That was mildly entertaining
Pretty boring but had it's funny moments like the slide saying we might be so brain damaged we can't fix the problem.
I was waiting for the part where it was revealed to be a joke but it never happened
But god it comes across as unfounded opinion piece
People like this need to have their title of professor revoked once they go into the deep end like this.
You're just saying that cause the radical 5ghz Wi-Fi has liquefied you're brain canal
I just want to suppress the science I don't like to get my daily paycheck from big government
Does this mean WIFI is gonna do to me the same Thanos did to half the people in the galaxy?
Alright Doctor, lets do some basic fucking physics...
We can agree on thermal effects that damage cells, dielectric heating is a very real thing from cooking food to deterring crowds.
First off, the studies that you and all researchers before you claim that EMFs affect operation of Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels, VGCC (These are gates in the cell membrane that pass nutrient ions like Calcium, Potassium, Sodium, etc). Mammalian cell membranes between 3 - 10 nanometers, depending upon which study you read. These gates are opened due to voltage differences across the cell membrane, known as the membrane potential. (This is also how neurons pass signals up & down). The voltage range of these potentials is -40milliVolts to -80millivolts. For sake of simplicly (and because the polarity isn't important in this thought experiment), lets just round that up to 100milliVolts. This is determined by ion concentrations and types both inside the cell and in extracellular space.
Now you have a basic field strength of 100milliVolts per 10 nanometers, I'll convert that to standard units of V/m which is 100000000 V/m or 1 * 10^8 V/m. This is the field strength required to activate a VGCC or modify the signal travelling down a neuron. Also, neurons typically have a conduction velocity (how fast a signal travels down them) of 120 m/s. Now the charge carriers that travel down a neuron are potassium ions which have an equivalent charge of an electron. The distance that a potassium ion rides from the axon is ~100nm. In order for a magnetic field (static or oscillating) to pull those moving charges away, it'd have to overcome the Hall Effect (which is just another form of the Lorentz Force).
Since Vh is the potential across a membrane (100mV) and Vx is the speed of the charge moving (120m/s) and w is the conduction channel's width (100nm from above), it'd require atleast a magnetic field strength of: ~8000 Teslas to just break even with the voltage potential.
The FCC has RF exposure limits mostly due to concerns of dielectric heating, but I'll throw some numbers out.
From the FCC here's the limits in field strength for a variety of frequencies (Maximum Permissible Exposure):
0.3 - 3MHz (AM Broadcast band & Shortwave Radio): 614V/m
3 - 30MHz (Shortwave Radio & HF): 842V/m
30 - 300MHz (VHF TV Bands, FM Radio, UHF TV Bands): 27.5 V/m
300MHz - 1.5GHz (Common GSM/UMTS/LTE/5G Cell Bands, ISM 900 Band used for a variety of miscellaneous services.): 5mW/cm2 max at 1.5GHz power density which converts to 2378 V/m.
1.5GHz to 100GHz (2.4GHz WiFi, 5GHz WiFi, Other GSM/UMTS/LTE/5G Cell Bands, and a variety of specialty bands): 5mW/cm2 which converts to 2378V/m
Let's take some more extreme examples:
Field strength of a lightning bolt: 100V/m typical (generally static, no frequency component).
Field strength inside a typical 1.5kW microwave oven (Again at 2.4GHz): 2000V/m
Field strength between phases on a 800kV high voltage 50/60Hz grid transmission line, typically ~15m distance between phases and the tower is atleast 30m high to the conductors: 53000 V/m calculated, and 20000 V/m in rural basically no population limits, 5000 V/m in populated areas.
So you see that nothing, and I mean fucking nothing, manmade can affect how our cells absorb nutrients and somehow cause these diseases. Frequency has nothing to do with it until you get to dielectric heating or MRI which still doesn't affect VGCCs and only just heats up water or causes water to emit small radio waves under a strong magnet.
As for magnets (source), even if we use the strongest magnetic field ever created by man is 1200T for a few milliseconds, 45 Teslas is the strongest continuous magnetic field ever made, the magnets on the LHC particle collider are 8Teslas, an MRI magnet is 3Teslas and your typical Neodynium magnet is 1.25Teslas.
You want to know something that exceeds that 8000 Teslas from above? A Magnetar, a star with a magnetic field on the order of 1*10^10 Teslas, a field strong enough to fucking effect the shape of atoms. You'd be long dead if you're even remotely near these things.
So from both an electric field & magnetic field point of view, nothing biologically can happen. You'd be burned by dielectric heating, levitated by a strong magnetic field or your atoms fucking ripped apart by a magnetar before your VCGGs started conducting too much to somehow cause ADHD or some other disease.
There's a reason that there's a difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Because everything from 50/60Hz power line all the way up to Blue light isn't enough to ionize your atoms, DNA and start causing damage.
By the way, bonus fact, the US's NIH says this in a overarching study of these bunk ELF-EMF causes Diseases:
The scientific evidence suggesting that ELF-EMF exposures pose any health risk
is weak. The strongest evidence for health effects comes from associations
observed in human populations with two forms of cancer: childhood leukemia and
chronic lymphocytic leukemia in occupationally exposed adults. While the
support from individual studies is weak, the epidemiological studies demonstrate,
for some methods of measuring exposure, a fairly consistent pattern of a small,
increased risk with increasing exposure that is somewhat weaker for chronic
lymphocytic leukemia than for childhood leukemia. In contrast, the mechanistic
studies and the animal toxicology literature fail to demonstrate any consistent
pattern across studies although sporadic findings of biological effects (including
increased cancers in animals) have been reported. No indication of increased
leukemias in experimental animals has been observed.
The lack of connection between the human data and the experimental data (animal
and mechanistic) severely complicates the interpretation of these results. The
human data are in the “right” species, are tied to “real-life” exposures and show
some consistency that is difficult to ignore. This assessment is tempered by the
observation that given the weak magnitude of these increased risks, some other
factor or common source of error could explain these findings. However, no
consistent explanation other than exposure to ELF-EMF has been identified.
Epidemiological studies have serious limitations in their ability to demonstrate a
cause and effect relationship whereas laboratory studies, by design, can clearly
show that cause and effect are possible. Virtually all of the laboratory evidence in
animals and humans and most of the mechanistic work done in cells fail to
support a causal relationship between exposure to ELF-EMF at environmental
levels and changes in biological function or disease status. The lack of consistent,
positive findings in animal or mechanistic studies weakens the belief that this
association is actually due to ELF-EMF, but it cannot completely discount the
epidemiological findings.
The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized as entirely
safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia
hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant aggressive
regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States
uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive
regulatory action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the
public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. This
is described in greater detail in the section, Recommended Actions. The NIEHS
does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide
sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern.
Would you like to try again?
Though he should really have READ a book on how to create an engaging powerpoint. Man that was a lot of text and boring slides. Imagine having to sit through multiple lectures of the guy.
Didn't you once say it was a good thing that Franz Ferdinand was killed, starting World War 1? That leads me to believe that when you posted about dangerous WiFi here, it wasn't a joke. It is pretty silly and we have known for a while that this technology is safe.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
