Existing research on health effects from RF signals dwell on emissions from regulated sources, (mobile handset, base of a tower etc), my overriding concern is, unrestricted/chronic exposure for extended duration of time for which there are very rare research efforts devoted.
Chronic exposure to RF is found to induce DNA instability^1^. Even if RF at chronic exposure levels are not found to cause DNA strands to break, it creates upstream conditions such as excess Calcium influx^2,3^ into the cell's cytoplasm with implications on cardiac arrhythmia^4^, invoke and/or worsen neurodegenerative^5^ diseases to name a few. Labeling any discussion on adverse health from OVEREXPOSURE to RF is a cop-out from doing a threadbare analysis. Suresh S. ^1^ Mashevich M, Folkman D, Kesar A, et. al. Exposure of human peripheral blood lymphocytes to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones leads to chromosomal instability. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003;24:82–90. ^2^ Arber SL, Lin JC. Extracellular calcium and microwave enhancement of membrane conductance in snail neurons. Radiat Environ Biophys. Jun 1985;24(2):149–156. ^3^ Rao VS, Titushkin IA, Moros EG et al. Nonthermal effects of radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived neuronal cells: elucidation of calcium pathways. Radiat Res. 2008 March. 169(3):319-29. ^4^ Grace AA , Camm AJ. Voltage-gated calcium -channels and antiarrhythmic drug action. Cardiovasc Res. Jan 2000;45(1):43–51. ^5^ Leal SS, Gomes CM. Calcium dysregulation links ALS defective proteins and motor neuron selective vulnerability. Front Cell Neurosci. 2015;9:225. On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all >> conspiracy. The >> fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does >> not mean >> that there isn't any. For example: >> > > If you are going to cite that American Cancer Society article, you should > cite all the relevant parts. The parts you skipped are bolded. > > *RF waves don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of >> this, it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer. Some >> studies have found possible increased rates of certain types of tumors in >> lab animals exposed to RF radiation, but overall, the results of these >> types of studies have not provided clear answers so far.* >> >> *A few studies have reported evidence of biological effects that could be >> linked to cancer, but this is still an area of research.* >> >> In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program >> (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups >> of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves >> over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and >> continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an >> increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in >> male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP >> study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain >> types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands. >> >> *While both of these studies had strengths, they also had limitations >> that make it hard to know how they might apply to humans being exposed to >> RF radiation. A 2019 review of these two studies by the International >> Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) determined that >> the limitations of the studies didn’t allow conclusions to be drawn >> regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer.* >> >> *Still, the results of these studies do not rule out the possibility that >> RF radiation might somehow be able to impact human health.* >> > The majority of science to date finds no causal relationship between EM > radiation and cancerous mutations. If someone wants to claim otherwise, > scientific proof is required. > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:56 PM Sabri Berisha <sa...@cluecentral.net> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Not that I'm into conspiracy theories, or believe at this point that RF >> emissions >> are in any way related to cancer, but Suresh' statement is not very >> scientific: >> >> > This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or >> science. >> >> RF emissions are absorbed by the human body. Your kitchen microwave works >> at >> the same frequency as your 2.4Ghz wifi. We all know it's a bad idea to >> put your >> head in a microwave oven. >> >> The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all >> conspiracy. The >> fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does >> not mean >> that there isn't any. For example: >> >> > In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology >> Program (NTP) >> > and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of >> lab rats >> > (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their >> entire >> > bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for >> at least >> > most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of >> uncommon >> > heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in >> female rats >> > (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also >> reported >> > possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in >> the adrenal >> > glands. >> >> Source: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposu >> re/radiofrequency-radiation.html >> >> > If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something >> related to >> > microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor. >> >> On the contrary. Few people are more exposed to higher-powered RF >> radiation >> than a MW techie. That would make them an excellent subject for scientific >> research. Dismissing a medical professional's opinion based in your own >> firm beliefs is counterproductive to the advance of scientific knowledge. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Sabri, M.Sc >> >> ----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Matt Harris m...@netfire.net wrote: >> >> > My first instinct is to let this be because the level of conspiracy >> theory >> > nuttiness seems to be very high and the level of knowledge of basic >> physics >> > seems to be very low, but since this list is archived in a way that >> lay-people >> > may reference it at some point in the future, I'm going to go ahead and >> reply >> > just this once more and just one point here so that a lack of response >> here >> > won't be used as fodder by conspiracy theorists. >> >> > Matt Harris | Infrastructure Lead Engineer >> > 816‑256‑5446 | Direct >> > Looking for something? >> > [ https://help.netfire.net/ | Helpdesk Portal ] | [ mailto: >> h...@netfire.net | >> > Email Support ] | [ https://my.netfire.net/ | >> Billing Portal ] >> > We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions. >> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:48 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [ mailto: >> sskalku...@gmail.com | >> > sskalku...@gmail.com ] > wrote: >> >> >> At an employer where I developed Wi-Fi based SOHO device, an adjacent >> group was >> >> testing Line of Sight transceivers. Nobody warned me of the inclement >> health (a >> >> general physician in 2007 suspected cancer looking at a blood test) >> from close >> >> quarters exposure to the side lobes emanating from the microwave radio. >> >> > There is no scientific evidence that RF emissions in the bands used for >> > communications have any causal relationship with cancer in humans. This >> is an >> > internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science. If your >> doctor >> > suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave >> band >> > communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor. >> >
