calibeebee
Supporter
- 19,153
- 24,168
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
Friend of mine got her covid vaccine the other day and she said the shot person was cool as hell. Told her not to worry because he “put extra 5G in her shot.” 
We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by BIG LEEMELONE,
- Start date
- 43,402
- 42,952
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
What a collection of the dumbest **** ever posted on NT. Absolutely stunning
- 43,402
- 42,952
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe
We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe
The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risksblogs.scientificamerican.com
The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks
Credit: Bill Oxford Getty Images
- By Joel M. Moskowitz on October 17, 2019
The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of "fear mongering" over the advent of wireless technology's 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.
Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.
Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:
“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”
The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.
The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.
Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future.
Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”
The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.
Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).
Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.
5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.
As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?
Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.
.
.
- 44,266
- 65,651
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
How many people know that you're not supposed to hold a cell phone to your face or keep it in your pocket, per manufacturer instructions
Chicago Tribune
Are you carrying your cellphone too close to your body?
By NARA SCHOENBERG
CHICAGO TRIBUNE |
JAN 26, 2017
A pocket may not be the best place to keep your cellphone.
In the movie "La La Land," the heroine fields calls in the current style, with her cellphone pressed close to her ear.
When President Barack Obama gave his farewell address, he equated innovation with "a computer in every pocket."
Some users sleep with their cellphones on the nightstand — or even tucked under the pillow.
But how close should you really get to your cellphone?
The answer depends, in part, on whom you ask. Government experts say cellphones, which emit radio frequency radiation, have not conclusively been linked to any health problem. But some critics point to studies they say raise concerns, including a preliminary report by the National Toxicology Program that rats exposed to cellphone radiation experienced a small but significant increase in heart and brain tumors. Critics also point to studies indicating that cellphone exposure may negatively affect sperm quality.
Given those considerations, we asked government spokespeople, an industry representative and a skeptical scientist what Americans should do if they want to reduce their exposure to cellphone radiation.
Here's what we found:
Follow the advice of the cellphone manufacturer. And no, you're probably not doing that. Cellphones are tested for radiation emission — and approved by the government as safe for use — at a small but significant distance from your body. You should be able to find that distance in the fine print of your manual or other instructions that come with your phone, and it differs from phone to phone. You're supposed to keep an iPhone 7 at least 5 mm (about 0.2 inches) away from your body, a Samsung Galaxy S6 at least 1.5 cm (about 0.6 inches) and a Google Pixel 1 cm (about 0.4 inches) away.
The takeaway: Don't keep your cellphone in your pocket or your bra when it's powered on.
If you want to go further, consider the suggestions of government scientists. You'll see small differences in the positions stated on the websites of various government agencies, with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) telling us, reassuringly that "the weight of scientific evidence has not linked cellphones with any health problems." The National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences agrees that there's no conclusive evidence linking cellphones to any health problems. But it also says that "little is known about potential health effects of long-term exposure to radio frequency radiation," the kind of radiation emitted by cellphones, and that data from human studies is inconsistent.
The takeaway: Both the FDA and the NTP say that if you are concerned about cellphone radiation, you can take two simple steps. You can reduce the amount of time you spend using your cellphone, and you can use speaker mode or a headset to increase the distance between your head and the phone.
Want to do everything possible, short of ditching your cellphone? There are webpages for that, but make sure you choose the right one. Rather than scrolling around and scaring yourself with off-the-wall claims, consider turning to reputable scientists, such as Devra Davis, who was the founding director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, or Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California at Berkeley. Moskowitz and Davis are among the over 220 scientists who have signed the International Electromagnetic Field Scientist Appeal calling for tougher limits on cellphones and related technologies.
The takeaway: Moskowitz offers an extensive list of steps you can take to reduce radiation exposure, including: 1.) Keep your distance. Keep your cellphone or cordless phone away from your body when it's powered on, taking special care to maintain distance from your head and reproductive organs. Use your speakerphone or a wired headset, or text instead of calling. 2.) Wait for a good signal. Your cellphone emits more radiation when the signal is poor, so avoid using it while in enclosed metal areas such as elevators, cars, buses, trains or planes. 3.) Avoid secondhand exposure. Reduce the time you spend in places where a lot of people are packed together and using cellphones. 4.) Turn off your phone. Turn off your cellphone when not in use, or switch to airplane mode.
Chicago Tribune
Are you carrying your cellphone too close to your body?
By NARA SCHOENBERG
CHICAGO TRIBUNE |
JAN 26, 2017
A pocket may not be the best place to keep your cellphone.
In the movie "La La Land," the heroine fields calls in the current style, with her cellphone pressed close to her ear.
