Doctors call for delaying deployment of 5G due to health risks.

April 20, 2020

Well that was fun to review. This sentence (below) was in the abstract of one of the papers in your list. I think it's a decent summary of the status of the compiled data.

"The inconsistent results between similar studies and the same research groups have made it very difficult to make any comprehensive interpretation."

I’m sure there are many more sentences from over one thousand papers that could potentially add meaning to an unbiased summation of the results of the work many scientists who have spent their time doing legitimate research have found, this one you have cherry-picked doesn’t. It only serves to point out your confirmation bias which I do not want to defend against.

It is so foolish to waste time in these debates on here, I don’t want to do this any longer. I shouldn’t have taken the bait after I posted that there are numerous relevant studies that show there is cause for concern re. the technologies we use.

Confirmation Bias, Wikipedia

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or strengthens one's prior personal beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

April 20, 2020

Well that was fun to review. This sentence (below) was in the abstract of one of the papers in your list. I think it's a decent summary of the status of the compiled data.

"The inconsistent results between similar studies and the same research groups have made it very difficult to make any comprehensive interpretation."

I’m sure there are many more sentences from over one thousand papers that could potentially add meaning to an unbiased summation of the results of the work many scientists who have spent their time doing legitimate research have found, this one you have cherry-picked doesn’t. It only serves to point out your confirmation bias which I do not want to defend against.

It is so foolish to waste time in these debates on here, I don’t want to do this any longer. I shouldn’t have taken the bait after I posted that there are numerous relevant studies that show there is cause for concern re. the technologies we use.

Confirmation Bias, Wikipedia

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or strengthens one's prior personal beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Well I would like to thank and applaud you Mon Pilote for posting those studies, I think it should at least be of concern to others that mainstrem media will not even enter into debate about concerns around 5G anymore and was sad to see a similar thing happening here on BB. I don't know for sure whether 5G is harmful or not, I simply don't have the cognition to research things at the moment but I do know that we should have the right to debate and discuss things without fear of being censored or outcast as conspiracy theorists.

April 20, 2020

I don't blame you for not wanting to further debate this stuff. Very few people have the time or expertise to review and comprehend that list of studies. That's why lists like that are assembled and posted. They know nobody will really check them. The casual reader believes that a list like that is a preponderance of evidence FOR the cause. That's not necessarily so.

So you're saying that my obvious bias selected one researcher's obvious bias in a review article from a list shared by your obvious bias. Difficult to deny - everybody has bias. I find it interesting that these three biases aligned.

Hell yes I'm biased! Who isn't? However, I'd say that the folks who assembled that list have more bias than me (clearly my bias is talking). fwiw, I think I'm more an example of denial bias than confirmation bias. There's a lot of bias out there.

Scientifically, it still appears to me that the jury is still out. Again, if you believe this tech is frying your brains, turn off your phone.

April 20, 2020

Americans for Responsible Technology

https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/scientific-studies

[ENORMOUS SNIP]

I fail to see how the above does anything in furtherance of discussion. If you have a point to make, state it, and of course add a supporting reference to your point.

I don't blame you for not wanting to further debate this stuff. Very few people have the time or expertise to review and comprehend that list of studies. That's why lists like that are assembled and posted. They know nobody will really check them. The casual reader believes that a list like that is a preponderance of evidence FOR the cause. That's not necessarily so.

Exactly.

So you're saying that my obvious bias selected one researcher's obvious bias in a review article from a list shared by your obvious bias. Difficult to deny - everybody has bias. I find it interesting that these three biases aligned.

Of course. But this is what happens when a list is blindly copied and pasted - without any attempt at personal review - in furtherance of an opinion. mon pilote, how many papers taking a different view on 5G were ignored by Americans for Responsible Technology?

April 20, 2020

The heat you feel is generated by the electrical resistance in the circuits of the device, not the RF being emitted from it.

Those studies you cite failed to influence regulatory bodies in governments around the world. It is government agencies approve new technologies and set emission standards , not rich companies. In the US, the FCC does this and they approved 5g. In a prior job, I did site audits to ensure compliance. These rules are taken seriously.

I think these rules are sensible, but if studies come out that show that the rules need to be changed, I am open to that.

The heat being emitted is electronic radiation and it’s altering atomical and molecular structure, and our physiology, whether it is radio-frequent or not.

I’m sure that I should trust the FCC about as much as I trust the FDA, still I’m not on a crusade.

Although I am not sure the rules are sensible, I am not trying to argue with you and also don’t want to. I appreciate that you would be open to evidence supporting caution around and potential revision of standards/rules by the FCC providing it is there. I don’t know when the FCC created the rules they have, nor if the members comprising the FCC have conflicting interests that would influence their decisions. My guess is that that it is comprised of members who have ethically compromised agendas.

I believe I have finally learned how pointless it is arguing on a website, or arguing in general, and I am not excited by debate anymore (I don’t even really want to be on this site.) I believe I am beginning to understand how fruitless many past activities have been in my life that I involved myself with, and how disordered my thinking was much of the time. Still it’s difficult not to comment when I see people making definitive statements about personal opinions they can’t prove, especially when it involves science and medicine.

It is called 'resistance heating'. The exact same thing which occurs (at vastly greater energies) in your kettle, water heater, and electric heating in your home. RShack has already explained this.

The heat is primarily transferred by conduction through the body of the phone and convection of air within and without your phone. There will be some radiant heat too - again, just as there is (in vastly greater quantities) when using your electric kettle, water heater and domestic heating.

On top of this, there is indeed a very small amount of heating occurring via excitement of molecules in your skin from the electromagnetic radiation from your phone's transmitter (but you cannot feel it - it is just too tiny). But you know what, this (non-ionizing) radiation is totally swamped by the radiation form the antennae of your home router (which operate at similar frequencies as 5G).

Have you ripped out your home router yet?

April 20, 2020

Americans for Responsible Technology

https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/scientific-studies

[ENORMOUS SNIP]

I fail to see how the above does anything in furtherance of discussion. If you have a point to make, state it, and of course add a supporting reference to your point.

I don't blame you for not wanting to further debate this stuff. Very few people have the time or expertise to review and comprehend that list of studies. That's why lists like that are assembled and posted. They know nobody will really check them. The casual reader believes that a list like that is a preponderance of evidence FOR the cause. That's not necessarily so.

Exactly.

So you're saying that my obvious bias selected one researcher's obvious bias in a review article from a list shared by your obvious bias. Difficult to deny - everybody has bias. I find it interesting that these three biases aligned.

Of course. But this is what happens when a list is blindly copied and pasted - without any attempt at personal review - in furtherance of an opinion. mon pilote, How many papers taking a different view on 5G were ignored by Americans for Responsible Technology?

My point was really just to show that there are studies that suggest there could be harms being caused by our technologies and that I don’t think they at least are conspiracy theorists basing all their research off of conspiracy theory.

If you’d like to go down the list of studies one by one it’s not a problem, my goal was to show that such studies exist and they are being done by educated persons and published in legitimate publications. It seems like pointing this out would be a first step in possibly getting you to see that labeling those of us with concern as conspiracy theorists is inaccurate and unproductive.

Of course there are probably studies with conclusions to support that 5G and other technologies are benign and of no consequence, feel free to find some but also it will be necessary to be certain there aren’t conflicting interests. Bias and the motivations people have which create it definitely play a role.

April 20, 2020

Americans for Responsible Technology

https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/scientific-studies

[ENORMOUS SNIP]

I fail to see how the above does anything in furtherance of discussion. If you have a point to make, state it, and of course add a supporting reference to your point.

I don't blame you for not wanting to further debate this stuff. Very few people have the time or expertise to review and comprehend that list of studies. That's why lists like that are assembled and posted. They know nobody will really check them. The casual reader believes that a list like that is a preponderance of evidence FOR the cause. That's not necessarily so.

Exactly.

So you're saying that my obvious bias selected one researcher's obvious bias in a review article from a list shared by your obvious bias. Difficult to deny - everybody has bias. I find it interesting that these three biases aligned.

Of course. But this is what happens when a list is blindly copied and pasted - without any attempt at personal review - in furtherance of an opinion. mon pilote, How many papers taking a different view on 5G were ignored by Americans for Responsible Technology?

My point was really just to show that there are studies that suggest there could be harms being caused by our technologies and that I don’t think they at least are conspiracy theorists basing all their research off of conspiracy theory.

If you’d like to go down the list of studies one by one it’s not a problem, my goal was to show that such studies exist and they are being done by educated persons and published in legitimate publications. It seems like pointing this out would be a first step in possibly getting you to see that labeling those of us with concern as conspiracy theorists is inaccurate and unproductive.

Of course there are probably studies with conclusions to support that 5G and other technologies are benign and of no consequence, feel free to find some but also it will be necessary to be certain there aren’t conflicting interests. Bias and the motivations people have which create it definitely play a role.

