[alancalverd]

He was getting sick during the week and recovering on the weekend. He concluded something at work was making him ill. He started working in different offices, and finally got relief in the basement. He worked out that there was no WiFi in the basement. The neurologist agreed with his conclusion.

Me too.

We see the same problem with pagers. WiFi, pager, email....all reduces your control over your work flow, imposes other people's productivity cycles on your own, increases stress, induces all sorts of cerebral problems, including early onset of dementia caused by stress->muscle tension-> atlo-axial vertebra displacement -> interruption of cerebrospinal fluid drainage -> nerve sheath damage. Also presents as "asthma" due to muscular tension in the thoracic spine region.

I like

I have challenged the industry to put forward executives to volunteer to be exposed to the radiation I have in my home for 3 months.

  Had a rep offer me an intracavitary dosemeter some years ago, with a bias voltage of about 1000V inside an insulated but rather thin sheath. "Absolutely safe" he said. "Fine", says I. "Shove it up your backside and switch it on, and I'll buy it."  Never saw him again.

[CliveG]

I haves some urgent deadlines in the next three days. Will be back on Tuesday night.

In the meantime, how about responses to the scientific papers which show the mechanisms for the harm that is reported by various people (myself included ).

[Bored chemist]

how about responses to the scientific papers which show the mechanisms

OK
Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells.
Henry C. Lai, Natesan Ramachandran

says
"Immediately after 2 h of exposure to pulsed (2 microseconds width, 500 pulses/s) microwaves, no significant effect was observed,"

Which is interesting.

It also says "a dose rate-dependent [0.6 and 1.2 W/kg whole body specific absorption rate (SAR)] increase in DNA single-strand breaks was found in brain cells of rats at 4 h postexposure. "

Let's put that dose into some sort of context.
I'm about 70 Kg and I consume about 2400 Kcal per day. (About 116 Watts)
So, that's about 1.6W/Kg.

Now, there has never been any controversy about the idea that cooking  a rat's brain by increasing the power dissipation by about 40 to 80% will cause damage.

So, the first study you cited shows that there's no effect at the sorts of levels that phone masts generate.

And then there's
Reactive oxygen species levels and DNA fragmentation on astrocytes in primary culture after acute exposure to low intensity microwave electromagnetic field.
Campisi A1, Gulino M, Acquaviva R, Bellia P, Raciti G, Grasso R, Musumeci F, Vanella A, Triglia A.
where the abstract says
"No change in cellular viability evaluated by MTT test and lactate dehydrogenase release was observed. A significant increase in ROS levels and DNA fragmentation was found only after exposure of the astrocytes to modulated EMF for 20min. No evident effects were detected when shorter time intervals or continuous waves were used. "

Now that has a big red flag in the middle of it.
How come 20 min exposures give an effect, but not shorter or longer ones?
To me that's a clear indication that something else happened + was responsible for the observed change.

Then there's this
The European REFLEX studies of 2004 clearly demonstrated that a mere 24-hour exposure to the 1.8 gigahertz (GHz), one of the lethal frequencies flowing through Stockholm Central, inflicts the same catastrophic damage to human DNA as 1600 chest X-rays.
A chest xray delivers a dose of about about 0.1 mSv
And a dose of about 5Sv will kill you.
So, if the data you have posted is correct then anyone in Stockholm will get 0.16 Sv per day

So they will all be dead after 5/0.16 days ie about a month.

Has that been reported on the news?

And then there's
Carcinogenic effects of NonIonizing Radiation: A Paradigm Shift
Magda Havas*
which seems to be a study of publication bias (Papers that say "We didn't find an effect" don't get published).
It also makes the interesting statement that "Gluthathione is an oxidant" as an "explanation / function".

In the real world, glutathione is a strong reducing agent and an antioxidant.


Do you see why I don't take this sort of "science" seriously?

[CliveG]

Just a quick check to see if the "assignments" are being done   . One so far which I itch to respond to but will have to wait because it does require some careful thought on my part.

How about you tackle the heavy-weights of the NTP and Ramazzini studies. They are similar and come to pretty much the same conclusions. Cancer!

[Bored chemist]

How about you tackle the heavy-weights of the NTP and Ramazzini studies.

How about you give a decent reference?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardino_Ramazzini
doesn't seem to mention  phones at all, though it seems he'd be an advocate of sit/stand desks.

One so far which I itch to respond to but will have to wait because it does require some careful thought on my part.

No amount of thought on your part will alter what the reports say, nor will they stop what I said being true.

