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… https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3614697/

@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.