I do not like wireless


I just said I can't.
bummer. well, thats convenient for both of us.

There currently is nobody who has been using a cell phone for an entire life time.

while we know that many potential dangers work in a cumulative way and require long term research to be discovered -- but that is obviously expensive, hard, and takes a long time.

Tinfoil hat paranoid religious nutjobs like the OP make it easy to dismiss legitimate health concerns as being unscientific quackery (and what they're saying of course invariably is), but we shouldn't let the pendulum swing too much in the other direction.
exactly my point. thanks :)

"Science" without free research should get another name, the term gets abused every day.
haha, so true.

medical/pharmaceutical research may work with different mechanisms than physical research. im not a physicist.

clinical trials are expensive and they are, of course, a lot more "interesting"if they presumably create revenue. but im also not a pharmacist.
 
Big pharma generally works on large randomised trials using a database of molecules, as I understand it.  And they don't publish their results, which I guess is the point Klumpen was getting at.
 
This is getting none of us anywhere, anyways.

You figured that out and decided putting the mess together for me was way too much trouble and not worth your while (and i actually do agree, as it aint worth mine either). You did save both of us time.

If that aint beneficial, i dunno what is.

Xray and smoking were considered save in the beginning. Physicians did even encourage sick ppl to smoke. Of course these subjects cannot be compared directly. No need to point that out.

long term radio signal exposure might cause health issues, even if we now believe it probably wont. There are no valid long term follow up results, so we just really cant know, yet. I never said it will cause issues, but its very well possible. Based on the available data at hand (or based on the lack of long term results) it seems to be a good idea to stay sceptical regarding the harmlessness.

Thats all i wanted to point out.
 
If that aint beneficial, i dunno what is.
I would never consider being wrong and unable to learn why to be beneficial, but to each their own.
Xray and smoking were considered save in the beginning
Well, yes and no. Absolutely no studies had been done on either. They were considered "safe" in that no one had actually bothered to find out if they weren't. In the case of X-Rays it was "this thing is cool, let's see what we can do with them" and studying what they could do took precedence over whether they were actually safe to use or not. For smoking, tobacco companies made so much money in such a short period of time that they were able to actively prevent good science from being done. Once people actually started looking at both of them they realized their errors, including the long term effects (even after only short time trials).
long term radio signal exposure might cause health issues, even if we now believe it probably wont
No one is disagreeing about the possibility. I don't think anyone here has said nor posted anything to say absolutely that long term exposure is definitely safe (and if they did they are wrong). Read the studies that have been posted again, nothing says anything about whether there are long term effects or not.What the studies and those posting them have been talking about are the immediate effects. There are people that swear that wifi signals give them headaches and make them feel queasy. What the studies have proven is that it isn't the wifi causing the issue, that people feel sick around dummy transmitters that don't produce any radiation and don't feel sick when there is a transmitter nearby that they aren't aware of. If you think wifi signals give you a headache, science says you are wrong. This says absolutely nothing about the long term effects and anyone who would even dare to suggest that it did is performing the same bad science that charlatans use to sell their proverbial snake oil.

See? Completely different situations.
 
I want a theremin for Christmas but I bet I don't get one, again
 
Were they contradicted by a large number of contemporary studies?
Yes

Were they funded by tobacco companies?
Yes

a life time of smoking
Also inhaling the smoke from others is probably harmful. That is why there can be no smoking in bars in the Netherlands.
 
I would never consider being wrong and unable to learn why to be beneficial, but to each their own.
lets put an end to this, okay? you didnt tell me where i was wrong, tho.

i do believe theres been a simple misunderstanding.

i was talking about long term issues and the lack of data. i was told we do have the data and was pointed to an article that, as you just said yourself, doesnt offer any data or insight in that matter. i disagreed  (consensual to your position).

No one is disagreeing about the possibility.
alright then.

concerning xrays and smoking:

my intention was to show that stuff that, at first, seems to be harmless, can have devastating effects (which would only become relevant over time). admittedly in a too general or vague fashion.

it took more than 10 years to scientifically associate xrays with cancer (in an article from 1908, if i remember correctly - will try to find the correct year).

quite a long time if you bear in mind, that skin tissue damage was already reported shortly after the groundbreaking discovery (by röntgen himself, i believe).

tobacco companies did not reveal their results, true.

in the 1960s ppl kind of started to change their mindset as scientific proof of oncogenic effects made its way to the public.

similar results were known years before. there had been studies and tests (mice and rat models in most cases).

it still took decades to understand how smoking affects our health. but the ruthless tobacco companies are only partially to blame (well, for the biggest part, surely :) ).

medical science did not manage to understand whats goin on. physicians did not manage to prevent massive societal damage.

mainly because the positive effects of smoking were more obvious.

luckily the laws of drug administration and medical device technology changed over time.

still we use xrays way more than we need/should and ppl still smoke (statistically significant increase in women).

would you agree?
 
lets put an end to this, okay? you didnt tell me where i was wrong, tho
Because you didn't elaborate, you just made a very vague "the wifi situation is like x-rays and smoking" which it absolutely isn't. Without knowing anything about your thought process all I could do was say "that is wrong" and ramble on for a very long time about all the possible ways it is wrong.Once you made additional statements trying to make your case I was able to narrow in on the specific points which are problematic.

would you agree?
With what part exactly? You made a lot of statements.I agree that people wrongly believed that x-rays and cigarettes were not harmful.

