It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How computer and phone EMF signals affect our blood

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Radio waves are energy and energy does interact with cells in our body. One of the articles I read was posted by TUSKS above. Now, just because you have not seen research like what I am talking about, probably because you did not have the curiosity to look for it, does not mean the research does not exist. I look at both sides of the equation, You cannot find reality if you just look for things that reinforce your beliefs.

All you would have to do to keep the cell phone from hurting you is to thin your blood by drinking every night. Now, I did that when I was younger, maybe you do it now subconsciously and that might be why you do not have any effects from it. We crave things sometime to fix things that are going wrong in our body.




posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Bedlam

Radio waves are energy and energy does interact with cells in our body. One of the articles I read was posted by TUSKS above. Now, just because you have not seen research like what I am talking about, probably because you did not have the curiosity to look for it, does not mean the research does not exist.


I'm all ears for the research that shows that EM can convey charge. Please, show me it. Because if you can prove that, the Nobel is yours.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Although radio frequency does not convey charge, it does, as shown by numerous studies, effect changes in oxidative stress of many cells. These changes involve numerous different ion transfers across cell membranes.

"In excitable cells(neurons, muscle cells), a sufficiently large depolarization can evoke an action potential, in which the membrane potential changes rapidly and significantly for a short time (on the order of 1 to 100 milliseconds), often reversing its polarity. Action potentials are generated by the activation of certain voltage-gated ion channels"---some of the same channels are also affected by EMF as in the above linked nih paper. The "normal" transmembrane potential is -50 to -60 mV (inside of the cell negative to outside the cell). The net charge of the cell and the extracellular fluid will be zero, but the transmembrane charge always exists, and is being shown to be affected by many substances and now fields. Many of the drugs used in medicine primarily effect ion channels--sodium and calcium channel blockers currently being particularly useful for specific cardiovascular treatments.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Bedlam

Radio waves are energy and energy does interact with cells in our body. One of the articles I read was posted by TUSKS above. Now, just because you have not seen research like what I am talking about, probably because you did not have the curiosity to look for it, does not mean the research does not exist.


I'm all ears for the research that shows that EM can convey charge. Please, show me it. Because if you can prove that, the Nobel is yours.


Well I must keep you honest here...

Your straw-man attack using the word 'charge' was a clever debate shield,
but as a matter of fact, the National Institute of Health does not entirely
agree with your position:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Now I'm not coming down on the side of the EM pollution
nutters... but you can see there is something here..

Kev



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

So aren't we allowed to research things and put together something on our own using the evidence we acquire then doing more research to verify what you have thought you discovered only to find that others already knew this? These effects are already known, I cannot receive a nobel prize for this.

I have read more research than I would ever have read in ten years of college, much of it summarized by professionals. I have no patients to go back to college and study their outdated concepts that had no evidence to back them when they were created. All this research needs to be gone over and analyzed instead of the governments paying for new research that is piled up without anyone properly evaluating it.

Just look at this article, something they have been teaching for a hundred fifty years is now found to possibly not be true. www.sciencedaily.com...

There are a lot of things like this in the scientific fields. These people did not take what they were told and stick with it, they discovered there may be flaws in what we think we know. This is just one example, I have read hundreds of examples just like this over the years.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
Well I must keep you honest here...


Honest, me arse. You need to scroll back to...

"MSM is a good sulfur compound that can help stop the bloodcells from sticking together. This problem with blood sticking together, a problem with an attraction of blood cells can come from many things. The charge is because of an attraction caused by ionization of blood cells...I ran into things like radio waves or electromagnetics possibly making this charge on the sites I visited."

where the comment was made that the blood cell agglutination in the OP was caused by charge carried by 'things like radio waves'. That part isn't really in question. Nor in question is that EM does not carry charge, nor does sound. And yes, he implied sound could convey charge.



www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Now I'm not coming down on the side of the EM pollution
nutters... but you can see there is something here..


