[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on Today at 05:36:26

    cell equilibrium potential which is in the order of about 60-70 millivolts.


And it's easy to measure voltages a thousand times less than that.
Even nanovolt measurements (a million times less than typical cell  membrane potentials) are "off the peg" - albeit an expensive peg.
https://uk.tek.com/keithley-low-level-sensitive-and-specialty-instruments/keithley-nanovoltmeter-model-2182a

And how do your stick the probes onto a protein attached to cell membrane? As well as detecting the opening and closing of the channel in response? At nanosecond response times?

[alancalverd]

Computer modelling does not verify anything. IIRC all the in vivo findings you have quoted have involved radiation intensities known to be acutely dangerous, or not replicated by independent laboratories.

You are applying on one criteria.

Just the one you quote, and is demonstrably true. IIRC the maximum output from the handset occurs when it is seeking a connection in a weak signal area.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: CliveG on Today at 05:36:26

    cell equilibrium potential which is in the order of about 60-70 millivolts.


And it's easy to measure voltages a thousand times less than that.
Even nanovolt measurements (a million times less than typical cell  membrane potentials) are "off the peg" - albeit an expensive peg.
https://uk.tek.com/keithley-low-level-sensitive-and-specialty-instruments/keithley-nanovoltmeter-model-2182a

And how do your stick the probes onto a protein attached to cell membrane? As well as detecting the opening and closing of the channel in response? At nanosecond response times?

Either it can be done (it is) or your arguments about cell potentials have no basis in fact. You choose.

[Bored chemist]

And how do your stick the probes onto a protein attached to cell membrane? As well as detecting the opening and closing of the channel in response? At nanosecond response times?

And now we see that you are just being silly.
Cell membranes have modest, but definite impedance and capacitances.

If there's any meaningful point to measuring on a ns timescale there must be a corresponding GHz bandwidth.
And, if you measure a voltage across a resistance of 1 K Ohm or so the noise voltage is about 0.1mV.

Any "signal" below that would be perpetually lost in the noise.

And, of course , there's the capacitance problem. Cell membranes are thin insulators so they have significant capacitance.
Given the finite source impedance, you can't charge + discharge them that fast.
The timescale for real signals is about a millisecond or 10.

[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on Today at 05:36:26

    cell equilibrium potential which is in the order of about 60-70 millivolts.


And it's easy to measure voltages a thousand times less than that.
Even nanovolt measurements (a million times less than typical cell  membrane potentials) are "off the peg" - albeit an expensive peg.
https://uk.tek.com/keithley-low-level-sensitive-and-specialty-instruments/keithley-nanovoltmeter-model-2182a

And how do your stick the probes onto a protein attached to cell membrane? As well as detecting the opening and closing of the channel in response? At nanosecond response times?

Either it can be done (it is) or your arguments about cell potentials have no basis in fact. You choose.

Darn. I was hoping to provoke a response from BC.

The patch clamp techniques are used. What studies would you refer me to for the latest in values and ranges?

[CliveG]

And, of course , there's the capacitance problem. Cell membranes are thin insulators so they have significant capacitance.
Given the finite source impedance, you can't charge + discharge them that fast.
The timescale for real signals is about a millisecond or 10.

Hmm. Done some reading have you. One must remember that we are talking about localized areas that are very small. Injecting some ions by using the resting potential can rapidly change the potential across the protein that is doing the measurement for the channel. Theoretically, how fast can a protein sensor respond to a change in potential, and what would be the effect of the channel opening even briefly. Could it cause neurons to mistakenly unbalance the equation regarding which inputs are being activated?

I have to read up on this a bit more and refresh my memory. I am talking from memory and as we know it is getting faulty.

At least you guys are finally engaging!!!

[CliveG]

Quote

    You are applying on one criteria.

Just the one you quote, and is demonstrably true. IIRC the maximum output from the handset occurs when it is seeking a connection in a weak signal area.

Are you saying that there is no dose dependence, no pulsation issues, no long term effects and no sensitization? That just short bursts are more dangerous than 24/7 immersion?

[alancalverd]

I'm not saying anything. Just waiting for you to come up with a sensible demonstration of whatever you claim.

[CliveG]

Computer modelling does not verify anything. IIRC all the in vivo findings you have quoted have involved radiation intensities known to be acutely dangerous, or not replicated by independent laboratories.

Computer modeling is used all the time to indicate the variables that may be involved and what the magnitude of those effects may be. It is used successfully in many branches of science. While it may not constitute "proof" it can be used to reinforce various theories. In this case the hypothesis that ion channels can be influenced by cell phone microwaves. To dismiss computer modelling without even looking at the study is not very scientific of you IMO.

Let me try another approach.
a) ICNIRP is the international self-appointed body that sets a recommended safe level for radiation.
b) ICNIRP maintain that the only harmful effect of emfs is heating.
c) Based on heating, they set a safe level with a safety factor built in
d) If they are correct then no experiment should see harm being done at lower levels
e) There are experiments that show harm at lower levels
f) There were no heating effects
g) The conclusion is that ICNIRP is wrong about heating and a safe level.

Now what we need to do is to determine the mechanism other than heating that is involved, and what a safe level may actually be. This has been studied thousands of times since 1994. There is a consensus among independent scientists that reactive oxygen species (ROS) may be involved. One way to generate intra-cellular ROS is to disturb the ion channels.

Harm to humans falls into two categories. Serious bodily harm such as cancer, and stress harm. The stress harm, such as headaches, cognitive decline, digestion disturbance and the like are harder to prove a connection. Such proof will involve much more sophisticated tests, or the results of many years of epidemiological studies around towers. Given the massive rollout of towers and output power, it may be a disastrous human experiment.

