Does Wi-Fi increase the risk of developing cancer?

>>8366279
Oh yeah big time

No.

Non-ionizing.

>>8366279 Dude its RADIATION, of course it causes cancer.

>>8366279
Possibly.

What is clear is that it induces cellular dysfunction via activation of voltage dependent calcium channels, subsequent alteration of voltage gradients across the cell membrane, and an influx of extracellular Ca2+ resulting in artificially high intracellular calcium. This degrades cellular machinery and results in increased generation of ROS, NOS, etc. hsp expression is then upregulated.

This is old news. The only reason the world is so resistant is because people are emotionally attached to their convenience and their little toys, so when shit started getting real, immediately, the tribal nonsense began. Also, to be a parent and know you might have compromised your child. Too much psychological overhead.

Wi-Fi needs to be removed from public places and replaced with superior technology, like Li-Fi. Cell phones will be harder and will require creativity, but no kid should have one anyway. Degenerate parents getting their 5 year old a fucking iPhones, come on.

>>8366295
(L-type voltage dependent calcium channels primarily, that is. This has been repeatedly confirmed with selective VDCC blockers. Though there are other types that are implicated, they don't seem to do too much.)

File: mind break.png (63KB, 1306x426px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1306x426px

>>8366282
/thread/

>>8366295
Also, caspase-3 is not upregulated. Apoptic systems, under normal conditions, are counteracted.

>>8366293
This.
However a simple hat-shaped device constructed from aluminum foil and worn on the head almost entirely deflects the radiation around the body.

>>8366306
Fuck you subhuman gutter filth.

>>8366312
Looks like somebody has got their knickers in quite a twist!

>>8366319
Yes. They're so tangled at this point I don't know what to do.

I can't get them on, and I can't get them off. I'm stuck in limbo.

>>8366295
I don't know what any of that means but i believe WiFi hurts our body in some way. Microwaves can cause cancer right? I saw that south park episode where they microwaved their balls and they grew giant tumors. I assume wifi isn't that harmful, but we're exposed to it where ever we go. 24/7 exposure to it over 80 years of life has got to have some detrimental effects

>>8366338
Microwave band radiation can cause double and single strand breaks (they share a common chain of underlying mechanisms), and overall chronic hsp elevation acts as a cancer promoter.

Either way, ignoring the nuances the present generation, those born ~2003 onward, will be guinea pigs. People who know where to look for connections, and what to consider as possible causative elements, will get their answers whether they like it or not. Real shame, but no matter the era this is what we do. Just ride the waves.

>>8366328
Might i suggest searching for a discontinuity

>>8366357
my arms are stuck now.
sent from my inose

>>8366338
Radiation poisoning isn't like lead poisoning.

You can literally spend your whole life outside in the sun, and uv would be the only potential danger. A lifetime of yellow light won't add up to yellow light poisoning. Neither will wifi, it doesnt have enough energy density. It goes right through you. Just like radiowaves, which have been filling the air on earth for the last 100 years.

>>8366374
Thermals (ie SAR) are irrelevant, as is ionization. The effect is strictly a specific interaction with cellular machinery.

It's almost surreal watching people resort to middle school level physics whenever this matter comes up. Dunning-Kruger at its finest, no offense intended.

>>8366295
citation?

>>8366414
I deflect that back to you, and retort that the idea wi-fi or radio could meaningfully affect cellular machinery is laughable, and that the Dunning-Kruger effect has given you an inflated sense of self-worth related to the idea that you know so much more than the sheeple around you bathing themselves in harmful electromagnetic radiation.

>>8366489
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/
Follow the citations and read through the papers citing it, if you want to know the state of research more broadly. But make no mistake, it's been known that microwaves affected biological systems since the late 70's. This is not a shock or a revelation.

>>8366495
Blah blah blah blah.
Just go somewhere.

>>8366516
>Just go somewhere.
(Preferably to pubmed or a molecular biology textbook, where you can research L-type VDCCs and read about the research to exploit the induced state of increased BBB permeability to better get drugs into the brain, eg, for chemo.)

>>8366414
Until you conspiracists develop a specific model for said interaction, no one will take you seriously.

It's as bad as the power lines or magnetic field lines new science being spouted all the time.

The radiation won't interact with the ions in your body like calcium as you suggested, so how does it affect cells specifically?

>>8366516
>microwaves affect biological functions

Wifi is not microwaves, it's many times less energetic than them. What's your point?

There's a reason why they put Faraday cages on microwave ovens, it's publicly known.

>>8366538
I just told you. Alteration of voltage gradients across the cell membrane via L-type VDCC activation, leading to influx of Ca2+ (ie increased intracellular calcium). Learn basic physics, learn about the particle machinery comprising VDCCs, and learn to think on your own. Experimentally verified repeatedly, and prevented with VDCC blockers.

And don't drag "conspiracy" into this like some kind of tool. Grow up.

>>8366542
Wi-Fi is the same frequency as a microwave oven, and thus the same energy.

Intensity is a different deal, which is irrelevant, because it's not about specific absorption rate.

