/sci/ - Science & Math

I like you, OP. You know why.

>>12160100
>Make sure to look at the recent NTP and Ramazinni Institute results.
ctrl+f "national toxicology project" in the pastebin for links to papers and summaries.

dumb

>>12160180
Bump*

No one's gonna believe it until in 10 years, and then they're going to claim it's something else.

>>12160285
That's why we need to ramp it up now. We're in the age of neurowarfare.

>>12160146
>>12160198
>>12160718
Why are you posting random pictures of plants?

>>12160754
I'd taken a lot of pictures (back when I had a functioning camera), and the original threads included broader ecological effects stemming from eg insect loss. Aside from that, there's a numbe rof reasons. I figure some of the pictures are just interesting and nice to look at, and it adds more to the thread than "bump" (as well as counteracting people who sage). It also shows what's at stake. Pollinator loss, decline in insectivore birds, issues with certain tree species fending off invasive pests, etc is an objective reality, and "a picture is worth a thousand words". Macro photography also puts things in perspective, there's more to the world than what you see in the distance, and there's more than what you see through a screen. Even in the smallest space, if you were on that scale there's an entire world there. I don't know about everyone else, but it helps me return to my roots and understand the meaning of my overarching course.

Regardless of belief, desire, notions of scale and level of organization, the natural world remains as an unyielding and self evident Truth.

>>12160754
because OP is retarded

>>12160100
I read a bunch of Martin Pall's stuff and while it seems plausible that it has negative effects on people, I have a hard time finding a real hard-hitting paper that makes it clear this is an issue. eg. based on the stuff he says you would think that epidemiological studies would show lower test, more mental issues etc. in people who frequently use and/or own cell phones, but it doesn't. And I haven't seen any human trials where they check hormone levels etc. with cell signals vs without, it's all rats with ideal microwave stimulus magnitudes higher than typical cell/wi-fi strength.

>>12161318
He thinks he's EM-sensitive. That is literally the entire basis for his pseudoscience.

>>12161318
>I have a hard time finding a real hard-hitting paper that makes it clear this is an issue
See the NTP etc papers mentione din th eOP, and check out the papers noted in the pastebin.

>based on the stuff he says you would think that epidemiological studies would show
There have been dozens of such studies since the late 80's with various results, the most consistent of which is markers of oxidative stress, lower sperm count, and DNA damage. Cancer is another matter, more difficult to indicate causation and a number of highly promoted studies had critical methodological flaws, like the Danish study which ultimately ended up putting the most long term heavy users in the control group. The main issue here is modern day there is no control group, the biological effects and habituation process for these exposures doesn't instantly reverse on cessation, and so it could take weeks even if you did have a suitable environment which was free from manmade RF (without attenuating the Schumann resonances). It is njearly impossible to adequately, through self reporting, characterize exposure. The funding required for portable exposimeters for some sort of dosimetry has largely dried up, to my knowledge this has not been done since like 2010.

>And I haven't seen any human trials where they check hormone levels etc. with cell signals vs without
As stated above, there is no longer any access to a control group. You're exposed whether you use it or not.

>it's all rats with ideal microwave stimulus magnitudes higher than typical cell/wi-fi strength.
I'm not sure what you've read, but this isn't the case. A number of studies use off the shelf consumer grade equipment, generally with some program to simulate a typical user's network activities.

Give me a physically plausible mechanism by which low-intensity microwaves can cause medical problems. Until then, you are basically claiming people get sick because of the conjunction of the planets.

>>12161897
See the OP. There are several.

>>12161907
All I see in your links is "[citation needed]." I can't track all this down. Also, most of it just talks about heating, which is not unique to microwaves (visible light heats you much more). Give me what you think is the BEST proposed mechanism for how microwaves could be dangerous in a way visible light and infrared are not.

>>12161940
> Give me what you think is the BEST proposed mechanism
That's not quite what I meant, you can't view RF as a chemical drug with a few low level targets, the spectrum of interactions with biological systems is much broader than that and varies by frequency band, peak power, modulation scheme, and polarization. You have everything from altered ion flux (freq dependent), to changes in electron transport down the length of the DNA molecule thus altering its coiling behavior, molecular gyroscopes in some proteins, action on the structure of water altering binding affinities of constituents of some molecules, quorum sensing-like collective mutual amplification, lowering the probability of free iron sequestering by ferritin. The liste goes on, and for each of these low level fundamental mechanisms, you have a broad range of downstream effects, like increased free radical production (oxidative and nitrosative stress), hypothalamic mediated release of stress hormones and corticotropin releasing factor (and opioid and cholinergic effects further downstream). The more hypothetical mechanisms include "resonance electroconformational coupling", which I don't really understand fully but it seems to have to do with a weak alternative field being able to drive ATPases and influence conformation of membrane bound glycoproteins. A related mechanism would be a "ratcheting" action on ion channels, where the pulse rate and their peak power ratchets faster than the protein's relaxation rate, thus eventually activating it (eg ion channels and their voltage sensors). Lastly, you have brillouin precursors and solitonic propagation of the "information" content of a field. Cells are similar to coupled oscillators, and subcellular components have relatively few stable vibrational modes. Biological effects are realized by shifting them to modes not well coupled to the surrounding medium. Gradually, other cells respond.

You're just going to have to read up on it yourself.

>>12161940
>I can't track all this down.
How much tracking down have you done of sources that say there is 0 chance for externalities?

>>12162007
Bro, this thread is about 5G. That's clearly the frequency range we are talking about.

Looking at the effects on ion flux, all the data seems to be about high intensity RF fields that produce tissue heating up to extreme hyperthermia. That's not relevant to 5G.

I can't find anything about RF fields affecting electron transport, and it's hard to imagine how that would even happen.

I'm not going to look into every idea you have presented. Like I said, give me the BEST one. Don't give me the Gish gallop. It's impossible to discuss an entire nebulous network of ideas in totality.

>>12162034
By "externalities," you mean clinical effects? None. No study is going to say "there is 0 chance of any effect." If they were to assert such a thing, they wouldn't be doing a study. That said, there are plenty of studies pointing out that no plausible mechanism can explain how such low intensity radiation could harm our health.

>>12162086
>Bro, this thread is about 5G. That's clearly the frequency range we are talking about.
5G is currently planned to use multiple bands from 600MHz (decimeter band) all the way to 72 GHz (Millimeter band). You didn't check the pastebin, did you? See the 5G section. I don't remember exactly how spectrum is being allocated for FR1 and FR2, but links to all of it are in there.

>Looking at the effects on ion flux, all the data seems to be about high intensity RF fields


Like I said, I don't know what you've read. You'll have to be more specific about what you mean, because this seems to be coming from an alternate reality, relative to me. The linked data shows no such thing. Heating and induced currents would simply kill, or overtly damage via eg electroporation, cells before it would specifically alter ion flux, cause DNA damage, or any of the other effects which have been observed. Ion channels are constructed specifically to resist random thermal noise.

>I can't find anything about RF fields affecting electron transport
Martin Blank et al, DNA as a fractal antenna.

>I'm not going to look into every idea you have presented.
Okay?

>Don't give me the Gish gallop.
Gish gallop only applies in relatime conversation, this is 4channel. This is beginning to seemk like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
to me.

>It's impossible to discuss an entire nebulous network of ideas in totality.
That's understandable, but you need to realize this is an entire field that you're new to. All the mechanisms I've listed are relevant, and multiple mechanisms can be operating at once when considering any given effect in humans or an animal model. If you want to treat it like a debate or a debunking, pick one and come at it. If you want to learn and discuss, familarize yourself with the data, go through the files in the OP, and so forth. Not sure what you're asking for.

>>12162128
Also pic related. Taken from nonlinear electrodynamics in biological systems, 1984.

>>12162128
My reference is [1]. It's about hyperthermia treatment for colon cancer. And yes, it does indeed destroy cells. Similarly, a study exposing E. coli to 30 times the legal limit of 18 GHz radiation heating them to 40 C found only reversible effects.[2] This makes the results of the pastebin study highly suspicious.

>Martin Blank et al, DNA as a fractal antenna.
This paper is crap. Read the first comment on the article. It points out that Blank et al. speculated based on a misunderstanding of what a "fractal antenna" even is, ignored the fact that DNA has the same conductivity as the surrounding cytosol and that the Q-factor of a strand of DNA acting as an antenna is 10^11 at 1 GHz (which might as well be infinity). This does not qualify as a plausible mechanism.

>Gish gallop only applies in relatime conversation, this is 4channel.
No it doesn't. The tactic refers to the use of a high quantity of low quality evidence in an attempt to overwhelm someone in an argument. Your insistence on making me trudge through what (as I hope I just showed) includes tons of extremely low-quality evidence just to find the studies you actually care about is obviously not a fair way to get to the truth. Pick out the studies that are actually not bullshit first, and that actually apply to the question at hand, and I will look at those.

[1] "Non-thermal effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields." Wust et al.
[2] "Specific Electromagnetic Effects of Microwave Radiation on Escherichia coli." Shamis et al.

>>12162232
You're wasting your time. Garrett's trapped in circular reasoning and is dishonest with himself and anyone who replies to him.

>>12162232
>My reference is [1]. It's about hyperthermia treatment for colon cancer. And yes, it does indeed destroy cells. Similarly, a study exposing E. coli to 30 times the legal limit of 18 GHz radiation heating them to 40 C found only reversible effects.[2] This makes the results of the pastebin study highly suspicious.

Can you elaborate on what you mean here? Which pastebin study? And why? It seems like you're assuming a linear dose response curve and extrapolating in vitro response of bacterial cultures (which also depends on species, cell density, and narrow frequency and modulation windows) to the tissues of an intact animal. It would be not unlike concluding sound is largely biologically inert because you played some quiet music to a bacterial culture and it didn't respond all that much. Yet if you play it in the ears of an intact animal, of course you see broad changes in multiple systems. This is an example of transduction and downstream amplification in highly organized systems.

I vaguely recall Wust and Shamis as authors, but searching my index yields nothing. I'll have to read them more thoroughly later. The paper by Wust seems to relate with what is now called Tumor Treating Fields, but actually goes back to Royal Rife, Schereschewsky, Gosset, and several others in the 1920's and 30's. I'm not sure what your point is with the paper by Wust, but so far it's definite;y quite interesting. I was somewhat disappointed that Novocure's method was trying primarily to target mitotic spindle formation, and many authors had begun to fixate only on their frequency choice.

>The tactic refers to the use of a high quantity of low quality evidence in an attempt to overwhelm someone in an argument.
In a realtime debate, yes. The tactic is predicated on an audience, limited time for response, and limited working memory. It's basically a constellation of IRL derailment, not unlike sealioning in a sense.

>>12162365
>Can you elaborate on what you mean here? Which pastebin study?
Well since you refused to give me one and told me to check the pastebin, I looked at the first one there: "Extremely high-frequency EMI effects on ion fluxes across the membrane and membrane-associated ATPase activity."