Nope. That's a non-argument. If you have a point, make it. Posting a ridiculously long list of references, while making no argument, is not a discussion. And when confronted with this, neither is it appropriate to invite me to go through the list of references and read each of the papers. Make your specific point, and perhaps one of us will care to address it.

April 20, 2020

The heat you feel is generated by the electrical resistance in the circuits of the device, not the RF being emitted from it.

Those studies you cite failed to influence regulatory bodies in governments around the world. It is government agencies approve new technologies and set emission standards , not rich companies. In the US, the FCC does this and they approved 5g. In a prior job, I did site audits to ensure compliance. These rules are taken seriously.

I think these rules are sensible, but if studies come out that show that the rules need to be changed, I am open to that.

The heat being emitted is electronic radiation and it’s altering atomical and molecular structure, and our physiology, whether it is radio-frequent or not.

I’m sure that I should trust the FCC about as much as I trust the FDA, still I’m not on a crusade.

Although I am not sure the rules are sensible, I am not trying to argue with you and also don’t want to. I appreciate that you would be open to evidence supporting caution around and potential revision of standards/rules by the FCC providing it is there. I don’t know when the FCC created the rules they have, nor if the members comprising the FCC have conflicting interests that would influence their decisions. My guess is that that it is comprised of members who have ethically compromised agendas.

I believe I have finally learned how pointless it is arguing on a website, or arguing in general, and I am not excited by debate anymore (I don’t even really want to be on this site.) I believe I am beginning to understand how fruitless many past activities have been in my life that I involved myself with, and how disordered my thinking was much of the time. Still it’s difficult not to comment when I see people making definitive statements about personal opinions they can’t prove, especially when it involves science and medicine.

It is called 'resistance heating'. The exact same thing which occurs (at vastly greater energies) in your kettle, water heater, and electric heating in your home. RShack has already explained this.

The heat is primarily transferred by conduction through the body of the phone and convection of air within and without your phone. There will be some radiant heat too - again, just as there is (in vastly greater quantities) when using your electric kettle, water heater and domestic heating.

On top of this, there is indeed a very small amount of heating occurring via excitement of molecules in your skin from the electromagnetic radiation from your phone's transmitter (but you cannot feel it - it is just too tiny). But you know what, this (non-ionizing) radiation is totally swamped by the radiation form the antennae of your home router (which operate at similar frequencies as 5G).

Have you ripped out your home router yet?

All I’m saying is that writing those of us who feel there could be cause for concern, and necessity for further investigation, as conspiracy theorists is inaccurate and unproductive. I haven’t made any positive decision either way, so it’s strange to me that you want to confront me combatitively about what I’ve done or not done to possibly protect my health. It seems you are trying to shut down discussion and any way to learn more for someone who admits they don’t know enough and sees that there has been research that could be pointing to problems down the line. I haven’t made up my mind, nor do I know enough yet, so what is the point in coming at me? If I even held a position that opposed yours maybe you would have someone to aim at.

Whatever kind of radiation comes from appliances that is non-ionized can be felt physically. Laptops, tv’s and cellphones all heat up. Dirty electricity comes from many sources (appliances etc.) and it appears to me that the net effect especially could be worth understanding better and looking into. How many G’s do we really need after all? How much non-ionized frequency is harmful finally? There are many factors: smart meters, all kinds of things that could make one room or one residence or street corner exceed the limits of human safety, and it is unwise to say there is nothing to consider in this regard.

April 20, 2020

Americans for Responsible Technology

https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/scientific-studies

[ENORMOUS SNIP]

I fail to see how the above does anything in furtherance of discussion. If you have a point to make, state it, and of course add a supporting reference to your point.

I don't blame you for not wanting to further debate this stuff. Very few people have the time or expertise to review and comprehend that list of studies. That's why lists like that are assembled and posted. They know nobody will really check them. The casual reader believes that a list like that is a preponderance of evidence FOR the cause. That's not necessarily so.

Exactly.

So you're saying that my obvious bias selected one researcher's obvious bias in a review article from a list shared by your obvious bias. Difficult to deny - everybody has bias. I find it interesting that these three biases aligned.

Of course. But this is what happens when a list is blindly copied and pasted - without any attempt at personal review - in furtherance of an opinion. mon pilote, How many papers taking a different view on 5G were ignored by Americans for Responsible Technology?

My point was really just to show that there are studies that suggest there could be harms being caused by our technologies and that I don’t think they at least are conspiracy theorists basing all their research off of conspiracy theory.

If you’d like to go down the list of studies one by one it’s not a problem, my goal was to show that such studies exist and they are being done by educated persons and published in legitimate publications. It seems like pointing this out would be a first step in possibly getting you to see that labeling those of us with concern as conspiracy theorists is inaccurate and unproductive.

Of course there are probably studies with conclusions to support that 5G and other technologies are benign and of no consequence, feel free to find some but also it will be necessary to be certain there aren’t conflicting interests. Bias and the motivations people have which create it definitely play a role.

Nope. That's a non-argument. If you have a point, make it. Posting a ridiculously long list of references, while making no argument, is not a discussion. And when confronted with this, neither is it appropriate to invite me to go through the list of references and read each of the papers. Make your specific point, and perhaps one of us will care to address it.

That’s because I’m not making an argument! I don’t know that it’s all so safe in every situation all the time, but that is what you seem to want to believe and I don’t want to sit here trying to convince you otherwise. Great, who cares? Once again I will say I don’t have a position other than I am not certain it is all safe and benign enough (especially cumulatively) to go plowing ahead with stronger signals and without a closer look, you on the other hand seem to think it is with no question. Good for you, that’s wonderful. I’m not convinced and it doesn’t make me a conspiracy theorist.

I’m done talking about it. That list was only showing that it isn’t implausible to be entertaining the thought at this time that there is reason for concern.

Find a worthy opponent to challenge your ironclad beliefs that all is fine and well with all these frequencies (whom you won’t condescendingly brand a conspiracy theorist) if you are really interested in challenging your own bias. I’m not well physically, don’t have the strength or knowledge and don’t want to participate so as to exacerbate my condition.

April 20, 2020

Well that was fun to review. This sentence (below) was in the abstract of one of the papers in your list. I think it's a decent summary of the status of the compiled data.

"The inconsistent results between similar studies and the same research groups have made it very difficult to make any comprehensive interpretation."

I’m sure there are many more sentences from over one thousand papers that could potentially add meaning to an unbiased summation of the results of the work many scientists who have spent their time doing legitimate research have found, this one you have cherry-picked doesn’t. It only serves to point out your confirmation bias which I do not want to defend against.

It is so foolish to waste time in these debates on here, I don’t want to do this any longer. I shouldn’t have taken the bait after I posted that there are numerous relevant studies that show there is cause for concern re. the technologies we use.

Confirmation Bias, Wikipedia

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or strengthens one's prior personal beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Well I would like to thank and applaud you Mon Pilote for posting those studies, I think it should at least be of concern to others that mainstrem media will not even enter into debate about concerns around 5G anymore and was sad to see a similar thing happening here on BB. I don't know for sure whether 5G is harmful or not, I simply don't have the cognition to research things at the moment but I do know that we should have the right to debate and discuss things without fear of being censored or outcast as conspiracy theorists.

Thank you hopefullinhell. I appreciate what you’ve said, don’t have the level of energy or cognition necessary either, and agree.

April 20, 2020

All I’m saying is that writing those of us who feel there could be cause for concern, and necessity for further investigation, as conspiracy theorists is inaccurate and unproductive. I haven’t made any positive decision either way, so it’s strange to me that you want to confront me combatitively about what I’ve done or not done to possibly protect my health. It seems you are trying to shut down discussion and any way to learn more for someone who admits they don’t know enough and sees that there has been research that could be pointing to problems down the line. I haven’t made up my mind, nor do I know enough yet, so what is the point in coming at me? If I even held a position that opposed yours maybe you would have someone to aim at.

Whatever kind of radiation comes from appliances that is non-ionized can be felt physically. Laptops, tv’s and cellphones all heat up. Dirty electricity comes from many sources (appliances etc.) and it appears to me that the net effect especially could be worth understanding better and looking into. How many G’s do we really need after all? How much non-ionized frequency is harmful finally? There are many factors: smart meters, all kinds of things that could make one room or one residence or street corner exceed the limits of human safety, and it is unwise to say there is nothing to consider in this regard.

But, again, you said nothing. All you did was post an incredibly long list of references from a site with a particular agenda.

If you have no particular view, why would you post that very long list of references supporting the view of Americans for Responsible Technology?

[nobbc]https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/issues[/nobbc]

I am sorry, but yours is not a genuine effort to engage in discourse. That website exists purely to oppose introduction of 5G.

