Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 12,082
Overwhelming???
To quote Cancer Research UK
The WHO 2B classification is based on very slim evidence regarding mobile phones and has nothing to do with Wi-Fi.
no wifi modem router
- Thread starter MrBlobby
- Start date
To quote Cancer Research UK
Not to mention there is no known mechanism to "feel" the effects of RF radiation, hazardous or not.
I remember seeing a video on YouTube interviewing RF sensitivity sufferers and there was this middle aged woman chain-smoking in her kitchen looking worryingly out the window at a mobile phone mast about a mile away...
I remember seeing a video on YouTube interviewing RF sensitivity sufferers and there was this middle aged woman chain-smoking in her kitchen looking worryingly out the window at a mobile phone mast about a mile away...
What about the studies that show damage to sperm from RF radiation.
The widely accepted peer reviewed studies you are going to link to which describe how they actually conducted their study? I am keen to learn.
Your wrong i'm afraid as there are studies on rats that show RF radiation effects the blood brain barrier.
It was India that first discovered the connection, the Indian government now advise men not to carry their smart phones next to groin area. There has been other separate studies in Israel and US showing similar findings.
You do realise that stored on every Android and IPhone there is safety advice regarding RF exposure?
Last edited:
If that was the case they would be required to place a hazard warning label on every device. Why is it that they don’t?
The United States is the most litigious country in the world. If there was a shred of valid evidence for what you say there would be a plethora of class action law suits in play right now. And there are none. Zero.
DECT phones, most RF remote controls, some baby monitors, most walkie-talkie radios all use the same 2.4GHz spectrum as 802.11bgn WiFi and yet people with RF sensitivity are not reporting issues with any of those devices generally.
And I genuinely promise you. If someone really could identify an RF source by being near it, they would be unbelievably useful to the intelligence and security services. They’d have a job for life. And yet, when put to the test, they can’t reliably state when they are near an RF emission. They can usually respond to a trigger like a light on a device. But that’s all they’re responding to. There was nothing but a LED in the box and there were four LEDs in the box (one visible, three not) just to be sure the subject being tested wasn’t responding to RF from the LED.
Now, if you said the person in question was going crazy from living near a Power Line, that’s something else entirely.
It’s not really safety advice. More a statement that the device has been tested and is well inside the GRAS levels for RF radiation.
“My iPad” said:
The IPhone one says to reduce exposure by using a handsfree device.
https://www.apple.com/legal/rfexposure/iphone10,5/en/
The other issue with safety radiation on mobile phones is it's based on SAR that is measuring heating, that incidentally is based on a large male head (average US Marine), there is no account for how radiation effects cells. There is no separate safety regulations children, or woman who are pregnant. This is unlike pharmaceutical drugs where there would be separate dosage for different groups.
Errrrr - I think you’ve drifted away from WiFi a bit. And it’s still BS. I (and my entire generation) have been using mobile phones for over 30 years. If there was a dangerous epidemic of any kind of RF related pathology, you’d see it by now.
RF radiation is REALLY dangerous at certain frequencies and VERY high power. A microwave is 750-1200 WATTS. A commercial microwave for defrosting pallets of frozen meat is 50kW. 50,000 Watts. That will cook you in a few minutes. And you WON’T feel the radiation. You’ll just heat up. Despite being very tight Faraday Cages, microwaves do leak minute amounts of RF radiation. Just not enough to have an effect on biological tissue.
Now that I’ve established a scale of danger, and to get back on topic, WiFi is 100mW. That’s 0.1W. How long do you think it would take to heat up my ready meal using WiFi? Your Mobile Phone is less than 2W. Again, not enough to make a difference on biological tissue.
If you want to talk mobile phones, if you’re saying it’s really dangerous to just use a 2W mobile phone - what about standing near a Mobile Phone transmitter mast? That’s pumping out maybe 10W. Still no problem. And then we’re into the fact that the bit you put up to your ear is shielded so the phone transmits AWAY from your head. That makes sense because why would you transmit into a dense mass that will not propagate the signal?
Your entire line of argumentation doesn’t stack up scientifically or practically. People just aren’t getting tumours from using mobile phones. They’re just not.
Last edited:
It's money that's why, the mobile phone companies are using the same play book as the Tobacco companies used, and big oil used on clement change. The mobile companies muddy the research. If you look at the correlation between Telecomes funded research and independent research, the Telecomes funded research is 2.5 times more likely to say no heath issues found.
Now there was a law suit in Italy that ruled that mobile phone use caused brain tumors. The main reason this was ruled as the judge would only accept independent evidence that predominately shows there are heath effects.
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...rt-rules-mobile-phone-use-caused-brain-tumour
Last edited:
Explain that to the woman who for 10 years stored her phone in her bra while driving, and eventually had a unique form of cancer just under the skin in the exact location the phone aerial was.
I don't even have to search hard, second result down.
Mobile phone cancer warning as maligant brain tumours double.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...ancer-warning-malignant-brain-tumours-double/
You mention about phone warning labels, we are getting close. Here is advice was the Cyprus national committee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=H43IKNjTvRM
Insurance companies will not insure mobile telecom's companies the reason is they look at evidence and the law suites. Lloyds are known for underwriting anything but they won't touch mobile companies, however if your so sure RF radiation is safe you should work advising them.
And WiFi is potently worse then mobile because a phone mast is say 500meters away, but a WiFi router could be in the same room. You won't get the concentrated exposure as using a mobile phone but being so close to the WiFi your exposed to it all the time. WiFi in the home is the worst because it's where you sleep, when you sleep this is when your body heals and new cells are formed and RF exposure is shown to effect this process.
Don't panic JasonM, just spend your monies here: https://www.healthy-house.co.uk/electro
I think you should be aware that many people on here are not only capable of reading a peer-reviewed paper for effect, they are capable of rebutting nonsensical argumentation. Did YOU read the scientific paper or just the Telegraph article which primarily relates to cancer in young children?
Let’s start with the fundamental fact that the study says the rate of brain tumours has doubled in the last 20 years. So you first have to accept that these tumours happened before mobiles existed. Then you have to factor in the fact that people.are exposed much more to medical (dental) x-rays, sun-beds, CT scans and fall-out from nuclear blasts. Just simple awareness of the issue and better recording and record keeping could explain the increase seen.
And the scientific paper doesn’t address mobile phones. It addresses lifestyle factors and even then it doesn’t draw any conclusive outcomes from the data. And bear in mind that the people pushing that study to the fore are a charity that researches brain tumours in the under 10 years age group. While young children are increasingly getting mobiles they certainly didn’t have them 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago in high numbers.
Once again, the evidence is achingly thin. And we’re still a VERY long way from being sensitive to WiFi.
This one is my favourite
https://www.healthy-house.co.uk/electro/geomack-energetic-vitalisers
It’s claimed it’s “Designed to help cleanse properties of negative energies, helping you to feel more positive”.
I’m sure that would stand up to scrutiny under some form of scientific study. If you want to why people don’t take this seriously, here it is.
It does actually, and it's references 3 other papers that look at mobile phones and brain tumours.
The fact remains that's insurance companies including Loyds will not underwrite telecom's companies.
And what were the findings of those papers? That said it's looks like one is advising on research areas, one is trying to make a link and another is a correction to the latter...
And why haven't they cited any of my work for the MTHR programme
And why haven't they cited any of my work for the MTHR programme
Can you say that mobile phones, masts, WiFi and DECT is safe and completely harmless?
I wouldn't drop any of them from a great height onto my head.
Funny that, no one else can say their safe also.
Last edited: