Magnetobiology and Organisms - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14988924
Civilisation as a whole is a dangerous experiment on humanity. Still, on balance, it seems to be worth doing....
#14988929
Potemkin wrote:Civilisation as a whole is a dangerous experiment on humanity. Still, on balance, it seems to be worth doing....
The application of this new telecommunications network is an aspect of full-spectrum superiority. Civilisation will carry on regardless, so I'm not sure what your point is. You appear to detract validity from my overall message. Nevertheless, mastering the human domain is a crucial component and goal of operationalization. Emergent variables may be identified and possibly influenced in a cybernetically augmented battlespace. Commercially, faster connectivity will accelerate all aspects of society and that's the beauty of this dual-use technology.

The potential biological consequences serve as an opportunity for appeal.
#14988943
The universe, even this planet alone, is big enough for every tech level so we don't all have to live at the same tech level. If you live in the US you don't even need to leave the country to find whichever tech level is your preference; you can choose between New York, Mid-west small town, Amish village and solitary mud hut in the middle of a national park. If you are allergic to 5g you have choices.
#14989125


You can watch "The Minds of Men" in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=50&t=166025&start=60

SolarCross wrote:The universe, even this planet alone, is big enough for every tech level so we don't all have to live at the same tech level. If you live in the US you don't even need to leave the country to find whichever tech level is your preference; you can choose between New York, Mid-west small town, Amish village and solitary mud hut in the middle of a national park. If you are allergic to 5g you have choices.
:roll: Kind thoughts, SolarCross, but this technology will eventually cover the Earth.

See: Laplace's Demon (bioelectrically engineering planet Earth)

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=166559

Many entities wish to deploy some kind of global internet service. A quick search on the web will show how many people want it.

Furthermore, consider this: There's a Detectable Human-Made Barrier Surrounding Earth

https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-space ... ding-earth

Of course, fifth generation wireless communication will not use the same frequencies. I'm pointing out how our communications tech can have far reaching effects.

If you live in the US you don't even need to leave the country to find whichever tech level is your preference; you can choose between New York, Mid-west small town, Amish village and solitary mud hut in the middle of a national park. If you are allergic to 5g you have choices.

Electromagnetic pollution is similar to air pollution.

As usual you opt for jokes over substance. In-fact, you didn't address any crucial aspect of this thread.


I should link this thread: viewtopic.php?f=76&t=172543 because of new research... In particular: This slow periodic activity can generate electric fields which ‘switch on’ neighboring cells briefly, allowing for chemical-free communication across gaps in the brain. The team managed to simulate communication across completely severed brain tissue while the separate pieces remained in close proximity. Perhaps this new mechanism, found to stimulate communication, could be coupled with future communications tech. I'm of the opinion that scientists are always looking for non-invasive ways to manipulate the human brain for better or worse.

I recall Karl Lashley: His famously unsuccessful search for the “engram” – the localized trace of the memory for a maze in a trained rat’s brain – led him to propose the principle of "mass action," in which learning is distributed across all parts of the brain rather than stored in a single regions, with the degree of impairment proportional to the amount of brain that was damaged. His complementary principle of "equipotentiality" stated that in the event of damage to one area of the brain, other parts of the brain can sometimes assume the role of the damaged region. Though his views are now considered too extreme, the principle that memories are not localized to a single spot in the brain is now well accepted.

https://psychology.fas.harvard.edu/people/karl-lashley

Lastly, I remember something about memory manipulation using light.

Light brings back bad memories
MIT researchers identify, label and manipulate the neuronal network encoding a memory
https://www.theguardian.com/science/neu ... 2/apr/06/1

Or Optogenetic stimulation of a hippocampal engram activates fear memory recall.

Abstract

A specific memory is thought to be encoded by a sparse population of neurons1,2. These neurons can be tagged during learning for subsequent identification3 and manipulation4,5,6. Moreover, their ablation or inactivation results in reduced memory expression, suggesting their necessity in mnemonic processes. However, the question of sufficiency remains: it is unclear whether it is possible to elicit the behavioural output of a specific memory by directly activating a population of neurons that was active during learning. Here we show in mice that optogenetic reactivation of hippocampal neurons activated during fear conditioning is sufficient to induce freezing behaviour. We labelled a population of hippocampal dentate gyrus neurons activated during fear learning with channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2)7,8 and later optically reactivated these neurons in a different context. The mice showed increased freezing only upon light stimulation, indicating light-induced fear memory recall. This freezing was not detected in non-fear-conditioned mice expressing ChR2 in a similar proportion of cells, nor in fear-conditioned mice with cells labelled by enhanced yellow fluorescent protein instead of ChR2. Finally, activation of cells labelled in a context not associated with fear did not evoke freezing in mice that were previously fear conditioned in a different context, suggesting that light-induced fear memory recall is context specific. Together, our findings indicate that activating a sparse but specific ensemble of hippocampal neurons that contribute to a memory engram is sufficient for the recall of that memory. Moreover, our experimental approach offers a general method of mapping cellular populations bearing memory engrams.


https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11028
#14989227
RhetoricThug wrote::roll: Kind thoughts, SolarCross, but this technology will eventually cover the Earth.

Eventually. You will probably have a thousand years free of it in the middle of a national park and I am guessing you probably aren't likely to live even a significant fraction of that long. Maybe you could worry for your kids but something tells me Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation
#14989372
SolarCross wrote:You will probably have a thousand years free of it in the middle of a national park and I am guessing you probably aren't likely to live even a significant fraction of that long. Maybe you could worry for your kids.
Sure, emf quiet zones and emf-free communities exist. BUT this thread is not exclusively about my well-being. This thread is about raising awareness and providing information on non-ionizing radiation so people can have an informed discussion and (re)consider the possible biological consequences. As for dual-use technology and telecommunications tech in particular, there are precedents for using it in military operations.

In principle, mosaic warfare and multi domain operations can benefit from fifth generation wireless infrastructure.

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2017-08-04

DARPA's Strategic Technology Office seeks to turn complexity into a powerful new asymmetric weapon via rapidly composable networks of low-cost sensors, multi-domain command and control nodes, and cooperative manned and unmanned systems. Using the concept of a mosaic, which comprises many smaller individual pieces, STO is applying "mosaic warfare" to link together lower-cost, less complex systems in a vast number of ways to create desired, interwoven effects tailored to any scenario.