When President Barack Obama gave his farewell address, he equated innovation with "a computer in every pocket."
Some users sleep with their cellphones on the nightstand — or even tucked under the pillow.
But how close should you really get to your cellphone?
The answer depends, in part, on whom you ask. Government experts say cellphones, which emit radio frequency radiation, have not conclusively been linked to any health problem. But some critics point to studies they say raise concerns, including a preliminary report by the National Toxicology Program that rats exposed to cellphone radiation experienced a small but significant increase in heart and brain tumors. Critics also point to studies indicating that cellphone exposure may negatively affect sperm quality.
Given those considerations, we asked government spokespeople, an industry representative and a skeptical scientist what Americans should do if they want to reduce their exposure to cellphone radiation.
Here's what we found:
Follow the advice of the cellphone manufacturer. And no, you're probably not doing that. Cellphones are tested for radiation emission — and approved by the government as safe for use — at a small but significant distance from your body. You should be able to find that distance in the fine print of your manual or other instructions that come with your phone, and it differs from phone to phone. You're supposed to keep an iPhone 7 at least 5 mm (about 0.2 inches) away from your body, a Samsung Galaxy S6 at least 1.5 cm (about 0.6 inches) and a Google Pixel 1 cm (about 0.4 inches) away.
The takeaway: Don't keep your cellphone in your pocket or your bra when it's powered on.
If you want to go further, consider the suggestions of government scientists. You'll see small differences in the positions stated on the websites of various government agencies, with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) telling us, reassuringly that "the weight of scientific evidence has not linked cellphones with any health problems." The National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences agrees that there's no conclusive evidence linking cellphones to any health problems. But it also says that "little is known about potential health effects of long-term exposure to radio frequency radiation," the kind of radiation emitted by cellphones, and that data from human studies is inconsistent.
The takeaway: Both the FDA and the NTP say that if you are concerned about cellphone radiation, you can take two simple steps. You can reduce the amount of time you spend using your cellphone, and you can use speaker mode or a headset to increase the distance between your head and the phone.
Want to do everything possible, short of ditching your cellphone? There are webpages for that, but make sure you choose the right one. Rather than scrolling around and scaring yourself with off-the-wall claims, consider turning to reputable scientists, such as Devra Davis, who was the founding director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, or Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California at Berkeley. Moskowitz and Davis are among the over 220 scientists who have signed the International Electromagnetic Field Scientist Appeal calling for tougher limits on cellphones and related technologies.
The takeaway: Moskowitz offers an extensive list of steps you can take to reduce radiation exposure, including: 1.) Keep your distance. Keep your cellphone or cordless phone away from your body when it's powered on, taking special care to maintain distance from your head and reproductive organs. Use your speakerphone or a wired headset, or text instead of calling. 2.) Wait for a good signal. Your cellphone emits more radiation when the signal is poor, so avoid using it while in enclosed metal areas such as elevators, cars, buses, trains or planes. 3.) Avoid secondhand exposure. Reduce the time you spend in places where a lot of people are packed together and using cellphones. 4.) Turn off your phone. Turn off your cellphone when not in use, or switch to airplane mode.
- 16,089
- 43,679
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2017
That's why it's so important that men realize the importance of the fanny pack
- 32,039
- 26,330
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
This thread aged poorly. 
- 5,891
- 12,009
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
it is funny until you get **** like that idiot in Nashville who blew himself to kingdom come with an RV full of explosives on Christmas Day trying to attack a 5G tower. then it's not.
- 43,402
- 42,952
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
For sure. Posting false information should be ban worthy
- 44,266
- 65,651
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
What false information?
- 1,606
- 1,161
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
Pandemic got a lot of dudes down bad smh . Dudes losing their minds
- 16,089
- 43,679
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2017
His mind was lost long before the pandemic
- 44,266
- 65,651
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
Is this not a valid source of information? The claim is that there is evidence to support the idea that cell phone radiation is harmful at worst and/or hasn't been researched enough to determine the effects at best. No more and no less
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Abstract
Radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range of 30 kHz-300 GHz is classified as a ‘possible’ human carcinogen, Group 2B, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2011. The evidence has since then been strengthened by further research; thus, RF radiation may now be classified as a human carcinogen, Group 1. In spite of this, microwave radiations are expanding with increasing personal and ambient exposure. One contributing factor is that the majority of countries rely on guidelines formulated by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private German non-governmental organization. ICNIRP relies on the evaluation only of thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation, thereby excluding a large body of published science demonstrating the detrimental effects caused by non-thermal radiation. The fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation is about to be implemented worldwide in spite of no comprehensive investigations of the potential risks to human health and the environment. In an appeal sent to the EU in September, 2017 currently >260 scientists and medical doctors requested for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the health risks associated with this new technology have been fully investigated by industry-independent scientists. The appeal and four rebuttals to the EU over a period of >2 years, have not achieved any positive response from the EU to date. Unfortunately, decision makers seem to be uninformed or even misinformed about the risks. EU officials rely on the opinions of individuals within the ICNIRP and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), most of whom have ties to the industry. They seem to dominate evaluating bodies and refute risks. It is important that these circumstances are described. In this article, the warnings on the health risks associated with RF presented in the 5G appeal and the letters to the EU Health Commissioner since September, 2017 and the authors' rebuttals are summarized. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment.
Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation
Radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range of 30 kHz-300 GHz is classified as a ‘possible’ human carcinogen, Group 2B, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2011. The evidence has since then been strengthened ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Abstract
Radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range of 30 kHz-300 GHz is classified as a ‘possible’ human carcinogen, Group 2B, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2011. The evidence has since then been strengthened by further research; thus, RF radiation may now be classified as a human carcinogen, Group 1. In spite of this, microwave radiations are expanding with increasing personal and ambient exposure. One contributing factor is that the majority of countries rely on guidelines formulated by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private German non-governmental organization. ICNIRP relies on the evaluation only of thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation, thereby excluding a large body of published science demonstrating the detrimental effects caused by non-thermal radiation. The fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation is about to be implemented worldwide in spite of no comprehensive investigations of the potential risks to human health and the environment. In an appeal sent to the EU in September, 2017 currently >260 scientists and medical doctors requested for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the health risks associated with this new technology have been fully investigated by industry-independent scientists. The appeal and four rebuttals to the EU over a period of >2 years, have not achieved any positive response from the EU to date. Unfortunately, decision makers seem to be uninformed or even misinformed about the risks. EU officials rely on the opinions of individuals within the ICNIRP and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), most of whom have ties to the industry. They seem to dominate evaluating bodies and refute risks. It is important that these circumstances are described. In this article, the warnings on the health risks associated with RF presented in the 5G appeal and the letters to the EU Health Commissioner since September, 2017 and the authors' rebuttals are summarized. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment.
- 44,266
- 65,651
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation
Radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range of 30 kHz-300 GHz is classified as a ‘possible’ human carcinogen, Group 2B, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2011. The evidence has since then been strengthened ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Radiation exposure has long been a concern for the public, policy makers, and health researchers. Beginning with radar during World War II, human exposure to radio-frequency radiation1 (RFR) technologies has grown substantially over time. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the published literature and categorized RFR as a “possible” (Group 2B) human carcinogen. A broad range of adverse human health effects associated with RFR have been reported since the IARC review. In addition, three large-scale carcinogenicity studies in rodents exposed to levels of RFR that mimic lifetime human exposures have shown significantly increased rates of Schwannomas and malignant gliomas, as well as chromosomal DNA damage. Of particular concern are the effects of RFR exposure on the developing brain in children. Compared with an adult male, a cell phone held against the head of a child exposes deeper brain structures to greater radiation doses per unit volume, and the young, thin skull's bone marrow absorbs a roughly 10-fold higher local dose. Experimental and observational studies also suggest that men who keep cell phones in their trouser pockets have significantly lower sperm counts and significantly impaired sperm motility and morphology, including mitochondrial DNA damage. Based on the accumulated evidence, we recommend that IARC re-evaluate its 2011 classification of the human carcinogenicity of RFR, and that WHO complete a systematic review of multiple other health effects such as sperm damage. In the interim, current knowledge provides justification for governments, public health authorities, and physicians/allied health professionals to warn the population that having a cell phone next to the body is harmful, and to support measures to reduce all exposures to RFR.
- 12,132
- 33,763
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2012
Further proof that barbershops need to stop giving out their WiFi passwords all willy-nilly.
- 44,266
- 65,651
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
Nobody is addressing the content of the articles for some reason
- 16,089
- 43,679
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2017
No one cares
- 43,402
- 42,952
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
- 43,402
- 42,952
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
Educate yourself on how research is conducted. Come back in like a couple months
minimumthen educate yourself in how to properly interpret data
- 44,266
- 65,651
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
Recent research into radiofrequency radiation (RFR) provides the evidence necessary to reclassify and prevent exposures urges a recently published scientific literature review.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) first classified RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) in 2011. Authors of the literature review say IARC should now upgrade RFR’s designation to carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).
