Does WiFi cause cancer?

[Anonymous No.10110667]

I read that the radiowaves that come with WiFi are strong causes of cancer.
Is that true and how high is the risk? Mixed articles say both yes and no.
I kinda fear it but in the end there is nothing that doesn't (pollution, the sun, tabacco)
Pic unrelated

[Miniature Spacecraft No.10110669]

>>10110667
That's not how biology works

[Anonymous No.10110672]

Proabably not but it causes reproductive problems in algae, may cause other issues too. We'll find out in 20 years.

[Anonymous No.10110678]

Maybe. For example from today:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/health/cellphone-radiation-cancer.html
So they see some possible ways in which non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer.

However I don't worry about it because the effect is small and we have much bigger causes of cancer that we do not worry about much. You are much more likely to get cancer from breathing the polluted air than from WIFI.

[Anonymous No.10110680]

Nope

[Anonymous No.10110690]

>>10110678
So basically if WiFi and other low radiowaves cause cancer it's likely on the same level as passive smoking or spicy food causing stomach ulcers?

[Miniature Spacecraft No.10110693]

>>10110678
If there was the slightest beginning of risk with the cellphones, since the time we use them (more than 10 years) and with the extraordinary number of daily users, everyone would already be sick.

Same with WIFI, same with microwaves, same with literally every modern tech.

[Anonymous No.10110724]

>>10110693
>cancer forms immediately when triggered
I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.10110799]

Careful, you'll summon the autist

[Anonymous No.10110834]

>>10110799
Whomstve?

[Anonymous No.10110891]

>>10110693
>everyone would already be sick
By that logic, a lot of carcinogens aren't.

[Anonymous No.10110976]

>>10110667
There was a firestation that was right next to a cell tower and a firefighters fire who worked there got brain cancer. Just a observation

[Anonymous No.10110996]

>>10110667
Essentially you caused cancer at a fault but literally wifi signals dont cause concentrations of radiation, we supply the parts to create such infusions in the blood by allowing the body to participate in cycles that require the algol set mind of something using wifi signals.

I think you mean to know that bluetooth causes cancer not wifi.

[Anonymous No.10111057]

>>10110693
>everyone would already be sick.
Look at the world around you, anon. People have been going insane this past decade or so.

Not saying its WiFi/EM, but "something" is making people worldwide deranged.

[Anonymous No.10111070]

>>10110976
One firefighter who worked near a cell tower got brain cancer.
What overwhelming evidence.

[Anonymous No.10111075]

>>10111057
>Look at the world around you, anon. People have been going insane this past decade or so.
>Not saying its WiFi/EM, but "something" is making people worldwide deranged.
The internet.

[Anonymous No.10111103]

>>10110667
Nah. I've slept right next to my modem for a decade now and a I haven't gotten anything from it. But now that I think of it I've been wondering why my dick is getting kind of splotchy.

[Anonymous No.10111131]

>>10111103
>I've slept right next to my modem for a decade now and a I haven't gotten anything from it.
Isn't that on the same level as "I've smoked for years and haven't gotten cancer".

[Jeffrey Guymon No.10111159]

I’m no scientist, but I was a communications specialist in the US Army at one point. Here is what I know:

WiFi signals operate at 2 bandwidths
-2.4GHz
-5 GHz

The latter frequency is in its infancy, and is supposed to be faster than 2.4 GHz.

Although 5GHz might seem like it’s a lot bigger than 2.4GHz, it is in the same Super High Frequency (SHF) range of the electro magnetic spectrum (EMS). The frequency range of the SHF is roughly between 3-30 GHz and their relative wavelengths range between 1-10 cm (roughly .40 to 4 inches).

With a wavelength this big, it is impossible for the signals to penetrate the human body, let alone the DNA at the cellular level. In order for cancers to form and metastasize, wavelengths must be much much smaller, and in a completely different frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum. I would venture to say that the first frequency range within the EMS to affect biology at the cellular level, would be the Ultraviolet bands (UV). These bandwidths start at 10 nanometers, and can easily penetrate the human body. This is why we sunburn.

It’s important to note that the UV bands are higher in frequency and smaller in bandwidth than even visible light. In contrast, all frequencies in the Radio Frequency (RF) and Microwave (which is where WiFi and SHF are) bands, are in fact lower in frequency and bigger in bandwidth. So this basically means that Radiowaves are just too big to penetrate through anything at the cellular level. As a matter of fact, some radio waves e.g. AM radio, or High Frequency (HF) can and do bound off of the Earth’s atmosphere (ionosphere to be specific). This is why AM signals can travel very lon distances, and reach someone thousands of miles away. They bound off the atmosphere and back down to Earth etc...

I hope this helps.
Jeff G.

[Anonymous No.10111166]

>>10111159
>5ghz is in its infancy
u wot
802.11A is 5GHZ and there were microwave links using 5ghz decades before wifi existed.

[Anonymous No.10111175]

>>10110976
In b4 they were also first responders at the twin towers but I didn't think it was important to mention.

[Anonymous No.10111177]

>>10111166
I think he means it just recently started showing up in every router in every home and Starbucks in America.

[Anonymous No.10111179]

>>10110690
>passive smoking being kind of harmless
lol hell no, that's WAY more dangerous

[Anonymous No.10111181]

>>10111177
802.11A dates back to 1999

[Anonymous No.10111194]

>>10111181
Scroll down on the Wikipedia article you are clearly reading and you will notice it also says 5ghz came into use later because of the expense of the components.

[Anonymous No.10111208]

>>10111194
I know it's anecdotal, but I've seen a shitload of old equipment that uses 802.11a, but that's probably because most of the old shit I see comes from old office buildings and hospitals who had money to burn.

[Anonymous No.10111224]

>>10111075
This, the radiation may or may not be melting our brains, but there is no way it has as much of an impact as something as insane and stupid as commercial internet.

[Anonymous No.10111238]

>>10110667
-Yes, wifi can act as a tumor promoter and initiator.
-The odds are irrelevant. Wifi is damaging enough in other ways that you just don't use it. You don't ask about the odds of developing cancer from eating lead (as they did in Rome as a sweetener), you just don't eat lead.
-Perceived consensus is manufactured, and in reality useless.
-If you fear there's nothing that doesn't cause cancer, why not just go hang out around the elephant's foot? Come on anon, what are you going to do, go through your life living in fear and confusion? Just resign to a pseudo-random death? No. Learn and take steps to protect yourself, and anyone or anything you might care about.

I've gone over this in more depth elsewhere, but in short it's a matter of signal transduction and amplification. Microwaves are not acting on the structures of the cell to damage them (with the exception of ~2.45 GHz which causes DNA to coil and thrash about in wave-like oscillations, which can kinetically break it away from surrounding structures), it's altering the course of existing processes and activating certain systems aberrantly, which can lead to oxidative / nitrosative stress, and pathologically improper functioning.