>It seems like you're assuming a linear dose response curve and extrapolating in vitro response of bacterial cultures
No I am not. I am only assuming a nondecreasing curve. That is, I assume that a higher intensity of radiation will not produce a weaker response. The species is the same--E. coli in both studies. The frequency is not the same, but what can you do? I can't even read the article you linked, because it costs $40.

>The tactic is predicated on an audience, limited time for response, and limited working memory
No it fucking isn't. But whatever, call it what you want. Let's not call it the "Gish Gallop." Let's call it the "Garrett Gatling Gun." The point is that you are mixing what you KNOW is bullshit into the same pile as what you assert are good studies, then insisting that everyone else wade through the crap to find the gems. What possible reason could you have for not picking out one or a few high quality studies to discuss? Aren't there any?

>>12162386
>I looked at the first one there: "Extremely high-frequency EMI effects on ion fluxes across the membrane and membrane-associated ATPase activity."
That's a subsection of "Torgomyan 2012 - Electromagnetic irradiation of Enterococcus hirae at low-intensity 51.8- and 53.0-GHz frequencies: changes in bacterial cell membrane properties and enhanced antibiotics effects". pastebin renders the indentation and formatting differently.
https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article/329/2/131/629562

>No I am not. I am only assuming a nondecreasing curve.
Well, alright. Nonetheless, dose response has often been found to be nonlinear in most dimensions (power density, exposure duration, modulation, frequency), especially in single celled organisms. This gave rise to the observation of "windowed" responses made popular by Bawin and Adey iirc in the early 70's with their 16 Hz AM Ca2+ efflux studies, and later replicated by Carl Blackman et al. A change in frequency, power density, or orientation with respect to the field can cause an effect to increase or decrease. In some cases, generally in animal models, there will be a baseline response above a certain (usually very low) threshold, which is modified from there. In single celled organisms, an effect can disappear entirely. A major confounder with cell culture studies is also the method used to maintain the culture temperature, inductive heaters can generate a complex magnetic field which dwarfs the one intended for study. This has to be taken into account when evaluating any in vitro paper's setup.

>The frequency is not the same, but what can you do?
I mean yeah, what can you do, but the frequency still matters. IMight as well add a different compound and call it the same study.

>it costs $40
The link above is to the fulltext.

>>12162232
>Read the first comment on the article.
I forgot to respond.Did you read the paper, or just Ken Foster's comment?"Blank 1999 - Electromagnetic Fields May Act Directly on DNA"

>>12162386
>What possible reason could you have for not picking out one or a few high quality studies to discuss? Aren't there any?
Hit the character limit. When it comes down to it, I made the pastebin for this very reason. With any given paper a lot of the discussion we're having now would be identical, the same questions come up. It is far more useful to have a large body of evidence and some key aspects of the history of the field, than to *at the outset* choose a single paper and try to have a discussion about it. The last thread I tried that with resulted in some prick endlessly stating "I'm sorry, I don't accept that paper. In order for me to discuss this with you it has to be published within the last 5 years in a high impact non-predatory and peer reviewed journal, and cited at least 10 times". I give him a link to a paper published in the ever prestigious Nature, and of course, it's just a new excuse.

Anyway, that's just the nature of the format. You're asking why I don't do things ina way you would prefer, and that's one of the reasons why your request is not as reasonable as it sounds. In emotionally charged controversial topics it is very hard to keep it from rapidly descending into a time and energy sink of endless nitpicking (over things which are either misunderstood, or don't actually matter) while ignoring the bigger picture and the greater synthesis. I would be insane to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result, or so they say.

Just choose a paper. Everything I include in the document is there for a reason and part of the big picture.

>>12162454
You don't seem to be actually defending the study. What you say is just that maybe weak RF radiation is more dangerous than intense RF radiation. Is that really your claim? Then you say a bunch of other things that are not relevant here, like that some effects that occur in animals do not occur in bacteria. Well yes, but we are talking about bacteria here in both studies. If you would rather move on to effects in humans, your evidence will only become weaker.

>Did you read the paper, or just Ken Foster's comment?
I read both. DNA is not a "fractal antenna."

The Blank 99 study you cite is also not free, but it appears to be about 50/60 Hz radiation, not GHz radiation. In any case, there results could not be replicated: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17009595/..

>>12162479
>Everything I include in the document is there for a reason and part of the big picture.

>>12162479
OK, I chose the "fractal antenna" paper. Let's discuss that.

>>12162484
>What you say is just that maybe weak RF radiation is more dangerous than intense RF radiation. Is that really your claim?
Both can be biologically active, but at lower intensities and with long term exposures, other mechanisms will predominate, and cumulative effects will take a different course than say, simply cooking an organism in a microwave oven.

>If you would rather move on to effects in humans, your evidence will only become weaker.
See the cell density studies in the 5G/mmWave section. Ideally the whole section.

>The Blank 99 study you cite is also not free, but it appears to be about 50/60 Hz radiation
It's more of a review. See image. It's mainly concerned with ELF to power frequency fields

>>12162486
Well memed.

>>12162489
Okay.

Based on the low EMF energy at which DNA
activation occurs in the stress response, it has been
proposed (Blank and Goodman 2002, 2008) that
EMF probably interacts with the delocalised p
electrons in the DNA bases. The electron has a
single negative charge that can be accelerated in an
electric or magnetic field. Because of its low mass, an
electron experiences a relatively large displacement
even at low field strengths. Furthermore, the p
electrons in the DNA base pairs are delocalised and
are able to move along the double helix (Wan et al.
1999). Conduction in DNA is a physical property
that may turn out to be extremely useful in the future
development of miniature electronic components
(Bhalla et al. 2003).

Studies of the effects of EMF on electron transfer
reactions have provided insight into the molecular
mechanism of EMF interaction with DNA. The
Na,K-ATPase (Blank 1995b), cytochrome oxidase
(Blank and Soo 1998) and the Belousov-Zhabotinski
(oxidation of malonic acid) reactions (Blank and Soo
2003) all show an acceleration due to EMF. The
thresholds (field strengths) at 60 Hz for the reactions
are: Na,K-ATPase (0.2–0.3 mT), cytochrome oxidase (0.5–0.6 mT), Belousov-Zhabotinski (oxidation
of malonic acid

Say, what if RF actually IS harmful to humans and all other life. What would we do about it? Do we just stop using WiFi and cell phones, go back to fax era?

>>12162536
>with long term exposures
1 hour is long-term?

>See the cell density studies in the 5G/mmWave section. Ideally the whole section.
No, see this is my whole point. You are using a wall of studies to insulate yourself from any criticism, instead of allowing people to analyze specific studies and point out their flaws. I'm not going to spend hours reading studies before I say anything, and you know that.

>Based on the low EMF energy at which DNA
activation occurs in the stress response, it has been proposed (Blank and Goodman 2002, 2008) that EMF probably interacts with the delocalised p-electrons in the DNA bases.
OK, but this proposal is wrong. RF radiation is non-ionizing. It is, in fact, not even close to being ionizing. That's the point of the antenna hypothesis, a way of making this clearly physically impossible phenomenon appear to be possible.

Note that the mass of an electron is not relevant here. What is relevant is the ionization potential.

It should really be telling that every single one of the studies Blank cites to support the claim that low-frequency EMF can change the rate of any reaction are principally authored by Blank himself. That is a surefire sign of a crank. When papers by others are consulted, we find the results are not replicated: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16511875/..

Incidentally, it is not that difficult to do the necessary semi-empirical computations in a program like CHARMM (plus a quantum calculation in Gaussian for a single nitrogenous base) using HF or a similar method. If Blank does this, he can tell us exactly what emf is required to liberate the p-electrons.

>>12162540
R&D to design biocompatible signal schemes. If people really really really ever so badly need to always be connected, I can imagine a decentralized mesh network with operates via visible light or infrared, and limited beamforming point to point wireless use perhaps for individuals. All the existing towers however would have to go, as would over the air television, indiscriminant use of the more omnidirectional antennas and other means of forcibly blanketing an area or irradiating those around you, would be banned completely on the commercial end of it. Without an industrial apparatus behind it, you wouldn't need to set up an authoritarian confiscation of the old phones or any risky "foot in the door" like that, they would just fade out and be replaced by the new method. Old handheld shortwave radios and so forth would still be used, not sure if HAM radio should be legally sanctioned.

Anyway, it would have to be a branching, decentralized system with near omnipresent likely very small access nodes everywhere. So odds are you still get the same technocratic surveillance state elements in that model. Too much to be said about how that world would work now that people think they have all these needs and desires, lot of possibilities, lot of speculation.

>>12162574
Jesus Christ, this really IS a schitzo thread.

>>12162586
It's more than a schizo thread, it's become schizo performance art
https://youtu.be/99JRr5KcbA8?t=6575
https://youtu.be/Kcel4c-uESo?t=4989

>>12162570
>instead of allowing people to analyze specific studies and point out their flaws.
I don't have to "allow" anything, do whatever you want. If you have criticisms, make your case.

>RF radiation is non-ionizing.
This is my point, you think this is a relevant when it's not. I know RF cannot directly ionize, everyone here knows RF cannot directly ionize, everyone doing experiments in this field knows RF cannot directly ionize. Yet, over the decades experimentally it can cause DNA breaks. And that's it. So what's your point? Stop assuming you're a step ahead and already know everything, engage with the literature, and you'll realize you were actually stuck on a priori notion which are not substantiated by experiment.

Hence, "transduction and amplification". Altered ion flux is a form of abberant signaling, which causes the cell to use its own machinery to overproduce free radicals. The magnetic component causing leakage of the electron transport chain, etc. It doesn't need to directly ionize. There is also the potential for kinetic breakage, like indicated in the despiraling noted above.

>It should really be telling that every single one of the studies Blank cites to support the claim that low-frequency EMF can change the rate of any reaction are principally authored by Blank himself.
>When papers by others are consulted, we find the results are not replicated
A negative result does not necessarily cancel out a positive result, especially in a complex and funding starved field. This was a big issue in the 70's between the US and USSR, but the replication issues resolved on traveling to the other's lab, observing their methods, and inspecting their equipment.

>If Blank does this, he can tell us exactly what emf is required to liberate the p-electrons.
Blank is dead, however a priori data must be reasonably backed by experiment.

>>12162656
>I don't have to "allow" anything, do whatever you want. If you have criticisms, make your case.
OK, let me rephrase. You have chosen a method of presenting your case that makes it difficult to criticize not because your case is strong, but because you hide any purported strong points between weak ones and decline to put your best argument forward.

>I know RF cannot directly ionize . . . Yet, over the decades experimentally it can cause DNA breaks.
Can it? How? So far, your claim is that it caused this by liberating p-electrons, which is wrong. Studies on DNA damage by RF radiation are mixed and of low quality. Major scientific bodies have concluded that it cannot.