Again, I ask, have you removed all sources of electrical heating from your home? Electric kettle, water heater, electric heaters, etc., etc.? They are far, far greater sources of electrically generated heat. And, the energy transferred to you from your home's wifi router (which operates at the same frequency range as 5G) is much greater than that from the 5G network.

What is 'dirty electricity'? Oh. You mean this:

https://www.nature.com/articles/jes20108

The sinusoidal wave form of electricity supplies are messed up all the time by (back emf) transient spikes which have not been filtered properly by poorly designed (or malfunctioning) electrical appliances/devices (especially large industrial appliances - motors being the most common). This can effect power to other electrical devices on the same local supply (particularly sensitive electronics). This is a 'dirty supply'. So, this is why - for example - the power supply in your computer will have (or hopefully will have) fairly sophisticated filtering electronics to protect it from noise (spikes in the supply) which can cause a malfunction or damage. But this has nothing to do with your health. It is purely that transformers reply upon a sinusoidal wave form for efficiency, and large spikes can overload/disrupt filters and smoothing of the DC supply to your computer CPU, etc..

I am not an electrical engineer (but it appears that RShack is). Perhaps he will tidy up where I have not explained this well or have erred. But I think you will find what I have described above is essentially correct.

November 14, 2020

I don't blame you for not wanting to further debate this stuff. Very few people have the time or expertise to review and comprehend that list of studies. That's why lists like that are assembled and posted. They know nobody will really check them. The casual reader believes that a list like that is a preponderance of evidence FOR the cause. That's not necessarily so.

So you're saying that my obvious bias selected one researcher's obvious bias in a review article from a list shared by your obvious bias. Difficult to deny - everybody has bias. I find it interesting that these three biases aligned.

Hell yes I'm biased! Who isn't? However, I'd say that the folks who assembled that list have more bias than me (clearly my bias is talking). fwiw, I think I'm more an example of denial bias than confirmation bias. There's a lot of bias out there.

Scientifically, it still appears to me that the jury is still out. Again, if you believe this tech is frying your brains, turn off your phone.

I think that what you said in your reply here badsocref is mostly fair. I guess that we are in agreement, because I do feel that the jury is still out. I don’t know that I’d turn my phone off yet even with the suspicions I have, as there are clearly some uses and advantages to the electronic technology we consume and use. Sometimes wonder how advantageous how often, and how useful, and when it’s either, over the option to go without. The difficulty is that even were I not to use the internet to come on BB, which does serve a purpose for me to this day, by and large the rest of the world is connected as well. It would be an extreme gesture to go completely against and counter the culture of the overwhelming majority. A real question would be, at the same time, would it truly make for a lonelier and more disconnected life in the long run?

November 14, 2020

All I’m saying is that writing those of us who feel there could be cause for concern, and necessity for further investigation, as conspiracy theorists is inaccurate and unproductive. I haven’t made any positive decision either way, so it’s strange to me that you want to confront me combatitively about what I’ve done or not done to possibly protect my health. It seems you are trying to shut down discussion and any way to learn more for someone who admits they don’t know enough and sees that there has been research that could be pointing to problems down the line. I haven’t made up my mind, nor do I know enough yet, so what is the point in coming at me? If I even held a position that opposed yours maybe you would have someone to aim at.

Whatever kind of radiation comes from appliances that is non-ionized can be felt physically. Laptops, tv’s and cellphones all heat up. Dirty electricity comes from many sources (appliances etc.) and it appears to me that the net effect especially could be worth understanding better and looking into. How many G’s do we really need after all? How much non-ionized frequency is harmful finally? There are many factors: smart meters, all kinds of things that could make one room or one residence or street corner exceed the limits of human safety, and it is unwise to say there is nothing to consider in this regard.

But, again, you said nothing. All you did was post an incredibly long list of references from a site with a particular agenda.

If you have no particular view, why would you post that very long list of references supporting the view of Americans for Responsible Technology?

[nobbc]https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/issues[/nobbc]

I am sorry, but yours is not a genuine effort to engage in discourse. That website exists purely to oppose introduction of 5G.

Again, I ask, have you removed all sources of electrical heating from your home? Electric kettle, water heater, electric heaters, etc., etc.? They are far, far greater sources of electrically generated heat. And, the energy transferred to you from your home's wifi router (which operates at the same frequency range as 5G) is much greater than that from the 5G network.

What is 'dirty electricity'? Oh. You mean this:

https://www.nature.com/articles/jes20108

The sinusoidal wave form of electricity supplies are messed up all the time by (back emf) transient spikes which have not been filtered properly by poorly designed (or malfunctioning) electrical appliances/devices (especially large industrial appliances - motors being the most common). This can effect power to other electrical devices on the same local supply (particularly sensitive electronics). This is a 'dirty supply'. So, this is why - for example - the power supply in your computer will have (or hopefully will have) fairly sophisticated filtering electronics to protect it from noise (spikes in the supply) which can cause a malfunction or damage. But this has nothing to do with your health. It is purely that transformers reply upon a sinusoidal wave form for efficiency, and large spikes can overload/disrupt filters and smoothing of the DC supply to your computer CPU, etc..

I am not an electrical engineer (but it appears that RShack is). Perhaps he will tidy up where I have not explained this well or have erred. But I think you will find what I have described above is essentially correct.

Colin,

I don’t mind putting some thought to it. I will try and take some time to read over what you are communicating in your replies.

I appreciate that you kept the discussion open, and I’m thankful to you for different other reasons. I haven’t forgotten what got shared here, and haven’t been well enough to pick it back up. I’d like to have the opportunity to take in what you have written and come to my own conclusion finally. I’d also like to do so in a considered manner, while being respectful of myself and all others here.

Fair enough to say I have not really said anything, I see your points and won’t attempt to defend or discredit your criticism of me.

However, as it stands, I don’t have a solid position. Maybe with some time and applied effort I will truthfully possess one. I do admit to feeling concerned about the potentials for harm, I haven’t tried to hide that, but I feel there is more complexity to the issue and am unable to declare my full opinion at this time.

How marvelous it would be to have a better knowledge and a more full understanding of something I use and am exposed to daily. Computer, cellular and wireless technology isn’t something I see as being bad or evil as a whole, but I think that it’s a tool, and that “every tool is a weapon if you hold it right.” Or at least has the potential to be—whether it’s advertently used as such or not.

November 14, 2020

@[mo...]

I agree that technology is deep and complicated, that is why I am careful to not insult people for lack of knowledge.

Ive been doing this for 24 years, am a licensed professional engineer, have a BSEE and a Masters in Physics, yet I too struggle to keep up on the technology. Everything changes so rapidly.

I don’t have a lot of time, but if you have some questions,I will try to answer them.

November 14, 2020

RShack,

Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to try and help me understand. I’ll make an effort to get clear enough on what I’m looking at before I ask much so that I’m not wasting any of your time.

I’m about to move in the next month or so (though not far) and have a migraine today, but I wanted to respond to your thoughtful reply. It’s cheered me up, because I do intend to do a little studying after the move. I’m sure I won’t get too far, but at least I may have a better idea of general questions to ask.

That’s very interesting about your degrees, and the wisdom and knowledge you’ve acquired. Thanks for sharing that too. It gave me a reason to smile.

November 14, 2020

As I mentioned previously, governments have approved 5g standards and governments set RF emissions standards.

They have approved 5g technology, so your beef is with them.

The American government is run by giant corporations who are mainly driven by profits to shareholders, and have not adequately tested the safety of 5G by any means. So your point is invalid because the people have very little influence here.

November 14, 2020

Well now you have made me smile! I hope your move goes well and your migraine goes away quickly—I had one yesterday myself.

It’s commendable that you are willing to learn and I have no problem with people being skeptical—I should have been more skeptical when I was first prescribed benzos. I won’t make that mistake again, but that mistake made me start taking my health seriously and so I won’t beat myself up for making a mistake.

Hope you have a restful and peaceful weekend!

November 14, 2020

Let's please stop with the rumor/fear mongering and conspiracy theories. If you have specific, relevant information to cite, then give appropriate links, but only do so if you can personally vouch that the information in those links is relevant to this discussion.

November 14, 2020

@[Ro...]

I can only comment on US regulations because I only practice in the US.

The FCC enforces the RF exposure regulations and the penalties are stiff. One would think that if the big corporations were steering the regulations, they would not put such large penalties in place.

Likewise, before enacting regulations, the FCC solicits public comments, so people can freely comment. Details are here: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/how-comment

March 27, 2021

Just found this site while looking for the latest news on 5G. Please, don't shoot the messenger as some of us have more questions than answers.

