Re: Technology risk without safeguards

[Sabri Berisha <sabri () cluecentral net>]

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-exposure/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.