[CliveG]

Look up Neoplasm in Wikipedia. Here is a quote

DNA damage is considered to be the primary underlying cause of malignant neoplasms known as cancers. Its central role in progression to cancer is illustrated in the figure in this section, in the box near the top. (The central features of DNA damage, epigenetic alterations and deficient DNA repair in progression to cancer are shown in red.) DNA damage is very common.

Naturally occurring DNA damages (mostly due to cellular metabolism and the properties of DNA in water at body temperatures) occur at a rate of more than 60,000 new damages, on average, per human cell, per day [also see article DNA damage (naturally occurring) ].

Additional DNA damages can arise from exposure to exogenous agents. Tobacco smoke causes increased exogenous DNA damage, and these DNA damages are the likely cause of lung cancer due to smoking. UV light from solar radiation causes DNA damage that is important in melanoma.

Helicobacter pylori infection produces high levels of reactive oxygen species that damage DNA and contributes to gastric cancer. Bile acids, at high levels in the colons of humans eating a high fat diet, also cause DNA damage and contribute to colon cancer. Katsurano et al. indicated that macrophages and neutrophils in an inflamed colonic epithelium are the source of reactive oxygen species causing the DNA damages that initiate colonic tumorigenesis. Some sources of DNA damage are indicated in the boxes at the top of the figure in this section.

Also look up Naturally Occurring DNA Damage in Wikipedia.

Inflammation is often caused by infection, such as with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) or Helicobacter pylori). Chronic inflammation is also a central characteristic of obesity. Such inflammation causes oxidative DNA damage. This is due to the induction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) by various intracellular inflammatory mediators. HBV and HCV infections, in particular, cause 10,000-fold and 100,000-fold increases in intracellular ROS production, respectively. Inflammation-induced ROS that cause DNA damage can trigger apoptosis, but may also cause cancer if repair and apoptotic processes are insufficiently protective.

In 2011, my late wife and I contracted systemic distributed histoplasmosis (probably because a fluoroquinolone antibiotic allowed the fungus past the lung barrier and into our blood stream. She died 6 month later from colon cancer which was likely triggered from the inflammation. I nearly died until finding out from a caver what I might have. The doctors and specialists at that time (2011) told me it was not possible because only immune compromised persons (HIV usually - which I do not have) get infected. I had to get a source of itraconazole and treat myself before the doctor conceded I indeed had it. After 8 years, I am still on antifungals. If I stop for a while I get fungal growths on my skin that look like cancer.

Both fluoroquinolone and fungal infections are known to cause increased sensitivity to cell phone radiation. Once more - scientific studies.

Yes. I am a regular walking talking lab rat.

[Bored chemist]

Physics is about numbers.

Good point.
Also, medical science is about double blind trials.
Epidemiology is about getting good numbers.
I'm still waiting for any in this thread

Water absorbs microwave radiation because the photon energy packet can raise the electron energy to just the right level before the energy is translated to vibrational energy known as heat.

No, it doesn't.

If a photon from all the emitting devices strike a water molecule in a cell at the same time the molecule is in quite an unstable state.

For a start, you need to define "at the same time". Then you need to define " the molecule is in quite an unstable state.".

[alancalverd]

I would add that the argument that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer because it cannot break DNA double bonds, has been disproven by the acceptance that the lower energy ultra-violet light can, with time, cause skin cancer.

That's not the argument at all. DNA double bonds are not the point of failure.

The principal mechanism for radiogenic tumorgenesis is the production of free radicals in the cell cytoplasm, which distort the hydrogen bonds between the strands of reforming DNA during mitosis, leading to incorrect crosslinking and local distortion of the daughter molecule. This is the underlying mechanism of stochastic effects at low dose rates. Since the trigger event occurs in a single cell, there is no threshold dose and a significant latency period between exposure and clinical symptoms.

At high dose rates or in the presence of chemical rather than physical agents, the mechanism appears to be a matter of faulty or failed repair of direct thermal or chemical damage to an organ, resulting in deterministic effects. There is a threshold dose (the fairly sharp line between the protective response of sun tan and the repair failure of sun burn) and a very rapid onset of necrosis or carcinogenesis.
 
PS you can't arbitrarily add the field amplitudes of EM  radiation at different frequencies.

