I would say no, we just need to change what we focus on. If you're worried about lithium-ion batteries running out, check out Aluminum ion batteries (AL is the mos t abundant metal in the Earth's crust).
Worried about farmland? Check out advances in vertical farming.
Worried about space to live? Just wait for a housing price correction.
Worried about energy? Check out the advances in Solar, Small modular reactors, and grid storage possibilities.
The better question isn't "are we running out of resources?" it's "should we be using different resources or the same resources differently?" to which the answer is yes and being explored by scientists and engineers
The population born in 1935-1950 is walking around the population of the people that did grow up with tech though. Their exposure is almost a certainty because cell towers didn't exist before 1979 in Japan. Now they're basically ubiquitous and unlike cell phones of the 80s which only transmitted when you were making a call, modern cell phones are constantly transmitting to maintain internet connection.
Rates of brain cancer before and after the 80s and 90s should've shown some sort of statistically significant spike in brain tumors if cell phones were an issue but it didn't because they're not. 800-2000MHz seems like a lot but radiation doesn't cause ionization until you get to the 2400 terahertz range. There's literally no mechanism known to PHYSICS that would result in cell phone radiation causing brain tumors.
@nuvious Apparently, it ain't that simple. If you lump together all brain tumour types, you won't see much happening, but once you split the stats into tumour types an interesting picture emerges. The incidence of glioblastoma's increases at pretty much the same rate as more benign types decrease in incidence. What to make of that? Well, something ubiquitous in the environment seems to be "upgrading" benign tumours into aggressive malign tumours. UK scientists did some work on this, here: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2018/7910754/
I don't have an argument against that observation, but it's agnostic to my concern in people discussing RF as a risk to brain cancer. The rise in rates is an observation and probably a good one but they intentionally do not try to ascribe a cause in that study.
The potential causal mechanisms have been studied for a long time to contrast:
"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of
brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of
the head and neck region." - European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, 2015
What I care about is people ascribing a casual effect by conjecture alone, especially when the research has actually been done to assess the probability/impact of a proposed mechanism. In all flavors and frequencies in the RF spectrum, this has turned up basically zero probability, uncertain impact (because how do you measure rhe impact on something that never happens), yielding zero risk out the other end.
> There's literally no mechanism known to PHYSICS that would result in cell phone radiation causing brain tumors.
False. We don't know that any form of microwave radiation can induce brain tumors, but we certainly don't now that they can't. It needs experiments, which are being performed (on the public) as I write this.
What we do know is that microwave radiation induces nanoampere currents where absorbed. The exact details of the currents, and where and how absorbed determines their effects. Insisting PHYSICS is a legitimate substitute for experimention is a failing that has become increasingly common, lately.
You didn't actually propose a mechanism that describes how this proposed effect causes damage to DNA and causes cancer and I'm not your Google-scholar to search for that for you. Provide evidence, here's mine:
"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of
brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of
the head and neck region." - European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, 2015
There has never before been any substantial exposure to the wavelengths used for 5G, so there is exactly zero epidemiological data to consult.
We don't know what will happen, but we will find out, in time. Previous generations seem to have turned out OK. All we can be certain of is that, if anyone is harmed, no one will go to jail for it. Like the people putting lead in gasoline and paint, no one involved will have their retirement even slightly inconvenienced. (Unless, of course, they are personally harmed by it.)
Do I think harm is likely? I have no information to form an opinion from, so I would be guessing, just like everybody who insists it is all just fine. What I do know is that everyone who insists they know is lying.
We actually do in radar systems which range between 400 Mhz and 36 Ghz. We've also had 2.4 and 5 ghz wifi and other rf protocols ubiquitously deployed for years. Did you even look at my reference? It's a systematic review of 100s of studys several of which cover frequencies between 2.4gz to as high as 300 ghz. There's tons of them in there and the conclusion still came to no known mechanism for harm or observed harm. You are literally making assertions that research hasn't been done when it absolutely has and you're just being stubbornly assertive about something that's factually incorrect.
And this is the opposite of leaded gasoline because the first study that suggested a harmful mechanism was verifiable and produced reproducible results with a mechanism that was reasonable and testable.
