Let's assume I turn off all the WiFi devices in my house and only hard wire things. I can still see at least 7 WiFi networks from my neighbor's houses. Not to mention public spaces. I don't really think there is any way to avoid WiFi in most modern nations.
Agreed, though you probably spend a bit of time in your home and at work. Driving past wifi the signal strength will vary wildly and won't likely be as strong as the one you are sleeping around. It certainly won't be as powerful as cell sites.
In general, higher frequency implies higher energy, all things being equal. X-rays and gamma rays are very high frequency and therefore high-energy, and no one would dispute their deleterious effect on human health. However, a typical X-ray is somewhere around 30 petahertz (10^16) to 30 exahertz (10^19).
Compare to 5GHz WiFi (10^6). We're not sure if this is physiologically relevant because the relationship between energy and health effects is not linear, and different tissues react in different ways. It's worth looking into, though my personal feeling is given the ubiquity of such radiation, we should be seeing a lot more effects and they should be measurable.
I want to see a frequency response and a dose response before I believe in harmful microwaves. Being allergic to electromagnetic waves in France is like avoiding gluten on the West Coast, all the yoga practitioners claim to be able to feel it, but there is no scientific evidence.
And the more we have electromagnetic waves in our environment because of the spreading of the technology, the later we die because medicine and healthcare move faster than the putative harm. What is certain, is that whatever the harm electromagnetic waves cause, it can't be huge like silicosis or asbestos, because we just don't see it in the statistics while intently staring at it, it has to be weak.
Perhaps? Something like sunscreen? 2.4 GHz is the frequency at which water resonates so our bodies are already giant optimal absorbers of wifi energey, I wonder if anything would help.
> 2.4 GHz is the frequency at which water resonates
Answers by people who understand this better than me here [1], but 2.4GHz is not "the" resonant frequency, water has a number of frequencies it interacts with radiation. And water isn't going to behave like a tuning fork anyway, it would be more analogous to sand. Microwaves interact with water by dipole interaction, and they just unload heat.
That's why wifi isn't going to do much to your body, any cooking of you being done by radiation is trivial compared to your own body heat.
A related study by apparently the same author makes the following claim: "microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action"
> The VGCCs each have a voltage sensor which is made up of 4 alpha helixes in the plasma membrane, with each such helix having 5 positive charges on it, for a total of 20 positive charges (Pall, 2015b). These voltage sensor helixes are each called S4 helixes because each is the fourth helix in a distinct multi-helix domain. Each of these voltage sensor charges is within the lipid bilayer part of the plasma membrane. The electrical forces on the voltage sensor are very high for three distinct reasons (Pall, 2015b, Pall, 2015a, Pall, 2016a). 1. The 20 charges on the voltage sensor make the forces on voltage sensor 20 times higher than the forces on a single charge. 2. Because these charges are within the lipid bilayer section of the membrane where the dielectric constant is about 1/120th of the dielectric constant of the aqueous parts of the cell, the law of physics called Coulomb's law, predicts that the forces on those charges will be approximately 120 times higher than the forces on charges in the aqueous parts of the cell. 3. Because the plasma membrane has a high electrical resistance whereas the aqueous parts of the cell are highly conductive, the electrical gradient across the plasma membrane is estimated to be concentrated about 3000-fold. The combination of these effects means that comparing the forces on the voltage sensor with the forces on singly charged groups in the aqueous parts of the cell, the forces on the voltage sensor are approximately 20 × 120 × 3000 = 7.2 million times higher (Pall, 2015b). The physics predicts, therefore, extraordinarily strong forces activating the VGCCs via the voltage sensor. It follows that the biology tells us that the VGCCs are the main target of the EMFs and the physics tells us why they are the main target. Thus the physics and biology are pointing in the same direction.
If I ever write a paper I hope it will be more persuasive than this.
I don't claim to be an expert on EMF effects on the human body, but I interpret his core claim to be that because the seven effect studies he cites had insufficient power to determine there was no correlation, there must be correlation because "similar" EMF studies did show a response, and therefore the effects should be considered established (ergo the fairly clickbait title). I use quotes for similar because it doesn't seem they were all that similar, which is why he objects to the studies he references.
If he had simply restricted himself to saying that more research was required because previous studies were inadequate (due to small sample size, methodological issues, etc.), I think this would have been a lot more defensible. Right now it reads like tinfoil hat time.
I'm also not an expert in this field, but I agree that the conclusions presented here appear at first glance to be much too strong. For one, we should all be highly skeptical of meta analyses to begin with - there is every incentive to report "significant" results, and a documented tendency for such studies to be preferentially published, so the current literature should be enriched with respect to rejections of the null.
