Releasing things into our daily environment without adequate testing is likely why so many men are infertile now compared to a few decades ago and we don’t know why. Sperm counts are halved for example. At least there is some research in this case, which is nice
“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
551–560 of 613 posts
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#552Earlier quoted context omitted.
and also this: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914
These are good things to read to understand a consensus that yes, electromagnetic radiation has biological effects. For people reading this stuff, always search for something called the Odds Ratio (OR), which is a gold standard way of comparing how clinically significant a thing is. For example, smoking has an OR of 60 for lung cancer. A well covered paper on birth control suggested its OR for developing depression i…
> A big limitation is that mice are tested with orders of magnitude higher incidence rate of the disease to quickly find RR
Do people also assume that EM radiation is a linear no threshold? Because we know it isn't true for ionizing radiation, but it is a great model to use in practice because it overestimates harm (which we'd rather over estimate than under).
I've read a few of those papers on the EM radiation on mice and they seem to assume a LNT model, which doesn't seem all that honest to me. A few of the papers I read didn't have great p-values either and had drastically differing rates of cancer development for radiation levels and sex (IIRC one big one had high cancer rates for low power, nothing for medium, and moderate cancer rates for high power. Which there was no explanation to this. But that might have just been one bad paper).
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#553Earlier quoted context omitted.
alright, I'm getting downvoted, so I'll put some important references here: Generally, the research of Jackie Barton showing that DNA is a conductor and speculating about the role fo 4Fe4S cluster in the BER mechanism was emergent in the late 2000s back when I was a biochemist and not a programmer, but they're now (last 2 years) publishing papers that are fleshing out that hypothesis: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jkbg…
This is quite interesting (I'm a biochemist and programmer as well), but I don't see any evidence that non-ionizing radiation could affect DNA repair pathways - that seems like a killer experiment that could (and should) be run to support or disprove this hypothesis. Induce some double strand breaks or DNA nicks, and look at how non-ionizing radiation affects repair rates
I agree that it's a killer experiment and someone should do it.
But BER doesn't sense double strand breaks. It senses changes in the curvature of the dna induced by point mutations that are solvable by extracting the base and replacing it templates by the other strand. So you'll want to induce damage with something that causes thymidine dimerization or DNA alkylation.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#554Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article says, "more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating." The link to the 500 articles is https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl... . I checked the "conclusions" of the first two: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29996112 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29709736 Conclusion of 1) De…
Careful, you’re misinterpreting the document. The two studies you’ve picked are listed as “neither evidence of an effect or a null finding”, they are not included in the “more than 500 studies” finding harmful effects. Those studies are prefixed by “P” in the document and, although I haven’t counted, a rough estimate based on the number of pages makes it plausible that there are > 500. That said, given the scientific…
The codes used are:
>> Study Effect Codes:
>> P This study reported effects from the exposure or radiation category (effects can be either positive or negative and may be primary or secondary outcomes)
>> N This study reported no effects from the exposure or radiation category
>> - This study offered important insights or findings but is neither evidence of an effect or a null finding
I'll be honest, this ordering seems dubious to me. P (for positive?) can show either positive or negative effects. N (for negative) shows no effects. - (for neither?) shows neither evidence of an effect or a null finding. I would think that P needs to be subdivided better to show which papers show a positive or negative effect.
Can someone do a count on the number of each category?
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#555Earlier quoted context omitted.
and also this: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914
These are good things to read to understand a consensus that yes, electromagnetic radiation has biological effects. For people reading this stuff, always search for something called the Odds Ratio (OR), which is a gold standard way of comparing how clinically significant a thing is. For example, smoking has an OR of 60 for lung cancer. A well covered paper on birth control suggested its OR for developing depression i…
> OR accounts for baseline incidence in a way that RR (relative risk) does not.
Would you mind elaborating on this? As a reminder, odds ratio is
((exposure_unhealthy / exposure_healthy) / (control_unhealthy / control_healthy))
Whereas risk ratio is
((exposure_unhealthy / (exposure_unhealthy + exposure_healthy) / (control_unhealthy / (control_unhealthy + control_healthy))
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#556well, I was curious about the New Zealand "researchers", first on the list Tracy Chandler, BSc (Hons) MBChB FRNZCGP FNZSCM, PGDipSEM, Cert Dermoscopy, Cert Homeopathy, MACNEM member. Homeopathy? ummm...red flag.... ok... maybe an anomaly.... who else from NZ?, huh, no one from any credible research org.
