Low Intensity Electromagnetic Fields Act via VGCC to Cause Early Alzheimer's | Hacker News Reader

Low Intensity Electromagnetic Fields Act via VGCC to Cause Early Alzheimer's

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

6 pointswalterbell4 comments

This is almost certainly bullshit. Keep in mind that NIH indexes the publication, this had nothing to do with NIH. A single "professor emeritus" author, while is shouldn't just be dismissed, is not something to take very seriously without significant additional evidence.

To his credit, he appears to actually propose a mechanism for the damage from emfs. Most of the stuff I've seen just imagines they must be harmful without giving any explanation how. I still don't buy it though (I have a phd in electromagnetism, take that fwiw)

As a layman (albeit one with an interest in Biology), one thing that makes me skeptical of this article is the way it's written. Very specific assertions are often paired with very vague references to other papers. For example, an oft-repeated study was cited which involved exposing rats to EMF radiation. The rats then developed cognitive impairments similar to Alzheimer. However no mention is made regarding the strength of the electromagnetic exposure, nor it's range.

Overall, it seems like the paper attempts to tie a number of different studies together, without showing that those studies have been reproduced. I try not to dismiss scientific papers like this out-of-hand, but there have been hundreds of (quite dubious) claims over the years that electromagnetic radiation causes everything from cancer to autism. At this point, any claim that "electromagnetic radiation causes <Insert Condition Here>" is going to need to be backed up by strong, reproducible (and reproduced) evidence.

The author is well known for proposing theories that essentially everyone else disputes:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/how-basel...

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2021/06/04/deb...

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2019/10/08/pro...

A convincing sounding, terrifying publication that's almost certainly total bullshit. Let's hope so.

But for me, it's more interesting for the thought experiment it demands.

Imagine if something like this were true. What would happen? Suppose, just for a moment, that highly reputable scientists produced easily understood, irrefutable, reproducible scientific evidence of devastating medical problems caused by a common technology.

You don't need to be a "conspiracy theorist", or even very cynical to suspect from the depths of your heart, that every wheel and cog of a dozen multi-trillion dollar industries would spring to action and close ranks to refute, suppress, ridicule and discredit it. That goes without saying.

So the question is - what are we really doing with science like this? Isn't such science is Copernican in its nature? Have we reached a point where unthinkable modern heresies cannot even be approached without those scientists being deemed a priori "cranks"?

In other words, is there a sense in which we have faith in science but not faith in science as an instrument of truth to change the world for the better? And if so, what is that former type of belief really about?

Anyone who wants to cling to shred of credibility in science today knows there are untouchable subjects, where keywords like "intelligent design", "eugenics" will destroy you. Is that circle of untouchable inquiry expanding?

Though we've seen the battles over asbestos, DDT, tobacco and many other hazards come to positive fruition, without doubt the automobile/fossil-fuel camp won against climate concerns. So what hope is there for a growing body of psychological research that stacks up against social-media, smartphone use and surveillance?

Are these areas of tech that are live-rails now?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com