Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1405695467779.gif (922KB, 359x490px) Image search:
[Google]
922KB, 359x490px
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418
>Human populations are increasingly exposed to microwave/radiofrequency (RF) emissions from wireless communication technology, including mobile phones and their base stations. By searching PubMed, we identified a total of 10 epidemiological studies that assessed for putative health effects of mobile phone base stations. Seven of these studies explored the association between base station proximity and neurobehavioral effects and three investigated cancer. We found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations. None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines, suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations. We believe that comprehensive epidemiological studies of long-term mobile phone base station exposure are urgently required to more definitively understand its health impact.
Reminder that you should wear a tinfoil fedora to prevent brian cancer, not to block thought control.
>>
>>55598687
>Reminder that you should
No.
Reminder instead that research should look closer into prior work. It is about 20 years since this was brought up in Japan when everyone had a smart phone, sitting packed in trains that are effectively Faraday cages.
Someone is fishing for a larger research budget.
>>
Reminder that all of these studies are methodologically flawed, and cannot hold up to peer review.
Though some absurdist research groups have asserted that their may be a correlation between wireless signals and brain tumors/cancers, there has been no increase in incidents of brain tumors/cancers in the past three decades.
All of their findings are completely baseless.
>>
>>55598687
>shitter scientists confusing correlation and causation
I guess this means vaccinations and global warming are causing autism too, huh?
>>
>non-ionizing radiation
>cancer
Pick one
All this scaremongering exist solely because people equate the word "radiation" with "harm".
>>
>imlpying artificial EMF of both low and high frequency does not affect biological systems
>implying WHO does not advice caution with sources of EMF
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914
>>
>>55598687
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418
The lead author has been going on about this for about a decade. No compelling evidence still. Why I am not impressed.
Before this he was working on concussions and aneurisms. You just cannot make this up.
>>
>>55600525
> no increase in incidents of brain tumors/cancer in the past three decades
Do you have a source for that?
>>
>>55602108
Comparisons will be close to impossible, due to change in diets (especially food additives) and use of chemicals over the decades.
Up to the 70's there was a huge use of asbestos. And when the companies realised this might become banned soon, they reacted the only way they saw fit: by using as much asbestos in the constructions on contract as they could. So now you have buildings with warning signs: do not knock on the walls. No, seriously.
Also they used solvents like drinking water up to the 80's. Resin on your hands? No probs: use benzene! it was crazy. People washed things with high pressure solvent sprays, leaving contamination tens of kilometers down wind.
So cancer patterns have changed from oral cancer dominating to stomach, smaller intestines and larger intestines taking over in turn. Now the rectal cancer varieties are a big problem but the joke is that soon it will exit the body entirely.
In summary: comparisons will be extremely difficult.
>>
>>55598687
>fun fact
>there's no sign or any radiation under the tower, safely say for at least few hundred meter radius
OP's shit sound like bullshit
>>
>>55604397
signal*
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1