[kwlug-disc] To WIFI or not to WIFI

[Doug Moen]

I know somebody who got brain cancer from a RIM cell phone, and who received hush money from RIM.

Whether cell phone radio wave frequencies are "safe" is not a yes or no question, in the sense that either the frequency is ionizing or non ionizing. What matters is intensity and duration. In the case I mention above, the design of the phone and its antenna, the frequency and duration of use, and the way it was held, were all relevant factors.

Drinking water is not "safe" in an absolute sense: an overdose will kill you. Magnetic fields are not "safe": a high enough intensity will kill you. Black pepper and cloves are known carcinogens (I still use them). There was a case last year of someone dying from an overdose of licorice candy (which I occasionally eat).

Some people are more sensitive to environmental stressors than others. If your immune system is compromised, for example, then minor cellular damage that would be cleaned up and repaired in a healthy person could turn into cancer. This is just one way you could be sensitive to environmental stressors, there are many others.

So don't be making absolute statements about the safety of something and calling it "science".

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, at 1:51 PM, Steve Izma wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 12:26:19PM -0400, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] To WIFI or not to WIFI
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 10:52 AM Federer Fanatic <nafdef at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Hi, There are various hypothesized issues regarding exposure
>> > to wifi
>> 
>> There is no science behind any of those claims.
>
> The great thing about science and its doctrines is that there are
> so many to choose from.
>
> The problem is that most of the choices are expensive, in that
> published peer-reviewed science mostly comes out of institutions
> whose funding is geared towards commercialization of research. I
> have spent nearly fifty years in scholarly publishing (mostly
> social science) and I know what kind of research doesn't get
> sufficient funds for making it through the process. It's usually
> the counter-intuitive ideals that challenge the peers who hold
> the reigns of acceptable publishing.
>
> In respect to electro-magnetic radiation, even the capitalists
> and militarists are needing to consider a revision of past
> assumptions:
> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2020/09/14/cockpit-electromagnetic-fields-are-harming-pilots-the-us-military-fears>
>
> Microbiological research has shown that cells of all organisms
> use some sort of electro-magnetic radiation for communication
> (among other processes, such as chemical signalling and mRNA).
> <https://deheynlab.ucsd.edu/research/em-communication/> It's
> likely that cells learn to adapt to interference from external
> EMR, but obviously such a process depends on many factors, many
> of which won't help a lot of people exposed to them.
>
> The problem, as shown by the concern with pilots' cockpits, is
> that the accumulation of electro-magnetic energy is such
> situations is easy to measure, but the effect of smaller amounts
> on particular cells, still living within a human body, is very
> hard to measure. Also the kind of effects that need to be
> measured on a celluar level isn't well defined. It's easy to
> argue that observable short-term damage can give strong clues to
> causation, but detecting the connection to long-term damage is
> much more expensive research -- and in whose interest would it be
> undertaken? Think about how long it took to scientifically
> connect cigarette smoking to cancer.
>
> I worry that a statement like "there's no science" assumes that
> the only legitimate science is that coming out of well-funded
> institutions. There is a great deal of marginalized research that
> raises doubts and questions about the dominant theories, and when
> the major communications corporations and most governments
> denounce such research efforts and ridicule questions about
> things like 5G, we would do well to wonder what's behind this
> apparent unity of scientific and political thinking.
>
> Anyway, that's one of the reasons I quote from Stephen Jay Gould,
> below.
>
> 	-- Steve
>
> -- 
> Steve Izma
> -
> Home: 35 Locust St., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada  N2H 1W6
> E-mail: sizma at golden.net  phone: 519-745-1313
> cell (text only; not frequently checked): 519-998-2684
>
> ==
> The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best – and
> therefore never scrutinize or question.
>     -- Stephen Jay Gould, *Full House: The Spread of Excellence
>        from Plato to Darwin*, 1996
>
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org