
Wi-fi is an important threat to human health - egjerlow
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29573716/
======
currymj
it's important to note that the nih.gov domain doesn't mean this is endorsed
in any way by the NIH. (In case you were very shocked, like I was.)

It's just a link to PubMed, which is an aggregator of journal articles hosted
by the NIH's National Library of Medicine.

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.

~~~
floren
Yeah, it's published in "Environmental Research", a journal with an impact
factor of 3.8. This is quite low. If the claims made by this paper are true,
it has huge implications, so there's two possibilities: 'Science' and other
prestigious journals are SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH due to INFLUENCE by BIG WIFI
and passing up the opportunity to publish an incredibly important story, or
the actual research is garbage.

~~~
dang
Could you please not use allcaps for emphasis in HN comments?

This is in the site guidelines:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

~~~
floren
Sorry dang, I'm imitating the, erm, peculiar writing style you'll see when
this sort of thing comes up.

------
classichasclass
I find this paper rather flawed (article link:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393511...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355?via%3Dihub)
).

I don'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 "similar" 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't seem they were all _that_
similar, which is why he objects to the studies he references.

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.

~~~
gbrown
I'm also not an expert in this field, but I agree that the conclusions
presented here appear at first glance to be much too strong. For one, we
should all be highly skeptical of meta analyses to begin with - there is every
incentive to report "significant" results, and a documented tendency for such
studies to be preferentially published, so the current literature should be
enriched with respect to rejections of the null.

Also, did I miss it, or is there zero discussion about how the discussed
publications were selected? A quick google search turns up lots of additional
null results.

The authors also do make some correct criticisms of common statistical
mistakes. For example, it is true that failure to reject a null hypothesis is
not evidence for that null hypothesis in a frequentist framework. Even so, we
should consider the power to reject the null, which depends on:

1\. The practical or clinical effect size 2\. The sample size

Even if we do detect statistically significant effects of EMF/WiFi, that in no
way implies that the results are of practical significance. The cited studies
do have small samples, but no discussion is given to the magnitude of effect
which would be expected to have been detected.

They also note that previous studies should have published their data and
p-values, which is true.

My takeaway is that more information is needed, and that we should hear from
someone with a good grasp on all the relevant literature to see how
representative these studies are. Also, this kind of thing would be clearer if
we were all Bayesians, and published our data :P

------
Gnarl
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's blog for more:
[http://carelessscience.com/blog2017/electrohypersensitivity-...](http://carelessscience.com/blog2017/electrohypersensitivity-
oxidative-stress-healthy-diet/)

~~~
pas
This sounds interesting. Are there big cohort studies of the effects? (How
easy it is to separate this from better cancer detection methods?) What type
of cancers are being induced by this? What's the effect size?

------
hprotagonist
[https://www.nutricology.com/martin-pall-
products/](https://www.nutricology.com/martin-pall-products/)

i wonder if his medicines can help?

... single-author papers scream "crank" to me.

~~~
thinkcomp
Agreed. He also thinks electromagnetic waves cause autism (and he's not an
MD).

[http://www.autismone.org/content/martin-l-pall-ba-phd-
autism...](http://www.autismone.org/content/martin-l-pall-ba-phd-autism-
epidemic-caused-emfs-acting-calcium-channels-and-chemicals-actin)

~~~
Gnarl
One of the U.S. leading autism experts (Harvard MD) has co-written papers on
the plausible link between low-level electromagnetic field exposure and autism
spectrum disorders. The key here is also: oxidative stress, brain inflammation
and blood-brain-barrier damage - as in Dr. Palls review. Ref 1:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24095003](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24095003)
Ref 2:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24113318](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24113318)

~~~
thinkcomp
She is also a quack, and hardly one of the "leading autism experts" in the
United States.

