How do I convince my mom that EMF (electromagnetic frequencies)

If she has cancer (and isn't a complete bitch) you should probably at least pretend to humor her. Just hide the router somewhere where she won't find it (still plugged in) and she won't be able to tell it's on. Maybe rename the AP to a neighbor's wifi or something as well.

Deceive your cancer ridden mother anon

>>62439011
But they ARE dangerous.
See: you're using your computer and shit often, and you're a retard. Is it a coincidence? I don't think so.

>>62439011
>Not just letting your mom ride the fucking placebo to her grave

If she recovers then you guys can have a good laugh about it along the line. If not, she'll die thinking she did all there was to do.There's not really any way for you to avoid this, and if she finds out (and she legit believes this bs) she'll be pissed at you. Just go without internet for however long it takes, it's a small sacrifice for someone literally dying.

they literally cure cancer by blasting you with radiation and hoping the cancer dies first, chemo is the same but with rat poison

1. Hide the SSID in wifi settings.
2. Hide the router box.
3. ????
4. Profit.

This way she won't see your strong local wifi signal if she checks with her phone/laptop so will get full placebo benefits and you get to shitpost.

Here are some reasons it's safe:
>The inverse square law
>The ionization work function/photon energy
>The FCC

Here is how much that will help change the mind of non-technical person who is worried about their health:

Why do people reply to stale copypasta?

>>62439011
Just use an Ethernet connection.

Does your ISP supply modes that have some wifi router built in?

I know some ISP's have these (optimum, xfinity, etc) and you CAN NOT disable the router half of the unit.

Get your ISP to send one, maybe toss electrical tape over any light symbol vaguely wifi looking.

Deceive your superaids mother and tell her the ISP said your old modem wont work with upgrades in the area and you must use that modem or the phone and tv wont work.

>>62439555
i forgot to add, the best part of this is all the isp's I've seen do this don't charge for the router, or even shipping. If it fails its no financial loss.

Just say it showed up in the mail and you called them, and they said it needs to be hooked up by the end of that week or all your services wont work

>>62439011
But they are you fucking retard

File: radiation.png (87KB, 1134x1333px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1134x1333px

show her this

>>62439583
>Immediately bans bananas and makes anon sleep on the roof to reduce risk of radiation.

They are nonionising.

>>62439583
>sleeping next to someone
Literally how

>>62439011
> all that means is I lose internet
Get an ethernet cable.
Also she will die soon anyway, so why bother.

>>62439673
potassium, man. it gets you.

>>62439011
>he thinks he can connect only through wireless
you deserve to not to have access desu

>>62439130
Tbh this anon, it might seem scummy but just stick the access point where she wont find it and say she's convinced you

>>62439483
>The FCC

Same way the FDA allows aspartame and high fructose corn syrup, right anon?

>>62439726
Both of things are perfectly healthy to ingest. Though ingesting large amounts of high fructose corn syrup is unhealthy in the long run (just like any other large source of calories).
I'm particularly tired of the "aspartame causes cancer" meme, please stop.

>>62439555
>>62439570
If you cant hide it, this might be stupid enough to work

>>62439200
radiation treatment == shotgun surgery

>>62439011
>EMF (electromagnetic frequencies) from things like wifi aren't dangerous?

Don't let her read the warnings included with your wifi router's manual or cell phone's manual

You absorb more radiation from the sun than you do from the router.

>>62439950
You get a break from the sun. A router maybe not ever especially if you're in the house a lot and ill trying to recover.
>>62439011
I'm not going to say I think it does or doesn't but I did get a burn from a cell phone in my pocket that triggered some autoimmune reaction. It tooks months to heal and I stay the hell away from my cell phone and use an earpiece so it's far from my head. People are different. If it bothers her, try to help out and work with her. It's arrogance to think that just because a link hasn't been found that there is no link. Plus the intent can help heal your mom if show you care more about her than your beliefs about science and trust in market research. If she dies of her cancer and you just were obstinant, you will regret it. It's not a lot of work to comply a bit.

>>62440085
there's different opinions and then there's verifiable facts, anon. not that you should be an asshole about it, but it's not going to cause cancer.

>>62439011
Do you think acting against modern science is a sin of some sort? Will you go to science hell?