Refer to this post for more:
>>/sci/thread/S10065303#p10065716
>>10105587

[Anonymous No.10111245]

>>10111224
It's not the radiation doing the brain-melting, it's the content.

[Anonymous No.10111247]

>>10111238
Oh fuck it's this guy again, everybody abandon thread.

[Anonymous No.10111249]

>>10110834
This one
>>10111238

[Anonymous No.10111253]

>>10111238
>You don't ask about the odds of developing cancer from drinking water (as they did in Rome), you just don't drink water.

Nah, I'm going to find out what the risks are first, then make a decision.

[Anonymous No.10111292]

>>10110667
watching less tv and listening to less radio. The more you involve the mind the more it looks to involve the body and that means that it involves more of the cortex and eventually capitualtes to include that all matter may not be enough yet. TV and radio circulate frequencies between a very tight cage system. It doesnt regard space time just a linear notion, and so it cannot properly adjust to vary our states of being into modular states over the course of a lapse in memory if it cannot even function to regulate gestures and even facets of personality or simple organ function. Its a mental state versus mentally stated kind of thing amd most people only care about themselves anyway so its not like these things come up out of weird talks with weird people and tgose weird people usually only respond after youve given them sonething. Fish helps reduce regulation and chicken makes it softer and more tender to let you bring up more water as it realizes new advents of the cleanliness we regard our health to.

[Jeffrey Guymon No.10111318]

My main point was that the frequency bandwidth range of a WiFi signal, most probably cannot affect the cell or DNA. Now whether or not there are psychological issues associated with such frequencies, I couldn’t tell you.

I never claimed to be an all-knowing subject matter expert, but my knowledge has relevance, as I knew this stuff up and down, due to 20 years as an Army Communications Sergeant.

Lol the internet is full of smart asses. Take it or leave it.

[Anonymous No.10111336]

The National Toxicology Program seems to think it's possible.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf

[Anonymous No.10111337]

>>10111245
Yes that's what I meant. I don't fully trust that the radiation and whatnot is completely safe like all corporations and governments will claim, there really is absolutely no way for them to know that. But either way, there's no way it has as much of an impact as something as insidious, radical and unnatural as the internet, we were already living in massively magnified social structures, but then we maximalized it, along with how we live our lives in general. You can live more or less your whole life inside the box now.

[Anonymous No.10111342]

>>10111337
>there really is absolutely no way for them to know that.
>Hurr durr you can't know nothin
Maybe /his/ is more your speed, get the fuck out of here.

[Anonymous No.10111344]

>>10111249
He posted a ton of papers; are you just uncomfortable about them and unwilling to speak about them beyond hand-waving?

[Anonymous No.10111352]

>>10111342
You'd need longtidunal studies on one single isolated variable conducted over the next 20+ years. Stop acting like radiobiology is some completely solved field just because autistic physicists and engineers will claim it's not harmful based on assumptions and a very, very incomplete image of human physiology, cellular biology, nevrology and psychiatry.

[Anonymous No.10111358]

>>10111344
Assuming you're not autismo samefagging, then I'll give you a reason.
If you engage with him and actually read his papers and come to a different conclusion, he'll just stonewall saying no u and come back with the same spam in the next thread. He's stuck in a rut and there's no chance of him stopping or listening to anything that doesn't make him feel like the special doctor outsmarting woke natural health pro he sees himself as.

[Anonymous No.10111360]

>>10111344
>>10111344
Oh yeah, he posted a ton of papers so nobody could realistically read them all during a thread's lifespan and he can just say BUT WHAT ABOUT X until the bump limit.

[El Arcón No.10111368]

Since the people who want me to die are the ones who put these devices inside me, by cutting my flesh with metal --- a serious crime by itself, you should probably assume that these devices are unhealthy and take them out right away instead of asking the opinion of those who put them in there in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10111374]

>>10111358
To me it just seems like you're stonewalling him because you're working from the conclusion that all RF cannot possibly have deleterious effects on living things, so anything indicating a correlation between the two is to be flat-out poo-pooed. He probably spams links out of frustration of dealing with people doing what you're doing.

>and come to a different conclusion
Coming to a different conclusion to a presumably published and peer-reviewed scientific study?

>>10111368
Why do /x/ retards think they're in good company on /sci/?

[Anonymous No.10111375]

>>10110680
/thread

[Anonymous No.10111378]

>>10111375
very rigorous

[Anonymous No.10111379]

>>10111336
>exposed had 0-6 tumor rats per 90 total rats
>control had 0-4 tumor rats per 90 total rats
Such findings much research WOW.

[Anonymous No.10111385]

>>10111379
Control had zero.

[Anonymous No.10111389]

>>10111374
>Coming to a different conclusion to a presumably published and peer-reviewed scientific study?
The studies conclusion are always "needs further testing" and awesome autismo here concludes that we are all infected with radiation.

[Anonymous No.10111390]

>>10111389
Alright.

[Anonymous No.10111395]

>>10111385
You need to read the entire study before posting.

[Anonymous No.10111396]

>>10111389
>>10111390
Actually, how can you take that to mean "it's fine"?

[Anonymous No.10111398]

>>10111374
>>and come to a different conclusion
>Coming to a different conclusion to a presumably published and peer-reviewed scientific study?
Coming to a different conclusion than the spammer who's few legitimate papers come to completely different conclusions than he does.

[Anonymous No.10111402]

>>10111396
>Actually, how can you take that to mean "it's fine"?
"Needs more research" is slang for "we can't prove a null but we will take more money to try."

[Jeffrey Guymon No.10111422]

The original poster asked specifically in his original message whether WiFi signals can cause or contribute to the acquisition of a cancer. He never said anything regarding psychological affects. Although those are very relevant for discussion, my main data was based off of physiological evidence. We can never truly know whether or not these differing frequencies harm us in any kind of way, but as far as the science of wavelength is concerned, it is highly unlikely that such wavelengths (Themselves) can penetrate our cell walls and cause our DNA to mutate.

Now as as far as acoustic science is concerned, and possibly even cymatics, there could be other harmonic frequencies that propagate off of the originating frequency, which cause dissonant harmonics. Anything is possible. But as of so far, we have been living in a world jammed full of differing wavelengths of RF (at an exponential level) for probably at least 50 years, and there still is no data to prove such physical defects or deficiencies.

Still, I find cymatics quite interesting, and an open minded to the possible causes or effects of any given frequency.

