I would say no, we just need to change what we focus on. If you're worried about lithium-ion batteries running out, check out Aluminum ion batteries (AL is the mos t abundant metal in the Earth's crust).
Worried about farmland? Check out advances in vertical farming.
Worried about space to live? Just wait for a housing price correction.
Worried about energy? Check out the advances in Solar, Small modular reactors, and grid storage possibilities.
The better question isn't "are we running out of resources?" it's "should we be using different resources or the same resources differently?" to which the answer is yes and being explored by scientists and engineers
The sun emits more than just UVA and high energy UV light is ionizing. Further my point was that you chained together a mechanism and tried to prove it with something completely unrelated vice trying to address the broader observational evidence in the OP. If your proposed mechanism was real it should've resulted in a significant spike in brain tumors which had not happened. Citing solar urticaria is a complete non sequitur to the point the OP is making with their direct observation that show a lack of increased cancer rates.
I'm also aware of the number of papers out there proposing harm but in the broader picture they don't pan out as reproducible or actually demonstrating sufficient evidence to show harm. That's what the OP is talking about. Despite all the hypothetical mechanisms brain cancers did not increase between the time we had no cell phones to when they became ubiquitous in society.
Here's the contribution I've been responding with all over this thread:
"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck region."
The EU routinely surveys the literature to review the research on RFR and EMF exposure and time and time again does not turn up any statistically significant proof of harm. It covers way more than 90 studies; the citation section alone is 55 pages of the 288 in this systematic review.
This is why I get so frustrated about people asserting a cause without providing real data the effects are real or insisting effects exist as a response to data like the OP that suggest there's no interaction.
Provide this thread some explanation regard why the OP is is wrong and cancer cells are going up and then connect that to your assertion of a mechanism similar to solar uticara. If you can't do the first part of that and discredit the observational data your mechanism is just a data-less hypothesis and is just sewing fear uncertainty and doubt for no reason.
I've actually already heard of this study and it's another proposed mechanism without any actual evidence in the wild that the proposed mechanism is happened or results in any significant health outcomes. It's a well known study in science circles because of how bad it is in spreading FUD over rfr.
"While the evidence may support the notion that RFR can increase markers of oxidative activity in tissue, it does not establish that this increase is biologically important and can actually lead to specific diseases. It also does not establish that cell phone use causes any harm by this mechanism."
They used the word cancer but didn't provide any real data that linked the proposed mechanism to cancer. Please stop believing fear mongerers and demand not just a hypothesis but actual data that a mechanism causes harm.
Oh, and not all oxidative stress in the body is bad. There are oxidative compounds that benefit human health and too much antioxidant can produce adverse effects.
Oxidarive stress and free radicals are turning into buzzwords that ignore how our bodies balance that and just stating something causes oxidative stress in vitro or ex vivo doesn't say whether our antioxidant system can handle that and in the end negate any potential harm. This is why in vivo studies are done and the OP is a massive in vivo experiment that's been naturally happening since cell phones were first deployed.
I'm also going to highlight that I'm trying to pursuade you that we know the risks, they're low (basically zero), and you don't have to be worried about them. To contrast you're proposing unproven mechanisms for an uncertain risk that contradicts the observations do the original post while repeating arguments used by snake oil salesman that sell Faraday cages for people's wifi routers.
Stop being afraid, the world is way less scary when it comes to RFR exposure than these fear mongerers want you to belive.
We actually do in radar systems which range between 400 Mhz and 36 Ghz. We've also had 2.4 and 5 ghz wifi and other rf protocols ubiquitously deployed for years. Did you even look at my reference? It's a systematic review of 100s of studys several of which cover frequencies between 2.4gz to as high as 300 ghz. There's tons of them in there and the conclusion still came to no known mechanism for harm or observed harm. You are literally making assertions that research hasn't been done when it absolutely has and you're just being stubbornly assertive about something that's factually incorrect.
And this is the opposite of leaded gasoline because the first study that suggested a harmful mechanism was verifiable and produced reproducible results with a mechanism that was reasonable and testable.
The many hypothetical harms from RFR have been tested extensively and found no observable harm or mechanism for harm below the ionizing range of EM radiation.
You're just expressing doubt with arguments that are vague and untestable which is reasonable because all the testable hypothesis have been investigated.
