Easy there. The effects of electromagnetic radiation on living organisms is one of the most heavily studied fields in health sciences. It seem very unlikely that these girls have stumbled onto something the the world's scientists and health professionals have missed.

Debunked. clicky

Thanks, Jan, much appreciated, although unproven is certainly not "debunked". I will definitely send that to the friend who sent it to me.

And it is not so much they've stumbled on something that professional scientists haven't as the money is in people not thinking/worrying about it.  I know there are concerns about radiation and certain brain tumors possibly from phones, although there is not yet proof, and of course, proof may not exist. And even this teen experiment would simply indicate more study needed to be done, nothing else.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to assess the long-term effects of low levels of anything like radiation or many chemicals (even drugs) because adequate controls and cohorts are basically impossible to come by, especially spanning 20 or 30 years. These assessments cannot be teased out in a 3 month or even 2-year study, and especially as pertains to humans. Even if it is real, it is unlikely to ever be proven.

Not hard to envision that this wireless EMF world we live in could be deleterious to our health - although heaven knows I can't escape from it. Left my cell at home yesterday, and had to go home at lunchtime to get it. (How did we live without them for so many years?)

But letting it charge overnight further from me instead of a foot away cannot have a downside.

I once had an electronically activated (remote controlled) noisemaker in my car, and it kept going off while I was driving around. Couldn't quite figure it out until I noticed the pattern was that it would activate every time about 2-3 seconds before my cell phone would ring. They were easily 3 feet apart. Obviously, some sort of field was being given off...but don't expect me to give up my cell phone!

DrMark posted:

Not hard to envision that this wireless EMF world we live in could be deleterious to our health - although heaven knows I can't escape from it.

You're right, you can't escape it. But in the grand scheme, anthropogenic radiation on earth pales in comparison to naturally occurring solar radiation, cosmic rays, radioactive decay, etc., hitting the earth's surface. To me the charged particles in cosmic rays are a scarier prospect than human generated radio waves.

I remember when my family got it's first color TV around 1970 the big concern was to be sure to sit at least six-feet back from the screen. The color TV emitted dangerous radiation if you sat too close.

From an immediate threat-to-my-health standpoint, I'm far more concerned with the poisoning of the human food chain and what I consume each day than I am with electromagnetic radiation (although I take reasonable measures to limit my direct exposure to the sun).

This "experiment" cited in your link has absolutely no credibility in scientific terms. To draw any conclusions from it is completely misguided. A great stepping stone in the learning process of the teens involved, but kinda surprising for a guy using "DrMark" as a forum ID to promulgate the link.

Well, for the last months or so, I not only go to sleep with my cellphone on, but I fall asleep with ear plugs on listening to a youTube video with 'differential beats' (two very close, slightly different low frequencies that generate 'beats' (*) in the range from about 13 cps to quasi 3 cps, one in each ear, that should generate alpha or so waves that should bring a deep sleep cycle of 90 minutes.

I don't know if I will become like the second dish of seeds, but the truth is that I slept like a baby until 9 o' clock in the morning for the whole period in which I didn't have classes and the Cons was closed, the gift exchange and big meals part was over, New Years Eve was safely skipped and I had no familiar or professional commitments.

(*) Beats are not a sensation of someone hitting my brain with a hammer (that comes from other types of experiences), but a number of intensity oscillations in the signal's loudness corresponding to the difference in frequency of the tones in the two ears, going from around 13 to less than 4 Hz.

In turn, as soon as I gain consciousness at waking up, my head usually starts to hiss like a high-pitched steam valve and it takes special events to stop it. Perhaps my own brain is more dangerous to itself than any cellphone or modem.

DrMark posted:

I had stopped keeping it next to my bed a while ago, and this is an interesting experiment these young ladies came up with on their own at this link:

9th grade wifi experiment

Mark,

like my sister-in-law says (she's a Physician) 'la vita è una condizione a rischio' (life is a life-threatening condition).

Ciao,

M.

Max_B posted:

like my sister-in-law says (she's a Physician) (life is a life-threatening condition).

Right. Doctors don't save people from death, they only prolong the inevitable, but therein is their job security.

I think you mean delay the inevitable.

Dozey posted:

I think you mean delay the inevitable.

yes.......and doctors DO save people from (otherwise immediate or imminent) death............

....but we're simply playing with words here

"This "experiment" cited in your link has absolutely no credibility in scientific terms. To draw any conclusions from it is completely misguided. A great stepping stone in the learning process of the teens involved, but kinda surprising for a guy using "DrMark" as a forum ID to promulgate the link."