[http://sethmnookin.com/2011/04/20/researcher-who-does-not-
me...](http://sethmnookin.com/2011/04/20/researcher-who-does-not-meet-the-
standard-of-reliability-required-by-case-law-good-enough-for-pbss-newshour/)

[http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2016/10/1730-martha-
herber...](http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2016/10/1730-martha-herbert.html)

------
jkmcf
Vaguely related: "EINSTEIN DIDN'T WIN the Nobel Prize for the theory of
relativity. He won it for showing that you don't need to worry about radiation
from your cell phone." \-
[https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Einstein-
Yo...](https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Einstein-Your-Cell-
Phone-and-You-2707605.php)

More specifically,
[http://ap.io/blog/radiofrequency/](http://ap.io/blog/radiofrequency/), The
gist being if the photons don't have enough energy to affect your atoms, your
don't need to worry too much. Since the power falls off proportional to 1/d^2,
just don't use your router/cellphone as a pillow.

The whole "human body is complicated and it could possibly affect you in some
other way" is certainly a good place to investigate, but probably really hard
to demonstrate without drastically increasing the density and power to unusual
levels.

~~~
Gnarl
"...showing that you don't need to worry about radiation from your cell
phone". Dude. Will you please - PLEASE - just read the biological evidence and
move on from that outdated (physicists) argument about photon energy. It is
now _amply_ established that low-level microwave radiation causes oxidative
stress which can damage DNA and increase your risk of inflammation and cancer.
Its an indirect effect. Little to do with photon energy alone.

~~~
Shikadi
What evidence?

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

~~~
eamike261
There is a difference between "sensationalist" and using a term that the
general public knows. Wi-Fi means something to the average person, whereas
"radio waves in the 2.4GHz band" sounds like some obscure thing that doesn't
apply to daily life.

~~~
adfm
Kleenex is bleached wood pulp. But so is toilet paper, paper towels, coffee
filters, newsprint, magazines, packaging, etc. It's disingenuous and
exploitative reporting.

~~~
Gnarl
If there is a genuine health problem with WiFi exposure, would you want to be
the last to know?

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

~~~
mygo
I dont think it’s making any claims, for or against, other EM frequencies.
It’s just that their study was specific to Wi-fi, so that’s what they’re
reporting on.

Maybe they chose wifi in particular because it’s more relatable to the common
person and quite ubiquitous on its own. They could draw more expansive
conclusions in the future, if they want to. Or other curious scientists can
pose that question and design an experiment / meta-analysis to answer it.

------
hliyan
A related study by apparently the same author makes the following claim:
"microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce
biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for
microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action"

If that is true, then it _is_ quite significant.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879308](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879308)

~~~
pitaj
Does it say anything about how WiFi waves act on calcium channels?

~~~
yread
It says this:

> The VGCCs each have a voltage sensor which is made up of 4 alpha helixes in
> the plasma membrane, with each such helix having 5 positive charges on it,
> for a total of 20 positive charges (Pall, 2015b). These voltage sensor
> helixes are each called S4 helixes because each is the fourth helix in a
> distinct multi-helix domain. Each of these voltage sensor charges is within
> the lipid bilayer part of the plasma membrane. The electrical forces on the
> voltage sensor are very high for three distinct reasons (Pall, 2015b, Pall,
> 2015a, Pall, 2016a). 1. The 20 charges on the voltage sensor make the forces
> on voltage sensor 20 times higher than the forces on a single charge. 2.
> Because these charges are within the lipid bilayer section of the membrane
> where the dielectric constant is about 1/120th of the dielectric constant of
> the aqueous parts of the cell, the law of physics called Coulomb's law,
> predicts that the forces on those charges will be approximately 120 times
> higher than the forces on charges in the aqueous parts of the cell. 3.
> Because the plasma membrane has a high electrical resistance whereas the
> aqueous parts of the cell are highly conductive, the electrical gradient
> across the plasma membrane is estimated to be concentrated about 3000-fold.
> The combination of these effects means that comparing the forces on the
> voltage sensor with the forces on singly charged groups in the aqueous parts
> of the cell, the forces on the voltage sensor are approximately 20 × 120 ×
> 3000 = 7.2 million times higher (Pall, 2015b). The physics predicts,
> therefore, extraordinarily strong forces activating the VGCCs via the
> voltage sensor. It follows that the biology tells us that the VGCCs are the
> main target of the EMFs and the physics tells us why they are the main
> target. Thus the physics and biology are pointing in the same direction.

