Re: Technology risk without safeguards

[Sabri Berisha <sabri () cluecentral net>]

Hi Suresh, 

I'm not disputing anything you or Tom wrote. The current scientific consensus is that most RF exposures are sage. We 
agree on that. 

My point is simply that, as Tom wrote in his citation, the biological effects of RF are still an area of research. 

And for that reason, it's unfair to dismiss a physician's suggestion to look into a case as an "internet conspiracy". 
That's all. 

Thanks, 

Sabri 

----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 7:23 PM, Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte () gmail com> wrote: 

> 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 < [ mailto:sabri () cluecentral net |
> > 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-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html
> > > |
> > > 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 [ mailto:matt () netfire net |
> > > 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/ | https://help.netfire.net/ ] | Helpdesk Portal ]
> > > > | [ mailto: [ mailto:help () netfire net | help () netfire net ] |
> > > > Email Support ] | [ [ https://my.netfire.net/ | 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: [
> > > > mailto:sskalkunte () gmail com | sskalkunte () gmail com ] |
> > > > [ 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.