[alancalverd]

 

The Ramazzini study exposed 2448 Sprague-Dawley rats from prenatal life until their natural death to “environmental” cell tower radiation for 19 hours per day (1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation (RFR) of 5, 25 and 50 V/m). RI exposures mimicked base station emissions like those from cell tower antennas, and exposure levels were far less than those used in the NTP studies of cell phone radiation.

so we can ignore the NTP study on the basis that cooking a rat will certainly kill it - no surprise - and boiling it in utero is not a good start in life.

So how reliable is Ramazzini?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/splenda-testing/

[The problem hanging over the Splenda finding is that which hangs over the Ramazzini Institute in general: Quality control. No matter what substance the Institute tests for cancer, the results always seem to be positive, whereas other laboratories testing the same substances repeatedly fail to come up with the same findings. […] All of this has made the Ramazzini Institute something of a joke in European and American science. But, of course, there’s nothing to laugh about when you use a charity conference on childhood cancer to promote an international cancer panic.

PS:

A 1972 study compared neoplasms in Sprague Dawley rats from six different commercial suppliers and found highly significant differences in the incidences of endocrine and mammary tumors. There were even significant variations in the incidences of adrenal medulla tumors among rats from the same source raised in different laboratories. All but one of the testicular tumors occurred in the rats from a single supplier. The researchers found that the incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats from different commercial sources varied as much from each other as from the other strains of rats. The authors of the study "stressed the need for extreme caution in evaluation of carcinogenicity studies conducted at different laboratories and/or on rats from different sources."

So you need to do your epidemiology carefully even with rats!

 

[CliveG]

Took a short mental time-out while eating dinner.

Check out the Youtube short movie "The Signal" by Marcus Stokes.

[Bored chemist]

Check out the Youtube short movie "The Signal" by Marcus Stokes.

Why?

[CliveG]

Quote

    He was getting sick during the week and recovering on the weekend. He concluded something at work was making him ill. He started working in different offices, and finally got relief in the basement. He worked out that there was no WiFi in the basement. The neurologist agreed with his conclusion.


Me too.

We see the same problem with pagers. WiFi, pager, email....all reduces your control over your work flow, imposes other people's productivity cycles on your own, increases stress, induces all sorts of cerebral problems, including early onset of dementia caused by stress->muscle tension-> atlo-axial vertebra displacement -> interruption of cerebrospinal fluid drainage -> nerve sheath damage. Also presents as "asthma" due to muscular tension in the thoracic spine region.

Are you saying that because some people suffer self-imposed stress due unpleasant and demanding work and home conditions that result in real physical problems that this is your answer to all cell microwave induced symptoms? And that, even though he could now correlate Wifi (in his office and elsewhere) with his symptoms, he could still be wrong? And the neurologist could not differentiate? Doubt, doubt, doubt. Your middle name is not Thomas, is it?

Here is an analogy to your tactic of doubt due to alternative cause:
It is now accepted (was not for some time) that a 5 or 10 day course of fluoroquinolone antibiotics can possibly cause one's Achilles tendon to snap. Your response would be that there are many causes to that happening.

It happens that once more I heard of a woman who had both Achilles tendons snap within a week. The specialist she consulted asked if she had a recent course of fluoroquinolone antibiotics. She answered that she had a course three weeks ago. Once more, by your logic, that COULD be a coincidence. Yes, it could - because there is no definitive medical test to tell why many things happen. It is not like checking the metal on an aircraft wing break to check for stress or fabrication failure.

[CliveG]

I like
Quote

    I have challenged the industry to put forward executives to volunteer to be exposed to the radiation I have in my home for 3 months.

  Had a rep offer me an intracavitary dosemeter some years ago, with a bias voltage of about 1000V inside an insulated but rather thin sheath. "Absolutely safe" he said. "Fine", says I. "Shove it up your backside and switch it on, and I'll buy it."  Never saw him again.

It seems you have some reservations about the claims made by some industries. At least there is hope.

BTW - 1,000 volts or 10,000 volts or more. It the source impedance limits the current to less than a milliamp or so, all you might get is a mild tickling sensation at the worst failure. And there has to be a failure of two insulated wires that are carrying the potential.

[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on 17/08/2019 06:29:48

    s well as the many instances where people are being harmed.



You keep doing this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

You should stop.

I think you are the one begging the question. I know people (myself obviously) that are being harmed. It is not a claim - it is a fact.

You claim that is not possible for people to be harmed because you reject any study or report of people being harmed on the basis that they cannot be harmed (your initial premise). That is "begging the question", otherwise known as circular logic.