>>62440085
>man these cellular radiowaves must be fucking me up
>better use bluetooth radiowaves instead

The mobile industry is worth tens of billions of dollars you bet your ass there will be cover ups of research that show that wireless devices are dangerous.
Human bodies are made to deal with a broad spectrum, not multiple giant spikes at 2.4GHz, 5GHz and a few mobile bands.

Not dangerous my fucking ass, just look at a fucking microwave oven, and tell me radio waves (non-ionizing) radiation cannot be dangerous,

>>62439552
On the phone

>>62440166
A microwave has so much energy that it literally cooks food though.
The only warmth a router produces is the one from the electricity in the wires and processors.

>>62440169
Stop phoneposting dumb fag.

>>62439670
so are microwaves

>>62440189
>comfyposting in bed, warm sheets and a cup of tea
As oposed to
>sitting in a squeky chair im sick of, huch backed in front the keyboard again after work
You do you, anon

>>62439741
but it does

Murder your mother and shitpost all you want

>>62439011
You should tell her it's just like radiotherapy (EMF ;) ) which is like super wifi that kills cancer.
So normal wifi is to x-rayfi as curing a hangover with an IV drip is to destroying your tumours with a chemo drip

File: images.png (20KB, 506x606px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 506x606px

>>62439194
Woah, you're right!

>>62440533
but it doesn't

File: a s s t a t i c.png (71KB, 450x183px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 450x183px

>>62439011
Tell her she can't escape EMF and that the only solution is to protect herself with a tinfoil hat.

If you are a good child, make the tinfoil hat for her.

>>62439200
They don't cure shit... Do they reduce the number of cancerous cells to a acceptable level for the body to finish them off? Yes.
Also radiation therapy is being slowly omitted as a therapy method because it causes more tissue damage than it does good. They prescribe more chemos, especially the new "guided" kind since it's showing better results. But chemo will still be shit until nano technology comes along.

>>62440682
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/08/29/aspartame-health-risks.aspx

File: bananaphone.png (317KB, 870x468px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 870x468px

>>62439583
rad infographic dude

>>62440493
How is this an excuse to phonepost? Just use a thinkpad, probably X200 or X220, for comfyposting in bed. Hook it up to ethernet, of course. Bam, problem solved.

>>62440178
>so much energy that it literally cooks food though.
>The only warmth a router produces

So microwaves are safe as long as there's not enough power to warm you?

>>62440438
>all forms of radiowaves are the same thing, thats why they have different names

>>62440781
It doesn't, it's literally one of the most studied food additives
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/aspartame.html
You fell for the lies of big sugar, congratz on reaching lemming status, I bet you also think fats are bad for you.

Gluten on the other hand, that shit will make your dick fly off

>>62439673
All matter radiates EMR.

People radiate mostly non-harmful EMR (read: not highly energetic EMR).

Matter of an exotic characteristic can radiate very harmful EMR (quasars, plutonium, etc).

>>62440781
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/6/1419.long

Here's the only human study referenced in that article you linked. It's a good study. It also happens to reference the animal study that was mentioned in that link.

This has show a positive correlation between the two variables i.e. cancer (NHL, multiple myelomas) and diet soda intake.

If you read through though it's far from conclusive but provides solid grounds for further investigation - which is the point of epidemiological research like this.

The large majority of other research to date has show very little to support the negative health effects. Certainly not with people consuming fair amounts with sound diets.
There are obviously a lot of confounding variables here but there seems to be some association between the two that at the very least provides incentive to look at it more closely.

So the jury is out, but as-is it's inconclusive. Closer to neutrality than a positive claim to its malignancy.

You should read what you post more thoroughly speed reader kun

>>62439011
Short version: you can't. She is convinced that they are dangerous, so any information on the matter presented to her is viewed through a lens of "this says it is, so this must be right, that says it isn't, so that must be wrong". That belief supersedes any critical thinking she might otherwise do when evaluating which of two opposite arguments has more merit. (And one of the things about diseases like cancer is that many people can't just accept "shit happens, you had bad luck on this one" and need something to blame. And in all likelihood even if anything *is* to blame, they think "well it can't have been from that because all these other people are around that all the time and *they* don't have cancer". Mobile phones and WiFi are commonly blamed because they're new and not well understood by the layperson.)

If there weren't "experts" and websites with plausible-to-the-layperson reasons out there, you'd stand a chance. But there are, so you don't.

