Do you understand how modern smartphones work? There is no single really important detail provided in the description of differences between test and control phones. Not a single one.
Seriously, what do you know about how mobile phones work?
Basically, depending on used standard (2G/3G/4G at the time of study), phone model, direction of a call, method of "deactivating" phone and so on, there will be no any significant differences between "uninterrupted active call" on "silenced" phone and "deactivated phone".
And that 800-1900MHz band... :)
It is like a "study" about "influence of color on the behaviour of fleas" with zero information about color except that it was "popular".
That's really what matters.
Matters in what exactly? They didn't provide any real data about differences in setup between test and control groups. Their experiment is fundamentally unreproduceable.
And reproduceability is the only thing that matters in science.
Your arguments have been more than a bit bizarre and frankly sound a little desperate to try to deny this.
First you posted a paragraph and told me to "guess" rather than being able to show anything. That is pretty suspect.
Now you're upset that you don't know how it was "deactivated"?
there will be no any significant differences between "uninterrupted active call" on "silenced" phone and "deactivated phone"
That doesn't make much sense, no such thing as an active call on a "silenced" phone, so I have no idea what you're saying there. It's not that deep, one phone was making a call, the other was either not turned on or was on airplane mode. It's not rocket science.
800-1900MHz band... :)
What could possibly be your problem with that band? That band includes the standard GSM 900/1800 seen around the world. And your argument is ":)" which I assume is equivalent to "guess" once again.
They didn't provide any real data about differences in setup between test and control groups
Here is where the phones were placed "The phones were positioned above each cage over the feeding bottle area at a distance of 4.5–22.3 cm from each mouse" with a phone of "SAR of 1.6 W/kg"
You can send them an email if you need the exact phone model.
I find it funny with the denialists. If they don't use a phone you'll say "well that machine isn't a real phone, so it doesn't count". Then they do show effects with a real phone making a phone call and it is "800-1900MHz band...:)" and "I need more detail or I'm going to just deny everything".
First you posted a paragraph and told me to "guess" rather than being able to show anything.
That's the point. If such paragraph in scientific paper looks perfectly normal for somebody, then, it says a lot about level of understanding how things really works.
That doesn't make much sense, no such thing as an active call on a "silenced" phone, so I have no idea what you're saying there.
Yes. Because you have absolutely no any idea about how cellphone works. Just like those who wrote this paper. Mobile phone is a magic for you and article authors. But there is no place for magic in scientific paper.
What could possibly be your problem with that band?
It's not my problem. It is a huge problem for article authors.
The penetration depth of RF into any conductive matter (all living beings are made from conductive material, if you are not aware) depends on frequency and resistivity. For real scientist it is important to show that phenomena they study, RF radiation, in this case, actually reach an object of study, mouse brain, in that case. And EM wave penetration depth heavily depends on frequency and resistivity of object and its surrounding. But authors just throw a "band", not even attempting to show that RF wave they study, will be able to reach mouse fetuse brain at a decent level to make their experimet have some sense. :) It is not a science - it is garbage.
No exact frequency, no any measurements of power actually emitted by phone if any, no phone model, no mention of cellular network standard generation used, no prove that their "active" phones differ from "deactivated" ones, no prove that phone RF, if any, actually reach object of study.
Depending on the network standard generation actually used for a call, phone baseband IC, firmware and so on, phone could tramsmit almost nothing, if there is no audio signal coming from its microphone, to save battery. Even with GSM, phone may transmit something only if there is data to transmit. If there is nothing to transmit, only small and rare service packets will be transmitted, lowering average transmitting power by hundreds if not thousands times.
Power of transmission for CDMA/3G (available at the time of article) heavily depends of the distance to the cellular base station and conditions of reception. If phone is close to base station, it will transmit at power level orders of magnitude less than if it is far from base station. It is a huge difference, when you have 1W peak transmission and 10mW peak transmission.
Nothing of above was taken into account by article authors, and this undoubtedly move this article to the area of bullshit.
