This summary does a solid job compiling the research on VGCC activation as the central mechanism. What caught my eye was the claim about safety guidelines being 7.2 million times too high, which seems like a number that would get dismissed pretty quickly without more context on how that calculation works. I've seen similar debates in other RF exposure contexts where the biological effects literature and physics-based safety models talk past eachother completely. The part about cumulative irreversible effects is worth thinking through more carefully since most risk frameworks still assume linear dose-response curves.This summary does a solid job compiling the research on VGCC activation as the central mecahnism. The claim about safety guidelines being 7.2 million times too high caught my attention, though it needs more context to land with regulators who'll want the calculation methodology spelled out. I've been tracking similar debates around RF exposure where biological effects data and physics-based safety models basically operate in seperate universes. The cumulative irreversible effects angle is especially important given that most risk frameworks still lean on linear dose-response assumptions.This summary does a solid job compiling the research on VGCC activation as the central mecahnism. The claim about safety guidelines being 7.2 million times too high is a big number that needs more context to land with regulators who'll want the calculation methodology spelled out. I've been tracking similar debates around RF exposure where biological effects data and physics-based safety models basically operate in seperate universes. The cumulative irreversible effects angle is especially important given most risk frameworks still lean on linear dose-response assumptions.