Yes, this: "Pathological neurological findings were not more common in the exposed group than among the referents. In addition, the psychometric tests and the psychiatric rating scales did not reveal any statistically significant adverse effects of microwave exposure."

eta: KPB, I'm not really sure what you're trying to respond to here. rickymouse said that the blood cells were sticking together because they were charged by radio waves. THAT's what I'm responding to, because it's not possible. There's no larger ramification implied, and no strawman, really that puzzles me because it doesn't seem to relate to anything at all. Plus the paper you cited seems a total non-sequitur. Don't try to boost this interchange between rickymouse and myself to a larger scope than it has, or you will win the disingenuity award.
edit on 19-2-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Bedlam

So aren't we allowed to research things and put together something on our own using the evidence we acquire then doing more research to verify what you have thought you discovered only to find that others already knew this? These effects are already known, I cannot receive a nobel prize for this.


I assure you, it's NOT known that EM or sound can carry electric charge. Recognition awaits!



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Two people in this thread gave evidence which you are ignoring. Now, where is your evidence to substantuate your claim that these scientific reports are not right?



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Bedlam

Two people in this thread gave evidence which you are ignoring. Now, where is your evidence to substantuate your claim that these scientific reports are not right?



That's because I'm responding to YOU! Now, where is your evidence to substantiate your claim that the RBCs are agglutinating due to charge conveyed by radio and sound?

KPB is going off on a tangent that's tough to identify, but which his/her cite shows no particular change, doesn't seem worth pursuing. If that's one of the reports you're talking about. It's the usual 'we think we see something but nothing seems to be affected by it and we're not sure what it means, if anything' that you get with EM studies.

Tusks gave an appallingly wide swipe at a cellular system and tried to tie in something that's also sort of not logically connected from the other paper combined with a pair of 'bees smell fear' statements. It seemed so hard to pin down what was being claimed that I decided it wasn't worth responding to.
edit on 19-2-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I'm simply showing that one quick and simple search revealed
an unassailable authority that EMF can alter body fluids,
which strictly speaking are not blood in this case,
but that's not the point.

The fact is that both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation
can alter body tissues. I used to do this stuff for a living
for the military among other things.

But I'll bid you adieu on this thread, now that I've done my
duty.

;-)

Kev



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Then let me simplify it for you, connect the two or three dots, so to speak.

1)EMF radiation definitely affects (mammalian) cells. It does this through increasing the oxidative stress and numerous biochemical reactions both within cells and in the extracellular fluid---see the NIH article on page 2 of this thread. How that happens, exactly, is not yet elucidated, AFAIK.

2) These oxidative "stresses" are accompanied by changes in cell membrane potentials--the difference in charge across cell membranes. All cellular oxidation involves the movement of ions across cell membranes. See the linked wiki article on transmembrane potentials.

3) Although no net charge is transferred by RF, the damage caused at the cellular level affects the processes and the gated ion channels, which effects transmembrane potential. The potential is changed by the movement of charged ions---which has been "caused" indirectly by RF. The normal cell with a resting potential of , say, -50mV, becomes sickened, and has a decrease in its resting potential of 10mV
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Bedlam

I'm simply showing that one quick and simple search revealed
an unassailable authority that EMF can alter body fluids...


However, not so much. What IS true is that there was, in this very small study of 29 people, that more of the microwave exposed people had an unknown protein in their CSF than the unexposed group. But the protein wasn't known, and seemed to make no difference in overall health or mental status.

That doesn't prove much of anything. It's not clear that it's even related to microwave exposure in any way. Maybe it's a marker from a recent infection, or it could be something that's carried in hereditary groups. Or maybe it shows you ate at Olive Garden. It's pretty tough to say we saw a protein more often in these 17 people than these 12, therefore, EMF did it. The correlation is shaky and it isn't proof of causation. What if it's from solder flux, for example? There are a lot more different things that a RF tech/engineer would be exposed to that a sammitch artist from the Subway would not that aren't just RF exposure hours. Chemicals, metals, plastics. It's a big list.