As I said above, it would not have "proven" anything but could have provided a spark or format for further research, so don't put words in my mouth. Obviously it is a kid's experiment; was meant more as an interesting possibility. And I did not know of the lack of credibility of the scientist at the university cited, which I thought he was a real scientist. And part of the interest of the story was that kids came up with it...part of the charm of the story.

However, if you don't think a lot of the "legitimate" studies run by Big Pharma, Big Food, and Big Chemicals (as part of Big Food) in peer-reviewed journals are scientifically credible, guess again. But it comes down to money, and the ability to have enough to run studies, which is firmly in the hands of corporate interests. Strides are being made, but not enough; there are still many cases where multiple studies are run only to have just the favorable one or two published. Many times conflicts of interest are part and parcel of the process. Statistical legerdemain runs amok. ("Relative risk" being a favorite to overstate the positive aspects of something.) This tends to be worse in the USA, where the FDA is pretty craven to corporate money.

Look no further than the studies (typically funded by Monsanto) that GMO has no deleterious effects. They are in no way constructed as to be valid evaluations over time as to the possible effects. However, my concern with GMO is not the GMO itself, but that the point of GMO is to allow the plant to live while being soaked in glyphosate. which has been determined by the  WHO as a "probable carcinogen"...so we are supposed to consume it until the final verdict is in? Basically, any corn, soy, or canola products are almost certain to be GMO in the USA.

I agree with Joe that the destruction of the food supply is evident, especially in the USA, ironic as it is the "richest country in the world", but it works great; Big Food churns out chemical-laden garbage for people to eat, and Big Pharma sells them the drugs to counter the effects of the garbage food. It is not difficult to guess why we have increasing numbers of obese teenagers with type-2 diabetes now when such was seldom if ever the case even only 50 years ago. And the obesity epidemic itself in the USA is telling.

Radiation is also cumulative, adding anthropogenic radiation (which we as a species could "control") to the naturally occurring radiation that is beyond our control is likely not helping...but the ability to study the long-term effects is, as I stated above, nearly impossible. How someone's brain or testicular cancer could be linked to the cell phone being next to the head or in the front pocket, of course, can never be determined.

I never thought or said the link proved anything, just that it was anecdotally interesting. At best, cell phone radiation can only be a "zero" - it can never be a positive factor.

It is, though, a good example of bad science. click

A 'replication' study did even worse, here.

 At best, cell phone radiation can only be a "zero" - it can never be a positive factor.

Well no actually.

If you take a more holistic view the use of a cellphone may be associated with positive health benefits. Simple immediate ones (calling for emergency aid) and more subtly helping people in terms of access to healthy living advice and specific self care information, and we also know that in 3rd world or isolated communities access to mobile phones facilitates economic development, and with it large benefits in social and health outcomes.

So these things are more complex than they appear.

Bruce

DrMark posted:

It is not difficult to guess why we have increasing numbers of obese teenagers with type-2 diabetes now when such was seldom if ever the case even only 50 years ago. And the obesity epidemic itself in the USA is telling.

 

Your guess seems to be that the food is GMO and laden with chemicals, all under the corrupt watch of the FDA. My guess is that people eat too much and don't get enough exercise.

It's always easy to guess.

Geeze Louise Jan - they are 13 year old kids - as I have stated, it was interesting, and possibly a seed for other research. No one should expect them to use 100% proper study protocols, and I certainly did not think it was meant to be an example of ironclad scientific method. This, as opposed to studies I have referenced above that are designed with endpoints that deliberately obfuscate other issues, and appear in peer-reviewed journals.

I doubt that EMF from our electronic devices is 100% harmless, however small the risk. And I thought it was cool that some young people came up with an idea to check the concept.

I am a member of both the American and European Medical Writers Associations, and they cover news on multiple issues with a fair number of studies getting published, only to have later retractions - but the study is now out there and other researchers have to look for the retraction. Kids can be excused, funded researchers cannot. The problem is at least being flagged in the research community, along with the open access issue, which is a contributing factor.

The big issue in the story is the lack of credibility of  Olle Johansson and apparently Marie-Claire Cammaerts from the Université libre de Bruxelles - which is one of the oldest universities in Europe, and one of the most important universities in Belgium. One would have expected higher credibility from people so associated, and I thank you for pointing out to me that they are not so; how they continue to have association with accredited academia is something to wonder about. 

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer

DrMark, I've spent at least a decade in epidemiological research on the effects of extremely-low-frequency fields and cancer, in children and in adults. My area was exposure assessment. It's a difficult field, as the exposure is ubiquitous and the effects, if they are real, are very small. Perhaps the greatest difficulty I've experienced though was with the fringe researchers who have built careers on perpetuating views that are at odds with physical principles. Electromagnetic field (EMF) research is particularly rife with pseudo-science and just plain bad science. It gets worse when it comes to wi-fi.