[Anonymous No.10111425]

If wifi can cause cancer, something equally ridiculous can cure it

[El Arcón No.10111430]

>>10111425
Cancer is a high entropy biological state. Something ridiculous can easily increase entropy but decreases cannot be achieved through ridiculous mechanisms.

[Anonymous No.10111437]

>>10110672
It causes reproductive problems in mammals, including complete population sterility after 5 generations in rats. Histological studies have shown damage to both male and female reproductive organs, as well as abnormal sperm and germ line DNA damage. Recent studies show developmental abnormalities and delays in rats, and there are mechanistic connections to autism.

>>10110693
Many people are already sick. With the decline in sanity and brain function, the west is steadily falling apart. In Russia, where their safety standard is set 100x lower (formerly 1000x) with a defined peak intensity (we time average over 6 minutes, which is a thermal-centric mindset), Putin was recently asked if he thought the US would be a threat in the future. He said no, that our use of electronics will be very compromising. Putin was part of the KGB during the height of the USSR's radiation research, it's not unlikely he knows the consequences for a population so exposed. Things are far enough along that there's no longer any such cold war information games to play here. Refer to the Moscow Signal for more on that.

>>10111318
Biological systems have a number of structures capable of transducing periodic or low intensity signals well below the threshold of ambient thermal noise. (This was dubbed the kT paradox). The most recent of which are the sweat glands, which turn out to be helical coils full of conductive salts. An ideal antenna array for millimeter waves.

I linked a post with some papers above, and probably posted more in detail about those mechanisms in there as well.

>>10111360
And yet he were are. I come and go, several threads and probably months later. You haven't read any of it yet?

>>10111358
I unfortunately never saw any indication of that in our discussions. Proven further by the download counters on mediafire remaining at 0.

I posted some about this here as well.
>>10109370
I hope this isn't entirely inert, and that this information is helpful.

[Anonymous No.10111445]

>>10111379
https://ehtrust.org/us-scientist-criticizes-icnirps-refusal-to-reassess-cell-phone-radiation-exposure-guidelines-after-us-national-toxicology-program-studies-show-clear-evidence-of-cancer-in-experimental-animals/
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-final-rf-report

And this considering their study followed in the footsteps of the tri-service comission era, as well as using reverberation chambers which do not produce conditions resembling real signals or exposures, and are generally less biologically active. An anechoic chamber should have been used. Multiple emitters, free movement of animals. Ideally with a Mullenix RAPID-like system tracking and recording animal position in the field and and arrangement of animals in the chamber at a given time.

Also cancer related.
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/gbm-frontal-and-tempral-lobes

>>10111425
Refer to Novocure and "Tumor Treating Fields". Also refer to Adey's 2 papers published in 2000, showing a very slight -reduction- in nitrosourea induced tumor incidence. Motorola didn't like that.

Actually, refer to just about anything I posted. These fields have been used medically for a very long time, the most well known of which being PEMF therapy for nonunion fracture healing. Microwave diathermy however has been implicated in ALS.

[Anonymous No.10111451]

>>10110667
>mixed articles
From...?

>The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency radiation. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature. There are no other clearly established effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.
Taken from https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet . If you want to read all the nuance of the addressed topic you can prattle through this citation http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf
In sum there is very much so not convincing evidence suggesting “wifi causes cancer” but you are welcome to go through that fucking book and try to ascertain some sort of justification in taking precautionary measures... at which point there are probably more significant yet still unlikely causes of cancer in your life that are moreso worth time addressing.

>>10110678
>New York Times

>>10110976
Sleeper bait but I’ll bite
>sample size of 1
>implying correlation is causation

>>10111159
Good post. Worth a /thread

>>10111430
>I want to mention entropy whenever possible because it makes me feel clever: the post

[Anonymous No.10111465]

>>10111445
>show-clear-evidence
It doesn't matter what the dumb fucking opinion pieces say if the study didn't say that.

[Anonymous No.10111483]

>>10111465
>Ronald L. Melnick Ph.D Senior Scientist (retired), National Toxicology Program, NIEHS, NIH has issued this scientific critique of ICNIRPs dismissal of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) findings.
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-peer-review-sees-tumor-risk
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/what-changed
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ramazzinis-belpoggi-interview

https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/icnirp-ntp-ri
For more on the WHO and ICNIRP.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28656257

Also, why not just read it yourself?

A few other interesting links.
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/singh-comet-assay-radiation-research

I saw this while scrolling for the NTP article.
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/de-kun-li-miscarriages
It brings to mind the increased spontaneous abortion rate in offices where Visual Display Terminals were introduced in the 80's if I recall.

[Anonymous No.10111491]

>>10111451
>>The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating
We knew this was incorrect in the 70's, and that statement taken literally is irrefutably false. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

Refer to the documents and threads posted above. I might copy and paste everything remotely relevant here for convenience.

[Anonymous No.10111493]

>>10111483
>microwavenews.com
>microwavenews.com
>microwavenews.com
Like I fucking said It doesn't fucking matter what the opinion pieces say.

[Anonymous No.10111494]

>>10111493
Nigger don't engage with him

[Anonymous No.10111496]

>>10111494
I'll engage with whoever I want.

[Anonymous No.10111498]

>>10111493
Man, I betcha you couldn't get through a single issue. I picked one at random.
https://microwavenews.com/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/backissues/n-d85issue.pdf
November and December, 1985.

Turn on brain. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.10111501]

>>10111496
Prepare for the realization that you wasted your time when this thread hits page 10 and he turns up in a new one with the same script.

[Anonymous No.10111510]

Anyway. I'm tired, and I've posted a lot. I've posted links to places where I've posted a lot. I have something like 2500 papers spanning from the 1960's to the present, many of which reviewing decades of literature and detailing the history of a small subset of this field.

One day I'll have one concise document put together on this matter. Which is more or less my own review at that point, but we're already out of time on this. It's no joke. The horizon is very dark and I hope a few people here are able to take what I've said, take these leads, and inform themselves to act and protect whatever matters.

[Anonymous No.10111514]

>>10111491
>Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.
Gee maybe the complete lack of repeatable obtainable consistent evidence suggesting RF has significantly biologically harmful effects on humans makes it true with a strong level of confidence?

>We knew this was incorrect in the 70's, and that statement taken literally is irrefutably false.
I’d ask you to prove there was reliable empirical evidence “in the 70s” satisfying the aforementioned conditions but the sources I posted already established such is not the case. Take note too that using the word “we” is suggestive you had some sort of involvement in any actual scientific investigations which you in fact did not.

>Refer to the documents [and threads] posted above.
I did. And you followed by completely disregarding the credible ones I posted.

One final note, PLEASE use a trip so I can filter you. I know saying this is self-defeating for me but you are an autistic myopic retard that spreads misinterpretations and cancer across this board. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.10111517]

>>10111498
Article 1 HLP vs Klein
Case was amended upon appeal and the $25m punitive damages were removed and reduced to 100k for basically taking land it shouldn't have.

