Debunking: How Wifi Is Slowly Killing You - I have no idea...

in #steemstem6 years ago

A couple of days ago I've noticed a very serious article with the clickbait Title

How Wifi Is Slowly Killing You


And honestly, after years devoted to biology and physical chemistry - I have no idea

So, let's find out together.
The post I'm debunking is actually lightened, paraphrased version of this article

Wi-fi signals are basically radio waves of different frequencies that are traveled through electromagnetic spectrum to travel the data wirelessly without any medium.

Strange English, but ok... WiFi is emitting electromagnetic waves, in the GHz frequency range.

The author hasn't told us what exact band of WiFi he was thinking about, but ok, it's somewhere between 1 GHz and 60 GHz, source

It's extremely important to speak precisely because the difference between 1.5 GHz (L-band) and 9 GHz (X-band) is incredible. The first one easily penetrates through the whole mouse in EPR experiment, while the second frequency can be blocked by a few mm of water.

The first sentence and it's already very vague

Sounds amazing, and previously these microwaves were considered to be harmless to us. However, recent studies have proven some shocking results which we must be aware of. It can damage us from top to bottom.

Yes, this is true, and it's implemented in the safety regulations, like this one

At frequencies between 100 kHz and 6 GHz, RF energy absorption is commonly described in terms of the specific absorption rate (SAR), which is a measure of the rate of energy deposition per unit mass of body tissue and is usually expressed in units of watts per kilogram (W/kg). Based on a large amount of historical knowledge, national and international exposure limits have been established to protect the general public against adverse effects associated with acute RF energy exposures

I would be really surprised to see the product that doesn't follow the safety regulation standards

Claim No1:


Wi-fi signals can degrade the functional performance of our brain. Researchers have found out the exposure to signals can reduce the activity of the brain in different places when the person is regularly exposed to the wi-fi or 4G signals.

Thank you for not citing the source... However, I've found the paper cited in a similar article.

The frequency used in this paper was 2.4 GHz (ok...), SAR was about 2 W/kg (also ok, within the limits).

And the conclusions were:

Our findings cannot be directly used to infer whether the similar effects would be observed by other frequency RF-EMF...
However, whether the induced alteration on spontaneous low frequency fluctuations is directly harmful to brain function still needs to be investigated

P1.jpg

Claim No2:


Our cardiovascular system is also exposed to wi-fi signals when we are continuously exposed to it. It may potentially cause an increased pressure on the heart and cardiovascular system. The heart rate can respond to the electromagnetic signals and it can increase in the same way as it would for a person who is in stressed conditions.

No source, again... But ok... Here it is, the retracted one

P2.jpg

Claim No3:


Increased exposure to wi-fi signals has also been linked to the increased risk of hypertension

Again... But again, I've found it.
My guide is this text

Incredibly, but this paper doesn't even mention the WiFi

P3.jpg

Claim No4:


exposure to wi-fi signals has also been linked to the increased risk of hypertension

And the conclusion was:

There were no differences in the percentage of viable sperm between the test and control groups

In addition, in this paper, they also tested the heating of the testicles by holding the laptop on them.

P4.jpg

Claim No5:


As discussed above, men can be severely affected due to the wi-fi signals. It is also revealed that females can undergo severe damage in terms of fertility as well. It can damage the egg cells and also cause failed pregnancy, as it can even damage the structure of DNA.

I have no idea how, but let's check the source. This source is actually claiming this, so let's take a closer look.

The authors have performed the measurements of enzymes involved in ROS. And ROS are known to be associated with the fertility... Thus... WiFi = Bad Fertility

Claim No6:


May cause Cancer, wi-fi exposure can also be associated with the increased risk of cancer. When the electromagnetic radiations experimented on the animals, it was found that they were capable of producing tumors in their body.

This is from the youtube

One single anecdote is not science.

