[alancalverd]

Why is 1 deg Celcius considered an upper limit when humans can take temperature rises of 5 degrees?

Because it is nonsense. The rats were exposed to up to 6W/kg for up to 19 hours.

I'll leave the arithmetic to the reader, but it takes about 250 kJ/kg to raise a rat to boiling point. 6W is  21.6 kJ/hr.

I'm surprised they were recognisable as rats at all.  Or maybe the reported numbers are in some way inaccurate.

[CliveG]

Why is 1 deg Celcius considered an upper limit when humans can take temperature rises of 5 degrees?

Because it is nonsense. The rats were exposed to up to 6W/kg for up to 19 hours.

I'll leave the arithmetic to the reader, but it takes about 250 kJ/kg to raise a rat to boiling point. 6W is  21.6 kJ/hr.

I'm surprised they were recognisable as rats at all.  Or maybe the reported numbers are in some way inaccurate.

You do realize the difference between a living breathing rat and a pot of water?

A SD rat can take a SAR of 4w/kg continuously with only a 1.5 deg C increase in core body temperature.

See
The Journal of Toxicological Sciences (J. Toxicol. Sci.)Vol.41, No.5, 655-666, 2016
Correspondence: Akira Ushiyama (E-mail: ushiyama@niph.go.jp)
Exposure time-dependent thermal effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on the whole body of rats

There is a thermal equation for rats and living animals:
Heat Storage = Metabolic + Evaporative + Radiant + Convective + Conductive
Radiant  = Surface and Penetrating MW
Core temp = 37.2 Lethal is about 42.5
Excellent thermoregulatory keps stable core temp over ambient of 5-30 degC for 60 min
Rat brain cooling can be better than core due to nose and face cooling
Upper limit of core temp is Air temp, Humidity, Water availability, time exposed, degree of restraint, Amount of activity, prior exposure, circadian cycle.
Smaller objects have greater surface to mass ratios and can take greater SARs values.
When the temperature of a rat increases it sleeps more, moves less, licks it's tail and eats less.

ICNIRP never challenged the study on body temperatures as you are doing.

[Bored chemist]

A SD rat can take a SAR of 4w/kg continuously with only a 1.5 deg C increase in core body temperature.

Which, in humans would be viewed as 150% of the rise needed for a clinically significant fever.
https://www.medicinenet.com/aches_pain_fever/article.htm

So, that's clearly a level at which effects would be expected in the long term.

[Bored chemist]

According to this
http://ratfanclub.org/nutreq.html
 "A rat needs about 60 calories a day depending on size."
And 60 Kcal per day is 251040 J/ day
About 3 Watts.
And I think the typical mass is about 250 to 500g
So that's a baseline consumption of 6 to 12 W/ kg
Dissipating 150% to 200% as much as you are "built for" is a bit of a big ask, especially on a continuous basis.

So, there's no way you can say that an effect noticed at  6W/Kg isn't essentially thermal ( caused by the thermal stress, rather than directly by the change in temperature).

If you have isolated cells which are unable to sweat then the temperature rise may well be even bigger.

[CliveG]

Once more you ignore the basic premise.

ICNIRP set a limit based on heating in rats on the (incorrect) assumption that only heating matters.

They increased the temperature of the rats until there were behavioral changes - such as sleeping more, eating less etc.

They noted the SAR and the temperature rise. And stated (incorrectly again) that dosage is not a factor.

What NTP did was challenge these basic assumptions. They proved that the rats get can get cancer under the limits and with time.

What they did was prove that ICNIRP hasn't a clue about health issues and radiation and is promoting false information (fake news). ICNIRP does not want to admit it is wrong. The heat issue works with the ordinary man in the street with regard to propaganda value and they stick with it for that reason alone. This however is a science forum.

Heating is not the problem and why you both keep banging on that drum is beyond me.

[Bored chemist]

Heating is not the problem and why you both keep banging on that drum is beyond me.

Sorry to hear that it is beyond you.
I will try to explain it simply.

Nobody  denies that the heating effect of high power EMR is potentially harmful.
Some say that EMR is harmful at much lower levels.

The way to distinguish is to do controlled experiments at levels where the heating effect is small.

But you keep posting results of experiments done at levels like 6W/Kg.

That level is not small.
There is significant heat (and other) stress on the animals at that power.

So, any effects observed in these experiments may be due to thermal stress, rather than any novel mechanism.


If you want to show that there is an effect due to some other pathway, you need to find data measured at much lower doses.