[Anonymous No.10111521]

>>10111374
Not the person you were talking to earlier but if you’re still not convinced he is an incorrigible autist see
>>10111451
>>10111491
>>10111514
not to mention this self-obsessed narratative blog post he fucked off with here >>10111510

It would be in everyone else’s best interest if he were forced to have a name or trip

[Anonymous No.10111523]

>>10111521
He's retarded enough that you can figure out a few phrases he's stuck on and follow his misadventures on the archive
>>/sci/thread/S10030494#p10030601
He's outed himself as a chemtrail believer since this post was made.

[Anonymous No.10111531]

>>10111523
That list of posts is deeply fascinating. Especially when you add in how stubbornly he forces his misconceptions. I appreciate this information.

[Jeffrey Guymon No.10111532]

I tend to agree with you. I’m new to 4chan as of today, and based upon what I’ve read just in the few hours I’ve been on this thread, it seems apparent that some people get an idea in their head and simply will never stop defending that idea. It’s ego and pride really, but in the grand scheme of things it just seems that many people just want to believe certain things, because it’s outside the boring norm of their everyday lives. I, like you, am a believer in scientific evidence; not opinions. The scientific facts, as of right now, is that WiFi signals simply do not have a small enough wavelength to cause and structural damage to the DNA. Now that does not mean that I am not open to new evidence, but as of right now there just isn’t any.

[Anonymous No.10111535]

>>10111532
lurkmoar nub

[Jeffrey Guymon No.10111540]

Lol whatever that means. I’m in my 40’s and am not too keen on the last eat and greatest pop-culture terms or fads.

[Anonymous No.10111544]

>>10111540
Alright niBBer, I guess I gotta spoonfeed you
www.enig.spurdospar.de

[Anonymous No.10111546]

>>10111544
whoops gotta remove the www

[Anonymous No.10111547]

>>10111532
>new to 4chan
Get out while you can. Even though it’s not as bad as other boards /sci/ still has an irritating share of fools and underage. I wouldn’t be able to tell you a good forum but spending time on either 4chan or reddit sucks shit especially reddit. And a note on people believing what they want, even accomplished scientists falter in that regard and there isn’t a place on earth you can find a community entirely free of it.

[Jeffrey Guymon No.10111548]

If it’s of any consolation, I got to 4chan by agreeing with the 4chan troll on liberals, with the posters that read “It’s ok to be white”. Lol hopefully you’re not a liberal.

[Anonymous No.10111550]

>>10111548
Just stick to /pol/. The rest of the site is nothing like it and you'd fit in much better there.

[Anonymous No.10111551]

>>10111540
lol you musn't be very bright if you can't figure out what that means.

[Anonymous No.10111556]

>>10111159
>Radiowaves are just too big to penetrate through anything
Which is easily demonstrated by closing your room door, the radio will go silent immediately.

[Anonymous No.10111562]

>>10111498
>Article 2 Russian whatever
This article doesn't really claim anything except that standards exist and russia has some and guy talked to russians.

>Article 3 GAO blames felec
Yeah we know standing right next to powerful radar antennas is bad. They were exposed to radiation orders of magnitude higher than the rats.

>Article 4 EMI sensitive devices
Yup this happens shielding is good for sensitive electronics with wires or traces that might act as accidental antennas.

>Article 5 Budget cuts
Yeah they get less funding when they get no results.

>Article 6 60 hz monkeys
Can't find anything updated on this study

>Article 7 No Excess leukemia among electrical workers
Good thing.

>Article 8 EMF doesn't cause Downs syndrome
Don't know much about downs seems like you should trust the scientists not the worried townsfolk. The CEH basically spelled out how you would test/verify it and I don't remember that being done.

>artigle 9 Avon Sitting
People be mad OK.

>article 10 Emc society
Noise reduction is pretty good. I know noise is real.

>Article 11 Intentional sattelite EMI
Pretty cool that you can fuck a sattelite with your home dish

>Article 12 Portland
Portland made a law that didn't effect anyone

>Article 13 Symposium on non thermal Bioeffects
Now this is the meat and potatoes. Why did they hide this in the end? Oh wait they just had a meeting to promise to write a letter.

Good enough for you?

[Anonymous No.10111571]

>>10111514
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF
Dates are listed. Many are symposiums.

Otherwise
Bawin 1976 - Sensitivity of calcium binding in cerebral tissue to weak environmental electric fields oscillating at low frequency
Etc
Replicated by Carl Blackman et al in eg
Blackman 1980 - Induction of Calcium-Ion Efflux From Brain Tissue by Radiofrequency Radiation Effect of Sample Number and Modulation Frequency on the Power-Density Window

Frey 1971 - Biological Function as Influenced by Low Power Modulated RF Energy
Frey 1973 - Human Perception of Illumination with Pulsed Ultrahigh-Frequency Electromagnetic Energy
Kaczmarek 1974 - Weak electric gradients change ionic and transmitter fluxes in cortex
Frey 1975 - Avoidance by Rats of Illumination with Low Power Nonionizing Electromagnetic Energy
[...]

>>10111532
>The scientific facts, as of right now, is that WiFi signals simply do not have a small enough wavelength to cause and structural damage to the DNA
The wifi does not directly damage DNA, it triggers other processes in the cell which produce oxidative stress, which does damage DNA. It's a matter of transduction and amplification, the energy does not come from the field. Just like electricity doesn't destroy structures, it triggers explosives which do. Audio doesn't directly organize your neurological activity, your ears detect the sound and your brain uses its own energy producing machinery to change its state while processing it. It's like saying assassination is impossible, because the visible light bouncing off a piece of paper couldn't possibly blow someone's head apart. These things come about in steps.

A believer in science and evidence might try reading some beyond what he learned prior.

>>10111562
Yep. Now hope it caught your interest and repeat a few dozen more times over time periods of your choosing. Their print issues span over 20 years.

[Anonymous No.10111587]

>>10111571
>you have to read all this garbage to argue with me
Imagine if /x/ came here expecting us to read the alien tabloids before telling them they are dumb as bricks.

[Anonymous No.10111594]

>>10111587
This is published peer reviewed literature, much of which was conducted by or funded by governmental bodies. Repeatedly. For a long time. You have similar and identical results by many labs, over many decades, from many sources of funding, out of every inhabited continent of this planet.

When it gets absurd, the conversation is over. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Forget about me. Forget about arguing, and forget about the lifetime of a given thread. Just take the sources and do the reading. That's the only way, and the only legitimate course forward.

