While the SAR is pretty high, and these are mice, that in itself doesn't imply that lower SARs have no effect on mice or other living beings, which some people seem to conclude.
We are basically big lumps of bio-electric mass, it shouldn't be surprising that spending 24 hours a day in a mist of all kinds of high-frequency, penetrating EM fields would have an effect on our biology.
And spare us the "so what's your solution, shut down all electrical gadgets?" type of replies. There are no immediate solutions, but it's still important to discuss the possible effects of EMR on living tissue.
Well no, but this study absolutely doesn’t imply that it does. There’s decent evidence that all radio does to human, animals, etc, is heat them up. Obviously heating people up a lot will do bad things to them, but there’s no evidence Wi-Fi, cellphones or anything else radio related is hurting people
In this case mechanism was heating the tissue with 4 W/kg power.
>SAR value was estimated to be 4.0 W/kg by 0.0001°C resolution temperature sensor by measuring temperature changes of saline water of the mouse phantom exposed to 835 MHz of continuous wave (CW) without modulation.
Have you ever noticed how, during a power out, suddenly there's suddenly a lack of ... "pressure" (lack of a better word) ?
Context:
I've experienced this and had a friend who experienced this as well. He told me and there was no power out yet that I could have used to ask other people about it. When I was digging for this through memory, it came up that this was always the case for me, during every power out.
Addition:
Contrary to what many people believe, electrosensibility is a real thing and when my mobile is too close to my head, down/uploading at high speeds (a few Mbit) I feel insane pressure in my head and trying this on other parts of my body the skin starts to feel like it's burning.
I had a friend who didn't believe me, so I've offered him to do a test. He holds the phone, I close my eyes, he initiates a speedtest. I could tell him every time when he did. It baffled him.
There are a few papers along these lines. Lots of them really confuse 5G nuts because they mistake statistical significance (even if only just) for significance to humans. I sort of take it as a moral duty to try and point out that they're being lied to but it's very hard to talk to people who don't know the different between a strong magnetic field and a microwave, or seem to think a phased array is some kind of weapon
One paper I read that makes me laugh, was one that showed that people who sleep next to their phones sleep less, which is apparently evidence that we should turn the 5G off apparently.
An older iPhone battery (not powering a huge screen, CPU, etc.) might have a 4Wh capacity, and be (claimed) good for 10 hours talking. Only a fraction of that goes to the radio signal, most of that signal not absorbed by the user's body, said body weighing many kg, etc. SO - actual exposure in human cellphone users is likely 2 or 3 orders of magnitude lower than in this experiment.
Briefly put: Sunburns can be dangerous, but nobody gets a sunburn wearing SPF 250. Even if this experimental result is 100% correct, it does not prove any risk to normal cell phone users.
(It would be interesting to look for effects in cell tower maintenance workers, and others who've generally received far higher intensities / doses.)
That seems like a reasonable thing to do in a study where you want to check whether there is any effect at all. You'd now do a followup study to see at which dosage you stop measuring the effect.
The results here don't really make any sense, and as one study I'm pretty skeptical.
People have been blasting mice with RF for decades and no consistent result like this is ever found upon replication. Of note: 6 mice in the experimental group is a very small sample size.
What’s the chemical mechanism causing this? I thought that because these RF photons don’t have enough energy to break any bonds (so-called non-ionizing) that they should generally be assumed to be safe.
It's not for this particular study, but here is a possible mechanism for RF harm that I've been wondering about for a long time, and it drives me up the wall that people think I'm crazy for mentioning it. I'm also tired of the "it's not dangerous unless it's ionizing" dogma.
1) we know DNA is an electrical conductor. This is work by Jackie Barton, et. al, Caltech, she's been talking about it on the talks circuit for about 10 years but the papers are now coming out.
2) it seems like DNA error correcting enzymes use electrical potentials and current (or rather lack of current due to mutations causing geometric disruptions in DNA and "opening the circuit") to reduce the search space and make mutation repair more efficient.
3) high frequency RF can induce current in DNA.
4) it's important to note that this mechanism (RF can jam error correction) does not itself cause mutations so standard tests like the Ames test, blasting mice with RF, or related, will miss the mechanism, especially in well-controlled lab environments. An experiment would need to be set up to directly test error repair. Yeast might be a good model species since there is a comprehensive knockout library so you could see if the relative repair rate is unaffected in repair-deficuent strains.