The many hypothetical harms from RFR have been tested extensively and found no observable harm or mechanism for harm below the ionizing range of EM radiation.
You're just expressing doubt with arguments that are vague and untestable which is reasonable because all the testable hypothesis have been investigated.
Propose a mechanism for harm and provide evidence that it's actually happening. If we held off on advancing technology over fear, uncertainty, and doubt arguments like this we'd get no where.
You assume that work on 0.9 and 2.4GHz with 3G modulation generalizes to 20GHz and 5G modulation. But there is absolutely no reason to imagine so.
Every single modulation scheme has a completely different risk profile than every other. But almost every study starts out assuming that only heating can have any effect at all, and modulation never any, pre-loading failure.
It is equivalent to saying, "We tried some plants that turned out safe to eat. Therefore, all plants are safe to eat." No. Details matter. Wishing is opposite of facts. Facts are often inconvenient.
We conducted the analog, 2G, 3G, and 4G experiments on the general public, and they appear to have turned out OK--to the extent anybody has checked. Cancer is far from the only public health problem. Is anybody even looking at others? Auto-immune illnesses are way up, and could be caused by any of thousands of untested chemicals, or non-ionizing radiation, or hygiene, or some unholy combination. Who is even checking?
We will now run the 5G experiment on the public, and see again. Or, fail to see, for not looking even after the fact.
Does anybody even have a use for 5G, besides the telecomm companies hustling equipment? 4G barely works for me, most of the time. But I will certainly end up being made to pay for 5G, useful or not, because what I need is the very last consideration.
We had a physics teacher who thought cell phones may cause brain damage and my immediate thought was to ask him about the electron well discussion we had had previously when discussing ionizing radiation and how the mechanism for damage from cell phone waves was basically impossible. He still stuck to his concern but didn't offer up a proposed mechanism for harm.
The radio waves used for cell phones are between about 800 and 2000 Mhz. Visible light which we all know is not a concern is 490 to 790...terahertz. You don't get to ionizing radiation until you get to roughly 2400 terahertz which is roughly 10 eV.
Was very frustrating learning all that physics just for dumbasses to claim your brain was getting fried so they could sell you a sticker with a metal screen for $40 that does nothing.
1 watt laser can burn through your eyeball. 1 watt regular LED is a fun Christmas decoration.
Details matter.
There are theories that radio waves can activate small nerve fibres that are located closely to the edge of your skin, where EMF can penetrate, even if only couple millimetres deep.
Those nerve fibres are often located near the mast cells, which form part of your innantr immune system, and have a two-way communication with your CNS via these fibers.
Constant inflammation driven by mast cells is a proven cause of autoimmune disease and increased risks of cancer, osteoporosis, many other chronic illness.
It’s not just ionisation that can do that. That’s only one mechanism. Induce enough inflammation and you could have risks of cancer go up, and not only locally, like skin cancer, but systemically as well, because the immune cells release mediators into the systemic circulation, and in rare cases even causes anaphylaxis, like with solar urticaria: https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/what-is-s...
> There are theories that radio waves can activate small nerve fibres that are located closely to the edge of your skin, where EMF can penetrate, even if only couple millimetres deep.
Great. Can you provide a reference to this premise at all? There are theories doesn't mean there are verifiable observations to support them. You based your entire argument on this, and eventually connected to a WebMD reference to a condition caused by exposure to solar energy...
...which is orders and orders of more magnitude greater energy than microwave transmitters used in cell phone...
...also a cell phone transmitter maxes out at 1 watt to the antenna and solar energy at the earth's surface is 1000 watts per meter...
...oh yeah, and SOLAR FLUX UNCLUDES UV RADIATION WHICH IS IONIZING RADIATION!
Provide a peer reviewed reference to your proposed mechanism that actually connects it to damage in DNA that leads to cancer in the context of cell phones please.
Solar urticaria has nothing to do with ionizing radiation. as per the CDC, UVA is not ionizing. You can review this on cdc.gov, and maybe inform them they are wrong? A discovery that ionizing radiation is the causative factor of anaphylaxis in solar urticaria would probably get you quite a few awards. Looking forward to your contributions to health sciences.
