Post 9yHxUnsImKyHmz7NeS by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
(DIR) More posts by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
(DIR) Post #9yDyru7p1qz79l7JSK by luke@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-17T20:31:37.656Z
20 likes, 3 repeats
"The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation: what we know, what we need to find out, and what you can do now"Presented by Dr Devra Davis, Visiting Professor of Medicine at the Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, and Visiting Professor of Medicine at Ondokuz Mayis University, Turkey.The LectureWhat are the health effects of mobile phones and wireless radiation? While Australia has led the world in safety standards, including compulsory seat-belt legislation, plain packaging on cigarettes, and product and food disclosure legislation, it falls behind in addressing the significant issues associated with mobile phone use. In this Dean’s Lecture, epidemiologist and electromagnetic radiation expert, Dr Devra Davis, will outline the evolution of the mobile phone and smartphone, and provide a background to the current 19 year old radiation safety standards (SAR), policy developments and international legislation. New global studies on the health consequences of mobile/wireless radiation will be presented, including children’s exposure and risks.The SpeakerDr Devra Davis is an internationally recognised expert on electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones and other wireless transmitting devices. She is currently the Visiting Professor of Medicine at the Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, and Visiting Professor of Medicine at Ondokuz Mayis University, Turkey. Dr Davis was Founding Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at The University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute — the first institute of its kind in the world, to examine the environmental factors that contribute to the majority of cases of cancer.In 2007, Dr Devra Davis founded nonprofit Environmental Health Trust to provide basic research and education about environmental health hazards. Dr Davis served as the President Clinton appointee to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board in the U.S.A. from 1994–1999, an independent executive branch agency that investigates, prevents and mitigates chemical accidents.As the former Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Health in the Department of Health and Human Services, she has counseled leading officials in the United States, United Nations, European Environment Agency, Pan American Health Organization, World Health Organization, and World Bank.Dr Davis holds a B.S. in physiological psychology and an M.A. in sociology from the University of Pittsburgh, 1967. She completed a PhD in science studies at the University of Chicago as a Danforth Foundation Graduate Fellow, 1972 and a M.P.H. in epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University as a Senior National Cancer Institute Post-Doctoral Fellow, 1982. She has authored more than 200 publications and has been published in Lancet and Journal of the American Medical Association as well as the Scientific American and the New York Times.Dr Devra Davis is an internationally recognised expert on electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones and other wireless transmitting devices.YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCY
(DIR) Post #9yFMcOZWeWll0hAldo by jklq@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-18T12:32:34.326Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Truth isn't relative. Just because everybody believed the earth was flat before dosen't mean it was true.
(DIR) Post #9yH1XtmRU4BrdF9Hg8 by djtrumpdaddy@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-19T07:45:42.478Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Luke this video is too spicy.
(DIR) Post #9yHX5WztnHzLOexajY by lmv@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-19T13:39:02.460Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
still waiting for redpills about (((them)))
(DIR) Post #9yHgavJuJObtOfMYDo by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-19T15:25:26.841Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I mean, I totally get how cellphone radiation isn't tested. However, it just doesn't make "sense" why cellphone radiation would be a harmful portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.From a biological standpoint, we pretty well know that anything with a frequency above visibile light (i.e. ultraviolet and higher) can be harmful. But I've not seen any evidence that any frequencies from visible light and below is harmful. So while, cellphone radiation isn't very well tested, the microwave portion of the spectrum is pretty well understood.So if we're really worried about cellphone radiation, then why aren't we worried about our lightbulbs or candles that we use to light the darkness?I just don't see a reason to be worried about this, and I find it a little confusing that this point wasn't brought up in the talk at all.
