SN 759: TRRespass

Beep boop - this is a robot. A new show has been posted to TWiT…

What are your thoughts about today’s show? We’d love to hear from you!

Interestingly, the Adobe TM library has not been on Windows 10 systems since 1709, yet all versions of Windows up to and including the current version are affected…

I assume this means that if you have an old system that was upgraded from Windows 7 or from a version of Windows before 1709, that the library still exists on those systems, even if they have been updated to the current version.

I’ve checked my main systems and the file isn’t present on any of them.

Steve equating what SQRL does one time (on login) with what cookies are used for, session management, had me scratching my head. After all, the way SQRL is currently used in every site I am aware of is to authenticate specifically to GET the session cookie. Maybe he meant something else…

Steve and Leo seem to be doing a pretty good job of providing sources of information regarding Covid-19 through some links. It may pain them (LOL) but they even have given some props to some of the ways the government is handling the crisis.

My ears perked up when Steve Gibson mentioned how EM radiation could increase the permeability of our blood-brain barrier. A few months back, Glenn Fleishman had an article on Tidbits where he claimed that Wireless Networks Pose No Known Health Risk. Unfortunately, this is not true; there are numerous science papers noting that electromagnetic radiation can cause increased ROS – free radicals – in our bodies. I noted the paper " Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective" in that discussion. Unfortunately, Glenn didn’t reconcile this science with his conclusion.

ROS had already gotten a lot of attention. Steve has a fair number of references to ROS on the site. I was already familiar with discussion about ROS, because the ketone bodies in a LCHF diet generate far less ROS than glucose. Steve has a review paper on his GRC website (in the “health” bibliography) noting this: “The therapeutic implications of ketone bodies: the effects of ketone bodies in pathological conditions: ketosis, ketogenic diet, redox states, insulin resistance, and mitochondrial metabolism”. I can’t tell if @Leo is aware of this positive impact; he should be.

Can exposure to 5G phones make a difference in health? Maybe. And it may be difficult to quantify that difference – especially because things like LCHF can have a positive impact on ROS.

1 Like

are there any studies indicating free radicals cause the harm? I heard Leo mention before that there has been no increase in brain tumors since the use of cell phones…in fact I seem to remember that the occurrences may have decreased slightly. Here is an interesting explanation about how they can be good or bad…

@philbar: from the abstract of the paper you cited: “When an overload of free radicals cannot gradually be destroyed, their accumulation in the body generates a phenomenon called oxidative stress. This process plays a major part in the development of chronic and degenerative illness such as cancer, autoimmune disorders, aging, cataract, rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases.”

It’s a variety of diseases that have their effect over time.

The critical point–which you may have missed–is that electromagnetic radiation materially alters our cells. It increases ROS; increased ROS will deplete our antioxidants and lead to oxidative stress. Uncontrolled, free radicals are teeny tiny bullets that damage our cellular walls, proteins, and even the DNA. Not good.

Read that survey paper I noted above, and read the papers it cites. That should get you up to speed on the relationship between our new electromagnetic sources and ROS.

1 Like

I did only skim for the most part but I didn’t miss the cell membrane altering, but I was curious if you knew of any studies that have shown actual statistical increases in health problems. You may have also noticed that some free radicals are thought to be helpful, curious if that tends to counteract the health problems that may be occurring. I in no way intended to downplay any deleterious affects the ROS are having.

In his TidBITS article, Glenn claimed there was “no known health risk”. That is incorrect. Electromagnetic radiation materially alters the homeostasis of ROS in the body.

A free radical is a teeny tiny bullet. It does real damage to a cell. Increased ROS raises inflammation in the body. One could say it ages the body.

Quantification is difficult. One would have a similar problem quantifying the impact of increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier.

The big thing for you to understand is that there is a real alteration to our physiology through [non-ionizing] electromagnetic radiation. That old standard was waaaaay too high.

The second thing for you to do is to actually read the science.

Yes, I understand that controlled ROS does good things in the body. Macrophages use little pockets of free radicals to destroy bacteria and viruses. That’s an example of using those teeny tiny bullets under control.

Excessive ROS in our cells would be out of control. That’s bad.

There’s a lot to understand. Our mitochondria are our energy plants. They produce charge separation–free radicals–that are [hopefully] contained in those organelles. The “big picture” to understand: if there is charge separation, then it will be sensitive to electromagnetic waves. That’s basic physics.

If you want to reserch further, I recommend reading some science on the topic. My recommendation is a chapter “Electromagnetic Hygiene” from the textbook, “Nutrition and Integrative Medicine: A Primer for Clinicians” (2019; ISBN: 9781498759489). It’s a pricey book, but my local University’s library subscription includes full e-access to the entire Taylor&Francis library. YMMV.