Also, did I miss it, or is there zero discussion about how the discussed publications were selected? A quick google search turns up lots of additional null results.
The authors also do make some correct criticisms of common statistical mistakes. For example, it is true that failure to reject a null hypothesis is not evidence for that null hypothesis in a frequentist framework. Even so, we should consider the power to reject the null, which depends on:
1. The practical or clinical effect size
2. The sample size
Even if we do detect statistically significant effects of EMF/WiFi, that in no way implies that the results are of practical significance. The cited studies do have small samples, but no discussion is given to the magnitude of effect which would be expected to have been detected.
They also note that previous studies should have published their data and p-values, which is true.
My takeaway is that more information is needed, and that we should hear from someone with a good grasp on all the relevant literature to see how representative these studies are. Also, this kind of thing would be clearer if we were all Bayesians, and published our data :P
Also, if you check some of the citations that he lists for dangers of microwave-range radiation (you can click through to the full text of the article), they are things like studies of naval ships, in which the microwave radiation would be at much higher power levels than that which your Wi-Fi router is emitting.
Yeah, it's published in "Environmental Research", a journal with an impact factor of 3.8. This is quite low. If the claims made by this paper are true, it has huge implications, so there's two possibilities: 'Science' and other prestigious journals are SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH due to INFLUENCE by BIG WIFI and passing up the opportunity to publish an incredibly important story, or the actual research is garbage.
I can second this. Having done extensive research on gut health for my own issues, I have read everything nih.gov has to offer. Some articles are based on proper scientific method and decent numbers of test subjects and controlled environments. There are also plenty of papers based on pseudo-science, dogmas and hearsay. After reading through every article they had to offer, it became apparent which articles I could borrow from for my own research and my own health.
I would love to see nih.gov implement a voting and discussion system similar to HN so that folks can debate the poor quality research and improve upon the good research.
if your only goal is to get your work published in something that is technically a journal, this is very easy even if the research is very bad, and then it will likely end up on PubMed.
fundamentally, it is just a specialized search engine, which will point you to articles published elsewhere, that (unfortunately, in my opinion) happens to be hosted on the nih.gov domain.
Do you have a citation by any chance? I completely believe you (Because I've seen some things that appear untrue) but want to have it to use as supporting evidence in a debate.
I dont think it’s making any claims, for or against, other EM frequencies. It’s just that their study was specific to Wi-fi, so that’s what they’re reporting on.
Maybe they chose wifi in particular because it’s more relatable to the common person and quite ubiquitous on its own. They could draw more expansive conclusions in the future, if they want to. Or other curious scientists can pose that question and design an experiment / meta-analysis to answer it.
If this turns out to be a hazardous effect, what could be used to mitigate VGCC activation?
Presumably lower power signaling would be effective. But what if we allocated a different band (yes, I realize that this is much, much harder than it sounds)?
One of the U.S. leading autism experts (Harvard MD) has co-written papers on the plausible link between low-level electromagnetic field exposure and autism spectrum disorders. The key here is also: oxidative stress, brain inflammation and blood-brain-barrier damage - as in Dr. Palls review.
Ref 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24095003
Ref 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24113318
single author papers in fields that require lab work—medicine, biotech, chemistry, etc... all scream crank. in fields that need infrastructure, collaboration is normal.
you can be a perfectly fine mathematician publishing single author work more reasonably than, say, a cell biologist could.
This is sensationalist. Wi-Fi is a brand based around a protocol. If they're talking about low power microwave transmission, they'll have to include cell phones, microwave ovens, and everything else. Not to say RF can't be dangerous, but something like this just feeds the tin hat folks (which, BTW are just big wave guides. You'll need to wrap yourself like a potato for best results ;)
There is a difference between "sensationalist" and using a term that the general public knows. Wi-Fi means something to the average person, whereas "radio waves in the 2.4GHz band" sounds like some obscure thing that doesn't apply to daily life.
Kleenex is bleached wood pulp. But so is toilet paper, paper towels, coffee filters, newsprint, magazines, packaging, etc. It's disingenuous and exploitative reporting.
Nothing new. This review just dares to aggregate and conclude on other reviews which have established that modulated, polarized, low-level microwave transmissions (like f.x. WiFi) causes effects like significant oxidative cell stress which is a known precursor to a whole host of health effects - cancer included. Dr. Pall offers a mechanistic explanation for the repeatedly established effects: the activation of voltage-gated calcium channels that sit in every cell membrane. Signals like WiFi can trigger those, allowing calcium to flood the cell and set off a cascade of effects leading to said oxidative stress. Add in non-stop radiation exposure and your bodies antioxidant reserves will surely deplete. So basically you now have a mechanism allowing low-level, non-ionizing radiation to indirectly cause the same damage to DNA as ionizing radiation does. There you go. Cancer epidemic explained. Is there anything you can do? Yes, first line of defense is to reduce your exposure and neutralize some of the added oxidative stress by upping your intake of antioxidants. See Dr. Yakymenko's blog for more: http://carelessscience.com/blog2017/electrohypersensitivity-...
