/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11258623
What are the supposed negative effects?

>>11258623
Because they're not a threat.

>inb4 the EMF schizo replies

For most people, hardly at all. The rays simply don't have the energy to harm you.

>>11258623
Nope. People do talk about it because they are silly.

Depends on the frequency

>>11258711
Non-thermal mechanisms for interaction with cells have been demonstrated, mainly their interaction with voltage gated calcium channels in vivo.

>>11258623
How is electromagnetic force a threat lol just unplug the switch lol hahaha

Attn reader, this is a schizo thread. Post no further.

>>11259125
very handsome

>>11258778
>voltage gated calcium channels
https://pastebin.com/VuLYa82S

But we are

Citizen all over the world are fighting to prevent G5 in their neighbourhoods because of health concerns. Also, my boomer professor told us the other day that we shouldn't put our smart phones in our pant pocket because the it is too close to our testicles and the radiation will make us sterile.

>>11259253
Citizens are also fighting against established science like vaccines.
Your point is?

>>11259263
Not conparable, your pseudo analogy won't work.

>>11259248
Does this guy in the paste bin have some monopoly on talking about EMF effects on VGCCs?

A major problem in science today is that people have a bunch of sacred cows that must never be questioned, and if they are questioned, people just handwave away any evidence and character attack the person saying it. Bioelectromagnetics isn't some cooky conspiracy cooked up by schizophrenics.

>>11259521
>this guy in the paste bin
You mean (You)?

>>11258623
Taboo, long term cultural conditioning. Inability to understand any process that isn't a direct effect, on the same level as something coming at you with teeth or a club. People don't understand biological systems, which are based around transduction and downstream amplification. Refer to human vision for example.

More info.
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF
It's not really debateable.

>>11259263
Refer to section 13 of every vaccine insert and you will find, as its sole content, some variant of the following:
"[Vaccine] has not been tested for mutagenic potential, carcinogenic potential, or impairment of fertility."
Yikes.

>>11259484
>fabricates an appeal to authority
>rejects a sound analogy
Are you from the third world, or just a domestic brainlet?

>>11259145
If you've listened to enough pop music, then yes.

>>11259670
This is the correct pastebin.
https://pastebin.com/7QhrwV9a

>>11258711
>lead in the water can't harm you because it's not heavy enough to give you a concussion

>>11258623
Taboo, long term cultural conditioning. Inability to understand any process that isn't a direct effect, on the same level as something coming at you with teeth or a club. People don't understand biological systems, which are based around transduction and downstream amplification. Refer to human vision for example.

More info.
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF
It's not really debateable.

>>11260139
This is the correct pastebin.
https://pastebin.com/7QhrwV9a

>>11259521
>>11259534
Apparently I do.

telecoms companies are suppressing a lot of negative press

>>11258638
>>11258649
we don't know everything about it.
scientist once declared DDT poison is good for the human body. now we know differently

All instances of low frequency and RF EM sensitivity that have been tested have so far turned out to just be the nocebo effect at work. Subjects ability to identify a source of EM radiation compared to an inert object is no better than random chance.

>>11261484
No scientist declared DDT is "good for the human body." It's safe when used sparingly, which is why it's still used today to fight malaria. But regardless, your argument is fallacious. Saying scientists were wrong in the past does not mean they are wrong now. If this is a valid argument then so is the argument that anonymous crackpots on 4chan have been wrong in the past, therefore so are you.

>>11260170
Anyone can make up a hypothesis.

I don't think it is

>>11261623
But not every hypothesis is demonstrable in experimental trials. Oxidative stress, DNA damage and hormonal effects have all been proven in multiple studies on animals at non-thermal levels of exposure.

Here is a compilation of relevant studies:
https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp

>>11261528
1) "EHS" goes all the way back to the 1950's in the USSR and Eastern Europe. It's not new.
2) Everyone is sensitive. (Read below)
3) Animals and cells in culture respond objectively to irradiation. They have no beliefs with which to have a nocebo.
4) Most of the studies you have in mind were poorly conducted.