The industry has this down to almost an art form. "We reject any studies that microwaves less that our limit might possibly cause harm because OUR studies and reviews have come to the conclusion that microwaves less than our limit do not cause harm".

[CliveG]

Check out the Youtube short movie "The Signal" by Marcus Stokes.

Why?

Because!

Spoiler: show

Because it might be based on cell phone signals. Untested and about to destroy the population - slowly.

[alancalverd]

Are you saying that because some people suffer self-imposed stress due unpleasant and demanding work and home conditions

No. Selfimposed stress is something quite different.

Old Wallaby fans will remember Keith Miller from the early 50's. A radio interviewer asked him "Is there too much pressure on cricketers nowadays?" His reply was priceless: "No mate. Flying one Hurricane against two Messerschmitts is pressure. This is just playing games for money."

[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on 17/08/2019 18:20:22

    how about responses to the scientific papers which show the mechanisms

OK
Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells.
Henry C. Lai, Natesan Ramachandran

says
"Immediately after 2 h of exposure to pulsed (2 microseconds width, 500 pulses/s) microwaves, no significant effect was observed,"

Which is interesting.

It also says "a dose rate-dependent [0.6 and 1.2 W/kg whole body specific absorption rate (SAR)] increase in DNA single-strand breaks was found in brain cells of rats at 4 h postexposure. "

Let's put that dose into some sort of context.
I'm about 70 Kg and I consume about 2400 Kcal per day. (About 116 Watts)
So, that's about 1.6W/Kg.

Now, there has never been any controversy about the idea that cooking  a rat's brain by increasing the power dissipation by about 40 to 80% will cause damage.

So, the first study you cited shows that there's no effect at the sorts of levels that phone masts generate.

The first point to make is that the study was not about masts. It was about the levels considered "safe". The safe level at the time (see ICNIRP report 1998 - basically unchanged in 2108) was a SAR of 4 W/kg for 30 minutes - based on heating.
 The paragraph is … Established biological and health effects in the frequency range from 10 MHz to a few GHz are consistent with responses to a body temperature rise of more than 1°C. This level of temperature increase results from exposure of individuals under moderate environ-mental conditions to a whole-body SAR of approximately 4W/kg for about 30 min. The same limit for heads is 100W/kg and limbs is 200W/kg. They then apply a safety factor.

So the Lai study used 0.6 and 1.2 W/kg. And showed that despite being within "the limits of no damage found", there was DNA damage. And they showed that the longer the time, the more apparent was the damage.

Your mention of living tissue energy consumption is not applicable. It keeps people at a warm level of 37 deg C as long as they can dissipate the heat. What you have used is a red herring fallacy, (an idiom meaning "to divert attention from the main question by some side issue") that is bordering on a straw-man fallacy when you make the conclusion about masts. And you throw in an unsubstantiated non-sequitur about "cooking a rat's brain".

The study by Henry Lai has been reproduced and verified a number of times since then.

Here is a good and easy read for ordinary people (relevant despite being out of date):
This was a 2011 article about Henry Lai’s work.

seattlemag.com/article/uw-scientist-henry-lai-makes-waves-cell-phone-industry

…He and a fellow researcher, Narendra “N.P.” Singh, were looking at the effects of non-ionizing microwave radiation—the same type of radiation emitted by cell phones—on the DNA of rats. They used a level of radiation considered safe by government standards and found that the DNA in the brain cells of the rats was damaged—or broken—by exposure to the radiation.
…After Lai and Singh’s research finding an effect on DNA was published in 1995, Lai learned of a full-scale effort to discredit his work. In an internal company memo leaked to Microwave News, a publication that examines health and environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation, Motorola described its plan to “war-game” and undermine Lai’s research.
… Lai’s frustration with the increasing body of contradictory research led him to do an analysis in 2006 of the available studies on cell phone radiation between 1990 and 2006, and where their funding came from. What he found was that 50 percent of the 326 studies showed a biological effect from radio-frequency radiation and 50 percent did not. But when he filtered the studies into two stacks—those funded by the wireless industry and those funded independently—Lai discovered industry-funded studies were 30 percent likely to find an effect, as opposed to 70 percent of the independent studies.
… With Lai’s work as her foundation, Davis demonstrates a pattern of the cell phone industry’s scientific manipulation spanning decades. Davis is particularly concerned because the rate of cell phone use by children is skyrocketing—with three out of four 12-year-olds and half of 10-years-olds in the U.S. now possessing a cell phone. Even more troubling: Lennart Hardell, Ph.D., a researcher in Sweden, found that those who began using cell phones in their teens (such as Rock) had four to five times the number of malignant tumors by their late 20s as those who did not use cell phones as teenagers.