[CliveG]

I would add that the argument that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer because it cannot break DNA double bonds, has been disproven by the acceptance that the lower energy ultra-violet light can, with time, cause skin cancer.

That's not the argument at all. DNA double bonds are not the point of failure.

It is one of the points of failure, but we are beginning to get some consensus.

Here is a typical "safe" argument one can find in many places on the internet: (this one called scientific mythbusting as well)
Cell phones are unlikely to cause cancer because they do not emit enough energy to break the molecular bonds inside cells. Some forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as x-rays, gamma rays and ultraviolet (UV) radiation, are energetic enough to break the bonds in key molecules such as DNA and therefore generate mutations that can lead to cancer. This is called ionizing radiation. Radiation of this strength can knock electrons off molecules and atoms in your body, causing real harm. However, electromagnetic radiation in the form of infrared light, microwaves, and television and radio signals is non-ionizing, and therefore too weak to break those bonds. This is why we don't worry about radios, televisions, and microwave ovens causing cancer. Likewise, the radiation produced by cell phones is non-ionizing. Generally, anything below visible light on the electromagnetic spectrum is safe.

Here another articles says:
In relation to EMF and health the World Health Organization (WHO) says, "Extensive research has been conducted into possible health effects of exposure to many parts of the frequency spectrum including mobile phones and base stations. All reviews conducted so far have indicated that exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP (1998) EMF guidelines, covering the full frequency range from 0-300 GHz, do not produce any known adverse health effect. However, there are gaps in knowledge still needing to be filled before better health risk assessments can be made."

This is is called weasel-wording because while it can be defended by the authors if one examines each and every part. It is however deceptive because when they say "All reviews..." they mean all their reviews. And when they say "known adverse health effect" they mean a health effect that the medical and scientific community has reached consensus on. This will not happen for a while because of the suppression of information, and the disinformation and doubt by the industry. They do give themselves and "out" by stating that there are "gaps in knowledge".

In law suits, they never state that the radiation is "safe" - only that they are following the guidelines.

Here is a quote from Magda Havas "Carcinogenic effects of  Non-Ionizing Radiation: A Paradigm Shift" who argues that the following "accepted science" is wrong

"Most physicists and many health authorities will tell you that NIR cannot cause cancer because it doesn’t have enough energy to break chemical bonds. For example, according to the National Cancer Institute, U.S. [2], Radiofrequency  energy,  unlike  ionizing radiation,  does  not  cause  DNA  damage  that  can  lead  to  cancer. Its  only  consistently  observed  biological  effect  in  humans  is  tissue heating.  And, according to the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority  [3], there  is  no  biologically  plausible  mechanism  to support a carcinogenic effect of non-ionizing RF waves."

She goes on to say why - and that leads me to the next post about your second part.

[CliveG]

I would add that the argument that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer because it cannot break DNA double bonds, has been disproven by the acceptance that the lower energy ultra-violet light can, with time, cause skin cancer.

The principal mechanism for radiogenic tumorgenesis is the production of free radicals in the cell cytoplasm, which distort the hydrogen bonds between the strands of reforming DNA during mitosis, leading to incorrect crosslinking and local distortion of the daughter molecule. This is the underlying mechanism of stochastic effects at low dose rates. Since the trigger event occurs in a single cell, there is no threshold dose and a significant latency period between exposure and clinical symptoms.

At high dose rates or in the presence of chemical rather than physical agents, the mechanism appears to be a matter of faulty or failed repair of direct thermal or chemical damage to an organ, resulting in deterministic effects. There is a threshold dose (the fairly sharp line between the protective response of sun tan and the repair failure of sun burn) and a very rapid onset of necrosis or carcinogenesis. 

Once more from Magda Havas "Carcinogenic effects of  Non-Ionizing Radiation: A Paradigm Shift".
We are in the midst of a paradigm shift when it comes to our understanding of the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic frequencies generated by our use of electricity, electronics and wireless technology. Ionizing radiation (IR) has enough energy to break chemical bonds and is known to cause cancer. However, because non-ionizing radiation (NIR) lacks this energy, it was assumed that these lower frequencies cannot be carcinogenic. This concept is based on a flawed assumption. NIR can and does cause cancer not by increasing the production of free radicals but by interfering with the repair mechanisms that neutralize free-radicals. While the mechanisms differ, the consequences of both NIR and IR are the same–oxidative stress resulting in cellular damage including cancer

So we are beginning to get consensus about free radicals, their production and their role in cancer.