(DIR) Post #9yHmHDMy5vC1JEmPQG by baguette@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-19T16:29:18.891Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Physically speaking, i think there are way more toxic surrounding materials in our lives:- nuclear smokes from Chernobyl wildfire in May of 2020 (IRSN detected Fukushima before Japan authorities btw) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiHvBtb71Xc- food (meat, veggies) which still contain anti-biotics, pesticides, etc).- the mineral and gazzy pollution through vehicules exhaustion and tires, paints, asbestos, other mineral wools, etc.- psychotropes: alcohol, caffeine, any drug- the sun- ionizing rays like X-rays, rays caught in airplanes (dangerous when regular ofc)- ionizing soil radon (quite a hit in some part of the world like in my region)Despite the lobbying protecting their business, there are way more concerning toxicities in our daily lives with phones like the psychological aspects of "screens" which hinder our cognitive capacities, social skills, etc.The dopamine addiction humans is way more harmful than the electromagnetic emissions imho.Agreed with @nicholas_rees.If you consider old GSM phones say those Nokia 3310, its antenna will pulse far more power than current smartphones. Look up their Specific absorption rate (SAR) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rateWhen she mentions the W/Kg, she doesn't show our an adult body can endure. Showing red areas doesn't prove anything. The figures need to be put in context. Does red mean dangerous or not ? The sperm count study from 2008 she poorly mentions lacks data, here is the brief summary of it http://www.clevelandclinic.org/reproductiveresearchcenter/docs/agradoc239.pdfIt looks conclusive.About the studies on rats, i haven't looked up but: Are these damage compared relatively to human absorption rate. Our adult skins are thicker than 1 week old rats lol.She makes the comparison with GSM to WiFi for her India example.It's not the same power nor are the antennas as close as mobile phones (not on purpose i suppose).I agree with her conclusion on information and reduced use though.*Solution to avoid becoming testies testee* ? Live in a cave, don't eat, breath and become a mineral.Nah jk, we'll all die of cancer. Our genome has not evolved fast enough to sustain the longevity of nowadays humans.
(DIR) Post #9yHomTFLJWh5R7FExc by baguette@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-19T16:57:15.252Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicholas_rees Agreed with you, light bulbs and candles emit electromagnetic waves as well. It's quite a FUD and non-detailed talk aimed at retired people (look at this crowd, they look like Luke).It's the amount that makes the poison.There are way more toxic surrounding materials in our lives:- nuclear smokes from Chernobyl wildfire in May of 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiHvBtb71Xc(not concerning you americans)- food which still contain anti-biotics, pesticides, etc.- the mineral and air intoxications through vehicules exhaustion and tires, paints, mineral wools, etc.- psychotropes: alcohol, caffeine, etc.- ionizing rays like X-rays, rays caught in airplanes (only dangerous when regular ofc)- ionizing soil radon (quite a hit in some part of the world like in my region)- ionizing rays from the sunDespite the lobbying protecting their business, there are way more concerning toxicities in our daily lives with phones like the psychological aspects of "screens" which hinder our cognitive capacities, social skills, etc.The dopamine addiction humans is way more harmful than the electromagnetic emissions imho.About the talk:* If you consider old GSM phones say those Nokia 3310, its antenna will pulse far more power than current smartphones. Look up their Specific absorption rate (SAR) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate* When she mentions the W/Kg, she doesn't show our an adult body can endure. Showing red areas doesn't prove anything. The figures need to be put in context. Does red mean dangerous or not ?* The sperm count study from 2008 she poorly mentions lacks data, here is the brief summary of it http://www.clevelandclinic.org/reproductiveresearchcenter/docs/agradoc239.pdfIt looks conclusive.* Studies on rats: Are these damage compared relatively to human absorption rate. Our adult skins are thicker than 1 week old rats lol.* She makes the comparison with GSM to WiFi for her India example: it's not the same power nor are the antennas as close as mobile phones (not on purpose i suppose).Despite giganitpicking here, i agree with her conclusion on information and reduced use.**Solution to avoid becoming testies testee** ? Live in a cave, don't eat, breath and become a mineral.Nah jk, we'll all die of cancer. Our genome has not evolved fast enough to sustain the longevity of nowadays humans.
