#Login Register


  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
Home 


Do electrical-electronic/magnetic fields increase risk of cancer?
07-14-2017, 12:16 AM #1
dclements Member
Posts:230 Threads:23 Joined:Jan 2017
I know this is a strange thread for someone who is pro-nuclear power to ask but I'm wondering if anyone hear has any knowledge as to whether there is or isn't a link between cancer and people working or living near areas where they are exposed to high frequency fields? I know that the really high frequency waves are caused by gamma radiation and that X-ray technicians are at risk of getting iodizing radiation even if the frequency is at a lower than which is caused by gamma rays.


You Asked: Should I Worry About Wi-Fi Radiation?
http://time.com/4508432/what-is-wifi-radiation-cancer/

Power Lines, Electrical Devices and Extremely Low Frequency Radiation
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-cau...ation.html

I think the health agencies in the government believe there isn't enough proof to say that it does or doesn't cause cancer so they assume it is safe or at least safe-ish, but I believe there are a number of people that looked into it say that the information available says that we need to be concern and steps need to be taken to protect people from this threat. I wonder what people on this forum think about this. coffeetime.gif
07-14-2017, 12:54 AM #2
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:42,803 Threads:1,471 Joined:Feb 2011
I know people who are very sensitive to electromagnetic fields and can't be around cell phones and to much electrical equipment. I've read about people who claim to be allergic to it and has to flee modern life. We have electrical impulses running throughout our body, but mainly in the brain. I have a hard time believing there is no interference caused by external electromagnetic sources.
07-14-2017, 01:20 AM #3
Gumby AKA Chtumby
Posts:1,700 Threads:218 Joined:Mar 2013
İmage


Don’t waste your time online, invest it with steemit.com
07-14-2017, 06:09 AM #4
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,965 Threads:424 Joined:Jun 2012
(07-14-2017, 12:16 AM)dclements Wrote:  I know this is a strange thread for someone who is pro-nuclear power to ask but I'm wondering if anyone hear has any knowledge as to whether there is or isn't a link between cancer and people working or living near areas where they are exposed to high frequency fields? I know that the really high frequency waves are caused by gamma radiation and that X-ray technicians are at risk of getting iodizing radiation even if the frequency is at a lower than which is caused by gamma rays.


You Asked: Should I Worry About Wi-Fi Radiation?
http://time.com/4508432/what-is-wifi-radiation-cancer/

Power Lines, Electrical Devices and Extremely Low Frequency Radiation
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-cau...ation.html

I think the health agencies in the government believe there isn't enough proof to say that it does or doesn't cause cancer so they assume it is safe or at least safe-ish, but I believe there are a number of people that looked into it say that the information available says that we need to be concern and steps need to be taken to protect people from this threat.  I wonder what people on this forum think about this.  coffeetime.gif

I too am pro-nuclear but do we really understand the fields and what they cause? Where is the proof, where are the numbers?
07-14-2017, 09:15 PM #5
dclements Member
Posts:230 Threads:23 Joined:Jan 2017
(07-14-2017, 12:54 AM)Octo Wrote:  I know people who are very sensitive to electromagnetic fields and can't be around cell phones and to much electrical equipment. I've read about people who claim to be allergic to it and has to flee modern life. We have electrical impulses running throughout our body, but mainly in the brain. I have a hard time believing there is no interference caused by external electromagnetic sources.
I have heard of them too and recently I saw the news talk about a town where they use satellite antennas for researching signals coming from space and because the antennas are so sensitive the town (or more like the research facility) bans the use of cell phone towers While some people leave because they need cell phones for whatever reason, others come to the town to get relief from health issues they think come from cell phone towers. I think doctors are kind of split as to whether most of these people suffer from "psychosomatic" (ie. they are nuttier than fruit cake, or possibly even more nuttier than a secret squirrel eating fruit cake) or real underlining health issues.

