Yes there are multiple protocols with some slight similarities to each other as they aim to diagnose EHS holistically. So different in ways but sometimes the same in other ways. It's always a mixed bag.
Most scientists? Don't speak for them like they owe it to you! If you can back yourself up with 100 scientists, which I"m sure you will and you can, let me assure you the opposite as well, I can and sure will back myself up with equal number if not more scientists who would say it's not bad evidence! It's good rather. Did you forget the scientific ethic? Always be overcritical than undercritical, overcautious and overprudent than underprudent?! Why are you so freely giving your pledge away like that?
Oh so you now you pledge so quickly that they haven't managed to describe or predict it yet fail to mention that your set of FCC scientists haven't also managed to prove its safe-ness? Bad evidence isn't equal to safe-ness and you know it! Why can't bad evidence be attributed to willful ignorance to the actually good enough evidence? it's all relative here, if you think I'm making relative statements then aren't you undermining yourself too when you say that about me since you can also only make relative statements about space-time just like me??
Sorry I didn't mean to refer to calcium channel protein at all. I refer to voltage gated calcium channels. I refer to the channel gate and not the channel protein. But if you rather want to know which other proteins RF directly interacts with check out Henry Lai the Washington State University EMF genius who precisely does a lot of scrutiny on biologic parameters of hypersensitivity. In particular RBC protein. Affects everything the shape, the size, the volume, the resistance, both in vivo and in vitro proven effects. Leads to hypoxia, ischemia in vivo.
Sorry but I read it differently, it PROVES that there are actual causes of concern for reproductive health decline in men and women in modern cities with sperm rates dropping 50 percent from the 1960s till present day and dropping further still. The same in decline of ovules in women also another 50 percent drop. But not enough proof yet for other types of biologic effects such as for immune cells, neuronal and glion cell, skin cells and many more, at least for this paper.
Yes I know it just has to be reproducible but I'm not questioning that instead I'm questioning the unscientific ways of the FCC as wanting now from us absolutely irrefutable proof without prejudice to you! it's not you, it's them!
There are as many interpretations of EMF harm as the number of elements in the visible universe!
Yes since there is a spectrum for hypersensitivity, and multi-system, and individualized, then a high amount of ROS generation can correlate with EHS due to RF. Why not? If there are as many interpretations of EMF harm as there are elements in the visible universe then why can't there be at least 1 single hypersensitive human being on earth today who engendered high ROS production?
I said 0-100Hz EMF, not RF. Meaning static magnetic fields of the power grid imitated and modulated from 0-100Hz. Maybe you should try this experiment yourself, it would be fun to go under the circuit. I'm sure you will fail the test as you are not hypersensitive like some others. As i always say, this is the only test in the world, and just 1 of them is enough, to put to rest all the doubts you and FCC ever had about EMF harms!
Yeah and so polarized visible light is harmful to your eyes right? While you may think this may mean a blanket ban on Mother Nature you would be greatly remiss to omit that artificially polarized man-made sources are produced in far greater ubiquity, quantity and variations/types than Mother Nature ever did hence far more harmful and bad for health than the latter. By this relative comparison do I say that polarization is greatly monopolized by mankind and his man-made fancies hence as good as do not belong to Mother Nature!
Um no, I wasn't referring to information content of an RF wave or signal, instead I'm referring to the polarized waves being information content for the human biology hence transducing of harmful health effects cumulatively.
Polarization can intensity RF effects at different space-time intervals in a time-varying manner. Of course it can also cancel them out. It's both! It does both increasing and decreasing.