It also doesn't matter, as the same occurs with infrared: google "heat urticaria". def not ionizing? You can use this link www.google.com to confirm, and also this one maybe: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
maybe also google "cold urticaria"? is negative (inverse?) infrared ionizing? Pressure urticaria is also cool, no radiation required at all.
Given the subject matter at hand is quite involved and requires fairly up to date expertise in neurology, allergy and immunology, oncology and dermatology to be able to evaluate mechanisms at hand, I have prepared for you a decent list of peer reviewed materials to begin your preparation:
a) ISBN: 0-87893-106-6
b) ISBN: 9780123851574
c) ISBN: 9780199558322
d) ISBN: 978-1-62618-166-3
e) ISBN: 978-92-4-157238-5
f) ISBN: 3034808372
g) ISBN: 9783034808378
h) ISBN: 978-92-76-29839-7
Once you have covered the basics in the above peer reviewed literature, most of which is even approved for training, you will then have no difficulty at all accepting the following:
1) Mast cells are located at the junction point of the host and external environment.
2) EMF penetrates into the skin tissue by several millimiters.
3) There is voluminous clinical evidence of mast cell degranulation by non-ionizing radiation
4) Mast cells produce inflammation, both local AND systemic.
5) Chronic inflammation causes DNA damage and increases risks of cancer and many other diseases.
Clinical implications of the interplay between EMF and mast cells is an ongoing area of research. There is like less than 90 papers published on this specific topic, which is miniscule. However, you should not review those papers until after you completed with basics.
The sun emits more than just UVA and high energy UV light is ionizing. Further my point was that you chained together a mechanism and tried to prove it with something completely unrelated vice trying to address the broader observational evidence in the OP. If your proposed mechanism was real it should've resulted in a significant spike in brain tumors which had not happened. Citing solar urticaria is a complete non sequitur to the point the OP is making with their direct observation that show a lack of increased cancer rates.
I'm also aware of the number of papers out there proposing harm but in the broader picture they don't pan out as reproducible or actually demonstrating sufficient evidence to show harm. That's what the OP is talking about. Despite all the hypothetical mechanisms brain cancers did not increase between the time we had no cell phones to when they became ubiquitous in society.
Here's the contribution I've been responding with all over this thread:
"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck region."
The EU routinely surveys the literature to review the research on RFR and EMF exposure and time and time again does not turn up any statistically significant proof of harm. It covers way more than 90 studies; the citation section alone is 55 pages of the 288 in this systematic review.
This is why I get so frustrated about people asserting a cause without providing real data the effects are real or insisting effects exist as a response to data like the OP that suggest there's no interaction.
Provide this thread some explanation regard why the OP is is wrong and cancer cells are going up and then connect that to your assertion of a mechanism similar to solar uticara. If you can't do the first part of that and discredit the observational data your mechanism is just a data-less hypothesis and is just sewing fear uncertainty and doubt for no reason.
My comment stated the mechanism can be chronic inflammation, which among MANY OTHER THINGS, can also lead to DNA damage.
MANY. OTHER. THINGS.
There is a study in this thread where rats irradiated with 835 mhz (commonly used in Wi-Fi, cellular, wireless phone etc), at SAR 4 (iPhone is at 2) produced demyelination in rats.
Is multiple sclerosis better than cancer?
Finding the link of the study is an exercise left to reader. It’s somewhere here in one of my comments.
Evaluating these studies would require at least the ISBNs I’ve linked, which can take over a decade.
>There are other mechanisms by which non-ionizing radiation can induce cancers, such as the one I've described.
Link please, there are no proven mechanisms such as you describe I am aware of. Your only link points to sun exposure and UVB rays which are near ionizing and cause cancer through DNA damage based on photon energy.
Your example of a laser vs led is on point because its purely based on inverse-square, watt per kg and and thermal heating of tissue which is the only known mechanism which cellphone RF frequencies can cause tissue damage and only at orders of magnitude more power levels.
It's too long of a reasoning chain, maybe that's why it's not obvious? it is also an underfunded area of ongoing research with not enough publications, one paper mentioned only 90 papers are published on this specific issue, which is a tiny number, but seems about right.
