here? You can but don't expect people to cut through a ton of nonsense to do it.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 06:58:54 am
content: Quote from: GeoffreyF on March 04, 2019, 03:39:35 amIf you're really interested, you can read this report for example:https://itis.swiss/assets/Downloads/Papers-Reports/Reports/REFLEXFinal-Report171104.pdfhere is results in short:http://www.verum-foundation.com/downloads/reflex-en.pdfjust a small quote:QuoteIn previous post I already provided you with link to official IARC press release:https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdfWhich explains that International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RadioFrequency ElectroMagnetic Fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).On the other hand, you're claim that RF EMF cannot do any harm, other than heat effect.But you didn't explained why do you think so.Is this your subjective opinion based on your prejudices or some gossip?Could you please provide me with link to official study results which clearly shows that RF EMF cannot do any harm to the human body, other than heating effect?Quote from: GeoffreyF on March 04, 2019, 03:39:35 amThis is an engineering forum, so if you want to add yet another post about bullshit, probably it will be a wrong place. And if there is nothing to say in essence, it is better to remain silent. Isn't it?If you want to ask something, there is no need to explain what do you think about other guys, no need to tell everyone that they wrote bullshit, no need to tell how smart you are, no need to list your regalia, just ask what you're interested for. That's is pretty easy, isn't it?

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 08:19:35 am
content: Quote from: GeoffreyF on March 04, 2019, 03:39:35 amif you're interesting how EMF can affect Cardiovascular system of human body exactly, without heating effect, here is a nice article about that:https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c05a/b7e6618db66c954fe293741aea8c464e5361.pdfI will quote conclusion part:QuoteI hope, now you will realize what I was talked about previously.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 11:10:59 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on March 04, 2019, 08:19:35 amThat's not a respectable reference. MedCrave, the publisher of the "Journal of Applied Biotechnology & Bioengineering", is a so-called predatory publisher. They publish anything as long as the authors pay for it.I have linked to the Wiki explanation of the business model, the current "Beall's list" of predatory publishers which includes MedCrave, and a nice little case study on trolling MedCrave with a garbage publication.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open-access_publishinghttps://beallslist.weebly.com/https://www.the-scientist.com/critic-at-large/opinion-why-i-published-in-a-predatory-journal-31697

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 06:18:52 pm
content: ok, what about Reflex study report which I referenced previously?As I know, Prof. Alexander Lerchl already tried to accuse Reflex study in scientific fraud, he is professor at a private university in Bremen. In 2010, the allegations turned out to be all false and the Reflex study was cleared of all blame. From 2002 to 2008, Lerchl made a lot of money from the industry co-financed Deutsches Mobilfunk Forschungs program. The IARC Committee of the World Health Organization (WHO) dealing with radiofrequency radiation and cancer, refused Lerchl as a member because of conflicts of interest. When he protested, the IARC explained to him in a spicy letter that his membership would not contribute to a balanced commission because a large part of his work was merely aimed at undermining publications showing health effects.The wrongfully accused lab assistant of the REFLEX team sued Prof. Alexander Lerchl for libel and won. In theLandgericht Hamburg’s 2015 verdict, she is fully vindicated.According to the leader of the study, Prof. Franz Adlkofer, the Reflex study should have been published a lot earlier, butthe telecom companies tried to prevent publication.Quote from: ebastler on March 04, 2019, 11:10:59 amIt seems that "Beall's list" is not available now, according to Wikipedia it was removed in January 2017, after legal actions against Jeffrey Beall. How can I get this list?

author: GeoffreyF
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 07:00:50 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on March 04, 2019, 06:18:52 pm"What about" - you tell us and demonstrate some knowledge of your own. Get this through your head - I owe you no time, no effort and all you do is post lists of things without even explaining why you think they matter, why you give them credibility or even connecting things to some knowledge of radio physics. NOTHING at all from you except the ridiculous assumption you are the only person who knows about these things. You are a bullshitter, piling references, phrases and links and you can't even explain their worth. You don't even show the "thought process" by which you personally lend credence to it. Obviously you can't.Somehow you think your silly crap deserves respect? Not from me. Glioma and the heart pacemaker stuff was especially inane. There are actually are injuries and diseases that come from RF Exposure - YOU NEVER MENTIONED THEM.I have no respect for you and zero desire to spend time explaining things to you. As I said - NONE OF YOUR CRAP IS NEW or Interesting. ZERO.NOTHING you have posted is new to me.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 07:06:52 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on March 04, 2019, 06:18:52 pmI won't claim that I can assess the validity of the study. (But I do claim that you can't assess it either.)The court proceedings you refer to only concluded that it was libellous to claim that data were falsifiedintentionallyby one of the study participants. The court did not make any assessment of the validity of the study results, as far aas I can see. In general, the dispute between Prof. Lerchl and Prof. Rüdiger and his group in Vienna looks very much like a private feud.QuoteI already gave the link to the archived copy:https://beallslist.weebly.com/

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 07:20:08 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on March 04, 2019, 07:06:52 pmit doesn't works:Code:This site can’t be reachedERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUTQuote from: ebastler on March 04, 2019, 07:06:52 pmbut this report is referenced by a lot of different scientists in their publications.I can find a lot of other publications, which shows similar results.For example:Effects of 1800 MHz RF-EMF exposure on DNA damage and cellular functions in primary cultured neurogenic cells.QuoteHow can I check if this source is blacklisted in "predatory publisher list" or not?

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 07:36:21 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on March 04, 2019, 07:20:08 pmSure works for me! I just tried again, clicking the very link in the post. You might want to try a different internet connection if you have a choice. (Mobile phone vs. home?)

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 08:21:57 pm
content: Quote from: GeoffreyF on March 04, 2019, 07:00:50 pmI already explained you why I'm thinking that EMF can affect human body.I already provided you with reference to Reflex study report as a science evidence as you asked.But you still didn't explained your thoughts and didn't provided any reference which can approve your point of view.All what you can do is just to post yet another bullshit and insult other users. Nothing else.As you can see, there is just one "bullshiter" here, and it's you.So, I don't see the reason to answer on your ungrounded blame and insults in the future.Before talking about subject, you're need to learn biology (in particular electrochemical processes in cardiac tissue) and physics (in particular electromagnetism and how electromagnetic field interacts with charged particle).When you will done it, you will realize what I talked about.Good luck.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 04, 2019, 08:32:19 pm
content: Yea, ok this was supposed to be a giggle and got way too serious.