Re: Technology risk without safeguards

[nanog08 () mulligan org]

Since the Science is not settled... I still won't put a wireless earbud 
so close to my brain, and I'm especially worried about people doing this 
over extended periods.  Personally I try to use a wired earbud when I'm 
using my cell phone.

But I'm overly cautious I guess.  I wear a mask when I go to the store 
and I use list specific email addresses - so ignore everything I say on 
this subject.

Geoff


On 11/4/20 7:32 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
>     The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all
>     conspiracy. The
>     fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship,
>     does not mean
>     that there isn't any. For example:
>
>
> If you are going to cite that American Cancer Society article, you 
> should cite all the relevant parts. The parts you skipped are bolded.
>
>     *RF waves don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because
>     of this, it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause
>     cancer. Some studies have found possible increased rates of
>     certain types of tumors in lab animals exposed to RF radiation,
>     but overall, the results of these types of studies have not
>     provided clear answers so far.*
>
>     *A few studies have reported evidence of biological effects that
>     could be linked to cancer, but this is still an area of research.*
>
>     In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology
>     Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers
>     exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the
>     NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a
>     day, starting before birth and continuing for at least most of
>     their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of
>     uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats,
>     but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP
>     study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of
>     certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.
>
>     *While both of these studies had strengths, they also had
>     limitations that make it hard to know how they might apply to
>     humans being exposed to RF radiation. A 2019 review of these two
>     studies by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
>     Protection (ICNIRP) determined that the limitations of the studies
>     didn’t allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the ability of RF
>     energy to cause cancer.*
>
>     *Still, the results of these studies do not rule out the
>     possibility that RF radiation might somehow be able to impact
>     human health.*
>
> The majority of science to date finds no causal relationship between 
> EM radiation and cancerous mutations. If someone wants to claim 
> otherwise, scientific proof is required.
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:56 PM Sabri Berisha <sabri () cluecentral net 
> <mailto:sabri () cluecentral net>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Not that I'm into conspiracy theories, or believe at this point
>     that RF emissions
>     are in any way related to cancer, but Suresh' statement is not
>     very scientific:
>
>     > This is an internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality
>     or science.
>
>     RF emissions are absorbed by the human body. Your kitchen
>     microwave works at
>     the same frequency as your 2.4Ghz wifi. We all know it's a bad
>     idea to put your
>     head in a microwave oven.
>
>     The hypothesis that RF may cause damage to human DNA is not at all
>     conspiracy. The
>     fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship,
>     does not mean
>     that there isn't any. For example:
>
>     > In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology
>     Program (NTP)
>     > and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed
>     groups of lab rats
>     > (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over
>     their entire
>     > bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and
>     continuing for at least
>     > most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased
>     risk of uncommon
>     > heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not
>     in female rats
>     > (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study
>     also reported
>     > possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain
>     and in the adrenal
>     > glands.
>
>     Source:
>     https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html
>
>     > If your doctor suspected that you had cancer caused by something
>     related to
>     > microwave band communications equipment, you need to find a new
>     doctor.
>
>     On the contrary. Few people are more exposed to higher-powered RF
>     radiation
>     than a MW techie. That would make them an excellent subject for
>     scientific
>     research. Dismissing a medical professional's opinion based in
>     your own
>     firm beliefs is counterproductive to the advance of scientific
>     knowledge.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Sabri, M.Sc
>
>     ----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Matt Harris matt () netfire net
>     <mailto:matt () netfire net> wrote:
>
>     > My first instinct is to let this be because the level of
>     conspiracy theory
>     > nuttiness seems to be very high and the level of knowledge of
>     basic physics
>     > seems to be very low, but since this list is archived in a way
>     that lay-people
>     > may reference it at some point in the future, I'm going to go
>     ahead and reply
>     > just this once more and just one point here so that a lack of
>     response here
>     > won't be used as fodder by conspiracy theorists.
>
>     >       Matt Harris     |       Infrastructure Lead Engineer
>     > 816‑256‑5446  |       Direct
>     > Looking for something?
>     > [ https://help.netfire.net/ | Helpdesk Portal ]       |       [
>     mailto:help () netfire net <mailto:help () netfire net> |
>     > Email Support ]       |       [ https://my.netfire.net/ |
>     Billing Portal ]
>     >       We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions.
>     > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:48 PM Suresh Kalkunte < [
>     mailto:sskalkunte () gmail com <mailto:sskalkunte () gmail com> |
>     > sskalkunte () gmail com <mailto:sskalkunte () gmail com> ] > wrote:
>
>     >> At an employer where I developed Wi-Fi based SOHO device, an
>     adjacent group was
>     >> testing Line of Sight transceivers. Nobody warned me of the
>     inclement health (a
>     >> general physician in 2007 suspected cancer looking at a blood
>     test) from close
>     >> quarters exposure to the side lobes emanating from the
>     microwave radio.
>
>     > There is no scientific evidence that RF emissions in the bands
>     used for
>     > communications have any causal relationship with cancer in
>     humans. This is an
>     > internet conspiracy theory with no basis in reality or science.
>     If your doctor
>     > suspected that you had cancer caused by something related to
>     microwave band
>     > communications equipment, you need to find a new doctor.