The approach will draw in part on a number of existing DARPA programs that are developing enabling technologies to achieve the challenging mosaic warfare architecture, including: The Complex Adaptive System Composition And Design Environment (CASCADE) program is addressing composition of existing and new systems; the System of Systems Integration Technology and Experimentation (SoSITE) program is focused on integrating the various systems to work together; Distributed Battle Management (DBM) and Resilient Synchronized Planning and Assessment for the Contested Environment (RSPACE) are addressing battle management command and control; and Communications in Contested Environments (C2E) and Dynamic Network Adaptation for Mission Optimization (DyNAMO) are focused on seamless, adaptable communications and networking.



If you live in the US you don't even need to leave the country to find whichever tech level is your preference; you can choose between New York, Mid-west small town, Amish village and solitary mud hut in the middle of a national park. If you are allergic to 5g you have choices.
If someone had a problem with the use of pesticides in food production, I wouldn't proceed to tell them to eat organic food AND poke fun of their concern. Like pesticide use (plus pesticide runoff), electrosmog is a form of environmental pollution, and should be addressed as an environmental (group) issue not as an individual dilemma.

What If artificial EMF impact other organisms?

Sensitive organisms (eg birds, bees, butterflies, etc) are unable to drastically modify their habitat selection.

If you wish to have a real discussion, I am here :) . If you wish to make personal attacks and vague generalizations, I will ignore you :( . I'm sorry if I don't admire or entertain brash replies like "yeah, whatever," or "just relocate dude." :| Alas, one could say "the development and implementation of this technology is inevitable," to that I say- inevitability is a problematic moral justification.
#14990113
I am thoroughly surprised by the lack of interest in this topic. It shows just how little people care or know about environmental stimuli that may affect biological processes. I'm of the opinion that advances in anthropogenic EMF-research will play a large role in 21st century medicine and warfare.

Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact

At the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, an independent scientific organisation, volunteering scientists have constructed the world's largest categorised online database of peer-reviewed studies on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and other man-made electromagnetic fields of lower frequencies. A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields. We have published our preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects.7 This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal by 244 scientists from 41 countries who have published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature and collectively petitioned the WHO and the UN for immediate measures to reduce public exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields and radiation.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanp ... 42-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext#%20




Electrosmog and autoimmune disease.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27412293


Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?

The spread of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) is rising and health effects are still under investigation. RF-EMF promote oxidative stress, a condition involved in cancer onset, in several acute and chronic diseases and in vascular homeostasis. Although some evidences are still controversial, the WHO IARC classified RF-EMF as "possible carcinogenic to humans", and more recent studies suggested reproductive, metabolic and neurologic effects of RF-EMF, which are also able to alter bacterial antibiotic resistance. In this evolving scenario, although the biological effects of 5G communication systems are very scarcely investigated, an international action plan for the development of 5G networks has started, with a forthcoming increment in devices and density of small cells, and with the future use of millimeter waves (MMW). Preliminary observations showed that MMW increase skin temperature, alter gene expression, promote cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stress, inflammatory and metabolic processes, could generate ocular damages, affect neuro-muscular dynamics. Further studies are needed to better and independently explore the health effects of RF-EMF in general and of MMW in particular. However, available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle, to define exposed subjects as potentially vulnerable and to revise existing limits. An adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms linking RF-EMF exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current clinical practice, in particular in consideration of evidences pointing to extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer risk and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable diseases.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29402696
#14990331
RhetoricThug wrote:I am thoroughly surprised by the lack of interest in this topic. It shows just how little people care or know about environmental stimuli that may affect biological processes.


I don't think it is that RT, but the relevance of it. I think most people understand that waking up to a nice sunny day brighten up our mood better if it is dark and rainy. And I suspect electro magnetism plays apart in our health too. But so what? These are factors we cannot change today as society demands electronics and WiFi devices - not to mention we have Valium. I understand you are against Technology destroying humanity so this might be interesting to you, but most people just accept that technology is part of their lives and something they would rather have in their lives too. That might be disappointing to read but it is simply a point you need to accept that most people (so in essence most of PoFo) would rather have their computers, phones and WiFi rather than feel a little bit happier to be alive in the mornings. And as such will just read your articles agree with them and move on without comment.
#14990458
Again, someone unwilling to discuss the information. More excuses.
B0ycey wrote:I don't think it is that RT, but the relevance of it. I think most people understand that waking up to a nice sunny day brighten up our mood better if it is dark and rainy. And I suspect electro magnetism plays apart in our health too. But so what?
:knife: We didn't create the weather, weather isn't a choice. The implementation of communications technology (and the utilization of particular frequencies) is a choice. Just like the use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was a choice.

society demands electronics and WiFi devices - not to mention we have Valium.
:roll: Society demanded segregation in the US- not to mention we had Jim Crow laws.

I understand you are against Technology destroying humanity so this might be interesting to you, but most people just accept that technology is part of their lives and something they would rather have in their lives too.
I never said all forms of technology destroy humanity. In this thread, the focus is on magnetobiology, and the delivery methods of wireless communications technology.

That might be disappointing to read but it is simply a point you need to accept that most people (so in essence most of PoFo) would rather have their computers, phones and WiFi rather than feel a little bit happier to be alive in the mornings. And as such will just read your articles agree with them and move on without comment.
Yes, the ol don't starve the people argument, used by big agriculture when people criticize particular farming practices. Most people don't care about what enters their body. They need to eat. Sure, but it's certainly not a reason for anyone to suddenly stop criticizing industrial farming techniques and technologies.

We should encourage and enforce ethical standards.

We need more information on anthropogenic non-ionizing radiation and how it affects biological organisms. It's like using plastic products because society demands convenience. Look, now we have microplastics in the ocean. Electromagnetic pollution should be a real concern. Man-made wireless radiation is a preventable pollutant.
#14990531
RhetoricThug wrote:Yes, the ol don't starve the people argument, used by big agriculture when people criticize particular farming practices. Most people don't care about what enters their body. They need to eat. Sure, but it's certainly not a reason for anyone to suddenly stop criticizing industrial farming techniques and technologies.

We should encourage and enforce ethical standards.

We need more information on anthropogenic non-ionizing radiation and how it affects biological organisms. It's like using plastic products because society demands convenience. Look, now we have microplastics in the ocean. Electromagnetic pollution should be a real concern. Man-made wireless radiation is a preventable pollutant.


I have no issue with you putting the information out there RT. And to some extent it is important. I was addressing why you won't get much of a response.

Like plastic, it really is a matter of convenience vs ethics. We all know we should buy/use less plastic and yet we still buy/use it anyway. And that is Capitalism for you in a nutshell. It is cheaper and more efficent so it doesn't matter how much Attenborough we watch, we still use it, throw it away and not comment on it as we do.

