Those rats need to stop using 90s cell-phones.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...ion-linked-to-brain-cancer-in-male-rats-65037

I don't know where the author of the NYT gets these numbers:
The lowest level of radiation in the federal study was equal to the maximum exposure that federal regulations allow for cellphone users. That level of exposure rarely occurs in typical cellphone use, the toxicology agency said. The highest level was four times higher than the permitted maximum.

I have only browsed the Tech Report for rats, but clearly they used SAR 3W/kg, 6W/kg and 9W/kg.
According to here:
"The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg)."

1.6 < 3

9 > 4 X 1.6

Maybe I need a new calculator or maybe I missed something?

I have not gone through it critically or thoroughly and I probably will not because it would take too much time and I would have to relearn a lot of pathology that I am just fine not remembering.

With all that qualification, I would say the following: They did a serious job and they are presenting all the details (typical of a decent Tech report). It is a collaboration among several groups. They went through a full load of peer review for a Tech report. They do report some effects. I am not seeing a dose-effect and that bugs me a bit. But again, I have not read it thoroughly.

It was mentioned that some exposed animals lived longer than shams. That is true as I recall, but (as pointed out in the report) it is not, necessarily, a meaningful difference. Two years is close to a life span for those rats, but they did not have the appropriate variability measures in the sense that, beyond their sham group, you don't know what the distribution for life span looks like.

As for whether it is clear/some/equivocal evidence, I am not jumping on that because the way to find out is through replication and extension studies to zero in on the effects. I don't think it is likely to happen because of the irrelevancy of 900 MHz. That is actually a shame in my view.

As far as extrapolation to humans, well that is another matter...as usual.

 

As for whether it is clear/some/equivocal evidence, I am not jumping on that because the way to find out is through replication and extension studies to zero in on the effects. I don't think it is likely to happen because of the irrelevancy of 900 MHz. That is actually a shame in my view.

As far as extrapolation to humans, well that is another matter...as usual.

I will start to worry if we actually see an increase in humans of the actual effects (brain tumors, head and neck tumors, etc ...) theorized to be caused by cell-phone non-ionizing 'radiation'. I'm still waiting for a EM compatible theory beyond simple heating of the bodies electrically conductive structures causing these mutations in rats at cell phone RF frequencies even with elevated power levels.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23591455

The issue of whether cell phone usage can contribute toward the development of brain tumors has recently been reignited with the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifying radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as 'possibly' carcinogenic to humans in a WHO report. To our knowledge, this is the largest study reporting on the incidence and mortality of malignant brain tumors after long-term use of the cell phone by more than 23 million users. A population-based study was carried out the numbers of cell phone users were collected from the official statistics provided by the National Communication Commission. According to National Cancer Registry, there were 4 incidences and 4 deaths due to malignant neoplasms in Taiwan during the period 2000-2009. The 10 years of observational data show that the intensive user rate of cell phones has had no significant effect on the incidence rate or on the mortality of malignant brain tumors in Taiwan. In conclusion, we do not detect any correlation between the morbidity/mortality of malignant brain tumors and cell phone use in Taiwan. We thus urge international agencies to publish only confirmatory reports with more applicable conclusions in public. This will help spare the public from unnecessary worries.

 

I been sleeping under an electric blanket for about five years now.....and I havn'thavn'thavn'thavn't noticed anything yet.

 

This short video uncovers some interesting information from a medical professor , links to diabetes and other problems ...

 

This short video uncovers some interesting information from a medical professor , links to diabetes and other problems ...

The nice lady is an unscientific fruitcake. "Dirty Electricity" and most of the 'dangers' she talks about means something to a electrical engineer but it's not a health concern.

 

The nice lady is an unscientific fruitcake. "Dirty Electricity" and most of the 'dangers' she talks about means something to a electrical engineer but it's not a health concern.

Well that's what I would expect an NSA spook to say ...

 

Well that's what I would expect an NSA spook to say ...

If by that you mean a person with actual technical knowledge and experience working 40+ years with RF systems of all types and in all conditions from antennas in the jungle to RF boosted industrial accelerators then, Yes!

 

I will start to worry if we actually see an increase in humans of the actual effects (brain tumors, head and neck tumors, etc ...) theorized to be caused by cell-phone non-ionizing 'radiation'. I'm still waiting for a EM compatible theory beyond simple heating of the bodies electrically conductive structures causing these mutations in rats at cell phone RF frequencies even with elevated power levels.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23591455

I tend to agree that I have not seen any compelling data on the health risks of cell phone use. I have felt that way for a long time. Personally, I don’t worry about cell phone use in that regard (you already and correctly mentioned distraction and I agree there also).

