Originally Posted by Defunctronin
It's not a lie. We don't know the extent yet, but scientists from all over the world have identified this as a serious problem. Go read the literature.
On May 21, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a committee of 27 scientists from 14 different countries working on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), also concluded that exposure to cell phone radiation is a "possible carcinogen" and classified it into the 2B category. This is the same category as the pesticide DDT, lead, gasoline engine exhaust, burning coal and dry cleaning chemicals, just to name a few.
The WHO isn't spreading lies; This is a serious concern, one important enough to be vetted and studied by scientists all over the word. There is lot's of evidence out there to support the damage of genetic cellular structure from continued exposure to EMF.
Commonwealth Club 11-18-10. Panel II – Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor, Columbia University, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics; Researcher in Biolelectromagnetics; Author of the BioInitiative Report’s (Bioinitiative.org) section on Stress Proteins; Editor of the journal Pathophysiology’s special issue on Electromagnetic Fields, March 2009; and Past President, Bioelectromagnetics Society.
Yeah, this guy is lying... lol.
And if that isn't enough information to remedy your misconception, watch a panel of Phds tell you how you are wrong.
Stop spreading your ignorance.
Martin Blank talked in sweeping generalities. He said early in his talk that he was going to provide a mechanism for DNA damage by non-ionizing radiation, but never did.
I'm 11 months away from my own biology degree. I know the literature. I deal with it on a daily basis. "Electromagnetichealth.org", on the other hand, is a crackpot, nutjob website if I've ever seen it. That site reeks of conspiracy theories on the order of cold fusion, UFOs, and chemtrails.
In 2007 a task group of scientific experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged the IARC categorization but found that the laboratory studies and other research results did not support the association.
the study did not confirm the suspicion of increased cancer risks associated with radiation for most cancer types in this village. Misclassification of past exposures could explain the negative finding.
reveals no or only scant evidence for the assumption that RF EMF exposure poses a hazard to children
The balance of epidemiologic evidence indicates that mobile phone use of less than 10 years does not pose any increased risk of brain tumour or acoustic neuroma. For long-term use, data are sparse, and the following conclusions are therefore uncertain and tentative.
From the results, we suggested that simultaneous exposure to CDMA and WCDMA RF-EMFs did not affect lymphoma development in AKR/J mice.
www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/.../RadioFreqRadRpt032001.pdf(This is an excellent review. I watched your videos, so I ask that you read through this.)
The results of these epidemiological investigations have been largely consistent and reassuring, with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US National Cancer Institute concluding that there is no conclusive or consistent evidence that nonionizing radiation emitted by cell phones is associated with cancer risk
Because of weaknesses, current evidence does not suggest that living near broadcast towers would lead to an increased risk of cancer.
This one actually directly refutes the second video from your second link, as it shows the cancer cluster was an isolated anomaly that only persisted for a 2 year period. Cancer rates returned to expected levels after that. RF output did not change, so clearly there was no causal link.
Overall, despite some provocative findings, due to the lack of consistency among cancer subtypes and the methodological weaknesses of many of the positive studies, the occupational epidemiology literature does not provide support for a link between RFR and cancer.
Edited by aroc91 - 6/9/12 at 3:54pm
All of these studies concluded that RFR is not harmful below levels that produce thermal effects.