If I ever write a paper I hope it will be more persuasive than this.

------
gbenzzz
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 :-|

~~~
frandroid
So her headaches should be resolved?

On the other hand, quitting her job might have done that alone ;)

------
gambiting
"Wi-Fi" covers at least two different frequencies - is the effect observable
at both?

~~~
bretpiatt
From clicking through to Journal Full Abstract of the study they only looked
at 2.4Ghz and not 5.0Ghz. This is a better link for the content:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393511...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355?via%3Dihub)

I don't know enough about wave transmissions to know if higher frequency would
be more or less likely to cause issues, anyone?

~~~
classichasclass
In general, higher frequency implies higher energy, all things being equal.
X-rays and gamma rays are very high frequency and therefore high-energy, and
no one would dispute their deleterious effect on human health. However, a
typical X-ray is somewhere around 30 petahertz (10^16) to 30 exahertz (10^19).

Compare to 5GHz WiFi (10^6). We're not sure if this is physiologically
relevant because the relationship between energy and health effects is not
linear, and different tissues react in different ways. It's worth looking
into, though my personal feeling is given the ubiquity of such radiation, we
should be seeing a lot more effects and they should be measurable.

------
agumonkey
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...

and now I feel sick :)

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

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

~~~
pasta
That's the wrong question.

A better question could be: Can we replace it with something better?

Just like we are replacing combustion engines with electric engines.

~~~
reacweb
Where can I buy a phone with an RJ45 plug ?

~~~
NickBusey
With a 2 second search: [https://www.amazon.com/FindUWill-Lightning-Ethernet-
Network-...](https://www.amazon.com/FindUWill-Lightning-Ethernet-Network-
Adapter-Overseas/dp/B0725PYSP3/)

------
thosakwe
I'm still going to use it, though. Is there even any alternative at all?

~~~
kyle_v
ethernet?

~~~
NickBusey
Let's assume I turn off all the WiFi devices in my house and only hard wire
things. I can still see at least 7 WiFi networks from my neighbor's houses.
Not to mention public spaces. I don't really think there is any way to avoid
WiFi in most modern nations.

~~~
LinuxBender
There are paints and other materials that can block the signals. Even wire
mesh added to the insulation can block signals.

~~~
NickBusey
That plan works assuming I never leave my house.

~~~
LinuxBender
Agreed, though you probably spend a bit of time in your home and at work.
Driving past wifi the signal strength will vary wildly and won't likely be as
strong as the one you are sleeping around. It certainly won't be as powerful
as cell sites.

------
wyldfire
If this turns out to be a hazardous effect, what could be used to mitigate
VGCC activation?

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)?

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

------
eu
Could we take suppliments to counter-ballance this?

~~~
teekert
Perhaps? Something like sunscreen? 2.4 GHz is the frequency at which water
resonates so our bodies are already giant optimal absorbers of wifi energey, I
wonder if anything would help.

~~~
ben509
> 2.4 GHz is the frequency at which water resonates

Answers by people who understand this better than me here [1], but 2.4GHz is
not "the" resonant frequency, water has a number of frequencies it interacts
with radiation. And water isn't going to behave like a tuning fork anyway, it
would be more analogous to sand. Microwaves interact with water by dipole
interaction, and they just unload heat.

That's why wifi isn't going to do much to your body, any cooking of you being
done by radiation is trivial compared to your own body heat.

[1] [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169173/what-
is-t...](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169173/what-is-the-
resonant-frequency-of-liquid-water#169191)

