[HN Gopher] Radio operator exposure to RF/microwave radiation an...
___________________________________________________________________
Radio operator exposure to RF/microwave radiation and the risk of
brain tumors (2006)
Author : hammock
Score : 20 points
Date : 2023-08-16 17:56 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
| atonse wrote:
| Aren't radio and microwaves non-ionizing radiation? Isn't it
| typically that binary? (that non-ionizing radiation doesn't
| affect our DNA etc and cause issues).
|
| Or is it more complex than that? Because I've always thought
| microwave radiation is safe since it's non-ionizing.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Non-ionizing radiation can affect your DNA, for instance UV can
| cause DNA damage in skin cells. [1]
|
| In my opinion this kind of study continues to try and prove a
| negative, which is very difficult.
|
| [1] https://bitesizebio.com/36762/how-uv-light-damages-dna/
| jjoonathan wrote:
| > Non-ionizing radiation can affect your DNA, for instance UV
|
| UV: 3eV to 124eV
|
| RF: .00001eV
| arcticbull wrote:
| Yes I was not implying RF did anything at all to your DNA.
| I think that premise is silly.
| atonse wrote:
| To further complicate things, UV only causes damage at
| certain wavelengths right?
|
| So maybe part of the issue is that "UV" or "Microwave" are
| too broad as categories to make a statement like "Microwaves
| are totally safe"
| jjoonathan wrote:
| UVA and UVC are separated by 5x. UV and RF are separated by
| 1000000x.
| SigmundA wrote:
| Pretty simple the higher the wavelength the higher the
| photon energy and the more likely to cause non-thermal
| effects.
|
| Microwaves have very low photon energy far below any
| mechanism known to cause non-thermal effects. RF can heat
| you based on power absorption that is all.
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| > Non-ionizing radiation can affect your DNA, for instance UV
| can cause DNA damage in skin cells.
|
| But UV is ionizing. The article you linked to says:
|
| > UV-B and UV-A rays are two forms of high-energy radiation
| that ionize (i.e., remove electrons from) molecules in a
| photochemical reaction that generates new molecular products.
| [deleted]
| arcticbull wrote:
| I suppose I was imprecise.
|
| UV-A and UV-B are non-ionizing. UV-C is ionizing but it's
| blocked by the ozone layer almost completely. So when we
| talk about UV radiation we generally mean A and B, and it
| is non-ionizing.
|
| UV-A and especially UV-B are still capable of inducing DNA
| damage despite being non-ionizing. Specific mechanisms
| here. [1].
|
| I didn't catch that in my initial article, but it is wrong
| on that particular point.
|
| From [1]:
|
| > UV-A and visible light energy (up to 670-700 nm) are able
| to generate singlet oxygen (1O2) that can damage DNA via
| indirect photosensitizing reactions.
|
| > UV-B radiation is one of the most important energetic
| solar components that may lead to the formation of three
| major classes of DNA lesions, such as cyclobutane
| pyrimidine dimers (CPDs), pyrimidine 6-4 pyrimidone
| photoproducts (6-4PPs), and their Dewar isomers.
|
| Anyways, it's an interesting paper.
|
| [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3010660/
| adamredwoods wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet
|
| I wasn't aware of this, so I looked it up. It seems some
| UV light can be ionizing, such as the shorter wavelength
| variety. UVB is not, but can cause chemical reactions,
| such as fluorescence. UVC, which can be ionizing, doesn't
| normally reach earth's surface.
|
| UV light causes reactive oxygen species, I guess this is
| not the same as ionizing.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709783/
|
| (EDIT: more responses have been added by others that echo
| this information)
| olyjohn wrote:
| UV is right on the edge of of the spectrum for non-ionizing
| radiation. I would bet that it still has some ionizing
| effects, as I'm sure the line between ionizing and non-
| ionizing is just just a cutoff at a specific frequency.
| hammock wrote:
| No, it is not binary.
|
| Alpha or beta particles damages DNA by breaking chemical bonds
| in the DNA backbone or bases, leading to single-strand breaks
| or more severe damage.
|
| Gamma rays can directly ionize atoms, leading to the formation
| of free radicals and other reactive species. These free
| radicals can damage DNA by causing single-strand and double-
| strand breaks, base modifications, and other types of chemical
| damage.
|
| Non-ionizing radiation can also damage DNA, in a number of
| different ways. UV radiation damages DNA in four different
| ways:
|
| 1) Thymine Dimers Formation: One of the most common types of
| UV-induced DNA damage is the formation of thymine dimers. In
| DNA, thymine (one of the four nucleotide bases) absorbs UV
| radiation and becomes excited. In this excited state, it can
| react with an adjacent thymine base on the same strand, forming
| a covalent bond between them. This creates a thymine dimer,
| which is a distortion in the normal DNA structure. Thymine
| dimers can disrupt the DNA replication and transcription
| processes, leading to genetic mutations if not properly
| repaired.
|
| 2) DNA Strand Breaks: UV radiation can also cause breaks in the
| sugar-phosphate backbone of the DNA molecule. These breaks can
| occur directly due to the energy of the UV radiation or
| indirectly through the formation of reactive oxygen species.
| DNA strand breaks can interfere with DNA replication and repair
| mechanisms.
|
| 3) Formation of Cyclobutane Pyrimidine Dimers (CPDs): CPDs are
| a specific type of thymine dimer that forms when two adjacent
| pyrimidine bases (usually thymine) become covalently bonded.
| These dimers create a kink in the DNA structure, causing
| distortion and affecting the proper functioning of DNA enzymes.