This sounds interesting. Are there big cohort studies of the effects? (How easy it is to separate this from better cancer detection methods?) What type of cancers are being induced by this? What's the effect size?
More specifically, http://ap.io/blog/radiofrequency/, The gist being if the photons don't have enough energy to affect your atoms, your don't need to worry too much. Since the power falls off proportional to 1/d^2, just don't use your router/cellphone as a pillow.
The whole "human body is complicated and it could possibly affect you in some other way" is certainly a good place to investigate, but probably really hard to demonstrate without drastically increasing the density and power to unusual levels.
"...showing that you don't need to worry about radiation from your cell phone". Dude. Will you please - PLEASE - just read the biological evidence and move on from that outdated (physicists) argument about photon energy. It is now amply established that low-level microwave radiation causes oxidative stress which can damage DNA and increase your risk of inflammation and cancer. Its an indirect effect. Little to do with photon energy alone.
My MIL is convinced that WiFi is the cause of all of her skin issues and headaches. She quit her job because IT refused to move one of their routers from near her office. She sleeps in a Faraday cage :-|
77 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] threadI have some of my home devices wired: tv, console, home server; but for laptops and smartphones, it gets tricky.
It also wouldn't help getting rid of the neighbour's wifi, unless I get some sort of faraday-cage insulation.
although with usb-c 3 .. one port would be enough for all
iMacs and iMac Pros still have ethernet ports: https://www.apple.com/imac/specs/ https://www.apple.com/imac-pro/specs/
and, I don't know how well it works, but it's possible to run ethernet over USB-C into a MacBook: https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HJKF2ZM/A/belkin-usb-c-to...
The last purchase made in my family of an Ethernet-enabled system was running Windows XP.
> All the studies reviewed here were of Wi-Fi using the 2.4 GHz band, although there is also a 5 GHz band reserved for possible Wi-Fi use.
The study is recent (brand new) so this strikes me as an oversight to describe this band as "reserved for possible use."
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393511...
I don't know enough about wave transmissions to know if higher frequency would be more or less likely to cause issues, anyone?
Compare to 5GHz WiFi (10^6). We're not sure if this is physiologically relevant because the relationship between energy and health effects is not linear, and different tissues react in different ways. It's worth looking into, though my personal feeling is given the ubiquity of such radiation, we should be seeing a lot more effects and they should be measurable.
And the more we have electromagnetic waves in our environment because of the spreading of the technology, the later we die because medicine and healthcare move faster than the putative harm. What is certain, is that whatever the harm electromagnetic waves cause, it can't be huge like silicosis or asbestos, because we just don't see it in the statistics while intently staring at it, it has to be weak.
Answers by people who understand this better than me here [1], but 2.4GHz is not "the" resonant frequency, water has a number of frequencies it interacts with radiation. And water isn't going to behave like a tuning fork anyway, it would be more analogous to sand. Microwaves interact with water by dipole interaction, and they just unload heat.
That's why wifi isn't going to do much to your body, any cooking of you being done by radiation is trivial compared to your own body heat.
[1] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169173/what-is-t...
and now I feel sick :)
If that is true, then it is quite significant.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879308
> The VGCCs each have a voltage sensor which is made up of 4 alpha helixes in the plasma membrane, with each such helix having 5 positive charges on it, for a total of 20 positive charges (Pall, 2015b). These voltage sensor helixes are each called S4 helixes because each is the fourth helix in a distinct multi-helix domain. Each of these voltage sensor charges is within the lipid bilayer part of the plasma membrane. The electrical forces on the voltage sensor are very high for three distinct reasons (Pall, 2015b, Pall, 2015a, Pall, 2016a). 1. The 20 charges on the voltage sensor make the forces on voltage sensor 20 times higher than the forces on a single charge. 2. Because these charges are within the lipid bilayer section of the membrane where the dielectric constant is about 1/120th of the dielectric constant of the aqueous parts of the cell, the law of physics called Coulomb's law, predicts that the forces on those charges will be approximately 120 times higher than the forces on charges in the aqueous parts of the cell. 3. Because the plasma membrane has a high electrical resistance whereas the aqueous parts of the cell are highly conductive, the electrical gradient across the plasma membrane is estimated to be concentrated about 3000-fold. The combination of these effects means that comparing the forces on the voltage sensor with the forces on singly charged groups in the aqueous parts of the cell, the forces on the voltage sensor are approximately 20 × 120 × 3000 = 7.2 million times higher (Pall, 2015b). The physics predicts, therefore, extraordinarily strong forces activating the VGCCs via the voltage sensor. It follows that the biology tells us that the VGCCs are the main target of the EMFs and the physics tells us why they are the main target. Thus the physics and biology are pointing in the same direction.
