And what health risks are you aware of, i'm not?
You do know, that light is the same thing right? And you do know that even without a headset you do have radio waves and wifi around you constantly?
And yes, I’m aware of the radio waves around me constantly and that’s a problem as well. So I was adding any more of it going to do anything to help us?
All I can find is, you’ll have an extremely strong Wi-Fi signal right next to your head probably for long period and you would use a cell phone that close to your head. I’ve had to find an SAR rating for it anywhere.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/apple-vision-pro-has-already-...
What is your specific worry? getting cancer?
The paper you reference states the same: "Hence, VR headsets and mobile phones are safe."
And yes light is the same thing as anthropomorphically generated electromagnetic radiation, depending on what radiation you talk about. like the light coming from the display. If you mean the specific wireless connection, than no.
At least pls tell me that you don't have quarz cyrstals around you for protection. But if you would take this serious, you do not use wifi? You do life in a metal mesh?
One of the biggest differences between light and electromagnetic waves created by humans is that they are polarized. Light waves are not polarized they are scattered. Light waves are also not pulsed.
Cancer? Maybe. What about cataracts? What about tinnitus? What about mood disturbances? What about Parkinson’s?
EMFs affect our neurology and it’s been published and papers over and over. There are non-thermal effects in biological beings that are underplayed by the industry.
Is this going to affect everyone the same way? No. Because genetics matter. The fact that electromagnetic radiation seems to stimulate voltage gated ion channels will mean that people with, different genetics in these ion channels will have different effects to electromagnetic radiation.
And in fact, I am one of these people who are sensitive to it. Both low frequency and radio frequency, EMF cause mood, disturbances, insomnia, and tinnitus. And when, using laptops with high levels of low frequency electromagnetic radiation i have nosebleeds. Other people have seen this happened to me in real time.
I’m sure that’s all in my head though right?
I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem too difficult to create a blind (better, double-blind) test so you can know for sure.
Is that something you are interested in doing?
I’ve had people help me do it.
After all, while you do post studies which clarify details of your theory, you do not counter the 48 studies linked in the wikipedia article.
Then you have the problem in the studies of people claiming they have the sensitivity when it is an anxiety or psychological issue. These are widely known issues with the studies that say there’s no effect.
As for myself, the last five years I have consistently noted how I slept, and how I felt and then only afterward measuring the frequency, magnetic and electric fields, and the radio frequency electronic radiation.
If I do not know if they magnetic field or electric field is strong, then there is no way placebo effect could occur, correct?
This is the same with the laptops that I measure high magnetic fields, giving me bloody nose. Apple computers have very low EMF emissions, while most other laptops are very high. I discovered accidentally because I work a lot with computers. It was only after measuring the fields that I noticed what was going on.
My last experiment was my tinnitus. I had someone put a cell phone on the table behind my head streaming videos. One was a video off-line and the other one was a video from YouTube. They were the same video. But the one that was streaming from YouTube after 5 to 10 minutes my tent is increased. This did not occurr with the other Video playing when the phone was on airplane mode.
Regarding my sleep, I live in a minivan and I can sleep 10 hours when I am in low or absent EMF area. If I am in a high area, especially with bid man 5G, my sleep is interrupted and it must I get 4 to 5 hours of sleep.
I can guarantee you as I’ve worked as a network engineer for one of the largest networking companies that I was way more skeptical of this than you will ever be.
A good blind study would be a EMF isolated room (shielded mesh, etc), a assistant you don't see (no visual or accustic cue at all) and a procedure you can repeat.
You go out, the assitant sets up the experiment (which is recorded, somehow EMF free), either activates an active EMF (perhaps constant file transfer, radio antenna etc.), the person leaves the room (the source is hidden), you enter, you wait x minutes (probably more than one), you either say yes or no and leave.
If you are clearly above random and you can show this result, you would be a good candidate for proper research.
Your assumption that you proof your EMF sensibility by recording the messurement after is way to unprecise. You might hold your EMF device wrong, ignore values, might have some visual or accustic cues etc.
What device do you use to messure EMF? What range? 5G has a broad spectrum, your sector antennas might send while you messure because someone is doing something close by etc.
The area I measure is close to my body, not near the source cause that would be stupid.
I measure at several angles and positions.
My house has background rf EMFs below 5 mircrowatts per meter with no cellphone on in the house.
You are making it more complicated than it needs to be.
And tbh buying / using a device made by a Anti EMF Page/Company who sells EMF protection is everything but trustworthy.
You know bias, fake shops, gold audio cables, crystals etc.
Now: Have you done a proper blind test? What was your experiment setup? How often did you repeat it? And what does it mean
The fact you think having been a network engineer has much to do with the scientific method, does not bode well.
I've got a published paper with my name on it. It's about forecasting octopus reproduction using satellite data. Even despite that, I don't go around calling myself a proper scientist, because I appreciate the difficulties of proper experimental design and eliminating confounding variables and know that even "proper scientists" don't get it all correct on their first attempt any more than I as a software developer get bug-free code on my first attempt.
Is that you Apple?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00139...
“If such individuals exist, they represent a small minority and have not been identified yet. The available observational studies do not allow differentiating between biophysical from EMF and nocebo effects.”
Even the Wikipedia article does not say it does not exist!
I literaly have a polarizing filter for my camera.
And bluntly saying: yes you do fully read as someone with a head problem. You would not survive a blind study regarding EMF and your nose bleeding and would be a very famous person if you could proof that.
All EMF fields we have and face daily are not strong enough at all for any 'ion channels'. Are you even aware how many fields you walk through every single day? Public transport, power lines, wifi etc. your own electric cable has a magnetic field.