There are many other flaws, from non-blind objects selection for final behaviour study to drawing questionable ADHD thing to the article. Authors even managed to put obvious bullshit into article, that probably was noticed by those who tried to take it seriously, so authors had to add corrigendum:
The authors identified an error in the determination of the maternal corticosterone levels as presented in Figure 4.
The ELISA was repeated using stored serum samples from the original experiment. The levels have been corrected
and are shown below in Figure 1 (the revised Figure 4). The mean corticosterone level in the pregnant control
females was 5.4 ng/ml and in the exposed female mice was 6.1 ng/ml. There was no significant difference between
the corticosterone levels of the control and experimental groups.
So, taking in account all of above, guess a probability that other data in the study is erroneous too.
The truth is that for completely unknown reason, life on planet Earth have a very strong protection from EM waves. This protection have no any obvious explanation, because it is able to protect living beings from tens and even hundreds of orders of magnitude stronger EM waves than any EM waves ever appeared on Earth naturally.
And even if this heavy protection is penetrated, the effect of EM waves interaction with living being organs is heat. This is used for more than a century for targeted medical heat treatment of internal organs, but used frequences are significantly lower than fraquencies used in cellular networks with power many times larger than power of cellphone transmitters, to allow EM waves to reach internal organs surrounded by conductive environment and heat them.
Unlike all that fearmongering about cellular phones, UHF therapy is well established medical treatment since at least 1950s and used routinely in treatment of many diseases.
Frequencies used in cellular network at power levels used are unable to reach inside human. It is like a cutlet in a microwave oven where 600-800W of 2.4GHz concentrated at the cutlet, but you still get cold middle with hot surface. Worst thing cellular network frequencies cold do to living being is a surface burn, and only if a power on the surface will be rised to few kW per square meter.
People get dumber because of modern social media content, and unwilingness to become smarter, not because of phones.
So you said a lot, and made a couple valid points along the way. However, your objections tend to favor the effects being DOWNPLAYED not OVERSTATED. For example you mentioned less audio being input could perhaps scale down the phone to a lower power mode. In that case, the fact they still observed significant effects is only more damning.
And even if this heavy protection is penetrated, the effect of EM waves interaction with living being organs is heat.
"Only heat, only heat" That is a pure denialist industry line, and not surprising from someone who gets visibly upset when presented with facts about low intensity microwave studies.
The fact you immediately resorted to attitude / ridicule over clear and concise logic told me all I needed to know, but parroting that line confirms it.
Despite you claiming I am lacking knowledge in the subject, by claiming heat is the only effect, you've proven you never even bothered to do research into this topic. You only research from the perspective of an engineer, not a medical researcher.
All it takes is a day or two looking through Google Scholar to find enough articles to know that it's not "just heat", it's oxidative stress, disruption of membranes, disruption of blood brain barrier, and reproductive harm at low intensity levels of wifi and cell phone RF. You've fallen into exactly the trap that Dr Cindy Russell called out in her presentation.
The truth is that for completely unknown reason, life on planet Earth have a very strong protection from EM waves.
That's dogma rather than health science. You don't get to simply lump in all EM waves together, because these microwave patterns are NOT ambient levels in nature. We are designed for our natural environment.
UHF therapy is well established medical treatment since at least 1950s and used routinely in treatment of many diseases.
I looked it up. Let's see contraindications
"Therapy is contraindicated in malignant neoplasms; blood diseases; cardiovascular insufficiency; pregnancy; hypotonic disease; presence of metal implants in the body (pacemakers, prostheses); pancreatic diseases; diabetic retinopathy; individual intolerance; lack of blood circulation; predisposition to bleeding; acute heart attack and stroke; feverish conditions in infectious diseases."
and
"The duration of UHF therapy is 10-15 minutes. The course of treatment includes 5-15 procedures,"
So I sure as hell wouldn't want to be subjected to a medical therapy 24/7 for something meant to be 10-15 minutes for a limited number of sessions and that has all those contraindications (including for pregnancy, which relates to that rat study).
Remember, chemotherapy is a therapy, but it's also a poison. It has it's place, and that place is few and far between, not forced onto the public.
Frequencies used in cellular network at power levels used are unable to reach inside human.
Maybe that's what they teach you engineers, but medical researchers know better than this.