DNA damage will at some point require changing the energy level of an electron by absorbing a microwave photon. That is, ionization. As far as I know, this has never been observed.

>Altered ion flux is a form of abberant signaling, which causes the cell to use its own machinery to overproduce free radicals
I thought we were talking about the DNA acting as an antenna. Have we moved past this? Will you stop listing that stupid article?

>A negative result does not necessarily cancel out a positive result, especially in a complex and funding starved field.
I may be mistaken, but it sounds very much like you are claiming a single researcher repeatedly producing the same results should be trusted over other researchers failing to replicate it. Am I right? Is replication not the standard here?

>Blank is dead, however a priori data must be reasonably backed by experiment.
For like the tenth time, the cited article is not an experiment. It is not even a simulation. It is pure speculation.

>>12162759
>You have chosen a method of presenting your case that makes it difficult to criticize not because your case is strong, but because you hide any purported strong points between weak ones and decline to put your best argument forward.
Yeah, I don't see it. If that's your take, fine enough, what can I tell ya.

>So far, your claim is that it caused this by liberating p-electrons
That is not my claim. You asked for mechanisms where biological effects can occur from low intensity RF irradiation, and I included that in the list. If we're talking about DNA damage specifically though, could altered electron transport change coiling behavior and shape of the DNA, thus alteroing gene expression and behavior of DNA repair enzymes, and leading to increased DNA damage either by lowered threshold for damage or decreased ability to repair natural background damage? Possibly. A recent paper found differences in DNA repair related genes correlated with thyroid cancer incidence among heavier mobile phone etc users. That's either in the thyroid or cancer section.

>DNA damage will at some point require changing the energy level of an electron by absorbing a microwave photon.
The first part is true, but the second is not. See the VGCC flow chart above, in addition to the papers on electron transport chain leakage. Also:
Pacher 2007 - Nitric Oxide and Peroxynitrite in Health and Disease
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2248324/

Knott 2009 - Nitric Oxide in Health and Disease of the Nervous System
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933573/

>I thought we were talking about the DNA acting as an antenna.
We are. DNA also is surrounded by structured water, which is another target to act on apart from the DNA molecule itself.
[1/2]

>>12162825
>should be trusted over other researchers failing to replicate it. Am I right? Is replication not the standard here?
A negative result does not automatically take precedence over a positive one. I mean yes, if we're going to state the obvious it's quite possible Blank and Goodman were either mistaken outright or full of it. It's also possible that a multitrillion dollar thoroughly entrenched international industrial complex knows who to pay to get the results they want. Or, some particularity of the author's replication differed, such as the magnetic field from an incubator, ambient fields in the building, exposure during a different phase of the cell cycle, exposure of a cell type which is not as responsive overall, other methodological issues. Who knows? That's why you have to go to the early history, and you have to weigh it against the broader body of literature. A number of transcriptome studies have been done by authors other than Blank and Goodman, and a large number of them found statistically significant changes.

Overall replication is obviously the standard, however there are a large range of variables to account for in this particular field which can sway results in in vitro models widely. The definition and "granularity" of a replication is important.

>It is pure speculation.
It's a review.
[2/2]

Who is OP, and what are his intentions?

>>12162825
>You asked for mechanisms where biological effects can occur from low intensity RF irradiation, and I included that in the list.
Right, that's my point. U asked for a plausible mechanism, you presented a paper you thought provided one, and I pointed out that it doesn't. The paper does not provide a plausible mechanism. Are you standing behind it or not? The whole point is to debate specific claims rather than fanning out into hundreds of mini-arguments. Could there be this? Could there be that? Probably not, but unless we can focus on the most likely ones, we will never get anywhere. That's why I keep asking you to present your best case. You asked me to pick one topic, so I picked this one. If you would rather pick a different topic, go ahead.

You do have one thing to say about the antenna hypothesis:
>DNA also is surrounded by structured water, which is another target to act on apart from the DNA molecule itself.
The problem is that the water is not bound to the antenna. Electrons do not move between water and DNA. Even if they did, that would not matter. DNA isn't just slightly too small here, it is like eight orders of magnitude too small.

>>12162828
>A negative result does not automatically take precedence over a positive one.
That's true. But you have given me no reason to trust the original source beyond that it exists. On the other hand, there are pretty clear reasons to doubt it, like the fact that the same author has published similar fringe claims for a long time and that it is not consistent with the results predicted by theory.

>It's also possible that a multitrillion dollar thoroughly entrenched international industrial complex knows who to pay to get the results they want.
Okey dokey

>>12162923
>The paper does not provide a plausible mechanism.
The core concept, as indicated by the paper and the papers it cites (which are not all by the authors themselves), is a plausible mechanism for a direct modulation of gene expression.

>That's why I keep asking you to present your best case.
There is no "best case". It's like asking to choose between lead and arsenic. RF is not one single chemical identity, it's not a drug as such. I think a primary piece of the puzzle is altered ion flux. A secondary one in some regions is altered radical pair recombination around deposites of biogenic magnetite. There is also interaction with metalic nanoparticles in the body which, like the other ions, display ion cyclotron resonance in RF fields. Aluminum facilitates voltage discharges, Gut microbes respond to irradiation. Irradiation potentiates the effects of chemical tumor promoters in the extracellular space. The list goes on, these are all happening at one. Best is relative.

Ultimately, it should also be stated that there is no need to fixate on mechanisms to begin with. If you hit an animal in the head with a hammer and see it makes it act weird, you don't even need the concept of a brain to observe a cause and effect. If you irradiate an animal which has no basis for a nocebo response, and measure objective changes, that alone is meaningful.

>The problem is that the water is not bound to the antenna.
DNA is surrounded by a thin layer of "bound water". It has a role in determining shape. Quick Google search:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110426091122.htm
Proteins are as well, apparently water takes on this quasi-crystalline state near many hydrophilic materials. See eg Pollack and "EZ water", though Soviets and others described it much earlier.

>On the other hand, there are pretty clear reasons to doubt it,
Like I said, you then must refer to the broader body of literature.

>Okey dokey
Yep. No ivory towers.

>>12162910

5G conspiracy threads are just merely a cover so he has an excuse to show others his true passion in life, nature photography.

>>12163052

>>12162998
>There is no "best case".
That's what I was worried about. You don't think any one claim will stand on its own, but you feel like their union somehow will. That's not how it works. You can't accumulate a large number of ideas that have not been established and declare their sum established.

If you don't want to talk about the DNA antenna, talk about something else. We don't have to decide the whole issue at once. We can do one thing at a time.

But my underlying motive here is to point out that none of your claims are individually very strong, and that's why I'm letting you pick your best ones to challenge. It would make no sense to nitpick about silly ones like this. (Unless they are all this silly.)

>Ultimately, it should also be stated that there is no need to fixate on mechanisms to begin with.
If you don't want to talk mechanistically, then we shouldn't worry about in vitro results in the first place. Let's look at large-scale studies with actual devices.

>DNA is surrounded by a thin layer of "bound water"
It really does not matter whether the minimum circumscribing diameter is 30 nm or 300 nm. It is not large enough to be a GHz antenna.

Look, this is basic physics. The Chu-Harrington limit places an absolute minimum on Q. For 1 GHz radiation, even if the bounding sphere is the radius of the entire cell nucleus, we have Q ≈ 10^20. No matter how the DNA is packaged or how much bound water there is, it cannot do what Blank claims.

>>12163061
>You can't accumulate a large number of ideas that have not been established and declare their sum established.
Again, "for the tenth time", RF is not a chemical. It is a not singular drug. It is not the subject of pharmacology. Useful notions of "dosage" were difficult to establish early on. You can read me telling you this, but you won't understand it until you actually dig into the research yourself. A primary issue throughout the entirety of this field's history was higher level effects with no obvious physical mechanism. However, because it was not a drug, where accepting effects without any actual understanding of mechanism of action is commonplace, effects of irradiation were and still are subject to an unreasonably high standard.

I have listed several mechanisms, all of which stem from experimental data and attempting to explain why certain effects were being seen with a given signal. Refer to the pastebin, skim through it, your eyes will pick up on aspects you're interested in. For ion flux ctrl+f "--------------Changes in ion flux--------------". For another interesting lens into the past, ctr+f "MICROWAVE SICKNESS" and "--------------"Classical" Microwave Sickness--------------". "MOSCOW SIGNAL" as well.

>If you don't want to talk mechanistically, then we shouldn't worry about in vitro results in the first place.
It's the inverse. RF is not a chemical agent, in vitro is not a representative environment. If you want to mechanistic investigation your best approach is ex vivo.

>Let's look at large-scale studies with actual devices.
Included in the document. There's an Index section I started at the end, to group all the papers on actual and quasi / simulated signal schemes from real devices. Unfortunately it was not finished. ctrl+f for keywords like "wifi" "wi-fi" "LTE" etc in _Index.txr and the EMF-portal dump.

>It is not large enough to be a GHz antenna.
Despiraling, above. Probably group amplification, as in quorum sensing.

>>12163099

>>12163103

>>12163099
>MOSCOW SIGNAL" as well.

>>12163099
>I have listed several mechanisms
And I have made it pretty clear that I'm not going to talk about them unless we can do so one at a time.

>Despiraling, above. Probably group amplification, as in quorum sensing.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter how many biological buzzwords you can mention, there is a *physical* limit. You can't convince me that some clever biology turns DNA into an antenna any more than you can convince me it turns DNA into a black hole. It is fundamentally impossible.

>>12163135
>This has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

>EMR propagates through the narrow channels between cells
>Interacts with the cells
>Interaction changes cell behavior, causes membrane glycoprotein tips to move around. change in metabolism, thus emission spectra
>Cells communicate with and modulate the behavior of their neighbors via electromagnetic signaling
>Behavior of the entire group changes
>Gene expression changes, directly or indirectly.

Look, whether an alternating magnetic field or other long range (direct) signaling can meaningfully induce a flow of charge along DNA in the specific way described, GHz range reception and even demodulation by cells is not "physically impossible". See DARPA's "RadioBIO", though I suspect their renewed interest may have to do with their invovlement in 5G, fot better or worse.

Another point about replications. In pic related the Soviet's signal never went above 1 mW/cm2. As usual, researchers couldn't just stick to the parameters commonly used elsewhere, assuming higher dose = higher response.

>>12163163
>GHz range reception and even demodulation by cells is not "physically impossible".
For macro-tissue "reception" see microwave auditory effect.

>>12163172
More cold war aspects, taken from Defense Intelligence Agency report (Adams 1976).

>>12163103
The underlined sentence here is about previously reported research in reference 15. But the references in that paper are not available online, so I can't even figure out what study he is referencing.

