I'm not talking about noise. I'm talking about a spike in the frequency spectrum.

If you can build a protein that can tune to e.g. 3GHz (or whatever frequency a phone uses), thus behave differently at that frequency, then basically that proves that radio waves can theoretically alter the reactions in the molecular soup that is a cell. All I'm saying is that I'm not so sure that this can't be done.

I think though that any biological process using these sorts of energies on the molecular level will be swamped with noise and therefore wouldn't be a useful mechanism. 3GHz is like 0.00001eV. A process with Gibb's free energy change of 10ueV has an equilibrium constant of essentially 1 at room temperature, and so is almost completely reversible.

The reason why we can make things interact with radio waves at all is essentially because electrical conductors provide coherent modes for low energy photons to couple to. Without conductors and their free electron cloud we would have a very hard time building anything to receive or transmit radio in any way that isn't thermal.

It is true that there is some degree of conductivity in cells but without a non-thermal way of coupling between current and molecular processes I don't see how radio waves could affect cells in a non-thermal manner

Edit: I guess nerves have a non-thermal coupling mechanism from low frequency currents to molecular mechanisms, so it must be possible. But the machinery for that has been highly evolved for that specific task, I'm not sure if it follows that such machinery would appear commonly in cell processes.

Are single-photon models even useful here? What about aggregate photon effects? The sheer amount of photons hitting you from a cell-tower is enormous. Perhaps an "optical tweezer" type effect could happen?

And for the non-thermal effect discussion, have you considered voltage-gated ion-channels in cell-membranes?

You're gish galloping. Rather than continue to propose arguments without evidence of actual risk, find a citation that has a salient hypothesis that's tested that shows risk.

We aren't your Google-scholar and you're just promoting FUD by asking into the ether "but couldn't X cause Y". Me typing this message COULD cause a butterfly effect that leads to an earthquake. In any "does X cause Y" scenario you have two answer what the probability is that X causes Y and what's the impact of X does cause Y.

In RFR exposure terms it's what is the probability that RF below ionizing levels cause damage to DNA to promote cancer. The vast majority of the research says no and theoretical mechanisms for harm of RF below ionizing levels has never been proven to anything close to a statistical significance or in ways that are reproducible. Even if you did you'd have to assume impact. The OP study is basically assuming there's some impact and studying the population broadly and observed none.

Low probably, low impact, low or no risk.

Please present evidence that presents a high risk argument that is backed by some research showing an increase of the probability and/or impact or rfr exposure to DNA damage.

Until you do that, you're gish galloping. Please respond to our arguments (or consider if we're right) instead of declaring new ones with no references.

I'm usually very patient with the leftovers of the "ionizing only" crowd and what you call "gish galloping" (huh?!) was my attempt at nudging you to discover the science that shows that worldview to be outdated.

So when you write: "...and theoretical mechanisms for harm of RF below ionizing levels has never been proven to anything close to a statistical significance or in ways that are reproducible" ...I lose that patience with people not even interested in looking.

Look up Yakymenko et al. 2015 "Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation". Full-text link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279863242_Oxidative...

Excerpt: "...among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity RFR, in general, 93 confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems. A wide pathogenic potential of the induced ROS and their involvement in cell signaling pathways explains a range of biological/health effects of low-intensity RFR, which include both cancer and non-cancer pathologies."

Yes, the word "cancer" is in there along with "low-intensity RFR". The pathway is free-radical promotion in cells by RF and subsequent damage to proteins, DNA etc.

Keep believing the "ionizing only" line if you want. You're allowed to have an opinion. But then its just you against the peer-reviewed & published data.

I've actually already heard of this study and it's another proposed mechanism without any actual evidence in the wild that the proposed mechanism is happened or results in any significant health outcomes. It's a well known study in science circles because of how bad it is in spreading FUD over rfr.

"While the evidence may support the notion that RFR can increase markers of oxidative activity in tissue, it does not establish that this increase is biologically important and can actually lead to specific diseases. It also does not establish that cell phone use causes any harm by this mechanism."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/about-that-cell-phone-and-c...

They used the word cancer but didn't provide any real data that linked the proposed mechanism to cancer. Please stop believing fear mongerers and demand not just a hypothesis but actual data that a mechanism causes harm.

Oh, and not all oxidative stress in the body is bad. There are oxidative compounds that benefit human health and too much antioxidant can produce adverse effects.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5551541/

Our bodies even produce their own antioxidants:

"Your body's cells naturally produce some powerful antioxidants, such as alpha lipoic acid and glutathione."

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/understanding....

Oxidarive stress and free radicals are turning into buzzwords that ignore how our bodies balance that and just stating something causes oxidative stress in vitro or ex vivo doesn't say whether our antioxidant system can handle that and in the end negate any potential harm. This is why in vivo studies are done and the OP is a massive in vivo experiment that's been naturally happening since cell phones were first deployed.