I love it when when kids get to conduct science experiments. But it irks me when findings of sloppy experiments are perpetuated as evidence.

I like to keep an open mind, so here's an article by Magda Havas examining the effects of wi-fi radiation on germination of a variety of plants, including watercress. link. See what you think.

For a deep dive, Dr Havas' website here.

Jan

Max_B posted:

Mark,

like my sister-in-law says (she's a Physician) 'la vita è una condizione a rischio' (life is a life-threatening condition).

Ciao,

M.

(Mammalian) life is a sexually transmitted fatal condition.

I recently watched a BBC documentary by Jim Al Kalili that covered how living things have evolved to use quantum mechanical effects. He covered the Robin’s (bird) magnetic compass in its eye that allows it to navigate, DNA damage based on proton tunnelling which reduces dramatically if deuterium (heavy hydrogen) replaces hydrogen and other effects which we have only recently begun to understand. 

Care needs to taken when dismissing anecdotal information, because we are only an infinitesimal way along the path to fully understanding biochemical systems and their interactions with energy fields. Sometimes simple calculations can be done to estimate the likely range in which the mechanisms can operate. I just haven’t got the biochemistry knowledge.

Most of us have problems understanding why our HiFi systems behave for goods reasons. Some rules of thumb exists but these are subsistutes for very complex modelling. However, it seems to generate lots of heat on the forum!

Phil

winkyincanada posted:

DrMark posted:

It is not difficult to guess why we have increasing numbers of obese teenagers with type-2 diabetes now when such was seldom if ever the case even only 50 years ago. And the obesity epidemic itself in the USA is telling.

 

Your guess seems to be that the food is GMO and laden with chemicals, all under the corrupt watch of the FDA. My guess is that people eat too much and don't get enough exercise.

It's always easy to guess.

I'm sure all those added chemicals designed to make food last forever to increase profits, or processed so they can be heated in a microwave and eaten 3 minutes later, are perfectly safe, and there is no way corporate money influences policy decisions in the USA. Our legislators are all upright and noble people and money and influence peddling never enter the equation in their role as selfless public servants. It's just a paranoid delusion to think otherwise.

It is a fact that well over 80% of corn, soy, and canola products are GMO, which means they are covered in glyphosate. (That is not about the obesity, but about having a likely carcinogen in our food.) And the likes of Monsanto, Cargill, and BASF have run roughshod legislatively & judicially over anyone that has tried to stand in their way.

Basic, "clean", one ingredient food products are bound to be healthier than chemistry lab food. The reason there is no labeling requirement for an apple is that it's an apple. I'd wager that as much as you bike, you probably also eat mostly clean food, not food with chemicals that were never really meant for human consumption...which I'm sure place no extra burden on the liver. And with corporate farming with no soil replenishment, the USDA's own data has demonstrated that the nutritive content of vegetables is significantly down from the 1970s.

And of course, it goes without saying that activity, food choices, and moderation are part of the puzzle. (Well I thought it went without saying, apparently not.) We've had obese and overweight teenagers for years, but type 2 diabetic teens in the numbers we are seeing are a rather recent phenomenon. We are also in a 2 year run of the average life expectancy in the USA going down for the first time in forever. (I think it is for the first time, but not 100% sure of that.)

There's no money in public health. In fact, as "sick care" (because health care isn't something you get from a doctor, it's something you do for yourself) becomes increasingly corporatized, the money is in people being unhealthy. And NO, that doesn't mean I think they all sit around and plot it out - they don't have to. The corporations just gravitate towards the money naturally, figure out how to use policy to get more (or better to get the taxpayer to pay for it), and by influencing things to their advantage it happens. Why do you think they fight GMO labeling laws?  Even if a person is wrong, shouldn't they have a right to decide what they eat?

And much of this toxicity is subclinical - death by a thousand cuts type stuff. Do you really think these politicians and CEOs give a s**t about people? That if somehow we knew a food additive or cell phone radiation was, in fact, subclinically harmful that they would immediately alert everyone? Only Pollyanna might think so. I just finished working for a corporation that is in the center of the opioid crisis (McKesson), and despite all their crowing about ethics, they clearly do not care. And the fine they have been hit with is only marginally more than the CEO's compensation package, and only about half of his parachute. 

If anyone is interested the effects of non ionising radiation on people is a well trodden path by the UN, and research continues as our usage and frequencies change.. (effects vary with frequency)

The World Health Organization media fact sheets on the subject. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/

Filipe posted:

 

....extreme care needs to taken when basing actions and policies on anecdotal information.....

I fixed it for you!

Such a good little sheeple...

Baaa...  humbug!