[Anonymous No.10111597]

>explain the proper scientific consensus
>remind him of his history of mental illness that discredits anything he says
>he still keeps going
Lol

[Anonymous No.10111599]

>>10111594
I can't believe you think aliens are among us.

[Anonymous No.10111611]

>>10111597
>Lies and mischaracterizes repeatedly
>Can't engage substantively and tries to turn the dialog to the poster so character assassination and distraction is a feasible course
>Gets corrected repeatedly
>Always comes back to do it all again
Never changes.

>>10111599
Many possible branches on that. Most all a priori, I wouldn't put anything in terms of belief. There are things that don't need a solid working narrative.

Nice attempted ruse. :^)

[Anonymous No.10111619]

>posting and quoting sources that are subsequently ignored is lying

[Anonymous No.10111657]

>>10111619
>>10111597
>>10111587
I warned you bro I TOLD YOU DAWG

[Anonymous No.10111682]

>>10111657
I know lol. Bottom one you quoted wasn’t me but I just had to see the whole thing for myself

[Anonymous No.10111685]

[Anonymous No.10111705]

>>10111594
Yeah, but we don't trust peer review or governments here. Find a source straight from a large corporation.

[Anonymous No.10111874]

>>10110801

[Anonymous No.10111992]

>>10111587
false equivalence.
look who's the shill now

[Anonymous No.10112297]

God I hope so

[Anonymous No.10112659]

offtopic, fuck off back to /x/ skitso

[Anonymous No.10113657]

>>10112297
Starting to feel similar,

[Anonymous No.10113662]

>>10111992
>false equivalence
According to the rat study posted in this thread awesome autismo has about as much evidence as I do of aliens landing at Roswell.

[Anonymous No.10113818]

>>10113662
part1

https://www.saferemr.com/2017/09/5G-moratorium12.html

https://www.saferemr.com/2018/07/international-perspective-on-health.html

https://healthimpactnews.com/2018/5g-technology-is-coming-linked-to-cancer-heart-disease-diabetes-alzheimers-and-death/

https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/dangers-of-5g/

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientist-5G-appeal-2017.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths

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

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/

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

https://www.rfsafe.com/scientists-end-13-year-debate-proving-non-ionizing-rf-microwave-effect-causes-cell-phone-radiation-dna-damage/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-mobilephone-miscarriage/miscarriage-rates-triple-for-women-with-top-radiation-exposures-idUSKBN1EE2AU

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5727515/

https://ehtrust.org/worlds-largest-animal-study-on-cell-tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-link/

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/

Literature sources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802593
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26300312
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29573716
http://cyrusfarivar.com/docs/WiFi%20Health/EBBE-review.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1482415

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8388394

http://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF
Historical reviews, symposium proceedings, etc ^
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810017132.pdf

Irreversible infertility:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9261543

General theory:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521096402.pdf

In vivo DNA damage in humans:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29667447

Behavioral changes with prenatal exposure:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22428084

[Anonymous No.10113821]

>>10113662
>>10113818
part2

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cell-phones-brain-cancer_b_3232534

https://www.seattlemag.com/article/uw-scientist-henry-lai-makes-waves-cell-phone-industry

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521096402.pdf

https://microwavenews.com/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/backissues/j-f97issue.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBsUWbUB6PE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5GiFMJVl6Q

https://youtu.be/z99_SzoXZdY

https://pubs.rsc.org/-/content/articlepdf/2013/ib/c3ib40166a

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09553002.2014.899448

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1807-59322009000600011&script=sci_arttext

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383571805000896

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028208033566

https://hedronemfprotection.com/blogs/articles/pathological-effects-of-electromagnetic-radiation

https://www.emfacts.com/2017/08/cancer-expert-declares-cell-phone-and-wireless-radiation-as-carcinogenic-to-humans/

https://microwavenews.com/news-center/elf-emfs-cancer-promotion

https://www.safespaceprotection.com/news-and-info/exposure-to-power-lines-linked-to-cancer/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12883383

corruption:

https://www.rfsafe.com/motorola-war-games-scientists-indicating-health-risk-from-cell-phone-radiation/

https://www.rfsafe.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/cell-phone-radiation-war-gaming-memo.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/

http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?ind=B09

[Anonymous No.10113845]

>>10113818
>>10113821
>Spamming garbage-tier links.
Yes, I'm sure you've convinced everyone how clever you are.

I'm mean, listen to this shit:
>https://youtu.be/z99_SzoXZdY
Doesn't it sound completely reasonable?

[Anonymous No.10113851]

>>10113845
>Doesn't it sound completely reasonable?
I didn't entirely trust Barrie Trower when I first got into this, but in all that I've read I'm fairly sure he's being entirely truthful just listening to him. Never bothered to research his credentials.

Short version is, if you've read the USSR's research, researched the Project Pandora era, cold war, Moscow Signal, and so forth, it's not unreasonable at all. And what he says about wi-fi is accurate and backed up by modern research. They knew all the way back then.

Pay particular attention to UCLA's brain research institute and the calcium efflux studies. Those very frequency and power density windows made their way into the TETRA transmitter system.

[Anonymous No.10113895]

>>10110667
pollution, the sun, tacobell

[Anonymous No.10114069]

>>10110667
Synergetic effects of all cancer producents...

But look at it from another perspective...

There are places with no phone signal, no pollution, just sun and imported tobacco.

Overpopulation is a problem too.

Adjust or be irradiated.

[Anonymous No.10114163]

>>10111238
> Thinking radiofrequency electromagnetic waves and the radiation coming from the elephant foot are the same


kys pls

[Anonymous No.10114166]

>>10111238
what will you do when you realize that every single object around you emits electromagnetic radiation all the time?
What will you do when you realize that your VISION is based on electromagnetic radiation?

[Anonymous No.10114172]

>>10111159
>>10111556
yeah, i agree with all of this post except for the idea of long wavelengths not being able to penetrate
longer wavelengths do penetrate, which means that they pass through rather than get absorbed/transfer energy to the medium

[Anonymous No.10114174]

Im not convinced its a danger since we get electromagnetic radiation from the sun all time and are fine.

Studies that shows otherwise could just be bad studies (too small sample size for example).

But if there exits it would be nice to see some kind of larger meta-study done if it exists? Individual studies are hard to trust, there are just too many things that can go wrong.

[Anonymous No.10114178]

>>10114174
agree

[Anonymous No.10114865]

>>10114163
Desperate attempt at manufacturing a basis for criticism.

>>10114166
>What will you do when you realize that your VISION is based on electromagnetic radiation?
This is actually a point I make when someone pulls the ol "non-ionizing so dun do nuffin cept heat stuf lul". One's eyes are the most overt example of microscale transduction leading to macroscale amplification and state change. Demodulation can occur in the microwave band in other tissues. There are various modes of transduction.