(DIR) Post #9yHx5ATY7w12M4Jfxg by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-19T18:30:34.556Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@baguette "Nah jk, we'll all die of cancer. Our genome has not evolved fast enough to sustain the longevity of nowadays humans."I think your conclusion is overly simplistic--not in that you're wrong--but in that I don't think cancer is avoidable. I think there is plenty of reason to believe that you either develop cancer or your cells can't repair themselves. This means that its desirable to avoid things that can damage cell tissue (especially cell dna) with things like radiation.However, my point is different. I don't know of any evidence to suggest that electromagnetic radiation that has a frequency lower than ultra-violet light can damage cells. I agree with you that its the amount that makes the poison, but with anything in the electromagnetic spectrum below ultra-violet light there simply is not enough there to cause meaningful damage.Now, of course, its true that you might be able to achieve the same level of "poison" on lower levels of the electromagnetic spectrum by increasing exposure time, but the fact remains that going outside in the sun under the ultra-violet radiation that it produces for just a couple of minutes will absolutely dwarf the amount you are exposed to by carrying a phone in your pocket--whether its an old GSM phone or not.So its kinda dumb to worry about something like this when you're not taking the time to properly apply sunblock (but then I assume people would be worried about the chemicals in the sunblock!).Look, I wear sunblock anytime I'm going to spend a meaningful amount of time (more than 10 minutes) in the sun in the afternoon (any time from 11:30 to about 5 or 6). Part of this is because I have an extremely soulless pale complexion. Another part is because I know just how damaging ultra-violet light is.All I'm saying is that I'm skeptical of any talk that suggests that electromagnetic radiation is a potential problem that doesn't also strongly advise you to wear sunblock. Wearing sunblock is the number 1 thing that you can do to prevent cancer on your skin, and unless you're doing that I think its hypocritical to worry about other causes of cancer--yes that's right, I think its more important to wear sunblock than it is not to smoke. Smoking isn't anywhere near as dangerous as going outside in the sun with your skin exposed.
(DIR) Post #9yHxUnsImKyHmz7NeS by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-19T18:35:11.222Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@baguette "Nah jk, we'll all die of cancer. Our genome has not evolved fast enough to sustain the longevity of nowadays humans."I think your conclusion is overly simplistic--not in that you're wrong--but in that I don't think cancer is a bad thing from a biological standpoint. I think there is plenty of reason to believe that (eventually) you either develop cancer or your cells can't repair themselves. This means that its desirable to avoid things that can damage cell tissue (especially cell dna) with things like radiation. But it also means that cancer is literally a disease that we'll never be able to overcome, because the alternative is our cells not reproducing.In any case, I don't know of any evidence to suggest that electromagnetic radiation that has a frequency lower than ultra-violet light can damage cells.I agree with you that its the amount that makes the poison, but with anything in the electromagnetic spectrum below ultra-violet light there simply is not enough there to cause meaningful damage.Now, of course, its true that you *might* be able to achieve the same level of "poison" on lower levels of the electromagnetic spectrum by increasing exposure time, but the fact remains that going outside in the sun under the ultra-violet radiation that it produces for just a couple of minutes will absolutely dwarf the amount you are exposed to by carrying a phone in your pocket--whether its an old GSM phone or not. But the truth is that ultra-violet light is at least two orders of magnitude greater than visible light. That means that you're going to have to spend 100 times longer in front of a lightbulb than you would exposed to ultra-violet light to get the same kind of radiation. If you compare ultraviolet light to microwave light, then you're looking at about a million times longer.So its kinda dumb to worry about something like this when you're not taking the time to properly apply sunblock (but then I assume people would be worried about the chemicals in the sunblock!).Look, I wear sunblock anytime I'm going to spend a meaningful amount of time (more than 10 minutes) in the sun in the afternoon (any time from 11:30 to about 5 or 6). Part of this is because I have an extremely soulless pale complexion. Another part is because I know just how damaging ultra-violet light is.All I'm saying is that I'm skeptical of any talk that suggests that electromagnetic radiation is a potential problem that doesn't also strongly advise you to wear sunblock. Wearing sunblock is the number 1 thing that you can do to prevent cancer on your skin, and unless you're doing that I think its hypocritical to worry about other causes of cancer--yes that's right, I think its more important to wear sunblock than it is not to smoke. Smoking isn't anywhere near as dangerous as going outside in the sun with your skin exposed.
(DIR) Post #9yJ9A5dOwktpOdzvYO by barcode@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-20T08:20:13.681Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicholas_rees "So while, cellphone radiation isn't very well tested, the microwave portion of the spectrum is pretty well understood.""So, while, the effects of lead in water pipes isn't very well tested, the superiority of trueborn sons of rome not sending their fair daughters with pales to trudge to a muddy swamp to draw water like a barbarian might is pretty well understood."
(DIR) Post #9yJAhMmWJb1u5Uh7Me by barcode@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-20T08:37:51.352Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I don't doubt her qualifications or the length of her study in the field, but she's a really academic speaker and it weakens the persuasiveness her argument. An hour presentation is torturous. It is absolutely incredible how many things are normal to academics that are freakish and wildly misjudged to everyone who isn't worried about an academic career, getting tenure, not having a grudge with a professor.No wet-behind-the-ears advertising intern on their first day would say "war hyphen game". Every single fact could be on her side, every step of the argument made with flawless logic and the charmlessness still kills the persuasiveness of it.If the point of these studies is to say stop behaviours like keeping a phone in a pocket or bra, why are they so apathetic to what methods advertisers do - or more importantly, never, ever do that academics use - to change behaviour?