Claim No7:

Researchers have shown that exposure of children to wi-fi is a red alert for all parents. It can especially damage their healthy development and growth, and cause various problems as they grow up.

This was published in the leaflet of the Insurance Company.

Claim No8:

Now we also know that low-frequency modulation due to wi-fi signals can affect our sleep and cause us insomnia in a long term. Experiments have now proved that the signals do cause changes in th

The final claim, thanks God...

The study included EEG measurements in 4 different "modes" of cellphone activity.
Statistics is non-existent, spectral analysis (what?) is non-existent and the reproducibility was not even tested.
In other words, reading this paper was wasting of my time.

And here is the quotation from the paper:

P5.jpg

Conclusion:


  • Microwave radiation in GHz frequency range can be harmful
  • This is why we have the regulations to make the products safe
  • Papers used to strengthen the claim of danger are based on: 1 retracted paper, 1 wrong citation, 2 non-scientific sources, and 4 papers with the inconclusive results (that means "shitty")

References:


Ask the people who really know

Let the actors act, let the singers sing and let the scientists do the science

Sort:  

Wifi can be a problem for fertility. The proof is the following: some people may be using the internet instead of multiplying themselves... QFDornot...

Ok, I know where is the exit door ;)

:D lol

That particular statement was the only challenging topic to debunk because there are publications - but all the supporting papers originate from the same research group.

The suspicious part is that they put the word "fertility" (or something cool) in the title and the whole paper is about something else. It's usually some sort of "shotgun biochemistry" (measure everything you can). With the small sample (always less than 10) and with some illiterate math (no math is the best math).

After doing spurious assays in a small sample without deep analysis they simply connect everything with everything.

Clickbait titles then, by a single group self-citing itself ... I see :)

In many countries (mainly South/ South-Eastern Asia), the number of references is an important factor for the career. The tactic is simple - "upvote for upvote"

In the Eastern Europe, it's about the number of publications, thus it's often published something that was partially done, carelessly done or done only once (don't check it again, it could turn out differently)

I received many e-mails about citation requests. I usually ignore them all (even if I always answer). However, once in a while, I am really missing an important citation. So...

Reviewer 2: Major Revision

I was unpleasantly surprised to see that you, simple peasants, were able to write this paper without citing the Dr. Genius (2005), Dr. Genius (2010) and his lovely wife Dr. Geniusette (2012). Although those have almost nothing to do with the research, given references will provide you some beautiful "blue sky" sentences for the Introduction.

You also missed the dot mark on the page 8 - this is unacceptable

Major Revision!

I have a lot of stories to tell about referee reports... But this is maybe more suitable with a beer somewhere in a nice pub ^^

I understand there are some websites on the interwebs dedicated to demonstrating acts of reproduction? Would these useful tutorials not bolster community fertility?

erh... I pass... :)

Wifi signals do prevent me from sleeping, but mostly because I use my phone in bed.

Seriously, its always nice to see garbage articles debunked so nice work!

😄

Use f.lux!

Not saying he's a troll but with freedom of putting whatever you want on steemit and no sources as you said who knows if it's true or not, great post though really interesting how you debunk each claim and you actually explain and get deep into it and use references!!
Great job man

Nice debunking! I like the use of the memes.

I love this mean. Seem like a debate to me; how you brought out the points one after thw other to debunk seperately! Brilliant.

Even though the original writer may be correct, his lack of credible source and bad choice of words just made me become your follower.

Wifi may just be harmful as microwave is after all.

Thanks for commenting :)

Here is the real-life "proof"
Military and civilian radars are working in L, S, C, X, Ku, K, Ka bands (1 to 40 GHz)
If those frequencies are so dangerous - military would use the radars only. Why bothering with the airplanes :D

Awesome post! I perused the original article too, but I was too frustrated to even bother responding! Glad someone tore it down for us :)

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.25
TRX 0.11
JST 0.033
BTC 62986.12
ETH 3072.14
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.84