[forum_ghost]

1 watt laser can burn through your eyeball. 1 watt regular LED is a fun Christmas decoration.

Details matter.

There are theories that radio waves can activate small nerve fibres that are located closely to the edge of your skin, where EMF can penetrate, even if only couple millimetres deep.

Those nerve fibres are often located near the mast cells, which form part of your innantr immune system, and have a two-way communication with your CNS via these fibers.

Constant inflammation driven by mast cells is a proven cause of autoimmune disease and increased risks of cancer, osteoporosis, many other chronic illness.

It’s not just ionisation that can do that. That’s only one mechanism. Induce enough inflammation and you could have risks of cancer go up, and not only locally, like skin cancer, but systemically as well, because the immune cells release mediators into the systemic circulation, and in rare cases even causes anaphylaxis, like with solar urticaria: https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/what-is-s...

[nuvious]

> There are theories that radio waves can activate small nerve fibres that are located closely to the edge of your skin, where EMF can penetrate, even if only couple millimetres deep.

Great. Can you provide a reference to this premise at all? There are theories doesn't mean there are verifiable observations to support them. You based your entire argument on this, and eventually connected to a WebMD reference to a condition caused by exposure to solar energy...

...which is orders and orders of more magnitude greater energy than microwave transmitters used in cell phone...

...also a cell phone transmitter maxes out at 1 watt to the antenna and solar energy at the earth's surface is 1000 watts per meter...

...oh yeah, and SOLAR FLUX UNCLUDES UV RADIATION WHICH IS IONIZING RADIATION!

Provide a peer reviewed reference to your proposed mechanism that actually connects it to damage in DNA that leads to cancer in the context of cell phones please.

[forum_ghost]

Solar urticaria has nothing to do with ionizing radiation. as per the CDC, UVA is not ionizing. You can review this on cdc.gov, and maybe inform them they are wrong? A discovery that ionizing radiation is the causative factor of anaphylaxis in solar urticaria would probably get you quite a few awards. Looking forward to your contributions to health sciences.

It also doesn't matter, as the same occurs with infrared: google "heat urticaria". def not ionizing? You can use this link www.google.com to confirm, and also this one maybe: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

maybe also google "cold urticaria"? is negative (inverse?) infrared ionizing? Pressure urticaria is also cool, no radiation required at all.

Given the subject matter at hand is quite involved and requires fairly up to date expertise in neurology, allergy and immunology, oncology and dermatology to be able to evaluate mechanisms at hand, I have prepared for you a decent list of peer reviewed materials to begin your preparation:

  a) ISBN: 0-87893-106-6
  b) ISBN: 9780123851574 
  c) ISBN: 9780199558322
  d) ISBN: 978-1-62618-166-3
  e) ISBN: 978-92-4-157238-5 
  f) ISBN: 3034808372
  g) ISBN: 9783034808378
  h) ISBN: 978-92-76-29839-7

Once you have covered the basics in the above peer reviewed literature, most of which is even approved for training, you will then have no difficulty at all accepting the following:

  1) Mast cells are located at the junction point of the host and external environment.
  2) EMF penetrates into the skin tissue by several millimiters.
  3) There is voluminous clinical evidence of mast cell degranulation by non-ionizing radiation
  4) Mast cells produce inflammation, both local AND systemic.
  5) Chronic inflammation causes DNA damage and increases risks of cancer and many other diseases.

Clinical implications of the interplay between EMF and mast cells is an ongoing area of research. There is like less than 90 papers published on this specific topic, which is miniscule. However, you should not review those papers until after you completed with basics.

Looking forward to your contributions.

[nuvious]

The sun emits more than just UVA and high energy UV light is ionizing. Further my point was that you chained together a mechanism and tried to prove it with something completely unrelated vice trying to address the broader observational evidence in the OP. If your proposed mechanism was real it should've resulted in a significant spike in brain tumors which had not happened. Citing solar urticaria is a complete non sequitur to the point the OP is making with their direct observation that show a lack of increased cancer rates.

I'm also aware of the number of papers out there proposing harm but in the broader picture they don't pan out as reproducible or actually demonstrating sufficient evidence to show harm. That's what the OP is talking about. Despite all the hypothetical mechanisms brain cancers did not increase between the time we had no cell phones to when they became ubiquitous in society.

Here's the contribution I've been responding with all over this thread:

"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck region."

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/d...

The EU routinely surveys the literature to review the research on RFR and EMF exposure and time and time again does not turn up any statistically significant proof of harm. It covers way more than 90 studies; the citation section alone is 55 pages of the 288 in this systematic review.

This is why I get so frustrated about people asserting a cause without providing real data the effects are real or insisting effects exist as a response to data like the OP that suggest there's no interaction.

Provide this thread some explanation regard why the OP is is wrong and cancer cells are going up and then connect that to your assertion of a mechanism similar to solar uticara. If you can't do the first part of that and discredit the observational data your mechanism is just a data-less hypothesis and is just sewing fear uncertainty and doubt for no reason.

[forum_ghost]

I never said it must be cancer.

My comment stated the mechanism can be chronic inflammation, which among MANY OTHER THINGS, can also lead to DNA damage.

MANY. OTHER. THINGS.

There is a study in this thread where rats irradiated with 835 mhz (commonly used in Wi-Fi, cellular, wireless phone etc), at SAR 4 (iPhone is at 2) produced demyelination in rats.

Is multiple sclerosis better than cancer?

Finding the link of the study is an exercise left to reader. It’s somewhere here in one of my comments.

Evaluating these studies would require at least the ISBNs I’ve linked, which can take over a decade.

Looking forward to updates from you in 2032.