(DIR) Post #9yJBxKmJdB90ShmDAm by barcode@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-20T08:51:54.802Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
She didn't sumarise and memorise her own points, how's anyone else got a chance? What's the percentage of people who were in the room that years later would carry a mobile phone in a pocket every day?This is one hour of feeling both alarmed by the subject and bored by the medium at the same time, my brain is like a car with feet slammed on both the accelerator and brakes.
(DIR) Post #9yJDn7CnRJgpNYPxmy by barcode@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-20T09:12:30.327Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Einstein quote's ironic.
(DIR) Post #9yJgx2QGyPyq71nyQS by royaljelly@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-20T14:39:03.864Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicholas_rees @barcode Not very good analogy. We know that microwave radiation is non ionizing and that it carries less energy than even visible light. Really, the worst that microwave radiation can do can't be worse than the worst visible light can do
(DIR) Post #9yJhIhvvpiI8w7wijA by royaljelly@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-20T14:43:09.721Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
>Internationally recognised expert on electromagnetic radiation>Doesn't have a background that in any way relates to physics hmm
(DIR) Post #9yLdnPPmiuP8ylDIg4 by baguette@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-21T13:13:18.182Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicholas_rees > I don't know of any evidence to suggest that electromagnetic radiation that has a frequency lower than ultra-violet light can damage cells.- if ionizing the frequency breaks the cells whatever the power (depends on the duration),- if non-ionizing, only power modifies the state of the cell. Basically it vibrates molecules which results in heat.The question in that case is: what temperature can your brain sustain ?About the sun, it varies with tones and age. Young and old are more sensitive to the sun for their skins are thinner and less resilient to ionization.> I assume people would be worried about the chemicals in the sunblockGood point.>Smoking isn't anywhere near as dangerous as going outside in the sun with your skin exposed.True, you'll see the results faster with the sun =)
(DIR) Post #9yLdyXOZOPQ0unx4a0 by baguette@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-21T13:15:19.110Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicholas_rees @barcode @royaljelly it's mostly heat, defined by the wave power and duration since frequency don't apply in the non-ionizing spectrum.
(DIR) Post #9yLeJH4VHLUCMySCqO by baguette@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-21T13:19:04.470Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicholas_rees @barcode funny analogy but the first piece "while, cellphone radiation isn't very well tested" needs more light to get shed on. It's a peculiar piece of device that emits non-ionizing radiations. Which are on the contrary quite well understood. Heating brain cells is quite well understood as well. So hypothesis can be made upon those without requiring to go through the Suns of Rome deviation.
(DIR) Post #9yLeQIyuZo4oJtBtey by baguette@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-21T13:20:20.858Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@djtrumpdaddy But are spices cancerous ?
(DIR) Post #9yLigFUbiOdHwvsGxM by hrafn@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-21T14:05:28.670Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@royaljelly Conspiracy theorists feel that having any qualifications or expertise whatsoever regarding the topic you're talking about means you've been brainwashed by the system, maaaaan.
(DIR) Post #9yM0JGh8sTcoBzvfPc by hope@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-21T17:25:34.031Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lmv ....
(DIR) Post #9yOBR1Q12tnIwVjovY by logen@9chen.org
2020-08-22T18:39:21.816Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz @baguette@videos.lukesmith.xyz The focus is on cell phones, talking about UV from the sun and wearing sunblock would be beyond the scope of this talk.Can UV be a problem? Sure, but that's not what we're talking about here. Were talking about microwaves, not the whole light spectrum.
(DIR) Post #9yOreGTsYHHhUsXg24 by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-23T02:32:29.645Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@baguette "The question in that case is: what temperature can your brain sustain ?"I mean, we got that pretty well figured out. You don't start to get brain damage from a fever until you have a fever well above 100 degrees. Now, I guess you could say that you're talking about the temperature of your brain and not the temperature of your body, but its always going to be pretty close to the same thing. There is an absolute BOATLOAD of blood that is constantly going in and out of your brain, and this regulates your body temperature pretty well so that its mostly consistent throughout the rest of your body.In other words, I really don't think there is enough energy in cellphone's microwave radiation to heat up your brain before that heat is dispersed throughout your body by means of your blood. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you use your cellphone to pop your popcorn, but I have been unsuccessful in my attempts.I'm not saying there aren't problems with cellphones, but this just doesn't strike me as one of them.