If you wanted a much better experimental design, you'd have taken the two groups and swapped them. Keep the RF group in a Faraday cage for a few weeks, expose the control group, retest. If nothing changes, you got nothing. If the protein swaps, then, MAYBE then, you would have gotten a better correlation of protein to RF. But as is, it's the sort of BS study that gives studies bad names.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tusks
a reply to: Bedlam

Then let me simplify it for you, connect the two or three dots, so to speak.

1)EMF radiation definitely affects (mammalian) cells. It does this through increasing the oxidative stress and numerous biochemical reactions both within cells and in the extracellular fluid---see the NIH article on page 2 of this thread. How that happens, exactly, is not yet elucidated.


And, it's in one study. Let's see some replication. All too often in these RF studies, even the same group cannot replicate the same results. It's worse if you get others to try to repeat it.



2) These oxidative "stresses" are accompanied by changes in cell membrane potentials--the difference in charge across cell membranes. All cellular oxidation involves the movement of ions across cell membranes.


Ok, this is one of those leaps. This definitely wasn't in the NIH study you referred to. I tried to open the other link that was in that post and it won't open here. All cellular oxidation does NOT involve the movement of ions across cell membranes. The cell membrane potential depends on ion levels and channel states, yes. This is the non-logical connection I was talking about.



3) Although no net charge is transferred by RF, the damage caused at the cellular level affects the processes and the gated ion channels, which effects transmembrane potential. The potential is changed by the movement of charged ions.


Also not in the NIH paper you cited. Also, who says there is "damage"? And again, oxidative stress is not related to ion channels.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Yep...me to.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

"just one study"?

You got Google?

Type in EMF fields and oxidation. Numerous different studies.
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ColeYounger

I have a friend who would get nauseous from 10 min on a cell phone

Seen it many times

But since majority don't feel it they think its all good, until of course they get cancer



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   
There will continue to be a well financed opposition to the idea of harm from wifi and cell-phone EMF. Scientific studies are just beginning, and they essentially are all showing harmful cellular effects. It is only a matter of time until definite causative links to health problems are clear enough to get jury verdicts. Probably won't be long ( 2-3 years?) before certain stocks take a significant hit.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: PizzaAnyday505
a reply to: ColeYounger

I have a friend who would get nauseous from 10 min on a cell phone

Seen it many times


I got 30 something double blinded tests that say he probably was imagining it. Study after study shows that "EMF sensitives" react to what they THINK is going on, instead of what's actually happening. If they see an LED lit, sick, with really good correlation. But it's random chance with reacting to the transmitter status.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Here is a link to a pdf citing 106 studies of effects of radio frequency on living tissue. 93 studies found effects, 13 did not.
www.bioinitiative.org...

Although there have been a few very limited "studies" on a handful of folks who self-identify as EMF-Hypersensitive that did not usually show any evidence of their ability to distinguish EMF differently than controls, these studies are so limited in scope, methods, time and participants as to be essentially useless except for PR reasons for certain industries.


edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tusks

Although there have been a few very limited "studies" on a handful of folks who self-identify as EMF-Hypersensitive that did not usually show any evidence of their ability to distinguish EMF differently than controls, these studies are so limited in scope, methods, time and participants as to be essentially useless except for PR reasons for certain industries.



I had no problem finding a lot more than a few. Here's you a nice metastudy of 35 such studies:

Linky



Thirty-one experiments testing 725 "electromagnetically hypersensitive" participants were identified. Twenty-four of these found no evidence to support the existence of a biophysical hypersensitivity, whereas 7 reported some supporting evidence. For 2 of these 7, the same research groups subsequently tried and failed to replicate their findings. In 3 more, the positive results appear to be statistical artefacts. The final 2 studies gave mutually incompatible results. Our metaanalyses found no evidence of an improved ability to detect EMF in "hypersensitive" participants.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join