I know Leo talks a lot about radiation from cell phones on his shows.
But, I came across this, and I thought some might find it interesting… Believe what ya want, but it is something to think about…
3 Likes
To be clear she’s a PhD not an MD. But the lab coat is very convincing.
1 Like
I do agree wholeheartedly with one of her points - it’s too early for any decent research to yield actionable results.
However, it’s not insane to me to imagine a future where carrying a directed energy device around with you for 12 hours a day is considered as ghastly to someone living in 2150 as doctors recommending cigarettes to ill patients is to us now. There’s just SO much we don’t understand about everything!
4 Likes
Historically, the threshold for damage from radio waves is ionizing radiation. Anyone familiar with fluorescent light bulbs (both the long tubes compact fluorescent screw-in bulbs) should be familiar with that concept. Those bulbs generate (localized) EM radiation which knocks an electron out of orbit; the electron’s return to orbit releases a photon. Ionizing radiation would be bad news, but it is NOT generated by the radio frequencies used for cell phone radios (of any of the generations). On the other hand; non-ionizing radiation can definitely materially alter our tissues. Papers like The link between radio frequencies emitted from wireless technologies and oxidative stress calmly spell out the details of that material alteration – increased ROS – through cell phone radios.
ROS is ubiquitous. Some ROS is even generated by our mitochondria when we burn glucose or BoHB to produce accessible energy (ATP) in our cells. Interestingly, burning BoHB (a ketone body) generates far less ROS than burning glucose. More heat; less smoke. This is one of the reasons that those on LCHF diets have improved neurology. Papers like KETONES INHIBIT MITOCHONDRIAL PRODUCTION OF REACTIVE OXYGEN SPECIES PRODUCTION FOLLOWING GLUTAMATE EXCITOTOXICITY BY INCREASING NADH OXIDATION (2007) first discussed this. I don’t recall if @Leo and Steve Gibson ever discussed lower ROS in their low-carb episodes of “Security Now!”; it’s one of the more interesting chemical benefits of an LCHF diet.
We only started getting a handle on ROS starting around 1990. It’s hard to measure, because the free radicals will rapidly react with other molecules (including our cell walls, DNA, etc.). Historically, we measure ROS by measuring depletion of anti-oxidants; we are getting better and faster tools to directly measure and visualize ROS.
The question is how much increased ROS it takes to create a health hazard. What does it take to be “actionable”? How do we get an objective opinion on that in our society? I have no idea. I think it’s prudent to minimize radio exposure. And I definitely think LCHF diets are a good idea. “Low carb: you’ll try it for the physiology; you’ll stay for the neurology.” YMMV, but I think it’s worth trying for 6-8 weeks. Steve Gibson’s notes on LCHF and the Volek/Phinney books are the best things out there.
I have no idea how mitigating cell phone radiation because of ROS would ever be “actionable”. I cannot quite imagine a world where our politicians competently understand the issues. At the same time, I think everyone should be informed that cell phone radios do indeed materially alter our tissues.
Tidbits had a discussion about cell phone radiation back in December 2020. Glenn (the author) didn’t even mention ROS in his article; that was unfortunate. Anybody doing thorough research into cell phone risks should definitely stumble across the established science about ROS and radio emissions.
1 Like
Everything I’ve seen is on the order of, well there might be a problem. There’s no evidence of it, but it seems like it should be a problem. Let’s just pretend there is until we know for sure.