I assume you're North American and so upset mainly by the absence of an 'MD'. MBChB is an equivalent. Having an additional 'Cert' in homeopathy would be like having a CS degree but also certifying in AWS or Azure products, for example, which wouldn't even necessarily say that I endorse them, perhaps just that I have clients that might like to see that certification.
wrong assumption, I'm from New Zealand and am aware of most of the reputable (mainstream scientific) research orgs here. The original article made a big deal about those who are supporting a call to action to give legitimacy to the concern. While I have no problem with further research, I was interested in seeing research from credible researchers that have some link to a credible research organization that I'm aware of. None of the New Zealand people meet that criteria (though they may still have done legit research).
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#557Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a biochemist, I just want to chime in that I think part of the reason for an apparent increase rise in cancer rates is that we have eliminated many other causes of death already - we have to die of something, and cancer is something that is not "curable" in the sense of other disorders. After looking at the list of publications purported to be evidence, I have to agree with the other comments here casting doubt. M…
> I think part of the reason for an apparent increase rise in cancer rates is that we have eliminated many other causes of death already Where did you read "an apparrent increase rise in cancer rates" ? in this article or in one of the articles it references? which one? I am not a biochemist, but I would assume academics are referring to incidence rates , not causes of deaths... If you did actually witness such a con…
I was directly referencing the parent comment:
> At the same time, everybody seems to accept that the chance of getting cancer in your lifetime has risen to about one in three for men and one in five for women.
Which suggests that there is an apparent increase in cancer rates. So yes, I was referring to an incident rate. Regardless, the semantics here don't change the meaning of my statement. We have solved (for lack of a better word) many of the lower hanging fruits of human disorders. As such, we can't effectively control for incidence rates over time
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#558Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, a gmail address in and of itself is not an indicator of quality, however on a single author paper it certainly makes me wary. Just out of curiosity, what field was that in? I could certainly see some scientific disciplines having unaffiliated world-class scientists, but others it would be virtually impossible to do high quality research outside of a lab
bioinformatics/computational biology. Specifically, multiple sequence alignment and HMMs for protein recognition. The author was previously a physicist (PhD) who left physics due to the low number of jobs in the 70s-80s, founded a database company, sold it to Intel, and then visited Berkeley and saw a cool talk and volunteered. There were already a few codes in the area and plenty of papers, and he was mathematically…
Thanks for the answer - I figured it would be some bioinformatics/mathematics/statistics leaning field - you can definitely do more as a lone wolf there than say, biology.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#559Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are good things to read to understand a consensus that yes, electromagnetic radiation has biological effects. For people reading this stuff, always search for something called the Odds Ratio (OR), which is a gold standard way of comparing how clinically significant a thing is. For example, smoking has an OR of 60 for lung cancer. A well covered paper on birth control suggested its OR for developing depression i…
> A big limitation is that mice are tested with orders of magnitude higher incidence rate of the disease to quickly find RR Do people also assume that EM radiation is a linear no threshold? Because we know it isn't true for ionizing radiation, but it is a great model to use in practice because it overestimates harm (which we'd rather over estimate than under). I've read a few of those papers on the EM radiation on mi…
Citation for knowing it isn't true for ionizing radiation? LNT is supported by the US NRC, the EPA, and UNSCEAR. Not saying that it supports the papers on EM radiation, but it's definitely not crazy to assume LNT in your research (and given we don't know much about the effects of low radiation doses, it's definitely the more precautionary option).
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#560Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with your comment in principle but the specific example of Roundup is rather weak. Yes, glyphosate is usually studied in isolation rather than as a commercial formulation including surfactants etc., but we have decades’ worth of epidemiological studies showing that proper use of Roundup has, at most, a marginal effect on tumour incidence. Conversely, the most-discussed studies that purport to show Roundup’s c…
Ok, fair enough. I have enough other reasons to be against roundup without needing to cling to believing it's carcinogenic. Thanks! For the record, the other reasons are to do with the larger ecological impact of roundup-based practices, such as harm to soil fungi and bacteria, and collateral damage from runoff or wind. Plus, there were some studies finding it may cause harm to intestinal lining and such, even if it'…
Agroindustrial farming practices have led to most of our produce in stores becoming more caloric but less nutritionally dense. Interesting idea that perhaps our food plants are becoming more "obese-yet-malnourished" and this change in food plants could be at the root of a number of health risks.