I'm also going to highlight that I'm trying to pursuade you that we know the risks, they're low (basically zero), and you don't have to be worried about them. To contrast you're proposing unproven mechanisms for an uncertain risk that contradicts the observations do the original post while repeating arguments used by snake oil salesman that sell Faraday cages for people's wifi routers.

Stop being afraid, the world is way less scary when it comes to RFR exposure than these fear mongerers want you to belive.

"Stop being afraid" ??

So a sci. discussion melted down to an unsolicited pop-psych consultation.

Your argumentation is flawed. Have a nice day.

Last time I had an MRI scan, I had strong sensations throughout my body where exposed to the MRI's radio emissions. I rather enjoyed the sensation, it felt like a massage and I would have enjoyed it for longer.

I was surprised, as they didn't mention this before the scan. After, I asked about it, and they told me most people don't feel anything, but some do like me, and for a few it's so painful they have to stop the scan.

They told me it was my peripheral nervous system interacting with the radio emissions, not a physical (non-signal) effect as it felt like. From that conversation I learned there was about 10kW transmitted through my body during the scan.

MRIs have been studied for dangerous effects, of course, and all the evidence shows them to be extremely safe... provided there is no metal in the body which can heat up or be displaced by the field, and not counting risks from the contrast agents which are sometimes injected, which some people are more susceptible to than others.

I was never convinced by dismissive arguments that non-ionising radiation "can't" have any biological effect other than localised heating, or that the thermal background spectrum means infrared and below can't have an effect. (I know the physics pretty well; it's not lack of understanding.)

But after those sensations caused directly by the emissions, I'd experienced a biological, non-thermal effect from radio in the microwave-or-below frequency range directly and clearly. That was really interesting.

The body clearly does a lot of things based on countless subtle signalling pathways. Pretty much anything any pathway can sense could have an effect, even if it's not a conventional chemical reaction. One of the more interesting technological ideas around this is the use of high coherence terahertz signals that resonate with DNA molecular dynamics.

Oh yeah I don't doubt it. I think though that there is many orders of magnitude difference in the field strengths between cell phone radiation and MRI, and this makes all the difference.

THz radiation is a different story too as it has about enough energy such that it could influence irreversible processes.

I.e., at random: thus not inducing any coherent electric current, so irrelevant to the discussion.

The only other subjects that induce such confident statements of fact from the profoundly ignorant are economics and politics.

But the only electric current on the molecular level is coherent current...? Chemical reactions are not macroscale phenomena, and so it shouldn't really matter if the energy comes from a random distribution or not. Also please don't insinuate that I'm "profoundly ignorant", that certainly isn't relevant to the discussion.

Profound ignorance is insistence of certainty in the entire absence of knowledge of a subject.

Microwaves absorbed in tissue induce electrical currents carried by ions in solution. Just about everything that happens in your body involves ions moving in solution, one way or another. Details matter.

But the movement of ions in solution is almost completely dominated by thermal motion. Your signal doesn't matter if the signal to noise ratio is essentially zero.

In other words, life is impossible?

That will be surprising to those of us who, you know, exist.

No, the molecular machinery of cells uses energy level differences that are far above the thermal energy level at body temperature, which allows them to actually make changes to things irreversibly. Enzymes are a great example of this.

Try to use microwaves to move ions from one side of a container of salt solution to the other and then get back to me on the ability of microwaves to control ion movement. Hint: you basically can't without obscene levels of radiation. The thermal "pressure" due to the diffusion of ions is enormous.

For a sense of scale, the thermal velocity of water molecules at room temperature is about 500m/s. The drift velocity(average movement of charge carriers, i.e. coherent current) of typical electric currents is on the order of 1mm/s.

For microwaves to produce currents that could plausibly have an effect, there would need to be rectification and resonance, so that current could ratchet up. Unfortunately, both are known to occur in living tissue, as may be observed in people whose dental fillings enable them to pick up AM radio broadcasts.

On top of rectification and resonance, the signal would need to be carried in a place where its current has a persistent effect, and the nature of the signal itself, the modulation, would need to be such as to drive some cellular-scale electrochemical process. It is not possible to predict what that would be for the signal in question, if indeed there are any.

We appear to have got lucky with previous generations, but that tells us nothing about the next.

So, getting quantitative, suppose you have a modulation that gives you, at the membrane, a nanoamp average current, rectified, with a modulation resonant with the nanostructure, so each cycle pumps ions in just one direction. A nanoamp of +1 ions is 6 billion of them moving per second.

Now, 6B ions is hardly any, in the grand scheme of things, but they are in a very small space, and another 6B are moving in the next channel over. The only places we know of (well, that I know of) where these nanoamp currents are important is in organizing healing, and in embryo development. Old people have a hard enough time mustering healing activity without anything disrupting the process. I don't know what other processes might involve such currents.

Again, we don't know whether 5G modulation will affect healing in old people, but it is certainly physically possible that it can. It will be very hard to measure, but that doesn't mean the physiological effect must be small.

If there is an effect, will we notice? Is anybody monitoring healing rates in old people, at the population level, today? How do you even measure that?