[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.10736583 [View]
File: 79 KB, 374x491, Panagopoulos real exposure slide.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10736583

>>10736572

>> No.10722832 [View]
File: 79 KB, 374x491, Panagopoulos.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10722832

>>10722824
ok ICNIRP
google my filename to find the source of image

>> No.10714165 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 79 KB, 374x491, Panagopoulos.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10714165

what are some boards where I can discuss science

>> No.10714103 [View]
File: 79 KB, 374x491, 16219438.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10714103

Is cell phone/tower radiation truly safe? Or is more research necessary?

Why is the precautionary principle being disregarded?

>> No.10712619 [View]
File: 79 KB, 374x491, Ca.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10712619

>>10712558
>>10712603
>>10712610
To properly study the effects of phones and cell towers with all variables taken into account would take hundreds, if not thousands of years

The evidence shown by contemporary studies is that mobile phone signals are not consistent levels of power and modulation as used in studies (which still show carcinogenic effects), but massively random and unpredictable.

Biology can adapt to '10 minutes on, 10 minutes off' as seen in the NTP study, but in actual use cases the radiation is extremely sporadic, therefore extremely deadly.

This whole issue is going to blow up and hit governments and the economy very hard.

It's worse than asbestos.

Anyone that denies this is an industry shill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adGtb0kxsDM

>> No.10711064 [View]
File: 79 KB, 374x491, Ca.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10711064

>>10711060

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]