There are a couple of points that I want to make, even if only to underscore some points which you have already made.

In case someone does not know or remember, ionizing radiation blows atoms off of their orbit. It’s tough for molecules to come back from that. Although there are a few treatments for radiation poisoning, basically, when exposure is sufficient, it is a “good bye and good luck”. So exposure to ionizing radiation is definitely bad news.

From www.arpansa.gov.au

X-rays are a form of ionizing radiation and that is why precautions are taken when you get an X-ray medically. It is also why medical technology works to lower the intensity necessary to get the picture. But cell phones do not transmit ionizing radiation.

The “heating” potential of non-ionizing radiation is there and everybody knows it – but so what? Yes, I suppose it is possible that chronic exposure could have some kind of an adverse effect, but I simply haven’t seen those data relevant to adverse health effects and cell phone use, not ever.

I read the abstract to the report that you linked. Something I don’t like about it is the ending statements, “We thus urge international agencies to publish only confirmatory reports with more applicable conclusions in public. This will help spare the public from unnecessary worries.” It is always proper for a scientist to comment on their data (assuming that their conclusion follows from the data to some extent). It is never proper for them to editorialize at best and to run a position advertisement at worst – especially not in an observational study. To me, that is a form of pollution. It is done all the time and it makes me wonder if there are not a lot of scientists out there that really want to be regulators and I realize that is only my opinion. I could go on for quite a while on why I don’t like those lines, but I will resist doing so.

Beyond that, there are some very notable historical situations where clearly adverse health effects were not uncovered for a very long time (smoking and concussion are two that come to mind). So, I always want to keep those situations in mind and I also have no desire to start an argument in this thread for why it took so long in either case.

I am certainly no Oncologist, but remember, it has only been relatively recently that we came to understand that “cancers” can be caused by chemicals and viruses and radiation.

So, basically, I say that we should be studying it all and doing so all the time. Sadly, it is always a question of priorities and resources and that is simple reality. On the other hand, “sparing the public from unnecessary worrying “, is best accomplished by education, not by doing less science.

 

So, basically, I say that we should be studying it all and doing so all the time. Sadly, it is always a question of priorities and resources and that is simple reality. On the other hand, “sparing the public from unnecessary worrying “, is best accomplished by education, not by doing less science.

A long term study following specific human subjects at different levels of RF exposure strapped to their heads from background noise to harmful will never happen due to liability so the best we can do is to use statistical methods to infer causation with group population data or rat studies that even the researchers say don't apply to humans.

 

A long term study following specific human subjects at different levels of RF exposure strapped to their heads from background noise to harmful will never happen due to liability so the best we can do is to use statistical methods to infer causation with group population data or rat studies that even the researchers say don't apply to humans.

Not so fast. Extrapolation is always an issue in non-human studies, that is not the same as "don't apply to humans". Control (especially from legal/ethical requirements) is always an issue with observational human studies. Statistical methods, both descriptive and inferential, are used in both. There is no either/or, the best we can do is both.

 

Not so fast. Extrapolation is always an issue in non-human studies, that is not the same as "don't apply to humans". Control (especially from legal/ethical requirements) is always an issue with observational human studies. Statistical methods, both descriptive and inferential, are used in both. There is no either/or, the best we can do is both.

Sure but we both know that highly cited animal studies don't often translate into successful human research.
The result is: If you have cancer and you are a mouse, we can take good care of you.

 

Sure but we both know that highly cited animal studies don't often translate into successful human research.
The result is: If you have cancer and you are a mouse, we can take good care of you.

I tried to provide a more cogent response privately, but your account is not set up to allow that (which is fine).

Nevertheless, I strongly encourage you to do whatever you can to avoid becoming a mouse with cancer. Regardless of what you might believe, the "good care" is likely to involve euthanasia.

 

MICROWAVES mm waves it is all AC electrical current radiating down an antenna into the air. The issue is the mm wavelength is the higher the frequency shorter they get, meaning it travels less distance than lower frequencies which have longer wavelengths. This could be an issue if they up the TX or have to place huge number of micro cell radios all over the place.

If you want to see regulations don't mean anything which the FCC regulates the power levels but look up the SpaceX application for their satellite constellation and the FCC director approved their use of extreme levels of TX power and I am talking known levels that are dangerous but the argument is the beam is focused to the base station at the 40 degree mark and the only way it can affect someone is if they are standing in the line of site.

