Remember goyim, only raving mad lunatics wear tin foil You don't

correlation =/= causation ;)

>>7773584
In what fucking city does anyone live 1km away from an RF tower ?
You're literally comparing rural and urban cancer rates.

File: pseudoscience.png (11KB, 503x377px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 503x377px

>>7773587

Good goyim. Don't forget to donate to my cause to get pseudoscience such as this out of our schools and out of our libraries.

>>7773584
Also, why isn't this a box plot ? For all I know this could be anecdotal evidence.

>>7773598
This I can believe, but it is not related to cancer.

>>7773594

>In what fucking city does anyone live 1km away from an RF tower ?

Sydney is one

There's a big TV tower, or there was one at least, operating in the wealthier inner-city/eastern area.

Not to mention all the mobile phone towers doted around the place, because they have a short signal distance.

>>7773600

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8985435

Not sure if the same one, but it demonstrates the same thing at least

>OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is an increased cancer incidence and mortality in populations exposed to radiofrequency radiations from TV towers.

>SETTING: Northern Sydney, where three TV towers have been broadcasting since 1956.

>CONCLUSION: We found an association between increased childhood leukaemia incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers.

>>7773605
>Not to mention all the mobile phone towers doted around the place, because they have a short signal distance.
So if there are mobile phone towers everywhere, doesn't this prove my point ?

If that whole RF causes cancer thing is accurate, then why hasn't there been a massive spike in cancer as huge numbers of RF towers have gone up everywhere for the last few decades? The whole thing sounds like junk science to me.

>>7773616
>So if there are mobile phone towers everywhere, doesn't this prove my point ?

No, because TV towers + mobile phone towers is greater than mobile towers alone.

Besides, the Sydney case I mention (and have linked in a reply in this thread) was analysed in 1996 - there would have been very few mobile phone towers back then, if any

>>7773615
Meh. The article starts with a broad range of cancer types and then reduces its scope at the conclusion for childhood leukemia. Could be either a coincidence or some other factors. Hell, maybe the families with leukemic children moved to the inner cities to have better access to a hospital.

Also, brain cancers are unchanged, why would RF towers only affect child and cause them a fucking blood cancer? Shit makes no sense.

Just speculating though, maybe it's true but we need a lot more data.

File: leukemia_accounts_for_30_percent_of_childhood_cancer.png (5KB, 411x134px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 411x134px

>>7773617

>Implying

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17556764

>The odds ratio for all types of leukemia was 2.15 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00, 4.67) among children who resided within 2 km of the nearest AM radio transmitter as compared with those resided more than 20 km from it.

Keep in mind that TV towers have been around for less time than some extant people have lived, and mobile phone towers (which are much more abundant) have only been around for what, one or two decades? What effect will it have on the children born today?

>>7773615
>ecological study

lol

>>7773626

Funny how there are so many coincidences such as this one: >>7773644

They haven't just done just done correlation analysies, they've done experimentation on animals and have found that RF radiation causes real harm.

It's also so abundantly clear that the RF radiation from a phone causes harm, that it is now insisted upon that people do not hold mobile phones a few cm away from their skulls - yet people do not generally take it seriously, because they have been taught that RF radiation exposure is harmless; only something a 'tin foil hat' lunatic would worry about.

How many of these studies and analysies do you need to conclude 'hmm, perhaps exposing people to 24-hour radiation of the type that is used to cook food (microwave) isn't such a great idea after all'? 20? 50? 100? 6 million??

File: Sperm-Count-1938_1990.gif (7KB, 500x313px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 500x313px

Here's another massive hit to the survival rate of whites that you-know-who doesn't want you to know about and paints as some empty-headed conspiracy:

Estrogenic chemicals in the water supply

By now, your average joe who reads that immediately thinks its the words of a kook. But here's a reality check for you: The male sperm count has fallen by more than half since 1950 - it's dropped by more than 30% since the last figure on this graph, 1990. If not our very own selves, our sons will be infertile, as counts below 20 million is where infertility begins.

The effects of growing levels of these estrogenic chemicals in our water supply on marine life are well documented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen). What would normally be male fish, become intersex. Isn't it an odd coincidence how all these 'genderqueer', 'asexual' and 'male-to-female transgender' types have come out all of a sudden in the past few years? Is it really just the case that they were always around and unnoticed, or should we be thinking more deeply about the fact that male-to-female transgenders outnumber female-to-male transgenders three to one?

These estrogenic chemicals aren't just leeched out of plastic bottles - the water supply is polluted directly through chemical, stormwater and sewerage waste. This is what your food (plants and animals) drink and absorb, so there's no escape.

The feminization of males by these estrogenic chemicals (which also go by the term 'endocrine disruptors') is already being witnessed as a clear phenomenon in socities such as the remote and traditional inuits who consume mainly the fish, which take in these estrogenic chemicals (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/12/gender.sciencenews).

>>7773732
>Here's another massive hit to the survival rate of whites

>>>/pol/

File: vitamin_d.jpg (39KB, 800x537px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 800x537px

>>7773735

You forgot to encourage everyone to not go out into the sun ('You'll get skin cancer!!!'), and wear sunscreen in case - G-d forbid - people actually do go out into humanity's natural habitat

After all, dubious fish pills overloaded with retinol are enough, right? The recommended dietary allowance is 600 IU (6 nmol/L) and the 'tolerable upper limit' is 4000 IU (40 nmol/L)- or 4 minutes in the sun on a clear summer day; don't be a bad goy and spend more than 5 minutes in the sun like your naturally adapted ancestors did.

