Because the mechanism doesn't make much sense - the electromagnetic fields we are now subject to are absolutely tiny compared to the noise from the earth and the sun. How can a 0.1 W (right at the antenna) WiFi router disrupt our brains when the 1000 W/m^2 (hitting the ground, and only counting the visible spectrum) Sun doesn't?

Did we evolve with the polarized pulsed microwave radiation from man-made devices? Or Did we evolve with the non-polarized radiation from the sun?

You cannot compare that. The proof of this is that the FCC has safety regulations against how close you are to the sources. But these were devised with two and 3G technologies. Also, most of the studies are not real world studies, and so they lack many of the key characteristics of our exposure.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03784...

And make no mistake, I think a lot of people could be positively affected by this type of electromagnetic radiation, unfortunately, I don’t think I’m one of those, however. It’s really mostly about genetics.

FCC having safety regulations isn't actually proof of a problem, it's proof that there's concern there might be a problem.

If there might be a problem, then we should investigate it, correct? But instead, we’re just rolling it out more and more and faster faster. Whatever happened to the precautionary principal and health?

Sure, it's worth investigating, I support that. But I do not support making a claim like "I do think it plays one of the largest roles in the increase of neurological disorders since the 2000s. Including autism." when there's little evidence and no obvious mechanism.

> and the same type voltage gated calcium ion channel is also affected by electromagnetic fields?

This is the kind of broad brush statement that makes people face-palm. A "voltage gated" anything is necessarily affected by electromagnetic fields, because that's what those words mean…

…but the character of that effect depends almost entirely on the specifics. Specifically, your brain cells do things at about 100-1000 Hz, whereas most of the new RF noise is about 6 orders of magnitude higher frequency. To understand why 6 orders of magnitude matters, if you go up a further 6 orders of magnitude you get slightly more than the entire range of visible light (red light is ~500e12 Hz, violet is ~800e12).

What might genuinely affect our brain chemistry is the 50-60 Hz range of the mains grid… except we've had that all over the place since electricity was introduced, so this trend wouldn't be new in developed nations, it would be a thing that shows up in the statistics from the interwar era when we got electricity, and the only places that would get this trend now would be places that are finally getting electricity for the first time ever.

If there is a signal for this, I've never heard of it. That doesn't mean there isn't one, but that's what you actually need to look for, not a statement that's technically so general it can be said about literally everything in the universe including spacetime itself, but even with more generous interpretations is still general to the point of trivially applying to basically everything you ever experience.

> This is the kind of broad brush statement that makes people face-palm. A "voltage gated" anything is necessarily affected by electromagnetic fields, because that's what those words mean…

It’s not a broadbrush statement, it’s a very specific statement. It’s a statement that this is how EMFs can affect our neurology and our biology. I don’t understand you’re complained about this at all.

> Specifically, your brain cells do things at about 100-1000 Hz, whereas most of the new RF noise is about 6 orders of magnitude higher frequency.

Why are you assuming there has to be some residence between the EMFs and the speed of the fire neurons for the voltage gated ion channels to be triggered or disrupted? This makes no sense.

There’s plenty of signal, you just don’t have the antennas to receive it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6513191/

There is considerable evidence that exposure to RF-EMF could cause various types of genotoxic effects in cells (Lai and Singh, 2004; Lee et al., 2005; Phillips et al., 2009; Ruediger, 2009; Xu et al., 2010). Exposure to RF-EMFs (1,800 MHz, SAR 2 W/kg) caused DNA oxidative damage in the mitochondria, DNA fragmentation and DNA strand breaks in neurons (Xu et al., 2010). This have been reported in lymphocytes exposed to various ranges of RF-EMFs (Phillips et al., 2009). In addition, RF-EMF exposure has been reported to cause chromosomal instability, alteration of gene expression and gene mutations. Such genetic toxic effects have been reported in, but are not limited to, neurons, blood lymphocytes, sperm, red blood cells, epithelial cells, hematopoietic tissue, lung cells and bone marrow (Magras and Xenos, 1997; Mashevich et al., 2003; Demsia et al., 2004; Zhao et al., 2007; Baan et al., 2011). It has also been found that exposure to electromagnetic radiation, a type of RF-EMF, increases the incidence of chromosomal aneuploidy (Mashevich et al., 2003). Genetic toxic effects, including aneuploidy, can lead to genetic disorders with abnormal gene formation, and can even lead to cancer (Hoeijmakers, 2009).