Although with magnetic/radio/radiation technology the effects are personal rather than environmental, and as such is really the same as addressing smoking to our health FYI. And unless there is significant data that shows a correlation to it with mortality rates, then it is unlikely to concern anyone that much. It is human nature to choose convenience over ethics hence why we have technology today and why it seems to be more dependent in our lives. Sure, that could be an issue in the future. And sure it could be bad for our health too. But as I said at the start of this response, I am only addressing why you won't get much response to this on PoFo. Because most users on PoFo are not going to disconnect their Internet over this.
#14990541
RhetoricThug wrote:I am thoroughly surprised by the lack of interest in this topic. It shows just how little people care or know about environmental stimuli that may affect biological processes. I'm of the opinion that advances in anthropogenic EMF-research will play a large role in 21st century medicine and warfare.

That probably has less to do with the subject matter and more to do with the messenger. People come to pofo to waste their time, I know I do, but even then we have standards and grinding through opaque cogitations just to find it is an overlong and obtuse sales pitch for tinfoil hats looks like a waste time beyond which even the most devoted of sloths can bear the shame to do.

Other than that @B0ycey has it; we all kind of know already that technology isn't risk free because that has been true since some grunting apeman figured out how to make artificial fire (it burns!) and sharpen sticks into artificial horns or claws (it makes bleed!). Cars kill, electricity kills and for thousands of years cities were lethal petri-dishes of plague etc. Far more often than not we evaluate the cost-benefit of a new technology to find the benefit worth the cost even when the cost is unambiguously masses of gory fatalities as with the car. EMsmog at least, if it has any effect at all, is so slight a damage that you literally cannot detect it happening with your own senses. In contrast try being oblivious to a car crash.
#14990632
:roll: ^ Why post in this thread if you're unwilling to discuss the information? Between veiled personal attacks and ridiculous "people demand modern technology" bits, I'm waiting for discussion. I never said we need to give up the internet, computers, etc. Furthermore, people can hardwire their internet connections if they wish to minimize exposure to wireless internet (at home). Let's discuss exposure, limits, duration, dispersion, and absorption.

Jeromy Johnson


Laymen are not interested in this topic. Luckily, educated citizens will ask tough questions.
#14990644
Ok RT. Lets discuss the information for those intellectuals who are ready to learn the truth and ask the big questions. What is the life expectancy of someone who is exposed to electromagnetic pollution compared to someone who isn't? Also, how many phone users develop brain tumours?

The reality is there may well be some truth in all your posts. And I suspect there are. But the significance of it will never outweigh the convenience of wireless technology. And I say that with the upmost confidence. Why? Because mobile phones and an association with brain tumours has been going around for as long as I remember. I have discussed it before with people numerous times. And yet here I am, on my phone, writing this message to you. So why am I using my phone? Because if there is any correlation to brain tumours it has to be minimal since everyone I know has a mobile phone and I can't say I known anyone who has died premature from them. In other words, it is a limited risk like driving a car - as you could be involved in an accident or eating fast food - as you could develop diabetes. And people accept those risks for the convenience they provide.

So I say it again, I suspect most readers will come across this thread, agree with it and move on. Don't be alarmed if responses are low.
#14990806
B0ycey wrote:Ok RT. Lets discuss the information for those intellectuals who are ready to learn the truth and ask the big questions. What is the life expectancy of someone who is exposed to electromagnetic pollution compared to someone who isn't? Also, how many phone users develop brain tumours?
With the proliferation of anthropogenic electromagnetic fields, it's very difficult to assess health risks and set-up a control experiment with a focus on life expectancy. On one hand, contemporary forms of electrosmog have only been around since the 1990s (and that's a generous time reference).. On the other, the propagation and concentration of non-ionizing radiation can be subject to many variables (stochastic process). Furthermore, background levels will continue to rise around the planet, adding new sources and variables to a life-expectancy study. This is a tricky area for research, and that's why the scientific community is somewhat split over the hasty implementation of new technologies.

What about electric, magnetic fields, and old/new forms of RF? All forms produce non-ionizing radiation.

What are electromagnetic fields?

Electric fields are created by differences in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger will be the resultant field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. If current does flow, the strength of the magnetic field will vary with power consumption but the electric field strength will be constant.

Natural sources of electromagnetic fields

Electromagnetic fields are present everywhere in our environment but are invisible to the human eye. Electric fields are produced by the local build-up of electric charges in the atmosphere associated with thunderstorms. The earth's magnetic field causes a compass needle to orient in a North-South direction and is used by birds and fish for navigation.
Human-made sources of electromagnetic fields

Besides natural sources the electromagnetic spectrum also includes fields generated by human-made sources: X-rays are employed to diagnose a broken limb after a sport accident. The electricity that comes out of every power socket has associated low frequency electromagnetic fields. And various kinds of higher frequency radiowaves are used to transmit information – whether via TV antennas, radio stations or mobile phone base stations.

The basics of wavelength and frequency
What makes the various forms of electromagnetic fields so different?

One of the main characteristics which defines an electromagnetic field (EMF) is its frequency or its corresponding wavelength. Fields of different frequencies interact with the body in different ways. One can imagine electromagnetic waves as series of very regular waves that travel at an enormous speed, the speed of light. The frequency simply describes the number of oscillations or cycles per second, while the term wavelength describes the distance between one wave and the next. Hence wavelength and frequency are inseparably intertwined: the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength.

A simple analogy should help to illustrate the concept: Tie a long rope to a door handle and keep hold of the free end. Moving it up and then down slowly will generate a single big wave; more rapid motion will generate a whole series of small waves. The length of the rope remains constant, therefore, the more waves you generate (higher frequency) the smaller will be the distance between them (shorter wavelength).

Electromagnetic fields at high frequencies

Mobile telephones, television and radio transmitters and radar produce RF fields. These fields are used to transmit information over long distances and form the basis of telecommunications as well as radio and television broadcasting all over the world. Microwaves are RF fields at high frequencies in the GHz range. In microwaves ovens, we use them to quickly heat food.

At radio frequencies, electric and magnetic fields are closely interrelated and we typically measure their levels as power densities in watts per square metre (W/m2).


Learn more: https://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/

Also, you might want to read this: Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Exposure Data

This chapter explains the physical principles and terminology relating to sources, exposures and dosimetry for human exposures to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). It also identifies critical aspects for consideration in the interpretation of biological and epidemiological studies.

Radiation is the process through which energy travels (or “propagates”) in the form of waves or particles through space or some other medium. The term “electromagnetic radiation” specifically refers to the wave-like mode of transport in which energy is carried by electric (E) and magnetic (H) fields that vary in planes perpendicular to each other and to the direction of energy propagation.

