You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] badruns ago  (edited ago)

If what you say is true, why do European contries issue guidelines about exposure limits? Are you suggesting they are being foolish?

Here's WHO saying that heavy cellphone usage is enough to cause an increase in cancer rate: https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf

^^Which does not even come close to the exposure levels you would see when stationed near transmitters that are constantly active.

The only study long-term study that was done in the US that I was aware of was decades ago: it used mice - those mice got cancer at triple the rate of the control group. This was hand-waved away because "mice often get cancer". Here's a more recent one: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181101133924.htm

^^Those rats got about 9 hours of constant exposure total per day for a period of 2 years - many got cancer as a result. This is incredibly similar to what happened at the school in California - teachers and students would be getting about 8-9 hours a day of constant exposure under the transmission towers for years. 4 elementary school children and 2 teachers attending that school developed cancer within quick succession. Do they have to squeak like mice too for you to see the similarity?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cell-tower-shut-down-some-california-parents-link-to-several-cases-of-childhood-cancer/

Why did Sprint shut the tower down? This is effecting their bottom line, do you think they are doing it just to be nice?

Cigarettes don't cause lung cancer because the tobacco companies said so, right? Sugar doesn't make you fat because the sugar industry said so...