So anyway, the mechanism:
"emf does penetrate skin few mm deep" > "that's deep enough to hit mast cells and small nerve fibers" > "we have plenty of evidence non-ionizing radiation can cause mast cell degranulation"/"we have evidence EMF can produce current in nerves" > "mast cells drive inflammation" > "inflammation causes DNA damage and increase risks of cancer."
Any of these steps seem controversial to you? you can verify them independently easily.
Maybe claim #3. Plenty of papers on that:
https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v37n2/0717-9502-ijmorphol-37-02-00719.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891061816300576
the only real question that remains is how big of an effect this will have on humans. Cars kill over a million EVERY year. Every 5 years we kill as many people as this pandemic. Nobody seems to particularly care.
Maybe it will be a small effect, maybe it will kill millions per year, but it seems everyone has made up their minds either way, and unless people start dropping dead in the streets nobody will change their mind.
Light also penetrates the skin few mm or more (hold a flashlight to you finger) why aren't we studying similar effects with artificial lights which have much more radiative power?
>Maybe claim #3. Plenty of papers on that
I can find one paper, mast cell degranulation has lots of causes, maybe just from thermal heating? Always worth looking into I wouldn't call it conclusive by any stretch.
I don't think anyone has made up their mind, only that jumping to conclusions isn't warranted base don our understanding of physics, sure we should keep studying but as yet there are no proven non-thermal effects or direct correlation or causation between low power microwave and cancer.
>Light also penetrates the skin few mm or more (hold a flashlight to you finger) why aren't we studying similar effects with artificial lights which have much more radiative power?
We do study such effects. It's called a highly lucrative field of dermatology. Luckily, however, humans had billions of years to evolve alongside the sunlight, but phototherapy of all sorts is quite popular, and skin photo-damage is discussed at probably every appointment?
Ok, about mast cells and degranulation, I'll be very frank with you: literally nobody in the entire world understands them fully. Yes. Nobody. Entire world. Not even the absolute best of the best. I mean it. Mast cels supposedly release 200+ mediators, 90%+ of which are not even characterized. Tons of receptors on them that nobody bothered to figure out what they do. There is even a newly recognized clinical entity MCAS/MCAD (mast cell activation disorder), in which physicians and patients are attempting educated guesswork with various treatments to see what sticks. The clinical presentation can be anything from itchy cheeks to having near-fatal anaphylaxis hourly, and everything in between. It doesn't even have a settled consensus on diagnostic criteria yet - ongoing disputes SINCE 1991 (as per wikipedia). Some sources claim 10-18% prevalence in various degrees of severity, fun stuff.
This is mainstream allergy specialty we are talking about. Peanuts, eggs, pollen, that type of mundane stuff. So just to set your expectations right: nothing around peanut allergy is conclusive to physics's standard of five sigma.
Absolutely nothing. Maybe aside from the fact peanuts contain peanuts, and some people tend to be allergic to them. Nobody seems to dispute that. That's where we stand with mast cells.
EMF and mast cells? Now that's really pushing the envelope. That sort of research isn't going to get you anything but a tinfoil hat. Nobody does it. No money or fame in it. Why do it?
The theory about EMF and mast cells (and more recently, associated small nerve fibers) is fairly old though, at least 20 years now, seems like credible people, and plausible enough mechanism. Is it jumping to conclusions? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10859662/
Not conclusive enough? Tons of studies on mast cells and EMF/radiation. Here's 1st page hit on google (pubmed search sucks): https://www.nature.com/articles/srep41129
N.B.: the SAR in that study is on the same order of magnitude as your iphone.
Demyelination if found in humans could mean dx of multiple sclerosis, a devastating illness...and ADHD-like hyperactive behaviour? Wonderful.
Still not sufficiently conclusive? You might want to travel, examine brain slices with your own eyes, and report back in this thread. The study seems fresh, slides might still be in storage.
The only absolutely conclusive anything might ever come up in the next 50-100 years (if you live that long), just like we found out our way with thalidomide, leaded gas, BPA, perfluorinates, and many other toxins, poisons, viruses and other such cooties we've survived for billions of years right up until this very moment.
>We do study such effects. It's called a highly lucrative field of dermatology. Luckily, however, humans had billions of years to evolve alongside the sunlight, but phototherapy of all sorts is quite popular, and skin photo-damage is discussed at probably every appointment?