The variations in electric and magnetic field strength depend only on the source of the waves, and most man-made sources of electromagnetic radiation produce waves with field strengths that vary sinusoidally with time, as shown in Fig. 1.1. The number of cycles per second is known as the frequency (f) and is quantified in the unit hertz (Hz). The waves travel at the speed of light (c) in free space and in air, but more slowly in dielectric media, including body tissues. The wavelength (λ) is the distance between successive peaks in a wave (Fig. 1.1) and is related to the frequency according to λ = c/f (ICNIRP, 2009a).


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304634/

Do you understand how difficult it is to study the life expectancy of a human exposed to artificial EMF? Are you going to monitor a group of humans for a long time or extrapolate data sets? If you extrapolate data sets you gotta deal with numerous variables. Today, we follow guidelines for exposure, because that's the best we can do. Nevertheless, our guidelines do not account for proliferation, chemical signaling, the human-microbiota relationship, and possible bioaccumulative effects.

It's not all bad news. I'm of the opinion that EMF modulation will play a large role in medicine as we utilize specific frequencies to manipulate biochemical processes. After-all, intelligent systems become intelligent environments.


The reality is there may well be some truth in all your posts. And I suspect there are. But the significance of it will never outweigh the convenience of wireless technology. And I say that with the upmost confidence. Why? Because mobile phones and an association with brain tumours has been going around for as long as I remember. I have discussed it before with people numerous times. And yet here I am, on my phone, writing this message to you. So why am I using my phone? Because if there is any correlation to brain tumours it has to be minimal since everyone I know has a mobile phone and I can't say I known anyone who has died premature from them.


Is there any link between cellphones and cancer?

After evaluating several studies on the possibility of a connection between cellphones and glioma and a noncancerous brain tumor known as acoustic neuroma, members of the International Agency for Research on Cancer — part of the World Health Organization — agreed that there's limited evidence that cellphone radiation is a cancer-causing agent (carcinogenic). As a result, the group classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to people.

Still, a series of recent studies can't tell the entire story. It often takes many years between the use of a new cancer-causing agent and the observation of an increase in cancer rates, such as with tobacco and lung cancer. At this point, it's possible that too little time has passed to detect an increase in cancer rates directly attributable to cellphone use.

For now, no one knows if cellphones are capable of causing cancer. Although long-term studies are ongoing, to date there's no convincing evidence that cellphone use increases the risk of cancer. If you're concerned about the possible link between cellphones and cancer, consider limiting your use of cellphones — or use a speaker or hands-free device that places the cellphone antenna, which is typically in the cellphone itself, away from your head.


https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life ... q-20057798


In other words, it is a limited risk like driving a car - as you could be involved in an accident or eating fast food - as you could develop diabetes. And people accept those risks for the convenience they provide.
My argument is not about a potential individual collision, it's about unforeseen byproducts that affect ecosystems. When you drive a car, you're emitting carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases that affect the planet.

It's not about someone developing diabetes due to fast-food intake, I care about the factory farming that supplies someone with the choice to consume fast-food.

In other words, I'm not impressed by your limited outline, B0ycey. Efficacy and ethics go hand in hand when we talk about the ecosphere.

So I say it again, I suspect most readers will come across this thread, agree with it and move on. Don't be alarmed if responses are low.
Oh, I know. In this case, the reader is more important than the poster. By challenging my perspective, you strengthen my response. The reader benefits.
#14994727
Pole position: human body might be able to pick up on Earth's magnetic field

Scientists say there are signs of humans having a subconscious magnetic sense


It sounds like a power to be boasted of by the X-Men, but researchers say humans might have the ability to pick up on Earth’s magnetic field.

Many animals, from pigeons to turtles, use it to navigate, while research has shown cattle prefer to align themselves with the field when standing in, well, a field. Even dogs make use of it – albeit when defecating.

But while debates continue about the mechanisms behind such phenomena, it has remained unclear whether humans also have the power of magnetoreception. Now scientists say there are signs that we do.

“We have not as a species lost the magnetic sensory system that our ancestors [millions of years ago] had,” said Prof Joseph Kirschvink, leader of the research from the California Institute of Technology. “We are part of Earth’s magnetic biosphere.”

Writing in the journal eNeuro, Kirschvink and colleagues in the US and Japan describe how they made their discovery after building a six-sided cage, the walls of which were made of aluminium to shield the setup from electromagnetic interference. These walls also contained coils through which currents were passed to produce magnetic fields of about the same strength as Earth’s.

Each participant was asked to enter the cage and sit still on a wooden chair in the dark, facing straight ahead towards the north. During the experiment, the team measured the participant’s brain waves using an electroencephalogram (EEG).

In some experiments the applied magnetic fields were fixed in one direction, while in others they were rotated. In still others the machines were turned on but no magnetic field was produced – meaning the participant was only exposed to Earth’s natural magnetic field. The participant was unaware which experiment was under way.

The results, gathered from 34 adult participants, revealed that certain scenarios triggered a drop in participants’ alpha brain waves – a change that is linked to the brain processing information. This occurred if the applied magnetic field was pointed north and then swept upwards or downwards, or directed down while pointing north and rotated anticlockwise. That is similar to a human in the northern hemisphere nodding their head, or turning their head to the right respectively.

Kirschvink said the responses are akin to the brain “freaking out” – in other words clocking an unexpected change in the environment. Crucially, he said, it means that humans must be able to detect such changes – although the strength of the response varied hugely among participants.

The team say the experiments offer clues as to what the human magnetoreception system might look like – noting that the results rule out electrical induction, or simply artefacts, as explanations.

One possible system that has has been mooted for other animals, particularly birds, is a “quantum compass” based on molecules with unpaired electrons that respond to Earth’s magnetic field. This would allow an animal to tell whether they are moving towards a pole or the equator, but not whether they are headed north or south.

But authors say the new research suggests the human system can tell north from south, supporting an alternative mechanism involving special cells containing iron-based crystals. These crystals are thought to rotate rather like the needle of a compass, opening or closing pores in the cells, thereby affecting signals being sent to the brain.

“We are specifically predicting [these cells’] existence – they have to be there,” said Kirschvink. As all of the participants came from the northern hemisphere, the idea goes that their cells might have become tuned to its magnetic field – hence the ability to tell the poles apart.

The team say modern environments would likely interfere with this “sense”, while there is no sign as yet that such a system is linked to human consciousness, or that it influences our behaviour – although the team say it remains a possibility, and are planning experiments to find out.

Prof Peter Hore, an expert on magnetoreception from the University of Oxford, welcomed the study but said the experiments need to be repeated, including on people from the southern hemisphere, to confirm the findings.