[SigmundA]

Cellphone transmitters are not coherent, they are like LED christmas decorations except lower power.

[forum_ghost]

>Cellphone transmitters are not coherent, they are like LED christmas decorations except lower power.

The point is neither one produces ionizing radiation.

There are other mechanisms by which non-ionizing radiation can induce cancers, such as the one I've described.

[SigmundA]

>There are other mechanisms by which non-ionizing radiation can induce cancers, such as the one I've described.

Link please, there are no proven mechanisms such as you describe I am aware of. Your only link points to sun exposure and UVB rays which are near ionizing and cause cancer through DNA damage based on photon energy.

Your example of a laser vs led is on point because its purely based on inverse-square, watt per kg and and thermal heating of tissue which is the only known mechanism which cellphone RF frequencies can cause tissue damage and only at orders of magnitude more power levels.

[forum_ghost]

It's too long of a reasoning chain, maybe that's why it's not obvious? it is also an underfunded area of ongoing research with not enough publications, one paper mentioned only 90 papers are published on this specific issue, which is a tiny number, but seems about right.

So anyway, the mechanism:

  "emf does penetrate skin few mm deep" > "that's deep enough to hit mast cells and small nerve fibers" > "we have plenty of evidence non-ionizing radiation can cause mast cell degranulation"/"we have evidence EMF can produce current in nerves" > "mast cells drive inflammation" > "inflammation causes DNA damage and increase risks of cancer."

Any of these steps seem controversial to you? you can verify them independently easily.

  Maybe claim #3. Plenty of papers on that: 
  https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v37n2/0717-9502-ijmorphol-37-02-00719.pdf
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891061816300576

the only real question that remains is how big of an effect this will have on humans. Cars kill over a million EVERY year. Every 5 years we kill as many people as this pandemic. Nobody seems to particularly care.

Maybe it will be a small effect, maybe it will kill millions per year, but it seems everyone has made up their minds either way, and unless people start dropping dead in the streets nobody will change their mind.

[SigmundA]

Light also penetrates the skin few mm or more (hold a flashlight to you finger) why aren't we studying similar effects with artificial lights which have much more radiative power?

>Maybe claim #3. Plenty of papers on that

I can find one paper, mast cell degranulation has lots of causes, maybe just from thermal heating? Always worth looking into I wouldn't call it conclusive by any stretch.

I don't think anyone has made up their mind, only that jumping to conclusions isn't warranted base don our understanding of physics, sure we should keep studying but as yet there are no proven non-thermal effects or direct correlation or causation between low power microwave and cancer.

[forum_ghost]

>Light also penetrates the skin few mm or more (hold a flashlight to you finger) why aren't we studying similar effects with artificial lights which have much more radiative power?

We do study such effects. It's called a highly lucrative field of dermatology. Luckily, however, humans had billions of years to evolve alongside the sunlight, but phototherapy of all sorts is quite popular, and skin photo-damage is discussed at probably every appointment?

Ok, about mast cells and degranulation, I'll be very frank with you: literally nobody in the entire world understands them fully. Yes. Nobody. Entire world. Not even the absolute best of the best. I mean it. Mast cels supposedly release 200+ mediators, 90%+ of which are not even characterized. Tons of receptors on them that nobody bothered to figure out what they do. There is even a newly recognized clinical entity MCAS/MCAD (mast cell activation disorder), in which physicians and patients are attempting educated guesswork with various treatments to see what sticks. The clinical presentation can be anything from itchy cheeks to having near-fatal anaphylaxis hourly, and everything in between. It doesn't even have a settled consensus on diagnostic criteria yet - ongoing disputes SINCE 1991 (as per wikipedia). Some sources claim 10-18% prevalence in various degrees of severity, fun stuff.

This is mainstream allergy specialty we are talking about. Peanuts, eggs, pollen, that type of mundane stuff. So just to set your expectations right: nothing around peanut allergy is conclusive to physics's standard of five sigma.

Absolutely nothing. Maybe aside from the fact peanuts contain peanuts, and some people tend to be allergic to them. Nobody seems to dispute that. That's where we stand with mast cells.

EMF and mast cells? Now that's really pushing the envelope. That sort of research isn't going to get you anything but a tinfoil hat. Nobody does it. No money or fame in it. Why do it?

The theory about EMF and mast cells (and more recently, associated small nerve fibers) is fairly old though, at least 20 years now, seems like credible people, and plausible enough mechanism. Is it jumping to conclusions? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10859662/

Not conclusive enough? Tons of studies on mast cells and EMF/radiation. Here's 1st page hit on google (pubmed search sucks): https://www.nature.com/articles/srep41129

N.B.: the SAR in that study is on the same order of magnitude as your iphone.

Demyelination if found in humans could mean dx of multiple sclerosis, a devastating illness...and ADHD-like hyperactive behaviour? Wonderful.

Still not sufficiently conclusive? You might want to travel, examine brain slices with your own eyes, and report back in this thread. The study seems fresh, slides might still be in storage.

The only absolutely conclusive anything might ever come up in the next 50-100 years (if you live that long), just like we found out our way with thalidomide, leaded gas, BPA, perfluorinates, and many other toxins, poisons, viruses and other such cooties we've survived for billions of years right up until this very moment.

Could be safe. Could be multiple sclerosis. NBD.

[ncmncm]

False. Again.

[SigmundA]

Really so cellphones are actually microwave lasers, cool!

[alexvoda]

We do actually have microwave lasers, which IIRC predate lasers, called masers.

Of course, there is no cellphone equipped with such a thing.

[nuvious]

Masers are cool. My dad worked in an optics lab that used Masers in college and they used Styrofoam for lenses because it's transparent in the microwave spectrum and induces refraction well.