On another note there is an actual phenomenon similar to the believed problem with electrical signals called "the Hum". "The Hum" is an often an eerie/ often industrial machine like sound that not everyone can hear. It too was thought to be "psychosomatic" until enough doctors looked into the matter and discovered the number of incidents along with their patterns suggest something other then merely caused by people with mental issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hum

Also in some places there is an "actually", very loud/very annoying audio hum that can be heard by nearly everyone and can cause wide spread headaches so the idea that sometime "the Hum" being in a range not heard by everyone (since audio frequencies hear by people differ from person to person) isn't as far fetched as it once was.


....also there is also the conspiracy of and the people who believe in HAARP( the governments High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program facility built in Alaska) which "supposedly" according is being tested to find out ways of using powerful radio waves and other signals for military for possible military application or possibly being used as a kind of unconventional/black op type weapon in actual wars. To me the idea of the US government actual using such a theoretical type weapon as a weak kind of unconventional type of NBC without public knowledge sounds to be more...ruthlessly pragmatic then I typically imagine them to be and is sort of in the same realm as the people who believe 9/11 was an inside job/false flag, but I guess anything is possible; including someone other than Roswell shooting Kennedy. uhoh.gif

Even though I'm pretty sure most of it is very unlikely true, it kind of makes me a little nervous to talk about such things if some of them happen to be even partially true.

(Oops..forgot links)
HAARP Links:
https://www.google.com/search?q=HAARP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequ...ch_Program
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-sci...rp-n112576
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/HAARP
http://www.haarp.net/
07-14-2017, 09:46 PM #6
dclements Member
Posts:230 Threads:23 Joined:Jan 2017
(07-14-2017, 06:09 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(07-14-2017, 12:16 AM)dclements Wrote:  I know this is a strange thread for someone who is pro-nuclear power to ask but I'm wondering if anyone hear has any knowledge as to whether there is or isn't a link between cancer and people working or living near areas where they are exposed to high frequency fields? I know that the really high frequency waves are caused by gamma radiation and that X-ray technicians are at risk of getting iodizing radiation even if the frequency is at a lower than which is caused by gamma rays.


You Asked: Should I Worry About Wi-Fi Radiation?
http://time.com/4508432/what-is-wifi-radiation-cancer/

Power Lines, Electrical Devices and Extremely Low Frequency Radiation
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-cau...ation.html

I think the health agencies in the government believe there isn't enough proof to say that it does or doesn't cause cancer so they assume it is safe or at least safe-ish, but I believe there are a number of people that looked into it say that the information available says that we need to be concern and steps need to be taken to protect people from this threat.  I wonder what people on this forum think about this.  coffeetime.gif

I too am pro-nuclear but do we really understand the fields and what they cause? Where is the proof, where are the numbers?
I don't know if there is but I think a ounce of common sense and prevention should be used. First from a scientific (or scientific-ish) perspective I will mostly rule out anything that is just a knee-jerk or phobia induced source such as the stuff you read from tabloids, Greenpeace, and/or Dr.Oz without any facts behind them.


Here is an excerpt from the American Cancer Society on the subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Radiation is the emission or sending out of energy from any source. X-rays are an example of radiation, but so is the light that comes from the sun and the heat that is constantly coming off our bodies.

When talking about radiation and cancer, many people think of specific kinds of radiation such as x-rays or the radiation in nuclear reactors. But these are not the only types of radiation that concern us when we think about radiation risks to human health.

Radiation exists across a spectrum from very high-energy (also referred to as high-frequency) radiation to very low-energy (or low-frequency) radiation. This is sometimes referred to as the electromagnetic spectrum.

Examples of high-energy radiation include x-rays and gamma rays. They, as well as some higher energy ultraviolet (UV) rays, are classified as ionizing radiation, which means that they have enough energy to remove an electron from (ionize) an atom. Ionizing radiation can damage the DNA inside cells, which can lead to mutations and the uncontrolled cell growth we know as cancer.

Extremely low frequency (ELF) radiation is at the low-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum and is a type of non-ionizing radiation. Non-ionizing radiation has enough energy to move atoms around or make them vibrate, but not enough to directly damage DNA. ELF radiation has even lower energy than other types of non-ionizing radiation like radiofrequency radiation, visible light, and infrared.