Prof Kenneth Lohmann, an expert in magnetoreception from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said the study was fascinating and provocative. “Given that a number of other animals can sense Earth’s magnetic field, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that humans can as well,” he said.

However he also urged caution. “It is one thing to find a subtle change in brain activity in response to a weak magnetic field, and another thing to show that people really detect and use magnetic field information in a meaningful way.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... oreception


An Hour of Light and Sound a Day Might Keep Alzheimer’s at Bay

Playing a flashing white light and a trilling sound reversed signs of Alzheimer’s in mice. Researchers are now trying it in humans

There is no cure for Alzheimer’s disease. Although a few drugs manage temporarily certain cognitive symptoms of the illness, none can stop or meaningfully slow its progression. “We really don’t have much to offer people,” says Shannon Macauley, a neuroscientist at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Virtually all new treatments have failed in clinical trials. But new research is looking beyond drugs to see what relief might come from a simple LED light and a speaker.

Bathing patients in flashing light and pulsing sounds both tuned to a frequency of 40 hertz might reverse key signs of Alzheimer’s in the brain, according to a paper published in Cell on Thursday. “I think it’s an absolutely fascinating paper to be honest,” says Macauley, who was not involved in this work. “It’s a very provocative idea. It’s noninvasive and easy and low cost, potentially, so if it were to come to fruition in humans—that’s fabulous.”

Still, all this is a big if, Macauley acknowledges. The work was done in mice with genetic alterations that doomed them to develop key symptoms and pathology of Alzheimer’s disease. One batch of mice formed neurofibrillary tangles inside their neurons—dysfunctional knots of a protein called tau that can lead to the cell’s death. Another batch of the mice developed amyloid beta plaques—sticky heaps of protein that dam the flow of communication between neurons. All the mice also had a third hallmark of the disease—irregular brain activity in the gamma range of brain waves that oscillate between 30 and 100 times a second.

In 2015 neuroscientist Li-Huei Tsai, director at The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was working on an experiment to manipulate that brain activity by flashing a white light at these mice. Like light strobes, our brains flicker. Brain waves are generated when large groups of neurons oscillate on and off together. Neurons encode our thoughts and actions and senses in this rhythmic electrical flutter. So when Tsai tuned her light to flash 40 times a second, or 40 hertz, and flickered it at the mice, their brains flickered back—generating gamma waves at a corresponding 40 hertz. Then, something unexpected happened.

When Tsai dissected the mice brains afterward, the amount of amyloid plaques and tau tangles in the mice that saw the light had plummeted. “It was the most remarkable thing,” Tsai says. “The light flicker stimulation triggers a tremendous microglia response. These are the brain’s immune cells that clear cell debris and toxic waste including amyloid. They’re impaired in Alzheimer’s disease, but [the light] seems to restore their abilities.”

This clearing-out process only happened in the visual cortex where the brain processes light information. To get these effects to penetrate deeper into the brain, she added a clicking sound like a dolphin’s chirrup that also had a 40-hertz frequency. When the mice sat in a room with both the flashing light and the droning sound for an hour day, seven days in a row, amyloid plaques and tau tangles began falling in not just the audio and visual cortices but the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus as well. “This was one of the big jumps in the new paper,” Macauley says. “These are the learning and memory centers of the brain. And there was about a 40 or 50 percent decrease in amyloid and tau levels. It’s an absolutely impressive feat.”

That showed when Tsai put the mice through a set of cognitive tests. In one, where the mice were given a familiar and an unfamiliar object to explore, mice that didn’t get the treatment acted as though they’d never seen the familiar object. “That shows some memory problems,” Tsai says. Mice that saw the light and heard the sound spent about two thirds of the time that untreated mice did examining the familiar object. “It was unbelievable,” Tsai says. “This is the first time we’ve seen that this noninvasive stimulation can improve cognitive function. It’s not a drug or an antibody or anything, it’s just light and sound.”

One possible explanation for this is brains with Alzheimer’s have irregular, often hyperactive, neurons, says Jorge Palop, a neurologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who did not work on the study. By providing the brains with a steady and regular beat, the repeating light and sound might work as a kind of metronome for brain activity. “This could be like resetting the mice every day and correcting some of this abnormal activity that they have,” he says. “Then downstream of that are all these beneficial effects.”

All of this is still at the level of speculation. Researchers simply do not know why these brain waves, specifically ones rising from light and sound stimulation at 40 hertz and no other frequencies, can lead to a reversal of Alzheimer’s disease symptoms. “That’s a mystery,” says Terrence Town, a neuroscientist, at the University of Southern California who was not involved with the work. It’s also not clear if these beneficial effects would appear or if 40 hertz is the “magic” frequency in humans, he says.

Tsai is already working on answering those questions. In human studies underway at Cognito Therapeutics, a start-up she founded with her colleague Ed Boyden, she says light and sound seem to increase gamma waves in healthy participants without negative side effects. “Nobody gets sick or even complains about it,” Tsai says. “But to see a [therapeutic] effect in humans, you’ll have to wait a long time. If this approach has an impact, the experiment could easily take five years to have some conclusive answer.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... rs-at-bay/
#15038515
"Now, in a rapidly transforming digital age, with wireless routers, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, 5G, the internet of things, radio and TV signals, mobile phones, and more, the applications and sources of EMF are proliferating. As a result, fears are amplifying about possible connections between EMF and adverse health effects on humans, other living beings, and the environment. Based on the thousands of published reports, there are growing concerns about radiofrequency radiation that can (i) damage the DNA of any biological species and lead to cancer; (ii) cause oxidative damage that can cause premature aging; (ii) disrupt cell metabolism; and (iv) potentially lead to other diseases through the generation of stress proteins."


An Electromagnetic Health Crisis

If living beings have always been exposed to natural electromagnetic fields, and their bodies produce electric currents as well, why is there a growing concern about the human-made electromagnetic fields?


Exposure to the electromagnetic field is not a new phenomenon for living beings. While living beings have always been exposed to natural electromagnetic fields, the growing sources, applications, and impact of human-made electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) on humans and the environment are creating more questions than answers.

This is extraordinarily complex to evaluate when all living beings are technically electromagnetic, and every thought and emotion is a measurable frequency as well. Moreover, even in the absence of external electric fields, there is a presence of tiny electrical currents in living beings due to the numerous chemical reactions that occur as part of the healthy living bodily functions. According to a WHO report, the heart is electrically active and nerves relay signals by transmitting electrical impulses. Furthermore, since all human body systems are regulated by EMF signals, it is essential to evaluate not only how the biologically active human-made electric and magnetic fields impact humans, but also how it impacts all living beings at the cellular level.