>>12163163
>Interacts with the cells
Yeah, see the main problem is that the only way we know this radiation can interact with cells is by thermal absorption. Your claims here amount to, "I don't know how it happens, but dammit it happens." Which, fine, you don't want to talk mechanistically. But at least accept that you won't defend that side of things, or we will just go in circles.

And by the way, the fact that DARPA still funds mind control research is hardly surprising or convincing. I am sorry if I don't buy the idea that cells are communicating with each other in the radio spectrum.

>>12163022
Honestly the only plausible theory in here

>>12163163
>Another point about replications. In pic related the Soviet's signal never went above 1 mW/cm2. As usual, researchers couldn't just stick to the parameters commonly used elsewhere, assuming higher dose = higher response.
Doesn't this imply that your plan could put us in danger? It would reduce our dose of EM radiation, which might increase the effect.

And to be clear, you responding with 12 different posts with random articles of unclear relevance to my questions is not cute. It's exactly what I said would happen from the beginning and the reason we have to stick to one thing at a time.

>>12163135
And lastly, here's the clearest and most concise way to wrap this whole thing up. Here's what you do. Read a very large quantity of the experimental data produce on this topic, try to reconcile the positive and negative results, and see what mechanisms YOU can come up with to explain these effects.

>>12163185
>so I can't even figure out what study he is referencing.
Image.

> I am sorry if I don't buy the idea that cells are communicating with each other in the radio spectrum.
How convenient. You can just walk into something and decide you know what is and isn't true. Nature itself bends to your whims. Must be nice. Why don't you write a paper on this? It should be easy. Go through the pastebin, gather together the relevant literature, and write a review explaining what they were all doing wrong since the 1950's. You can have this wrapped up in, what, maybe a week? Send it in to Bioelectromagnetics with a note attached: "Sorry, I think this is the last issue of your journal."

Jokes aside, sure, you don't buy it, you are unconvinced you should bother reading the literature, you think the only possible mechanism is heating. So what?

>>12160718
what do you mean by neurowarfare, also is there a study suggesting a mechanism on how it leads to more cancer?

>>12163194
>Doesn't this imply that your plan could put us in danger? I
Exactly. Good to see you're applying yourself to this, this is why you don't see me arguing for a "solution" via a change in exposure standard. No, my approach is built on the notion that any "unnatural" stimuli (in manner or degree) should be assumed to be biologically active, and quite possibly harmful. Ironic given some of the failures in industrial hygiene in Russia where this idea was somewhat traditional. Exposure standard would not be made more strict, exposure would simply be eliminated entirely. By default, strong manmade fields could be assumed to be absent. Building codes would be changed to lower any exposure to power frequency, dirty electricity, etc. Siting of high voltage lines and substations would be moved away froim residential areas. Omission of a proper neutral return would be illegal, ground currents would be greatly reduced. Studies would be done on the influence of high voltage lines on electron precipitation. Appliances, within reason, would be constructued to either reduce/neutralize their own field (this was done for waterbed heaters, electric blankets, electric cables running to batteries in car trunks, etc), or would be shielded. With these measures the relevant field characteristics (peak power, pulse width, rise time, polarization, coherence) would be pretty much gone. What remained would net out to generally below LOEL, which would (ideally) be much better defined due to increased.research funding. This opens the way to possible biologically inert signal schemes, and so forth.

>>12163249
>cancer
“In almost any other type of environmental exposures, if the evidence were as strong as the association between EMFs and cancer, there would be extensive government regulation. The major reason that many members of the committee were unwilling to set more rigorous standards was that it would be horrendously expensive and unrealistic to enforce them.” - David O. Carpenter, 1995

Adey 1990 - Joint actions of environmental nonionizing electromagnetic fields and chemical pollution in cancer promotion.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1567752/
"To pursue these problems in the environment and in the laboratory, our needs for further research with appropriate budgets are great. We recognize the importance of studies that address the effects of long-term, recurrent, intermittent exposures to environmental electromagnetic fields, which is an area where simplistic concepts of cumulative dose effects do not apply. These epidemiologic and laboratory studies emphasize the growing impact of environmental chemical pollution and the rapidly increasing deployment of an almost infinite variety of environmental electromagnetic fields as possible joint factors in cancer promotion. As we move towards the twenty-first century, elucidation of mechanisms underlying these interactions at the cellular and molecular level will become matters of urgency. At the same time, implementation of public policies that would mitigate risks from these exposures may impact heavily on existing industrial practices and on important aspects of environmental planning in housing and urban development. At this stage, it is of paramount importance that the significance of these issues no longer be ignored.
[...]

>>12163253
>my approach is built on the notion that any "unnatural" stimuli (in manner or degree) should be assumed to be biologically active, and quite possibly harmful.
kek

Nature, on the other hand, is never biologically harmful.

>>12163268
Do these EM fields constitute a health hazard? Based on available epidemiological data and laboratory studies, it has become increasingly clear that these fields acting either alone or in conjunction with chemicals that occur as environmental pollutants may constitute a potential health hazard. Much has been accomplished in the past decade in establishing a firm base of new knowledge, despite a grave and growing lack of research funds and also entrenched and often self-serving attitudes among influential groups who have denied the possibility of adverse effects, based simply on their a priori positions."

Dr. Jerry Phillips describes his work with Motorola in the late 90's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28FtRM4Xw9U

IARC 2011 - IARC classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans
https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/iarc-urged-reassess-rf

Cell Phones and Cancer: Your Genes May Tell the Story Genetic Susceptibility and RF Radiation Modulate Thyroid Cancer
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/cell-phones-and-cancer-your-genes-may-tell-story

Pandora Foundation 2019 - Glioblastomas Have Doubled in Number in England Since Mobile Phones Were Introduced in 1995
https://pandora-foundation.eu/2019/03/19/glioblastomas-have-doubled-in-number-in-england-since-mobile-phones-were-introduced-in-1995/

>>12163271
GBM Incidence Rates Relatively Steady in U.S. and Canada Unlike the Doubling Seen in England
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/gbm-us-canada-england
"Between 1995 and 2015, GBM rates went up 10% in the U.S. and 26% in Canada. In contrast, the increase in England over the same period was 110%.

The new analysis, led by Faith Davis of the University of Alberta, Canada, and published in a letter to Neuro-Oncology, shows that GBM rates in all three countries have been converging since 1995 and are now quite similar. In 2015, the rates were: 4.32 in the U.S., 4.50 in Canada and 5.02 in England, per 100,000 persons per year."
[...]
Davis writes that, given that the rates among the countries are now similar, it would be “premature” to attribute past incidence rate patterns to any environmental factor.

One aspect of the English data is left unanswered by Davis’s letter: Philips showed that the incidence of low-grade brain tumors was decreasing as that of GBM was increasing, netting little change in the overall rate of all malignant brain tumors (see figure below). Davis did not address trends for low-grade tumors.
[...]
In addition to England, GBM have also been increasing at higher than expected rates in Denmark, France and Sweden."

Location, Location, Location Aggressive Brain Tumors Tell a Story GBM Rise Only in Frontal and Temporal Lobes
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/gbm-frontal-and-tempral-lobes

Frey 2011 - Rapid response to: Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study
https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/08/safety-cell-phone-radiation

>>12163274
Hardell and Carlberg 2015 - Increasing Rates of Brain Tumours in the Swedish National Inpatient Register and the Causes of Death Register
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4410216/
Ahlbom et al 2015 - Comments on Hardell and Carlberg Increasing Rates of Brain Tumors in the Swedish National Inpatient Register and the Causes of Death Register
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586697/
Hardell and carlberg 2015 - Response to Ahlbom et al. Comments on Hardell and Carlberg Increasing Rates of Brian Tumors in the Swedish National Inpatient Register and the Causes of Death Register
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586698/

Two notable studies were done by Adey et al on chronic exposure to FM (Frequency Modulated / Analogue) phone signals, and TDMA signal schemes (used in 2G, digital/pulsed). They used a chemical tumor promoter model to see if there was any difference in tumor rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-division_multiple_access
Adey 1999 - Spontaneous and Nitrosourea-Induced Primary Tumors of the Central Nervous System in Fischer 344 Rats Chronically Exposed to 836 MHz Modulated Microwaves
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10453090
Adey 2000 - Spontaneous and Nitrosourea-induced Primary Tumors of the Central Nervous System in Fischer 344 Rats Exposed to Frequency-modulated Microwave Fields
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10766172

>>12163276
The interesting part is that after he reported a slight (but statistically insignificant) protective effect from the TDMA, Motorola rejected his findings, canceled future studies, and cut funding to his lab. Which closed shortly after. One explanation is they wanted a clean "no effect", period. A seemingly positive effect in one aspect and exposure condition, opened the door to a negative one in others. Anything other than "inert" would be a high risk long term strategy.
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ross-adey
"Adey prompted another stir when his studies of long-term exposure to cell phone radiation pointed to what appeared to be a protective effect —that is, exposed mice developed fewer tumors. Motorola, which paid for Adey’s experiments, repudiated this finding and soon afterwards stopped supporting his lab. It closed down a short time later. In an interview with Fortune magazine in October 2000, Adey urged that research continue: “There is a big task ahead to define what the lowest level of safe exposure could be,” he said, predicting that, “Wherever we go we will be immersed in a sea of low-level pulsed microwave signals.”"
March, 1993 - DO CELLULAR PHONES CAUSE CANCER? One researcher for Motorola wouldn't use them more than 30 minutes a day. But there's an appalling lack of convincing research on risks from electromagnetic fields.
https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1993/03/08/77585/index.htm

One thing that comes to mind is that exposure to some signals may be more apt to simply kill cells, rather than initiating or aiding in the tumor development process. Otherwise they may cause a low-grade stress response (hormesis) without interfering with DNA repair systems in a particular species.

>>12163277
--------------DNA--------------

Cell Phones and Cancer: Your Genes May Tell the Story Genetic Susceptibility and RF Radiation Modulate Thyroid Cancer
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/cell-phones-and-cancer-your-genes-may-tell-story

McRee 1980 - Soviet and Eastern European Research on Biological Effects of Microwave Radiation
https://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/mcree80_rev_soviet.pdf
"Effects of 12-cm [2.45 GHz] microwaves on bone marrow of inbred albino rats exposed to power densities of 50 and 500uW/cm2 have been reported. The animals were exposed for 7 h/day for 10 days. Both exposure power densities resulted in a significant initial increase in frequency of cells with chromosomal aberrations, mainly in the form of polyploidy, aneuploidy, chromatid deletion, accentric fragments, and chromatid gaps. The incidence of the aberrations was higher two weeks after the irradiation than immediately following irradiation in the group exposed to 50uW/cm2. In the group exposed to 500uW/cm2, the aberration frequency decreased by the end of the second week due to the elimination of damaged cells."