Anyways. It should be a relatively easy Nobel prize if someone wants it. I'm not a scientist anymore, so I don't really have access to what I need to do this.
Organic chemistry is covalent polar bonds, which don't require ionizing radiation to break. Emag can also effect biochemical processes in ways other than simple bond-breakage[0]. The brain is an electro-chemical system. Persistently nudging the electrons this way instead of that can also have a significant effect[1].
I wouldn't think that to be a reasonable general assumption. The heating effects could include:
changes to reaction kinetics and equilibria;
unfolding and denaturing of proteins;
unwinding of DNA and RNA in localised regions ("bubbles");
displacement of inter- and intra-molecular associations through hydrogen bonding and van der Waals forces
As an example, the unfolding or denaturing of a protein may be transient or permanent, and it will often not have an obvious adverse effect. But if it's e.g. a critical regulatory protein, it may result in a cascade of events which might end up causing cancer.
DNA structure is tightly-controlled and is wound up to varying degrees to enable or prevent access to it. If it's transiently unwound by localised heating, it exposes it to the transcription machinery as well as other regulatory proteins. Again, it could have wide-ranging effects.
The probability of any one photon doing damage is low, but it penetrates deep and the heating would be very localised. The cumulative effect of exposure could well cause significant problems.
Biological systems are very complex, and many of the interactions do not involve bond breaking. The proteins and other molecules interacting within each cell exist in a delicate balance which often involves far weaker forces, including hydrogen bonding and van der Waals forces. These are easily disturbed by heating.
Could this be the reason why whenever I'm holding a chinese Wi-fi videoscope I bought, my hand starts to feel numb after a few minutes using it?
It's not just that it heats up, I think it's a different feeling than say holding a hot coffee cup for a long time, and can't quite rule out it's just the battery that powers it either, or that I'm practically holding the wifi chip very close while it's transmitting. But come on, it's such a tiny device!
Before you reach for conclusions you should at least set up a double blind experiment. Set up 8 experiments 4 on and 4 off, have a friend either plug it in (or not) while you're in the other room and see if you can feel it when you go into the room.
I've seen mobile phone users as
distinctly different mentally,
microwaving your brain all day can't be good, despite all these
mental gymnastics about "non-ionizing radiation".
I see this as 20th century shoe
fitters using X-rays liberally,
then discovering that X-rays aren't that good for you and cause cancer.
It's not mental gymnastics at all. Numerous studies have failed to show a link between cell phone use and cancer, and the mechanism by which x-rays cause cancer doesn't work with higher-wavelength light. It just doesn't have enough energy to damage DNA.
The obvious example is that UV is ionizing, but visible light is non-ionizing. Spend an hour in a tanning bed and there's obvious skin damage. Spend a day under office lights and there isn't.
Shoe fitters never fitted shoes every few minutes.
The sheer amount of people with likely no symptoms (i.e. people are looking for them, where are they) means that the harm per unit of exposure must be absolutely tiny.
It's important to remember that RF communication is over a century old by now. If there was any significant statistical effect beyond RF burns (heat), we would've seen it already.
[+] [-] lizardactivist|3 years ago|reply
We are basically big lumps of bio-electric mass, it shouldn't be surprising that spending 24 hours a day in a mist of all kinds of high-frequency, penetrating EM fields would have an effect on our biology.
And spare us the "so what's your solution, shut down all electrical gadgets?" type of replies. There are no immediate solutions, but it's still important to discuss the possible effects of EMR on living tissue.
[+] [-] space_fountain|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nabla9|3 years ago|reply
>SAR value was estimated to be 4.0 W/kg by 0.0001°C resolution temperature sensor by measuring temperature changes of saline water of the mouse phantom exposed to 835 MHz of continuous wave (CW) without modulation.
[+] [-] MrYellowP|3 years ago|reply
Context:
I've experienced this and had a friend who experienced this as well. He told me and there was no power out yet that I could have used to ask other people about it. When I was digging for this through memory, it came up that this was always the case for me, during every power out.
Addition:
Contrary to what many people believe, electrosensibility is a real thing and when my mobile is too close to my head, down/uploading at high speeds (a few Mbit) I feel insane pressure in my head and trying this on other parts of my body the skin starts to feel like it's burning.
I had a friend who didn't believe me, so I've offered him to do a test. He holds the phone, I close my eyes, he initiates a speedtest. I could tell him every time when he did. It baffled him.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mhh__|3 years ago|reply
One paper I read that makes me laugh, was one that showed that people who sleep next to their phones sleep less, which is apparently evidence that we should turn the 5G off apparently.