“With the epidemiological studies of humans over many years and the recent findings of the US National Toxicological Program and Ramazzini Institute animal studies, we now have enough evidence to classify radiofrequency radiation as carcinogenic to humans,” says Dr. Anthony Miller, lead author of the review and professor emeritus, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto. Miller is also a former Senior Epidemiologist for IARC and former Director of Epidemiology for the National Cancer Institute of Canada.
Miller and his coauthors add this same evidence is “strong enough to go from precaution concerning possible risk to prevention of known risks.”
Enough known to act
IARC based their initial 2011 designation on increased risk for glioma, a type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use. At the time, then-IARC Director Christopher Wild cited the need for more research, but also called for immediate “pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting.
Now, eight years on, the evidence summarized in this review, 13 new studies in all, links RFR to cancers of the brain and vestibular nerve. To be specific nine studies reported increased risk of brain cancer from cell phone use. Meantime, four case-controlled studies reported increased risk of tumors to the vestibular nerve from cell phone use
Other related cancers to “consider” say the authors include cancers of the saliva glands, blood, breast, testis, and perhaps even colon. They highlight too potential non-cancer health impacts, including sperm damage, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, plus loss of hearing and visual acuity
These other cancers and impacts will take further research to fully understand the relationship between exposures and disease causation say the review researchers. They go to some extent to explain the challenges researchers face in exploring these relationships and how some can bias findings of no association. Study of occupational groups with “excess exposure” to RFR may be key to further understanding the researchers suggest. As the World Health Organization acknowledges of the some 150 known or probable carcinogens “many occur in occupational settings.
Regardless, we know enough now to act they say. Epidemiological studies reported since 2011 at least justify a classification of “probable” human carcinogen. But couple these with the recently reported animal data from the US National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini Institute and a definitive classification of carcinogenic to humans is warranted, they conclude
.
www.whsc.on.ca
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) first classified RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) in 2011. Authors of the literature review say IARC should now upgrade RFR’s designation to carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).
“With the epidemiological studies of humans over many years and the recent findings of the US National Toxicological Program and Ramazzini Institute animal studies, we now have enough evidence to classify radiofrequency radiation as carcinogenic to humans,” says Dr. Anthony Miller, lead author of the review and professor emeritus, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto. Miller is also a former Senior Epidemiologist for IARC and former Director of Epidemiology for the National Cancer Institute of Canada.
Miller and his coauthors add this same evidence is “strong enough to go from precaution concerning possible risk to prevention of known risks.”
Enough known to act
IARC based their initial 2011 designation on increased risk for glioma, a type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use. At the time, then-IARC Director Christopher Wild cited the need for more research, but also called for immediate “pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting.
Now, eight years on, the evidence summarized in this review, 13 new studies in all, links RFR to cancers of the brain and vestibular nerve. To be specific nine studies reported increased risk of brain cancer from cell phone use. Meantime, four case-controlled studies reported increased risk of tumors to the vestibular nerve from cell phone use
Other related cancers to “consider” say the authors include cancers of the saliva glands, blood, breast, testis, and perhaps even colon. They highlight too potential non-cancer health impacts, including sperm damage, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, plus loss of hearing and visual acuity
These other cancers and impacts will take further research to fully understand the relationship between exposures and disease causation say the review researchers. They go to some extent to explain the challenges researchers face in exploring these relationships and how some can bias findings of no association. Study of occupational groups with “excess exposure” to RFR may be key to further understanding the researchers suggest. As the World Health Organization acknowledges of the some 150 known or probable carcinogens “many occur in occupational settings.
Regardless, we know enough now to act they say. Epidemiological studies reported since 2011 at least justify a classification of “probable” human carcinogen. But couple these with the recently reported animal data from the US National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini Institute and a definitive classification of carcinogenic to humans is warranted, they conclude
.
WHSC - Radiation from cell phones a human carcinogen, new review finds
Recent research into radiofrequency radiation (RFR) provides the evidence necessary to reclassify and prevent exposures urges a recently published scientific literature review.
- 155,861
- 135,272
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
- 44,266
- 65,651
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
What do you make of the studies and conclusions cited in these articles? Do you feel like it's false information or an unreliable source?
- 34,898
- 76,782
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
This is scary. Trading in my iPhone for a telegraph and a Discman this weekend.
- 44,266
- 65,651
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
Do you feel like I'm posting false information?
- 43,402
- 42,952
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
.
- 44,266
- 65,651
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
I'm just tryna help yall preserve your already deficient sperm count and low testerone
. Do with this information what you will
. Do with this information what you will
