We are dropping like flies after 50s - Pilots concerned with non-ionizing radiation - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-24-2019, 09:36 PM   #1
Worrazen
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Posts: 902
Exclamation We are dropping like flies after 50s - Pilots concerned with non-ionizing radiation

https://www.activistpost.com/2019/08...nd-deaths.html

https://americanmilitarynews.com/201...er-screenings/



Quote:
Former Air Force and Navy fighter pilots are calling on the military to begin cancer screenings for aviators as young as 30 because of an increase in deaths from the disease that they suspect may be tied to radiation emitted in the cockpit.

“We are dropping like flies in our 50s from aggressive cancers,” said retired Air Force Col. Eric Nelson, a former F-15E Strike Eagle weapons officer. He cited prostate and esophageal cancers, lymphoma, and glioblastomas that have struck fellow pilots he knew, commanded or flew with.

Nelson’s prostate cancer was first detected at age 48, just three months after he retired from the Air Force. In his career he has more than 2,600 flying hours, including commanding the 455th Air Expeditionary Group in Bagram, Afghanistan, and as commander of six squadrons of F-15E fighter jets at the 4th Operations Group at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina.

Last month McClatchy reported on a new Air Force study that reviewed the risk for prostate cancers among its fighter pilots and new Veterans Health Administration data showing that the rate of reported cases of prostate cancers per year among veterans using the VA health care system across all services has risen almost 16% since fiscal year 2000.

The Air Force study also looked at cockpit exposure, finding that “pilots have greater environmental exposure to ultraviolet and ionizing radiation … (fighter pilots) have unique intra-cockpit exposures to non-ionizing radiation.”

[…]

Retired Navy Cmdr. Thomas Hill was a career F-4 and F-14 pilot and squadron commanding officer with more than 3,600 flight hours and more than 960 aircraft carrier landings. Hill was 52 when he was diagnosed with a brain tumor. In December 2011, at age 60, he learned he also had esophageal cancer.

Hill has spent the last two years tracking premature deaths or cancers among former commanding officers of F-14 squadrons. So far he’s found more than a dozen who have either been diagnosed or have died from the disease.














Quote:
None of the pilots who spoke with McClatchy said a greater risk of cancer would have kept them from flying. They said the military should acknowledge the risk and put additional protections in place for the next generation of military aviators.

Hill said he’s also worried about the enlisted crew who manned the flight decks of the aircraft carriers.

“The kids that worked the flight line and the flight deck were exposed eight hours a day to that stuff,” Hill said.

For future protections for pilots, Crosby said it would be unlikely that the services would retrofit aircraft to add protections against the sources of cockpit radiation, which may be difficult to isolate and would likely add unwanted weight or otherwise affect the performance of the aircraft.

“If we can’t change it, we need to be responsible and send an alert that people being exposed need to be screened earlier,” Crosby said. “If it’s caught early enough, there’s a lot of procedures that can not just treat (prostate cancer) but cure it.”

Center For Safer Wireless on Dr. Oz show: MP4 Direct Link



My comment: Probably not a good idea to keep connected phones/tablets as a kneeboard replacement while flying.
__________________
DCS-Setup: Win10 x64 1607, 1440p@75"32, MOBO: Asus P9X79, CPU: Intel Core i7 3820 4.0GHz, GPU: Radeon RX 480 8GB, 24 GB RAM @ 1333 Mhz, DCS on SSD Samsung 860 EVO 250GB, Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5 joystick.

Last edited by Worrazen; 08-24-2019 at 09:42 PM.
Worrazen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2019, 04:31 PM   #2
Worrazen
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Posts: 902
Default

A Law firm may file a Class Action lawsuit due to revelations by Chicago Tribune finding levels over 5 times the limit in their tests.

https://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...-smartpho.html

-----------------

From earlier this year:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cell-to...ldhood-cancer/
__________________
DCS-Setup: Win10 x64 1607, 1440p@75"32, MOBO: Asus P9X79, CPU: Intel Core i7 3820 4.0GHz, GPU: Radeon RX 480 8GB, 24 GB RAM @ 1333 Mhz, DCS on SSD Samsung 860 EVO 250GB, Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5 joystick.