Update in March 2021.

https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal

"Telecommunications companies worldwide, with the support of governments, are poised within the next two years to roll out the fifth-generation wireless network (5G). This is set to deliver what is acknowledged to be unprecedented societal change on a global scale. We will have “smart” homes, “smart” businesses, “smart” highways, “smart” cities and self-driving cars. Virtually everything we own and buy, from refrigerators and washing machines to milk cartons, hairbrushes and infants’ diapers, will contain antennas and microchips and will be connected wirelessly to the Internet. Every person on Earth will have instant access to super-high-speed, low- latency wireless communications from any point on the planet, even in rainforests, mid-ocean and the Antarctic.

What is not widely acknowledged is that this will also result in unprecedented environmental change on a global scale. The planned density of radio frequency transmitters is impossible to envisage. In addition to millions of new 5G base stations on Earth and 20,000 new satellites in space, 200 billion transmitting objects, according to estimates, will be part of the Internet of Things by 2020, and one trillion objects a few years later. Commercial 5G at lower frequencies and slower speeds was deployed in Qatar, Finland and Estonia in mid-2018. The rollout of 5G at extremely high (millimetre wave) frequencies is planned to begin at the end of 2018." https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal

Noteworthy: "There are 306,576 signatories from 214 nations and territories

as of March 27th, 2021."

March 28, 2021

Hmm. I closed down another thread containing similar nonsense a few days ago. I guess I'll leave this one open for now since I have come across an 'anatomy of a conspiracy theory' type article at Wired. I suggest that it is worth a read.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/5g-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory

Other than the fact that this is total nonsense what does it have to do with benzo withdrawal?

March 28, 2021

Hmm. I closed down another thread containing similar nonsense a few days ago. I guess I'll leave this one open for now since I have come across an 'anatomy of a conspiracy theory' type article at Wired. I suggest that it is worth a read.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/5g-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory

Other than the fact that this is total nonsense what does it have to do with benzo withdrawal?

Nothing, of course. But you are correct - I had not noticed that this thread is on the Chewing the Fat board. Off to the Off-Topic board it goes. Thanks for the heads-up. And you are, of course, correct about it being nonsense too.

March 29, 2021

Americans for Responsible Technology

https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/scientific-studies

There are more than 1,000 scientific studies conducted by independent researchers from around the world concerning the biological effects of RF radiation. Here we present some of the most recent.

I. Effects On Fetal And Newborn Development

Mother’s Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Before and During Pregnancy is Associated with Risk of Speech Problems in Offspring. Zarei, S., et al. Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering 9(1):61-68 (2019).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30881935/

Prenatal Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Field and Its Impact on Fetal Growth. Ren, Y., et al. Environmental Health (2019).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30635061/

The Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation on Mice Fetus Weight, Length and Tissues. Alimohammadi, I., et al. Data in Brief 19:2189-2194 (2018).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6141437/pdf/main.pdf

Effects of Prenatal Exposure to WiFi Signal (2.45 GHz) on Postnatal Development and Behavior in Rat: Influence of Maternal Restraint. Othman, H., et al. Behavioral Brain Research 326: 291-301 (2017).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28288806/

Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A prospective Cohort Study. Li, De-Kun, et al. Scientific Reports (2017).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16623-8

Postnatal Development and Behavior Effects of In-Utero Exposure of Rats to Radiofrequency Waves Emitted From Conventional WiFi Devices. Othman, H., et al. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 52:239-247 (2017).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28458069/

Lasting Hepatotoxic Effects of Prenatal Mobile Phone Exposure. Yilmaz, A., et al. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 30(11): 1355-1359 (2017).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27427155/

Multiple Assessment Methods of Prenatal Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation from Telecommunication in the Mothers and Children’s Environmental Health (MOCEH) Study. Choi, Ha, et al. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 29(6):959-972 (2016).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27869246/

The Use of Signal-Transduction and Metabolic Pathways to Predict Human Disease Targets from Electric and Magnetic Fields Using in vitro Data in Human Cell Lines. Parham, Portier, et al. Frontiers in Public Health (2016).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5013261/

A Review on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) and the Reproductive System. Asghari, Khaki, et al. Electronic Physician 8(7):2655-2662 (2016).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5014506/

Genotoxicity Induced by Foetal and Infant Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Modulation of Ionising Radiation Effects. Udroiu, Antoccia, et al. PLoS One (2015).

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142259

Oxidative Stress of Brain and Liver is Increased by Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) Exposure of Rats During Pregnancy and the Development of Newborns. Çelik, Ömer, et al. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75(B):134-139 (2015).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26520617/

Neurodegenerative Changes and Apoptosis Induced by Intrauterine and Extrauterine Exposure of Radiofrequency Radiation. Güler, Göknur, et al. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75(B):128-133 (2015).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26520616/

Maternal Exposure to a Continuous 900-MHz Electromagnetic Field Provokes Neuronal Loss and Pathological Changes in Cerebellum of 32-Day-Old Female Rat Offspring. Odaci, Ersan, et al. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75(B):105-110 (2015).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26391347/

Different Periods of Intrauterine Exposure to Electromagnetic Field: Influence on Female Rats' Fertility, Prenatal and Postnatal Development. Alchalabi, Aklilu, et al. Asian Pacific Journal of Reproduction 5(1):14-23 (2015).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2305050015000536

Use of Mobile Phone During Pregnancy and the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion. Mahmoudabadi, Ziaei, et al. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering 13:34 (2015).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4416385/

Oxidative Mechanisms of Biological Activity of Low-Intensity Radiofrequency Radiation. Yakymenko, et al. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 34(3):1-16 (2015).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26151230/

Effects of Prenatal 900 MHz Electromagnetic Field Exposures on the Histology of Rat Kidney. Ulubay, et al. International Journal of Radiation Biology 91(1):35-41 (2015).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25084839/

The Effect of Exposure of Rats During Prenatal Period to Radiation Spreading from Mobile Phones on Renal Development. Bedir, et al. Renal Failure 37(2):305-9 (2014).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25691088/

Dosimetric Study of Fetal Exposure to Uniform Magnetic Fields at 50 Hz. Liorni, et al. Bioelectromagnetics 35(:580-97 (2014).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25266786/

Influence of Pregnancy Stage and Fetus Position on the Whole-Body and Local Exposure of the Fetus to RF-EMF. Varsier, et al. Physics in Medicine and Biology 59(17):4913-26 (2014).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25098501/

Autism-Relevant Social Abnormalities in Mice Exposed Perinatally to Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. Alsaeed, et al. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience 37:58-6 (2014).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24970316/

Pyramidal Cell Loss in the Cornu Ammonis of 32-day-old Female Rats Following Exposure to a 900 Megahertz Electromagnetic Field During Prenatal Days 13–21. Bas, et al. NeuroQuantology Volume 11, Issue 4: 591-599 (2013).

http://neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/701/625

The Effects of 900 Megahertz Electromagnetic Field Applied in the Prenatal Period on Spinal Cord Morphology and Motor Behavior in Female Rat Pups. Odaci, et al. NeuroQuantology Volume 11, Issue 4: 573-581 (2013).

http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/698

Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800-1900 MHz-Rated Cellular Telephones Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice. Aldad, Gan, et al. Scientific Reports 2(312) (2013).

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00312

Cranial and Postcranial Skeletal Variations Induced in Mouse Embryos by Mobile Phone Radiation. Fragopoulou, Koussoulakos, et al. Pathophysiology 17(3):169-77 (2010).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19854628/

Dysbindin Modulates Prefrontal Cortical Glutamatergic Circuits and Working Memory Function in Mice. Jentsch, et al Neuropsychopharmacology 34, 2601–8 (2009).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19641486/

Stress Signalling Pathways that Impair Prefrontal Cortex Structure and Function. Arnsten, A. F. National Review of Neuroscience 10, 410–22 (2009).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907136/

Maternal Occupational Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Brain Cancer in the Offspring. Li, Mclaughlin, et al. Cancer Causes & Control 20(6):945-55 (2009).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19224378/

Reproductive and Developmental Effects of EMF in Vertebrate Animal Models. Pourlis, A.F. Pathophysiology 16(2-3):179-89 (2009).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19272761/

Prenatal and Postnatal Exposure to Cell Phone Use and Behavioral Problems in Children. Divan, Kheifets, et al. Epidemiology19(4):523-29 (2008).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18467962/

Effects of Prenatal Exposure to a 900 MHz Electromagnetic Field on the Dentate Gyrus of Rats: A Stereological and Histopathological Study. Odaci, et al. Brain Research 1238: 224–229 (2008).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18761003/

Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation Up-Regulates Apoptosis Genes in Primary Cultures of Neurons and Astrocytes. Zhao, et al. Science Digest 412: 34–38 (2007).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17187929/

Cell Death Induced by GSM 900-MHz and DCS 1800-MHz Mobile Telephony Radiation. Panagopoulos, et al. Mutation Research626, 69–78 (2006).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17045516/

Ultra High Frequency-Electromagnetic Field Irradiation During Pregnancy Leads to an Increase in Erythrocytes Micronuclei Incidence in Rat Offspring. Ferreira, Knakievicz, et al. Life Sciences 80(1):43-50 (2006).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16978664/

Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Biederman, J. & Faraone, S. V. Lancet 366, 237–248 (2005).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16023516/

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: An Overview of the Etiology and a Review of the Literature Relating to the Correlates and Lifecourse Outcomes for Men and Women. Brassett-Harknett, A. & Butler, N. Clinical Psychology Review 27,188–210 (2005).

http://europepmc.org/article/med/16081194

II. Effects On Young Children

Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development. Sage, C. & Burgio, E. Child Development (2017).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28504324/

Prospective Cohort Analysis of Cellphone Use and Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in Children. Sudan, M, et al. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (2016).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27217533/

Why Children Absorb More Microwave Radiation than Adults: The Consequences. Morgan, Kesari, et al. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 2(4):196-204 (2014).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583

Epidemiological Characteristics of Mobile Phone Ownership and Use in Korean Children and Adolescents. Byun, Yoon-Hwan, et al. Environmental Health and Toxicology 28 (2013).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3909745/

A Prospective Study of In-Utero Exposure to Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Childhood Obesity. Li, De-Kun, et al. Scientific Reports 2.540 (2012).