[+] [-] jacobn|3 years ago|reply
That’s a pretty high exposure?
[+] [-] bell-cot|3 years ago|reply
Briefly put: Sunburns can be dangerous, but nobody gets a sunburn wearing SPF 250. Even if this experimental result is 100% correct, it does not prove any risk to normal cell phone users.
(It would be interesting to look for effects in cell tower maintenance workers, and others who've generally received far higher intensities / doses.)
[+] [-] szundi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hales|3 years ago|reply
Scaled up to an approximate human mass: 4 W/kg * 70kg = 280W.
Apparently an idling human burns very approximately about 80W ("basal metabolic rate").
[+] [-] chaosmachine|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianN|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|3 years ago|reply
Same with "we gave rats massive amounts of artificial sweeteners and they have all kinds of health conditions" ok so maybe don't?
[+] [-] throwanem|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] XorNot|3 years ago|reply
People have been blasting mice with RF for decades and no consistent result like this is ever found upon replication. Of note: 6 mice in the experimental group is a very small sample size.
[+] [-] oofbey|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawayrf|3 years ago|reply
1) we know DNA is an electrical conductor. This is work by Jackie Barton, et. al, Caltech, she's been talking about it on the talks circuit for about 10 years but the papers are now coming out.
2) it seems like DNA error correcting enzymes use electrical potentials and current (or rather lack of current due to mutations causing geometric disruptions in DNA and "opening the circuit") to reduce the search space and make mutation repair more efficient.
3) high frequency RF can induce current in DNA.
4) it's important to note that this mechanism (RF can jam error correction) does not itself cause mutations so standard tests like the Ames test, blasting mice with RF, or related, will miss the mechanism, especially in well-controlled lab environments. An experiment would need to be set up to directly test error repair. Yeast might be a good model species since there is a comprehensive knockout library so you could see if the relative repair rate is unaffected in repair-deficuent strains.
Anyways. It should be a relatively easy Nobel prize if someone wants it. I'm not a scientist anymore, so I don't really have access to what I need to do this.
[+] [-] aeternum|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgia_peach|3 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09242...
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/...
[+] [-] sras-me|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rleigh|3 years ago|reply
changes to reaction kinetics and equilibria;
unfolding and denaturing of proteins;
unwinding of DNA and RNA in localised regions ("bubbles");
displacement of inter- and intra-molecular associations through hydrogen bonding and van der Waals forces
As an example, the unfolding or denaturing of a protein may be transient or permanent, and it will often not have an obvious adverse effect. But if it's e.g. a critical regulatory protein, it may result in a cascade of events which might end up causing cancer.
DNA structure is tightly-controlled and is wound up to varying degrees to enable or prevent access to it. If it's transiently unwound by localised heating, it exposes it to the transcription machinery as well as other regulatory proteins. Again, it could have wide-ranging effects.
The probability of any one photon doing damage is low, but it penetrates deep and the heating would be very localised. The cumulative effect of exposure could well cause significant problems.
Biological systems are very complex, and many of the interactions do not involve bond breaking. The proteins and other molecules interacting within each cell exist in a delicate balance which often involves far weaker forces, including hydrogen bonding and van der Waals forces. These are easily disturbed by heating.
[+] [-] kube-system|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aphroz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjtheblunt|3 years ago|reply
It's still a big regulatory deal.
[+] [-] mickelsen|3 years ago|reply
It's not just that it heats up, I think it's a different feeling than say holding a hot coffee cup for a long time, and can't quite rule out it's just the battery that powers it either, or that I'm practically holding the wifi chip very close while it's transmitting. But come on, it's such a tiny device!
[+] [-] throwawayrf|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eurasiantiger|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] szundi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sinuhe69|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sebmellen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BezumnyiEgor|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] BezumnyiEgorFu|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] BezumnyiEgorFur|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] phrasz|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] doubtfuluser|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FrozenVoid|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dehrmann|3 years ago|reply
The obvious example is that UV is ionizing, but visible light is non-ionizing. Spend an hour in a tanning bed and there's obvious skin damage. Spend a day under office lights and there isn't.
[+] [-] mhh__|3 years ago|reply
The sheer amount of people with likely no symptoms (i.e. people are looking for them, where are they) means that the harm per unit of exposure must be absolutely tiny.
[+] [-] userbinator|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgia_peach|3 years ago|reply