[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.

[SigmundA]

>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?

I said artificial light as in visible, not near-ionizing UV which has well understood mechanisms that lead to cancer.

There are multi tens of watt transmitters all around us for hours per day that nobody seems to worry about, yet everyone seems worried about milliwatt transmitters of much lower photon energy.

We have evolved to sunlight and yet we still get cancer from it and its due to the photon energy, shouldn't we be looking at artificial terahertz radiation at much higher power levels with more vigor than gigahertz?

>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?

If anyone publishes a paper that implies cellphone radiation causes health issues it gets quite a bit of attention, not really buying that there is no motivation, there are countless books and websites making money off these papers lately.

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

No its 4 W/kg whole body for 5 hours per day for 12 weeks unmodulated continuous 835Mhz, FFC regulates to 1.6 W/kg over the gram getting the most power (basically the gram of flesh where antenna is closest to your head).

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

From the paper: "The rota rod test was done to determine the impact of chronic RF-EMF exposure on behavioural changes. This test is widely used to evaluate motor dysfunctions, especially coordination and balance. There was no significant difference between the control and RM-EMF groups"

and "The observations of autophagosome formation and down-regulation of pro-apoptotic factor Bax suggested a lack of neuronal damage."

They then go on to pick some slides of what might be myelin damage hopefully they didn't cherry pick them. Should be easy to reproduce the results.

The mice seemed to move more in the study so thus where called "hyperactive" hopefully there wasn't a buzzing noise from the transmitter or some other environmental factor agitating the RF group. Again this stuff should be easily reproducible in further studies.

>Could be safe. Could be multiple sclerosis. NBD.

Could cure MS, could give you superpowers as others have cited in this post have suggested, could be a teapot orbiting the sun we don't know about. We should keep looking but lets be level headed about it.