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00540

Exposure to Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Childhood Cancer: Update of the Epidemiological evidence. Schüz and Joachim. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 107(3):339-42 (2011).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610711001076

Cell Phone Use and Behavioural Problems in Young Children. Divan, Kheifets, et al. Journal of Epidemiol Community Health 66(6):524-9 (2010).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49665228_Cell_phone_use_and_behavioural_problems_in_young_children

Mobile Phones, Radiofrequency Fields, and Health Effects in Children-Epidemiological Studies. Feychting, Maria. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 107(3):343-348 (2010).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610711001210

Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Behavioral Problems in Bavarian Children and Adolescents. Thomas, Silke, et al. European Journal of Epidemiology 25(2):135-41 (2009).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-009-9408-x

The Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields. Repacholi, et al. Deventer. Journal of Pediatrics 116(2):303-313 (2005).

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/116/2/e303

III. Brain Tumors

Simulation of The Incidence of Malignant Brain Tumors in Birth Cohorts That Started Using Mobile Phones When They First Became Popular in Japan. Sato, Y., Kojimahara, N., and Yamaguchi, N. Bioelectromagnetics 40(3): 143-149 (2019).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30875091/

Report of Final Results Regarding Brain and Heart Tumors in Sprague-Dawley Rats Exposed From Prenatal Life Unitl Natural Death to Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Field Representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM Base Station Environmental Emission. Falcioni, L, et al. Environmental Research (2018).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29530389/

Exposure to Cell Phone Radiofrequency Changes Corticotrophin Hormone Levels and Histology of The Brain and Adrenal Glands in Male Wistar Rat. Shahabi, S., et al. Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences 21:1269-1274 (2018).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312682/

Brain Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence in England 1995-2015 Suggests an Adverse Environmental or Lifestyle Factor. Philips, A., et al. Journal of Environmental and Public Health (2018).

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2018/7910754/

The 2100 MHz Radiofrequency Radiation of a 3G-Mobile Phone and the DNA Oxidative Damage in Brain. Sahin, Ozgur, et al. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75(B):94-98 (2016).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891061816000041

Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and the Risk for Glioma - Analysis of Pooled Case- Control Studies in Sweden 1997-2003 and 2007-2009. Hardell and Carlberg. PathoPhysiology 22(1):1-13 (2015).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25466607/

Mobile Phone Radiation Causes Brain Tumors and Should Be Classified as a Probable Human Carcinogen. Morgan, Miller, et al. International Journal of Oncology 46:1865-1871 (2015).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273150433_Mobile_phone_radiation_causes_brain_tumors_and_should_be_classified_as_a_probable_human_carcinogen_2A_Review

Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumours in the CERENAT Case-Control Study. Coureau, Bouvier, et al. Occupational & Environmental Medicine 71(7):514-22 (2014).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24816517/

Use of Mobile Phones and Cordless Phones is Associated with Increased Risk for Glioma and Acoustic Neuroma. Hardell, Carberg, et al. PathoPhysiology 20(2):85-110 (2013).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23261330/

Mobile Phones and Head Tumours: A Critical Analysis of Case-Control Epidemiological Studies. Levis, Minicuci, et al. Open Environmental Sciences 6(1):1-12 (2012).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268300569_Mobile_Phones_and_Head_Tumours_A_Critical_Analysis_of_Case-Control_Epidemiological_Studies

On the Association Between Glioma, Wireless Phones, Heredity and Ionising Radiation. Carlberg and Hardell. PathoPhysiology19(4):243-252 (2012).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22939605/

Mobile Phones and Head Tumours. The Discrepancies in Cause-Effect Relationships in the Epidemiological Studies - How Do They Arise? Levis, Minicuci, et al. Environmental Health 10:59 (2011).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21679472/

Indications of Possible Brain Tumour Risk in Mobile-Phone Studies: Should We Be Concerned? Cardis and Sadetzki. Occupational & Environmental Medicine 68:169-171 (2011).

https://oem.bmj.com/content/68/3/169

Estimating the Risk of Brain Tumors from Cell Phone Use: Published Case-Control Studies. Morgan, LL. Pathophysiology 16(2-3):137-147 (2009).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19356911/

Cell Phones and Brain Tumors: A Review Including the Long-Term Epidemiologic Data. Khurana, Teo, et al. Surgical Neurology72(3):205-14 (2009).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19328536/

Epidemiological Evidence for an Association Between Use of Wireless Phones and Tumor Diseases. Hardell, Carlberg, et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):113-122 (2009).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19268551/

Histopathological Examinations of Rat Brains After Long-Term Exposure to GSM Mobile Phone Radiation. Grafström, Gustav, et al. Brain Research Bulletin 77(5):257-63 (2008).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18782606/

Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Acoustic Neuroma. Lonn, Ahlbom, et al. Epidemiology 15(6):653-659 (2004).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15475713/

IV. Parotid Gland Tumors

Influence of Handheld Mobiles on Parotid: A Cohort Study. Ranjitha, G., et al. Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology 29:254-258 (2017).

http://www.jiaomr.in/article.asp?issn=0972-1363;year=2017;volume=29;issue=4;spage=254;epage=258;aulast=Ranjitha

Does Cell Phone Use Increase the Chances of Parotid Gland Tumor Development? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. De Siqueira, de Souza, et al. Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine 45(11) (2016).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27935126/

Pooled Analysis of Case-Control Studies on Acoustic Neuroma Diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007- 2009 and Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones. Hardell, Carlberg, et al. International Journal of Oncology 43(4):1036-144 (2015).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23877578/

Using the Hill Viewpoints from 1965 for Evaluating Strengths of Evidence of the Risk for Brain Tumors Associated with use of Mobile and Cordless Phones. Hardell and Carlberg. Reviews on Environmental Health 28(2-3):97-106 (2013).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24192496/

Case-Control study of the Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones and the Risk for Malignant Melanoma in the Head and Neck Region. Hardell, Carlberg, et al. Pathophysiology 18(4):325-333 (2011).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0928468011000320

Correlation Between Cellular Phone Use and Epithelial Parotid Gland Malignancies. Duan, Zhang, et al. Clinical Paper Head and Oncology 40(9):966-7 (2011).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21474287/

Mobile Phones Use and Risk of Tumors: A Meta-Analysis. Mynf, Ju, et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology 27(33):5565-72 (2009).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19826127/

Mobile Phone, Cordless Phones and the Risk for Brain Tumours. Hardell and Carlberg. International Journal of Oncology 35(1):5-17 (2009).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19513546/

Public Health Implications of Wireless Technologies. Sage and Carpenter. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):233-46 (2009).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19285839/

Epidemiological Evidence for an Association Between use of Wireless Phones and Tumor Diseases. Hardell, Carlberg, et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):113-122 (2009).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0928468009000091

Cell Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors - A Nationwide Case- Control Study. Sadetzki, Chetrit, et al. American Journal of Epidemiology 167(4):457-467 (2008).

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/167/4/457/233171

V. Other Malignancies

The Carcinogenic Potential of Non-Ionizing Radiations: The Cases of S-50 Hz MF and 1.8 GHz GSM Radiofrequency Radiation. Soffritti, M. and Giuliani, L. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology (2019).

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bcpt.13215

Tumor Promotion by Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Below Exposure Limits for Humans. Lerchl, Klose, et al. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 459(4):585-590 (2015).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006291X15003988

Swedish Review Strengthen Grounds for Concluding that Radiation from Cellular and Cordless Phones is a Probable Human Carcinogen. Davis, Kesari, et al. Pathophysiology 20(2):123-129 (2013).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23664410/

Multifocal Breast Cancer in Young Women with Prolonged Contact Between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones. West, Kapoor, et al. Case Reports in Medicine (2013).

