Loading Notifications...

Depression and 5G /microwave

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 paul mitchell 12 Feb 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

5g... I think plenty folk are depressed because their 3 or 4g doesn't work. 

 elsewhere 12 Feb 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Sounds like the genuine solution is a tin foil hat.

1
 Smelly Fox 12 Feb 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

This is bogus.

 Oceanrower 12 Feb 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Aaaaaand, here we go again...

 tehmarks 12 Feb 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

>  Go on.Tell me this is bogus.

This is bogus.

 Toby_W 12 Feb 2020

I watched this the other day on this sort of subject:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-51281856/electrosensitivity-i-didn-t-believe-people-had-it-then-it-happened-to-me

It just made me terribly sad especially the girl who did media studies/marketing and had a desk load of remedies and tinctures including one she carefully used a syringe with to squirt under her tongue.

These people are basically mentally ill, I was discussing this with my wife and she sees a similar thing in dermatology where people are convinced they have parasites under their skin.

They don't need tin foil hats they need therapy and counselling as early as possible.  People like this have always existed, they just used to read medical books instead of going on the internet.

Very sad because I doubt they'll ever get any real help.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to paul mitchell:

Just looking at his first few references, I can’t really understand how the author manages to draw his conclusion. Can you explain how? For example, he references a paper which looks at increased phone usage and depression in kids, and another looking at the impact of non-ionising radiation on cells in a test tube. But surely that doesn’t demonstrate a proven causal mechanism. There may be other reasons why some kids who use their phones a lot are depressed? What is it about the paper which you find so convincing?

In reply to Thugitty Jugitty:

> What is it about the paper which you find so convincing?

It echoes his existing belief?

In reply to paul mitchell:

Not a single bit of original research.  Yet more confirmation bias-driven meta-analysis.

This is odd since the journal's own Aims and Scope statement says: 

"Papers should offer original data correlating the morphology of the nervous system (the brain and spinal cord in particular) with its biochemistry."

The paper sets out to find vague confirmatory references, and then speculate about hypothetical mechanisms by which the alleged effect might be caused.

Or as the author puts it:

The goal here is not just to review the epidemiology, however, but more importantly to consider the issue of possible physiological mechanism(s). Hennekens and Buring (1989), on p. 40 in their textbook Epidemiology in Medicine state “The belief in the existence of a cause and effect relationship is enhanced if there is a known or postulated biologic mechanism by which the exposure might reasonably alter risk of developing disease.” It is of critical importance therefore to assess possible biological mechanism before considering the epidemiological evidence.

I would suggest the critically important thing to do is to demonstrate a causal link between the non-ionising radiation and the alleged neurological changes and then to demonstrate the causal link between such changes and presenting clinical signs.  This paper makes no attempt to do either.

Post edited at 13:13
In reply to Thugitty Jugitty:

> There may be other reasons why some kids who use their phones a lot are depressed? What is it about the paper which you find so convincing?

This more than likely 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-51475399?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health&link_location=live-reporting-story

In reply to Dave Garnett:

From the article:

"Calcium channel blockers block EMF effects and several types of additional evidence confirm this mechanism."

You're so unbelievable!

....

....

....

<tumbleweed>

Well it made me laugh anyway.

In reply to TobyA:

You Epsom Mad Funster 

In reply to TobyA:

Is it a case of EMF makes people emo? 

 jkarran 12 Feb 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Worrying about 5G is going to do you a mischief if you're not careful. Step away from the Youtube.

jk

In reply to paul mitchell:

Let me get this straight:

  1. Kids that use phones loads can be depressed.
  2. Those phones are not 5G.
  3. Hence 5G causes depression.

What am I missing?

In reply to paul mitchell:

I suspect if there is a correlation between kids using phones and depression it's probably the kids who don't know how to play or have fun if it doesn't involve a screen. 

 yorkshireman 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Dax H:

Actually it's a lot more complicated than that (as usual). Tech firms spend a lot of money designing user experiences where the key goal is to increase time on device (to show more adverts and generate more revenue). 

The dopamine inducing effects from things like infinite scroll, varied reward ratio etc all lead to an effect where being on a phone is very similar to being on a (much more sophisticated) fruit machine. 

Assuming it's just that 'kids these days' don't know how to use jumpers for goal posts is missing the point which means the problem doesn't get fixed. 

 gravy 13 Feb 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

I believe it is causing you depression and mental distress but that has nothing to do with the physical effects of 5G.

 wintertree 13 Feb 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

I think mobile phones are exacerbating depression in many people by sleep disruption and through social effects.