Joel Moskowitz has been pushing this nonsense for decades and the conclusions of current scientific thinking discredits this idea. Steve Gibson should stop talking about topics on which he isn’t an expert, especially with the smug tone he likes to employ.

@bleak: I’m not sure why you are addressing your response to me. Steve is talking about permeability of the BBB; I am talking about a separate factor: increased reactive oxygen species generated through electromagnetic radiation. These are not the same thing. Karipidis is not talking about ROS, but you’re certain any discussion about both risks are nonsense? That is a massive hole in your thinking.

A podcast is a terrible medium to discuss scientific finding. One example from the RNZ interview:

[16:36] “And when you review all of the studies, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that [increased BBB permeability] occurs. And when it does occur, it happens when the exposure levels are high.”

The interviewer calls this out! “You can’t have it both ways [….]”, and Ken Karipidis then contradicts what he just said. His statement @16:36 was wrong, and he failed to acknowledge his error. Not good.

Your comments about Steve’s tone are also inappropriate. Science is about the evidence and the reasoning and not the tone of the presenter.

It’s clear that EMF materially affects our tissues, and that the sources, power levels, and frequencies of environmental EMF are changing rapidly. ROS has been a difficult thing to study, because the molecules are so reactive. ROS was not even on the radar (to coin a phrase) when cell phones first came out.

It would be foolish to presume that these technologies are proven safe. Specifically, it would be foolish to presume the thermal standards proposed by Ken Karapidis are an acceptable standard. If you have evidence that that standard is acceptable, please provide a reference.

Fair point IRT addressing my comment to you - it was done as you were the only person to mention the topic and I didnt want to start a new thread.

IRT the 3 paragraphs you took to point out that Karipidis misspoke in the interview, I dont realy know what you are trying to prove. Karipidis himself said that it occurred at high exposures without being corrected , so it’s not exactly like he was trying to hide anything. Furthermore it’s clear that Karipidis’ first language is not english, while Steve’s first language is english.

My comments about Steve are not inappropriate. He is pushing unproven ideas (that are regarded as quackery by the large majority of people) as fact and then justifies it with anecdotes from his personal life. The tone of the presenter is relevant when they are presenting information as fact, when it is simply not much more than his misguided opinion.

“It’s clear that EMF materially affects our tissues”
-Care to be any broader?
“the sources, power levels, and frequencies of environmental EMF are changing rapidly”
Are they though? Why should we assume that the levels that bluetooth operates at, and has been approved by every nation in the world as safe for use for over 10 years, is changing?

“It would be foolish to presume that these technologies are proven safe.”
Who is presuming? These things are tested and regulated.
“it would be foolish to presume the thermal standards proposed by Ken Karapidis are an acceptable standard.”
Why? I take advice from experts. Do you have a degree in physics and a PhD in epidemiology? Do you work for the International Comission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection? Because Ken does. Seems like you’re attacking the guy and not the idea to me.

“If you have evidence that that standard is acceptable, please provide a reference.”
I’d say that if you have evidence that the current standards are unacceptable then it’s on you to provide a reference. The vast majority of relevant scientific opinion on this topic agrees with Ken and disagrees with Steve.

Really? What published peer-reviewed science are you referencing? In what paper – or review papers – did this “large majority” render their opinion? Can you cite a single paper anywhere that proves that non-ionizing non-thermal EMF has no impact on BBB permeability? Radiofrequency and Extremely Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Effects on the Blood-Brain Barrier has been cited by 108 other papers. If your “quackery” pronouncement were accurate, you’d be able to show where this widely-cited paper has been discounted. Has anyone actually done that? If so, cite your sources.

Nope. That’s the perfect broadness. The paper I already cited in the discussion: “Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective.” describes a specific material alteration through EMF – increased reactive oxygen species (ROS).

If you’re going to make snarky comments, you need to make sure they’re supported by the science. EMF does indeed materially alter our cells. The energy threshold of non-ionizing radiation was made at a time when little was understood about ROS in our bodies. Go to sciencedirectcom and see how the number of papers with “reactive oxygen species” is mentioned over the years. In 1980, the term appeared in 28 papers. In 2019, it appeared in 22,781 papers! Those papers are also clear about the impact of increased ROS on our health.

Please buckle up and read some science before commenting further in this discussion. Your “care to be any broader” snark was entirely inappropriate. Tell us exactly where those “large majority” of people made their pronouncement of quackery. What exact publication did they register their vote?