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/crim/2013/354682/

Epidemiological Evidence for an Association Between Use of Wireless Phones and Tumor Diseases. Hardell, Carlberg, et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):113-122 (2009).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19268551/

Study on Potential Effects of "902 MHz GSM-type Wireless Communication Signals" on DMBA-Induced Mammary Tumours in Sprague-Dawley Rats. Hruby, Neubauer, et al. Mutation Research 649(1-2):34-44 (2008).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17981079/

VI. Effects On DNA

Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells More Strongly Than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Markova, Malmgren, et al. Environmental Health Perspectives 118(3):394-399 (2010).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854769/

Radiofrequency Radiation and Gene/Protein Expression: A Review. McNamee and Chauhan. Radiation Research 172(3):265-287 (2009).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19708776/

Evaluation of HSP70 Expression and DNA Damage in Cells of a Human Trophoblast Cell Line Exposed to 1.8GHz Amplitude-Modulated Radiofrequency Fields. Valbonesi, Franzellotto, et al. Radiation Research 169(3):270-279 (2008).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18302482/

Gene and Protein Expression Following Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields from Mobile Phones. Vanderstraeten and Verschaeve. Environmental Health Perspectives 116(9):1131-5 (2008).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18795152/

Nonthermal Effects of RadioFrequency-Field Exposure on Calcium Dynamics in Stem Cell- derived Neuronal Cells: Elucidation of Calcium Pathways. Rao, Titushkin, et al. Radiation Research 169(3):319-329 (2008).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18302487/

Gene Expression Changes in the Skin of Rats Induced by Prolonged 35 GHz Millimeter-Wave Exposure. Millenbaugh, Roth, et al. Radiation Research 169(3):288-300 (2008).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18302488/

DNA Damage in Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid Cells Exposed to Cellular Telephone Radiofrequency Fields in Vitro. Philips, Ivaschuk, et al. Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics 45(1):103-110 (1998).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0302459898000749

VII. Neurological/Cognitive Effects

Early-Life Exposure to Pulsed LTE Radiofrequency Fields Causes Persistent Changes in Activity and Behavior in C57BL/6 J Mice. Broom, K., et al. Bio Electro Magnetics 40(7):498-511 (2019).

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bem.22217

Are Rises in Electro-Magnetic Field in The Human Environment, Interacting with Multiple Environmental Pollutions, The Tripping Point for Increases in Neurological Deaths in the Western World? Pritchard, C., Silk, A. and Hansen, L. Medical Hypotheses 127: 76-83 (2019).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987719300040?via%3Dihub

Effect of 1800-2100 MHz Electromagnetic Radiation on Learning-Memory and Hippocampal Morphology in Swiss Albino Mice. Kishore, G., Venkatashu, K., and Sridevi, N. Jorunal of Clincal and Diagnostic Research 12(2): 14-17 (2019).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330729256_Effect_of_1800-2100_MHz_Electromagnetic_Radiation_on_Learning-Memory_and_Hippocampal_Morphology_in_Swiss_Albino_Mice

Monitoring of BALB/C Strain Mice Health, Investigation of Behavior, Hematological Parameters Under the Effect of an Electromagnetic Field. Zymantiene, J., et al. Medycyna Weterynarjna 75(03): 158-163 (2019).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330652562_Monitoring_of_BALBC_strain_mice_health_investigation_of_behavior_hematological_parameters_under_the_effect_of_an_electromagnetic_field

2.45 GHz Microwave Radiation Impairs Learning, Memory, and Hippocampal Synaptic Plasticity in The Rat. Karimi, N., et al. Toxicology and Industrial Health 34(12): 873-883 (2018).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30345889/

Mobile Phone Distance From Head and Temperature Changes of Radio Frequency Waves on Brain Tissue. Forouharmajd, F., Ebrahimi, H. and Pourabdian, S. International Journal of Preventative Medicine (2018).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30123435/

A Prospective Cohort Study of Adolescents’ Memory Performance and Individual Brain Dose of Microwave Radiation from Wireless Communication. Foerster, M., et al. Environmental Health Perspectives 126(7) (2018).

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp2427#tab3

Electromagnetic Radiation 2450 MHz Exposure Causes Cognition Deficit with Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Activation of Intrinsic Pathway of Apoptosis in Rats. Gupta, S.K., Mesharam, M.K., and Krishnamurthy, S. Journal of Biosciences 43(2) 263-276 (2018).

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/jbsc/043/02/0263-0276

The Effect of Wi-Fi Electromagnetic Waves in Unimodal and Multimodal Object Recognition Tasks in Male Rats. Hassanshahi, A., et al. Neurological Sciences 38(6):1069-1076 (2017).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28332042/

Effects of Short and Long Term Electromagnetic Fields Exposure on the Human Hippocampus. Deniz, O.G., et al. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 5(4):191-197 (2017).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X17300524

Effects of Long Term Exposure of 900-1800 MHz Radiation Emitted from 2G Mobile Phone on Mice Hippocampus – A Histomorphometric Study. Mugunthan, Shanmugasamy, et al. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10(:AF01-6 (2016).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27656427/

Effect of Mobile Phone Radiation on Pentylenetetrazole-Induced Seizure Threshold in Mice. Kouchaki, Motaghedifard, et al. Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences 19(7):800-3 (2016).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27635206/

Effects of 3 Hz and 60Hz Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields on Anxiety-Like Behaviors, Memory Retention of Passive Avoidance and ElectroPhysiological Properties of Male Rats. Rostami, Shahani, et al. J Lasers Medical Science 7(2):120-125 (2016).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27330708/

Short-Term Memory in Mice is Affected by Mobile Phone Radiation. Ntzouni, Stamatakis, et al. PathoPhysiology 18(3):193-199 (2011).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21112192/

Use of Mobile Phones and Changes in Cognitive Function in Adolescents. Thomas, Benke, et al. Occupational Environmental Medicine 67(12):861-866 (2010).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20798018/

Increased Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability in Mammalian Brain 7 Days After Exposure to the Radiation from a GSM-900 Mobile Phone. Nittby, Brun, et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):103-112 (2009).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19345073/

Effects of GSM 1800 MHz on Dendritic Development of Cultured Hippocampal Neurons. Ning, Xu, et al. Acta Pharmacol Sin28(12):1873-1880 (2007).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18031599/

Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation. Lai, Henry. Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems1:27-80 (1994).

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4615-2542-4_2#page-1

VIII. Effects On Male Fertility

Long-Term Exposure to 4G Smartphone Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Diminished Male Reproductive Portential by Directly Disrupting Spck3-MMP2-BTB Axis in the Testes of Adult Rats. Yu, G., et al. Science of The Total Environment 698 (2020).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719338082?via%3Dihub

Radiations and Male Fertility. Kesari, K., Agarwal, A. and Henkel, R. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 16(118) (2018).

https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-018-0431-1

The Effect of 2.45 GHz Non-Ionizing Radiation on the Structure and Ultrastructure of The Testis in Juvenile Rats. Histology and Histopathology(2018).

Modulatory Effect of 900 MHz Radiation on Biochemical and Reproductive Parameters in Rats. Narayana, SN., et al. Bratislava Medical Journal119(9):581-587 (2018).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30226070/

Aloe Arborescens Juice Prevents EMF-Induced Oxidative Stress and Thus Protects from Pathophysiology in the Male Reproductive System In Vitro. Solek, P., Majchrowics, L., and Koziorowski, M. Environmental Research 166:141-149 (2018).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118301063?via=ihub

Radiofrequency Radiation (900 MHz)-Induced DNA Damage and Cell Cycle Arrest in Testicular Germ Cells in Swiss Albino Mice. Pandey, N., et al. Toxicology and Industrial Health 33(4) 373-384 (2017).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27738269/

The Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Sperm Function. Houston, Nixon, et al. Reproduction (2016)

https://rep.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/rep/152/6/R263.xml

Male Fertility and its Association with Occupational and Mobile Phone Tower Hazards: An Analytical Study. Al-Quzwini, Al-Taee, et al. Middle East Fertility Society Journal (2016).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110569016300127

Sperm DNA Damage – The Effect of Stress and Everyday Life Factors. Radwan, M, et al. International Journal of Impotence Research 28, 148-154 (2016).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27076112/

Electromagnetic Radiation at 900 MHz Induces Sperm Apoptosis through bcl-2, bax and caspase-3 Signaling Pathways in Rats. Liu, Si, et al. Journal of Reproductive Health 12:65 (2015).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523914/

Habits of Cell Phone usage and Sperm Quality - Does It Warrant Attention? Zilverlight, Wiener-Megnazi, et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 31(3):421-426 (2015).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26206279/

Extremely Low frequency Magnetic Fields Induce Spermatogenic Germ Cell Apoptosis: Possible Mechanism. Lee, Park, et al. BioMed Research International (2014).