[CliveG]

I would add that the argument that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer because it cannot break DNA double bonds, has been disproven by the acceptance that the lower energy ultra-violet light can, with time, cause skin cancer.

PS you can't arbitrarily add the field amplitudes of EM  radiation at different frequencies.

Your statement is in general correct. But when it comes to instantaneous values that are in phase one can. If at a point in space and time two different frequencies have a peak at in the same vector direction then simple arithmetic addition can be applied. I know that cell radiation can be linearly polarized (often at 45 degrees) or circularly polarized. They can reflect from various surfaces and take part in the combining process.

Here is a study (Panagopoulos 2015) dealing with polarization:
In the present study we analyze the role of polarization in the biological activity of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)/Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR). All types of man-made EMFs/EMR - in contrast to natural EMFs/EMR - are polarized.

Polarized EMFs/EMR can have increased biological activity, due to: 1) Ability to produce constructive interference effects and amplify their intensities at many locations. 2) Ability to force all charged/polar molecules and especially free ions within and around all living cells to oscillate on parallel planes and in phase with the applied polarized field.

Such ionic forced-oscillations exert additive electrostatic forces on the sensors of cell membrane electro-sensitive ion channels, resulting in their irregular gating and consequent disruption of the cell’s electrochemical balance. These features render man-made EMFs/EMR more bioactive than natural non-ionizing EMFs/EMR.

This explains the increasing number of biological effects discovered during the past few decades to be induced by man-made EMFs, in contrast to natural EMFs in the terrestrial environment which have always been present throughout evolution, although human exposure to the latter ones is normally of significantly higher intensities/energy and longer durations. Thus, polarization seems to be a trigger that significantly increases the probability for the initiation of biological/health effects.

He goes on:
The recorded biological effects range from alterations in the synthesis rates and intracellular concentrations of different biomolecules, to DNA and protein damage, which may result in cell death, reproductive declines, or even cancer. Under the weight of this evidence the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified both ELF magnetic fields and RF EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans.

[CliveG]

Missed your second last post. About to sign off and get back later but saw this from Magda Havas (2017) that I used in a prior post.


[9].EPIDEMIOLOGICAL   STUDIES   OF   CANCER   AND EXPOSURE  TO  RADIO  FREQUENCY  RADIATION (RFR)For  radio  frequency  and  microwave  radiation  generated by  wireless  technology,  the  scientific  literature  documents an increased risk of ipsilateral gliomas, meningiomas, acoustic neuromas, and salivary gland tumors, associated with mobile phone use for 10 years or longer. 

Similarly women who keep their cell phones in their bras for at least 10 years, have a greater risk of development multifocal breast cancer in the area in contact with the cell phone, and men who keep their cell phone in their pocket in standby mode have a greater risk of developing testicular cancer. 

People who live within 500 m of cell phone antennas, and within 2 km of radio or TV broadcast antennas, have a greater risk of developing and dying from various types of cancers as do those occupationally exposed such as police officers using radar, telegraph operators, and radar exposed military personnel.

While  health  care  authorities  will  say  that  the  scientific evidence  is inconclusive, unconvincing  and/or inconsistent,  the fact  that  so  many  studies  in  different  countries  using  different methods are getting similar results cannot be dismissed so easily.  Clearly there is a discrepancy between theory and observation.

[Bored chemist]

This is is called weasel-wording

No.
It's just stating the case scientifically.
It will never be possible to say that **** is safe.
It will only ever be possible to say that all the evidence so far shows that **** is not hazardous.

You can't prove a negative, so you can't prove that it does no harm.

But thanks  for clarifying your position.

Here's the TLDR version

 "Extensive research has been conducted into possible health effects of exposure to many parts of the frequency spectrum including mobile phones and base stations. All reviews conducted so far have indicated that exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP (1998) EMF guidelines, covering the full frequency range from 0-300 GHz, do not produce any known adverse health effect. However, there are gaps in knowledge still needing to be filled before better health risk assessments can be made.".

That is as close as it is possible to get (scientifically) to a declaration that phones are safe.

[Bored chemist]

Your statement is in general correct.

Never mind "in general"
He's just right.

I know that cell radiation can be linearly polarized (often at 45 degrees)

To what?
Did you just try to put that in to sound "sciencey"?