With most types of radiation, the electric and magnetic fields are coupled. Because they act as one, they are considered together as an electromagnetic field (EMF). But with ELF radiation, the magnetic field and the electrical field can exist and act independently, so they are often studied separately. Typically, we use the term “magnetic field” to indicate ELF radiation from a magnetic field, while we use “electric field” to mean ELF radiation from an electric field.

The possible link between electromagnetic fields and cancer has been a subject of controversy for several decades. It's not clear exactly how electromagnetic fields, a form of low-energy, non-ionizing radiation, can increase cancer risk. Plus, because we are all exposed to different amounts of these fields at different times, the issue has been hard to study. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I heard that high powered microwaves used to be considered "safe-ish" when the military was first using them to upgrade the communication networks, or at least until too many of the technicians started having around them to get warm and started getting health problems, but then again since I only heard that from someone else and never looked into it I guess it may not be any better than what Dr. Oz says. gaah.gif

I guess the TWO THINGS that really drew my attention to it is the nearly life long belief (which I kinda think I looked into) that CANCER IS HIGHER in the DEVELOPED WORLD compare to UNDEVELOPED. AND the fact that many Gulf War vets suffered from something called GULF WAR SYNDROME that has lead to the belief that even if something that is relatively harmless/safe-ish with COMBINED with MANY other things that are ALSO HARMLESS/SAFE-ISH can lead to consequences that are UNPREDICTABLE to EVERY KNOW STATISTICAL STUDY that is available at the present time.

You see every statistical study is ever done to PREDICT the EFFECTS of ONE TYPE of substance because A) if any other substance/toxin/harmful agent/etc is introduced it will most likely screw up all the results and/or they won't know which is causing the real problem B) research studies are very,very, very expensive so doing multiple studies to narrow down the effects of what multiple substances/toxins/harmful agents/etc have working together can do to a person would be INSANELY EXPENSIVE C) if any of these studies where ever done and they found out something the public might want/demand more of them which could be really, really bad for corporate profits D) and last but maybe not least why do you need to research on such things when the general population as a whole can serve as kind of "guinea pigs" for such types of health issues; or another way to put it is if it is bad enough we will eventually notice it and take care of it much like we did with the health issues involved with of cigarettes. In the old days when we first starting studying such issues we did only one study to determine the effects of a toxin or product might have on someone ,it was consider "ok" since it was a given that it was "highly unlikely" that a large number of people would be exposed too many things at once, however today this really isn't the case anymore. But even if we need to do such studies, corporations are scare of what might happen if start trying to open the "Pandora's Box" of new testing which will most likely lead to the detriment of profits for them including new regulations, safety guidelines, etc. They already hate all the existing regulations and other issues that cut into their profits so why would they want more of it?

Ok, maybe that isn't exactly from a purely scientific standpoint but I think I sort of have a rational concern behind my line of questioning. coffeetime.gif
07-15-2017, 09:42 PM #7
dclements Member
Posts:230 Threads:23 Joined:Jan 2017
Oh, man! Nobody had anything to say about this after I created that long post yesterday!?


There must be something someone has that they write about and add to this discussion. I will look for more information to post but I don't want to be just talking to myself. gaah.gif
07-15-2017, 10:45 PM #8
Ninelives I bite !!!
Posts:2,572 Threads:39 Joined:Feb 2016



Look Up
07-15-2017, 10:53 PM #9
Ninelives I bite !!!
Posts:2,572 Threads:39 Joined:Feb 2016



Look Up
07-16-2017, 05:02 PM #10
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,965 Threads:424 Joined:Jun 2012
(07-15-2017, 09:42 PM)dclements Wrote:  Oh, man! Nobody had anything to say about this after I created that long post yesterday!?