Last edited by Worrazen; 08-25-2019 at 04:54 PM.
Worrazen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 06:42 PM   #3
sobek
Veteran
 
sobek's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Austria
Posts: 11,851
Default

There's been no conclusive study showing a causality between cancer and cellphone radiation. Long distance flights are a completely different thing because cosmic radiation is ionizing.
__________________
Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.
Come let's eat grandpa!
Use punctuation, save lives!
sobek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 07:17 PM   #4
zhukov032186
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Fort Worth, Tx
Posts: 2,354
Default

^
This, even if cell phones are a negative (yet unproven) it has little relevance to pilots routinely exposed to high altitudes and military grade radar. I am 100% certain cell phones and an F-16's radar are in compleeeeetely different exposure categories :p
__________________
Zhukov attacks *FORUM USER* with Legendary Trollsword!
*FORUM USER* Constitution save roll.... Fail!
*FORUM USER* afflicted with ''Hurt Feelz'', -1 Concentration for two rounds
zhukov032186 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 09:15 PM   #5
Worrazen
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Posts: 902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sobek View Post
There's been no conclusive study showing a causality between cancer and cellphone radiation. Long distance flights are a completely different thing because cosmic radiation is ionizing.
Does it have to be ionizing to be unhealthy? Can you disprove that?

This is a huge subject, so I'll just mention bits, let's take a walk over to the ToxicDocs.org and let's see if we can find anything interesting from the old industry docs.

I entered the term "Microwave" into the search box:

We get a study from the University of Zagreb from ... oh lovely, from 1992.

The website has OCRed all the documents in text, but the PDFs are, some typos may be present:
Quote:
This architecture of the action of ultrasound overlaps with the picture given by the
micronucleus assay for genetic damage caused by microwaves. According to our research, mi crowaves have a dual effect on genetic material. As can be seen in Fig. lb, the distribution of surface areas shows the characteristics both of a chemical agent (Fig. lc) and of ionizing radiation (Fig. la). There is a large number of small and middle-sized micronuclei and a small number of large micronuclei. This is also the case with re gard to ionizing radiation. The fact that there is no statistically significant difference between the distribution of micronucleus surface areas caused by microwaves (Fig. 2b) and vinyl chloride monomer (Fig. 2c) suggests the existence of a chemical effect of microwaves.



The summary of the study: Microwaves possess some mutagenic characteristics typical of chemical mutagens.

So if you take this with the basics of a biological organism which requires many types of chemicals to sustain life, these chemicals are not directly used but go through various chemical processes (conversion, transport, binding, signaling), we can by common sense probably conclude that these chemical processes need to happen in a certain way as they were designed to operate in specific circumstances, any effect or change in cirumstances that disrupts these chemical processes is therefore going to be "unhealthy", because what we call health is just referring to a particular condition these chemical processes are in.

The intensity and type of the disruption depends on the type of the frequency and it's strength, some frequencies can produce a more damaging effect than others, depending on which bio-chemical process they are affecting, as different frequencies affect different molecules and atoms in different ways such as magnetic effects, mehanical effect (vibration) and disrupting the body's electric signals between in the nervous system, so it gets very complicated. If you affect something crucial and/or using a frequency that is highly resonant with a certain target process, then it can be quickly immobilizing, stunning, or fatal.

What is resonance, resonance is like a sweet spot, if some crucial bio-chemical process or a component of it (atom) is hit by this type of frequency the resonance will greately enhance the effect, so even a small (low power) exposure would be dangerous. The disruption effect is relative to both power and frequency at the same time and a sweet-spot frequency can amplify the disruption heavily even if the power (W) stays the same or even decreases in comparison with a non-resonating effect.

WIKIPEDIA: In mechanical systems, resonance is a phenomenon that only occurs when the frequency at which a force is periodically applied is equal or nearly equal to one of the natural frequencies of the system on which it acts. This causes the system to oscillate with larger amplitude than when the force is applied at other frequencies.