Once more from Magda Havas "Carcinogenic effects of  Non-Ionizing Radiation: A Paradigm Shift".

She gets a mention here
http://loons38.rssing.com/chan-9751110/all_p61.html

People who live within 500 m of cell phone antennas, and within 2 km of radio or TV broadcast antennas, have a greater risk of developing and dying from various types of cancers as do those occupationally exposed such as police officers using radar, telegraph operators, and radar exposed military personnel.

Did you read that before you posted it?

What you have said is that definite exposure to relatively high intensity EM radiation from police radios and military radars apparently protects you from radiation compared to those who are exposed at much lower levels.

so  many  studies  in  different  countries  using  different methods are getting similar results

Yes.
The result is that  living near a phone mast isn't an EM radiation hazard.

NIR can and does cause cancer not by increasing the production of free radicals but by interfering with the repair mechanisms that neutralize free-radicals.

How?
What evidence is there (apart from begging the question again)?

[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on Today at 11:36:31

    People who live within 500 m of cell phone antennas, and within 2 km of radio or TV broadcast antennas, have a greater risk of developing and dying from various types of cancers as do those occupationally exposed such as police officers using radar, telegraph operators, and radar exposed military personnel.

Did you read that before you posted it?

What you have said is that definite exposure to relatively high intensity EM radiation from police radios and military radars apparently protects you from radiation compared to those who are exposed at much lower levels.

Really? It says that people near masts have a greater risk of cancer (that those who do not live close to masts) - as do people occupationally exposed (who have greater risk of cancer as opposed to those not occupationally exposed).

[CliveG]

You can't prove a negative, so you can't prove that it does no harm.

But thanks  for clarifying your position.

Here's the TLDR version

 "Extensive research has been conducted into possible health effects of exposure to many parts of the frequency spectrum including mobile phones and base stations. All reviews conducted so far have indicated that exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP (1998) EMF guidelines, covering the full frequency range from 0-300 GHz, do not produce any known adverse health effect. However, there are gaps in knowledge still needing to be filled before better health risk assessments can be made.".

That is as close as it is possible to get (scientifically) to a declaration that phones are safe.

I already made the point about the inability to prove a negative in my post reply #34 where I also pointed to a list of peer-reviewed studies (Powerwatch) where the number indicating harm outnumber those not indicating harm. The site page starts with:

When it comes to EMF issues, one of the most frequently heard phrases is "There is no evidence to support EMFs having health effects" or simply "There is no conclusive evidence".

This is completely wrong; there is an enormous body of evidence out there, but public and even academic awareness seems to be very poor.

How about this article published in the International Journal of Oncology by Lennart Hardell titled World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack

....Epidemiological studies provided supportive evidence of increased risk for head and brain tumours, i.e., acoustic neuroma and glioma. The working group reached the conclusion that RF radiation from devices that emit non-ionizing RF radiation in the frequency range 30 kHz-300 GHz, is a Group 2B, i.e. a 'possible', human carcinogen. Later studies have corroborated these findings and have thus strengthened the evidence.

Several laboratory studies have indicated mechanisms of action for RF radiation carcinogenesis such as on DNA repair, oxidative stress, down regulation of mRNA and DNA damage with single strand breaks.

A report was released from The National Toxicology Program (NTP) under the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in USA on the largest ever animal study on cell phone RF radiation and cancer. An increased incidence of glioma in the brain and malignant schwannoma in the heart was found in rats. Acoustic neuroma or vestibular schwannoma is a similar type of tumour as the one found in the heart, although benign. Thus, this animal study supported human epidemiological findings on RF radiation and brain tumour risk.

Why is the NTP study and the Ramazzini study not indicative of harm?

As for ICNIRP the paper says this:

ICNIRP is a private organisation (NGO) based in Germany. New expert members can only be elected by members of ICNIRP. Many of ICNIRP members have ties to the industry that is dependent on the ICNIRP guidelines. The guidelines are of huge economic and strategic importance to the military, telecom/IT and power industry.

In contrast to ICNIRP, the BioInitiative Reports from 2007 and updated in 2012, based the evaluation also on non-thermal health effects from RF radiation.