> It’s not a broadbrush statement, it’s a very specific statement. It’s a statement that this is how EMFs can affect our neurology and our biology. I don’t understand you’re complained about this at all.

That fact you think your statement isn't broadbrush suggests you don't understand the rest of my previous comment.

All interactions in your daily life are either the electromagnetic field, or gravity. Even though some of the radiation you're constantly experiencing is coming from the weak nuclear force, the radiation that does your chemistry any harm is the bit that interacts via electromagnetic fields.

It's EM fields that make lighting bolts work. It's EM fields that travel along your nerves. It's EM fields that stop you from falling through the floor, that keep the floor intact, and stop the Earth from collapsing into a black hole. It's EM fields that give you sunburn and vitamin D.

Saying "EM fields affects us" is as true as saying "chemicals affect us": Yes, light is an EM field, water is a chemical. You don't get to remove these things from our environment, they are our environment.

That is why it's such a ridiculously broad brush. Without specifying power level, duration, and frequency, one can get literally any result from no impact to you exploding (which would happen not only from too much, but also if one were to suppress every EM field in your body).

> Why are you assuming there has to be some residence between the EMFs and the speed of the fire neurons for the voltage gated ion channels to be triggered or disrupted? This makes no sense.

Because basically all electrical interactions depend on frequency. If I have a circuit with a capacitor in it, that acts as a high-pass filter; if I have one with an inductor in it, that acts as a low-pass filter. Almost everything acts a bit like both a capacitor and an inductor, including our bodies.

And the fact you think that makes no sense, suggests you don't know the absolute basics of electronics, because I managed to pick that up from 101 courses.

Likewise, basically all chemicals in your body have different responses depending on which wavelengths of EM field they're exposed to. Your brain is wired to respond strongly to extremely low frequencies.

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6513191/

You should have led with that.

But…

…that quote was on the section about genotoxic effects, which have almost nothing in common with anything from the section of calcium channels, judging by the citations used.

A different quote from the same link:

> Thus, the vague fear for the many unknown effects of RF-EMF exposure is expressed as ungrounded negative effects not only to the scientific community but also to the general public. In addition to this, scientific data published by various researchers have been contradictory in their outcome.

You’re missing the simplicity of my point. Yes I said EMF affect us, and that was supposed to include everything. The fact that we’re adding new and different EMFs is the point. There’s a very fact that it’s highly unrecognized by psychiatrist that solar flares affect the rate of psychiatric hospitalization. We can’t even get it across to them that even natural occurring EMFs affect mood. If they won’t recognize that effect, why would they recognize RF – EMFs? What is not a broad statement is explaining how these electromagnetic fields affect us, that is by affecting voltage gated ion channels.

Also, you’re thinking as a technician, not as a biologist.

I encourage you if you’re so skeptical to keep reading the papers. I’m not going to post on hacker news anymore because my original comment was flagged and I think that’s censorship and bias in this community that I’m not going to tolerate.

Is there a reliable overview of all such evidence that you can recommend?

>I know you’re all gonna laugh at this

Alas it is this attitude itself that might become laughable. I don't get what is so incredibly unbelievable about EMF interacting with biology, and I certainly hope we don't discover this the wrong way.

Unfortunately, there’s not, annd unfortunately a lot of it is really bad. I would just keep up with the studies that are being published and the sources of their funding. The website the environmental health trust has a lot of material that I would categorize as mostly reliable.

https://ehtrust.org/

I think it is very unfair that your reply was flagged while the same level theory of OP comment is top ranked.

I’m not, I’ve been at this for a while. It’s very strong bias of those in the tech industry that there’s no problem with radio frequency electromagnetic radiation. I was the same way. I was a network engineer for Cisco Systems from 1996 to 2000. I would’ve said the same thing before I realized it affected me in the late 201Os. There’s been such strong propaganda from the telecommunications industry because of the money involved. Just the fact that people keep saying “radiation comes from the sun as well” is proof of this fact sis, it ignores the fundamental science of how radio frequency telecommunications work. Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to comment about my post being flagged.

I’m not gonna post on hacker news anymore, there’s just too much noise.

I don't deny radio frequency electromagnetic radiation could be harmful. But clearly the change is behavioral and it is not the radiation that makes teenagers doomscroll 16 hours/day.

My point is that RFEMF may affect behavior and mood. This only adds to the biological stress of doom scrolling all day.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014765132...

I think that's a lazy excuse, the same as saying the food in US is worse so that's the reason for the fat epidemic, not excessive eating mixed with a widespread sedentary lifestyle