81–90 of 163 posts
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 - Sounds like outdated to me.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.
What about wifi ? Since I, we, are sitting next to routers all day long, which I guess are sending more EMW energy through us than 3G towers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the reason why people worry about cell phones and not other radio equipment is that they are transmitting very close to the body. Remember, EM intensity falls off as 1/r^2 so proximity makes a big difference.
And a particularly stupid way to react to cell phone radiation fears is to insist that cell network base stations should be moved away from schools and there should be no wifi base stations. Think of our children! What that means is, of course, increased exposure. The kids are not going to give a way their phones, they'll continue using them. When there is no wifi, they will be using the LTE or 3G or 2G networks. Whe…
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…
I doubt that you can find a scientist doing research on radiations effect on the body that dogmatically has said that "non-ionising radiation _can not_ cause cancer". I will personally call this scientist up and lecture him/her on the merits of doing science scientifically.
So if you "doubt" the dogma by saying "non-ionising radiation _can_ cause cancer" every scientist, and me, can go "Fk yeah, thats a working hypothesis, go prove that and bring society forward".
But if you would say that "non-ionising radiation _causes_ cancer" you are "stupid" in the way that you don't base that sentence on the current state of science and you are just making things up because you have been "working with biologists for many years" and you are a proud user of Common Sense™.
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…
Even if the values were only rough estimates I feel like this would put the real risks more into perspective.
"This report presents partial findings from these studies. The occurrences of two tumor types in male Harlan Sprague Dawley rats exposed to RFR, malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas of the heart, were considered of particular interest"
So a key question should be: how many variables was the study looking at? If they were testing 40 different things, you'd expect two 'significant' results by chance.
The discussion also mentions that pooling other studies in the program, the rate of gliomas in male controls is 11/550, rather than the 0/90 from this study. The incidence in the test group (pooling all dose levels) is 11/540, which is indistinguishable from that larger control group.
The numbers for heart schwannomas are a bit more compelling, but that's now just one variable, so the question of how many things the experiment is looking at is crucial.
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…
This is a bit overly general. Many of us who are highly educated and traditionally intelligent battle with imposter syndrome. We're just the ones who you won't find out there acting like we know everything.
The idea that this is often the case it likely more a matter of "the squeaky wheel" than scientific fact.
Paywall
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…
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…