To date, the most critical criterion used to understand whether any particular radiofrequency radiation (RFR) is dangerous has been the category of ionizing or non-ionizing radiation. But, is this still useful and valid today, as we begin to evaluate the extremely low frequency of electromagnetic radiation on living beings?

Acknowledging this emerging reality, Risk Group initiated a much-needed discussion on “Electromagnetic Fields and Health Risks” with Dr. Nicolaos Alexopoulos on Risk Roundup.



Risk Group discusses “Electromagnetic fields and Health Risks” with Former Dean and Emeritus Professor (Dr) Nicolaos Alexopoulos from University of California, Irvine; a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, an ISI Highly Cited Author in Computer Science with more than 270 professional journal and conference papers, a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), recipient of the IEEE Schelkunoff Best Journal Publication Award, and currently at Broadcom Foundation based in the United States.

Read More: https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitivew ... 13204330e5

Wireless pollution 'out of control' as corporate race for 5G gears up

In Drowning in a Sea of Microwaves, the late geneticist Dr Mae-Wan Ho - a visionary voice who opposed GMOs - identified pollution from wireless technologies as a pressing issue of our times.

Noting evidence for "DNA damage ... cancers, microwave sickness, [and], impairment of fertility", she concluded: "Evidence is emerging that the health hazards associated with wireless microwaves are at least comparable to, if not worse than, those associated with cigarette smoking."

Since the advent of radar, followed by mobile phones and dense WiFi networks, such anthropogenic radiation has sky-rocketed. Although it is non-ionising, and does not destabilise molecules directly, evidence of other harm has been growing since 1950s studies on radar workers.

According to the updated Bio-initiative Report (2012+) by 29 precautionary scientists, effects on biology feature in several thousand, peer-reviewed papers. Yet troubling new findings rarely filter into the media. Or global Green discourse.

Though many studies have reported 'no significant effect', research by University of Washington biology professor Henry Lai, and others, reveals that wireless-industry funding is far more likely to yield such findings.

"Toujours ils créent doubte" ('they are forever creating doubt'), explains former Luxembourg Green MP Jean Huss, whose research on the wireless industry inspired the Council of Europe to call for many precautions (2011), including protection of warning scientists, and wired internet in schools.

But wireless-product marketing has a loud voice. Few of us realise that genetic effects and free radical damage - both disease risks over time - are the most common, cautionary findings. Device-crowded spaces, such as our peak commuter trains or all-wireless classrooms, may be creating a subtly toxic environment.

Wide-ranging, oxidative harm to animals has been found from WiFi sources. And linked pre-diabetic and pre-cancerous changes. Ground-breaking work by biochemistry professor Martin Pall, Washington State University - winner of eight international awards - reveals a viable mechanism for such harm. But as with other 'inconvenient truths', it is going unheard.

Bee-whispers: the sensitivity of life on Earth

Life's exquisite electro-physiology is still being discovered. Researchers at Bristol University reported in May that bees' hairs are highly sensitive to flowers' delicate EMFs. In controlled trials in Switzerland, bees reacted to mobile-phone signals with high-pitched 'piping': a cue to desert a hive.

Other studies show that mitochondria, the tiny power houses in our cells, are at risk from our new EMFs. And that even DNA, in its delicate antenna-like structure, may be frequency-sensitive.

The long-term, ecological implications of our new, anthropogenic radiation are not known. But peer-reviewed studies revealing harm to birds, tadpoles, trees, other plants, insects, rodents and livestock, offer clues.

Biology professor Lukas Margaritis, at Athens University, for example, uncovered harm to fruit flies from just a few minutes' exposure to our everyday wireless devices, including cordless phones, Bluetooth, and even digital baby monitors. Reviewing research, India's Ministry of Environment and Forests warned that sensitive habitats may need some protection.

The UK's Digital Economy Bill, about to receive its final seal, has sensible proposals for increasing country-wide access to fibre broadband: a technology that does not, in itself, stoke microwave pollution, though wireless add-ons do so. But probe beyond the bill to Ofcom's 5G consultations, and new EMF exposures emerge: part of global trend.

The worldwide rush towards 5G or 'fifth generation' wireless rollouts is set to raise our pulsing pollution to new levels. Untested, high microwave frequencies are being lined up to increase bandwidth, automation, and usage - at great profit to the industry.

These millimetre and centimetre waves, though too weak to heat us, may pose possible risks to our skin, and deeper surface tissue, including that of plants. High-density transmitters are envisaged. A troubling prospect for the many hundreds of patients seen by professor Dominique Belpomme's clinic in Paris: patients whose disabling symptoms from wireless technologies are supported by new brain scans and blood tests.

A delegation of scientists have petitioned for such electrosensitivity to be recognised as an environmentally-induced illness, with an International Disease Code (2015).

Rip-tides: when profits outpace caution

Pushing for fast rollouts, the wireless industry is also in conflict with the Internatonal EMF Scientists' Appeal to the United Nations. Signed by 223 scientists from 41 nations, it calls for remedial action - such as new safety limits, wave-free zones, and education of doctors - to protect our DNA, fertility, and nervous systems, plus children and pregnant women, from growing wireless exposure. And from rising, mains-electricity fields.

Signs that such caution may be needed are growing. The pulsed, polarized, microwaves used by wireless technologies pose more biological risks than smooth or natural waves. Weak millimetre waves have a known potential to increase antibiotic resistance: what ecological effects might they risk, perhaps, if used universally?

Studies also reveal a risk to skin pain receptors. Published associations between radio-masts and skin cancers, though at lower frequencies, plus mobile-phone masts and EMF-sensitive cancers (Adilza Dode, Minas Gerais University 2013), raise further questions.

In his summer press conference, Tom Wheeler - former head of the CTIA, the vast telecoms lobby- group, and controversial chair of the Federal Communications Commission - proposed unbridled "massive deployment" of commercial 5G transmitters, taking off in 2020.

Anticipating "tens of billions of dollars" of economic growth, with US telecoms "first out of the gate", he warned "Stay out of the way of technological development! Turning innovation loose is far preferable to expecting ... regulators to define the future".

With no mention of health-testing, carbon costs, or corporate responsibility, the FCC voted unaminously to go ahead by releasing swathes of untested high frequencies for private sector exploitation - so setting a trend. To questionable ends: added to other issues, how will our communities be affected by addiction to 5G multi-stream videos? How will it impact our spiritual communion with Nature?

Many American health activists, and cautioning scientists, are aghast. Dr Joel Moskowitz, director of community health studies at the University of California, warns "precaution is warranted before 5G is unleashed on the world".