[CliveG]

I'm not saying anything. Just waiting for you to come up with a sensible demonstration of whatever you claim.

Okay. I am going away on Tuesday to a health hydro for three days to see if the pains I have go away. There is almost no radiation in that area. Hence no internet and very bad cell reception.

I will be starting on the tests I have proposed sometime this month.

[alancalverd]

Of course you will feel better. Enjoy your holiday. And if you do participate in a genuine double-blind experiment, the world will be interested in the result.

[Bored chemist]

Darn. I was hoping to provoke a response from BC.

Yo got one, but you don't seem to have noticed.

At least you guys are finally engaging!!!

We have been doing that for 11 pages.
Again, it seems you didn't notice.

Done some reading have you.

Yes, and in this case I did it in 1985/86 while studying  at university.

There is a consensus among independent scientists

Independent of what?
Of evidence?

[CliveG]

Of course you will feel better. Enjoy your holiday. And if you do participate in a genuine double-blind experiment, the world will be interested in the result.

What I want is for the pain I have over most of my body to go away. The resort has almost no radiation. But I agree it is no conclusive test because it is very relaxing. The food is excellent and it will give me a chance to kick-start my attempt to lose some weight by eating less. I already eat healthily.

I have had to increase my salt (sodium) intake because the heat has made me drink much more water. The lack of sodium manifests as mostly as pain in my calves. I eat almost no processed food and so must add salt to my diet. There is very little no sodium in natural foods of any kind. Animals eat dirt or use salt licks.

If I do not have enough water I start to get a dehydration headache. These pains are recognizable and are different than the pains I get from radiation. This is why I say that I must get a pre-determined menu to take while doing the box experiment. Enough water and enough salt.

How about a comment on my logic about cellular harm and not ICNIRP heat?

[CliveG]

Darn. I was hoping to provoke a response from BC.

Yo got one, but you don't seem to have noticed.

At least you guys are finally engaging!!!

We have been doing that for 11 pages.
Again, it seems you didn't notice.

Done some reading have you.

Yes, and in this case I did it in 1985/86 while studying  at university.

There is a consensus among independent scientists

Independent of what?
Of evidence?

Your snarky comments are noted. How about my approach to ICNIRP being wrong about heating? Can I take your silence as acquiescence?

[CliveG]

I came across this article. My question is: Why is it no longer okay to experiment on State mental patients but is okay to experiment on ordinary citizens like me using cell tower radiation. How long before I achieve the status of idiot, imbecile or moron? And I suppose I will be denied the pleasure of sticky toffee?

edition.cnn.com/2019/10/30/health/swedish-cavity-experiment-wellness/index.html

...In Sweden in the 1930s, studies found even 3-year-old children had cavities in 83% of their teeth. Such extensive decay wasn't unusual; dental care was very poor in most countries. Treatment was basically non-existent and rotting teeth were typically pulled. Toothlessness was so prevalent in the United States that the military restricted recruits for World War I and World War II to men who had six intact opposing teeth.

...In medical terms at the time, an "idiot" was a person with an IQ below 25, who functioned at the level of a normal toddler. An "imbecile" had a IQ of between 26 and 50, whose intelligence was about that of a child of seven. "Morons" functioned at about the intellectual level of a child of 12.

..."They were given toffees or caramels that stuck in their teeth," Kanger said. "The teeth were destroyed. And after they were ruined, these people were in terrible pain. It was actually horrible."

...Today, the thought of ruining anyone's teeth for an experiment is unthinkable. But it wasn't long ago that people with disabilities were considered subhuman by many, making experimentation morally acceptable to some.

[Bored chemist]

Can I take your silence as acquiescence?

No.
I just got tired of rebutting nonsense.

How long before I achieve the status of idiot, imbecile or moron?

I guess that's rhetorical

[Bored chemist]

But I agree it is no conclusive test because it is very relaxing.

That's not the reason.
Are you just deliberately ignoring the importance of blinding in tests?

[CliveG]

But I agree it is no conclusive test because it is very relaxing.

That's not the reason.
Are you just deliberately ignoring the importance of blinding in tests?

No. Just conducting some preliminary research to establish parameters and expand my experience. Something I always did when inventing so as to refine the invention.

[CliveG]

Can I take your silence as acquiescence?

No.
I just got tired of rebutting nonsense.

How long before I achieve the status of idiot, imbecile or moron?

I guess that's rhetorical

Rebutting. Mostly by personal declaration. No logical assessment of the articles I put forward. The proper terminology is "scornful out-of-hand dismissal".

Shame on you. Making fun of me because I am an idiot (or am I just at the moron stage?).

[Bored chemist]

Mostly by personal declaration. No logical assessment of the articles I put forward.

Maybe mostly that.
ButI did put forward the science behind my claim that you are talking hogwash

And now we see that you are just being silly.
Cell membranes have modest, but definite impedance and capacitances.

If there's any meaningful point to measuring on a ns timescale there must be a corresponding GHz bandwidth.
And, if you measure a voltage across a resistance of 1 K Ohm or so the noise voltage is about 0.1mV.

Any "signal" below that would be perpetually lost in the noise.

And, of course , there's the capacitance problem. Cell membranes are thin insulators so they have significant capacitance.
Given the finite source impedance, you can't charge + discharge them that fast.
The timescale for real signals is about a millisecond or 10.

And, once again, you seem to have missed it.

Do you understand that the point of a discussion forum is that you reply to points that are raised?
You shouldn't  just carry on with your gish gallop of anti-scientific nonsense.