The Lai-Singh "Wargaming" Memo.
Lai 1995 - Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7677797
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/singh-comet-assay-radiation-research
Microwave News, January/February 1997. Page 13 - Motorola "Wargaming" memo:
https://microwavenews.com/news/backissues/j-f97issue.pdf

Belyaev 2008 - Microwaves from UMTS/GSM mobile phones induce long-lasting inhibition of 53BP1/gamma-H2AX DNA repair foci in human lymphocytes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18839414

Markova 2010 - Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells More Strongly Than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/ehp.0900781

>>12163280
Akdag 2018 - Exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields emitted from mobile phones induced DNA damage in human ear canal hair follicle cells.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29667447
-In vivo (in the body) DNA damage was found in humans after a mobile phone call.

Akdag et al 2016 - Does prolonged radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi devices induce DNA damage in various tissues of rats?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26775760
-Albino Wistar rats were exposed to Wi-Fi signals at 50cm, 24h/day for 12 months
-Whole body SAR averaged (rms) 141.4 uW/Kg, 7127 uW/Kg peak
-DNA damage was measured via alkaline comet assay in brain, liver, kidney, testis and skin
-A trend of increased DNA damage was seen in all tissues, however the authors report only the testes reached statistical significance (Mann–Whitney U test)
-For the brain the exposed group's mean was a standard deviation above the sham exposure. The skin had a wider distribution in exposed than sham.
-The locations of tissue samples weren't specified

Megha et al 2015 - Low intensity microwave radiation induced oxidative stress, inflammatory response and DNA damage in rat brain
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283324247_Low_intensity_microwave_radiation_induced_oxidative_stress_inflammatory_response_and_DNA_damage_in_rat_brain

[m][CIA] 1977 - EFFECTS OF NON-IONIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (JRPS 6791)
Page 11: Kasputin AA et al - CYTOGENETIC EFFECT OF A VARIABLE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD IN THE SUPER HIGH FREQUENCY RANGE
-Albino rats were exposed to 12 cm [~2.498 GHz] fields, to either 50, or 50 then 500uW/cm2, 7h/day for 10 days.
-Chromosome abnormalities were observed, they were not always greater in the higher power density group.
-The greater abnormalities were seen initially (~18 hours)
-The authors suggest that the initial damage is great enough that cells are apt to be simply eliminated

>>12162484

dude just fucking use sci-hub.st what kind of newfag are you, whining about paywall studies? Are you even in uni?

>>12163282
-Note, ~2.4 GHz is in a high dielectric loss range for water
"The problem of the harmful activity of variable electromagnetic fields has become one of the pressing areas in genetics and medicine in connection with the development of super high frequency (SHF) power engineering and the prospects for the extensive utilization of its achievements in households and in the economy.

A sizable quantity of work has now been completed on the study of the mutagenic activity of variable electrical fields. However, present data on the mutagenic influence of a variable electromagnetic field are hard to compare because of the various conditions and parameters. Carrying out research on determining the harmful effects of a variable electromagnetic field on the hereditary apparatus in cases of different wave lengths, densities of power flux (DPF) and duration of irradiation is necessary to estimate the genetic danger of such fields and to understand the mechanism of the effect of this factor on the chromosomal apparatus."

"The research was conducted on 56 inbred white rats weighing 170-200 g. The animals were subjected to the effects of a variable electromagnetic field in the SHF range with a wave length of 12 cm [2.498 GHz] and DPFs of 50 and 500 microwatts per cm2 The exposure of the rats in the first series of experiments (1st and 3rd groups) continued over 10 days for 7 hours daily with a DPF of 50 microwatts per cm2.[...]"

"The results of the cytogenetic analysis of rat bone marrow cells exposed to a SHF field with a DPF of 50 microwatts per cm2 are given in table 1. It is apparent that a SHF field in these exposure conditions causes a considerably increased quantity of cells with damaged chromosomal apparatus. In the majority of cases quantitative damage was noticed--polyploidy and aneuploidy. In addition, there were also chromatidal deletions, acentric fragments and chromatidal fissures.

>>12163287
The effects of the superhigh frequency field with a DPF of 500 microwatts per cm2 caused a sharp increase in the number of cells with a damaged chromosomal apparatus (Table 2). Qualitative chromosomal damage did not differ from that of the field with the smaller DPF."

"Thus, the SHF fields of both conditions studied caused considerable increases in the number of rat bone marrow cells with damaged chromosomal apparatus. These data coincide with results of earlier experiments by other authors.

The predominance of polyploidy and aneuploidy and the similarity in the composition of chromosomal damage for different DPFs of the SHF fields, permit us, similar to other authors of earlier studies to propose that a variable electromagnetic field primarily effects the mitotic apparatus, interfering with the process of cell division.

Two weeks after the ending of exposure of rats to the 50 microwatt per cm2 field the level of chromosome damage was considerably higher than after the end of the exposure (Table 1). This phenomenon can be explained by the accumulation of effects caused by the influence of the factor, which, in all probability form an active basis capable of causing increases in the damage to the chromosomal apparatus after the end of the factor's direct effects.

From the data given in Table 2, it follows that the quantity of chromosomal anomalies caused by irradiation from the 500 microwatt per cm2 field markedly declined 2 weeks after the end of irradiation. This, apparently, can be explained by the fact that changes originating in the bone marrow cells under the effect of the high intensity of SHF radiation are so great that the damaged cells are eliminated. This leads to a reduction in the quantity of chromosomal damage."

>>12163288

"The dynamics of changes in the level of chromosomal damage in the aftereffect period of SHF fields with a DPF of 50 and 500 microwatts per cm2 are characterized by substantial differences. Two weeks after that ending of exposure of rats to the 50 microwatt field there was an increase in the quantity of cells with a damaged chromosomal apparatus. After exposure to the 500 microwatt per cm2 field the level of chromosomal damage decreased."

Electromagnetic Fields and DNA Damage: Dr. Jerry Phillips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqjAC-G_uVo

--------------Teratogenicity and Development--------------

Broom 2019 - Early-Life Exposure to Pulsed LTE Radiofrequency Fields Causes Persistent Changes in Activity and Behavior in C57BL/6J Mice
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bem.22217
Hardell 2018 - Effects of Mobile Phones on Children's and Adolescents' Health: A Commentary.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28504422
Saghezchi et al 2019 - The Effect of Prenatal Exposure to 2.4 GHz Radio Frequency on the Histology and Expression of the osteocalcin and RUNX2 Gene of the Forelimb in an NMRI Mouse
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6885904/
-Pregnant mice were exposed to Wi-Fi at a distance of 20-30 cm, 4 hours per day for 21 days, using a CISCO EA6300V1 router
-Macroscopic examination was normal.
-Bone and cartilage volume was reduced in exposed, relative to sham and control
-Expression of osteocalcin was reduced relative to sham and control
-RUNX2 expression was reduced for both sham and exposed vs control.
For this gene it can't be differentiated from a stress response, some aspect of the sham exposure, not being accustomed to handling and change of environment.

>>12163290
Li 2020 - Association Between Maternal Exposure to Magnetic Field Nonionizing Radiation During Pregnancy and Risk of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Offspring in a Longitudinal Birth Cohort
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2763232
Modesto 2015 - Maternal Mild Thyroid Hormone Insufficiency in Early Pregnancy and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms in Children.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26146876
Pakkila 2014 - The impact of gestational thyroid hormone concentrations on ADHD symptoms of the child.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24384024
Others
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26438036
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28982961
Altered maternal thyroid hormone levels, in this case hypo, may lead to ADHD behaviors. See thyroid section.

Li 2011 - Maternal exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy in relation to the risk of asthma in offspring.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21810627

>>12163270
Strawman. Didn't say that,

Why are there so many studies with statistically significant rise in aberrations, mutations etc but not a single PROPER mechanism besides DNA antenna which seems unlikely?

But one thing I don't understand about the guy who is arguing against OP, you said the effects on the delocalized electrons of DNA would have to be ionizing and that is not possible at that frequency. But photophore effects are not ionizing at all, why do you come up with that then? I guess I also have to realize photophore effects are in the range of energy difference that would be in the nanometre range of waves but it doesn't change the fact that ionization is not necessary to alter electron "behaviour"

>>12163364
I definitely used the wrong word when I said "ionization." I should have said "excitation." There has to be enough energy in a single photon to raise an electron to a higher energy level. That's possible for instance when visible light hits chlorophyl. Technically, it is also possible for multiple photons to be absorbed simultaneously and excite an electron, but this only really happens in intense pulsed masers, not beamed microwaves.

>>12163409
> be enough energy in a single photon to raise an electron to a higher energy level. That's possible for instance when visible light hits chlorophyl. Technically, it is also possible for multiple photons to be absorbed simultaneously and excite an electron, but this only really happens in intense pulsed masers, not beamed microwaves.

I agree.
Now I have read that there is something called the PENIS technique (Im not kidding you, took it straight out of the /sci/ memes thread) Where they use radio frequency at nucleus spin energy levels to induce/change spin, could that have an influence on electron position? I guess this is all in all a topic that is to be solved by physical chemists and biologists/medical scientists.

>>12163460
>>12163409
btw Excuse me if the whole thing is retarded I'm just a biomed undergrad with an interest in chemistry/physics.

>>12163460
I don't know anything about cross-polarization (PENIS), but I have heard about it. It doesn't sound like it really applies here, since it's about aligning nuclear spins, which usually have only a negligible effect on chemistry. But I do appreciate the name.

>>12163469
The name is too much man, how did they just go with it.
But okay nice to know that it does not have chemical implications.
Now the thing is, I'm mostly with you because you argue better than op and you ask the right questions, but the fact that every single time the subjects are getting higher rates of cancer leaves me unconvinced of EMF's safety for humans. And if I read it correctly it was performed with "consumer" intensity and wavelength.

>>12163543
ah yeah I didn't pose a question; What do you think could be the underlying mchenisms of a rise in cancer rates then? Is it the heat? Any other "noise" that hasn't been controlled for?

>>12163543
The notion that every study has found an increase in cancer rates is not correct. The WHO's systematic review stated the following at one point:

"In conclusion, our review does not indicate an association between any health outcome and radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from MPBSs at levels typically encountered in people’s everyday environment. The evidence that no relationship exists between MPBS exposure and acute symptom development can be considered strong according to the GRADE approach because it is based on randomized trials applying controlled exposure conditions in a laboratory. Regarding long-term effects, data are scarce and the evidence for the absence of long-term effects is limited. Moreover, very little information on effects in children and adolescents is available and the question of potential risk for these age groups remains unresolved."

You rarely read news stories of studies finding no association, but that is hardly surprising.

>>12163554
The ICNIRP seems to be with you on that aspect. The increases in carcinogenity which where already quite low, could be explained by biases and so on.