So your options are to humour her and use old-fashioned ethernet cables for internet access, or lie and hide the WiFi router. Or both.

My mom also has various psychosomatic illnesses, including EM hypersensitivity, loads of allergies, etc.

I don't think there's any helping her. She blows up if you question her at all.

>>62441102
if she has em hypersensitivity then it probably is affecting her

>>62441126
what are you saying, that EM hypersensitivity is real? If so, include proof.

>>62439867
shotgun surgery == best surgery

>>62441147
nah i just figured that he wouldn't bring up something that would go against what he wants

>>62440781
>mercola.com
Execute yourself.

Stop trying to argue with people, even if you're right and even if it's your mom. Only a select few will be convinced by reasoning to change their opinions

File: maxresdefault.jpg (182KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1920x1080px

>>62439011
>How do I convince my mom that EMF (electromagnetic frequencies) from things like wifi aren't dangerous?

Ask her if she thinks other electromagnetic frequencies like radio waves (wifi is a type of radio wave) are dangerous... Wifi signals can not pass the skin because the wave lengths are too large (6-12 centimeters)

If she opens her mouth then it might hit her teeth and might cause interferrence (see picture related) when the waves bounce back) But regular light is much more dangerous. Some parts of sunlight have so small wavelengths that it might penetrate the skin and the sunlight also have a much higher amplitude (intensity). So if she is afraid of electromagnetic frequencies like wifi then she should be even more afraid of electromagnetic frequencies of the color yellow or red. Because it's literally the exact same thing with a different frequency and wave length.

Being afraid of wifi and not being afraid of the color yellow is like being afraid of a slight breeze, but not being afraid of a storm.

>>62441181
I don't understand what you're saying. Yes, the psychosomatic illnesses are greatly limiting her life to the point of being almost completely isolated and eating the same thing every day.

>>62439011
You can't convince her. She obviously doesn't give a shit about you and trusting random "experts" on the Internet is the #1 indicator of low IQ.
Your only choice is to take charge and overrule her cretinous decisions. It's time to become the parent, OP.

Don't be a dick anon, I'd have loved the chance to be nice to my mom before she died of cancer.

>>62440949
>>It doesn't, it's literally one of the most studied food additives

>Aspartame has been used in the United States since the early 1980s.

So there's no data on what happens to people who have been exposed to it for 40 years, or what happens after 40 years of consuming it a lot?

Can you see into the future on what effects continued aspartame consumption will do to someone in their 30s, 40s, or 50s?

>>62441325
You can make this argument about any number of things.

What if constant exposure to plastics actually kills people?
What if constant exposure to cellular RF actually kills people?
What if constant exposure to ibuprofen actually kills people?
Shit, dude, what if constant exposure to the fucking Internet actually kills people?

The point is, people have been eating and drinking aspartame with no noticeable side effects for nearly 40 years.
Could it turn out to be bad for you? Sure, I guess. Maybe you die earlier if you eat it your whole life. Maybe it fucks with your liver on the 50-year timescale.
But all those are highly unlikely. And if you care about your health, there are more important things to worry about than fucking aspartame.

File: banana_split.gif (19KB, 282x216px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 282x216px

>>62439617
You simply needed to search for "the difference between a Banana and uranium". Don't tell me you can't even be bothered to read it

https://boingboing.net/2010/08/27/bananas-are-radioact.html

Also, excess Potassium-40 is eliminated from the body through homeostasis. Uranium on the other hand....

http://www.ccnr.org/About_Radioactive_Bananas.pdf

http://www.thenuclearproctologist.org/new-blog/2016/5/16/oh-fukushima-we-hardly-knew-you-earths-final-obiturary

>>62441467
>But all those are highly unlikely.

Why do you think they're unlikely? Because studies of 1 or 5 year effects of it haven't shown anything bad?

You are the one claiming it doesn't cause cancer. I'm not making the argument for anything, other than there's not nearly enough time or research to prove conclusively that it's healthy.

>>62441547
Jesus, okay, you've made your point. We don't know for sure it's healthy. I'm just saying we don't know for sure anything is healthy, so beyond making you sound like a sensible, intelligent, moderate and forward-thinking person, your argument is worthless.