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/567183/

In Vitro Effect of Cell Phone Radiation on Motility, DNA Fragmentation and Clusterin Gene Expression in Human Sperm. Zalata, El-Samanoudy, et al. International Journal of Fertility and Sterility 9(1):129-136 (2014).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4410031/

Effect of Electromagnetic Field Exposure on the Reproductive System. Gye and Park. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine 39(1):1-19 (2012).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341445/

Effects of the Exposure of Mobile Phones on Male Reproduction: A Review of the Literature. Vignera, Condorelli, et al. Journal of Andrology 33(3):350-356 (2012).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21799142/

Use of Laptop Computers Connected to Internet Through Wi-Fi Decreases Human Sperm Motility and Increases Sperm DNA Fragmentation. Avendano, C., et al. Fertility and Sterility 97(1):39045 (2012).

https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(11)02678-1/fulltext

Exposure to Magnetic fields and the Risk of Poor Sperm Quality. Li, Yan, et al. Journal of Reproductive Toxicology 29(1):86-92 (2010).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19910156/

Mobile Phone Radiation Induces Reactive Oxygen Species Production and DNA Damage in Human Spermatozoa In Vitro. Luliis, Newey, et al. PLoS ONE 4(7) (2009).

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0006446

Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation (Rf-EMR) from GSM Mobile Phones Induces Oxidative Stress and Reduces Sperm Motility in Rats. Mailankot, Kunnath, et al. Clinical Science 64(6):561-5 (2009).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19578660/

Cell Phones: Modern Man's Nemesis? Makker, Varghese, et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 18(1):148-157 (2008).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19146782/

Indicative SAR Levels Due to an Active Mobile Phone in a Front Trouser Pocket in Proximity to Common Metallic Objects. Whittow, Panagamuwa, et al. Propagation Conference 149-152 (2008).

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4516888/?reload=true&arnumber=4516888

Cell Phones and Male Infertility: Dissecting the Relationship. Deepinder, Makker, et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 15(3):266-270 (2007).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17854521/

Evaluation of the Effect of Using Mobile Phones on Male Fertility. Wdowiak, Wiktor, et al. Annals of Agricultural and Medicine14(1):169-172 (2007).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17655195/

Effect of Cell Phone Usage on Semen Analysis in Men Attending Infertility Clinic: An Observational Study. Agarwal, Deepinder, et al. American Society for Reproductive Medicine 89(1):124-8 (2008).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17482179/

IX. Electromagnetic Sensitivity

Becoming Electro-Hypersensitive: A Replication Study. Dieudonne, M. Bioelectromagnetic 40: 188-200 (2019).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30920673/

Functional Brain MRI in Patients Complaining of Electrohypersensitivity After Long Term Exposure to Electromagnectic Fields. Heuser, G. & Heuser, S. Reviews on Environmental Health 32(3):291-299 (2016).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28678737/

Hot Nano Spots" as an Interpretation of So-Called Non-Thermal Biological Mobile Phone Effects. Pfutzner, Helmut. Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications 8(3):62-69 (2016).

https://m.scirp.org/papers/65212

Analysis of the Genotoxic Effects of Mobile Phone Radiation Using Buccal Micronucleus Assay: A Comparative Evaluation. Banerjee, Singh, et al. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10 (3):ZC82-ZC85 (2016).

https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/29426

Tinnitus and Cell Phones: The Role of Electromagnetic Radiofrequency Radiation. Medeiros and Sanchez. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 82(1):97-104 (2016).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1808869415001639

Microwave Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Produce Widespread Neuropsychiatric Effects Including Depression. Pall, Martin L. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy (2015).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281261829_Microwave_frequency_electromagnetic_fields_EMFs_produce_widespread_neuropsychiatric_effects_including_depression

Subjective Symptoms Related to GSM Radiation from Mobile Phone Base Stations: a Cross- Sectional Study. Gomez-Perretta, Navarro, et al. BMJ Open 3.12 (2013).

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/12/e003836.full

Green Communication- A Stipulation to Reduce Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity from Cellular Phones. Kumar, Khan, et al. Procedia Technology 4:682-686 (2012).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212017312003891

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Fact or Fiction? Genius and Lipp. Science of the Total Environment 414(1):103-112 (2012).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969711012733

Radiofrequency (RF) Sickness in the Lilienfeld Study: An Effect of Modulated Microwaves? Liakouris, A. Archives of Environmental Health 236-238 (2010).

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00039899809605701?journalCode=vzeh20&

Neurobehavioral Effects Among Inhabitants Around Mobile Phone Base Stations. Abdel-Rassoul, El-Fateh, et al. NeuroToxicology28(2):434-440 (2007).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0161813X06001835

Electrohypersensitivity: Sate-Of-The-Art of A Functional Impairment. Johansson, O. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 245-258 (2006).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17178584/

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Biological Effects of Dirty Electricity With Emphasis on Diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis. Havas, M. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 259-268 (2006).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17178585/

Establishing the Health Risks of Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields Requires Multidisciplinary Research. Hietanen, Maila. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment, and Health 32(3):169-170 (2006).

https://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=994

Hypersensitivity of Human Subjects to Environmental Electric and Magnetic Field Exposure: A Review of the Literature. Levallois, Patrick. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(4):613-8 (2002).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11193169_Hypersensitivity_of_Human_Subjects_to_Environmental_Electric_and_Magnetic_Field_Exposure_A_Review_of_the_Literature

Electric Hypersensitivity and Neurophysical Effects of Cellular Phones - Facts or Needless Anxiety? Harma, Mikko Ilmari. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment and Health 26(2):85-86 (2000).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298811242_Electric_hypersensitivity_and_neurophysiological_effects_of_cellular_phones_-_facts_or_needless_anxiety

X. Effects On Implanted Medical Devices

Ad Hoc Electromagnetic Compatibility Testing of Non-Implantable Medical Devices and Radio Frequency Identification. Seidman and Guag. Biomedical Engineering OnLine 12:71 (2013).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3716957/

Electromagnetic Interference of Pacemakers. Lakshmanadoss, Chinnachamy, et al. Interchopen 229-252 (2011).

https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/13783.pdf

Interference Between Mobile Phones and Pacemakers: A Look Inside. Censi, Calcagnini, et al. Annali dell'Istituto superiore di sanità 43(3):254-259 (2007).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17938456/

Electromagnetic Interference on Pacemakers. Erdogan, Okan. Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal 2(3):74-78 (2002).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564060/

Electromagnetic Interference in Patients with Implanted Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Implantable Loop Recorders. Sousa, Klein, et al. Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal 2(3):79-84 (2002).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564059/

Radiofrequency Interference with Medical Devices. A Technical Information Statement. IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 17(3):111-4 (1998).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9604711/

Cellular Telephones and Pacemakers: Urgent Call or Wrong Number? Ellenbogen and Wood. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 27(6):1478-9 (1996).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8626961/

XI. 5G Effects

Model of Steady-state Temperature Rise in Multilayer Tissues Due to Narrow-beam Millimeter-wave Radiofrequency Field Exposure. Gajda, G., et al. Health Physics 117(3):254-266 (2019).

https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00004032-201909000-00004

Untargeted Metabolomics Unveil Alterations of Biomembranes Permeability in HumanHaCaT Keratinocytes Upon 60 HGz Millimeter-Wave Exposure. Pogam, Pierre., et al. Scientific Reports 9(9343) (2019).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6597695/

Ocular Response to Millimeter Wave Exposure Under Different Levels of Humidity. Kojima, M., et al. Journal of Infrared Milli Terahz Waves 40: 574–584 (2019).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10762-019-00586-0

Millimeter Wave Radiation Activates Leech Nociceptors via TRPV1-Like Receptor Sensitization. Romanenko, S., et al. Biophysical Journal 116(12): 2331-2345 (2019).

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/11/28/480665.full.pdf

Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose. Neufeld, E., and Kuster, N. Health Physics Society (2018).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30247338/

Towards 5G Communication Systems: Are There Health Implications? Ciaula, AD. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 367-375 (2018).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1438463917308143

5G Wireless Telecommunications Expansion: Public Health and Environmental Implications. Russell, C.L. Environmental Research 165:484-495 (2018).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118300161

The Human Skin As A Sub-THz Receiver – Does 5G Pose a Danger To It or Not? Betzalel, N., Ishai, P.B., and Feldman, Y. Environmental Research163:208-216 (2018).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118300331?via%3Dihub

The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sun-THz Radiation by Human Skin. Betzalel, N., Feldman, Y., and Ishai, P.B. IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology 7(5):521-528 (2017).

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8016593/

Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink. Nasim, I. and Kim, S. Georgia Southern University (2017).

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.03683.pdf

The Human body and Millimeter-Wave Wireless Communication Systems: Interactions and Implications. Wu, T., Rappaport, T., and Collins, C. IEEE International Conference on Communications (2015).