Copied from the text you should have already at least skimmed before participating.

MICROWAVE SICKNESS AND "CLASSICAL" EFFECTS

[m][Symposium, Warsaw] 1973 - Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation
Page 22: Gordon - MAIN DIRECTIONS AND RESULTS OF RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE USSR ON THE BIOLOGIC EFFECTS OF MICROWAVES

Korbel 1967 - Effects of low intensity UHF radio fields as a function of frequency
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03327872
Korbel 1971 - Aftereffects of low intensity UHF radiation
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03336001


EHS
Some earlier popular coverage by Time magazine.
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/man-who-was-allergic-radio-waves

The issue with term electrohypersensitivity is that while a given condition may be due to an increased sensitivity, it may also be due to a gradual exhaustion then failure of adaptive and compensatory mechanisms, as Soviet researchers found. There are separate, overlapping, causal lines which can be separated into three primary components:

-Inherent sensitivity of the system to an action upon it (transduction)
-Biological amplification (response, "processing")
-Biological adaptation and damping (homeostasis)

>>11261813
The name has an embedded assertion which gives the false impression that "some people are just more sensitive" and therefore they alone will suffer negative effects. That's not the case. Studies done on cells in culture, comparing response of people diagnosed EHS and controls found by nearly all tested metrics they responded the same way. Studies done in vivo with humans who didn't report EHS showed DNA damage after mobile phone exposure. This means EHS is a higher, system level failure, and degree of sensitivity is a product of tissue organization, total toxic load, a sensitization process, and other individual factors. Everyone is accumulating damage in the background, some will have just more overt and crippling subjective symptoms while it happens.

Going forward I would say EHS should either be merged into microwave sickness, or they should each be considered as subsets under the same clinical umbrella.

The most important thread on this site is getting no attention. You do realize we're talking about EXTINCTION right?

>>11258623
Nb: I am not versed in these matters.
With that said, yes, there are probably some ill effects because why wouldn’t there be? Everything in a person’s environment affects them. Maybe there are some position effects.

>>11258711
That's right. Visible light doesn't have the energy to alter your brain activity. It just ain't got them eVs!!!!

Wait what. what's "vision"? Let me get this straight. You "see" things, and it changes your behavior. That's how you "navigate" through space? Absurd. Visible light doesn't have the energy or penetration depth to do all that to the brain. You're like those people that say music changes their mood! Sound at that frequency and intensity just doesn't have the ENERGY to do anything to you! What is wrong with everyone?!?!?!?!! Don't you even understand PHYSICS!?

Let's summarize this "vision" and "hearing" thing, alright. There is NO plausible physical mechanism. There is NO biological effect. PERIOD. My notion of PHYSICS proves that.

>>11258623
5G is a national security threat, China will use it to control the masses before they cripple the economy and take us over.

Duh

>>11262424
Assuming you meant positive, yes, very selective and short term use of modulated RF can be used medically. On the whole, indiscriminate use yields negative effects. It's blind mass drugging.

>>11262436
NO EFFECT NO EFFECT NO EFFECT NO EFFECT.
WE'VE STUDIED ENOUGH, HALT ALL FURTHER STUDY! WE'RE JUST WASTING TIME GUYS!
NO EFFECT. NO MECHANISM. NO EFFECT.
-Kenneth Foster, 1990-something.

>>11259253
5 crazy people here and there is reeing about flat earth and lizard people, dont mean they have to be taken as anything but a joke

Wtf is it with holidays and all the shitty loonie-threads all of the sudden?

>>11262448
You're a moron and need to take this seriously. This is your ass on the line too.

>>11262448
It's one or two /pol/ and or /x/ schizos responsible for the rampant shitposting on /sci/ at the moment

>>11258623
OP, the answer is yes. Refer to the mediafire link I posted. Any questions you have, ask. I'll check this thread periodically.

It might well be that most people will not, or cannot "wake up" without external pressure. So anyone who's able and willing to hear and investigate, and awaken others, has a vital role to play in the days ahead.

