http://biorxiv.org/content/early/20 16/05/26/055699 It look

>>8103745
Idk but I'm guessing since it's non-ionizing radiation DNA damage is out of the question

File: cellphonecancer.png (229KB, 679x836px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 679x836px

and so the misinformation and lies begin

>>8103745
or how about not a large enough sample size

>>8103770
Have you done the power analysis to show that it's not possible to discern a difference in effect for their sample size (90 animals per group)?

>>8103767
Can't wait to see a billion posts here trying to redpill us about this.

Oh wait. >>8103745

>>8103767
My boomer parents believed every word of those headlines and are trying to tell me to stop using my phone so much.

There is no point to even argue with them, neither are college educated and will always assume I'm full of shit and wouldn't know more than "NBC news".

>>8103767
> cancer studies are misinformation and lies
> ive studied all of them and can confirm that they are false
lmao what a retard

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-on-the-effects-of-mobile-phone-radiofrequency-radiation-on-rats-by-the-us-national-toxicology-program/

>>8103745
I'm not an expert but I skimmed the paper and the results seemed hilarious. Most looked like experimental error, especially when the most impressive data with Schwannoma in the heart is compared to Schwannoma in other sites.

Fucking RF emissions are gender-specific.

>>8103981
funny how every study with controversial results is immediately labeled "underpowered"

>bioRxiv (pronounced "bio-archive") is a free online archive and distribution service for unpublished preprints in the life sciences. It is operated by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, a not-for-profit research and educational institution. By posting preprints on bioRxiv, authors are able to make their findings immediately available to the scientific community and receive feedback on draft manuscripts before they are submitted to journals.

Literally unpublished work, no peer review, not even ready to publish. How are you making any conclusions OP?

Also the idea of BBB penetration or DNA damage caused by weak radio frequencies is 100% ridiculous.

>>8104076
funny how every underpowered study with controversial results is immediately labeled "game changing" even though it never is

>>8103745
its radiation that you put near your ear, which is why some people who have brain tumors near their ears have it from being on the their cell phone talking a lot

>>8103745
just about anything in this world gives off radiaition in the age of technology, thats how every thing is mobile connecting to other networks. you just have to avoid excess amounts of it.

File: Nah.jpg (24KB, 686x504px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 686x504px

>>8104219
>getting cancer from non-ionizing radiation

>study on rats
>somehow it transposes to humans

go fuck yourselves.
It almost never does.
Whoever posts this shit should be gunned down in the street like the degenerate they are.

This bullshit has been disproven so many times that's it's annoying how people are still researching it. My physics teacher used to work at Motorola, in their testing facilities. Their conclusion was that the only way cellphone waves could do any damage at all is if you hold it to your eyeball for 10min+, at which point you fucking deserve it. You also have to take into consideration that this was a good couple of yours ago where you had to walk with Arya's needle to be able to get any kind of signal. And to make it even worse, all having a sword stuck in your eye did was boil your cell from the inside. So if you ever see this kind of "scientific article", please tell it to develop cancer and do some research on how it happened.

>>8104224
>implying that's the only way to get cancer even from EM

>>8104979
>non-ionizing radiation
>cancer

Explain how this works. Do you expect phones to somehow produce so much radiation that they will cook your flesh like a microwave?

What exactly is the government motive for falsely linking cancer to cellphones?

We know they erroneously link cancer to plenty of other vices in order to tax said vices, how would they tax a cellphone? It's not exactly a vice so they couldn't use the sin tax argument.

>>8103745
Is it based on a single study? If yes, it's probably bullshit.