Now otherwise, why don't you go stick your head in a microwave oven when you want to warm up. Same deal right? I mean you're absolutely BATHED in infrared ALL THE TIME. I mean DUDE, you like, MAKE infrared!!! Okay?! And in case you didn't KNOW that's NON-IONIZING. So it's the SAME DEAL.

----

Now, I want to direct you all to a thread that occurred on /g/.
>>>/g/68311009
Observe the quality of the dialogue. It's not the greatest by any means, but it's far better than what you see here on -any- topic. All the posters here with PhDs and IQs of 160+ should take some time to think about that, unless you're so smart and possessing near Spock-level logic such that that you can accept and absolutely know nothing is worthwhile, and you're personally better served screwing around and acting like a fool. In that case carry on and try to quarantine yourself accordingly (on this board most likely) until you grow up a bit and realize what's at stake and what's really valuable.

[Anonymous No.10114886]

>>10114865
>/g/ is better than /sci/ because they weren't mean to me and entertained my delusions

[Anonymous No.10114891]

>>10114886
I entered the thread ~3/4 of the way through. It's not about me.

Unfortunately /sci/'s general age group are the one's that most need to hear this, but are the least likely to be able to listen. Don't know yet what can be done about that.

[Anonymous No.10114894]

>>10114174
>we get electromagnetic radiation from the sun all time and are fine
Electromagnetic radiation from the sun is literally one of the top causes of cancer.

[Anonymous No.10114913]

Brainwashed brainlets.

[Anonymous No.10114927]

>>10114865
>All the posters here with PhDs and IQs of 160+
Name one.

[Anonymous No.10114933]

>>10114927
There may be a few, but it's a joke.

[Anonymous No.10116186]

>>10110667
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/electromagnetic-fields-at-work-show-no-brain-tumor-risk/

[Anonymous No.10116189]

>>10111159
Based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.10116210]

>>10116189
My father was in the Army. Did cold weather warfare, mountaineering, and communications. He had a somewhat similar opinion as Jeffrey, but I think he started to change his mind.

[Anonymous No.10116642]

>>10110667
Radio waves = non-ionizing radiation, therefore no

[Anonymous No.10116658]

>>10111159
I agree with Jeff.

[Anonymous No.10116663]

>>10111159
>I hope this helps
It doesnt. Any electromagnetic radiation will cause ionic imbalances and oxidative stress upon human body. The function of oxygen radicals inevitably leads to increased cancer risk, just based on basic cell biology. This is pretty much impossible to avoid unless you move to rural backwoods.

Heres a study on the subject: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X17300731

[Anonymous No.10116668]

>>10110667
Yes it causes cancer because the waves interfere with the bonds in the proteins like DNA and RNA polymerase causing them to make more mistakes than average which leads to cancer

[Anonymous No.10117866]

>>10113851
Trowers literally says that WiFi doesn't actively affect us because of our natural resistance against radiation but only affects embryos and children and that we will have a PROBABILITY of grandchildren may or may not being genetically "fucked"

[Anonymous No.10117872]

>>10117866
Trower literally says nothing of the sort, that's just what he focuses on in that particular interview. Look up others, and also what he has to say about 5G.

[Anonymous No.10117936]

This kind of topic has been controversial since cell phones came out. More than cancer, there's risk of brain damage for prolonged close exposure to cell phone waves. (I think it was in 2004 that a british guy who was almost 24/7 on his cell phone got almost complete short term memory loss, couldn't work or function independently any more)

Manufacturers have been lobbying for years to make their own very positive studies the standard in the field, and independent research is underfunded and almost non-existent.

So maybe radiations are harmful, maybe they aren't. They probably are to some extent, but nobody knows how much.

So just in case, take the sensible and easy precautions :
- don't spend hours on end with your phone stuck to your ear
- don't sleep with your phone/tablet close to your head
- put wifi modems/routers on the floor and if possible far from where you sit and work

This may save your life, or do nothing at all, you decide that for yourself.

[Anonymous No.10117944]

There is growing research in medical imaging using the microwave spectrum precisely because it is safer than CT scans etc, and also cheaper than MRIs

[Anonymous No.10117972]

>>10117944

I'm gonna go on a limb and guess that medical imagery at proximity in a closed environment will have more focused/controled and overall lower doses of radiations that a phone that'll boost their intensity regardless of user health to get a signal.

[Anonymous No.10117983]

>>10117936
>Manufacturers have been lobbying for years to make their own very positive studies the standard in the field, and independent research is underfunded and almost non-existent.
This is the real issue. If we had quality, truly independent research we could know for sure.

[Anonymous No.10117995]

>>10110667
nice so this is the thread where we trick everyone who doesn't know basic biology and physics?
ahem.... I mean you get cancer, then u die. yes it's very dangerous

[Anonymous No.10118005]

>>10117983
No, that's what they want you saying, and that's what they've been working towards for the last 30 years. Muddying the literature, wasting time, and "treading water". Their goal was to get this stuff so adored, so addicting, so normalized, and so utterly integrated with everyday life, that it would be a massive barrier to rolling it back.

We have high quality independent research, we've had it for years. We've had it here, we've had it there, we've had it out of every inhabited continent of this planet. We started studying this stuff in the 1950's, not when wi-fi and mobile came around around. Studying RF / biolectromagnetics was not a reaction, it was already well along. This timescale is the thing people really need to understand. And the things I've omitted from my other posts, such as the 1996 telecommunications act preemptive local control over cell tower citing on the basis of environmental or health effects, makes it very clear.

Refer to my post above. Especially what people like Adey and Lai had to say, as they were highly active during this era and saw how it all was unfolding. Microwave News is another good source.
>>10111238

[Anonymous No.10118012]

I'm done with /sci/
there's too many retards on here, you litreally learn this shit in school.
how many of you are still in high school? how many of you are homeless NEETS?
90% of you will answer yest one of those questions

[Anonymous No.10118020]

>>10118012
>they told me in high school that u hav nun-ionize n u hav eyeonize! not nuff energee!!!!!
Read the data or get out. You're not a scientist you're a brainwashed religious nut. Read up, get up, or shut up.

[Anonymous No.10118022]

>>10118020
>he didn't stick his head in the microwave to prove non-ionizing radiation is harmless

[Anonymous No.10118029]

>>10118022
That must be what's wrong with me.

