Slashdot Mirror
Studies Find Harm From Cellular and Wi-Fi Signals
Over the years we've discussed the possible health risks of cellphone and other microwave radiation: studies from Israel and Sweden indicating a link between cellphone use and cancer, one from England exonerating cell towers as a cause of "microwave radiation sensitivity," and a recent 30-year Swedish study that found no link to cancer. The question won't go away though. Reader Artifice_Eternity writes "I've always tended to dismiss claims of toxicity from cell phone and Wi-Fi signals as reflecting ignorance about microwave radiation. However, this GQ article cites American and European studies going back decades that have found some level of biological harm caused by these signals. Why haven't they gained more attention? Quoting: 'Industry-funded studies seem to reflect the result of corporate strong-arming. Lai reviewed 350 studies and found that about half showed bioeffects from EM radiation emitted by cell phones. But when he took into consideration the funding sources for those 350 studies, the results changed dramatically. Only 25 percent of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects, compared with 75 percent of those studies that were independently funded.'"
Protein folding relies heavily on very lower energy Van der Waals interactions, ionic interactions, and even the hydration shell. Theoretically, the perfect type of low energy radiation could denature tumor suppressant proteins in a nucleated keratinocyte and generate a squamous cell carcinoma.
That said, possible doesn't mean practical. The probability of 2 GHz being that perfect frequency, of denaturing a single type of tumor suppressant protein causing unchecked DNA replication, and that replication introducing a cancerous change is negligibly low. Plus, researchers would've sounded the alarm ages ago if a common/well studied cancer like SCC increased in incidence in a specific area of the body. Deeper tissue wouldn't get as much radiation exposure, and a non-skin cancer on the thigh is kinda rare (blood vessel, muscle, bone, and fat cancers have prevalences of ~.1% - 1%).
I'm not quite sure I understand. So you're saying either Hippies were pushing for global warming or... Nobody was?!
Those are some crazy choices and I'd like to see how you ruled out every other person and motivation on the planet and were left with hippies.
First I'd like to point out that the way academia is funded and the political and social pressures within can motivate scientists to come to incorrect consensus. Hey if you're climatologist and your options are to side with the man-made global warming consensus to continue to get funding, or denounce it, lose funding and be ostracized and fired; you have a pretty strong reason to say you see the man made connection.
Also, I think you are completely missing the real big money and big power interests behind pushing global warming. Governments are SALIVATING at the proposition of a new way to exercise power over people with all the new carbon regulations. Downright jumping over themselves to start taxing. It puts them in an incredible position of power and control. What aspect of your life do you think does not depend on some sort of carbon exchange and release many times over? The only thing I can think of is growing plants and you better sure as hell not intend on eating them.
And don't forget the big corporations who are also dying for "carbon trading" like the financial industry. In fact don't forget big corporations, full stop. This is another way for the big boys to keep small business from ever posing a threat. Another way to squash your smaller competitor in a non-competitive manner and prevent a functioning capitalist system.
In fact, even proponents of global governance, population control, eugenics and entities interested in creating a more powerful world bank have seized on to this issue to further progress their causes. Look at the club of rome. When you have dodgy science about to command this much power every loonie wants in on the action. And don't tell me it's not dodgy, every prediction and every model ever made by a global warming supporter has always proven wrong and al gore's little film was not worthy of even being called science there were so many convenient errors.
Of course, not everyone is on board. The oil companies probably don't like this, only because it is the *perception* that their business is the only one that deals in carbon. Don't worry though, if they get their wish and convince us to switch to a hydrogen economy we can drive our fuel cell cars blissfully unaware that the only way to make that hydrogen economically is to use their hydrocarbons. Oh and as a bonus we can pay them to keep using their fueling infrastructure.
The bottom line is this, there are many more well proven pollution causes to champion and many many more worthwhile humanitarian causes to fight for. There are wars right now killing millions of people. Disease killing millions when prevention and cure is available. Starvation, rape, slave trafficking. Look at the damn pollution we've slung into the seas. You can't even eat fish more than once a month now without getting high mercury and dioxin levels. So you've got to be kidding me focusing on this, an issue that is FAR from settled and trying to introduce taxation and control by force.
And you're giving me this line about hippies....
Liberty.
For cell phone radiation and carbon bonds, that is an excellent approximation, but it is not generally true. There is such a thing as two photon excitation, where for example two 1 eV photons cause a 2 eV transition. In my lab we often observe two and three photon excitation using high power lasers and a sensitive spectrometer, though it is much less likely than single photon excitation. One would need to wait a very long time to observe million photon excitation.
Simon's Rock College
My initial time at undergrad university thru to Masters was in German Literature back in the day. Then computers came along and I was hooked by this magical technology(PDP-11 days).
Over the coming years I worked thru a Comp Sci degree, Post Grad work, and more in GIS(info in Geographic Info Systems). All the while also doing part time work back at the old dept teaching German Lit. I have been out of academia and in the industry for 15 years now.
But the Comp Sci gave me research exposure to the Food Research Industry.
Research, scholorships, and funding in the Arts we almost pure in their implementation. Food research and funding was rotten to the core. I have been on the recieving end of table thumping food industry ceo's. You are then told to bend over, take it, then go inform relevant parties of desired outcomes.
Thank christ I am out of that sewer.
In todays world I can only imagine what jewels lie in the communications gold veins and how that drives research.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.