They’d still do this if their networking was by semaphore flags or carrier pidgin.

I have my concerns about the not yet fully explored potential for cellular disruption from emerging THz frequent stuff but everything you’ve linked to in this post and on several previous posts is utter garbage cherrypicked to suit the author’s fixed view.

In reply to wintertree:

But you'd probably allow a semaphore flag to rest next to your kid's bed at night or even under his pillow.(Probably not a pigeon, I know)

Post edited at 09:13
 wintertree 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Tom V:

> But you'd probably allow a semaphore flag to rest next to your kid's bed at night or even under his pillow.(Probably not a pigeon, I know)

Yup.  On the grounds it costs me nothing and eliminates a tiny but probably non zero risk my mobile sleeps nowhere near me.  I’m sure the physical and mental health effects of not checking email if I awake in the night is far more beneficial...

In reply to wintertree:

> Yup.  On the grounds it costs me nothing and eliminates a tiny but probably non zero risk my mobile sleeps nowhere near me.  I’m sure the physical and mental health effects of not checking email if I awake in the night is far more beneficial...

Exactly it's not hard is it. We turn everything off apart from one phone which sits in another room, for the exceedingly remote chance something happens to some relative or other and we get that random middle of the night phone call. Modern equiv of a landline;  laptops, pads all off too. No beeping, updating..  Nothing. 

In reply to summo:

> Exactly it's not hard is it. We turn everything off apart from one phone which sits in another room, for the exceedingly remote chance something happens to some relative or other and we get that random middle of the night phone call. Modern equiv of a landline;  laptops, pads all off too. No beeping, updating..  Nothing. 

It can be hard, being on call 24/7 my phone is never off and sits at the side of my bed at night. There are things you can do though, the only noise my phone is permitted to make is if I get a call, text, email, what's app etcetera are all silent. I also don't allow it to put notifications in the notification bar.

If it's urgent people can ring, messages will be got to at some point. 

In reply to yorkshireman:

I know this, a large portion of the Internet is dependent on maximising screen time. Its not the fault of the tech though. 

In my opinion its the practices of the tech industry who are to blame. Its like the sex phone lines of the 80's they teas you and keep you hanging on as long as possible. 

I also blame the parents though who are either too busy or can't be arsed and bung the kid in front of a screen. I look at the kids of my peer group and you can see 2 distinct types of kids. We'll rounded ones who though they spend time on phones and video games they also venture in to the world, play foot ball, climb trees, ride bikes and other wholesome outdoor stuff then there are the others who are always staring at a 5 inch screen every time you see them.

 Jim Fraser 16 Feb 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

First reference.
Here's where I have a problem with that study.
1. I searched for "GHz" and found only one occurrence and that was in the references list. So we can have no idea what they are talking about because they haven't defined it competently.
2. I searched for "wifi" and found zero occurrences. Home wifi is the most ubiquitous and powerful microwave radiation that the general population are exposed to and this study doesn't see fit to mention it. As I posted elsewhere "If you want to cook the kids, wifi is the way to go!"

Second Reference.
This is in the USA and therefore it does not count. They are the world's top producers of reality TV programmes. That is because they are stupid and dangerous which make great TV! 
 

Post edited at 17:55
1
 Timmd 16 Feb 2020
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> This is in the USA and therefore it does not count. They are the world's top producers of reality TV programmes. That is because they are stupid and dangerous which make great TV! 

The expression of such sentiments might hint at the potential of bias and subjectivity. ;-)

 Jim Fraser 17 Feb 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> The expression of such sentiments might hint at the potential of bias and subjectivity. ;-)

The numbers, the numbers. Their reality TV output, their industrial safety record, their life expectancy. 

 knillmic 17 Feb 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

i can believe some people are physically affected by these things. probably not a huge percent.

In reply to knillmic:

> i can believe some people are physically affected by these things. probably not a huge percent.

It's not entirely impossible to get radio reception in metal fillings/crowns if the shape and gap is the right size, that sort of thing could feasibly have an effect, though Mythbusters couldn't make it happen themselves they concluded it was possible:

https://mythbusters.fandom.com/wiki/Tooth_Fillings_Radio_Myth

It isn't far-fetched to suggest that the related electrical currents could affect the brain in some way.  Indeed I do wonder if this could be the root of the issue of people reporting "RF sensitivity".

Post edited at 18:04

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.