Propose a mechanism for harm and provide evidence that it's actually happening. If we held off on advancing technology over fear, uncertainty, and doubt arguments like this we'd get no where.
> There are theories that radio waves can activate small nerve fibres that are located closely to the edge of your skin, where EMF can penetrate, even if only couple millimetres deep.
Great. Can you provide a reference to this premise at all? There are theories doesn't mean there are verifiable observations to support them. You based your entire argument on this, and eventually connected to a WebMD reference to a condition caused by exposure to solar energy...
...which is orders and orders of more magnitude greater energy than microwave transmitters used in cell phone...
...also a cell phone transmitter maxes out at 1 watt to the antenna and solar energy at the earth's surface is 1000 watts per meter...
...oh yeah, and SOLAR FLUX UNCLUDES UV RADIATION WHICH IS IONIZING RADIATION!
Provide a peer reviewed reference to your proposed mechanism that actually connects it to damage in DNA that leads to cancer in the context of cell phones please.
Masers are cool. My dad worked in an optics lab that used Masers in college and they used Styrofoam for lenses because it's transparent in the microwave spectrum and induces refraction well.
You didn't actually propose a mechanism that describes how this proposed effect causes damage to DNA and causes cancer and I'm not your Google-scholar to search for that for you. Provide evidence, here's mine:
"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of
brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of
the head and neck region." - European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, 2015
I don't have an argument against that observation, but it's agnostic to my concern in people discussing RF as a risk to brain cancer. The rise in rates is an observation and probably a good one but they intentionally do not try to ascribe a cause in that study.
The potential causal mechanisms have been studied for a long time to contrast:
"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of
brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of
the head and neck region." - European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, 2015
What I care about is people ascribing a casual effect by conjecture alone, especially when the research has actually been done to assess the probability/impact of a proposed mechanism. In all flavors and frequencies in the RF spectrum, this has turned up basically zero probability, uncertain impact (because how do you measure rhe impact on something that never happens), yielding zero risk out the other end.
You're gish galloping. Rather than continue to propose arguments without evidence of actual risk, find a citation that has a salient hypothesis that's tested that shows risk.
We aren't your Google-scholar and you're just promoting FUD by asking into the ether "but couldn't X cause Y". Me typing this message COULD cause a butterfly effect that leads to an earthquake. In any "does X cause Y" scenario you have two answer what the probability is that X causes Y and what's the impact of X does cause Y.
In RFR exposure terms it's what is the probability that RF below ionizing levels cause damage to DNA to promote cancer. The vast majority of the research says no and theoretical mechanisms for harm of RF below ionizing levels has never been proven to anything close to a statistical significance or in ways that are reproducible. Even if you did you'd have to assume impact. The OP study is basically assuming there's some impact and studying the population broadly and observed none.
Low probably, low impact, low or no risk.
Please present evidence that presents a high risk argument that is backed by some research showing an increase of the probability and/or impact or rfr exposure to DNA damage.
Until you do that, you're gish galloping. Please respond to our arguments (or consider if we're right) instead of declaring new ones with no references.
Cell phones are not likely to go anywhere close to the ionizing range of frequencies because things like walls become opaque at those frequencies. Fun fact, if you could see in the microwave spectrum you could see through many plastics which is why Styrofoam and similar materials are used in microwave safe containers and in the lenses for microwave lasers. The higher the energy the waves, the higher the frequency and the greater the absorbption by walls and even just water vapor in the air.
5+ Ghz frequencies are often used in precision radar and I worked with people who worked on them in the Navy. A few had stories of getting "zapped" by them if they were left on against safety guidelines. The feeling is like having popcorn pop under your skin because the waves are quickly absorbed by the water in the dead layer of your skin. No one in the entirety of military radar had ever got cancer from one of these radars but sometimes they get a fun wake up call to get back down the radar mast to slap whoever left the dish spinning.
There is NO mechanism you're actually providing because you are saying molecules can be "damaged" without actually describing what that even means. DNA is ionic bonds only so enlighten me how they are ever "damaged" because we're aren't in the territory of covenant or hydrogen bonds that can be affected by stuff like heat.
You can KILL cells with high frequency RF but cancer doesn't come about when a cell dies but when the DNA is DAMAGED through and IONIZING event.