(DIR) Post #9yOssQ1RyQH367YeIa by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-23T02:46:24.226Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@logen@9chen.org But it does matter. There's so much electromagnetic radiation around us that its insane. Even if you go out into the tundra of the antarctic, you're still being exposed to tons of radiation. As always, and as @baguette rightly said "It's the amount that makes the poison." The truth is that there is a high end of the EM spectrum (i.e. gamma waves) and a low end (i.e. radio waves). In general the high end simply has more energy in their waves--because their frequency is higher. Now, that's not always true, amplitude matters just like frequency does, but if we know all of these things then we can actually calculate the energy of the radiation that we're talking about. And guess what--we know all of this pretty well because we can literally measure these things.So if you're going to speak on a topic and say that microwaves are dangerous, then you're going to have to explain what you're saying "dangerous" actually means. In otherwords, microwaves are dangerous relative to what? And you can do this pretty easily. You can compare the energy in microwave radiation from a cellphone to how much energy is in an x-ray, 10 minutes out in direct sunlight, a 2 hour airplane flight, etc. You can actually calculate these things and come up with a pretty good idea of how dangerous something is.Instead what we get is a talk about how the FDA (I don't recall what bullshit bureaucratic organization was performing the experiments cited in the video) fucked up their experiments. But the truth is that I don't trust any governmental organization to test products for me. I look at what's out there and see what makes sense to me based off of what I know about how the world works (and I reject the idea that modern science has a monopoly on that by the way).All I'm saying is that this is a giant waste of time because this is stuff that's pretty well already figured out and understood, and we don't need to expose people to electromagnetic radiation to "test" and find out what is safe or not. We know that--in general--anything at visible light and lower is usually safe. But notice I'm saying generally and usually because there are cases in which it would be dangerous to be exposed to radiation (say if the wire mesh on your microwave was broken, then that radiation could indeed be dangerous to you).So the tl;dr is simply it does matter what the danger of the rest of the em spectrum is because if you don't talk about that in your talk then we have nothing to compare the danger you're talking about to. However, that would kind of kill the talk, now wouldn't it?
(DIR) Post #9yOtA45sF5qeIe2d4y by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-23T02:49:25.753Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@barcode "the effects of lead in water pipes isn't very well tested,"The effects of lead in the human body is pretty well understood. So why the fuck do we need to test whether or not that lead comes from paint or it comes from the water you drink. Are you really that fucking stupid?All I'm saying is that you can take knowledge from one area, and apply it in another area. What a fucking concept?
(DIR) Post #9yOtcqHafdF3rbFB1U by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-23T02:54:47.028Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@barcode "the effects of lead in water pipes isn't very well tested,"The effects of lead in the human body is pretty well understood. So why in the world would we need to test whether or not that lead comes from paint or it comes from the water you drink? All I'm saying is that you can take knowledge from one area, and apply it in another area.I'd really like to make a joke about how you had lead in your water growing up because of how ridiculous your reasoning is here, but the sad truth is that this has actually happened to people in real life and has real world consequences and is very sad.
(DIR) Post #9yRQko36Xp4c3XnEwK by deadmanwalkin8192@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-24T08:15:02.852Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Luke have you ever had a psychiatrist diagnosis? I am curious whether you are paranoid schizophrenic, although having watched your videos you would probably say the psychiatrist are working for (((them))) so their opinion doesn't matter.
(DIR) Post #9z37nh3DY6FqH4JSts by baguette@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-09-11T12:41:54.848Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicholas_rees I agree on the heat dissipation throughout the blood. But... do you mean the phone triad corn popper demo was a inside job ??! Wow!
(DIR) Post #9zcxo3VKGlFzAqI2Fc by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-09-28T19:39:31.489Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@baguette Yeah, I'm a conspiracy theorist like that.
(DIR) Post #9zruhqMzU63StEFzOq by reidmartin@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-10-06T00:45:27.221Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Luke I literally heard her say 'relative risk' in the middle...I'm dissapointed
(DIR) Post #A3PYiq0rq8dzSXe1GC by Gray14@shitposter.club
2021-01-19T23:55:55.879870Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@luke Reminder that Luke won't even rest his thinkpads on his crotch