Wi-fi is an important threat to human health

it&#x27;s important to note that the nih.gov domain doesn&#x27;t mean this is endorsed in any way by the NIH. (In case you were very shocked, like I was.)<p>It&#x27;s just a link to PubMed, which is an aggregator of journal articles hosted by the NIH&#x27;s National Library of Medicine.<p>Nearly any life sciences article published in any kind of journal, good or bad, would end up with an abstract on here. Evaluate it on its own merits.

I find this paper rather flawed (article link: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencedirect.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;article&#x2F;pii&#x2F;S0013935118300355?via%3Dihub" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencedirect.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;article&#x2F;pii&#x2F;S001393511...</a> ).<p>I don&#x27;t claim to be an expert on EMF effects on the human body, but I interpret his core claim to be that because the seven effect studies he cites had insufficient power to determine there was no correlation, there must be correlation because &quot;similar&quot; EMF studies did show a response, and therefore the effects should be considered established (ergo the fairly clickbait title). I use quotes for similar because it doesn&#x27;t seem they were all <i>that</i> similar, which is why he objects to the studies he references.<p>If he had simply restricted himself to saying that more research was required because previous studies were inadequate (due to small sample size, methodological issues, etc.), I think this would have been a lot more defensible. Right now it reads like tinfoil hat time.

Nothing new. This review just dares to aggregate and conclude on other reviews which have established that modulated, polarized, low-level microwave transmissions (like f.x. WiFi) causes effects like significant oxidative cell stress which is a known precursor to a whole host of health effects - cancer included. Dr. Pall offers a mechanistic explanation for the repeatedly established effects: the activation of voltage-gated calcium channels that sit in every cell membrane. Signals like WiFi can trigger those, allowing calcium to flood the cell and set off a cascade of effects leading to said oxidative stress. Add in non-stop radiation exposure and your bodies antioxidant reserves will surely deplete. So basically you now have a mechanism allowing low-level, non-ionizing radiation to indirectly cause the same damage to DNA as ionizing radiation does. There you go. Cancer epidemic explained. Is there anything you can do? Yes, first line of defense is to reduce your exposure and neutralize some of the added oxidative stress by upping your intake of antioxidants. See Dr. Yakymenko&#x27;s blog for more: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;carelessscience.com&#x2F;blog2017&#x2F;electrohypersensitivity-oxidative-stress-healthy-diet&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;carelessscience.com&#x2F;blog2017&#x2F;electrohypersensitivity-...</a>

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nutricology.com&#x2F;martin-pall-products&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nutricology.com&#x2F;martin-pall-products&#x2F;</a><p>i wonder if his medicines can help?<p>... single-author papers scream &quot;crank&quot; to me.

Vaguely related: &quot;EINSTEIN DIDN&#x27;T WIN the Nobel Prize for the theory of relativity. He won it for showing that you don&#x27;t need to worry about radiation from your cell phone.&quot; - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sfgate.com&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;openforum&#x2F;article&#x2F;Einstein-Your-Cell-Phone-and-You-2707605.php" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sfgate.com&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;openforum&#x2F;article&#x2F;Einstein-Yo...</a><p>More specifically, <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ap.io&#x2F;blog&#x2F;radiofrequency&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ap.io&#x2F;blog&#x2F;radiofrequency&#x2F;</a>, The gist being if the photons don&#x27;t have enough energy to affect your atoms, your don&#x27;t need to worry too much. Since the power falls off proportional to 1&#x2F;d^2, just don&#x27;t use your router&#x2F;cellphone as a pillow.<p>The whole &quot;human body is complicated and it could possibly affect you in some other way&quot; is certainly a good place to investigate, but probably really hard to demonstrate without drastically increasing the density and power to unusual levels.

This is sensationalist. Wi-Fi is a brand based around a protocol. If they&#x27;re talking about low power microwave transmission, they&#x27;ll have to include cell phones, microwave ovens, and everything else. Not to say RF can&#x27;t be dangerous, but something like this just feeds the tin hat folks (which, BTW are just big wave guides. You&#x27;ll need to wrap yourself like a potato for best results ;)

Why Wi-Fi? What specifically makes Wi-Fi a threat but not all the other stuff using the 2.4 GHz band?

A related study by apparently the same author makes the following claim: &quot;microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave&#x2F;lower frequency electromagnetic field action&quot;<p>If that is true, then it <i>is</i> quite significant.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pubmed&#x2F;25879308" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pubmed&#x2F;25879308</a>

My MIL is convinced that WiFi is the cause of all of her skin issues and headaches. She quit her job because IT refused to move one of their routers from near her office. She sleeps in a Faraday cage :-|

&quot;Wi-Fi&quot; covers at least two different frequencies - is the effect observable at both?

Ah well, I always claimed there was no harm in wifi signals .. because I lived surrounded by them for so long and had no issues...<p>and now I feel sick :)

Without commenting on if this is legitimate or not, a new band of spectrum for unlicensed use would be nice.

So are cars. The question is: Do we want to turn off Wifi for a minor health benefit?

I&#x27;m still going to use it, though. Is there even any alternative at all?

If this turns out to be a hazardous effect, what could be used to mitigate VGCC activation?<p>Presumably lower power signaling would be effective. But what if we allocated a different band (yes, I realize that this is much, much harder than it sounds)?

Uh oh... Let me pray that my radiation pad has done a good job D:

Could we take suppliments to counter-ballance this?