I said artificial light as in visible, not near-ionizing UV which has well understood mechanisms that lead to cancer.
There are multi tens of watt transmitters all around us for hours per day that nobody seems to worry about, yet everyone seems worried about milliwatt transmitters of much lower photon energy.
We have evolved to sunlight and yet we still get cancer from it and its due to the photon energy, shouldn't we be looking at artificial terahertz radiation at much higher power levels with more vigor than gigahertz?
>EMF and mast cells? Now that's really pushing the envelope. That sort of research isn't going to get you anything but a tinfoil hat. Nobody does it. No money or fame in it. Why do it?
If anyone publishes a paper that implies cellphone radiation causes health issues it gets quite a bit of attention, not really buying that there is no motivation, there are countless books and websites making money off these papers lately.
>N.B.: the SAR in that study is on the same order of magnitude as your iphone.
No its 4 W/kg whole body for 5 hours per day for 12 weeks unmodulated continuous 835Mhz, FFC regulates to 1.6 W/kg over the gram getting the most power (basically the gram of flesh where antenna is closest to your head).
>Demyelination if found in humans could mean dx of multiple sclerosis, a devastating illness...and ADHD-like hyperactive behaviour? Wonderful.
From the paper: "The rota rod test was done to determine the impact of chronic RF-EMF exposure on behavioural changes. This test is widely used to evaluate motor dysfunctions, especially coordination and balance. There was no significant difference between the control and RM-EMF groups"
and "The observations of autophagosome formation and down-regulation of pro-apoptotic factor Bax suggested a lack of neuronal damage."
They then go on to pick some slides of what might be myelin damage hopefully they didn't cherry pick them. Should be easy to reproduce the results.
The mice seemed to move more in the study so thus where called "hyperactive" hopefully there wasn't a buzzing noise from the transmitter or some other environmental factor agitating the RF group. Again this stuff should be easily reproducible in further studies.
>Could be safe. Could be multiple sclerosis. NBD.
Could cure MS, could give you superpowers as others have cited in this post have suggested, could be a teapot orbiting the sun we don't know about. We should keep looking but lets be level headed about it.
Masers are cool. My dad worked in an optics lab that used Masers in college and they used Styrofoam for lenses because it's transparent in the microwave spectrum and induces refraction well.
It's a bit bold to only consider ionization as a possible cause of damage.
Molecular chemistry where e.g. protein clusters copy DNA, is very intricate, and introducing electromagnetic resonances in such processes could be potentially disruptive. It's not just your receiver that picks up energy from radio waves, molecules can too (even without losing electrons).
In fact, someone cannot prove mobile phones are safe once and for all unless they tested the entire set of frequencies used in future phone models too.
At the molecular level, basically all photon modes associated with the thermal energy (or lower) will be already thermally occupied. E = hf = k_bT/2. This frequency at room temperature is about 30THz. So on the microscopic level, any frequencies under 30THz are constantly irradiated by thermal fields anyway.
Edit: Furthermore, the Gibb's free energy of any molecular process determines the reversibility of the process at a given temperature. Any molecular process with Gibb's free energy that is lower than the thermal mean energy is going to be essentially a reversible equilibrium process, and stimulating it with radiation will only shift the equilibrium very slightly I believe. I think it's for this reason that we don't see radio catalysed reactions in chemistry, unlike photocatalysed reactions.
I'm not talking about noise. I'm talking about a spike in the frequency spectrum.
If you can build a protein that can tune to e.g. 3GHz (or whatever frequency a phone uses), thus behave differently at that frequency, then basically that proves that radio waves can theoretically alter the reactions in the molecular soup that is a cell. All I'm saying is that I'm not so sure that this can't be done.
I think though that any biological process using these sorts of energies on the molecular level will be swamped with noise and therefore wouldn't be a useful mechanism. 3GHz is like 0.00001eV. A process with Gibb's free energy change of 10ueV has an equilibrium constant of essentially 1 at room temperature, and so is almost completely reversible.
The reason why we can make things interact with radio waves at all is essentially because electrical conductors provide coherent modes for low energy photons to couple to. Without conductors and their free electron cloud we would have a very hard time building anything to receive or transmit radio in any way that isn't thermal.
