Wi-fi is an important threat to human health • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by nraynaud » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 4:00 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #3

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

I want to see a frequency response and a dose response before I believe in harmful microwaves. Being allergic to electromagnetic waves in France is like avoiding gluten on the West Coast, all the yoga practitioners claim to be able to feel it, but there is no scientific evidence.

And the more we have electromagnetic waves in our environment because of the spreading of the technology, the later we die because medicine and healthcare move faster than the putative harm. What is certain, is that whatever the harm electromagnetic waves cause, it can't be huge like silicosis or asbestos, because we just don't see it in the statistics while intently staring at it, it has to be weak.

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

#52

Post by agumonkey » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 4:01 PM UTC

pmlnr wrote: post #20

agumonkey wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could it be possible to have so NFC like inductive coupling for Gbit ETH ?

No; not enough bandwidth.

not necessary actual NFC specs, but close range coils/antennas so phones wouldn't need a port, just a pad to be dropped on.

although with usb-c 3 .. one port would be enough for all

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

#53

Post by NickBusey » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 4:01 PM UTC

reacweb wrote: post #46

pasta wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the wrong question. A better question could be: Can we replace it with something better? Just like we are replacing combustion engines with electric engines.

Where can I buy a phone with an RJ45 plug ?

With a 2 second search: https://www.amazon.com/FindUWill-Lightning-Ethernet-Network-...

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

#54

Post by LinuxBender » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 4:04 PM UTC

NickBusey wrote: post #50

LinuxBender wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are paints and other materials that can block the signals. Even wire mesh added to the insulation can block signals.

That plan works assuming I never leave my house.

Agreed, though you probably spend a bit of time in your home and at work. Driving past wifi the signal strength will vary wildly and won't likely be as strong as the one you are sleeping around. It certainly won't be as powerful as cell sites.

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

#55

Post by Gnarl » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 4:14 PM UTC

Nothing new. This review just dares to aggregate and conclude on other reviews which have established that modulated, polarized, low-level microwave transmissions (like f.x. WiFi) causes effects like significant oxidative cell stress which is a known precursor to a whole host of health effects - cancer included. Dr. Pall offers a mechanistic explanation for the repeatedly established effects: the activation of voltage-gated calcium channels that sit in every cell membrane. Signals like WiFi can trigger those, allowing calcium to flood the cell and set off a cascade of effects leading to said oxidative stress. Add in non-stop radiation exposure and your bodies antioxidant reserves will surely deplete. So basically you now have a mechanism allowing low-level, non-ionizing radiation to indirectly cause the same damage to DNA as ionizing radiation does. There you go. Cancer epidemic explained. Is there anything you can do? Yes, first line of defense is to reduce your exposure and neutralize some of the added oxidative stress by upping your intake of antioxidants. See Dr. Yakymenko's blog for more: http://carelessscience.com/blog2017/electrohypersensitivity-...

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

#56

Post by eamike261 » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

adfm wrote: post #42

This is sensationalist. Wi-Fi is a brand based around a protocol. If they're talking about low power microwave transmission, they'll have to include cell phones, microwave ovens, and everything else. Not to say RF can't be dangerous, but something like this just feeds the tin hat folks (which, BTW are just big wave guides. You'll need to wrap yourself like a potato for best results ;)

There is a difference between "sensationalist" and using a term that the general public knows. Wi-Fi means something to the average person, whereas "radio waves in the 2.4GHz band" sounds like some obscure thing that doesn't apply to daily life.

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

#57

Post by jkmcf » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 4:20 PM UTC

Vaguely related: "EINSTEIN DIDN'T WIN the Nobel Prize for the theory of relativity. He won it for showing that you don't need to worry about radiation from your cell phone." - https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Einstein-Yo...

More specifically, http://ap.io/blog/radiofrequency/, The gist being if the photons don't have enough energy to affect your atoms, your don't need to worry too much. Since the power falls off proportional to 1/d^2, just don't use your router/cellphone as a pillow.

The whole "human body is complicated and it could possibly affect you in some other way" is certainly a good place to investigate, but probably really hard to demonstrate without drastically increasing the density and power to unusual levels.

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

#58

Post by currymj » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

sbjustin wrote: post #49

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.

Do you have a citation by any chance? I completely believe you (Because I've seen some things that appear untrue) but want to have it to use as supporting evidence in a debate.

Here, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/disclaimer/ . That gives a pretty clear explanation.

Quote: "The presence of an article in PMC does not reflect an endorsement of, or concurrence with, the contents of the article by NLM."

PMC is PubMed Central, and NLM is the National Library of Medicine is the center at NIH in charge of managing it.

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

#59

Post by canercandan » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

sgwae wrote: post #17

eu wrote: post #5

Could we take suppliments to counter-ballance this?

I thought wifi is weak, but if you put a live creature in the microwave. There is little chance supplemants will help.

Funny nobody mentioned about Li-Fi yet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-Fi

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

#60

Post by currymj » Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

LinuxBender wrote: post #41

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.

I can second this. Having done extensive research on gut health for my own issues, I have read everything nih.gov has to offer. Some articles are based on proper scientific method and decent numbers of test subjects and controlled environments. There are also plenty of papers based on pseudo-science, dogmas and hearsay. After reading through every article they had to offer, it became apparent which articles I could b…

if your only goal is to get your work published in something that is technically a journal, this is very easy even if the research is very bad, and then it will likely end up on PubMed.

fundamentally, it is just a specialized search engine, which will point you to articles published elsewhere, that (unfortunately, in my opinion) happens to be hosted on the nih.gov domain.