Technology risk without safeguards

Thu Nov 5 03:23:40 UTC 2020

Existing research on health effects from RF signals dwell on emissions from
regulated sources, (mobile handset, base of a tower etc), my overriding
concern is, unrestricted/chronic exposure for extended duration of time for
which there are very rare research efforts devoted.

Chronic exposure to RF is found to induce DNA instability^1^. Even if RF at
chronic exposure levels are not found to cause DNA strands to break, it
creates upstream conditions such as excess Calcium influx^2,3^ into the
cell's cytoplasm with implications on cardiac arrhythmia^4^,  invoke and/or
worsen neurodegenerative^5^ diseases to name a few.

Labeling any discussion on adverse health from OVEREXPOSURE to RF is a
cop-out from doing a threadbare analysis.

Suresh S.

^1^ Mashevich M, Folkman D, Kesar A, et. al. Exposure of human peripheral
blood lymphocytes to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones
leads to chromosomal instability. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003;24:82–90.

^2^ Arber SL, Lin JC. Extracellular calcium and microwave enhancement of
membrane conductance in snail neurons. Radiat Environ Biophys. Jun
1985;24(2):149–156.

^3^ Rao VS, Titushkin IA, Moros EG et al. Nonthermal effects of
radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived
neuronal cells: elucidation of calcium pathways.
Radiat Res. 2008 March. 169(3):319-29.

^4^ Grace AA , Camm AJ. Voltage-gated calcium -channels and antiarrhythmic
drug action.
Cardiovasc Res. Jan 2000;45(1):43–51.

^5^ Leal SS, Gomes CM. Calcium dysregulation links ALS defective proteins
and motor neuron
selective vulnerability. Front Cell Neurosci. 2015;9:225.

On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> 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>
> 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-exposu
>> re/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/20201105/6ab0fd67/attachment.html>