This part still worries me:

"ICNIRP has published a set of new guidelines in this frequency range. The ICNIRP 2020 RF EMF guidelines protect against all potential adverse health effects relating to exposure to RF EMF, including from 5G technologies. The ICNIRP (2020) guidelines has made a number of improvements to health protection and provides more-detailed guidance for the application of its health protection system. These include the addition of whole body average restrictions for EMF frequencies above 6 GHz, restrictions for brief (< 6 minutes) exposures for EMF frequencies above 400 MHz, and the reduction of the averaging area for EMF frequencies above 6 GHz."

6GHz and in my country they want to push for 20GHz and you could go up to 300GHz theoretically. Are the effects and safety health-guidelines only based on heating of tissue?

>>12163554
>>12163589
Also apparently the ramazzini institute is already known for "low reliability"

Klimsch Code 3 rating in realiability:

Ramazzini Institute – three animal lifetime studies which linked aspartame to cancer. These studies have been scrutinized by global regulatory agencies for having several deficiencies, as noted by Haighton et al.,:

Age of lab animals prone to cancer – The studies spanned the lifetimes of the animal subjects. Since risk and incidence of cancer increases inevitably with age, the Ramazzini Institute studies, which conducted necropsies in animals that died or were terminated near end of life, do not meet current research study standards.

Species of lab animal prone to disease – In addition, for mouse studies reporting an increased incidence of liver tumors and long tumors, Swiss mice were used, which have a high background incidence of both tumor types. In their rat study, there was a lack of randomization of the animals into control and test groups and the Ramazzini Institute used its own rat strains, which were noted to have a very high incidence of infection.

>>12163596
https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/leszczynski-ramazzini-study-shows-that-cell-tower-radiation-does-not-increase-risk-for-schwannoma-and-glioma/

This blog post by a scientific journal editor, further confirms that the ramazzini institute did not find a proper correlation.

>>12163554
>The WHO
Where we are:
https://www.investigate-europe.eu/publications/how-much-is-safe/

-FCC, Tom Wheeler and others
http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf

WHO:
-WHO doesn't expose itself and its RF working group is industry affiliated
Hardell 2018 - World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/
"It turned out that five of the six members of the Core Group in charge of the draft are affiliated with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an industry loyal NGO, and thus have a serious conflict of interest. Just as by ICNIRP, evaluation of non-thermal biological effects from RF radiation are dismissed as scientific evidence of adverse health effects in the Monograph. This has provoked many comments sent to the WHO. However, at a meeting on March 3, 2017 at the WHO Geneva office it was stated that the WHO has no intention to change the Core Group.
[...]
Almost all RF radiation was below 30 µW/m2, the LOEL of RF radiation for possible health risks as shown with the horizontal line. The highest peak level, 432.3 µW/m2, was measured at 15:54:07. Most contribution was from GSM 1800 (DL), 268.2 µW/m2, and UMTS 2100 (DL), 110.4 µW/m2. This was measured just inside the building at the entrance and represent RF radiation from base stations in the vicinity."
-WHO composition, structure, affiliations over time.
https://microwavenews.com/docs/WHOWatch.pdf
https://microwavenews.com/news/case-emf-precautionary-policies
https://microwavenews.com/news-tags/who
-Michael Repacholi
Founder of ICNIRP, the NGO whose guidelines most of the West have adopted.
https://www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/emeritus-members/index.html
https://microwavenews.com/november-17-2006
https://microwavenews.com/CT.html
https://microwavenews.com/news-tags/michael-repacholi

>>12163637
Overall the direction of WHO's position has remained the same since the 1981 EHC. Citing mostly continuous wave exposure and short term studies in many sections, key data has been omitted. Effects of modulation, athermal effects, and polarization are acknowledged shortly but dismissed as non-evaluatable, despite being the most relevant aspect for exposures of the general population. Modern data has only further confirmed most of the observations which began in now 70 year old animal and human occupational studies.
[m][Warsaw Symposium] 1973 - Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation
(Sponsored by WHO)
[m][WHO] 1981 - Environmental Health Criteria 16 - RADIOFREQUENCY AND MICROWAVES
(https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/39107))
[m][WHO] 1984 - Environmental Health Criteria 35 - EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY (ELF) FIELDS
(https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/39376))
WHO 1993 - ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA 137: ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (300 HZ TO 300 GHZ)
http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc137.htm
[m][WHO] 2006 - Environmental Health Criteria 232 - STATIC FIELDS
(https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43353))
[m][WHO] 2007 - Environmental Health Criteria 238 - EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY FIELDS
(https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43646))

-WHO's funding
https://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/reports/mtr_18-19_final.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7118765/
http://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2014-11-Hypothesis-Anne-Emanuelle-Birn-Rockefeller-and-Gates.pdf
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61013-2/fulltext
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24412372

>>12163601
This guy has an overt pro-wireless slant which he dresses up as dedication to scientific integrity. Even in his interview on the possibility of Brillouinn precursors with 5G (which I included in my document), he made sure to put at the end that publishing the interview is not an endorsement.

>>12163589
As I understand it, the guidelines have been expanded to cover more cases because there is more evidence for safe levels of usage, not because there is more evidence for danger. But I haven't looked that deeply into the matter. The fact that they found no evidence of health risks seems to support this idea.

>>12163596
Yeah, that was an exploratory study that looked at a number of different outcomes for different subgroups and only found one statistically significant result. It did not find any dose-response relationship or any statistically-significant effect on female rats or for gliomas on either sex. Similarly, it did not find statistically-significant effects for either of the two lower intensities. Only at a single intensity in a single sex did it find a statistically significant result for a single outcome, and even then it appears to be due to an anomaly in the control group. When you look at a lot of different variables, it is not surprising when one of them turns out to be an outlier.

The National Toxicology Project was mentioned in the second post, and it also had some similar problems. For instance, their 2017-18 study found that rats apparently live longer if exposed to modulated RFR for their whole lives. This data point, which had the same statistical power as any other, somehow does not deter people who read it.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-a-rat-study-with-marginal-results-does-not-prove-that-cell-phones-cause-cancer-no-matter-what-mother-jones-and-consumer-reports-say/

>>12163589
>Are the effects and safety health-guidelines only based on heating of tissue?
Yes. Induced currents at low frequencies, heating at higher frequencies. The 2020 revision changed basically nothing in the decimeter (communications) band. I see it as regulatory theater,

>>12163645
>As I understand it, the guidelines have been expanded to cover more cases because there is more evidence for safe levels of usage, not because there is more evidence for danger.
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/time-clean-house
A definite sharp critique from someone who has been involved in this since at least 1980.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51604901_The_therapeutic_effect_of_a_pulsed_electromagnetic_field_on_the_reproductive_patterns_of_male_Wistar_rats_exposed_to_a_245-GHz_microwave_field

This just caught my attention, are we facing the same statistical mistakes as in the RI study?

>>12163660
The vast majority of this blog article seems to be focusing on the flawed NTP study I just mentioned. My earlier claim that you rely on poor quality evidence is only getting stronger.

>>12163645
>he National Toxicology Project was mentioned in the second post, and it also had some similar problems. For instance, their 2017-18 study found that rats apparently live longer if exposed to modulated RFR for their whole lives.
See my above posts on cell elimination >>12163282 and the NTP:

-National Toxicology Project (NTP), United States
Reporting on initial planning for the NTP and Ramazzini studies in 2001
https://microwavenews.com/news/backissues/m-j01issue.pdf
The 20 year, 30 million dollar study revealed higher rates of two types of cancer, and clear evidence of DNA damage.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html
Their paper on DNA damage:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/em.22343
"The National Toxicology Program tested two common radiofrequency radiation (RFR) modulations emitted by cellular telephones in a 20 year rodent cancer bioassay that included interim assessments of additional animals for genotoxicity endpoints.
[...]
Results of the comet assay showed significant increases in DNA damage in the frontal cortex of male mice (both modulations), leukocytes of female mice (CDMA only), and hippocampus of male rats (CDMA only). Increases in DNA damage judged to be equivocal were observed in several other tissues of rats and mice. No significant increases in micronucleated red blood cells were observed in rats or mice. In conclusion, these results suggest that exposure to RFR is associated with an increase in DNA damage."

>>12163667
https://ehtrust.org/science/myth-vs-fact-national-toxicology-program-cell-phone-cancer-study/

There are some other interesting things to consider.
The exposure apparatus was designed with the help of IT'IS.
https://itis.swiss/who-we-are/
https://itis.swiss/who-we-are/funding/
It used a reverberation chamber with an H-polarized EM source and rotating stirrers to maximize field uniformity (homogeneity and isotropy) in the chamber and within the animal, and to cycle the chamber through different modes. This is not the most realistic exposure scenario, but more importantly is this a meaningful sort of "dose" control? Effects can be based on non-uniform exposure (affecting / straining adaptive mechanisms), people can spend long periods with the same position and orientation in the field (sleeping, sitting, carrying in a pocket), in real world environments we're exposed to multiple signals at any given time. Though a clear effect emerged, the effects of real world exposures may be different, and likely worse, than this.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/presentations/03capstick_exposuresystem_508.pdf
https://itis.swiss/news-events/news/publications/2006/development-of-novel-whole-body-exposure-setups-for-rats-providing-high-efficiency-national-toxicology-program-ntp-compatibility-and-well-characterized-exposure/
( https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/51/20/009 )
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5714549/
It also seems convenient that Melnick was slated to be replaced towards the end of the study.
https://ehtrust.org/statement-by-ronald-melnick-phd-on-the-national-toxicology-program-final-reports-on-cell-phone-radiation/
After he was, their public interpretation of their data changed sharply.
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-peer-review-sees-tumor-risk
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-comet-assay

From 5g may

Da comr

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=PaqugzFYZmM

>>12160100
Here is a strong resource on the current 5G and biology situation:

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/

Basically there are very little studies on 5G millimeter wave and biology.

How they can release this to the public on solely MUH non-ionising , and non-thermal is retarded. Oh wait no it's not, it's just greed.

>>12163669
The FDA ignores the NTP and Ramazinni results stating simply "we don't agree".
Melnick 2019 - Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30243215
The NTP Cell Phone Study Explained - with Dr. Ron Melnick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJfK3gbkmMk

NTP has begun planning of followup research to determine mechanisms. It is also reviewing literature related to 5G.
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-turns-search-mechanisms
More coverage of NTP.
https://microwavenews.com/news-tags/ntp
January 2020 - NTP Scientists Endorse Precaution: First Federal Officials To Take a Stand on Cell Phone Safety
https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/ntp-endorses-precaution
Hardell and Carlberg 2019 - Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6254861/
The NTP results are compared with human epidemiological studies.
Dr Jerry Phillips discusses the NTP results and reactions in the context of his research funded by Motorola in the late 90's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPUaNmdCuiM

>>12163667
Do you agree that the conclusion that modulated RFR improves male lifespan is equally well supported?