There are far too many studies to choose from showing these effects. That's why it doesn't make much sense to nitpick one. If it's not penetrating the tissue, how could sperm be effected and how could oxidative stress be so clearly elevated? 93/100 show oxidative effects in one meta-analysis
However, your objections tend to favor the effects being DOWNPLAYED not OVERSTATED
To talk about some effects, you have to properly describe effects of what exactly you are talking about.
This description is completely absent, because "800-1900MHz with SAR from FCC certificate" is not a description at all. It is a "magic spell" copied from FCC certification paper without any understanding of its meaning.
This is the thing that makes this whole article a complete bullshit and with high probability just yet another fake, as many articles in biology and medicine are.
Interesting, how many articles from same Nature about coronahoax you accept as facts? I hope zero. Then why do you think this article is somehow different? Just because it support a narrative you like? But it is still a narrative, and it is still a fraudlent article for the sake of publishing article.
Science is not about things you like.
"Only heat, only heat" That is a pure denialist industry line, and not surprising from someone who gets visibly upset when presented with facts about low intensity microwave studies.
There is no single study about any other effects that is written scientifically and replicated.
"Facts" you see in all that stidies is no any different from "facts" from coronahoax studies, published in same journals.
Unfortunately, today 95% of biochemistry/medical studies are unreplicateable garbage or just fraudlent. There is absolutely no sense to blindly believe any without heavy critical analisys. And if any inconsistency is found, study should be discarded.
So I sure as hell wouldn't want to be subjected to a medical therapy 24/7 for something meant to be 10-15 minutes for a limited number of sessions
UHF therapy device have around 30-300W of power with directed antennas. 10-15 minutes of UHF therapy a day is much more energy than whole day with actively transmitting phone.
contraindications (including pregnancy, which relates to that rat study).
It is not wise to heat a fetuse in a womb. Regardless of a method.
Remember, chemotherapy is a therapy, but it's also a poison. It has it's place, and that place is few and far between, not forced onto the public.
This is not a reason to run around and yell bullshit about f.e. "There is awful poisonous aluminium oxide found in <whatever food>!!!".
There is real and obvious harm of cellular phones and smartphones for people. They are used by corporations and authorities for surveillance and control of population. Isn't that enough to make a good, honest and undeniable anti-modern-mobile propaganda? But instead of fighting or mitigating this real harm, I see tons of bullshit "studies", memes, posts and other fearmongering in all areas except the main and only real one.
This is insanity.
Instead of trying to scare audience with yet another bullshit, why don't you try to write a post that explain how any phone with OS and software from Apple, Google and other shitty corporations constantly steal and sell user private data, even private data of user contacts, user time (through ugly and idiotic interface), and whole user life spent in stupid applications? It is much more harmful for human brain and life than any possible tiny heating of human body surface layers with a very moderate RF power.
Do you understand how modern smartphones work? There is no single really important detail provided in the description of differences between test and control phones. Not a single one.
Seriously, what do you know about how mobile phones work?
Basically, depending on used standard (2G/3G/4G at the time of study), phone model, direction of a call, method of "deactivating" phone and so on, there will be no any significant differences between "uninterrupted active call" on "silenced" phone and "deactivated phone".
And that 800-1900MHz band... :)
It is like a "study" about "influence of color on the behaviour of fleas" with zero information about color except that it was "popular".
Matters in what exactly? They didn't provide any real data about differences in setup between test and control groups. Their experiment is fundamentally unreproduceable.
And reproduceability is the only thing that matters in science.
Your arguments have been more than a bit bizarre and frankly sound a little desperate to try to deny this.
First you posted a paragraph and told me to "guess" rather than being able to show anything. That is pretty suspect.
Now you're upset that you don't know how it was "deactivated"?
That doesn't make much sense, no such thing as an active call on a "silenced" phone, so I have no idea what you're saying there. It's not that deep, one phone was making a call, the other was either not turned on or was on airplane mode. It's not rocket science.
What could possibly be your problem with that band? That band includes the standard GSM 900/1800 seen around the world. And your argument is ":)" which I assume is equivalent to "guess" once again.
