Why Wi-Fi? What specifically makes Wi-Fi a threat but not all the other stuff using the 2.4 GHz band?
And what about 5-ish Ghz band WiFi?
Wi-fi is an important threat to human health
61–70 of 78 posts
Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health
#62My MIL is convinced that WiFi is the cause of all of her skin issues and headaches. She quit her job because IT refused to move one of their routers from near her office. She sleeps in a Faraday cage :-|
Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Aggreed. In many ways they are like wikipedia [0], but they don't provide an easy way (that I can see) to challenge what an article states.
[0] - https://livertox.nih.gov/Ibuprofen.htm
And all their references; to your point, are for PubMed.
Perhaps it a call for reformation is due, or perhaps setting up wiki's and forums that give people a place to challenge and pick apart these articles.
Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Thank you!
Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health
#65https://www.nutricology.com/martin-pall-products/ i wonder if his medicines can help? ... single-author papers scream "crank" to me.
Agreed. He also thinks electromagnetic waves cause autism (and he's not an MD). http://www.autismone.org/content/martin-l-pall-ba-phd-autism...
One of the U.S. leading autism experts (Harvard MD) has co-written papers on the plausible link between low-level electromagnetic field exposure and autism spectrum disorders. The key here is also: oxidative stress, brain inflammation and blood-brain-barrier damage - as in Dr. Palls review.
Ref 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24095003
Ref 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24113318
Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health
#66This 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.
Kleenex is bleached wood pulp. But so is toilet paper, paper towels, coffee filters, newsprint, magazines, packaging, etc. It's disingenuous and exploitative reporting.
Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health
#67Vaguely 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 pow…
"...showing that you don't need to worry about radiation from your cell phone". Dude. Will you please - PLEASE - just read the biological evidence and move on from that outdated (physicists) argument about photon energy. It is now amply established that low-level microwave radiation causes oxidative stress which can damage DNA and increase your risk of inflammation and cancer. Its an indirect effect. Little to do with photon energy alone.
Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Kleenex is bleached wood pulp. But so is toilet paper, paper towels, coffee filters, newsprint, magazines, packaging, etc. It's disingenuous and exploitative reporting.
If there is a genuine health problem with WiFi exposure, would you want to be the last to know?
Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health
#69Earlier 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.
You can buffer your body against some of the damage by increasing your intake of ordinary antioxidants (refs in my other comments on this thread).
Re: Wi-fi is an important threat to human health
#70it'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.
Could you please not use allcaps for emphasis in HN comments?
This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.