There must be something someone has that they write about and add to this discussion. I will look for more information to post but I don't want to be just talking to myself.  gaah.gif

Sorry for no responding to that long post but I lost it along the way. This subject does interest me and we are still stumbling around trying to figure out what 'drives' cancer to activate. The medical community may be fixated solely on biological drivers and totally ignoring potential other 'drivers', perhaps, such as frequencies. Without multi-disciplinary studies, how will we ever know?

Didn't I hear/read somewhere that we all have cancer cells within our bodies.(?)

Quote:"Drivers" of Cancer

The genetic changes that contribute to cancer tend to affect three main types of genes—proto-oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, and DNA repair genes. These changes are sometimes called “drivers” of cancer.

Proto-oncogenes are involved in normal cell growth and division. However, when these genes are altered in certain ways or are more active than normal, they may become cancer-causing genes (or oncogenes), allowing cells to grow and survive when they should not.

Tumor suppressor genes are also involved in controlling cell growth and division. Cells with certain alterations in tumor suppressor genes may divide in an uncontrolled manner.

DNA repair genes are involved in fixing damaged DNA. Cells with mutations in these genes tend to develop additional mutations in other genes. Together, these mutations may cause the cells to become cancerous.

As scientists have learned more about the molecular changes that lead to cancer, they have found that certain mutations commonly occur in many types of cancer. Because of this, cancers are sometimes characterized by the types of genetic alterations that are believed to be driving them, not just by where they develop in the body and how the cancer cells look under the microscope.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/unde...cer-arises
07-17-2017, 12:19 AM #11
dclements Member
Posts:230 Threads:23 Joined:Jan 2017
(07-16-2017, 05:02 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(07-15-2017, 09:42 PM)dclements Wrote:  Oh, man! Nobody had anything to say about this after I created that long post yesterday!?


There must be something someone has that they write about and add to this discussion. I will look for more information to post but I don't want to be just talking to myself.  gaah.gif

Sorry for no responding to that long post but I lost it along the way. This subject does interest me and we are still stumbling around trying to figure out what 'drives' cancer to activate. The medical community may be fixated solely on biological drivers and totally ignoring potential other 'drivers', perhaps, such as frequencies. Without multi-disciplinary studies, how will we ever know?

Didn't I hear/read somewhere that we all have cancer cells within our bodies.(?)

Quote:"Drivers" of Cancer

The genetic changes that contribute to cancer tend to affect three main types of genes—proto-oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, and DNA repair genes. These changes are sometimes called “drivers” of cancer.

Proto-oncogenes are involved in normal cell growth and division. However, when these genes are altered in certain ways or are more active than normal, they may become cancer-causing genes (or oncogenes), allowing cells to grow and survive when they should not.

Tumor suppressor genes are also involved in controlling cell growth and division. Cells with certain alterations in tumor suppressor genes may divide in an uncontrolled manner.

DNA repair genes are involved in fixing damaged DNA. Cells with mutations in these genes tend to develop additional mutations in other genes. Together, these mutations may cause the cells to become cancerous.

As scientists have learned more about the molecular changes that lead to cancer, they have found that certain mutations commonly occur in many types of cancer. Because of this, cancers are sometimes characterized by the types of genetic alterations that are believed to be driving them, not just by where they develop in the body and how the cancer cells look under the microscope.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/unde...cer-arises

I just got a question in my head which seems kind of stupid but is pretty counter intuitive to how we often think how cells work yet pretty much necessary for the survive of all life

Supposedly , eventually all cells age and die, but before they die they usually replace themselves with another healthy cells. However after some time, the cells born from other cells have problems and defects (which sometimes result in cancers,etc) and this is part of the issue when people start to age.

However the problem with this is that the original reproductive cells (which I have hear called either stem or "crown" cells) NEED TO BE IMMUNE TO THIS ISSUE TO THE POINT THEY ARE NEARLY IMMORTAL if they are allowed to keep on copying themselves. I don't know how long a stem or crown cell lives (or if it even matters) but I do know if they suffered from the same fate as other cells then offspring would very often die from premature aging before they could get a chance to have offspring themselves (who in turn would die even faster).

