ASUS Radeon RX 7600 STRIX OC review
Corsair RM1200X SHIFT 1200W PSU Review
Intel NUC 13 Pro (Arena Canyon) review
Endorfy Arx 700 Air chassis review
Beelink SER5 Pro (Ryzen 7 5800H) mini PC review
Crucial T700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Review - 12GB/s
Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
Phones and Wi-Fi, according to scientists, can induce Alzheimer disease
Per a recent study, our cell phones and excessive exposure to Wi-Fi radiation may have a role in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease.
According to a news release regarding the findings, the majority of experts think that Alzheimer's disease is caused by an abnormal accumulation of calcium in the brain. According to the study, electromagnetic fields (EMF) may contribute to the calcium accumulation. Energy of this sort is released by gadgets such as cell phones.
“Electromagnetic fields act through time-varying electrical spikes and magnetic forces on a nanosecond scale. Any one of these can produce anyone's worst nightmare: extremely early-onset Alzheimer's disease," said study author Martin Pall of Washington State University. In addition, he states that young people who are exposed to "radiation from cell phones or Wi-Fi" for many hours a day are at risk of developing "digital dementia."
Electromagnetic fields have been connected to health concerns in the past. While the National Cancer Institute states that a relationship between EMFs and cancer is improbable and that typical levels of EMFs have no effect on people, Healthline reports that other, more prevalent ailments have been linked to EMFs, such as irritation, headaches, and sleeplessness.
The link between Alzheimer's disease and cell phones is still being studied, albeit not as thoroughly as it should be, as it is now a secondary issue, perhaps even sinister, that it is not studied more thoroughly, given the widespread use of mobile devices, which should be sufficient to warrant further investigation.
Samsung presents three Galaxy S10 smartphones and foldable Galaxy Fold - 02/21/2019 09:46 AM
Samsung has finally announced its three models Galaxy S10 models. The company also unveiled the Galaxy Fold, a smartphone with a foldable screen. The smartphones were revealed on Wednesday evening du...
Sennheiser Anounces New 300 PRO Series Headphones and Headsets - 04/13/2018 08:01 AM
With the 300 PRO series, Sennheiser launches new headphones and headsets designed with this demanding context in mind, fine-tuned with users to deliver when and where it matters. Alongside outstanding...
Nvidia Tegra No Longer Considered To Be SoC for Phones and Tablets - 05/21/2014 02:48 PM
Nvidia learned the hard way that the mobile telephone and tablet market is harsh, brutal and monopolized. In an interview with CNET NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang pretty much dropped a bomb when I learne...
New Beats Wireless Headphones and Speakers - 11/14/2013 09:32 AM
Beats Electronics LLC (Beats), the leading audio brand co-founded by legendary artist and producer Dr. Dre and Interscope Geffen A&M Chairman Jimmy Iovine, today announced that it will be expandin...
ASUS Xonar Essence STU External Sound Card and Headphones Amplifier - 04/26/2013 07:24 AM
ASUS today announced the Xonar Essence STU USB external digital-to-analog converter (DAC) and headphone amplifier, based on the acclaimed design and quality of Xonar Essence ST/STX internal sound card...
anticupidon
Senior Member
Posts: 7285
Joined: 2008-03-06
Senior Member
Posts: 7285
Joined: 2008-03-06
#6015242 Posted on: 05/07/2022 12:12 AM
Are people so gullible that they believe these so-called leading scientists, that are paid handsomely for shilling products? There is a lot of money in Cellphones and WIFI tech. If a scientist brought new evidence explaining that microwaves are even deadlier than we are told, there would be a huge campaign to discredit him. Oh, wait.
The last two years have shown that scientists are full of it.
Some truth is uncomfortable for some, so scientists have to "make do" to present it more " sellable ".
I catch your drift .
Are people so gullible that they believe these so-called leading scientists, that are paid handsomely for shilling products? There is a lot of money in Cellphones and WIFI tech. If a scientist brought new evidence explaining that microwaves are even deadlier than we are told, there would be a huge campaign to discredit him. Oh, wait.
The last two years have shown that scientists are full of it.
Some truth is uncomfortable for some, so scientists have to "make do" to present it more " sellable ".
I catch your drift .
Ven0m
Senior Member
Posts: 1843
Joined: 2005-08-12
Senior Member
Posts: 1843
Joined: 2005-08-12
#6015470 Posted on: 05/08/2022 04:07 AM
In such cases, there should be a link to the original paper with peer review.
Without source, it's difficult to assess the credibility of the research. Well, it's easy if it's a complete bs.
I've seen too many papers with abstracts completely unrelated to the described experiments and their results. Or the research method was completely off, samples statistically weak, conclusions based on post-experiment thoughts rather than the initial hypothesis.
When reading such headline, I'm like "screenshot or it didn't happen". There's no proof by authority. The problem is that the science gets more and more complex, esoteric. Effectively, often times we have to rely on smarter people to tell if something is true or not. That's why there's something like peer review - can other people come up with the same conclusion by reproducing the experiment? Yet, with some statistics knowledge, one can surprisingly often judge the paper quality, even from different field of science.