"they can't prove its safe... unless they test the entire set of frequencies used in future phone models too"
Your premise is bad. We can't prove anything is 100% safe ever. We instead try to assess risk which is probability of the adverse event multiplied by its impact and reduced by mitigations if available.
And we've done that TIME AND TIME AGAIN for the tin-foil-hat crowd that doesn't understand basic physics:
"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of
brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of
the head and neck region."
Please at least Google for the research before declaring it doesn't exist. You're using the same logic as anti-vax/anti-gmo/anti-science in general; just declare no/not enough research had been done and gish gallop arguments to promote fear, uncertainty and doubt when in reality scientists HAVE been at work making sure the risks are low and you're just denying their efforts.
The population born in 1935-1950 is walking around the population of the people that did grow up with tech though. Their exposure is almost a certainty because cell towers didn't exist before 1979 in Japan. Now they're basically ubiquitous and unlike cell phones of the 80s which only transmitted when you were making a call, modern cell phones are constantly transmitting to maintain internet connection.
Rates of brain cancer before and after the 80s and 90s should've shown some sort of statistically significant spike in brain tumors if cell phones were an issue but it didn't because they're not. 800-2000MHz seems like a lot but radiation doesn't cause ionization until you get to the 2400 terahertz range. There's literally no mechanism known to PHYSICS that would result in cell phone radiation causing brain tumors.
We had a physics teacher who thought cell phones may cause brain damage and my immediate thought was to ask him about the electron well discussion we had had previously when discussing ionizing radiation and how the mechanism for damage from cell phone waves was basically impossible. He still stuck to his concern but didn't offer up a proposed mechanism for harm.
The radio waves used for cell phones are between about 800 and 2000 Mhz. Visible light which we all know is not a concern is 490 to 790...terahertz. You don't get to ionizing radiation until you get to roughly 2400 terahertz which is roughly 10 eV.
Was very frustrating learning all that physics just for dumbasses to claim your brain was getting fried so they could sell you a sticker with a metal screen for $40 that does nothing.
For sure, though "it depends" comes into play. Roundabouts down scale well beyond 3 lanes and if one gets clogged up it can have a butterfly effect that causes clog ups at other intersections
At least with a standard crossing intersection of say the E->W road is hosed up because of a traffic accident the other flows of traffic are unaffected as long as the intersection remains clear. Even if some jerk gets stuck in the middle they have the ability to U turn out to unblock the intersection.
With a roundabout when it's not clogged its very nice and I do enjoy them. But I've also been stuck at an intersection for more than an hour because of a fender bender in a roundabout causing a full traffic stoppage with no way out.
I may be naive, but don't we have automation handling a lot of the maintenance of packages and scanning for vulnerabilities these days? Of the 90k packages mentioned there's probably only a handful that have known CVE's and when they come up they probably just bump the version number in their CICD if a patch is available from the primary code maintainer and if not it's reasonable 32 people could manage that many packages depending on their CICD structure. Asking more than making an assertion btw.
Hey, saw this as mentioned earlier and incorporated your feedback and one other commenter that pointed out a privilege escalation vulnerability. If you have a spare moment would appreciate your critique on the resolution to your concern and/or any other issues you see generally with the codebase. Just a request though, regardless thanks for your feedback!
Hey, just found that patch in my email. Will try to get that encoded into a formal issues on the project. If you have time yourself feel free to that or any other issue yourself. Also looking for 3rd party reviews on the PR's I have open now and into the future.
Author here; it relates more with physical security and I've used them in the military and in corporate structures. Most duress word programs are designed to be spoken; say security calls because an alarm is set off and the aggressors are coercing you to get the security off their backs. One may say, "Sorry I was working late and fumbled the alarm. Mr. Rogers has a board meeting tomorrow so I've been working late," where Mr Rogers is a fake name of no one that works at the company.
I kinda just thought to turn that concept into a PAM as a thought-experiment mostly but there are some edge case security examples where something like this could be useful, say for journalists or when dealing with corporate espionage.
There's 'arrested' and 'detained'. In the US police can detain anyone for up to 48 hours (72 hours if it's a weekend or long holiday). If they don't file charges by then they have to release you.
For a silent/duress alarm it's easy to cross reference the person at the door with a list of personnel authorized to be in the facility. Security in a scenario like that would normally ask for an ID, radio it back to their security office to validate the person is on the access list for that office/building/facility/etc and then do a quick walk-around.