[–] CTCZ 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago 

Article fails to provide any proof whatsoever.

[–] absurdlyobfuscated 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

If you click around you can find info about the study: https://factor.niehs.nih.gov/2018/11/feature/1-feature-radiation/index.htm

tl;dr: Rats tend to get cancer when regularly blasted with levels of radio frequency radiation 4x the allowed maximum across their entire body. Results might not translate directly to humans, and it doesn't evaluate the potential risks of typical RF exposure levels.

[–] PraiseIPU 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

Did you expect "engineers' and "sysadmins" billing themselves as "scientists" to have any proof?

I'm curious Bill Nye is an engineer. Would he be a credible source for this?

Michael Condessa Dode, Systems Analyst, Vânia Araújo Condessa, MSc., Electrical Engineer,

[–] bunnysupreme 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

you raise an issue that has been avoided; where are the numerous peer reviewed studies from smartphone manufacturers?!

When was the last ime Apple done a recent safety test of its iPhone?!

[–] Holonomic 5 points 0 points (+5|-5) ago  (edited ago)

I don't really believe this conjecture about non-ionizing radiation, but per your comment, did you not read the PDFs supplied with the post? Or do you just open a page and close it without reading anything and then make reddit-style replies? This isn't reddit. We aren't a bunch of niggers, faggots, sympathizers, or knee-jerk crybabies that run in circles and scream that the sky is falling because we are too dense, or too arrogant to be bothered to actually read something. Maybe go back and read the post again, and maybe get mommy to read it to you, or get a magnifying glass grandpa....whatever it takes. At least they are giving their evidence. It's the most I've ever seen about this stupidass topic. The flaw is, they need someone TO READ IT.

[–] CTCZ 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Wow calm down. I read the web page from the OP. No proof. At your bidding, I went back and read the PDF (actually both the PDF and the summary PDF). The PDF is simply the web page, in PDF format. Again no proof. The summary PDF - same content from teh web page, & no proof. If you can concentrate on discussing things intelligently rather than attack, perhaps you can point out the compelling proof you are so enthusiastic in encouraging others to read.

[–] PepeFarmRemembers 5 points 5 points (+10|-5) ago 

So the same idiots that push "climate change" now want to control the RF spectrum with a "we have no proof but muh-feels" scree.

I'm sure everybody here is just fine with the UN deciding what radio communications you are allowed to use.

[–] qwop 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Most of these scientist are independent non-telecom funded researchers. They focus on non-thermal effects of radiation, while the telecom industry has chosen to only focus on thermal effects (heating).

The reason the telecom industry made this choice is simple; it's a business decision. It's cheap to design tests for heating and investigate it, and it is simple to state the safety limits in terms of heat absorption. This way they sidestep the expensive and complicated area of non-thermal effects.

In the US the EM (electromagnetic) limits are set by the FCC, and in EU they are set by ICNIRP. Both of these organizations are staffed by telecom industry researchers and decision makers.

It shouldn't be too difficult to understand that this is like the tobacco industry setting their own safety standards for smoking.

The UN bases most of their decision making on the research of both of these organizations, and EU states only use ICNIRP as the basis for their guidelines. The UN has very little say here, as EU state laws are based on ICNIRP, and US laws are based on the FCC standards.

Now what do the independent researchers find, when they look under the hood of the telecom industry funded smoke screen?

They find a worrying array of effects, down to the cellular physical level of all biological life. This is not some climate change hoax, as the science is not based on some vague probabilistic predictions inside a computer model. Instead it is based on direct cause and effect observations, which can be repeated and verified by other researchers.

We don't want UN to decide everything for us, instead we want to see the honest science, and then let us make informed decisions for ourselves. This is how the dangers of tobacco were revealed also. You're still free to smoke if you wish, but at least you know what you're getting into. We have a similar situation with wireless now, and there is a lack of effort by the industry to reveal the real science, because these gadgets just make them too much profits.

What appeals like these are calling for, is for the non-thermal effects to also be taken into account by UN, FCC, and ICNIRP, and thus let this information trickle down to the decision makers of individual countries.

That way we can have safe wireless laws, and not the current wild-west, where an important aspect of electromagnetic harm is completely ignored, and the citizens are kept unaware of the problems of this technology.

[–] PepeFarmRemembers 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Nobody, including the "telecom industry" focuses on thermal effects of microwave radiation by choice... It's physics.

If you want to reduce your exposure to background microwave radiation you'll have to turn off the Sun. Fortunately water and water vapor absorb microwave radiation. The same laws of physics that "protect" us from solar microwave radiation also makes us opaque to it.

UV radiation has a known photo chemical cancer vector but I don't see anybody saying we should destroy all flowers because bees use UV light to communicate the location of pollen.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

[–] Damnpasswords 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

All of the previous generations of wireless tech were also bad for you, with sparkgap being the worst

[–] Corpse_washer 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Nothing to see here, citizen. Move along!

[–] zyxzevn 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

A good source on this stuff is
http://www.microwavenews.com
It collects all research and peer-reviewed articles on microwaves and health.

I collected some evidence on reddit. See:
(Warning: link to reddit)
https://www.reddit.com/r/paradigmchange/comments/afozm7/wireless_radiation_impacts_on_health_and_the/

What I find interesting is that the CIA has research that shows direct damage from non-ionizing EM-waves.

WARNING: link to CIA:
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88B01125R000300120003-8.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88B01125R000300120009-2.pdf

[–] ichlibejuice 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

250 ”scientists" failed out of lower level undergrad optics.

[–] Fuzzycrumpkin 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago  (edited ago)

More scientists than that will advocate about how the vegan diet is the best diet for humans and how all humans should be on it. I guess we all better become vegans now.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] Fuzzycrumpkin 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago  (edited ago)

It isnt a strawman, it is me pointing out the bandwagon or appeal to popularity fallacy. The argument sounds stupid because it is stupid. No matter how popular an argument is, it doesnt matter, because if the information provided isnt worth a shit, than all you have is a bunch of chuckleheads standing around nodding their head like a bunch of retards.

It is the same as leftist pointing out "99.9999 percent of climate scientists agree, that climate change is real. Hurder, hur, hur.". Popularity, or the amount of people that believe something means nothing.

[–] PraiseIPU 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Are you familiar with "topics" this thread is about cell phone radiation. and you start in about vegan?

[–] Fuzzycrumpkin 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Did you miss the point of the comment? Do you think that I'm going to go vegan no matter how many scientists come to a consensus about it? The number of scientists behind a study is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether the study is sound or not.

Also I rarely look at what subs the topic was posted in. Why should I care? The only reason that should matter is if you dont want any dissenting opinions and are trying to create an echochamber. If this is the case you are on the wrong site...

[–] Zealot-goy 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

You stupid goyim. That’s why we ban it in Israel and sell it to you goyim. Hail Israel.

[–] prairie 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Time for some copper foil-wallpaper..

EDIT: why dislike? I'm serious. You can always put an extra WiFi router in the attic if you need coverage outside. Otherwise I'd take a house with copper in the outer walls and over the ceilings. Hell, at least in the bedroom, where you spend a good third of the day.

[–] fluhthreeex 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

DOD-spec is different, from what I've read and heard... what are you suggesting?

[–] Maroonsaint 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Copper is a nice color and then it turns green and still looks cool

load more comments ▼ (1 remaining)