It is true that there is some degree of conductivity in cells but without a non-thermal way of coupling between current and molecular processes I don't see how radio waves could affect cells in a non-thermal manner
Edit: I guess nerves have a non-thermal coupling mechanism from low frequency currents to molecular mechanisms, so it must be possible. But the machinery for that has been highly evolved for that specific task, I'm not sure if it follows that such machinery would appear commonly in cell processes.
Are single-photon models even useful here? What about aggregate photon effects? The sheer amount of photons hitting you from a cell-tower is enormous. Perhaps an "optical tweezer" type effect could happen?
And for the non-thermal effect discussion, have you considered voltage-gated ion-channels in cell-membranes?
You're gish galloping. Rather than continue to propose arguments without evidence of actual risk, find a citation that has a salient hypothesis that's tested that shows risk.
We aren't your Google-scholar and you're just promoting FUD by asking into the ether "but couldn't X cause Y". Me typing this message COULD cause a butterfly effect that leads to an earthquake. In any "does X cause Y" scenario you have two answer what the probability is that X causes Y and what's the impact of X does cause Y.
In RFR exposure terms it's what is the probability that RF below ionizing levels cause damage to DNA to promote cancer. The vast majority of the research says no and theoretical mechanisms for harm of RF below ionizing levels has never been proven to anything close to a statistical significance or in ways that are reproducible. Even if you did you'd have to assume impact. The OP study is basically assuming there's some impact and studying the population broadly and observed none.
Low probably, low impact, low or no risk.
Please present evidence that presents a high risk argument that is backed by some research showing an increase of the probability and/or impact or rfr exposure to DNA damage.
Until you do that, you're gish galloping. Please respond to our arguments (or consider if we're right) instead of declaring new ones with no references.
I'm usually very patient with the leftovers of the "ionizing only" crowd and what you call "gish galloping" (huh?!) was my attempt at nudging you to discover the science that shows that worldview to be outdated.
So when you write:
"...and theoretical mechanisms for harm of RF below ionizing levels has never been proven to anything close to a statistical significance or in ways that are reproducible" ...I lose that patience with people not even interested in looking.
Excerpt: "...among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity RFR, in general, 93 confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems. A wide pathogenic potential of the induced ROS and their involvement in cell signaling pathways explains a range of biological/health effects of low-intensity RFR, which include both cancer and non-cancer pathologies."
Yes, the word "cancer" is in there along with "low-intensity RFR". The pathway is free-radical promotion in cells by RF and subsequent damage to proteins, DNA etc.
Keep believing the "ionizing only" line if you want. You're allowed to have an opinion. But then its just you against the peer-reviewed & published data.
I've actually already heard of this study and it's another proposed mechanism without any actual evidence in the wild that the proposed mechanism is happened or results in any significant health outcomes. It's a well known study in science circles because of how bad it is in spreading FUD over rfr.
"While the evidence may support the notion that RFR can increase markers of oxidative activity in tissue, it does not establish that this increase is biologically important and can actually lead to specific diseases. It also does not establish that cell phone use causes any harm by this mechanism."
They used the word cancer but didn't provide any real data that linked the proposed mechanism to cancer. Please stop believing fear mongerers and demand not just a hypothesis but actual data that a mechanism causes harm.
Oh, and not all oxidative stress in the body is bad. There are oxidative compounds that benefit human health and too much antioxidant can produce adverse effects.
Oxidarive stress and free radicals are turning into buzzwords that ignore how our bodies balance that and just stating something causes oxidative stress in vitro or ex vivo doesn't say whether our antioxidant system can handle that and in the end negate any potential harm. This is why in vivo studies are done and the OP is a massive in vivo experiment that's been naturally happening since cell phones were first deployed.
I'm also going to highlight that I'm trying to pursuade you that we know the risks, they're low (basically zero), and you don't have to be worried about them. To contrast you're proposing unproven mechanisms for an uncertain risk that contradicts the observations do the original post while repeating arguments used by snake oil salesman that sell Faraday cages for people's wifi routers.
Stop being afraid, the world is way less scary when it comes to RFR exposure than these fear mongerers want you to belive.
