Technology risk without safeguards

[Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte () gmail com>]

Existing research on health effects from RF signals dwell on emissions from
regulated sources, (mobile handset, base of a tower etc), my overriding
concern is, unrestricted/chronic exposure for extended duration of time for
which there are very rare research efforts devoted.

Chronic exposure to RF is found to induce DNA instability^1^. Even if RF at
chronic exposure levels are not found to cause DNA strands to break, it
creates upstream conditions such as excess Calcium influx^2,3^ into the
cell's cytoplasm with implications on cardiac arrhythmia^4^,  invoke and/or
worsen neurodegenerative^5^ diseases to name a few.

Labeling any discussion on adverse health from OVEREXPOSURE to RF is a
cop-out from doing a threadbare analysis.

Suresh S.

^1^ Mashevich M, Folkman D, Kesar A, et. al. Exposure of human peripheral
blood lymphocytes to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones
leads to chromosomal instability. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003;24:82–90.

^2^ Arber SL, Lin JC. Extracellular calcium and microwave enhancement of
membrane conductance in snail neurons. Radiat Environ Biophys. Jun
1985;24(2):149–156.

^3^ Rao VS, Titushkin IA, Moros EG et al. Nonthermal effects of
radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived
neuronal cells: elucidation of calcium pathways.
Radiat Res. 2008 March. 169(3):319-29.

^4^ Grace AA , Camm AJ. Voltage-gated calcium -channels and antiarrhythmic
drug action.
Cardiovasc Res. Jan 2000;45(1):43–51.

^5^ Leal SS, Gomes CM. Calcium dysregulation links ALS defective proteins
and motor neuron
selective vulnerability. Front Cell Neurosci. 2015;9:225.


On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:

> The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all
> > conspiracy. The
> > fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does
> > not mean
> > that there isn't any. For example:
>
> If you are going to cite that American Cancer Society article, you should
> cite all the relevant parts. The parts you skipped are bolded.
>
> *RF waves don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of
> > this, it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer. Some
> > studies have found possible increased rates of certain types of tumors in
> > lab animals exposed to RF radiation, but overall, the results of these
> > types of studies have not provided clear answers so far.*
> >
> > *A few studies have reported evidence of biological effects that could be
> > linked to cancer, but this is still an area of research.*
> >
> > In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program
> > (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups
> > of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves
> > over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and
> > continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an
> > increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in
> > male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP
> > study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain
> > types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.
> >
> > *While both of these studies had strengths, they also had limitations
> > that make it hard to know how they might apply to humans being exposed to
> > RF radiation. A 2019 review of these two studies by the International
> > Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) determined that
> > the limitations of the studies didn’t allow conclusions to be drawn
> > regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer.*
> >
> > *Still, the results of these studies do not rule out the possibility that
> > RF radiation might somehow be able to impact human health.*
> The majority of science to date finds no causal relationship between EM
> radiation and cancerous mutations. If someone wants to claim otherwise,
> scientific proof is required.
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:56 PM Sabri Berisha <sabri () cluecentral net>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Not that I'm into conspiracy theories, or believe at this point that RF
> > emissions
> > are in any way related to cancer, but Suresh' statement is not very
> > scientific:
> >
> > > This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or
> > science.
> >
> > RF emissions are absorbed by the human body. Your kitchen microwave works
> > at
> > the same frequency as your 2.4Ghz wifi. We all know it's a bad idea to
> > put your
> > head in a microwave oven.
> >
> > The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all
> > conspiracy. The
> > fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does
> > not mean
> > that there isn't any. For example:
> >
> > > In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology
> > Program (NTP)
> > > and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of
> > lab rats
> > > (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their
> > entire
> > > bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for
> > at least
> > > most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of
> > uncommon
> > > heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in
> > female rats
> > > (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also
> > reported
> > > possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in
> > the adrenal
> > > glands.
> >
> > Source: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposu
> > re/radiofrequency-radiation.html
> >
> > > If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something
> > related to
> > > microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
> >
> > On the contrary. Few people are more exposed to higher-powered RF
> > radiation
> > than a MW techie. That would make them an excellent subject for scientific
> > research. Dismissing a medical professional's opinion based in your own
> > firm beliefs is counterproductive to the advance of scientific knowledge.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sabri, M.Sc
> >
> > ----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Matt Harris matt () netfire net wrote:
> >
> > > My first instinct is to let this be because the level of conspiracy
> > theory
> > > nuttiness seems to be very high and the level of knowledge of basic
> > physics
> > > seems to be very low, but since this list is archived in a way that
> > lay-people
> > > may reference it at some point in the future, I'm going to go ahead and
> > reply
> > > just this once more and just one point here so that a lack of response
> > here
> > > won't be used as fodder by conspiracy theorists.
> >
> > >       Matt Harris     |       Infrastructure Lead Engineer
> > > 816‑256‑5446  |       Direct
> > > Looking for something?
> > > [ https://help.netfire.net/ | Helpdesk Portal ]       |       [ mailto:
> > help () netfire net |
> > > Email Support ]       |       [ https://my.netfire.net/ |
> > Billing Portal ]
> > >       We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions.
> > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:48 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [ mailto:
> > sskalkunte () gmail com |
> > > sskalkunte () gmail com ] > wrote:
> >
> > > > At an employer where I developed Wi-Fi based SOHO device, an adjacent
> > group was
> > > > testing Line of Sight transceivers. Nobody warned me of the inclement
> > health (a
> > > > general physician in 2007 suspected cancer looking at a blood test)
> > from close
> > > > quarters exposure to the side lobes emanating from the microwave radio.
> >
> > > There is no scientific evidence that RF emissions in the bands used for
> > > communications have any causal relationship with cancer in humans. This
> > is an
> > > internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science. If your
> > doctor
> > > suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave
> > band
> > > communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.