If I ever write a paper I hope it will be more persuasive than this.
Pall, 2013; Pall, 2014; Pall, 2015a; Pall, 2015b; Pall, 2016a; Pall, 2016b; Pall, 2018
I don't claim to be an expert on EMF effects on the human body, but I interpret his core claim to be that because the seven effect studies he cites had insufficient power to determine there was no correlation, there must be correlation because "similar" EMF studies did show a response, and therefore the effects should be considered established (ergo the fairly clickbait title). I use quotes for similar because it doesn't seem they were all that similar, which is why he objects to the studies he references.
If he had simply restricted himself to saying that more research was required because previous studies were inadequate (due to small sample size, methodological issues, etc.), I think this would have been a lot more defensible. Right now it reads like tinfoil hat time.
Also, did I miss it, or is there zero discussion about how the discussed publications were selected? A quick google search turns up lots of additional null results.
The authors also do make some correct criticisms of common statistical mistakes. For example, it is true that failure to reject a null hypothesis is not evidence for that null hypothesis in a frequentist framework. Even so, we should consider the power to reject the null, which depends on:
1. The practical or clinical effect size 2. The sample size
Even if we do detect statistically significant effects of EMF/WiFi, that in no way implies that the results are of practical significance. The cited studies do have small samples, but no discussion is given to the magnitude of effect which would be expected to have been detected.
They also note that previous studies should have published their data and p-values, which is true.
My takeaway is that more information is needed, and that we should hear from someone with a good grasp on all the relevant literature to see how representative these studies are. Also, this kind of thing would be clearer if we were all Bayesians, and published our data :P
This is full-on crank territory here.
It's just a link to PubMed, which is an aggregator of journal articles hosted by the NIH's National Library of Medicine.
Nearly any life sciences article published in any kind of journal, good or bad, would end up with an abstract on here. Evaluate it on its own merits.
With that being said, I am skeptical of this paper.
This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I would love to see nih.gov implement a voting and discussion system similar to HN so that folks can debate the poor quality research and improve upon the good research.
fundamentally, it is just a specialized search engine, which will point you to articles published elsewhere, that (unfortunately, in my opinion) happens to be hosted on the nih.gov domain.
[0] - https://livertox.nih.gov/Ibuprofen.htm
And all their references; to your point, are for PubMed.
Perhaps it a call for reformation is due, or perhaps setting up wiki's and forums that give people a place to challenge and pick apart these articles.
Quote: "The presence of an article in PMC does not reflect an endorsement of, or concurrence with, the contents of the article by NLM."
PMC is PubMed Central, and NLM is the National Library of Medicine is the center at NIH in charge of managing it.
A better question could be: Can we replace it with something better?
Just like we are replacing combustion engines with electric engines.
Maybe they chose wifi in particular because it’s more relatable to the common person and quite ubiquitous on its own. They could draw more expansive conclusions in the future, if they want to. Or other curious scientists can pose that question and design an experiment / meta-analysis to answer it.
Presumably lower power signaling would be effective. But what if we allocated a different band (yes, I realize that this is much, much harder than it sounds)?
i wonder if his medicines can help?
... single-author papers scream "crank" to me.
http://www.autismone.org/content/martin-l-pall-ba-phd-autism...
http://sethmnookin.com/2011/04/20/researcher-who-does-not-me...
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2016/10/1730-martha-herber...
Not necessary. Consider this: https://scholar.google.ru/citations?user=qc6CJjYAAAAJ&hl=ru&...
single author papers in fields that require lab work—medicine, biotech, chemistry, etc... all scream crank. in fields that need infrastructure, collaboration is normal.
you can be a perfectly fine mathematician publishing single author work more reasonably than, say, a cell biologist could.
More specifically, http://ap.io/blog/radiofrequency/, The gist being if the photons don't have enough energy to affect your atoms, your don't need to worry too much. Since the power falls off proportional to 1/d^2, just don't use your router/cellphone as a pillow.
The whole "human body is complicated and it could possibly affect you in some other way" is certainly a good place to investigate, but probably really hard to demonstrate without drastically increasing the density and power to unusual levels.
On the other hand, quitting her job might have done that alone ;)