- 8,292
- 8,754
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2017
Hmm, what is the workaround?
We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by BIG LEEMELONE,
- Start date
- 16,417
- 45,127
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2017
screen protector, next question. actually don't @me I'm unwatching this thread
- 44,545
- 66,131
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
Speakerphone. Gen Z is more aware of this but I doubt the majority of people are even aware you're not actually supposed to use a cell phone like a phone and hold it to your ear
- 44,545
- 66,131
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
Modern day asbestos?
calibeebee
Supporter
- 19,316
- 24,743
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
Bruh 
A whole fashion line dedicated to conspiracy theories
A whole fashion line dedicated to conspiracy theories
- 7,357
- 12,042
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- 8,082
- 7,704
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2011
BIG LEEMELONE
you got a smartphone or nah
- 27,821
- 40,035
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
Idgaf what she is. I need those draws.
Always wanted the NASA Mercury jawn. This is close
Always wanted the NASA Mercury jawn. This is close
Last edited:
- 44,545
- 66,131
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
Aint no way in hell cell phone radiation could be harmful
. All scientists agree and none of them dispute that or have conducted studies that say otherwise. What makes science unique is that it's a monolith with no competiting interests or agendas and it is impervious to influenced from outside sources. You can do what you want but I don't question the experts
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 64,125
- 192,488
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
So the answer is yes, you do own a cell phone?
- 44,545
- 66,131
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
What, specifically, are some of the health effects associated with long-term exposure to low-level modulated radiofrequency radiation emitted from wireless devices?
Many biologists and electromagnetic field scientists believe the modulation of wireless devices makes the energy more biologically active, which interferes with our cellular mechanisms, opening up calcium channels, for example, and allowing calcium to flow into the cell and into the mitochondria within the cell, interfering with our natural cellular processes and leading to the creation of stress proteins and free radicals and, possibly, DNA damage. And, in other cases, it may lead to cell death.
In 2001, based upon the biologic and human epidemiologic research, low-frequency fields were classified as “possibly carcinogenic” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization. In 2011, the IARC classified radiofrequency radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based upon studies of cellphone radiation and brain tumor risk in humans. Currently, we have considerably more evidence that would warrant a stronger classification.
Most recently, on March 1, 2021, a report was released by the former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which concluded that there is a “high probability” that radiofrequency radiation emitted by cellphones causes gliomas and acoustic neuromas, two types of brain tumors.
news.berkeley.edu
Many biologists and electromagnetic field scientists believe the modulation of wireless devices makes the energy more biologically active, which interferes with our cellular mechanisms, opening up calcium channels, for example, and allowing calcium to flow into the cell and into the mitochondria within the cell, interfering with our natural cellular processes and leading to the creation of stress proteins and free radicals and, possibly, DNA damage. And, in other cases, it may lead to cell death.
In 2001, based upon the biologic and human epidemiologic research, low-frequency fields were classified as “possibly carcinogenic” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization. In 2011, the IARC classified radiofrequency radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based upon studies of cellphone radiation and brain tumor risk in humans. Currently, we have considerably more evidence that would warrant a stronger classification.
Most recently, on March 1, 2021, a report was released by the former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which concluded that there is a “high probability” that radiofrequency radiation emitted by cellphones causes gliomas and acoustic neuromas, two types of brain tumors.
Moskowitz: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it - Berkeley News
The telecommunications industry insists cellphone technology is safe. But the director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health is determined to prove it wrong.
news.berkeley.edu
- 44,545
- 66,131
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
Interesting that you could see that post
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 64,125
- 192,488
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Interesting you can't answer a direct question
- 44,545
- 66,131
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
- 44,545
- 66,131
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
We investigated whether cellular phone use was associated with increased risk of tumors using a meta-analysis of case-control studies.
PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 2018. The primary outcome was the risk of tumors by cellular phone use, which was measured by pooling each odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). In a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies, compared with never or rarely having used a cellular phone, regular use was not associated with tumor risk in the random-effects meta-analysis. However, in the subgroup meta-analysis by research group, there was a statistically significant positive association (harmful effect) in the Hardell et al. studies (OR, 1.15—95% CI, 1.00 to 1.33— n = 10), a statistically significant negative association (beneficial effect) in the INTERPHONE-related studies (case-control studies from 13 countries coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); (OR, 0.81—95% CI, 0.75 to 0.89—n = 9), and no statistically significant association in other research groups’ studies.
Further, cellular phone use with cumulative call time more than 1000 h statistically significantly increased the risk of tumors. This comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found evidence that linked cellular phone use to increased tumor risk.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 2018. The primary outcome was the risk of tumors by cellular phone use, which was measured by pooling each odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). In a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies, compared with never or rarely having used a cellular phone, regular use was not associated with tumor risk in the random-effects meta-analysis. However, in the subgroup meta-analysis by research group, there was a statistically significant positive association (harmful effect) in the Hardell et al. studies (OR, 1.15—95% CI, 1.00 to 1.33— n = 10), a statistically significant negative association (beneficial effect) in the INTERPHONE-related studies (case-control studies from 13 countries coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); (OR, 0.81—95% CI, 0.75 to 0.89—n = 9), and no statistically significant association in other research groups’ studies.
Further, cellular phone use with cumulative call time more than 1000 h statistically significantly increased the risk of tumors. This comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found evidence that linked cellular phone use to increased tumor risk.
Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
We investigated whether cellular phone use was associated with increased risk of tumors using a meta-analysis of case-control studies. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 2018. The primary outcome was the risk of tumors by cellular ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
