[rndphs]

I think though that any biological process using these sorts of energies on the molecular level will be swamped with noise and therefore wouldn't be a useful mechanism. 3GHz is like 0.00001eV. A process with Gibb's free energy change of 10ueV has an equilibrium constant of essentially 1 at room temperature, and so is almost completely reversible.

The reason why we can make things interact with radio waves at all is essentially because electrical conductors provide coherent modes for low energy photons to couple to. Without conductors and their free electron cloud we would have a very hard time building anything to receive or transmit radio in any way that isn't thermal.

It is true that there is some degree of conductivity in cells but without a non-thermal way of coupling between current and molecular processes I don't see how radio waves could affect cells in a non-thermal manner

Edit: I guess nerves have a non-thermal coupling mechanism from low frequency currents to molecular mechanisms, so it must be possible. But the machinery for that has been highly evolved for that specific task, I'm not sure if it follows that such machinery would appear commonly in cell processes.

[Gnarl]

Are single-photon models even useful here? What about aggregate photon effects? The sheer amount of photons hitting you from a cell-tower is enormous. Perhaps an "optical tweezer" type effect could happen?

And for the non-thermal effect discussion, have you considered voltage-gated ion-channels in cell-membranes?

[nuvious]

You're gish galloping. Rather than continue to propose arguments without evidence of actual risk, find a citation that has a salient hypothesis that's tested that shows risk.

We aren't your Google-scholar and you're just promoting FUD by asking into the ether "but couldn't X cause Y". Me typing this message COULD cause a butterfly effect that leads to an earthquake. In any "does X cause Y" scenario you have two answer what the probability is that X causes Y and what's the impact of X does cause Y.

In RFR exposure terms it's what is the probability that RF below ionizing levels cause damage to DNA to promote cancer. The vast majority of the research says no and theoretical mechanisms for harm of RF below ionizing levels has never been proven to anything close to a statistical significance or in ways that are reproducible. Even if you did you'd have to assume impact. The OP study is basically assuming there's some impact and studying the population broadly and observed none.

Low probably, low impact, low or no risk.

Please present evidence that presents a high risk argument that is backed by some research showing an increase of the probability and/or impact or rfr exposure to DNA damage.

Until you do that, you're gish galloping. Please respond to our arguments (or consider if we're right) instead of declaring new ones with no references.

[Gnarl]

I'm usually very patient with the leftovers of the "ionizing only" crowd and what you call "gish galloping" (huh?!) was my attempt at nudging you to discover the science that shows that worldview to be outdated.

So when you write: "...and theoretical mechanisms for harm of RF below ionizing levels has never been proven to anything close to a statistical significance or in ways that are reproducible" ...I lose that patience with people not even interested in looking.

Look up Yakymenko et al. 2015 "Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation". Full-text link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279863242_Oxidative...

Excerpt: "...among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity RFR, in general, 93 confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems. A wide pathogenic potential of the induced ROS and their involvement in cell signaling pathways explains a range of biological/health effects of low-intensity RFR, which include both cancer and non-cancer pathologies."

Yes, the word "cancer" is in there along with "low-intensity RFR". The pathway is free-radical promotion in cells by RF and subsequent damage to proteins, DNA etc.

Keep believing the "ionizing only" line if you want. You're allowed to have an opinion. But then its just you against the peer-reviewed & published data.

[nuvious]

I've actually already heard of this study and it's another proposed mechanism without any actual evidence in the wild that the proposed mechanism is happened or results in any significant health outcomes. It's a well known study in science circles because of how bad it is in spreading FUD over rfr.

"While the evidence may support the notion that RFR can increase markers of oxidative activity in tissue, it does not establish that this increase is biologically important and can actually lead to specific diseases. It also does not establish that cell phone use causes any harm by this mechanism."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/about-that-cell-phone-and-c...

They used the word cancer but didn't provide any real data that linked the proposed mechanism to cancer. Please stop believing fear mongerers and demand not just a hypothesis but actual data that a mechanism causes harm.

Oh, and not all oxidative stress in the body is bad. There are oxidative compounds that benefit human health and too much antioxidant can produce adverse effects.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5551541/

Our bodies even produce their own antioxidants:

"Your body's cells naturally produce some powerful antioxidants, such as alpha lipoic acid and glutathione."

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/understanding....

Oxidarive stress and free radicals are turning into buzzwords that ignore how our bodies balance that and just stating something causes oxidative stress in vitro or ex vivo doesn't say whether our antioxidant system can handle that and in the end negate any potential harm. This is why in vivo studies are done and the OP is a massive in vivo experiment that's been naturally happening since cell phones were first deployed.

I'm also going to highlight that I'm trying to pursuade you that we know the risks, they're low (basically zero), and you don't have to be worried about them. To contrast you're proposing unproven mechanisms for an uncertain risk that contradicts the observations do the original post while repeating arguments used by snake oil salesman that sell Faraday cages for people's wifi routers.

Stop being afraid, the world is way less scary when it comes to RFR exposure than these fear mongerers want you to belive.

[Gnarl]

"Stop being afraid" ??

So a sci. discussion melted down to an unsolicited pop-psych consultation.

Your argumentation is flawed. Have a nice day.