Last time I had an MRI scan, I had strong sensations throughout my body where exposed to the MRI's radio emissions. I rather enjoyed the sensation, it felt like a massage and I would have enjoyed it for longer.
I was surprised, as they didn't mention this before the scan. After, I asked about it, and they told me most people don't feel anything, but some do like me, and for a few it's so painful they have to stop the scan.
They told me it was my peripheral nervous system interacting with the radio emissions, not a physical (non-signal) effect as it felt like. From that conversation I learned there was about 10kW transmitted through my body during the scan.
MRIs have been studied for dangerous effects, of course, and all the evidence shows them to be extremely safe... provided there is no metal in the body which can heat up or be displaced by the field, and not counting risks from the contrast agents which are sometimes injected, which some people are more susceptible to than others.
I was never convinced by dismissive arguments that non-ionising radiation "can't" have any biological effect other than localised heating, or that the thermal background spectrum means infrared and below can't have an effect. (I know the physics pretty well; it's not lack of understanding.)
But after those sensations caused directly by the emissions, I'd experienced a biological, non-thermal effect from radio in the microwave-or-below frequency range directly and clearly. That was really interesting.
The body clearly does a lot of things based on countless subtle signalling pathways. Pretty much anything any pathway can sense could have an effect, even if it's not a conventional chemical reaction. One of the more interesting technological ideas around this is the use of high coherence terahertz signals that resonate with DNA molecular dynamics.
Oh yeah I don't doubt it. I think though that there is many orders of magnitude difference in the field strengths between cell phone radiation and MRI, and this makes all the difference.
THz radiation is a different story too as it has about enough energy such that it could influence irreversible processes.
But the only electric current on the molecular level is coherent current...? Chemical reactions are not macroscale phenomena, and so it shouldn't really matter if the energy comes from a random distribution or not. Also please don't insinuate that I'm "profoundly ignorant", that certainly isn't relevant to the discussion.
Profound ignorance is insistence of certainty in the entire absence of knowledge of a subject.
Microwaves absorbed in tissue induce electrical currents carried by ions in solution. Just about everything that happens in your body involves ions moving in solution, one way or another. Details matter.
But the movement of ions in solution is almost completely dominated by thermal motion. Your signal doesn't matter if the signal to noise ratio is essentially zero.
No, the molecular machinery of cells uses energy level differences that are far above the thermal energy level at body temperature, which allows them to actually make changes to things irreversibly. Enzymes are a great example of this.
Try to use microwaves to move ions from one side of a container of salt solution to the other and then get back to me on the ability of microwaves to control ion movement. Hint: you basically can't without obscene levels of radiation. The thermal "pressure" due to the diffusion of ions is enormous.
For a sense of scale, the thermal velocity of water molecules at room temperature is about 500m/s. The drift velocity(average movement of charge carriers, i.e. coherent current) of typical electric currents is on the order of 1mm/s.
For microwaves to produce currents that could plausibly have an effect, there would need to be rectification and resonance, so that current could ratchet up. Unfortunately, both are known to occur in living tissue, as may be observed in people whose dental fillings enable them to pick up AM radio broadcasts.
On top of rectification and resonance, the signal would need to be carried in a place where its current has a persistent effect, and the nature of the signal itself, the modulation, would need to be such as to drive some cellular-scale electrochemical process. It is not possible to predict what that would be for the signal in question, if indeed there are any.
We appear to have got lucky with previous generations, but that tells us nothing about the next.
So, getting quantitative, suppose you have a modulation that gives you, at the membrane, a nanoamp average current, rectified, with a modulation resonant with the nanostructure, so each cycle pumps ions in just one direction. A nanoamp of +1 ions is 6 billion of them moving per second.
Now, 6B ions is hardly any, in the grand scheme of things, but they are in a very small space, and another 6B are moving in the next channel over. The only places we know of (well, that I know of) where these nanoamp currents are important is in organizing healing, and in embryo development. Old people have a hard enough time mustering healing activity without anything disrupting the process. I don't know what other processes might involve such currents.
Again, we don't know whether 5G modulation will affect healing in old people, but it is certainly physically possible that it can. It will be very hard to measure, but that doesn't mean the physiological effect must be small.