[Anonymous No.10118030]

>>10118020
if you're right then then the light energy conversion formula is wrong, and alot of modern science is wrong
which is most likely: a retard on 4chan is correct, a principle which EVERYONE above high school uses to build more complex theories, machines etc. is wrong

[Anonymous No.10118031]

>>10118030
not to mention it has been tested so many times that it's litreally not even a debate in the scientific community.
can everyone with a tin foil hat just get out

[Anonymous No.10118032]

>>10118005
>Actually citing lai as a reliable source

[Anonymous No.10118042]

>>10118030
Elaborate on what you think you're saying. No existing understanding of physics (which itself is flawed) precludes cellular transduction of low intensity signals, nor does it preclude tissue scale demodulation of such stimuli.

Adey actually mentioned the underpinnings of this attitude.
>>/sci/thread/S10065303#p10067873

>>10118032
>Believing an industry that tried to tell the laypeople that his memory performance study was invalid because he used wood and the rats could smell their prior paths (The wood is coated with a nonporous material and thoroughly cleaned between runs).
>Believing an industry that had to "wargame" his and Singh's study showing DNA breaks in the brains of rats
>Thinking you have any ability to state what's a credible source
>Acting like you're at all a credible source in who's a credible source, with a complete lack of other indications.

[Anonymous No.10118047]

>>10118042
>Believing Lai

[Anonymous No.10118057]

>>10118047
>(You)

[Anonymous No.10118060]

>>10118057
Thanks bro

[Anonymous No.10118073]

>>10118042
haha look at it's confidence. it has read articles on Lai, and has created a sentence
very good im proud

[Anonymous No.10118074]

>>10118060
;^)
>>>/out/

[Anonymous No.10118079]

>>10118042
>No existing understanding of physics (which itself is flawed)
Do tell

[Anonymous No.10118082]

>>10118074
>2018
>Taking Lai seriously
Actually fuck that
>Taking Lai seriously ever

[Anonymous No.10118141]

>>10118005

No we don't have enough well-funded independent research. Once every couple years isn't enough to research not only the effects of radiations as a whole but also precisely the effects of radiations emitted by current technologies.

Manufacturers are using the same tactics as tobacco brands 50 years ago, delaying the information as much as they can so that when it comes out years later no clear line of responsibility can be defined and they can settle for cheap on a single class action, if that.

[Anonymous No.10119343]

>>10110667
The first argument an EMF sensitive tinfoil hat will give you is that "some people just don't want to be educated/don't want to see things a different way ".
This should tell you how reliable these people are.
I am no expert but from what I know we get radiated from the very world around us all the time, including the sun, which as dickish as it sounds, is completely normal.
Some say that non-ionizing radiation is harmless which appearantly stands in the physics book. The industry would have to fake all accessible data in order to make the conspiracy from>>10118020 true.
Cancer would have increased by now, even skyrocketed at this point.
WiFi might have bad effects on the body, till now we only have our observation and independent studies.

[Anonymous No.10119920]

>>10119343
>This should tell you how reliable these people are.
Why?
>I am no expert
Okay.
>we get radiated from the very world around us all the time
So naturally the character of that radiation must be irrelevant, and exposing organisms to microwaves several million times greater than natural background is just fine.
>The industry would have to fake all accessible data
Have you read all available data?
>Cancer would have increased by now
Many cancers are increasing, like glioblastoma multiforme in the areas most exposed to wireless devices. The relationship between RF and cancer is complex, and its ability to act as a tumor initiator and promoter varies. Though it definitely is carcinogenic and mutagenic, I think cancer gets far too much attention, which I don't think is any coincidence. It's a real distraction from the areas which are easy to study and very clear cut.
-Brain damage
-Altered behavior
-Organ dysfunction
-Hormonal and endocrine changes
-Damaged DNA, including germ line DNA
-Impaired fertility, with infertility in successive generations
-Immune system dysfunction
-Cancer
>WiFi might have bad effects on the body
It's well studied. We don't have any reason to talk in uncertainties.
>till now we only have our observation and independent studies.
Of which there are plenty, which is quite sufficient to act. We don't "need more study", or we'll be needing more study forever. And eventually industry will be saying "prove any of this even exists. Prove you even exist." They never admit the threshold has been reached. It's time, and it was time a decade ago.

[Anonymous No.10119937]

Radio and tv broadcast is the single largest cause of cancer all time.
Smoking indoors is second.
Working in coal/steel industry third.

[Anonymous No.10119940]

>>10119343
>The first argument an EMF sensitive tinfoil hat
Also, many responses at the cellular level, with cells of "electrohypersensitive" people and controls in vitro, are identical. It's high level endocrine and compensatory mechanisms that cause a more marked presentation, and that's mediated by regions like the hypothalamus, adrenals, thyroid, and so on. Which would be clearer if we kept the original name as described in the 1960's in the USSR, microwave sickness. Or radiofrequency sickness. Electrohypersensitivity is a bad name and was a mistake due to independent rediscovery, and compartmentalization.

Regardless, the low level effects, and damage, are similar across individuals.

[Anonymous No.10119992]

>>10119920
>Have you read all available data?
Did you? I read up on both sides only a bit but the point was that they would have to fake entire libraries of physics books
>why?
Because of the sheer irony they appearantly don't get.

I do expect sources for most of your claims here because I am interested in the cancer risk.

Also how is cancer not the biggest risk here, no matter how big the actual risk is.
All the other stuff seems incredibly hypochondriac like (blaming radiation for depression or anxiety that JUST appeared after reading a related article)

[Anonymous No.10120028]

>>10119920
>WiFi non ionizing radiation is a million times stronger than natural radiation like the sun, cosmic or earth RW

[Anonymous No.10120151]

>>10110693
>>If there was the slightest beginning of risk with the cellphones, since the time we use them (more than 10 years) and with the extraordinary number of daily users, everyone would already be sick.
That's not necessarily true if you consider simultaneous decreases in other environmental causes of cancer. Less carcinogenic foods and products may be offsetting cellular exposure, leading to a cancer rate that's dropping overall but not dropping as quickly as it would be if cellular phones weren't around.

[Anonymous No.10120158]

Threadly reminder that the sun and tap water cause cancer at a more recordable rate than WiFi. OP is just abusing misunderstood mechanisms or cancer and nebulous terms to justify his tinfoil hattery

[Anonymous No.10120230]

>>10111395
He's talking about brain tumors. Brain tumors have a low incidence in humans (extrapolate to mammals) (~0.5% lifetime risk), and yet we see 2.2-3.3% rate in exposed rats.

[Anonymous No.10120235]

Just read about wave lenght

[Anonymous No.10120886]

>>10119992
>Did you?
I've been studying this for a few years now, and have ~2600 papers on my hard drive, many of which are reviews of hundreds of papers over a period of decades on a particular subset of this field. I've read ~60% of it, skimmed another 20, and read the title and authors of the rest. This field goes all the way back to the late 1800's, but really picks up in the 50's and 60's. You start to pick up on patterns. And can you imagine finding such a massive background on a topic you were told was "nothing" and "never showed any effects" and "has nothing to see, is very consistent"?