Weird that you actually connect ion channels/EMF with blood vessal issues at all.
Feel free to read the wikipedia article about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivi...
"Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which negative symptoms are attributed. EHS has no scientific basis and is not a recognized medical diagnosis, although it is generally accepted that the experience of EHS symptoms is of psychosomatic origin."
Sunlight is not polarized. When you use a polarizing filter, you are polarizing the light. That’s why they call them polarizing filters.
Sunlight, reflecting off of a lake is partially polarized which is what creates the intensity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049010/#:~:tex....
Light arriving on Earth from natural sources, either directly from the Sun or reflected from the Moon, is unpolarized or, at most, weakly polarized.
There is some amount of polarization once it strikes the Earth, but all EMF radiation from telecommunications is polarized, like a laserbeam.
https://www.edmundoptics.com/c/laser-polarization/760/
Since you don’t know enough about the polarization of light, it’s not fair to me to comment on your ignorance about man-made electromagnetic fields in the rest of what you said.
And please post something deeper than a Wikipedia article, or actually just look up anything that is opposite of your current bias.
If you could actually proof your claim, people would write an article about you.
I’m not arguing that not ionizing radiation causes cancer. I’m arguing that it causes neurological problems. And because it can’t penetrate the skin deeply does not mean it cannot affect ion channels.
And also I wasn’t saying that we’re not smarter than mosquitoes I’m saying that they have different intelligence.
You’re not even listening to me, so how can you learn anything?
The article you linked to would set off alarm bells with anyone familiar with scientific publications, or even an undergraduate level of physics education. It's more like a blog post purporting mysticism.
The cited author, Dr. George L. Carlo, is a "a world recognized medical scientist, best-selling author and attorney", as indicated here [0]--a pseudo-science website that earns money by exploiting EMF fears (and sells "WiFi blockers").
"At Tech Wellness, our goal is to be your trusted source for information about EMF and all things wireless energy. That’s no small feat, because when you start looking around you’ll see a lot of pretty crazy claims and contradicting information out there—and some of it is downright scary."
The source you linked to isn't associated with Nature, despite the URL.
[0] https://techwellness.com/blogs/news/george-carlo-wireless-em...
And this is the main research scientist who wrote the paper.
You do not know enough about electromagnetic radiation to keep commenting like you are.
Dimitris J. Panagopoulos
https://books.google.com/books/about/Electromagnetic_Fields_...
Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Electromagnetic Fields - Biophysicist, was born in Athens, Greece, where he lives and works. He has a Degree in Physics and a PhD in Biophysics both from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA). He completed his PhD on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) in 2001, and two post-doctoral studies on the biological effects of microwaves (2004), and on cell death induction by Wireless Communication (WC) EMFs (2006). He worked as a post-doctoral researcher and lecturer at the Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, NKUA, (2002-2014), where he gave undergraduate and graduate lectures on Radiation- and EMF-Biophysics, and performed research on the effects of various types of EMFs in experimental animals. During 2014-2018 he worked as a research associate at the National Centre for Scientific Research "Demokritos", Laboratory of Health Physics, Radiobiology and Cytogenetics, researching effects of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation on human cells. Since 2018 he has been working as a researcher at the Choremeion Research Laboratory, Medical School, NKUA. His experiments were among the first that showed damaging effects of man-made EMFs on DNA and reproduction. He has also shown beneficial effects on reproduction of EMFs mimicking natural ones. His theory on the biophysical mechanism of action of EMFs on cells is considered the most valid amongst all proposed theories and is cited by nearly 700 scientific publications. This theory has explained the sensing of upcoming earthquakes by animals and the sensing of upcoming thunderstorms by sensitive individuals through the action of the natural EMFs associated with these phenomena. The same theory has recently explained the induction of oxidative stress in cells by EMF-exposure. Dr. Panagopoulos has shown why the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is not a proper metric for non-thermal effects, why man-made (totally polarized) EMFs are damaging while natural EMFs are vital, and why highly varying real-life exposures from mobile phones and other WC devices are significantly more damaging than simulated exposures with invariable parameters. He has also shown that genetic damage caused by WC EMFs occurs similarly in human and animal cells. Dr. Panagopoulos has also argued that photons are strictly wave-packets, not particles of light, and that man-made electromagnetic radiation does not consist of photons but of continuous "classical" polarized waves, in contrast to what has been postulated by quantum physicists in the past 100 years. He is the first or sole author in more than 40 peer-reviewed highly influential scientific publications, which are referenced more than 1600 times by other scientific publications and has been included in the Top 10 cited authors by the Mutation Research journals.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33945157/
Here, we systematically clarify how neuronal ion channels are particularly affected and differentially modulated by EMFs at multiple levels, such as gating dynamics, ion conductance, concentration in the membrane, and gene and protein expression. Ion channels represent a major transducer for EMF-related effects on the CNS.
what?
you realize all living beings have been exposed to huge amounts of EM radiation since the inception of life in the universe, right? The fact that it's now human made doesn't give it magical properties that cause it to be more damaging. your body itself, right now, emits EM radiation. The piece of fruit next to you emits it. there is zero science showing that the energy received or sent by your every day electronic devices has any amount of harm to living beings. go stand outside for 5 minutes, you'll get getting a dose of EM radiation significantly higher than your phone pressed against your head for a year.
No one is contending that EMF waves can't harm people, since it is know that they can if they are of specific type and power. People are asking how it is possible the ones that exist that are of low power used for communication could harm some incredibly small number of people and not everyone, since it is a physical effect. If you flipped it and someone said they were immune to bullets, would you believe them?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3799025/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abs...