>>11258649
>yfw 5G

>>11258649
Why don't you put your head in a microwave for 60 seconds and then post results?

>>11262993
Balls too. See how a high dielectric loss point of water invigorates your sex drive. ;^)

>>11258778
>their interaction with voltage gated calcium channels in vivo
and this interaction is useful because?

>>11263748
Refer to this image for the effects of chronically elevated intracellular calcium.
>>11260170

REMINDER THAT THIS IS WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO WHEN YOU RESPOND TO SOMEBODY POSTING PSEUDOSCIENCE ABOUT VOLTAGE GATED CALCIUM CHANNELS

>>>>/sci/thread/S7412900#p7419557
>>>>/sci/thread/S6030054
>>>>/sci/thread/S7381438#p7384671
>>>>/sci/thread/S7347630#p7350199
>>>>/sci/thread/S9039115#p9043898
>>>>/sci/thread/S8205938#p8206096
>>>>/sci/thread/S9072343#p9072588
>>>>/sci/thread/S7644877#p7651596
>>>>/sci/thread/S7644877#p7650927
>>>>/sci/thread/S6862166#p6862235
>>>>/sci/thread/S8800448#p8806774
>>>>/sci/thread/S8369061#p8369080
>>>>/sci/thread/S8339168#p8339266
>>>>/sci/thread/S8322068#p8322156
>>>>/sci/thread/S8261316#p8261569
>>>>/sci/thread/S8261316#p8261598
>>>>/sci/thread/S8230504#p8245636
>>>>/sci/thread/S8219875#p8220852
>>>>/sci/thread/S7397504#p7397645
>>>>/sci/thread/S8208158#p8208194
>>>>/sci/thread/S7355671#p7356297
>>>>/sci/thread/S7530472#p7532449

tldr you're talking to a literally retarded tweaker who thinks he has all these rare diseases and unironically believes that electromagnetic hypersensitivity exists. He can't even understand the papers he posts, and most of his links are outright bullshit

REMINDER THAT THIS IS WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO WHEN YOU RESPOND TO SOMEBODY POSTING PSEUDOSCIENCE ABOUT VOLTAGE GATED CALCIUM CHANNELS

>>>>/sci/thread/S7412900#p7419557
>>>>/sci/thread/S6030054
>>>>/sci/thread/S7381438#p7384671
>>>>/sci/thread/S7347630#p7350199
>>>>/sci/thread/S9039115#p9043898
>>>>/sci/thread/S8205938#p8206096
>>>>/sci/thread/S9072343#p9072588
>>>>/sci/thread/S7644877#p7651596
>>>>/sci/thread/S7644877#p7650927
>>>>/sci/thread/S6862166#p6862235
>>>>/sci/thread/S8800448#p8806774
>>>>/sci/thread/S8369061#p8369080
>>>>/sci/thread/S8339168#p8339266
>>>>/sci/thread/S8322068#p8322156
>>>>/sci/thread/S8261316#p8261569
>>>>/sci/thread/S8261316#p8261598
>>>>/sci/thread/S8230504#p8245636
>>>>/sci/thread/S8219875#p8220852
>>>>/sci/thread/S7397504#p7397645
>>>>/sci/thread/S8208158#p8208194
>>>>/sci/thread/S7355671#p7356297
>>>>/sci/thread/S7530472#p7532449

tldr you're talking to a literally retarded tweaker who thinks he has all these rare diseases and unironically believes that electromagnetic hypersensitivity exists. He can't even understand the papers he posts, and most of his links are outright bullshit.

>>11263972
How much do they pay you to do this? I never figured if you were trying to drum up further interest. Also, I haven't been here in several months. Has he been doing to anyone who dares to mention a calcium channel in the meantime?

>>11258623
>why the fuck aren't people talking about it?
Oh you mean aside from the 9001 spam threads about it on /g/ and /sci/ over the course of a month?

>>11264196
Trying to survive and avert further enslavement is not "spamming", you dimwitted child.

>>11258623
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radio-frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety

>>11264564

>5G is harmful