Just showing us more data obtained at high doses makes you look foolish (or even dishonest) and leads to frustration in those of us trying to hold a discussion about possible non-thermal effects.

That's why we start sarcastically  referring to "cooking rats".

Do you not have a basic understanding of hyperbole?

[CliveG]

Heating is not the problem and why you both keep banging on that drum is beyond me.

Sorry to hear that it is beyond you.
I will try to explain it simply.

Nobody  denies that the heating effect of high power EMR is potentially harmful.
Some say that EMR is harmful at much lower levels.

The way to distinguish is to do controlled experiments at levels where the heating effect is small.

But you keep posting results of experiments done at levels like 6W/Kg.

That level is not small.
There is significant heat (and other) stress on the animals at that power.

So, any effects observed in these experiments may be due to thermal stress, rather than any novel mechanism.


If you want to show that there is an effect due to some other pathway, you need to find data measured at much lower doses.

Just showing us more data obtained at high doses makes you look foolish (or even dishonest) and leads to frustration in those of us trying to hold a discussion about possible non-thermal effects.

That's why we start sarcastically  referring to "cooking rats".

Do you not have a basic understanding of hyperbole?

Hyperbole is not appropriate here. It is such an exaggeration that it is emotional button pushing for non-scientists.

ICNIRP is the international body that sets the limits. They say that heating cannot cause cancer, especially if the temperature increase is low. Yet you are suggesting that it can. If so, what is the mechanism? (There are thousands of studies showing cellular harm and DNA damage at much lower levels - and no studies that show a small increase in temperature causes measurable cellular harm.)

Quote a scientific study that indicates that rats heated by ambient heat instead of MW radiation also have the same outcome - namely cancer.

Rats will adapt to stressors - either ambient heat or MW heat so that the temperature rise alone does not cause cancer.

Is MW radiation within 1 deg C of heating a carcinogen? ICNIRP says there is no possibility - and NTP and Ramazinni say they are wrong.

Why does ICNIRP not say they need further study and lower their own limits? My view is that they see an admission that they were wrong as undermining their entire propaganda campaign. Their credibility would be in doubt in the eyes of the public.

You are moving the goal posts on a matter of a basic scientific stand taken by ICNIRP rather than admit to being wrong.

Once you answer that - then we can move on to the studies with lower levels of radiation

[alancalverd]

Excellent thermoregulatory keps stable core temp over ambient of 5-30 degC for 60 min

60 minutes is not 19 hours. 4W/kg for 60 minutes at an ambient of 5 deg C may well be tolerable, but like all mammals, rats cool by evaporation among other methods. 6W/kg for 19 hours should desiccate most mammals.

Try it yourself!  You dissipate about 1.5W/kg. Enclose yourself in a closefitting Styrofoam or Celotex box, with just an air hole. See if you live any longer than soldiers and firemen who  have a maximum duration of about 2 hours in biological isolation garments on a sunny day.

[Bored chemist]

. If so, what is the mechanism?

Is that meant to be a serious question?

Do I really need to explain that stress is a known risk factor for cancer?

Or do you somehow think the rats enjoy their sauna experience?

Hyperbole is not appropriate here.

Repeatedly ignoring the fact that low grade heat is a problem is much less appropriate.
Why did you do it?

Rats will adapt to stressors

Just like people; they die.

Quote a scientific study that indicates that rats heated by ambient heat instead of MW radiation also have the same outcome - namely cancer.

Have you ever heard of an ethics committee?

They say that heating cannot cause cancer,

Really?
Where?

You are moving the goal posts

As I explained, if you ant to talk about threats from phone masts, then citing experiments where rats are exposed at significantly higher levels is moving the goal posts.
Why are you doing it?

Once you answer that - then we can move on to the studies with lower levels of radiation

OK.
I answered it.
Now get on with the actual topic under discussion.
However, please avoid citing reports of experiments that are poorly constructed.

[CliveG]

I cannot believe the misdirection and standard of comments that are being made.

They are deliberate attempts to sabotage this discussion and prevent people from seeing the truth.

I wonder what interpretations are being made by visitors to this thread.

Our great advances in science are outstripping our common sense. It is no wonder that nearly all visions are the future feature dystopian scenarios where mutants are ruled by an elite or where the world self destructs.

I have learned a lot because I was forced to examine areas that I thought were obvious (to me anyway).

I have another legal filing to make by next Monday, and must take a break from this. This thread did provide some mentally stimulation until recently.