>>12163673
Some other connections:
Their observation of a reduction in weight with in utero exposure is somewhat common, and dates at least as far back as Soviet research done in the 50's and 60's. It was found the first generation was either small with delayed development, or was prone to obesity for one generation with their offspring then following the same pattern of lower weight. Another line of research in Eastern Europe and the USSR converged with this later. In looking for the cause of differing responses to chronic irradiation, one avenue was to compare the finer organization (entropy) of an individual animal's tissues. When separated into groups of high or low entropy, some correlations in effect on body weight were found. They also separated an animal's response to repeated irradiation into two types, strong and weak (or labile). The strong animal was more stable and soon returned to baseline, the labile animal was "phasic" having periodic highs and lows. Animals over time had their higher nervous function depressed, so one could imagine eventually there is a drop below baseline (see eg Korbel/Eakin et al below).
[m][Symposium, Warsaw] 1973 - Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation
Page 116: Lobanova - The use of conditioned reflexes to study microwave effects on the central nervous system
[Many others. TODO]
Exposed mice had a longer lifespan than controls. This was also seen in the early research, it often diminishes with successive generations. Magras and Xenos (see Reproductive Effects) also found the first generation was apparently healthy, but population level infertility still hit soon after.

A future study ideally would use lower power densities as dose response can be nonlinear.

>>12163676
I'm getting to that.

>>12163678
-Ramazzini Institute, Italy
The Ramazzini Institute in Italy completed a similar 10 year study but at much lower power densities, with results in line with NTP.
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ramazzinis-belpoggi-interview

-Asia
Japan and South Korea are now planning similar studies
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/japan-korea-ntp-rf-project

-PERFORM-A
https://microwavenews.com/news-tags/perform
TODO
-EPRI's Projects
TODO

Radiofrequency radiation should be reclassified as a Group 1 carcinogen to humans. Anthony Miller, Senior Epidemiologist for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
https://www.rfsafe.com/cancer-expert-says-science-merits-need-reclassify-phone-radiation-group-1-carcinogenic-humans/

>>12163687
Scientific American
Joel M Moskowitz - We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
And its counterpart
David R Grimes - Don’t Fall Prey to Scaremongering about 5G
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/
Offers very little actual evidence and seems to try to wrap it up by drawing in other controversies (vaccines). Many of the claims (and points) made are addressed throughout this document, some of them actually go way back and down some very interesting avenues. Despite claims of cherrypicking, a massive amount of data has been produced over the last 100+ years, and the bulk of it, its indications, and the direction the total body of literature is pointing, has been omitted from this analysis. For example it's implied the NTP study's methodology (see below) must be of low quality, and its results useless, because male rats had a longer lifespan, which therefore inherently contradicts DNA damage and higher cancer incidence in certain animals. However from a broader scope, when research was still being funded and carried out normally from the 50's to mid 90's, this was a recurring finding. Soviet researchers were reporting an initial increase in lifespan and certain metrics of health in offspring for a generation or two as early as the 1960's, Magras and Xenos of Greece during the 90's found the same thing in rats, but nonetheless, with population level infertility occurring within five generations. Why is he talking as though no one has ever done multi-generational exposure studies, and as though teratogenicity research was never carried out? Was it just that no one bothered to do it, ever? No. And if research is "old" (often the argument), should it be excluded from our risk assessment, particularly when no one is going to fund (or make public) modern research using their actual equipment[...]

>>12163678
>Exposed mice had a longer lifespan than controls. This was also seen in the early research, it often diminishes with successive generations.
Uh, but the study wasn't on mutations in the germ line. The study was on brain tumors. An increase in brain tumors is not consistent with an increased lifespan.

If the researchers have an explanation for this effect, seen only in male rats, which is not due to flawed methodology, then they should have investigated it during the autopsies. What else was even the point of waiting until natural death?

And please stop your Garrett Gatling Gun already. We talked about this. Spamming links is not a productive way to have an argument. Especially when have those links are blogs.

"We therefore consider that the biological effects we observed in EHS patients may be due to both the pulsed and the polarized characteristics of man-made EMF emitted by electric or wireless technologies, as opposed to terrestrial non-polarized and continuously emitted natural EMFs""

https://zero5g.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Panagopoulos-Johansson-Carlo-Polarization-Scientific-Reports-20151.pdf

>>12163699
forgot to add the title of the article:

"Polarization: A Key Diference
between Man-made and Natural
Electromagnetic Fields, in regard
to Biological Activity"

>>12163699
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4601073/

Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity

>>12163689
>For example it's implied the NTP study's methodology (see below) must be of low quality, and its results useless, because male rats had a longer lifespan, which therefore inherently contradicts DNA damage and higher cancer incidence in certain animals.
Well no, that was just an aside. The more important points were that the study mischaracterized the current state of research in their introduction, that other complaints were levied immediately even before publication, that it contradicts the results of earlier studies, and that RF photons do not have enough energy to do what was claimed. These are essentially my points, too.

If you want to get into more specific problems with the NTP study, the issue is mostly in the interpretation. When you analyze a large number of variables, the probability is very high that at least one will show an effect that on its own is statistically significant. Note that in this study, while one result was significant, the effect size was still very small. Note also that their control group was anomalous. This alone is more than sufficient to explain the result. The study did not find an effect in female rats. It did not find an effect in male+female rats. It did not find effect at low intensities. It did not find an effect on lifespan (or indeed an inverse effect for males). It did not find an effect for glioma. It ONLY found one effect, for one sex, at one intensity. That is hardly a convincing result.

>>12163689
before "deploying" these systems onto the citizenry? Hence, "we have no reason to believe 5G is safe".

A behind the scenes look at Scientific American's editorial process for these articles:
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/open-season-5g-critics

>>12163666
What he tends to do is mix legitimate observations with illegitimate conclusions to build up a bigger picture that ultimately muddies the waters. For example, his early criticism with the notion that the NTP study showed "RF was carcinogenic". He went on to say, define carcinogenic, NTP had not proved tumor initiation and the effect could just as well be due to inhibition of DNA repair enzymes causing an accumulation of normal background DNA damage. Legitimate critique, right? Assuming you ignore the vast body of data that find antioxidant depeletion, elevated levels of oxidative stress markers and the associated, which he tends to do, he ignores aspects of the literature that would diminish or complicate his critique. It's bad logic and bad risk assessment, he does it yet he very clearly knows better.

>>12163694
>The study was on brain tumors.
NTP was on cell phone radiation, cancer, and DNA damage. There was no specific site which was the focus, hence whole body irradiation.

>If the researchers have an explanation for this effect, seen only in male rats
Sex specific effects are not uncommon in toxicology.

>What else was even the point of waiting until natural death?
Have you read their papers? They looked for more than just tumors. Future studies are also being planned.

>Especially when have those links are blogs.
Microwave News is not exactly a blog. Refer to their original print issues. Sleslin went to symposiums, met, and frequently interviewed the people who built this field. Not exactly just another blog.

>>12163712
>and that RF photons do not have enough energy to do what was claimed.
Tetrodotoxin is tiny molecule and not big and STRONG enough to grab your heart and make it stop! I eat it erryday! visible light is too weak, it cant make me do nuthin... but wait, I'm typing this and visible lguht is basically organizing the bulk of my conscious motor output. hhhhhmmmmmm....

see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Look, this has been explained to you repeatedly. The microwaves act on other targets, the cell responds by changing its metabolic processes. This eventually create free radicals. Free radicals damage DNA. DNA repair enzymes are deactivated by irradiation, according to some papers (eg Belyaev et al), compounding the situation. Do you see what I'm saying? There is no paradox. The DNA damage is not coming from a direct interaction with the DNA molecule itself, it's downstream of another process.

>>12163721
>Have you read their papers? They looked for more than just tumors.
Yeah, but they didn't find anything lol. That's sort of the point. Even the results they did report had extremely low statistical power (<5%), which they conveniently do not report.

>>12163746
>Blah blah tiny concentration huge effects
The energy of an individual photon is what matters here, at least until the intensity reaches enormous levels and we have to worry about multi-photon excitation.

>The microwaves act on other targets
Like . . . what? What "target" can microwaves "act on," and in what way? I asked you this earlier, and you just said vaguely that there was a bunch of stuff maybe and you weren't going to commit to anything. That's how this all started. You briefly tried to defend the idea that DNA acted as an antenna, but that didn't go well. None of the ideas will go well, because they all run into the same basic physical problems.

Any process that eventually produces free radicals must put in enough chemical energy to do so. That won't happen at this frequency.

>>12163746
>Tetrodotoxin
Ah, correction, tetrodotoxin tends to kill by first halting breathing.

>>12163762
>Like . . . what? What "target" can microwaves "act on," and in what way?
Calcium channel voltage sensor. Moving all the charge groups in the same direction simultaneously. Several papers are inclouded which imply other mechanisms, like the Soviet paper that found weakening of the heme-globin bonding when irradiation occurred in water.

>Any process that eventually produces free radicals must put in enough chemical energy to do so.
You can theoretically wipe out practically all life on this planet with a single movement of your hand, ie with nuclear weapons. What you're saying is ridiculous and shows you don't really understand organization and energy storage and transfer, in the abstract. Examples of signal based control in complex systems are endless. I can shine a light in your eye and make your entire body move, where did the energy come from to do all that?

>>12163801
>Calcium channel voltage sensor
The highest intensity EM field in the NTP study was 50 V/m. The thickness of a typical cell membrane (in which calcium channels reside) is about 10 nm. So over that length, we are looking at an alternating potential difference with a peak of 500 nV. Calcium channels have activation potentials more than 10,000 times that large.

>Several papers are inclouded which imply other mechanisms
If those mechanisms are more plausible, you should present them. Again, why do you keep putting bad ideas forward first? Really, just give me your best ones.

>You can theoretically wipe out practically all life on this planet with a single movement of your hand
Sure, but I cannot do so with my breath. Why? Because my breath does not provide enough pressure to actuate the buttons needed to launch nukes. It doesn't matter how convoluted you try to make your correlations, it is physically impossible for me to do so.

At some stage, a microwave photon must be absorbed by an atom and excite one of its electrons in order for non-thermal chemical effects to come into play. It doesn't matter how long the chain is between the initial stimulus and the final result.

>>12163828
He's just bouncing around because he has no clue what he's doing. Typical schizo connect-the-dots where no connection exists.

>>12163918
Yeah I was trying to pin him down on one topic for discussion, but his spirit is just too free. He goes wherever the citation winds carry him.

>>12163918
He does take nice pictures tho

>>12163956
They are OK. Some are better than others. I do like the wild raspberries and the bee on the yellow flower.

>>12163956
Hey, so do I!
I took this one on a trip to Vermont several months ago

>>12163977
That pic gave me cancer, covid and lizard-bill gates all at the same time

>>12163977
Would you look at that, a fractal antenna!