For example I've read quite a lot of papers about studies on harmful effect of blue light. News articles used to be assuming more than in the abstract itself, even opposite to it. To make the paper appear to be more worthy of publishing, the abstracts tend to inflate the measured effects. They can have more conclusions than it would appear from the experiment itself - described in the very same paper. I've seen sample sizes of 20 or even 2 people...The way of selecting the test group can be flawed too, There are papers with no control group too. Conclusions extrapolation is also too frequent. You can find many on f lux website. For example the paper was on much faster aging of retina exposed to blue light. You could see "blue light kills your eyes" news, yet the paper described intense light, like direct sky or blue LEDs exposition on eyes of people with lenses replaced after cataracta. And these were old lenses without the appropriate near-uv filters, which are present naturally in the eyes, and in the new type artificial lenses - after the problem became better known. Was the paper wrong? No, it described an important issue, however not applicable to the most of us. Does it mean that blue light is harmless? Nope; it's been proven that bright light exposure can damage the eyes, especially when it's longer, and shorter waves (blue, violet), can make it worse. On top of that there's melatonine release disruption. In general - no, but there are specific scenarios when it can hurt us in a specific way. It's rarely simple.
We shouldn't believe the research because it's aligned with our beliefs, or dismiss it just because we don't like it. We should be skeptical, aware of the context, and know how the scientific method works.
Strong claims need strong evidence.
In such cases, there should be a link to the original paper with peer review.
Without source, it's difficult to assess the credibility of the research. Well, it's easy if it's a complete bs.
I've seen too many papers with abstracts completely unrelated to the described experiments and their results. Or the research method was completely off, samples statistically weak, conclusions based on post-experiment thoughts rather than the initial hypothesis.
When reading such headline, I'm like "screenshot or it didn't happen". There's no proof by authority. The problem is that the science gets more and more complex, esoteric. Effectively, often times we have to rely on smarter people to tell if something is true or not. That's why there's something like peer review - can other people come up with the same conclusion by reproducing the experiment? Yet, with some statistics knowledge, one can surprisingly often judge the paper quality, even from different field of science.
For example I've read quite a lot of papers about studies on harmful effect of blue light. News articles used to be assuming more than in the abstract itself, even opposite to it. To make the paper appear to be more worthy of publishing, the abstracts tend to inflate the measured effects. They can have more conclusions than it would appear from the experiment itself - described in the very same paper. I've seen sample sizes of 20 or even 2 people...The way of selecting the test group can be flawed too, There are papers with no control group too. Conclusions extrapolation is also too frequent. You can find many on f lux website. For example the paper was on much faster aging of retina exposed to blue light. You could see "blue light kills your eyes" news, yet the paper described intense light, like direct sky or blue LEDs exposition on eyes of people with lenses replaced after cataracta. And these were old lenses without the appropriate near-uv filters, which are present naturally in the eyes, and in the new type artificial lenses - after the problem became better known. Was the paper wrong? No, it described an important issue, however not applicable to the most of us. Does it mean that blue light is harmless? Nope; it's been proven that bright light exposure can damage the eyes, especially when it's longer, and shorter waves (blue, violet), can make it worse. On top of that there's melatonine release disruption. In general - no, but there are specific scenarios when it can hurt us in a specific way. It's rarely simple.
We shouldn't believe the research because it's aligned with our beliefs, or dismiss it just because we don't like it. We should be skeptical, aware of the context, and know how the scientific method works.
Strong claims need strong evidence.
Calenhad
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 2022-02-22
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 2022-02-22
#6015792 Posted on: 05/09/2022 08:04 PM
The peer reviews for this should be worth a read
The peer reviews for this should be worth a read
Keitosha
Senior Member
Posts: 4940
Joined: 2004-11-16
Senior Member
Posts: 4940
Joined: 2004-11-16
#6015809 Posted on: 05/09/2022 09:55 PM
Where did you find that gear in Elden Ring?
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: 2012-06-21
What nonsense LowIQanon FUD.
First, this particular "EMF is bad, mmkay" guy is a KNOWN QUACK of the kind that only fools, Trumpists, and anti-vaxx kooks fall for. There's no SCIENCE being done here. He posts this crap every 5-10 years just to get attention and generate clickbait. Stop falling for it.
Second, actual credible scientists have brought us everything we count on today, including a longer life and the ability to fall for and then post the most ignorant, clueless nonsense.
Quite the judgmental type you are mate. Do you think I'm anti-vax? (nope had all essential vaccines), not a Trump fan. Political atheist. I'm old enough to have experienced a multitude of politicians and they all work for the banks, do everything for the banks, and go to war for banks. Even Trump is a puppet.
Telegrapher's disease was what we now call influenza. Before that, it was really rare. Yes and only people working the radios and telegraphs suffered from it. Almost as rare as diabetes until the industrial revolution and the invention of the lozenges press.
I'll say it again. There is far too much money involved in Wifi tech for it to be dangerous. Just like petroleum. They ain't never giving us zero-point energy, nuclear fusion, name your power source, it ain't happening until the petrol runs out.
Keep trusting, fortunately, there are people with their heads out of their arses and are vigilant. Sometimes they get it wrong, but mostly no. The covid stuff they were bang on about.