>>62440942
i wanted to imply that despite being nonionising microwave definetely can have biological effects, by heating water by putting the water molecules in resonance.

a cellular antenna near the ear on the microwave spectrum indeed will heaten the ear and the tissues near it.

inside a cell water is importany, both by being a solvent and by being fondation part of many enzimes and chain reactions. there are even water channels inse the cell walls.

i really dont think common wifi or phone antennas cause cancer, but they could definitely have some biological effects of some kind

>>62440781
>mercola
Sorry, friend, but you got conned by a snake-oil salesman.

2 tired 2 post studies after my botany assignment, so here's this instead.
https://theconversation.com/sweet-news-no-evidence-that-artificial-sweetener-aspartames-bad-for-you-12608

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/aspartame-truth-vs-fiction/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

File: electromagnetic-pulse-emp-nuclear-bomb-blast-electricity-shutterstock157626572.jpg (36KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x360px

>>62439483

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH3gJctqKk4

“The Cell Phone Poisoning of America”
http://thecrowhouse.com/Documents/Cell_Phone_Poisoning_Of_America.pdf

File: 1505454011790.jpg (172KB, 490x536px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 490x536px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z99_SzoXZdY

>>62440085
The sun is more intense and releases UVs, certainly not comparable to the fucking wifi.

File: sb-radiacao-wi-fi2.jpg (59KB, 706x341px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 706x341px

>>62439011

Could it be that these articles your mother has cherry-picked, have something worth of note, but you couldn't be bothered to have a look?

The great thing about this experiment is that you can try it yourself.

http://www.yrdsb.ca/schools/trudeau.hs/library/Documents/En%20-%20Science/SBI3U%20-%20Plant%20design%20lab%20-%20cress%20seeds%20and%20wifi%20expt.pdf

https://stopsmartmeters.com.au/2014/04/26/oh-my-what-is-in-wi-fi-dutch-watercress-experiment-repeated/

>>62441861
No, the great thing about this experiment is that it's worthless because I'm not a bunch of seeds.

>>62441680
heat isnt a biological effect, even if it's the result of radiation

>>62439011
>How do I convince my mom that EMF (electromagnetic frequencies) from things like wifi aren't dangerous?

We actually don't yet understand the risks. Apparently, there's no risk, but repeating sections in our DNA could work as fractal antennas and exposing ourselves to these signals could trigger unwanted behavior in our cells.

Again, we aren't sure about the risks, though no negative effects have been observed so far.

>>62441170
Two negatives makes a possitive

>>62441931
just reread my post. you missed the point. also look at how the glicolisis pathway works for example, or other basic metabolic cell pathway.

or look at porine channels and how they are designed to halt proton jumps by the grotthus mechanism.

making all the water molecule retardely vibrating inside a cell has all the basis for resulting in some biological effect, probably on the sub cellular scale, but still..

>>62439011
But they are dangerous, anon, the early 2000s scientifc consensus on this topic has long been reverted and epidemiological long term tests are being conducted. Are you living under a rock?

>>62439011
Why aren't you using a superior wired connection anyway? Switch to that and it's a win-win for everyone.

>>62441726
>rationalwiki
dropped, they mix too much valid points with unfounded ennuism
ex multis, dental woo is real -albeit the danger comes more from the disposal and from the removal procedure, but it was NOT safe to begin with as they suggest openly, and this is a fact- and chelation therapies are used in "mainstream" medicine
they are the ultimate fedoras, cite the sources directly and critically or abstain

>>62442097
This

>>62439011
Show her this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe-MlaL1e8c

>>62439583
aren't gamma waves or ultraviolet ones capable of really harming you? the radio waves you get from a phone or an access point, even if they had massive amounts of power, would only heat you up.

>>62439011

You can't. It's worse than dealing with believers.

File: camels.jpg (94KB, 640x852px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 640x852px

>>62440166

Cellphones were designed under the assumption a 200 lbs male would be using it for only a few conversations per week.

The US required manufactures to put radiation levels on their phones but most consumers never look at that "feature" when shopping for phones.

It's undisputed that cellphones near children/undeveloped heads is extremely dangerous. To the point that some countries outside of the US required headset/earpiece to be sold with the wireless phone and even restrict advertising that can be directed at children.

If we KNOW it's harmful for children it's probably not the best for adults with extreme exposure. But you can test that out.

And yes, Bluetooth waves use significantly less power than cellular.