Former government physicist Dr Ron Powell points out the plans "would irradiate everyone, including the most vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation: pregnant women, unborn children, young children...the elderly, the disabled, and the chronically ill... It would set a goal of irradiating all environments".

Fracking the air? Fault-lines in safety

This drive to mine the electromagnetic spectrum come-what-may has echoes of fracking, and other headlong trends. In Captured Agency, the Harvard ethics report on the FCC, and the wider wireless industry, Norm Alster exposes ruthless "hardball tactics", supported by "armies of lawyers", at expense to our health.

Microwaves, Science and Lies (2014), filmed by Jean Hêches across Europe, exposes similar patterns that are driving our pulsed radiation to risky levels. Western "safety limits", based only on high levels that heat tissue, far exceed those of Russia, China, and some other nations.

Professor Yuri Grigoriev, long-serving chair of Russia's non-ionising radiation protection body (RNCNIRP), warned the UK's Radiation Research Trust "ionising radiation is monitored...[but] levels of non-ionising radiation are constantly increasing and ubiquitous: it is out of control ... Urgent action is needed".

Stealthy pollution-raisers, such as the 5G Internet of Things - with 30 billion tiny transmitters forecast for 2020 - and also, sadly, wireless smart-meters [1, 2*], vetoed by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, may run counter to a cherished Green goal: that of nurturing healthy environments.

Can we manage our energy, perhaps, in more bio-sensitive ways? Court claims for wireless-meter health harm, supported by medical testimonies - including by neurology professor Andrew Marino (Louisiana) - are sweeping America. Professor Pall explains such meters' "high intensity" microwave pulses may be more toxic than we realise: "We know from the nanosecond studies these can be very damaging".

Data obtained by a judge revealed all-hour, house-piercing pulses every few seconds. New data-over-wiring innovations (if free of "dirty electricity") may offer inspiring, alternative ways forward.

Chrysalis: a paradigm in waiting

To create - in Wheeler's phrase - a global '5G ecosystem' of wireless super-saturated environments, at insidious risk, over time, to living ecosystems, not least our own bodies, is dysfunctional. And spiritually disturbing. It suggests a mindset deeply at odds with the orchid-like beauty of the Earth.

But cleaner innovations, such as LiFi, 'eco-dect-plus' phones, and the latest fibre-optics, suggest a wiser course. A new paradigm - safer connectivity, plus more balanced use - is emerging. And reminds of other step-changes in awareness. From pesticides to organic, from smoke-filled to smoke-free.

We can accede, if we wish, to our rising, planetary smog. To safety limits as high as the moon, in many scientists' eyes. And to wireless rollouts' growing carbon costs. Or taking pause, we may begin to call the industry to account - plus governments lulled by it.

We may air helpful new findings, such as risks from tablet-like exposures (Alexander Lerchl, Jacob Bremens University, 2015). And stark risks from passive exposure, bared by Leif Salford, medical professor at Lund University. We may defend DNA, if we wish, from ionizing and published non-ionizing risks, just as we defend our planet.

And alongside French Green Party MPs Laurence Abeille and Michèle Rivasi, plus the interntional Baubiologie movement, we can explore electromagnetic hygiene. Uplifting possibilities for a safer, cleaner world.

https://theecologist.org/2016/oct/27/wi ... e-5g-gears
#15057222
Missed this study, fascinating find.

Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study

Abstract

Magnetic field (MF) non-ionizing radiation is widespread and everyone is exposed to some degree. This prospective cohort study of 913 pregnant women examined the association between high MF exposure and miscarriage risk. Cox (proportional hazards) regression was used to examine the association. After controlling for multiple other factors, women who were exposed to higher MF levels had 2.72 times the risk of miscarriage (hazard ratio = 2.72, 95% CI: 1.42–5.19) than those with lower MF exposure. The increased risk of miscarriage associated with high MF was consistently observed regardless of the sources of high MF. The association was much stronger if MF was measured on a typical day of participants’ pregnancies. The finding also demonstrated that accurate measurement of MF exposure is vital for examining MF health effects. This study provides fresh evidence, directly from a human population, that MF non-ionizing radiation could have adverse biological impacts on human health.

...

Discussion

After initial reports that provided evidence of an increased risk of miscarriage associated with high MF exposure during pregnancy12,13, the current NIEHS-funded study provides additional evidence that exposure to high MF levels in pregnancy is associated with increased risk of miscarriage. This finding is also supported by four other studies published during the past 15 years that examined the relationship between high MF exposure and the risk of miscarriage8,9,10,11,19. Two of those studies measured EMF both inside, and in the surrounding areas, of the residence of participating pregnant women, and observed a higher risk of miscarriage associated with higher EMF exposure levels8,9. Two other studies examined the impact of EMF emitted from cell phones and wireless networks, and observed that more frequent cell phone use and close proximity to wireless base stations were both associated with an increased risk of miscarriage10,11. Although none of these studies conducted any personal MF measurements to capture actual MF exposure from all sources, as the current study has done, all four studies reported an increased risk of miscarriage associated with high MF exposure.

One of the most challenging aspects of assessing the health impact of MF exposure is the ability to measure MF exposure accurately as well as in the relevant etiological period. Prospectively measuring MF exposure in the etiologically relevant timeframe is essential and preferable to retrospective measurements. It is especially problematic to ascertain MF exposure long after the relevant window of exposure has passed. While logistically challenging, a prospective study design with a device that captures actual MF levels from all emitting sources in an etiologically relevant period will notably improve the accuracy of MF exposure assessment in epidemiological studies in a human population. In addition, as both this study and a previous study12 demonstrated, even with a prospective design, if measurements were not conducted on a typical day to reflect true MF exposure during pregnancy, such study design could still fail to detect any MF health risk due to misclassification of MF exposure (see Table 2). Therefore, to ensure accurate exposure assessment, MF measurements need to be conducted prospectively during an etiologically relevant window and to reflect a participant’s typical MF exposure patterns. The determination of whether the activity pattern was typical needs to be verified after measurement is complete since planned activities can change during the measurement day. It is clear that, if MF exposure is measured subjectively (e.g., interview based on participants’ recall) or based on surrogate measures (e.g., wire codes, distance from power lines, job matrix, spot measurement at home, etc.), it would be very difficult for such studies to detect any MF health effect in epidemiological studies due to gross inaccuracies in measuring actual MF exposure levels. By definition, inaccurate MF measures lead to misclassification of MF exposure, which generally result in null findings. Unfortunately, the vast majority of epidemiological studies on MF health effects in the literature so far have been based on subjective and unreliable MF measurements. Thus, it is not surprising that many of the past studies failed to detect MF health effects. In addition, the focus on studying MF effects on cancer has exacerbated the problem, since the development of cancer usually has a long latency period between exposure and outcome that could span several decades. This has made accurately measure MF exposure in the etiologically relevant period (decades before the diagnosis of cancer) almost impossible. Those “null findings” have left a false impression of the “safety” of MF exposure.

