Phones and Wi-Fi, according to scientists, can induce Alzheimer disease

by Hilbert Hagedoorn on: 05/04/2022 08:42 AM | source: futurism | 59 comment(s)

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.

Related Stories

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...

12 pages « < 9 10 11 12

CalculuS
Senior Member

Posts: 3239
Joined: 2014-07-28

#6015829 Posted on: 05/10/2022 12:30 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.

God those studies made those ridiculous gunnar glasses really popular when all it did was put an orange filter over glass.

Worthless.

fantaskarsef
Senior Member

Posts: 14289
Joined: 2014-07-21

#6015875 Posted on: 05/10/2022 08:40 AM

Aura89
Senior Member

Posts: 8394
Joined: 2008-07-31

#6016376 Posted on: 05/11/2022 06:47 PM

Haven't been checking in on this thread for a few days, and apparently I've missed good popcorn opportunities.
Soon: Popcorn's dangerous for you, since it can be hot, and hot is bad, it contains almost only carbohydrates, which are bad for you, and if you use the microwave to prepare it, it's even more dangerous!

https://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20120808/popcorn-butter-flavorant-linked-to-alzheimers#:~:text=Aug.,work%20in%20microwave%20popcorn%20factories.

Neo Cyrus
Senior Member

Posts: 10489
Joined: 2006-02-14

#6016473 Posted on: 05/12/2022 07:16 AM

We may have Alzheimer's, but at least we don't have Alzheimer's.

Where did you find that gear in Elden Ring?

You have to propose to Malenia with the right flowers, then dodge her attacks, with nothing equiped, for 69 hours and 42 minutes straight. Then some dude will rush in screaming that this has to be a conspiracy, have a heart attack and die, and you can loot him.

I personally think Radagon/the galaxy supercluster thing was tougher due to cheese hitboxes on them...

12 pages « < 9 10 11 12

Post New Comment

Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.