Doctors use to endorse cigarettes. You all believe what you want. Aspartame diet soda drinking fat fucks. Surely the corporations who write the legislation that American legislators vote on would not mislead you for their personal gain.

File: towel.jpg (37KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x600px

>>62439583
>Sleeping next to someone (0.05 μSv)

Thanks god being a virgin loner saved me some cancer.

>>62439011
Everybody dies
Everything gives cancer
Better enjoy things while you can

>>62442310
>It's undisputed that cellphones near children/undeveloped heads is extremely dangerous.

mind providing some source, friend?

>>62439741
aspartame literally kills brain cells.
you autistic Fuck. it's a Neurotoxin.

>>62442744
Woah there.
It's one thing to say it's associated with tumors, another one is saying that's a neurotoxin.
Mind saucing?

>>62441972
I'd like to see some articles on that topic.

>>62442685
It's UNDISPUTED. Have trouble reading? You don't need a source for that.

>>62442685

Further reading for those with trouble Google searching: basically it's known to be harmful with undeveloped skulls (children). What's disputed is HOW harmful it is to adults. There is a decent amount of discrepancy in adults between industry funded and independent studies. The American population IS the main test case currently.

http://www.webmd.com/children/news/20140819/children-cell-phones

http://www.healthychild.org/cell-phones-radiation-your-childs-health/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-study-on-cellphones-and-cancer/

http://oem.bmj.com/content/early/2010/12/15/oem.2010.061358

http://ecochildsplay.com/2009/01/12/french-law-cracks-down-on-cell-phone-use-by-children-bans-advertising-and-phones-designed-for-kids/

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-16/health/sc-health-0316-child-health-cell-phon20110316_1_cell-phones-young-brains-brain-activity

I didn't read any of these. If you need more sources I hope you can pick it up from here. I just Googled your search term for you.

>>62442968
>I didn't read any of these.

wow thanks retard, really convinced me that you aren't talking out of your ass, sounds like your parents kept their phones right next to you as a baby

>>62442981
Why would I need to read random articles about a field I have my masters degree in? You asked for further reading - I didn't need it since I was already informed. Are people really this ignant or is that just the typically g neckbeard?

>>62442914
yes, its UNDISPUTED that you are a flaming homosexual, you dont need a source for that, you better believe it and accept it

>>62442981
>asks the other anon for sources
>anon giveth
>thanks retard xd but i actually meant i wanted you to give me an argument
>everyone claps
>le epic troll xD
Fag.

>>62439011
Explain to her that there are thousands of radio frequencies are going through the air and through the walls at the speed of light around her all the time

Explain to her that radio frequencies have been going through the air since 1906 and they would have noticed a correlation in cancer rates if it caused cancer

>>62443009
Okay.
I better go and buy a buttplug if you say so.

>>62442968
5 news articles from dodgy websites and one scientific journal one that basically says that we don't know but there might be some be risks. Also no possible mechanism of action is explained. Real nice.

File: dentistreccomendedL.jpg (66KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 620x465px

>>62443126
That's the point. Do your own search if you don't like those. Nearly every study I've seen over the last 10 years agrees that cellphones are harmful to those with undeveloped skulls. This really isn't rocket science, new, weird alternative homeopathic bullshit. Or just keep putting cellphones next to your kids head to find out yourself.

>>62440788
Heh.

>>62440868
They're non-ionizing, so pretty much, yeah.

File: Capture.png (47KB, 301x644px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 301x644px

I'd be really worried about those ebul 2.4 GHz WLAN stations sending at <100mW. It's not like there are other senders emitting with much higher power in the same spectrum.

>muh EMF sensitivity at exactly 2.400GHz to 2.472GHz (2.484 GHz if you're living in Japan)

>>62443174
>https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html
>In most studies patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls. This finding is true when all brain tumors are considered as a group, or when specific types of tumors are considered.
>Most studies do not show a “dose-response relationship,” which would be a tendency for the risk of brain tumors to be higher with increasing cell phone use. This would be expected if cell phone use caused brain tumors.
>Most studies do not show that brain tumors occur more often on the side of the head where people hold their cell phones. This might also be expected if cell phone use caused brain tumors.
>Some studies have found a possible link. For example, several studies published by the same research group in Sweden have reported an increased risk of tumors on the side of the head where the cell phone was held, particularly with 10 or more years of use. It is hard to know what to make of these findings because most studies by other researchers have not had the same results, and there is no overall increase in brain tumors in Sweden during the years that correspond to these reports.
So yeah, if most results are negative then it probably has no effect.