Here is where the phones were placed "The phones were positioned above each cage over the feeding bottle area at a distance of 4.5–22.3 cm from each mouse" with a phone of "SAR of 1.6 W/kg"
You can send them an email if you need the exact phone model.
I find it funny with the denialists. If they don't use a phone you'll say "well that machine isn't a real phone, so it doesn't count". Then they do show effects with a real phone making a phone call and it is "800-1900MHz band...:)" and "I need more detail or I'm going to just deny everything".
That's the point. If such paragraph in scientific paper looks perfectly normal for somebody, then, it says a lot about level of understanding how things really works.
Yes. Because you have absolutely no any idea about how cellphone works. Just like those who wrote this paper. Mobile phone is a magic for you and article authors. But there is no place for magic in scientific paper.
It's not my problem. It is a huge problem for article authors.
The penetration depth of RF into any conductive matter (all living beings are made from conductive material, if you are not aware) depends on frequency and resistivity. For real scientist it is important to show that phenomena they study, RF radiation, in this case, actually reach an object of study, mouse brain, in that case. And EM wave penetration depth heavily depends on frequency and resistivity of object and its surrounding. But authors just throw a "band", not even attempting to show that RF wave they study, will be able to reach mouse fetuse brain at a decent level to make their experimet have some sense. :) It is not a science - it is garbage.
No exact frequency, no any measurements of power actually emitted by phone if any, no phone model, no mention of cellular network standard generation used, no prove that their "active" phones differ from "deactivated" ones, no prove that phone RF, if any, actually reach object of study.
Depending on the network standard generation actually used for a call, phone baseband IC, firmware and so on, phone could tramsmit almost nothing, if there is no audio signal coming from its microphone, to save battery. Even with GSM, phone may transmit something only if there is data to transmit. If there is nothing to transmit, only small and rare service packets will be transmitted, lowering average transmitting power by hundreds if not thousands times.
Power of transmission for CDMA/3G (available at the time of article) heavily depends of the distance to the cellular base station and conditions of reception. If phone is close to base station, it will transmit at power level orders of magnitude less than if it is far from base station. It is a huge difference, when you have 1W peak transmission and 10mW peak transmission.
Nothing of above was taken into account by article authors, and this undoubtedly move this article to the area of bullshit.
There are many other flaws, from non-blind objects selection for final behaviour study to drawing questionable ADHD thing to the article. Authors even managed to put obvious bullshit into article, that probably was noticed by those who tried to take it seriously, so authors had to add corrigendum:
So, taking in account all of above, guess a probability that other data in the study is erroneous too.
The truth is that for completely unknown reason, life on planet Earth have a very strong protection from EM waves. This protection have no any obvious explanation, because it is able to protect living beings from tens and even hundreds of orders of magnitude stronger EM waves than any EM waves ever appeared on Earth naturally.
And even if this heavy protection is penetrated, the effect of EM waves interaction with living being organs is heat. This is used for more than a century for targeted medical heat treatment of internal organs, but used frequences are significantly lower than fraquencies used in cellular networks with power many times larger than power of cellphone transmitters, to allow EM waves to reach internal organs surrounded by conductive environment and heat them.
Unlike all that fearmongering about cellular phones, UHF therapy is well established medical treatment since at least 1950s and used routinely in treatment of many diseases.
Frequencies used in cellular network at power levels used are unable to reach inside human. It is like a cutlet in a microwave oven where 600-800W of 2.4GHz concentrated at the cutlet, but you still get cold middle with hot surface. Worst thing cellular network frequencies cold do to living being is a surface burn, and only if a power on the surface will be rised to few kW per square meter.
People get dumber because of modern social media content, and unwilingness to become smarter, not because of phones.
So you said a lot, and made a couple valid points along the way. However, your objections tend to favor the effects being DOWNPLAYED not OVERSTATED. For example you mentioned less audio being input could perhaps scale down the phone to a lower power mode. In that case, the fact they still observed significant effects is only more damning.
"Only heat, only heat" That is a pure denialist industry line, and not surprising from someone who gets visibly upset when presented with facts about low intensity microwave studies.
