Non-Thermal Electromagnetic Radiation Damage to Lens Epithelium

K-Moss

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2694600/

This study shows smartphones themselves are linked to cataract formation.

"It is recommended to use cell phones from a distance to minimize exposure, thus reducing any potential harmful effects of cell phone use on the lens."

"In summary, our study shows the damaging effects of high frequency microwave radiation on the intact lens and demonstrates that the optical damage can be recovered. However, the data suggest that more exposures to microwave can cause cumulative damage and can cause cataract."

Excerpt:

The doses we used are similar to those the lens receives when we speak on a cell phone; however, cell phone use is never continuous for a period of 8 days and nights. On the other hand, the damage by intermittent use of cell phones can be cumulative. It is also important to consider that the lens in vivo likely has better repair mechanisms than the lens under the culture conditions used in our study. The damage that we are seeing in culture conditions after 15 days of exposure is likely to appear in vivo much later- even 10 or 20 years later. It is recommended to use cell phones from a distance to minimize exposure, thus reducing any potential harmful effects of cell phone use on the lens.

Previous studies suggest that the effect of microwaves on protein conformation and function is not the same as the effects of ambient heating with conducted heat at the same temperature [22-24]. Microwaves exerted a greater effect on proteins than could be explained on the basis of temperature changes alone. Similarly, expression of heat shock protein 70 and phosphorylation of HSP27 were not consistent with the effects of temperature rise alone [13]. In our study, we found that conductive heat altered the optical quality of the lens but in contrast to microwave exposure, damage to lens optical quality by conductive heat was not repaired under the time frame of these experiments. Moreover, the nature of change with conductive heat on the lens epithelium was very distinct from microwave exposure. The mechanism of non-thermal effects on lens epithelium is unknown at present. It has been suggested that the enhanced unfolding of proteins during microwave exposure results from resonant absorption of electromagnetic energy to higher vibration states of the protein or its bound water envelope, causing these vibrational states to be out of thermal equilibrium with the remaining vibrational states [4]. Oscillating electrical fields may also cause unwinding of peripheral regions of protein backbone thereby promoting unfolding [25]. Another possibility is the absorption of high frequency microwaves by bound water [26]. Based on the results of our study, further work is warranted in order to understand the mechanism of damage to the lens epithelium by high frequency microwaves.

They refer to phone calls, but what about the hours a day people use with those RF machines close to their eyes? Surely over time that will do some permanent damage and accelerate the onset of cataracts?

We read:

"Environmental stress, including electromagnetic radiation, has a negative impact on the lens and is considered a risk factor for cataracts [3,6]. In this study we show non-thermal effects of microwaves at the same frequency that is used in cellular phones on the intact lens in organ culture. Microwaves damaged the lens optical quality, as measured by focal length variability. Microwave damage was dose-dependent and at the doses tested was reversible when exposure stopped. Lens morphology was strikingly different in microwave-exposed and conductive heat-exposed lenses, indicating that the effects due to microwaves are different from thermal effects. Remarkably, microwave damage was seen in each of the parameter analyzed. Our results demonstrate that while microwave damage to optical quality was reversed when the exposure was stopped, morphological changes to the epithelium were irreversible."

Notice: "Lens morphology was strikingly different in microwave-exposed and conductive heat-exposed lenses, indicating that the effects due to microwaves are different from thermal effects."

K-Moss

Just bumping this because on Reddit you commonly read highly upvoted things like this:
"Non-ionizing radiation is completely harmless until it's so intense that it causes physical burns, like from sticking your hand in a microwave."

Another Reddit comment you'll see variations of that will be heavily upvoted:

"Cell phones and Bluetooth don't produce ionizing radiation. You could be swimming in an Olympic swimming pool full of active phones and Bluetooth devices and it wouldn't register. You'd have more chance of getting cancer from eating a single banana (which does technically produce ionizing radiation, though not enough to worry about)."

I guess people want to believe that, and it's comforting, but if we look through the literature we know that randos on the Internet authoritatively stating things doesn't necessarily make them scientifically sound.

People should be very restrictive with using mobile phones, as there is a significant body of compelling scientific evidence indicating serious hazards from their use. Therefore, it is advisable to reduce the use to very few and brief calls. People younger than 20 years should have mobile phones that allow short message service messages only, but no talking, because the risks are far higher in young people. Moreover, it has been repeatedly confirmed that the radiation from base stations is harmful to health.

Cell phone radiation damages DNA, an undisputed cause of cancer.26 Cell phone radiation has been shown to cause the blood-brain barrier to leak. The leakage of blood-brain barrier resulting from cell phone use increases the possibility of brain tumors.

The investigation into cell phone safety must look for nonthermal means of cancer promotion.

The Hardell team concludes that the higher the cumulative hours of use, the higher the radiated power, the higher the number of years since first use, the higher the exposure, and the younger the user, then the higher the risk of brain tumor.1,14,23,27,43-45

Source: Risk of Brain Tumors From Wireless Phone Use: https://journals.lww.com/jcat/fulltext/2010/11000/risk_of_brain_tumors_from_wireless_phone_use.1.aspx

I'm not going to include an extensive list of references and/or quotes, but just want to quickly assert that just because radiation is non-ionizing and non-burning doesn't make it harmless. You can search the science to find out I am right.

Also relevant:

https://ledstrain.org/d/3608-effects-of-melatonin-on-wi-fi-induced-oxidative-stress-in-lens-of-rats
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/4135155/eye-pain-does-windows-10-apply-software-driven-har?forum=windows-all&referrer=answers

Here's a worthwhile comment sharing from elsewhere:

While I'm generally fine with using wireless technology when it makes sense and actually improves my life, I would indeed never use wireless earbuds.

The reason for this is simple: the extreme proximity to the brain (i.e., almost "inside").

The field strength of electromagnetic radiation in 3D space falls off with the inverse square of the distance, which also means that it increases squared when the source of RF gets closer.

Example:

The maximum transmission power of WiFi is 1000 mW. Let's just call the field strength in your brain, with your laptop at a distance of 0.5 meters to your head, "1".

The wireless earbuds in your head have a maximum transmission power of 100 mW, so 1/10th of that. However, their distance to your brain is roughly 0.01 meters, or 50 times closer than the laptop. As the field strength increases squared, with the same amount of emitted power, the field strength would be 2500 times higher.
Taking into account that the earphones (Bluetooth) only emit at 1/10th the power of WiFi, we still get 250 times higher exposure of your brain with wireless Bluetooth earplugs than with the WiFi in your laptop on your lap.

Just some food for thought!

Corrections welcome, I'm sure my logic may be a bit over-simplified.

EDIT: This is "squarely" 😂 about the enourmous field strength that wireless earbuds generate in your brain compared to other sources of RF. I make no assumptions about whether these are dangerous or not. I'm just pointing out that if RF turned out to have detrimental health effects, those of the earbuds would likely be 250 times worse than of most other everyday RF sources.

Source: https://forum.loopypro.com/discussion/61577/dark-truth-about-wireless-earphones

Also interesting from the same source:

"Yes, most of the time, the headphones will just be RECEIVING packets. But every packet has to be acknowledged, and that still means that there's multiple loud RF bursts per second right next to my brain.

And all of this is completely unnecessary -- it is trivial to make wireless earbuds that don't transmit ANYTHING and have ZERO latency. Just use a normal analog FM transmitter in the phone and receiver in the earbuds. All problems solved. This still eludes me why this solution isn't mainstream."

Bujubanton111

So can we do a lawsuit both to get paid & to implement laws