You've already made a thread about this OP. She has fucking CANCER, just let her be and don't stress her further if you have any love for her.

Yes, it will be shit to live with someone unreasonable, but your arguing is just most likely causing her more stress which is a huge deal if you're battling a disease.

It may be a cruel thing to day, but by continuing this argument for apparently months, you're increasing the chances of killing her.

>>62439011
There are studies, legit ones, learn to use Google. Mine was pretty autistic about it too but nothing a tiny bit education can help. Also look for the funny articles where idiots bitched about muh antennas causing headaches that weren't even on.

Also fuck all these appeasement niggers, ignorance shouldn't be supported, that's how you get cancer in the white house.

File: live100L.jpg (62KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x480px

>>62443243
Good, now find a study that looks at children whose skull has not formed completely since that's what we are discussing. We don't know the impacts on adults yet. We do know it's harmful in children. G reading comprehension is amazing.

Furthermore, if you can find non industry funded studies that would be great. Sounds like you are getting close.

>>62443328
From http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-16/health/sc-health-0316-child-health-cell-phon20110316_1_cell-phones-young-brains-brain-activity which you you yourself linked:
>But studies looking at the effects of electromagnetic radiation in children and the risk of epilepsy and behavioral problems such as attention deficit disorder and aggressive behavior showed conflicting results, Wagner said.
So in other words, EVEN YOUR OWN LINKS show that you're full of shit.

>>62443328
>argues about sources without providing a counter argument with a source

/g/ sure IS amazing, anon

>>62441861
http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/05/danish-school-experiment-with-wifi-routers-and-garden-cress-good-example-of-bad-science/

>>62443328
>industry funded studies
Stop this meme, I've never seen a commercial company that funds epidemiological studies.
Also the studies that I've seen so far were extremely amateurish and poorly researched.
t. chemical industry worker that reads actual scientificarticles almost daily

>>62443398

>But studies looking at the effects of electromagnetic radiation in children and the risk of epilepsy and behavioral problems such as attention deficit disorder and aggressive behavior showed conflicting results, Wagner said.

>studies looking at the effects of electromagnetic radiation in children and the risk of epilepsy and behavioral problems

>the risk of epilepsy and behavioral problems

I don't give a fuck about epilepsy or ADD. So because cellphones don't increase epilepsy they can't be harmful other ways? Nice


Only an idiot doesn't realize you can make any study say anything you want it to. Only an ignorant person would not research mythology and group behind said research. Only a complete fool looks at research that validates their existing opinions and disregards research that does not - regardless of the study.

>>62443433
Most of what I see is funded by industry directly, let alone that many journals use industry insiders on the board to control what is published.

>>62439673
i know anon

i hate being alone

;_;

>>62443511
>I don't give a fuck about epilepsy or ADD. So because cellphones don't increase epilepsy they can't be harmful other ways? Nice
Sure, it MIGHT be harmful, but you're still completely full of shit with your false claims of "UNDISPUTED" consensus.

>>62443511
Oh okay then, post some of that please. Surely if most of it is funded by industry you would easily provide that. And finally post some of those articles that confirmed your position.

>>62439011
just threaten to hit her
that's what I do with my mum if I want to get my own way

>>62441190
yea, but yellow is yellow, and wifi is spooky invisible magic

punch her in the cancer

File: doctorcigs.jpg (55KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x480px

>>62443556
No you retard. France didn't require cellphones to be sold with headsets all those years ago to prevent possible epilepsy. This is how I know you haven't looked at research on this. How fucking shitty is g reading comprehension?

>>62443564
I don't have time to do this research for other people. I'm about to start my real job so I'll leave you with this since I don't care about any of you:

It's all bullshit. Cellphones are perfectly safe for all. DO NOT listen to any dissenting opinion. It can't possibly be true. If you need sources just Google them xd

>>62443710
>I don't have time to do this research for other people. I'm about to start my real job so I'll leave you with this since I don't care about any of you:
Damn you're so cool, sure showed me there.