File: 1474168647880.jpg (119KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1440x1080px

>>8366542
And those Faraday cages are oftentimes shit- how does your connection fair when you put your wifi router on top of a microwave oven?

>>8366548
Intensity is not irrelevant, the effect is cumulative- so if you accumulate faster you get fucked faster. Just means that low power is still harmful.

>>8366495
So the reason that microwave ovens heat up water so well is that the 2.45Ghz frequency will jiggle the water dipole. Water is a key element of nearly all biological structures. If the water is being acted on by, say, an enzyme, once the water is bound up in said enzyme and gets forcibly jiggled, the enzyme may suffer damage, altering it's function causing cascading effects throughout the cell. Same could be said about nearly any cellular machinery.

>>8366522
And anything else of the same size as the chemo drugs. Let's fuck with the rejection size of semipermiable membranes, kids!

>>8366414
>>8366544
>>8366516
>>8366282
>>8366295
Fuck preach, friendo.

>>8366590
>Intensity is not irrelevant, the effect is cumulative-
...Kind of. L-type VDCCs remain activated for much longer than other subtypes, and the effect of their activation is slow to reverse. They don't really need quite the bombardment that something shorter acting does.

>>8366590
>And anything else of the same size as the chemo drugs.
Yep. Them dualisms, right? I bet neurons love albumin anyway...

No cause we making money off that shit, we funding the studies, you'll never really know bitches. And even if you could do your own studies you either wouldn't or we would discredit you so thoroughly it wouldn't even matter because all your beliefs are diseminated through an information hierarchy and guess who's at the top of it now bitches... Profit motivated corporations. We got the money for ads, we got your gubberments in our pockets, and we got dat brand loyalty son you aint never gonna know till your god damn grandkids got cancer and even then it could be the beef. HAHAHA all the way to the bank motherfuckers

>>8366602
People rightly talk a lot about big pharma's influence on biological sciences, but ignore the equally big telecom. Biggest they're not at all cut-throat, right?

ultimately its just a part of evolution and if wi fi causes cancer its just going to just cull the population thats susceptible to eat over time while humans that dont get it pass on genes that wi-fi induces cancer resistant

>>8366604
People don't have a clues whats going the highers up are looking at human civilization as a really complex petri dish, if only we could get people with more imagination and foresight up there

>>8366610
that's why I'm going to flamethrower my entire city one day so I can weed out the humans that aren't fire resistant.

>>8366658
Except no

>>8366661
unless 10 years from now everyone is dying of terminal wi-fi induced cancer, then in that case.. whoops

>>8366596
Are the L-type VDCCs in small enough population that a low dose of uwaves (say 100mW antenna 1m away for a year....) is enough to activate the entire population?
Thus implying that there is a threshold value above which the interaction doesn't really add any harm?

I wonder if there are separate dose regimes- one regime of these VDCC interactions, and one regime of warm-your-meat-like-a-hotpocket, between which the effects are basically dose- independent.

File: 1473507804501.jpg (11KB, 225x225px)

11KB, 225x225px

Bump for a thread more important than the others.

>>8366697
There's no real pattern that's yet been established either as far as dose response curve for a given frequency, or dose response relative to frequency at a fixed intensity.

A coherent pattern might well exist, but it needs more research. Hopefully the applications for brain cancer etc get that research moving, and ironically, indirectly finish crushing the "not ionizing, not a problem!" line of thought, and forcing modern understanding of radiation into something, rightly, more nuanced.

Bump. I use Wi-Fi all fucking day. I'm scared now.

>>8368070
Don't be scared, be aware. It falls to personal risk assessment. In my mind, it's abundantly clear there's a potent interaction with biological systems, and that it likely nets out as detrimental.

This is very easy for me because I have no emotional attachment to wireless stuff, have never had a cell phone, and have never wanted a cell phone. Ultimately, at the end of the day the choice is whether you'll use the information available to proceed with caution, or if you'll fall in with the history's masses who ignored every indication they had until something finally exploded in their face. I think it's about time the human species stopped riding these waves. The peaks are delusions, the troughs are damage control and cleanup, the midpoint is acceptance. The asinine part is we usually knew all along.

Up to you anon. Just hardwire if it's a computer. Don't know what to tell you if it's a tablet or whatever.

>>8366306
yes please place an parabolic antena on your head that concentrates the radiation in your head

>>8366590
>on top of a microwave oven
You have no idea what a faraday cage is do you friend?

File: RRRRREEEEEEEEE.jpg (171KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 800x600px

NO NOT MY WIFI
NOT MY CELL PHONE
NOOOOO

RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
RRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!

>>8366279
Not anymore than having a cellphone.

>>8368617
Refer to:
>>8367928

Dose response curve does not, yet, have an obvious pattern with frequency.

File: 1471229032682.gif (993KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 500x500px

BUMP.

>>8368496
Don't underestimate the power of the aluminum yarmulke

File: image.jpg (118KB, 569x802px)

118KB, 569x802px

>>8366279
I thought this thread was a joke web I clicked on it

What the fuck is wrong with you faggots

Lol, ops a homooooooooooooooooooo! insignificant