I will only say you have to draw your own conclusion on this but if anyone tells you they are not dangerous is either involved in making money in the industry, close minded or just ignorant because mm waves 100% can be dangerous to humans that is a fact it all depends on the level of power TX or Amplitude. Go stick your head in you microwave oven and turn it on and tell me if they are safe.

The part that could make it dangerous is greed, power and money those will always prevail and if needed lie because wireless technology is so valuable to the world that the benefits (money or profit ) outweigh the risks (death of humans.

Radio waves, Micro waves, X-rays and gamma rays are all radiating power in the form of an electromagnetic wave we don't know anything about them and like it has been said we will know when people become ill or maybe we evolve over time to become immune to the radiation.

P.S. the sun causes cancer they say ;( or radiation treatment is used to kill or stop cells from dividing well what is radiation? obscurity is security

 

May I suggest an upper body radiation shield.

 

May I suggest an upper body radiation shield.

I prefer those aluminum insulated bags that are used to keep food warm. all need to cut two holes where my eyes are works great. Or check out how that microwave oven is insulated.

I work in on and all around it all day everyday and have been for years. The 5G infrastructure is literally in the first phase and we have been working on it for 2 years and still have 2 years before the first phase is done. I am not worried or scared of the 5th generation technology but I will not endanger my children and that is what matters.

The world of information is controlled and manipulated so much that 99% of the sheep hear what is meant for them to hear never once questioning it. Do I believe we will all die from the 5G wireless technology ABSOLUTLY NOT I wouldn't be working on it if I thought that but do we know what the long term affects are on young developing bodies nope we don't so it is what it is but I can tell you from someone who knows 100% what the 5G technology is and how it might work if it actually works and we are still 5-7 years away from wide deployment.

So I can only say I work on it and for it but I will not and do not live in the city or allow active wireless devices to be charged next to the bed at night) also my kids don't have wireless devices and if they talk on one it is only with the speaker. That is me personally but I have been exposed several times to levels that have made me physically ill while working. Dry eyes, dizziness, burning sensation around the face, nausea, neck and upper shoulder tightness all symptoms of microwave radiation exposure. Which had nothing to do with the 5G cellular tech but all is mm wavelength in a nutshell but anyone older than 40 years old and telling you they have been around radios their whole life doesn't know what they are saying because the military uses mm wavelengths or NASA up until 10-15 years ago but it is not like anything ever seen before 60GhZ, 70 Ghz, 80 Ghz I have seen used already industrially, most of the early civilian will be 30-40 Ghz some 3 Ghz and I think they will be auctioning off 7-10 Ghz spectrum along with some in the 20 GHz range but it is all about the Amplitude or power multiplied by billions .. DO some research please 20 billions devices no one has a clue what it will do to humans. but I personally will not live inside of the city and defiantly would not in 7-10 years.

Run for the hills either MM or AI will get us or maybe AI will attack us with mm 5G tech.

 

The people who actually DO some research quickly discover there is a entire industry of fear mongering and bogus products based on EM radiation fears.

I, for one, bow down to our 7-10 GHz, 30-40 GHz, 60 GHz, 70 GHz, 80 GHz overlords.

 

I doesn't matter. Even if a documented safety case could be made.......the demand for it would prevail.

Certain safety regs and warnings would be made.......but the tech will continue.

We don't know for certain......if non ionizing EM can do much damage. We EM jiggle or vibrate cells all the time in medicine......and so far....it seems safe. We very well could find certain frequencies are bad for the body.....or even other indirect processes. Like changing a matter state.

What will be the FEAR hype when THz comes out? There's a possibility of THz transceivers by the time 5G comes to fruition.

And hopefully....we don't miss something.......like we did with radioactivity. Or asbestos. There is a list.

THz tech should tie chemistry, materials science, optics and electronics much closer together.

Even possibly convince science of what matter truly is.......the rotational resonance of charge.....i. e. Parson Magneton.

 

The bremsstrahlung radiation can occur in lower frequency systems that have an anode potential of 15 eKv.

In one section of the transmitter below, there were 3 rems/hour on a Canadian Station.

The recommendation from these measurements concluded that even the equipment in the 1940s could produce ionizing radiation.

The report from those measurements, http://www.loran-history.info/health/DTRA-TR-10-26 - USCG LORAN Transmitter X-Ray Exposure_final.pdf

There was a report in the 1980s that suggested to the government not to sell land because of the unknowns of non-ionizing radiation with respect to emitters.