71–80 of 163 posts
If cellphones and WiFi caused cancer you'd think we would see the cancer rates explode over the past 20 years. Have they?
If cellphones and WiFi caused cancer you'd think we would see the cancer rates explode over the past 20 years. Have they?
Wi-Fi wasn't mainstream back then and kids didn't have phones in their pockets all day long.
I believe we will have more accurate data in another 30 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and I'm reading this with my laptop sitting on my lap..
The wifi antenna in a laptop is in the monitor. Even in your lap it is still much further from your body than the antenna on your phone when you have it to your ear.
Well ... 900 MHz. GSM. CDMA. - Sounds like outdated to me. What about what we are using daily e.g. 2.6 GHz LTE and 3G signals.
Does anyone have a link to the actual paper? As usual, it's impossible to get any useful information from a sensational mainstream science article. The article states that they studied rats and mice at 9 hrs/day exposure (at what RF power?) but aren't reporting results for mice at this stage. Of the rats (how many?), they found the "cancer association appeared in male rats" but no effect size or confidence interval i…
Mother Jones posted this link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f... Key points: - The rats were exposed in utero and throughout their lifetimes - They did pilot studies to find what radiation level did not cause a body temperature rise to remove that as a confusing factor - 900MHz CDMA and GSM signals - SAR of 0, 1.5, 3, 6 W/kg. For comparison the FCC limit is 1.2 W/kg in 1 gram of tissue.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the summary, I just read the article and I feel like you touched the main points. Regarding survival, I also noticed it, surprising. Could you define "survival rate" for someone who's not in the field? Does it mean what it looks like it means, i.e., survival rate is higher when rats die at an older age in average?
Not a medic or biologist (or a statistician!) so I don't know the specific definition, but I assumed it simply means the number of rats still alive at the end of the 106 week period.
It's important to note that according to official dogma, non-ionising radiation can not cause cancer. I've heard my own concerns about non-ionising radiation dismissed (even belittled) so many times that I've lost count. Most often this comes from educated people who think that their education constitutes the whole of all knowledge about the universe and that there is nothing left to be discovered. But one should und…