[CliveG]

And then there's
Reactive oxygen species levels and DNA fragmentation on astrocytes in primary culture after acute exposure to low intensity microwave electromagnetic field.
Campisi A1, Gulino M, Acquaviva R, Bellia P, Raciti G, Grasso R, Musumeci F, Vanella A, Triglia A.
where the abstract says
"No change in cellular viability evaluated by MTT test and lactate dehydrogenase release was observed. A significant increase in ROS levels and DNA fragmentation was found only after exposure of the astrocytes to modulated EMF for 20min. No evident effects were detected when shorter time intervals or continuous waves were used. "

Now that has a big red flag in the middle of it.
How come 20 min exposures give an effect, but not shorter or longer ones?
To me that's a clear indication that something else happened + was responsible for the observed change.

You need to read carefully and assume that the scientists are not only not idiots by have presumably had their study proof-read for errors.

"No effects for exposure to shorter intervals (than 20 mins) to modulated EMFs". That seems reasonable.
"No effects for exposure to continuous waves no matter what the duration". That also seems reasonable.

[CliveG]

Then there's this
The European REFLEX studies of 2004 clearly demonstrated that a mere 24-hour exposure to the 1.8 gigahertz (GHz), one of the lethal frequencies flowing through Stockholm Central, inflicts the same catastrophic damage to human DNA as 1600 chest X-rays.
A chest xray delivers a dose of about about 0.1 mSv
And a dose of about 5Sv will kill you.
So, if the data you have posted is correct then anyone in Stockholm will get 0.16 Sv per day

So they will all be dead after 5/0.16 days ie about a month.

Has that been reported on the news?

This one was a real toughie and took considerable research.

A chest xray is about 0.02 mSv and a chest CT scan is about 5-8 mSv from a Stanford study.
A dose of 5 Sv will only kill 50 percent, not 100%.
The average radiation in the Stockholm trains station (actually the Hay Market) was probably taken from Lennart Hardell's 2018 study and not the 2004 REFLEX study.
It was about 10,000 uW/sqm.
A Sievert is 1 Joule/kg for x-rays (Q factor of 1 meaning it is the same as a Gray).
A 90 kg man with a profile of 0.7sqm absorbing 10,000 uW/sqm over 24 hours will get a dose of 6.72 J/kg or 6.72 Sv.
1600 chest xrays at 0.02 mSv per xray is 32mSv
1600 chest CT scans at 5 mSv per scan is 8 Sv
(Some one check my arithmetic please - I can do formulae but not sums 

So the numbers given in the article may just be correct except for the Q factor for microwaves. That will take some doing. That said, the radiation is high!!!

So I think that is where some-one has not done their homework. I did give you a non-science site because they had some good summations.

Here  are two paragraphs in the REFLEX conclusions
...There was a strong positive correlation between both the intensity and duration of exposure to ELF-EMF and the increase in single and double strand DNA breaks and micronuclei frequencies. Surprisingly this genotoxic effect was only observed when cells were exposed to intermittent ELF-EMF, but not to continuous exposure.

...With respect to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), data showed that RF-EMF produced genotoxic effects in fibroblasts, granulosa cells and HL60 cells. Cells responded to RF-EMF exposure between SAR level 0.3 and 2 W/kg with a significant increase in single and double strand DNA breaks and in micronuclei frequency. Chromosomal aberrations in fibroblasts were observed after RF-EMF exposure. RF-EMF at a SAR of 1.5 W/kg downregulated the expression of neuronal genes in neuronal precursor cells and upregulated the expression of early genes in p53-deficient embryonic stem cells, but not in wildtype cells. Proteomic analyses on human endothelial cell lines showed that exposure to RF-EMF changed the expression and phosphorylation of numerous, largely unidentified proteins. Among these proteins is the heat shock protein hsp27, a marker for cellular stress responses. There was no evidence that RF-EMF affected processes such as cell proliferation, apoptosis or immune cell functionality. For both ELF-EMF and RF-EMF, the results of the whole genome cDNA micro-array and proteomic analyses indicated that EMF may activate several groups of genes that play a role in cell division, cell proliferation and cell differentiation. At present the biological relevance of these findings can not be assessed.

2018 Hardell Stockhom study  ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6341832/
One contrast is the Hay Market. This is popular place for marketing of flowers, fruits, berries, etc. Thus, the dealers may during the whole day be exposed to high RF radiation. The mean level was 10,728 µW/m2 which exceeds very much levels known to have biological effects.