I agree that there could be long term effects from low EM radiation, I don't know even close to enough about it to pretend that I can say otherwise.

I still don't agree that the situations are comparable though. As I said, with x-rays and tobacco there weren't really any rigorous studies into their effects; it took years before anyone even thought to look at them, and when they finally did they didn't really know what they were looking for, just trying to find a cause for the correlation. With wifi they had already quite a few decades of research on various causes of cancer, improvements in technology, and better scientific practices. With wifi, the studies exist, they followed rigorous testing and reached conclusions; then they went back and restested those conclusions to see if it came out true again. Then they asked other people to do the tests and make absolutely sure that everything was correct. And when that was done, only after scientists all over the world had run the tests and gone over the data did they open their mouths and say "yeah, wifi is probably safe". It may not be entirely, there could be long term effects that they didn't think to test for, but everything we do know about radiation and cancer was tested for. With tobacco and x-rays there was nothing, literally know research; in tobacco's case there was actually an active movement to prevent that very research from happening.

The situations aren't even close to the same thing.
 
>>But, there's an awful lot of pseudo-science that even mainstream people believe in. Psychology is a good example.

Yes! The depraved village idiot called Freud... burn all his books!
I mostly agree with you, but Freud is probably the worst example of psychologists as scientists that you could have chosen. Darn near everything he believed has been thoroughly debunked at this point as hokum. Same goes for Jung and pretty much everybody of that era.

The research is more sciencey these days, but it still deals in things that aren't empirical and the experiments tend to be laughably transparent leading to the participants knowing the purpose of the experiment while conducting it.

If you want science, that's what behavioral neurology is about. Actually looking at the brain structures and matching them to behavior patterns.
 
long term radio signal exposure might cause health issues, even if we now believe it probably wont
No one is disagreeing about the possibility. I don't think anyone here has said nor posted anything to say absolutely that long term exposure is definitely safe (and if they did they are wrong). Read the studies that have been posted again, nothing says anything about whether there are long term effects or not.What the studies and those posting them have been talking about are the immediate effects. There are people that swear that wifi signals give them headaches and make them feel queasy. What the studies have proven is that it isn't the wifi causing the issue, that people feel sick around dummy transmitters that don't produce any radiation and don't feel sick when there is a transmitter nearby that they aren't aware of. If you think wifi signals give you a headache, science says you are wrong. This says absolutely nothing about the long term effects and anyone who would even dare to suggest that it did is performing the same bad science that charlatans use to sell their proverbial snake oil.

See? Completely different situations.
There's presently no evidence that these radio waves are causing health problems, nor is there at present a plausible theory under which they harm humans. And as they're not comprised of ionizing radiation we can definitively state that they don't cause cancer.
 
long term radio signal exposure might cause health issues, even if we now believe it probably wont
No one is disagreeing about the possibility. I don't think anyone here has said nor posted anything to say absolutely that long term exposure is definitely safe (and if they did they are wrong). Read the studies that have been posted again, nothing says anything about whether there are long term effects or not.
What the studies and those posting them have been talking about are the immediate effects. There are people that swear that wifi signals give them headaches and make them feel queasy. What the studies have proven is that it isn't the wifi causing the issue, that people feel sick around dummy transmitters that don't produce any radiation and don't feel sick when there is a transmitter nearby that they aren't aware of. If you think wifi signals give you a headache, science says you are wrong. This says absolutely nothing about the long term effects and anyone who would even dare to suggest that it did is performing the same bad science that charlatans use to sell their proverbial snake oil.


See? Completely different situations.
There's presently no evidence that these radio waves are causing health problems, nor is there at present a plausible theory under which they harm humans. And as they're not comprised of ionizing radiation we can definitively state that they don't cause cancer.
There is a plausible theory under which EM radiation harms humans. Some EM radiation certainly does, e.g. a microwave oven can be pretty harmful, or UV light. But I guess you're talking specifically about wifi frequencies. I'm not worried about those either, but still, "no plausible theory at the moment" does not imply "impossible" -- that would be a "proof by lack of imagination".

Your statement that non-ionizing radiation is definitively non-carcinogenic is based on what exactly? See e.g. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
 
There is a plausible theory under which EM radiation harms humans. Some EM radiation certainly does, e.g. a microwave oven can be pretty harmful, or UV light. But I guess you're talking specifically about wifi frequencies. I'm not worried about those either, but still, "no plausible theory at the moment" does not imply "impossible" -- that would be a "proof by lack of imagination".