The strength of this current study is that, in addition to using an objective measuring device (EMDEX Lite meter), we examined an outcome (miscarriage) with a short latency period (days or weeks rather than years or decades as in the case of cancers or autoimmune diseases). Thus, we were able to measure MF exposure prospectively in the relevant time period (during pregnancy). Furthermore, at the end of the measurement day, we ascertained whether activity patterns on that day reflected a typical day, which allowed us to identify participants with MF exposure measurements that more accurately reflected MF exposure during their pregnancies.

In this study, we found an almost three-fold increased risk of miscarriage if a pregnant woman was exposed to higher MF levels compared to women with lower MF exposure. The association was independent of any specific MF exposure sources or locations, thus removing the concern that other factors connected to the sources of the exposure might account for the observed associations. While nausea and vomiting were hypothesized to be potential confounders, adjustment for both nausea and vomiting did not change the results in this study or in a previous study20. Although we did not observe a dose-response relationship for MF exposure above 2.5 mG, this could be due to a threshold effect of MF exposure in which MF levels at or above 2.5 mG could lead to fetal demise, thus examining further higher levels of MF exposure were not able to confer additional risk.

Given the ubiquitous nature of exposure to this non-ionizing radiation, a small increased risk due to MF exposure could lead to unacceptable health consequences to pregnant women. Although the number of epidemiological studies examining the adverse impact of MF exposure in humans remains limited, the findings of this study should bring attention to this potentially important environmental hazard to pregnant women, at least in the context of miscarriage risk, and stimulate much needed additional research.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16623-8


Additional information

Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices

Abstract

Radiation exposure has long been a concern for the public, policy makers, and health researchers. Beginning with radar during World War II, human exposure to radio-frequency radiation1 (RFR) technologies has grown substantially over time. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the published literature and categorized RFR as a “possible” (Group 2B) human carcinogen. A broad range of adverse human health effects associated with RFR have been reported since the IARC review. In addition, three large-scale carcinogenicity studies in rodents exposed to levels of RFR that mimic lifetime human exposures have shown significantly increased rates of Schwannomas and malignant gliomas, as well as chromosomal DNA damage. Of particular concern are the effects of RFR exposure on the developing brain in children. Compared with an adult male, a cell phone held against the head of a child exposes deeper brain structures to greater radiation doses per unit volume, and the young, thin skull's bone marrow absorbs a roughly 10-fold higher local dose. Experimental and observational studies also suggest that men who keep cell phones in their trouser pockets have significantly lower sperm counts and significantly impaired sperm motility and morphology, including mitochondrial DNA damage. Based on the accumulated evidence, we recommend that IARC re-evaluate its 2011 classification of the human carcinogenicity of RFR, and that WHO complete a systematic review of multiple other health effects such as sperm damage. In the interim, current knowledge provides justification for governments, public health authorities, and physicians/allied health professionals to warn the population that having a cell phone next to the body is harmful, and to support measures to reduce all exposures to RFR.

...

We live in a generation that relies heavily on technology. Whether for personal use or work, wireless devices, such as cell phones, are commonly used around the world, and exposure to radio-frequency radiation (RFR) is widespread, including in public spaces (1, 2).

In this review, we address the current scientific evidence on health risks from exposure to RFR, which is in the non-ionizing frequency range. We focus here on human health effects, but also note evidence that RFR can cause physiological and/or morphological effects on bees, plants and trees (3–5).

We recognize a diversity of opinions on the potential adverse effects of RFR exposure from cell or mobile phones and other wireless transmitting devices (WTDs) including cordless phones and Wi-Fi. The paradigmatic approach in cancer epidemiology, which considers the body of epidemiological, toxicological, and mechanistic/cellular evidence when assessing causality, is applied.

Policy Recommendations Based on the Evidence to Date

At the time of writing, a total of 32 countries or governmental bodies within these countries4 have issued policies and health recommendations concerning exposure to RFR (78). Three U.S. states have issued advisories to limit exposure to RFR (81–83) and the Worcester Massachusetts Public Schools (84) voted to post precautionary guidelines on Wi-Fi radiation on its website. In France, Wi-Fi has been removed from pre-schools and ordered to be shut off in elementary schools when not in use, and children aged 16 years or under are banned from bringing cell phones to school (85). Because the national test agency found 9 out of 10 phones exceeded permissible radiation limits, France is also recalling several million phones.

We therefore recommend the following:

Governmental and institutional support of data collection and analysis to monitor potential links between RFR associated with wireless technology and cancers, sperm, the heart, the nervous system, sleep, vision and hearing, and effects on children.

Further dissemination of information regarding potential health risk information that is in wireless devices and manuals is necessary to respect users' Right To Know. Cautionary statements and protective measures should be posted on packaging and at points of sale. Governments should follow the practice of France, Israel and Belgium and mandate labeling, as for tobacco and alcohol.

Regulations should require that any WTD that could be used or carried directly against the skin (e.g., a cell phone) or in close proximity (e.g., a device being used on the lap of a small child) be tested appropriately as used, and that this information be prominently displayed at point of sale, on packaging, and both on the exterior and within the device.

IARC should convene a new working group to update the categorization of RFR, including current scientific findings that highlight, in particular, risks to youngsters of subsequent cancers. We note that an IARC Advisory Group has recently recommended that RFR should be re-evaluated by the IARC Monographs program with high priority.

The World Health Organization (WHO) should complete its long-standing RFR systematic review project, using strong modern scientific methods. National and regional public health authorities similarly need to update their understanding and to provide adequate precautionary guidance for the public to minimize potential health risks.

Emerging human evidence is confirming animal evidence of developmental problems with RFR exposure during pregnancy. RFR sources should be avoided and distanced from expectant mothers, as recommended by physicians and scientists (babysafeproject.org).

Other countries should follow France, limiting RFR exposure in children under 16 years of age.

Cell towers should be distanced from homes, daycare centers, schools, and places frequented by pregnant women, men who wish to father healthy children, and the young.

Specific examples of how the health policy recommendations above, invoking the Precautionary Principle, might be practically applied to protect public health, are provided in the Annex.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6701402/

Then you should be afraid of Bernie Sanders tak[…]

@late Spare me the teleological nonsense pleas[…]

I don't have any stock, but I've been waiting for […]

Looks like the superdelegates in the Democratic p[…]