New Research 2022 >

[whitefeather]

Low Intensity Electromagnetic Fields Act via Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel (VGCC) Activation to Cause Very Early Onset Alzheimer's Disease: 18 Distinct Types of Evidence - PubMed

Electronically generated electromagnetic fields (EMFs), including those used in wireless communication such as cell phones, Wi-Fi and smart meters, are coherent, producing very high electric and magnetic forces, which act on the voltage sensor of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[castler]

Yes this is nothing new, they've been talking about wireless signals and our health for years. But like with everything else we use on a day to day basis, nothing is good for us including the food u eat.

Some people are concerned about the potential health effects of RF energy from wireless technology. Most studies haven't found any health effects from cell phone use. A few studies have connected RF and health effects, but scientists have not been able to repeat the outcomes. This means that they are inconclusive

Source EPA

 

[locked*n*loaded]

Yes this is nothing new, they've been talking about wireless signals and our health for years. But like with everything else we use on a day to day basis, nothing is good for us including the food u eat.

Source EPA

Would the government tell the truth?

 

[Latios]

In related news, life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.

 

[27clubBRIAN]

In related news, life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.

lol tru

 

[Efilismislife]

Would the government tell the truth?

But what about the money?

 

[locked*n*loaded]

But what about the money?

Yeah, I guess it always comes down to the greed.

 

[Efilismislife]

Yes this is nothing new, they've been talking about wireless signals and our health for years. But like with everything else we use on a day to day basis, nothing is good for us including the food u eat.

Source EPA

EPA does not regulate the non-ionizing radiation from wireless technology, and does not maintain expertise in this area. For more information, please visit the links below.

But this is what they said

World Health Organization (WHO)
The WHO studies EMF and RF and invites scientists from all over the world to collaborate on their research.

Key facts
Mobile phone use is ubiquitous with an estimated 6.9 billion subscriptions globally
The electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly carcinogenic to humans.
Studies are ongoing to more fully assess potential long-term effects of mobile phone use.

Tissue heating is the principal mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency energy and the human body. At the frequencies used by mobile phones, most of the energy is absorbed by the skin and other superficial tissues, resulting in negligible temperature rise in the brain or any other organs of the body.

Epidemiological research examining potential long-term risks from radiofrequency exposure has mostly looked for an association between brain tumours and mobile phone use. However, because many cancers are not detectable until many years after the interactions that led to the tumour, and since mobile phones were not widely used until the early 1990s, epidemiological studies at present can only assess those cancers that become evident within shorter time periods.


Human health studies are very good at identifying large effects, such as a connection between smoking and cancer. Unfortunately, they are less able to distinguish a small effect from no effect at all. If electromagnetic fields at typical environmental levels were strong carcinogens, then it would have been easy to have shown that by now. By contrast, if low level electromagnetic fields are a weak carcinogen, or even a strong carcinogen to a small group of people in the larger population, that would be far more difficult to demonstrate.

In fact, even if a large study shows no association we can never be entirely sure that there is no relationship. The absence of an effect could mean that there really is none. But just as well it could mean that the effect is simply undetectable with our method of measurement. Therefore, negative results are generally less convincing than strong positive ones

 

[KQuotientW]

We have a brain surgeon in Australia who has spoken about mobile (cell) phone usage and brain cancers. Charlie Teo might be worth Googling.