 The scientific benchmark for possible health risks was defined to be 30 to 60 µW/m2. Thus, using the significantly higher guideline by ICNIRP gives a 'green card' to roll out the wireless digital technology thereby not considering non-thermal health effects from RF radiation. Numerous health hazards are disregarded such as cancer, effects on neurotransmitters and neuroprotection, blood-brain-barrier, cognition, psychological addiction, sleep, behavioral problems and sperm quality.

No doubt the IARC decision started a world-wide spinning machine to question the evaluation. It was similar to the one launched by the tobacco industry when IARC was studying and evaluating passive smoking as a carcinogen in the 1990s. Sowing confusion and manufacturing doubt about scientific facts is a well-known strategy used by the tobacco and other industries.

That same report lists a variety of studies that shown harm.

You do not comment on why these studies are not valid. They are scientifically accepted.

[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on Today at 11:13:07

    Once more from Magda Havas "Carcinogenic effects of  Non-Ionizing Radiation: A Paradigm Shift".

She gets a mention here
http://loons38.rssing.com/chan-9751110/all_p61.html

Typical tactic of cell industry - heap scorn and ridicule. Possibly a troll paid by them put that passing phrase there. Who gets to call who a loon?

Havas
Bio
Degrees

B.Sc. Honors Biology, University of Toronto, 1971-1975
Ph.D. Department of Botany, University of Toronto, 1975-1980
Academic History
Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada

2002-present: Member, Centre for Health Studies
1995-97 & 92-94: Board of Governors
1993-94: Member of Senate
1990-present: Cross Appointed to Biology Department
1989-present: Associate Professor, Environmental & Resource Studies
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

1985-89: Cross Appointed to Faculty of Forestry,
1983-1988: NSERC University Research Fellow/Assistant Professor, Instititue of Environmental Studies
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

1981-83: NSERC NATO Postdoctoral Fellow, Section of Ecology & Systematics (with Professor Gene E. Likens)

[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on Today at 11:32:01

    I know that cell radiation can be linearly polarized (often at 45 degrees)

To what?
Did you just try to put that in to sound "sciencey"?

To the horizon. The angle one holds one phone at when listening by putting it to the ear.

[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on Today at 11:13:07

    NIR can and does cause cancer not by increasing the production of free radicals but by interfering with the repair mechanisms that neutralize free-radicals.

How?
What evidence is there (apart from begging the question again)?

You sound as if you are arguing that God does not exist - similar statements regarding logical fallacies.

Why do you need to know "How"? Many harmful substances were accepted as harmful long before the "How" became known. The mechanisms are now becoming understood as molecular biology makes rapid advances.

Just read some of the better ones on sites such as BioInitiative, EnviroHealth Trust and read articles by Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr, Martin Pall.

Is there a reason you are avoiding these?

[Bored chemist]

To the horizon. The angle one holds one phone at when listening by putting it to the ear.

That makes no sense.
The angle I hold my  phone in bed differs from that I use most of the time.
But that's hardly the big  problem.
 From the PoV of a cell- how do you define polarisation?

You sound as if you are arguing that God does not exist

I have worn worse cloaks

[Bored chemist]

Why do you need to know "How"?

Well, you have no direct evidence. You claim it must be true because "ZZZ"..." and I ask how did you come to the conclusion that ZZZ is true?

Why do I need to know if zzz is true?
Because otherwise there's no reason to believe that you are not bullshiiting.
Did you not understand that?

[CliveG]

To the horizon. The angle one holds one phone at when listening by putting it to the ear.

That makes no sense.
The angle I hold my  phone in bed differs from that I use most of the time.
But that's hardly the big  problem.
 From the PoV of a cell- how do you define polarisation?

You are avoiding the elephant in the room. I need not go into antennae basics. Those who are interested can look it up.

The elephant is the numerous studies that show HOW harm is caused and support the both the surveys and the complaints of people who have suffered harm.

And the studies on rats (studies on humans are illegal when one knows one is going to cause harm) that show cell EMFs (radiations) CAN and DO cause cancer.

Your digressions onto topics of minor relevance is an indication of someone who is avoiding the truth of the bigger picture. I hope the any visitors to this topic focus on the relevant issues.

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. They too side-stepped the challenge by saying something about my imagination.

[CliveG]

Why do you need to know "How"?

Well, you have no direct evidence. You claim it must be true because "ZZZ"..." and I ask how did you come to the conclusion that ZZZ is true?