>Because of the sheer irony they appearantly don't get.
I don't see any irony.

>I do expect sources for most of your claims here
I'll repost one of my older posts below. It has quite a lot, but I plan to add quite a bit and restructure it eventually. It'll do for now.

>I am interested in the cancer risk.
Overall, I've not focused on the cancer angle much. I recommend Hardell, Wertheimer and Leeper, Bruce Hocking, Samuel Milham, and others that'll turn up in connection. Go back to the papers in the 90's by Adey and others of that era for mechanistic overviews of tumor initiation and promotion. Martin Pall (First video below) wrote an extensive document to accompany his 5G presentation. It's 90 pages, I haven't read it yet, but it probably covers mutagenic and carcinogenic aspects.

>Also how is cancer not the biggest risk here
Because if you're half brain dead, sick, and your population is sterile, your death rate from cancer doesn't matter.

>All the other stuff seems incredibly hypochondriac like[...]
I don't think this happens. People might read an article and realize they're sick all the time and have been misattributing the cause and nature of their persistent problems. Maybe they end up being right. Regardless we have many types of study showing hard links, so no one's opinion on people they imagine as labile laypeople and soccer moms on facebook matters.

[Anonymous No.10120887]

No reading version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBsUWbUB6PE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5GiFMJVl6Q

Literature sources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802593
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26300312
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29573716
http://cyrusfarivar.com/docs/WiFi%20Health/EBBE-review.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1482415

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8388394

http://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF
Historical reviews, symposium proceedings, etc ^
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810017132.pdf

Irreversible infertility:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9261543

General theory:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521096402.pdf

In vivo DNA damage in humans:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29667447

Behavioral changes with prenatal exposure:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22428084

[Anonymous No.10120889]

>>10120887
A note on autism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_syndrome
This genetic polymorphism causes calcium channels to be overactive, and intracellular calcium to be chronically elevated. It almost always presents with autism. Changes in cholinergic activity and chronic microglia activation are other common features of autism.

If you look around these days, many people are displaying low grade pseudo-autistic traits.

Other reviews.
http://www.marthaherbert.org/library/Herbert-Sage-2013-Autism-EMF-PlausibilityPathophysiologicalLink-Part11.pdf
http://www.marthaherbert.org/library/Herbert-Sage-2013-Autism-EMF-PlausibilityPathophysiologicalLink-Part2.pdf

[Anonymous No.10120891]

>>10110667
Jesus Christ. No.

[Anonymous No.10120902]

>>10120889
A memorable excerpt relating to cancer.

[Anonymous No.10120909]

>>10120902
2/2

[Anonymous No.10121904]

>>10120886
>I don't see any irony.
Everytime you give a EMF fanatic factual proof against his claims they will simply say "pfft sheeple don't want to listen and only see what they want."
If you fail to see the irony you are stupid.

[Anonymous No.10121911]

https://microwavenews.com/news-center/gbm-frontal-and-tempral-lobes

[Anonymous No.10121914]

>>10110667
I work with computers and it’s actually illegal to have WiFi adapters set at a certain frequency or whatever in different countries. In the US I think it’s supposed to be 30 or something

[Anonymous No.10121918]

Not a significant enough risk.

Do you also refuse to breath, eat anything not grown in carefully-curated soil and eaten raw, turn down all grilled meats and apply SPF 100 sunscreen every time you go outside?

[Anonymous No.10121924]

>>10121914
That's due to interference, not health risks. It's there to minimize electronics stepping on one another's toes constantly.

[Anonymous No.10121946]

>>10121918
Is the risk really that low?
I thought it was more dangerous than smoking?

[Anonymous No.10121966]

>>10120887
>pressing your telephone against your head for 60 mins every day will increase health risks
Woah

Who the hell uses his phone 60 mins a day?

[Anonymous No.10121972]

>>10110667

The WHO says that "no health effects are expected from exposure to RF fields from base stations & wireless networks".

Although the WHO's IARC later classified radio-frequency EMFs as "possibly carcinogenic to humans", this was based on risks associated w/ wireless phone use rather than Wi-Fi networks.

The UK's Health Protection Agency reported in 2007 that exposure to Wi-Fi for a year is equivalent to a 20-minute mobile phone call.

[Anonymous No.10122698]

Not to make something you would ridicule, that'll be illogical.
Ask two questions:
>What wavelengths does 5G use?
>What wavelengths does ADS (Active Denial System) use?

5G: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-millimeter-waves-maximize-5g-wireless/
ADS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT9-Z_p84b0

Both wavelenghts are nearby, even if they aren't the same, they are still microwaves (f = 30 to 300 GHz).
If you still think microwaves cannot influence chemical reactions, put something in a microwave.
Heat gets beyond activation energy of some chemical reactions, depending on which reaction you make happen.

Furthermore there have been studies with mixed results, follow the money for a bigger picture.

Another reason to not use 5G is due to inefficiency, you literally have to put one for each 3 houses. Imagine my shock for people with EHS (electrohypersensitivity, real condition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03kcioDtu1s))

Ignorance is bliss, yet ends with illness.

[Anonymous No.10122745]

>>10122698
>electrohypersensitivity, real condition:
/x/

[Anonymous No.10122784]

>>10122698
Ads works at 95ghz
G5 at 15ghz

[Anonymous No.10123840]

>>10120886
>Overall, I've not focused on the cancer angle much
>now lemme come into a thread explicitly about that and focus on dropping some unrelated tinfoil-pills

[Anonymous No.10123858]

>>10121972
>WHO says
Read:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28656257

And refer to the WHO documents in:
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF
As well as Adey 2002.

Their underlying disposition and direction was quite clear even back in the early 80's. That, despite being okay reviews, aside from appending inappropriate comments pushing the "gotta be thermal" angle, likely disingenuously. Now that everyone has forgotten this history they just act like it's clear cut in the direction they want.

These shifts rely on people going inactive, getting tired or forced out, or simply dying off and becoming replaced by a new generation. When everyone has forgotten they just bury the inconvenient bits, things that might otherwise get in the way of geopolitical interests and agendas. The WHO is primarily a political institution, not a scientific one. With power and organization, with enough time and the right process, you'll get what you want.

>>10123840
>>Overall, I've not focused on the cancer angle much
Comparatively. This is bigger than cancer.

Refer to the many sources already provided above and before.

[Anonymous No.10123881]

[Anonymous No.10123882]

This document was distributed to NATO members.

[Anonymous No.10123885]

>>10123882
(titled
[DIA] Adams 1976 - BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (RADIOWAVES AND MICROWAVES) EURASIAN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
in the mediafire link above)