File: no_more_than_2300mg_goyim.png (102KB, 772x496px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 772x496px

How much have these so-called 'scientists' been lying to us about?

And more to the point, who pays them?

>>7773779
On the contrary, I'd suggest that you get out more.

>>7773779
There is a REASON why white people have NORDIC ancestry fag-boy.
There is a REASON why brown skinned people live in hotter/sunnier climes.

Sun is coming to get you white colonial batty bois.

File: pure_coincidence.jpg (7KB, 218x231px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 218x231px

>>7773801

>Based on the combined evidence from metabolic, pharmacokinetic, and observational studies and from randomized controlled trials, it has been argued that sufficient scientific evidence exists to support an optimum, daily vitamin C intake of at least 200 mg/day, which is substantially higher than the current RDA (11). Studies conducted at the National Institutes of Health showed that plasma and circulating cells in healthy, young subjects attained near-maximal concentrations of vitamin C at a dose of 400 mg/day (11). Because of the very high benefit-to-risk ratio of vitamin C supplementation, and to ensure tissue and body saturation of vitamin C in almost all healthy people, the Linus Pauling Institute recommends a vitamin C intake of at least 400 mg daily for adult men and women.

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-C

The recommended intake of Vitamin C proclaimed by the 'World Health Organization' is 45mg - just enough to prevent scurvy

>>7773809

People are being encouraged to stay out of the sun and wear sunblock when they are in the sun, because they've been taught from the time they were a child that skin cancer is the ultimate boogeyman, and so many people now have a severe Vitamin D deficiency - not an overdose.

It's actually worse for the darkies, because they need much more sun than whites to get adequate Vitamin D. Any darkie who isn't in their natural environment (i.e. the UK/Northern Europe) is doomed - they can't get enough UV exposure even if they tried. Even the mudslimes wrap their women up in cloth, so they can't get any vitamin D at all, which has disastrous health consequences.

File: low-fat-guidelines.jpg (66KB, 550x313px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 550x313px

Stop eating fat goy! Don't you know it's bad for you because I say so? What do you me 'how do I know', it's common sense, fat makes you fat.. now stop asking questions!

NO I said drop the olive oil, that's what's giving you diabeetus, not my cheaply-produced sugarwater drink.. ok fine, here have this instead, we use a special super substitute called aspartame™ that fucks up your gut microbiota instead and so has the same end result as sugar anyway - but it tastes almost the same! Aren't that great?

Oh no, not this again http://www.teenvogue.com/story/teen-girl-dies-wifi-allergy-ehs

>>7773889

An imaginary syndrome =/= actual cancer statistics

File: microwave.jpg (211KB, 800x513px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 800x513px

>>7773889

BTW if you think electromagnetic radiation is safe, why don't stick your head in one of these, turn it on for a minute or two, and show us all it does you no harm

>>7773584
>My name is OP and I have an addiction to cock

>>7773926
>I am a stupid fucking faggot from /pol/ who doesn't understand the concept of magnitude.

>>7773926
>Thinking that every wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum has the same effects

>Being this ignorant of basic physics

File: caught.png (171KB, 450x290px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 450x290px

>>7773936

My name is Ezekiel and I must post inanities

>>7773949
Just go back to your containment board already senpai.

File: radiation.png (15KB, 788x422px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 788x422px

>>7773947

We are told that long-wave radiation is harmless. Microwaves and radio waves sit side-by-side.

>>7773940

A mobile phone is placed half an inch or so away from your brain. A wifi modem might be sitting just half a meter away from you. As you should know, the amount of radiation exponentially increases the closer you get to the source of it. A TV tower emits such an enormous amount of radiation that the effects are felt kilometres away, as evidenced by the cancer statistics.

>>7773959
Cut the stupid fucking horseshit you obnoxious dumbass FUCKHEAD.

The effect of microwave band radiation from cell towers or wifi, on biological systems, is not thermal. The SAR is well within range and tissues can disperse and traffic away heat quite quickly, especially when you factor in that lower frequencies have a greater penetration depth. the issue is (mostly) from the magnetic field component, and its flux. It interferes with gene expression, generates increased ROS and RNS production via chronic elevation of heat shock proteins, and can interfere with proper protein folding. Pyramidal cells are most effected, especially in children who have a thinner skull and are actively undergoing corticogenesis. Also, there is something to be said for increased blood brain barrier permeability letting in albumin, etc. Some early studies also show exposure to GSM 900 phone signals, in mice, drives down dopamine and to a lesser degree norepinephrine, while increasing serotonin in various regions. I'd like to see this expanded to other areas, more finely measuring certain brain regions and determine what actual changes occur when sampling at a given interval. This indicated certain structures, unsurprisingly, are more sensitive than others. It also depends what phase of the cell cycle the affected cell is in.

No. I'm not getting pulled into another wifi and cell phone debate. The research is there to be found, and you can weigh it all together and make your own conclusions. Just do some ACTUAL LEGITIMATE RESEARCH, you fuck. So sick of you people, you're hamstringing your own case.