Why do I need to know if zzz is true?
Because otherwise there's no reason to believe that you are not bullshiiting.
Did you not understand that?

The direct evidence is the many scientific studies, as well as the many instances where people are being harmed. If you don't read the studies, and indicate why their scientific peers should not be accepting them, how can you say there is no evidence? The NPT and Ramazzini studies show the harm to living organisms and the cellular studies show the how.

It appears you choosing to set your bar for "scientific acceptance" impossibly high - a standard that no other field of study uses. Our knowledge is not perfect, especially in human biology. That is no reason to reject the conclusions that many scientists are reaching.

The neurologist I consulted told me that she is seeing cases where WiFi is the probable cause. One was the increase in epilepsy in young children. She had a patient who realized that there was a pattern to his illness. 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.

ElectroHyperSensitivity (EHS) to cell microwaves is an accepted medical diagnosis. There is a medical doctor in South Africa who is on a disability grant for the condition. There are other countries who recognize the condition. While it may be psychosomatic to some (there are always cases in many illnesses that have no testable symptoms - pain for example) it is not the case for the majority of sufferers.

My symptoms manifested physically in no uncertain terms, and could be related to the tower because they would only manifest when I had a day or two of exposure followed by little exposure when the symptoms mostly cleared. Regrettably there has been permanent damage to myself and my wife.

A relative of mine works in the burn unit at a major hospital. She says they also get the Stevens Johnson cases. I looked this up. It is a condition where the immune system reject the out layers of skin and mucous membranes which then peel off. It is thought (not proven) that the trigger is either a medication or a pathogen or both. They have worked out a treatment based on these assumptions. Using your logic this condition does not exist because the how is poorly understood.

After all our exchanges I can only conclude that you are swimming in that famous river in Egypt (De Nile). Or you are actively and deliberately trying to discredit the science

[alancalverd]

I'll admit to not having read many recent studies, but I have an interest in cancer clusters and I did chair a conference on the subject of EM health effects some years ago. None of the papers was sponsored by any industrial interest. Here's what I took away.

Lots of things can modify or disrupt cell transport and DNA in vitro. Petrol/air mixture can explode. Both phenomena are a long way from the clinical expression of cancer in vivo, or a working motor car.

The epidemiology of rare diseases cannot be usefully correlated with common  potential causes.  The example given in this thread of four boys contracting an unusual cancer demands more detailed investigation: why no girls, and why only four in a school that was fairly uniformly irradiated (even if it wasn''t, schoolkids move around during the day).

The question of uniform irradiation is important. Urban environments have higher concentrations of radio masts than rural areas, and higher concentrations of people. And in the UK there is a strong geographical correlation with social class (poor people tend to live in the east of cities (due to the prevailing west wind), at high density, and to have shorter life expectancies for all sorts of reasons, whilst the rich live longer and inhabit the west side of the city or leafy suburbs and rural estates)  so you need to review all statistics in view of such geographical nonuniformity.

There is also a question of reporting bias. The incidence of reported disease always increases when a new cause is suspected, when a new diagnostic is available, and most of all when a new treatment is marketed. Plus some causes of death are not fashionable: the low incidence of fatal heart disease in France is not borne out by post-mortem but by the reluctance of general practitioners to request a post-mortem or report an avoidable condition on a death certificate - "natural causes" is far more common than in the UK.

And of incidence bias. As we eliminate physical trauma (better roads, safer industries) and infectious disease (better drains and refuse collection) so engineers give way to doctors and all that is left to kill people is heart disease and cancer.  So the incidence of fatal cancer increases every year because people live long enough express it.

Hence a degree of scepticism or at least caution when dealing with new epidemiologies.   

[Bored chemist]

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.

Using your logic this condition does not exist because the how is poorly understood.

Using your logic it is caused by pixies- because someone says it is, and it's impossible to prove that it isn't.

While it may be psychosomatic to some (there are always cases in many illnesses that have no testable symptoms - pain for example) it is not the case for the majority of sufferers.

Then why has no lab testing of sufferers actually given a positive result?

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.

Interesting.
Did he measure the temperature or the infrasound levels?
Or any of a thousand other possible causes?

How did you come to the conclusion that this story was actually evidence of an effect of WIFI?
How come you ignored the very obvious problem?

Is it because you were seeking affirmation, rather than seeking the truth?