[alancalverd]

The fundamental problem of proof is, to my mind, the essential latency period of radiogenic tumors.

In order to generate a tumor you have to make a cell that is viable, insufficiently distinct from its neighbors  that it is not rejected by the immune system, and either capable of unlimited perfect replication at a faster rate than its neighbors or incapable of dying. It has to organise a vascular system and find its preferred nutrients, then replicate  to a size where it produces clinical symptoms  or is at least clearly distinguishable by x-ray or post-mortem.

The probability of producing exactly the right mutation in a single cell is minute, and the probability of identical mutations occurring in several cells from electromagnetic radiation is obviously negligible*, so there will always be a latency period between induction and expression of radiogenic tumors - this is one of the characteristics of stochastic harm. The other significant characteristic is the lack of a threshold: probability of incidence is dose dependent with no lower limit, but the effect is not dose dependent. It's difficult enough to demonstrate in rats, never mind humans.

If you have a legal case, it would be better based on deterministic effects. These have a threshold dose, negligible latency, and usually recover without intervention (apart from preventing infection). Think suntan/sunburn. The lack of latency means that you can participate in a blind correlation trial and prove your point absolutely, without reference to other people's lousy rat experiments.

Happy to help.


*unlike chemically-induced tumors, where a specific and selective agent will almost certainly induce pretty much the same mutation in as many cells as you like

[CliveG]

The fundamental problem of proof is, to my mind, the essential latency period of radiogenic tumors.

[snipped for brevity]

A reasonable and rational post. I will answer but am busy. The legal challenge is in appealing the technicalities used to unfairly get the court to dismiss the health issues and to hit us with massive costs to get me to give up.

The main case is the illegality in getting City approval (this is Africa!).

In the mean time, think about exponential increases in power and photon densities and think about probabilities.

[alancalverd]

I do. It's my job.

[Bored chemist]

I wonder what interpretations are being made by visitors to this thread.

Good question

Would any "passers by" care to comment?

[jeffreyH]

As a passer by I see several professionals trying to educate the ignorant.

[jeffreyH]

The Cuban and Chinese embassy staff attacks mimicked mild concussion. They had audio effects as well. Microwave is considered as a possibility although various interests try to downplay (even ridicule) that possibility.

That is just anecdotal with no evidence to back it up. If that is how you support your case then you shouldn't be taken seriously in my opinion.

[CliveG]

As a passer by I see several professionals trying to educate the ignorant.

Just a quick pass-by shooting on this one.

So the massive amount of research I have done still leaves me "ignorant"? And what is the profession of these professionals - apart from taking a position against deeper science and stubbornly refusing to budge?

You show how wrong your signature line is "Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates". There is decades of research and yet - nada.

BTW - The amount that I have learned in teaching myself some cellular microbiology has given me an sense of wonder as to how complex life is.

[CliveG]

The Cuban and Chinese embassy staff attacks mimicked mild concussion. They had audio effects as well. Microwave is considered as a possibility although various interests try to downplay (even ridicule) that possibility.

That is just anecdotal with no evidence to back it up. If that is how you support your case then you shouldn't be taken seriously in my opinion.

I never gave it as a proof of MW damage. Only that the possibility of MW is being actively suppressed. Even the US military does not want the possibility in the media.

MW has been researched as a weapon by all countries. What better target than consulate staff from an opposing country?

The theories other than MW are full of holes. What do you think caused the problems?

[Bored chemist]

So the massive amount of research I have done still leaves me "ignorant"?

Apparently, because it hasn't taught you how to critically evaluate a report.
As far as I can tell, the way you choose whether to cite a report her or not depends on "Does it support my perspective? If so, it must be right".
And yet you fail to notice glaring errors like those I have pointed out.

And what is the profession of these professionals

I'm a chemist; these days I get paid to do risk assessment.
How about you?

apart from taking a position against deeper science

I'm still waiting for you to produce meaningful science. All the reports you have actually cited are obviously flawed.

You show how wrong your signature line is "Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates". There is decades of research and yet - nada.

That works both ways. Get a mirror.

MW has been researched as a weapon by all countries.

So have water cannons. Do you plan to ban water?
Nobody (except, ironically, you) has disputed the effects of high level microwaves.
So why even mention this stuff?

[Bored chemist]

Even the US military does not want the possibility in the media.

Who  produced this  coverage then?
https://www.rt.com/news/weapon-us-microwave-cannon-363/
It sure doesn't look like it was obtained  clandestinely.