>>12163828
Again, a priori. You're operating on a number of embedded assumptions.
-Modulation is relevant, you're assuming the system responds as though it's a DC source. (eg The "ratcheting" effect when each pulse comes in is net greater than the relaxation rate.) "Pulsed" signals being more active than CW is an observation going back to the early 60's..
-Ion flux also refers to redistribution of extracellular domains and bound ions, which causes transient oscillations in transmembrane voltage (see eg Ca2+ efflux).
-There is the possibility of intrinsic additive effects (mutual amplification), or some other form of capacitance.
-There are multiple types of channels.
-Calcium induced calcium release is possible.
-Calcium influx has been observed through TRPV1 and NMDA receptors, however in some conditions efflux has been provoked as well.

"In cellular aggregates that form tissues of higher animals, cells are separated by narrow fluid channels that take on special importance in signaling from cell to cell. These channels act as windows on the electrochemical world surrounding each cell. Hormones, antibodies, neurotransmitters and chemical cancer promoters, for example, move along them to reach binding sites on cell membrane receptors. These narrow fluid "gutters," typically not more than 150 A wide, are also preferred pathways for intrinsic and environmental electromagnetic (EM) fields, since they offer a much lower electrical impedance than cell membranes. Although this intercellular space (ICS) forms only about 10 percent of the conducting cross section of typical tissue, it carries at least 90 percent of any imposed or intrinsic current, directing it along cell membrane surfaces.

Numerous stranded protein molecules protrude from within the cell into this narrow ICS. Their glycoprotein tips form the glycocalyx, which senses chemical and electrical signals in surrounding fluid.

>>12164028
Their highly negatively charged tips form receptor sites for hormones, antibodies, neurotransmitters, and for many metabolic agents, including cancer promoters. These charged terminals form an anatomical substrate for the first detection of weak electrochemical oscillations in pericellular fluid, including field potentials arising in activity of adjacent cells or as tissue components of environmental fields."
Adey 1993 - Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5306/e5b2a202f3aaa815ff553d5d28c5606a746f.pdf))

>>12163977
Nice. The colors are quite vibrant.

>>12164028
>you're assuming the system responds as though it's a DC source
Yes, which makes it worse. Because I'm not taking the RMS voltage but the peak voltage. An AC source is never going to "ratchet" anything up more strongly than a DC source with the same voltage.

>Ion flux also refers to redistribution of extracellular domains and bound ions, which causes transient oscillations in transmembrane voltage
Extracellular domains are comparatively tiny. A 20th order effect is not going to boost a 10th order effect enough to change things.

>-There is the possibility of intrinsic additive effects (mutual amplification), or some other form of capacitance.
OK again, "additive effects" don't solve the fundamental problem here of the photon not having enough energy for *any* of the effects on their own. Your interpretation here is fundamentally non-quantum.

And similarly for the remaining 3. You never address the actual physical barriers I bring up, instead just mentioning increasingly more obscure hypothetical biological mechanisms. It's like debating a homeopath about water memory or an astrologer about star signs.

>These narrow fluid "gutters," typically not more than 150 A wide [i.e. 15 nm]
Meanwhile, we are looking at wavelengths on the order of mm to cm. It's like worrying that your guitar will get too loud after putting a new veneer on it due to resonance in the coating. Actually, it's more like worrying that it will get SO loud, it will damage your eardrums.

So far, as predicted, you have resorted to throwing out every idea you can think of instead of settling into one or two that we can talk about, which represents your general strategy of accumulating large amounts of low-quality ideas for me to refute. This is a story as old as time, and even though I keep pointing it out, it never seems to sink in.

>>12164030
Well, how about we turn it around then, you explain it. Explain, in your mind, why a large body of literature numbering in the thousands has been produced internationally since the inception of radio, often showing modulation specific effects at very low power densities. If you're asserting that any paper showing results is simply false because it's theoretically impossible, give me an organizing principle behind this phenomena.

>>12164105
Wrong post:
>>12164070

>>12164105
>Explain, in your mind, why a large body of literature numbering in the thousands has been produced internationally since the inception of radio, often showing modulation specific effects at very low power densities.
Because these effects are observed in electric circuits? They are not chemical changes.

There is some dispute about whether any non-thermal microwave effects exist in microwave chemistry at all, with the consensus currently on the negative side. Any effects that do exist could only occur in crystal lattices, not in liquids or amorphous solids like the biological cases under discussion.

>>12164152
Water.

>>12164352

I don't want to disregard everything that was said here but what if the health effects of electric waves waves are skewed by the fact that people drop the quality of their lifestyle by let's say having poor postures or not sleeping properly because they sit on the phone for too long before going to sleep, which causes things like headaches, lack of focus etc. Just giving a thought honestly but i hope you anons get where am i going with this.

>>12164249
IDK if you accidentally submitted that post before finishing it or something, but I eagerly await its completion.

>>12164432
[m][CIA] 1979 - TRANSLATIONS ON USSR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES (FOUO 3 79) EFFECTS ON NONIONIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (JRPS 8591)
Page 7 (2): Il'ina SA et al - THE POSSIBLE ROLE OF WATER IN TRANSFER OF MILLIMETER RANGE RADIATION TO BIOLOGICAL OBJECTS

>>12164482
Semikhina 1988 - EFFECT OF WEAK MAGNETIC FIELDS ON THE PROPERTIES OF WATER AND ICE
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01243721

>>12164488
Pakhomov 1998 - Current state and implications of research on biological effects of millimeter waves: a review of the literature.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9771583
http://ww2.odu.edu/~opakhomo/publications/1998_bioelectromagnetics_Rev_opt.pdf
"A number of independent studies have shown specific MMW effects in the absence of living subjects, i.e., in solutions of biomolecules and even in pure water. Fesenko and Gluvstein [1995] analyzed MMW effects on periodic voltage oscillations during discharge of a water capacitor. The capacitor, which was a distilled water sample in a 1-mm capillary, was charged by 18 V, 1-ms-wide unipolar rectangular pulses. The capacitor discharged within 500–600 ms after a pulse. The discharge curve contained periodic voltage oscillations reaching 10–15 mV. The Fourier spectrum of these oscillations included two strong peaks, at 5.25 and 46.8 Hz, and these peaks did not change during at least 2 h of experimentation. The water sample was exposed at 36 GHz from an open-ended waveguide (7.2 1 3.4 mm cross-section). Irradiation at 50 uW output power greatly reduced the 46.8 Hz peak in 1 min and virtually eliminated it in 10 min; the 5.25 Hz peak shifted to 6.75 Hz. These changes showed little or no recovery within 2–60 min after cessation of a 10-min exposure. Irradiation at 5 mW output power produced similar changes, but, unexpectedly, was far less effective: the changes developed more slowly, and the original peaks were restored more quickly. Mechanisms of the phenomenon itself, its anomalous power sensitivity, and the long-lasting ‘‘memory’’ of water were not understood. The authors suggested that MMW-induced changes in water properties could underlie biological effects.

>>12164492
[m]Nonlinear Electrodynamics in Biological Systems (1984) - W. Ross Adey, Albert F. Lawrence
Page 35: Swicord ML et al - STRONG INTERACTIONS OF RADIOFREQUENCY FIELDS WITH NUCLEIC ACIDS
"There is one observed aberration that is unique to RF energy exposure - despiralization - the uncoiling of chromosomes, which may suggest the breakage of histone bonds. This despiralization due to RF exposure was observed independently by different investigators. Yao and Jiles observed despiralization in rat kangaroo cells exposed to 2.45 GHz radiation {Fig 1) and Stodolnik-Baranska observed the same phenomena in human lymphocytes exposed to 2.95 GHz radiation {Fig 2). The uncoiling phenomenon, which has been described only following microwave exposure, could possibly suggest the excitation of modes not apparently coupled to the thermal bath, an unusual interaction with the forces holding together the DNA and mammalian chromosome material."

Dr. Gerald H. Pollack | The Fourth Phase of Water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TljIdPPGoLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-T7tCMUDXU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9UC0chfXcg

A Unified Theory of Weak Magnetic Field Action - McGill University Professor Proposes Radical New Outlook
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/unified-theory-magnetic-field-action

>>12164482
Boy, that's an obscure one. Did you know that most of the references to this article on the entire surface web are your own? This is a paper presented at a symposium; it is not peer-reviewed. We have no idea how plausible it is. Even the researchers themselves admit they have no explanation for what they measured. Perhaps the effects were not non-thermal effects but specific heating effects.

Other research in the same translated volume is about using decimeter and millimeter waves for mind control. The mere existence of these paper is not evidence of anything.

>>12164488
>0.01 to 200 Hz
This is not radiation at all and is working on a completely different principle.


... Actually, I'm done. I've told you to vet your sources a hundred times, and you just don't give a shit. As I said from the very beginning, you KNOW most of your sources are crap, but you either can't be bothered to sort through them or just think it's a good strategy to pretend like they are good anyway. Someone says microwaves have no non-thermal effect on biochemistry? Better post a translation of a 34-year-old article that doesn't involve microwaves or biochemistry. After all, the other eighteen dozen sources I posted weren't enough.

It's abundantly clear that the only reason you won't give me your best argument is because you have no good argument at all. Peace.

>>12164603

See also:
>>12164492
>>12164511

>The mere existence of these paper is not evidence of anything.
Of course, that's why you consult the broader body of literature.

>Someone says microwaves have no non-thermal effect on biochemistry? Better post a translation of a 34-year-old article that doesn't involve microwaves or biochemistry. After all, the other eighteen dozen sources I posted weren't enough.
Quasi-crystalline structured water. I have to admit though, this statement did make me lol. At such a point there's nothing I can say that wouldn't seem like I was just trolling you. Don't know what to tell you. What exactly is preventing you from reading those papers? They're all about the same core topic.

>It's abundantly clear that the only reason you won't give me your best argument is because you have no good argument at all. Peace.
Peace.

>>12162828
>It's also possible that a multitrillion dollar thoroughly entrenched international industrial complex knows who to pay to get the results they want.

This is exactly where I, a third party observer of you two arguing fell off the fence. You've lost at this point. Because instead of arguing about study quality and results you've introduced conspiracy into the dialogue. Maybe all those scientists are payed off by big phone. Maybe the lizard men are using 5G to rewrite our DNA to become more like theirs.

>>12164684
It's not a conspiracy theory nor is it speculation, it's documented fact and matter of historical record. See the Motorola wargaming memo, Jerry Phillips' testimony, Andrew Marino and Robert Becker's testimony in a court battle with electric utilities, the conveniently massive methodological flaws of the Danish Study, the design of the NTP study itself in truth, look into their contracting with Philip Morris (big PR firm). I mean, the list goes on. The brain tumor lawsuits in the 80's really kicked it off.

Regardless, the feedback is noted and appreciated. Yes, I realize how people are.

nice spamming, dude

>>12165520
Thanks.