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7248688

State of Knowledge on Biological Effects at 40-60 GHz. Drean, Y., et al. Comptes Rendus Physique (2013).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070513000480

Effects of millimeter waves radiation on cell membrane-A brief review. Ramundo-Orlando, Alfonsina. Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves 31(12): 1400-1411 (2010).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220043219_Review_Article_Effects_of_millimeter_waves_radiation_on_cell_membrane

Human Skin as Arrays of Helical Antennas in Millimeter and Submillimeter Wave Range. Feldman, Y., et al. The American Physical Society (2008).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18517913/

XII. Miscellaneous Articles

Untargeted Metabolomics Unveil Alterations of Biomembranes Permeability in Human HaCaT Keratinocytes Upon 60 HGz Millimeter-Wave Exposure. Pogam, Pierre., et al. Scientific Reports 9(9343) (2019).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45662-6

Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. Miller, A., et al. Frontiers in Public Health 7(223) (2019).

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223/full

Computational Simulations of The Penetration of 0.30 THz Radiation into the Human Ear. Vilaagosh, Z., et al. Biomedical Optics Express 10(3) (2019).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6420278/

Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Risk Perception: A Pilot Experimental Study. Zeleke, B., et al. Environmental Research 170: 493-499 (2019).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001393511830255X

Commentary on The Utility of The National Toxicology Program Study on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Data for Assessing Human Health Risks Despite Unfounded Criticisms Aimed at Minimizing the Findings of Adverse Health Effects. Melnick, R. Environmental Research 168:1-6 (2019).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118304973?via%3Dihub

Pathological Findings Observed in the Kidneys of Postnatal Male Rats Exposed to the 2100 MHz Electromagnetic Field. Bedir, R., et al. Archives of Medical Research (2019).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30600117/

Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields. Kocaman, A., et al. Environmental Research 163:71-79 (2018).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118300343?via%3Dihub

Non-Ionizing EMF Hazard in the 21st Century. Koh, W.J., and Moochhala, S.M. IEEE (2018).

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8393832

Thermal and Non-Thermal Health Effects of Low Intensity Non-Ionizing Radiation: An International Perspective. Belpomme, D., et al. Environmental Pollution 242(A):643-658 (2018).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749118310157?via=ihub

Comparison of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Levels in Different Everyday Microenvironments in an International Context. Sagar, S, et al. Environmental International 114:297-306 (2018).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29529581/

Wi-Fi is an Important Threat to Human Health. Pall, M. Environmental Research 405-416 (2018).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355

Mobile-Phone Radiation-Induced Perturbation of gene-Expression Profiling, Redox Equilibrium and Sporadic-Apoptosis Control in the Ovary of Drosophila Melanogaster. Manta, A., et al. FLY 11(2): 75-95 (2017).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5406167/

World Health Organization, Radiofrequency Radiation and Health – A Hard Nut to Crack (Review). Hardell, L. International Journal of Oncology51:405-413 (2017).

https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/51/2/405

Radiation from Wireless Technology Elevates Blood Glucose and Body Temperature in 40-Year-Old Type 1 Diabetic Male. Kleiber, C. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 36:3 259-264 (2017).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28524704/

Cardiovascular Disease: Time to Identify Emerging Environmental Risk Factors. Bandara, P. & Weller, S. European Journal of Preventative Cardiology (2017).

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2047487317734898?rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed&url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org

Effects of Exposure to 2100MHz GSM-like Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field on Auditory System of Rats. Celiker, Ozgur, et al. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology (2017).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27865708/

An Investigation of the Effect of Extremely Low Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on Human Electrocardiograms (ECGs). Fang, Mahmoud, et al. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13(11) (2016).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886102/

Evaluation of the Protective Role of Vitamin C on the Metabolic and Enxymatic Activities of the Liver in the Male Rats After Exposure to 2.45 GHz of Wi-Fi Routers. Shekoohi-Shooli, F., et al. Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering 6(3):157-164 (2016).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27853723/

Exposure of ELF-EMF and RF-EMF Increase the Rate of Glucose Transport and TCA Cycle in Budding Yeast. Lin, Yan, et al. Frontiers in Microbiology (2016).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5005349/

Awareness Campaign Against Cell Phone Radiation Hazard: Case Study Oman. Osmen and Saar. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 205(9):381-385 (2015).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815050351

Electromagnetic Energy Radiated from Mobile Phone Alters Electrocardiographic Records of Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease. Alhusseiny, Al-Nimer, et al. Annals of Medical and Health Science Research 2(2):146-151 (2012).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23440607/

Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation on Human Ferritin: An in vitro Enzymun Assay. Fattahi-asl, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi, et al. Journal of Medical Signals and Sensors 2(4):235-240 (2012).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23724375/

Apoptosis is Induced by Radiofrequency Fields through the Caspase-Independent Mitochondrial Pathway in Cortical Neurons. Joubert, Bourthoumieu, et al. Radiation Research 169(1):38-45 (2008).

https://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/RR1077.1?journalCode=rare

Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies. Huss, Egger, et al. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(1):1-4 (2007).

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

Epidemiology of Health Effects of Radiofrequency Exposure. Ahlbom, Green, et al. Environmental Health Perspectives 112(17):1741-1753 (2004).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253668/

The Possible Role of Radiofrequency Radiation in the Development of Uveal Melanoma Stang, Anastassiou, et al. Journal of Epidemiology 12(1):7-12 (2001).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11138823/

Biological Effects of Amplitude-Modulated Radiofrequency Radiation. Juutilainen and Seze. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment and Health 24(2):245-254 (1998).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9754855/

95% of these articles are in trash journals. The rest (e.g., Lancet) are not about 5G.

March 29, 2021

Right and in your first link they say right up front that more studies are needed as there is no definite correlation, only a suggestion of interaction. Every 8 months or so, a study comes out saying the same. I’m old enough to remember all of the same arguments being made when we moved from from analog to digital 2g networks. Back then the reasoning was that the digital modulation was bad....

But if 5g is bad, then we better get rid of 4g too...oh and WiFi, and terrestrial broadcast networks.

Your biggest risk is getting skin cancer from the sun. But even here, we know that the radiation from the sun isn’t always bad, lower levels can be beneficial.

It is true that RF can be dangerous. That’s why emissions regulations were created. High power systems can cause significant heating of body tissues, but the emissions levels of cell phone systems is at a level where heating is undetectable, and then reduced some more to provide a factor of safety.

I have said it should be looked into more thoroughly, I have not drawn a conclusion.

That the emfs are are at a level of heating which is undetectable is false. Laptops and cellphones emit warmth. Being in front of a desktop, laptop, or cellphone I can feel the difference in the lack of physical wellness and energy I feel.

I realize the first study I posted says this, but there you are with faulty reasoning trying to make an argument out of one study. Clearly, there are many which have been done and to me it looks like quite enough to make this an issue of importance and raise concern.

To go forward blindly because we like technology now and have based many activities and areas of income and organization around it is foolhardy.

What one feels is totally irrelevant for scientific truth.

March 29, 2021

Well that was fun to review. This sentence (below) was in the abstract of one of the papers in your list. I think it's a decent summary of the status of the compiled data.

"The inconsistent results between similar studies and the same research groups have made it very difficult to make any comprehensive interpretation."

I’m sure there are many more sentences from over one thousand papers that could potentially add meaning to an unbiased summation of the results of the work many scientists who have spent their time doing legitimate research have found, this one you have cherry-picked doesn’t. It only serves to point out your confirmation bias which I do not want to defend against.

It is so foolish to waste time in these debates on here, I don’t want to do this any longer. I shouldn’t have taken the bait after I posted that there are numerous relevant studies that show there is cause for concern re. the technologies we use.

Confirmation Bias, Wikipedia

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or strengthens one's prior personal beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Well I would like to thank and applaud you Mon Pilote for posting those studies, I think it should at least be of concern to others that mainstrem media will not even enter into debate about concerns around 5G anymore and was sad to see a similar thing happening here on BB. I don't know for sure whether 5G is harmful or not, I simply don't have the cognition to research things at the moment but I do know that we should have the right to debate and discuss things without fear of being censored or outcast as conspiracy theorists.

Thank you hopefullinhell. I appreciate what you’ve said, don’t have the level of energy or cognition necessary either, and agree.

Yet you cite 50 plus studies that require a lot of cognition to read and process.

Doctors call for delaying deployment of 5G due to health risks.

Recommended Posts

[mo...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

[ho...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest [ba...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Co...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Co...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[mo...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Co...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[mo...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[mo...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[mo...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Co...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[mo...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[mo...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[RS...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[mo...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ro...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[RS...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest [ba...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[RS...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[do...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ma...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Co...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ma...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ma...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ma...]

Link to comment