Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wi-fi is an important threat to human health

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health

#31

Post by mygo »

stefan_ wrote: post #24

Why Wi-Fi? What specifically makes Wi-Fi a threat but not all the other stuff using the 2.4 GHz band?

I dont think it’s making any claims, for or against, other EM frequencies. It’s just that their study was specific to Wi-fi, so that’s what they’re reporting on.

Maybe they chose wifi in particular because it’s more relatable to the common person and quite ubiquitous on its own. They could draw more expansive conclusions in the future, if they want to. Or other curious scientists can pose that question and design an experiment / meta-analysis to answer it.

Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health

#32

Post by classichasclass »

bretpiatt wrote: post #11
gambiting wrote: post #3

"Wi-Fi" covers at least two different frequencies - is the effect observable at both?

From clicking through to Journal Full Abstract of the study they only looked at 2.4Ghz and not 5.0Ghz. This is a better link for the content: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393511... I don't know enough about wave transmissions to know if higher frequency would be more or less likely to cause issues, anyone?

In general, higher frequency implies higher energy, all things being equal. X-rays and gamma rays are very high frequency and therefore high-energy, and no one would dispute their deleterious effect on human health. However, a typical X-ray is somewhere around 30 petahertz (10^16) to 30 exahertz (10^19).

Compare to 5GHz WiFi (10^6). We're not sure if this is physiologically relevant because the relationship between energy and health effects is not linear, and different tissues react in different ways. It's worth looking into, though my personal feeling is given the ubiquity of such radiation, we should be seeing a lot more effects and they should be measurable.

Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health

#36

Post by HillaryBriss »

pmlnr wrote: post #6
kyle_v wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ethernet?

As much as I'd like to agree, it's not, as many devices - think smartphones and tablet - doesn't come with ethernet ports; neither do macs any more. I have some of my home devices wired: tv, console, home server; but for laptops and smartphones, it gets tricky. It also wouldn't help getting rid of the neighbour's wifi, unless I get some sort of faraday-cage insulation.

> neither do macs any more

iMacs and iMac Pros still have ethernet ports: https://www.apple.com/imac/specs/ https://www.apple.com/imac-pro/specs/

and, I don't know how well it works, but it's possible to run ethernet over USB-C into a MacBook: https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HJKF2ZM/A/belkin-usb-c-to...

Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health

#37

Post by yread »

hliyan wrote: post #16

A related study by apparently the same author makes the following claim: "microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action" If that is true, then it is quite significant. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879308

There is lots of studies by this author:

Pall, 2013; Pall, 2014; Pall, 2015a; Pall, 2015b; Pall, 2016a; Pall, 2016b; Pall, 2018

Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health

#38

Post by gbrown »

classichasclass wrote: post #18

I find this paper rather flawed (article link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393511... ). I don't claim to be an expert on EMF effects on the human body, but I interpret his core claim to be that because the seven effect studies he cites had insufficient power to determine there was no correlation, there must be correlation because "similar" EMF studies did show a response, and therefore the e…

I'm also not an expert in this field, but I agree that the conclusions presented here appear at first glance to be much too strong. For one, we should all be highly skeptical of meta analyses to begin with - there is every incentive to report "significant" results, and a documented tendency for such studies to be preferentially published, so the current literature should be enriched with respect to rejections of the null.

Also, did I miss it, or is there zero discussion about how the discussed publications were selected? A quick google search turns up lots of additional null results.

The authors also do make some correct criticisms of common statistical mistakes. For example, it is true that failure to reject a null hypothesis is not evidence for that null hypothesis in a frequentist framework. Even so, we should consider the power to reject the null, which depends on:

1. The practical or clinical effect size 2. The sample size

Even if we do detect statistically significant effects of EMF/WiFi, that in no way implies that the results are of practical significance. The cited studies do have small samples, but no discussion is given to the magnitude of effect which would be expected to have been detected.

They also note that previous studies should have published their data and p-values, which is true.

My takeaway is that more information is needed, and that we should hear from someone with a good grasp on all the relevant literature to see how representative these studies are. Also, this kind of thing would be clearer if we were all Bayesians, and published our data :P

Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health

#39

Post by yread »

pitaj wrote: post #27
hliyan wrote: post #16

A related study by apparently the same author makes the following claim: "microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action" If that is true, then it is quite significant. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879308

Does it say anything about how WiFi waves act on calcium channels?

It says this:

> The VGCCs each have a voltage sensor which is made up of 4 alpha helixes in the plasma membrane, with each such helix having 5 positive charges on it, for a total of 20 positive charges (Pall, 2015b). These voltage sensor helixes are each called S4 helixes because each is the fourth helix in a distinct multi-helix domain. Each of these voltage sensor charges is within the lipid bilayer part of the plasma membrane. The electrical forces on the voltage sensor are very high for three distinct reasons (Pall, 2015b, Pall, 2015a, Pall, 2016a). 1. The 20 charges on the voltage sensor make the forces on voltage sensor 20 times higher than the forces on a single charge. 2. Because these charges are within the lipid bilayer section of the membrane where the dielectric constant is about 1/120th of the dielectric constant of the aqueous parts of the cell, the law of physics called Coulomb's law, predicts that the forces on those charges will be approximately 120 times higher than the forces on charges in the aqueous parts of the cell. 3. Because the plasma membrane has a high electrical resistance whereas the aqueous parts of the cell are highly conductive, the electrical gradient across the plasma membrane is estimated to be concentrated about 3000-fold. The combination of these effects means that comparing the forces on the voltage sensor with the forces on singly charged groups in the aqueous parts of the cell, the forces on the voltage sensor are approximately 20 × 120 × 3000 = 7.2 million times higher (Pall, 2015b). The physics predicts, therefore, extraordinarily strong forces activating the VGCCs via the voltage sensor. It follows that the biology tells us that the VGCCs are the main target of the EMFs and the physics tells us why they are the main target. Thus the physics and biology are pointing in the same direction.

If I ever write a paper I hope it will be more persuasive than this.

Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health

#40

Post by gbrown »

floren wrote: post #26
currymj wrote: post #19

it's important to note that the nih.gov domain doesn't mean this is endorsed in any way by the NIH. (In case you were very shocked, like I was.) It's just a link to PubMed, which is an aggregator of journal articles hosted by the NIH's National Library of Medicine. Nearly any life sciences article published in any kind of journal, good or bad, would end up with an abstract on here. Evaluate it on its own merits.

Yeah, it's published in "Environmental Research", a journal with an impact factor of 3.8. This is quite low. If the claims made by this paper are true, it has huge implications, so there's two possibilities: 'Science' and other prestigious journals are SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH due to INFLUENCE by BIG WIFI and passing up the opportunity to publish an incredibly important story, or the actual research is garbage.

Impact factors aren't really comparable across fields, or a general indication of the quality and rigor of particular journals.

With that being said, I am skeptical of this paper.

Post reply on HN