The fact you immediately resorted to attitude / ridicule over clear and concise logic told me all I needed to know, but parroting that line confirms it.
Despite you claiming I am lacking knowledge in the subject, by claiming heat is the only effect, you've proven you never even bothered to do research into this topic. You only research from the perspective of an engineer, not a medical researcher.
All it takes is a day or two looking through Google Scholar to find enough articles to know that it's not "just heat", it's oxidative stress, disruption of membranes, disruption of blood brain barrier, and reproductive harm at low intensity levels of wifi and cell phone RF. You've fallen into exactly the trap that Dr Cindy Russell called out in her presentation.
That's dogma rather than health science. You don't get to simply lump in all EM waves together, because these microwave patterns are NOT ambient levels in nature. We are designed for our natural environment.
I looked it up. Let's see contraindications
"Therapy is contraindicated in malignant neoplasms; blood diseases; cardiovascular insufficiency; pregnancy; hypotonic disease; presence of metal implants in the body (pacemakers, prostheses); pancreatic diseases; diabetic retinopathy; individual intolerance; lack of blood circulation; predisposition to bleeding; acute heart attack and stroke; feverish conditions in infectious diseases."
and
"The duration of UHF therapy is 10-15 minutes. The course of treatment includes 5-15 procedures,"
https://ust-kachka.amaks-kurort.com/therapy/procedures/ultra-vysokochastotnaya-terapiya-uvch-terapiya/
So I sure as hell wouldn't want to be subjected to a medical therapy 24/7 for something meant to be 10-15 minutes for a limited number of sessions and that has all those contraindications (including for pregnancy, which relates to that rat study).
Remember, chemotherapy is a therapy, but it's also a poison. It has it's place, and that place is few and far between, not forced onto the public.
Maybe that's what they teach you engineers, but medical researchers know better than this.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26151230/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15368370802344037
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4503846/
There are far too many studies to choose from showing these effects. That's why it doesn't make much sense to nitpick one. If it's not penetrating the tissue, how could sperm be effected and how could oxidative stress be so clearly elevated? 93/100 show oxidative effects in one meta-analysis
To talk about some effects, you have to properly describe effects of what exactly you are talking about.
This description is completely absent, because "800-1900MHz with SAR from FCC certificate" is not a description at all. It is a "magic spell" copied from FCC certification paper without any understanding of its meaning.
This is the thing that makes this whole article a complete bullshit and with high probability just yet another fake, as many articles in biology and medicine are.
Interesting, how many articles from same Nature about coronahoax you accept as facts? I hope zero. Then why do you think this article is somehow different? Just because it support a narrative you like? But it is still a narrative, and it is still a fraudlent article for the sake of publishing article.
Science is not about things you like.
There is no single study about any other effects that is written scientifically and replicated.
"Facts" you see in all that stidies is no any different from "facts" from coronahoax studies, published in same journals.
Unfortunately, today 95% of biochemistry/medical studies are unreplicateable garbage or just fraudlent. There is absolutely no sense to blindly believe any without heavy critical analisys. And if any inconsistency is found, study should be discarded.
UHF therapy device have around 30-300W of power with directed antennas. 10-15 minutes of UHF therapy a day is much more energy than whole day with actively transmitting phone.
It is not wise to heat a fetuse in a womb. Regardless of a method.
This is not a reason to run around and yell bullshit about f.e. "There is awful poisonous aluminium oxide found in <whatever food>!!!".
There is real and obvious harm of cellular phones and smartphones for people. They are used by corporations and authorities for surveillance and control of population. Isn't that enough to make a good, honest and undeniable anti-modern-mobile propaganda? But instead of fighting or mitigating this real harm, I see tons of bullshit "studies", memes, posts and other fearmongering in all areas except the main and only real one.
This is insanity.
Instead of trying to scare audience with yet another bullshit, why don't you try to write a post that explain how any phone with OS and software from Apple, Google and other shitty corporations constantly steal and sell user private data, even private data of user contacts, user time (through ugly and idiotic interface), and whole user life spent in stupid applications? It is much more harmful for human brain and life than any possible tiny heating of human body surface layers with a very moderate RF power.