Technology risk without safeguards

Thu Nov 5 02:32:12 UTC 2020

>
> The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all
> conspiracy. The
> fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does
> not mean
> that there isn't any. For example:
>

If you are going to cite that American Cancer Society article, you should
cite all the relevant parts. The parts you skipped are bolded.

*RF waves don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this,
> it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer. Some studies
> have found possible increased rates of certain types of tumors in lab
> animals exposed to RF radiation, but overall, the results of these types of
> studies have not provided clear answers so far.*
>
> *A few studies have reported evidence of biological effects that could be
> linked to cancer, but this is still an area of research.*
>
> In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program
> (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups
> of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves
> over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and
> continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an
> increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in
> male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP
> study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain
> types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.
>
> *While both of these studies had strengths, they also had limitations that
> make it hard to know how they might apply to humans being exposed to RF
> radiation. A 2019 review of these two studies by the International
> Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) determined that
> the limitations of the studies didn’t allow conclusions to be drawn
> regarding the ability of RF energy to cause cancer.*
>
> *Still, the results of these studies do not rule out the possibility that
> RF radiation might somehow be able to impact human health.*
>
The majority of science to date finds no causal relationship between EM
radiation and cancerous mutations. If someone wants to claim otherwise,
scientific proof is required.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:56 PM Sabri Berisha <sabri at cluecentral.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Not that I'm into conspiracy theories, or believe at this point that RF
> emissions
> are in any way related to cancer, but Suresh' statement is not very
> scientific:
>
> > This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or
> science.
>
> RF emissions are absorbed by the human body. Your kitchen microwave works
> at
> the same frequency as your 2.4Ghz wifi. We all know it's a bad idea to put
> your
> head in a microwave oven.
>
> The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all
> conspiracy. The
> fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, does
> not mean
> that there isn't any. For example:
>
> > In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program
> (NTP)
> > and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of
> lab rats
> > (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their
> entire
> > bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for at
> least
> > most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of
> uncommon
> > heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in
> female rats
> > (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also
> reported
> > possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in
> the adrenal
> > glands.
>
> Source:
> https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html
>
> > If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something related
> to
> > microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
>
> On the contrary. Few people are more exposed to higher-powered RF radiation
> than a MW techie. That would make them an excellent subject for scientific
> research. Dismissing a medical professional's opinion based in your own
> firm beliefs is counterproductive to the advance of scientific knowledge.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sabri, M.Sc
>
> ----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Matt Harris matt at netfire.net wrote:
>
> > My first instinct is to let this be because the level of conspiracy
> theory
> > nuttiness seems to be very high and the level of knowledge of basic
> physics
> > seems to be very low, but since this list is archived in a way that
> lay-people
> > may reference it at some point in the future, I'm going to go ahead and
> reply
> > just this once more and just one point here so that a lack of response
> here
> > won't be used as fodder by conspiracy theorists.
>
> >       Matt Harris     |       Infrastructure Lead Engineer
> > 816‑256‑5446  |       Direct
> > Looking for something?
> > [ https://help.netfire.net/ | Helpdesk Portal ]       |       [ mailto:
> help at netfire.net |
> > Email Support ]       |       [ https://my.netfire.net/ |
> Billing Portal ]
> >       We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions.
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:48 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [ mailto:
> sskalkunte at gmail.com |
> > sskalkunte at gmail.com ] > wrote:
>
> >> At an employer where I developed Wi-Fi based SOHO device, an adjacent
> group was
> >> testing Line of Sight transceivers. Nobody warned me of the inclement
> health (a
> >> general physician in 2007 suspected cancer looking at a blood test)
> from close
> >> quarters exposure to the side lobes emanating from the microwave radio.
>
> > There is no scientific evidence that RF emissions in the bands used for
> > communications have any causal relationship with cancer in humans. This
> is an
> > internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science. If your
> doctor
> > suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to microwave
> band
> > communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20201104/2e8e0106/attachment.html>