Ionizing radiation simply kills you more quickly as a higher frequency is required to damage DNA, but a lower frequency affecting the chemistry reduces your health slowly and if chronic enough it will kill you passively in a way, through various diseases which will shorten your life, we should equate a shorter lifespan equal to slow murder, or via cancer, as cancer is simply a result the cell being in constant bad circumstances, the cells are being fed what they should not be, they don't like the environment they're in, so they adapt by mutating, the body has to remove mutated cells and cleanup all the time but as more and more cells mutate the body, if it does not have enough resources (nutrition) cannot clean up all the mutated cells in time, the mutated cells left to live longer then build a form with other mutated cells and there you go, cancer.

The human body is extremely complicated as theres thousands of chemical processes and it has a cascading effect ofcourse if one thing doesn't work well it'll affect other processes, or at least a group.

Given that you are in a sea of various types of RF signals, each of the sources adds a bit of a burden to your body so it's the total sum that is also important, a whole set of frequency specific effects, many processes are disrupted by varying amounts on a daily basis. And this is just RF, what about all the other contaminants from food, water, air, sound, light.
__________________
DCS-Setup: Win10 x64 1607, 1440p@75"32, MOBO: Asus P9X79, CPU: Intel Core i7 3820 4.0GHz, GPU: Radeon RX 480 8GB, 24 GB RAM @ 1333 Mhz, DCS on SSD Samsung 860 EVO 250GB, Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5 joystick.
Worrazen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 09:44 PM   #6
sobek
Veteran
 
sobek's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Austria
Posts: 11,851
Default

How often did that study get quoted in serious journals, how big was its impact? Did somebody repeat the experiments and arrive at the same conclusions?

From where I'm standing, you are mixing up valid and proven concerns with pseudo-scientific stuff.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Worrazen View Post
Ionizing radiation simply kills you more quickly as a higher frequency is required to damage DNA, but a lower frequency affecting the chemistry reduces your health slowly and if chronic enough it will kill you

This is precisely not how radiation works. There is only one way known to us in which microwaves can be harmful to human tissue, and that is by such high intensities that the tissue will take thermal damage. If there actually is another mechanism, then its impact must be minuscule or it wouldn't be this hard to prove.
__________________
Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.
Come let's eat grandpa!
Use punctuation, save lives!

Last edited by sobek; 08-26-2019 at 09:52 PM.
sobek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 10:37 PM   #7
Worrazen
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Posts: 902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhukov032186 View Post
I am 100% certain cell phones and an F-16's radar are in compleeeeetely different exposure categories :p
Radiation coming into the cockpit or originating in the cockpit, while radar is focused and aimed away from the cockpit is true, but the other stuff such as the
  • screens
  • electronic circuitry
  • electric generators
  • electric converters
  • comm radio transmitters
  • datalink transmitter
  • ECM
  • IFF transmitter (?)
  • ILS transmitter
  • TACAN transmitter
that most likely affect the cockpit, additionally the cockpit is an enclosed space which means anything that's inside would also bounce inside of it before going outside, depending on the opening and the properties of the glass and the rest of the materials.




RF(EMF) just one thing, then there are magnetic and electric fields produced by electrical circuitry, where AC is involved it's a lot more dirty in terms of electrosmog than in cases of DC, the A/C generator and the APU in A-10C most likely produce more magnetic and electric fields than RF but if you're sitting close by them it's still a burden on the body, the breaker box is quite close on that pic, just behind the seat, for example, althought magnetic and electric fields drop a lot more with distance so it may not be that huge reason to worry, but I'm speculating with this one.




Anyway Apple and Samsung already got hit by a lawsuit. https://www.scribd.com/document/4229...e-Class-Action



https://www.rt.com/usa/467274-apple-...ancer-lawsuit/















https://www.ehtrust.org/wp-content/u...18-6-11us3.pdf

One key study, describing calcium being affected:
Quote:
microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to
induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for
microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sobek View Post
This is precisely not how radiation works. There is only one way known to us in which microwaves can be harmful to human tissue, and that is by such high intensities that the tissue will take thermal damage. If there actually is another mechanism, then its impact must be minuscule or it wouldn't be this hard to prove.
That's literally telecom PR word for word. So you think that makes any sense, that the reality is digital and not analog, like that it works according to some artificial threshold, that's the same as saying that if you go outside and you'd only feel cold if it's 10 degrees below zero, otherwise you won't, as if you won't freeze if it's -9, that's the logic that's being used, oh it's below the threshold it must be safe.