>>62443710
>No you retard. France didn't require cellphones to be sold with headsets all those years ago to prevent possible epilepsy. This is how I know you haven't looked at research on this. How fucking shitty is g reading comprehension?
But you can't actually say what they ARE trying prevent because a 10 second google search would prove you wrong.

>>62440166
>directly comparing an 800W+ microwave oven with a 0.1W wifi tranceiver
and since it's non-ionizing, all a wifi router can do to you is very, very slightly warm you up

OP, just letting you know that you can safely disregard anybody on 4chan who starts going off on you about calcium channels. He's a hypochrondiac from /sci/ who doesn't understand how to read research papers. He's bound to find this thread shortly.

About your mom, teach her about ionization energies and have her do the math to prove that RF radiation can't damage DNA and cause cancer. Then look into the accepted hazards of microwaves as used by people who actually work with RF, and how the power needed and the conditions are completely different than wifi.

-t. Sophomore EE hamfag and therefore an expert on everything

My mother thinks phones can cause breast cancer. Looking into it there are some studies saying there's a weak relationship between the two. However she only brings it up when I'm sick. Still I remember back in 2000 when everyone was going on about not putting your phone near your head

File: dvode bowtie.jpg (61KB, 565x554px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 565x554px

>>62440781
>Mercola

>>62442310
>To the point that some countries outside of the US required headset/earpiece to be sold with the wireless phone and even restrict advertising that can be directed at children.
Just because something is a law doesn't make it logical.

>>62439011
Turn off the ssid broadcast

>>62440169
4G

i'm pretty sure sitting near routers and shit gives me headaches and fucks with my vision

also due to my controversial views and being open about them i think i might be attacked with microwave and telepathic weapons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z99_SzoXZdY

>>62444244
Due to your controversial views, I think you're paranoid.

>>62444244
how can it do any of those things? The wifi signals are too weak to be in the visible spectrum so how can it mess with your vision? And headaches? Do you get headaches thinking about electromagnetic waves that are too low to be in the visible spectrum? What about electromagnetic waves with high enough frequency to be visible? Like the color green for example, do you get headaches from sitting next to something that has a visible green color?

>>62439130
This

>>62444244
Why not making a test with a friend activating/deactivating couple routers and wifi shit without telling you first?

>>62440169
Ethernet cable to usb to otg

>>62444828
Because that would disprove his special snowflake mental illness and make him look like the little bitch he is

>>62444462
i have always been very paranoid, yeah
>>62444635
no idea really, i don't have the technical knowledge to know it for sure
>>62444828
it's not a constant thing, i felt it at one apartment for a while after getting a router close to me
>>62444925
no need to be hostile, it's a real pain either way

>>62441726
>Attacking the source and not the argument
Bazinga yourself.

>>62441726
None of what you posted refutes Mercola's points. In fact your sources are clearly being disingenuous through omission.

>>62440986
I thought the bladder cancer from saccharin in the rats was pretty conclusive.

>>62445036
>it's not a constant thing, i felt it at one apartment for a while after getting a router close to me
So you have no actual reason to think it's caused by the routers?

>>62445036
>no idea really, i don't have the technical knowledge to know it for sure
I have the technical knowledge to know that it can't enter your head (unlike other electromagnetic waves that don't cause you to be sick because you don't know about them)

>it's not a constant thing, i felt it at one apartment for a while after getting a router close to me
So it's not caused by routers then because those signals are everywhere. You are just making yourself sick with your mind.

>people defending something that failed to pass FDA twice and was pushed through by Donald Rumsfeld who worked for the companies who produced aspartame

>>62440959
I dont think thats EMR.
Youre talking of decay.

>>62446087
Decay results in radiation of various kinds, anon.

>>62439011
My dad worked with extremely strong rf sources for over 40 years and he's healthy as fuck.
I'd probably be dead too if emf were really dangerous,having spent 25 years fucking around his workshop.

>>62439011
if a 'professional' is coming over, hiding the ssid won't do a thing.
turn off that thing for a day, let the neighbors get the blame and turn it back on

>>62442310
>restrict advertising that can be directed at children.
That's because you're not allowed to market /anything/ towards children. Not because it's wireless.

>>62447785
"Professionals" like this will bring an overpriced field strength meter and show you the blinking lights as proof you need to spend tens of thousands of dollars making your house "safe" from microwave background.