|
| 4) Oxidative Damage: UV radiation can lead to the production of
| reactive oxygen species within cells. These highly reactive
| molecules can damage DNA and other cellular components by
| causing oxidative stress.
|
| There could be ways non-UV, non-ionizing radiation can damage
| DNA as well, and studies such as this one explore that idea.
| SigmundA wrote:
| The non-ionizing methods for EM are still based on photon
| energy for which RF has orders of magnitude less than UV
| which is ionizing on the high end and near ionizing on the
| low end.
|
| There is no know non-thermal mechanism which RF can cause DNA
| damage and you did not seem to present one, only that the
| photon energy of UV is high enough to cause photo chemical
| effects that RF simply cannot do.
| atonse wrote:
| Thank you. This is so informative, wish I could bookmark it
| :)
| jjoonathan wrote:
| > Non-ionizing radiation can also damage DNA, in a number of
| different ways. UV radiation damages DNA in four different
| ways:
|
| Good grief, what's with all the people confidently lumping UV
| and RF together? This is not a small distinction, a tiny
| fudge factor, a little oopsie-doodle. We are talking
| completely different ball games in completely different parks
| in different countries speaking different languages. The
| photon energies (and, therefore, the direct effects on
| matter) are wildly different. Would you rather be hit by a
| penny or hit by a car?
|
| UV: 3eV
|
| RF: .00001eV
| hammock wrote:
| I didn't lump them together. My last sentence calls out
| non-UV (like RF) separately. I merely used UV as an example
| of non-ionizing radiation, which contrary to a suggested
| "binary rule" for ionizing/non-ionizing radiation, can
| actually damage DNA.
| mcguire wrote:
| Note that International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
| Protection is a thing.
|
| https://www.icnirp.org/
| hn8305823 wrote:
| Non-ionizing RF at high enough concentrations causes heating
| which can directly damage body tissue/organs. The sensitivity
| to this effect varies by tissue type, location, and most
| importantly by frequency. Higher frequencies are not always
| worse than lower ones at the same power level, molecular
| structure and resonances can be more sensitive at specific
| frequency bands.
|
| So the question with regard to tumors is can this heating cause
| changes in DNA? My non-scientific/non-medical opinion is that
| it can but not before major structural damage occurs killing
| the cell anyways. Even if the cell survives the DNA damage is
| likely to be widespread, not just a few base pairs, and the
| cell would destroy itself.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I'd be shocked. Consider that your skin is exposed to much
| more drastic temperature changes.
| hammock wrote:
| Ever been sunburned? The mechanism has nothing to do with
| "drastic temperature changes"
| kstrauser wrote:
| Yes, but I was replying to someone about heating.
| dvh wrote:
| How about myth that radar operators only have daughters?
| fluidcruft wrote:
| They say the same thing about working around NMR/MRI. Can
| confirm (three daughters).
| Arrath wrote:
| Whether or not it's true, it also persists amongst reactor
| operators in navy subs, according to my cousin (said reactor
| operator for a navy sub during his time).
| [deleted]
| fluidcruft wrote:
| This is an ancient article from 2006.
| gumby wrote:
| My immediate reaction to the abstract is: of all tumors, I'd
| _MUUUCH_ rather have a meningioma, especially when the
| alternative is a glioma!
|
| Germans seem to have a particular concern about EM radiation when
| compared to other countries. I don't really understand why.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Summary appears to be once again nothing particularly conclusive.
|
| > No significant association between occupational exposure to
| RF/MW-EMF and brain tumors was found.
|
| > For glioma, the adjusted odds ratio for highly exposed persons
| compared with persons not highly exposed was 1.21 (95% confidence
| interval: 0.69, 2.13); for meningioma, it was 1.34 (95%
| confidence interval: 0.64, 2.81).
|
| They found a very small dose-response relationship for gliomas
| and meningiomas and think it merits further investigation.
|
| > However, the slight increase in risk observed with increasing
| duration of exposure merits further research with larger sample
| sizes.
|
| This continues to feel like aspartame.
| zug_zug wrote:
| Let me clarify what a confidence interval is. When they say
| odds ratio was "1.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.69, 2.13);"
| they aren't saying "It's slightly higher."
|
| They are saying "We have no idea what the odds are, radio could
| LOWER your odds down to 69% or raise them up to 213%."
| Scientists treat this as a non-result, try the study again with
| more data.
|
| A confidence interval that IS statistically significant will
| have an upper-bound below one, or a lower bound above one i.e.
| (95% confidence interval 1.10, 3.31) meaning we can be 95% sure
| that this increases your odds by 10% or more [up to 331%]
| aidenn0 wrote:
| So we can be pretty sure it doesn't more-than-double the
| chances of glioma?
| postmodest wrote:
| Every ham I know has huffed so much vaporized lead and rosin in
| their day that I wouldn't blame their cancers on RF.
| iraqmtpizza wrote:
| Dose-response is a big deal. But it could easily be p-hacking
| or something.
| henearkr wrote:
| If the cancer is in the brain, it is less likely caused by
| rosin and more likely caused by radiations emitted near their
| head (if any).
|
| I would more naturally link rosin to respiratory system
| cancers, for example.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| So how did lead additive in fuels cause global IQ drop?
| korse wrote:
| Is huffing rosin vapor during soldering carcinogenic? I
| understand the lead is problematic but I never considered the
| flux.
| leetbulb wrote:
| I don't know about carcinogenic, some sources say yes, but
| I think in general, rosins vapors and its pyrolysis
| products are not great to inhale as it can contain some
| pretty nasty chemicals.
|
| Lead on the other hand vaporizes well above soldering
| temperatures... Can / does rosin vapor can carry lead?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-16 23:02 UTC)