Technology risk without safeguards
nanog08 at mulligan.org
nanog08 at mulligan.org
Thu Nov 5 03:03:01 UTC 2020
Since the Science is not settled... I still won't put a wireless earbud
so close to my brain, and I'm especially worried about people doing this
over extended periods. Personally I try to use a wired earbud when I'm
using my cell phone.
But I'm overly cautious I guess. I wear a mask when I go to the store
and I use list specific email addresses - so ignore everything I say on
this subject.
Geoff
On 11/4/20 7:32 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:sskalkunte at gmail.com> |
> > sskalkunte at gmail.com <mailto: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/20201104/22720349/attachment.html>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list