Hacker News Reader

Comment by nuvious | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com