One would expect these dealers to start showing symptoms and health issues. That was only last year. Between 1 and 3% of the population have EHS, so a few of them should have stopped trading.

No wonder Sweden is leading the world in drops in longevity and IQ.

[Bored chemist]

"No effects for exposure to continuous waves no matter what the duration". That also seems reasonable.

Do you understand what that says?

It says that the EM radiation only causes trouble when you switch it off repeatedly.

that is bordering on a straw-man fallacy when you make the conclusion about masts.

You are the one who included it here.
You concluded that it was relevant to a discussion about masts.

Don't blame me for your bad decisions.
Also, read the paper.
"Reactive oxygen species levels and DNA fragmentation on astrocytes in primary culture"
Rats sweat.
People sweat.
Cells in culture don't.

So it's completely obvious that cultured cells will be (generally) more susceptible to damage than an intact organism.

If you take the brain out of a rat, it's significantly easier to cook, because the rest of the rat doesn't dissipate the heat.

 

The specialist she consulted asked if she had a recent course of fluoroquinolone antibiotics.

Why did they ask that?

Was it because there was already other evidence of a link?
That's the point I made.
Without other evidence, a single observation usually means little or nothing. Yes, you have to start somewhere, but you don't start by assuming the first  dead rat is evidence of a pandemic.

I know people (myself obviously) that are being harmed.

By what?
Until you can prove that it's from EM radiation, you are assuming that to be the cause.
And that's begging the question.

[CliveG]

Are you saying that because some people suffer self-imposed stress due unpleasant and demanding work and home conditions

No. Selfimposed stress is something quite different.

Old Wallaby fans will remember Keith Miller from the early 50's. A radio interviewer asked him "Is there too much pressure on cricketers nowadays?" His reply was priceless: "No mate. Flying one Hurricane against two Messerschmitts is pressure. This is just playing games for money."

Psychological stress is self-imposed and usually involves having to make difficult choices. The monkey who had to press a button after a buzzer to stop getting an electric shock was much more stressed compared to the monkey who heard the buzzer and had no button. Deciding which Messerschmitt to focus on is a stress requiring action and decision.

Then there is physiological stress. Until 5 years ago I never really had the above stress. I just accepted that I had to work to achieve something and that I had made correct choice regarding balancing stressors. But in the last 5 years I have muscle aches all over. As if I have stressors, but nothing has really changed except something physical. It is most unpleasant. It is as if I am tensing my muscles to wait for a disaster to happen. Only codeine tablets relieve the pain. I stop them now and then for a while, but after the withdrawal goes away, the constant muscle pain becomes too much and I start again.

Is it sensitivity to EMFs that have been growing rapidly in our suburb over the last 5 years? I need to get away to see if my pains disappear.

[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on Today at 10:53:34

    I know people (myself obviously) that are being harmed.

By what?
Until you can prove that it's from EM radiation, you are assuming that to be the cause.
And that's begging the question.

Let me see. I stick my hand in a pot of really hot water and it hurts. I take it out and the pain goes away.

I do this repeatedly and I conclude that the hot water is the cause of the pain. Of course, a critic could say that it was the way I held my hand in that pinched a nerve, or that I had been hypnotized and told to feel pain when my hand was in hot water. When two people (my wife and I) get similar symptoms under similar conditions it gets more difficult to find alternative explanations. You get a medal for trying.

I have headaches and disturbed dreams that only occurred after the mast was turned on. I do a variety of tests to reduce the radiation and each one results in relief - repeatedly. Just because I have not conducted a peer-reviewed scientific study does not mean I cannot make the obvious conclusion between cause and effect.

[Bored chemist]

https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=safety-xray
says
"Chest X-ray   0.1 mSv"
They were the first site Google found.
The second one I found
https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/cvimaging/documents/lectures/18DEC13_Fleischmann_RadiationDoseRisk_final_HANDOUT.pdf
 says 5 to 8 mSv

A third
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28981835
says
The average effective doses for AP, PA and lateral projections were 0.14, 0.07 and 0.22 mSv, respectively.

The value I picked (at random) seems to be at the low end, but in the right ballpark.

A chest xray is about 0.02 mSv

It seems there's a mistake in either all 3 of the pages I cited, or in the one you didn't cite.

I suspect people will form their own conclusions.

In any event, it hardly matters. If a chest xray is .02 rather than .1 that's a factor of 5.
Most people in Stockholm are not 50% dead in 5 months .

The number you cited is not just wrong, but it is absurd.