I guess why I'm even pondering this is if this is a known fact, why are there not any scientist doing research into how these cells are able to keep on reproducing themselves without any issues? blink.gif
07-17-2017, 02:20 AM #12
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:42,803 Threads:1,471 Joined:Feb 2011
I'm sure there's lots of research going on, but we're going into immortality business here so this is involving big money and nothing us mere mortals could ever afford. They're not interested in curing cancer as it generates a lot of profit.
07-17-2017, 08:36 PM #13
US nli Incognito Anonymous
 
@ dc

Well, if the medical community continue to just focus on DNA being the activator of cancer growth in the body, then they may find themselves in a loop. Perhaps this is the only area where funding is available...I don't know.
07-19-2017, 01:41 AM #14
dclements Member
Posts:230 Threads:23 Joined:Jan 2017
(07-17-2017, 02:20 AM)Octo Wrote:  I'm sure there's lots of research going on, but we're going into immortality business here so this is involving big money and nothing us mere mortals could ever afford. They're not interested in curing cancer as it generates a lot of profit.
Yeah, I guess you are right. I know about cryogenics where some people get there body put in cold storage in the hopes of being de-thawed when the time comes where medical science can fix whatever caused them to die as well as any problems caused by being frozen. Of course this option is only available to those who can afford it.

The one problem that bothers me is that theoretically plausible to treat and fix the body much like we fix machines, yet there is little in the way of advance sciences that would allow us to create the technology to do such things even for rich people who can both want to have and afford it. Supposedly tissue and blood can be taken from people when they are younger, stored and potentially grown outside the body, and reintroduced at a later time to help the body to revitalize some of the blood and tissue that has gotten older as we have lived our lives. Even if such samples are not taken from a person, I'm sure their are healthy donors out that would be willing to help if they were compensated for their efforts.

It's not that I'm really eager to see rich people get access to something the rest of us can not have, but more that I hope that enough of the science and technology is done that it eventually "trickles down" to the rest of us plebs; but maybe there are medical and logistical issues I'm unaware of. blink.gif
07-19-2017, 02:06 AM #15
dclements Member
Posts:230 Threads:23 Joined:Jan 2017
(07-17-2017, 02:20 AM)Octo Wrote:  I'm sure there's lots of research going on, but we're going into immortality business here so this is involving big money and nothing us mere mortals could ever afford. They're not interested in curing cancer as it generates a lot of profit.

Although this may not be entirely relevant, I think the two main killers as people age is cancer and heart attacks but even if someone doesn't die from them or any of the ten or so major threats (or any of the lesser threats as well) there is still dying of old age even if the according to the medical community technically never happens.

Supposedly people are not supposed to die of old age because it is thought of as one of the things that can not be fixed, so it is something will screw up that statics when trying to figure out "what to research next" in order to lower the mortality rate. The other reason is that when people die of "old age" it is almost always a given there was some condition that was partly (or perhaps mostly) brought on by old age so it is often easier to think and document it is the condition that was the underlining issue that killed them and not 'old age' that brought on condition being the problem that killed them.

An interesting thing I read was that when people are over 100 years old they are assumed to be already fairly resistant to cancer, diseases, health issues brought on by vices, etc and live in an environment that is mostly beneficial to their health otherwise it very unlikely they would have liked that long in the first place. While they still may fall victim to many of the health issue that plague their younger counter parts, their seems to be a common pattern to the problem they face that eventually kills them and could be consider most common condition that causes people to die of "old age". The problem often is one of their major organs fail (heart, kidney, liver, etc) and either after they are recovering after getting surgery to fix it , or wanting for surgery they get an infection/sick/etc. that puts too much strain on a body that is already made frail from bother the previous issue and the fact that they are older. While it may not be adequate to say that people dying of old age is usually cause by a complication brought on by combination of old age and 2 or more major health issues, I think it is reasonable to think as people get older that their health is fairly limited and it is much much easier for them to be in a situation where there is one too many straws on the camels so to speak in which they spiral downward and are unable to recover.



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com