If there is an effect, will we notice? Is anybody monitoring healing rates in old people, at the population level, today? How do you even measure that?
And, indeed, all the modulations. Exposure to unvarying microwaves at various frequencies and low exposure has fairly often shown no obvious effect, but modulations completely change the picture as regards induced electric currents.
Cell phones are not likely to go anywhere close to the ionizing range of frequencies because things like walls become opaque at those frequencies. Fun fact, if you could see in the microwave spectrum you could see through many plastics which is why Styrofoam and similar materials are used in microwave safe containers and in the lenses for microwave lasers. The higher the energy the waves, the higher the frequency and the greater the absorbption by walls and even just water vapor in the air.
5+ Ghz frequencies are often used in precision radar and I worked with people who worked on them in the Navy. A few had stories of getting "zapped" by them if they were left on against safety guidelines. The feeling is like having popcorn pop under your skin because the waves are quickly absorbed by the water in the dead layer of your skin. No one in the entirety of military radar had ever got cancer from one of these radars but sometimes they get a fun wake up call to get back down the radar mast to slap whoever left the dish spinning.
There is NO mechanism you're actually providing because you are saying molecules can be "damaged" without actually describing what that even means. DNA is ionic bonds only so enlighten me how they are ever "damaged" because we're aren't in the territory of covenant or hydrogen bonds that can be affected by stuff like heat.
You can KILL cells with high frequency RF but cancer doesn't come about when a cell dies but when the DNA is DAMAGED through and IONIZING event.
"they can't prove its safe... unless they test the entire set of frequencies used in future phone models too"
Your premise is bad. We can't prove anything is 100% safe ever. We instead try to assess risk which is probability of the adverse event multiplied by its impact and reduced by mitigations if available.
And we've done that TIME AND TIME AGAIN for the tin-foil-hat crowd that doesn't understand basic physics:
"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of
brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of
the head and neck region."
Please at least Google for the research before declaring it doesn't exist. You're using the same logic as anti-vax/anti-gmo/anti-science in general; just declare no/not enough research had been done and gish gallop arguments to promote fear, uncertainty and doubt when in reality scientists HAVE been at work making sure the risks are low and you're just denying their efforts.
For sure, though "it depends" comes into play. Roundabouts down scale well beyond 3 lanes and if one gets clogged up it can have a butterfly effect that causes clog ups at other intersections
At least with a standard crossing intersection of say the E->W road is hosed up because of a traffic accident the other flows of traffic are unaffected as long as the intersection remains clear. Even if some jerk gets stuck in the middle they have the ability to U turn out to unblock the intersection.
With a roundabout when it's not clogged its very nice and I do enjoy them. But I've also been stuck at an intersection for more than an hour because of a fender bender in a roundabout causing a full traffic stoppage with no way out.
I may be naive, but don't we have automation handling a lot of the maintenance of packages and scanning for vulnerabilities these days? Of the 90k packages mentioned there's probably only a handful that have known CVE's and when they come up they probably just bump the version number in their CICD if a patch is available from the primary code maintainer and if not it's reasonable 32 people could manage that many packages depending on their CICD structure. Asking more than making an assertion btw.
Hey, saw this as mentioned earlier and incorporated your feedback and one other commenter that pointed out a privilege escalation vulnerability. If you have a spare moment would appreciate your critique on the resolution to your concern and/or any other issues you see generally with the codebase. Just a request though, regardless thanks for your feedback!
Hey, just found that patch in my email. Will try to get that encoded into a formal issues on the project. If you have time yourself feel free to that or any other issue yourself. Also looking for 3rd party reviews on the PR's I have open now and into the future.
Author here; it relates more with physical security and I've used them in the military and in corporate structures. Most duress word programs are designed to be spoken; say security calls because an alarm is set off and the aggressors are coercing you to get the security off their backs. One may say, "Sorry I was working late and fumbled the alarm. Mr. Rogers has a board meeting tomorrow so I've been working late," where Mr Rogers is a fake name of no one that works at the company.
I kinda just thought to turn that concept into a PAM as a thought-experiment mostly but there are some edge case security examples where something like this could be useful, say for journalists or when dealing with corporate espionage.