Your statement that non-ionizing radiation is definitively non-carcinogenic is based on what exactly? See e.g. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
X-Rays are completely different from the EMR that's coming off of wireless devices. They're high energy and have been known to cause damage to the DNA the same way that cosmic raise and UV does. Microwaves themselves are normally safe, but the applications that we use them for are much, much higher powered than what you'd normally encounter and are generally surrounded by a Faraday cage. A Microwave oven is usually measured in terms of watts whereas wireless devices are generally measured in milliwatts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm

In order to cause cancer something has to cause damage to the DNA of a cell such that it divides in an uncontrollable fashion. Non-ionizing radiation can't do that as it can't break the bonds between atoms in molecules and as such can't cause cancer.

As for lack of imagination, the bottom line here is that the burden of proof is on you and the other people who have these delusional beliefs that wireless is somehow harmful. The energy level, distance and wavelength are just not there to make these things dangerous.

As for your link, correlation does not imply causation, even your article itself found that there was limited evidence of carcinogenity. People were told for decades that artificial sweeteners cause cancer, but to date there still isn't any evidence that they cause cancer in quantities consumed by humans. Just rats consuming multiples of the amount that a typical adult would.
 
i guess in the end it all comes back to paracelsus. the dosage makes the difference if a certain substance is medical agent or poison.

again apples are being compared with pears.

your statement about correlation not implying causation is true of course. and also your point about artificial sweetener is interesting.

paracetamol is concidered safe. 1-2 gramms a day - no big deal. 8 gramms at once are heavily hepatotoxic. yeah i know, apples and pears again.

nowadays we are exposed to radio signals pretty much everywhere. the dosage is not easily measured. in general our ways of perception are limited and quite frankly we dont know all of the effects it might cause.

no one said it will cause cancer (im not too sure if thats impossible, by the way). but its not plausible to say it wont cause health issues at all, as well.
 
I'd be very surprised if 2.4Ghz EM causes health effects.  We can be pretty sure that EM up to around 100Mhz or so is safe, as we've been pumping that out into the ether for generations.  And we can be almost certain that EM at 500THz is safe because that's visible light and we've been exposed to that since the year dot on a daily basis (although we know what at above 800THz or so it becomes UV light which can cause skin melanomas).  So it seems probable that between 500khz and 750THz (i.e. about 500000Hz to 750000000000000Hz) is safe, and above that it gets more risky, but ask me if a specific frequency is safe, and it's not a visible frequency, or the frequency of BBC Radio 1-4, and I can't tell you for sure.
 
i guess in the end it all comes back to paracelsus. the dosage makes the difference if a certain substance is medical agent or poison.


again apples are being compared with pears.


your statement about correlation not implying causation is true of course. and also your point about artificial sweetener is interesting.


paracetamol is concidered safe. 1-2 gramms a day - no big deal. 8 gramms at once are heavily hepatotoxic. yeah i know, apples and pears again.


nowadays we are exposed to radio signals pretty much everywhere. the dosage is not easily measured. in general our ways of perception are limited and quite frankly we dont know all of the effects it might cause.


no one said it will cause cancer (im not too sure if thats impossible, by the way). but its not plausible to say it wont cause health issues at all, as well.
The point is that until somebody comes up with a plausible mechanism by which these rays are dangerous, it isn't even worth studying. Without that scientists can't even formulate a hypothesis to test let along collect useful data. We've been bombarded by much more dangerous cosmic rays for the entire period our species has existed without any meaningful impact. Similarly, the rates of skin cancer from UV have never been particularly large.

Ultimately, the risk factor here is either zero or so small that it might as well be zero. I'm betting it's zero, just because the energy levels are not sufficient to cause damage to DNA and there is no chemical component either. I'm far more worried about the toxic substances that have been used in the manufacture of these devices in the past than anything that they're emitting now.

I'd be very surprised if 2.4Ghz EM causes health effects.  We can be pretty sure that EM up to around 100Mhz or so is safe, as we've been pumping that out into the ether for generations.  And we can be almost certain that EM at 500THz is safe because that's visible light and we've been exposed to that since the year dot on a daily basis (although we know what at above 800THz or so it becomes UV light which can cause skin melanomas).  So it seems probable that between 500khz and 750THz (i.e. about 500000Hz to 750000000000000Hz) is safe, and above that it gets more risky, but ask me if a specific frequency is safe, and it's not a visible frequency, or the frequency of BBC Radio 1-4, and I can't tell you for sure.
Generally, the shorter the wave length the higher energy and more dangerous it is. Microwaves are mainly problematic because we've found them to be useful enough to purposefully create at higher concentrations than you'd normally find in nature. Apart from man made sources, there just isn't much exposure to that under normal circumstances.

Even under abnormal circumstances most of the health problems from microwaves are the result of being cooked from the inside.
 
Back
Top