Quote:
If there actually is another mechanism, then its impact must be minuscule or it wouldn't be this hard to prove.
That's very scientific thinking. Kindergarden stuff. Please.
__________________
DCS-Setup: Win10 x64 1607, 1440p@75"32, MOBO: Asus P9X79, CPU: Intel Core i7 3820 4.0GHz, GPU: Radeon RX 480 8GB, 24 GB RAM @ 1333 Mhz, DCS on SSD Samsung 860 EVO 250GB, Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5 joystick.

Last edited by Worrazen; 08-27-2019 at 12:11 AM.
Worrazen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2019, 06:09 AM   #8
sobek
Veteran
 
sobek's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Austria
Posts: 11,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Worrazen View Post
That's literally telecom PR word for word. So you think that makes any sense, that the reality is digital and not analog, like that it works according to some artificial threshold, that's the same as saying that if you go outside and you'd only feel cold if it's 10 degrees below zero, otherwise you won't, as if you won't freeze if it's -9, that's the logic that's being used, oh it's below the threshold it must be safe.
I'm an electrical engineer, i don't do PR.

The real world is almost universally nonlinear, certainly with ionizing radiation, this is the case, there is a very clear distinction. The probability of microwaves ionizing an atom are so low that it literally just does not happen. If you would stop quoting papers with exclamation marks in their titles and read some actual scientific research, you would see that the scientific consensus is that there is a very low chance of non ionizing radiation having anything to do with cancer.

There are a lot of other factors including our lifestyle and exposure to things ranging from artificial softeners to pesticides that have an actually measurable impact on cancer rates.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Worrazen View Post
RF(EMF) just one thing, then there are magnetic and electric fields produced by electrical circuitry, where AC is involved it's a lot more dirty in terms of electrosmog than in cases of DC, the A/C generator and the APU in A-10C most likely produce more magnetic and electric fields than RF but if you're sitting close by them it's still a burden on the body, the breaker box is quite close on that pic, just behind the seat, for example, althought magnetic and electric fields drop a lot more with distance so it may not be that huge reason to worry
Oh boy. Several points for you to consider:
  • What we are talking about are electromagnetic waves. Those are not generated by DC. DC generates a static magnetic field, but no electromagnetic waves. They are only emitted if there is a change in current, hence alternating current. Also static fields are harmless (if not, earth's magnetic field would be the first to blame for cancer).
  • Saying that electric and magnetic fields drop off more with distance is nonsense, electromagnetic waves are based on the principles of both these fields and the same laws apply.
  • You completely disregard the effect of different frequency bands of electromagnetic radiation by just calling it "electrosmog". Once again, please read up on the difference between ionizing and non ionizing radiation (and not just papers that share your belief system).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worrazen View Post
I'm speculating with this one
You don't say.
__________________
Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.
Come let's eat grandpa!
Use punctuation, save lives!

Last edited by sobek; 08-27-2019 at 06:56 AM.
sobek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2019, 01:27 PM   #9
beppe_goodoldrebel
Member
 
beppe_goodoldrebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 963
Default

I remember reading in a '83 book about Red Flag excercise , where fighter pilots flown several miles aways from AWACS to avoid becoming sterile.
beppe_goodoldrebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2019, 01:40 PM   #10
Oceandar
Senior Member
 
Oceandar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Probably would make you smirking
Posts: 1,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beppe_goodoldrebel View Post
I remember reading in a '83 book about Red Flag excercise , where fighter pilots flown several miles aways from AWACS to avoid becoming sterile.
Do you mean like this?
__________________
Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze
Oceandar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
emf, pilots, radar, radiation, wireless

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:13 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.