The rest of the introduction 📂 Archived Message
Posted by walter on May 22, 2020, 12:04 am, in reply to "For clarity, the SA article was an opinion piece by Moskowitz himself"
My impression so far is same old, same old. Sam old misleading spin "In the words of the World Health Organization, “a large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.” " Spin alert: "...no adverse health effects have been established". Are they going to be denied, no matter what? That's my bet... The link is to 2014 - that's not very impressive - but far less impressive is that this WHO link says this on the second line: "The electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly carcinogenic to humans." Well - that saved me saying that, and looking for a link! You can bet your bottom dollar the IARC didn't make such a pronouncement due to there being no evidence! [There was, of course, masses.] In fact there's an interesting backstory; they could have made the dsignation " probably carcinogenic". This link details some of the tensions at this meeting, and gives some background and ramifications of the designation: https://microwavenews.com/news-center/iarc-cell-phone-radiation-possible-human-carcinogen In fact only political pressure has prevented this designation from being stronger, going back at least as far as to 1990: EPA Staff Classifies ELF EWs "Probable Human Carcinogens" Decision Overruled, May Be Reinstated https://microwavenews.com/news/backissues/m-j90issue.pdf NB these last are low frequency fields like from mains. The group said of microwave radiation: "The EPA staff also recommended that radiofrequency and microwave (RF/MW) radiation be designated as a "possible" carcinogen-in a class with saccharin." Tip: anyone who says there is no evidence of harm from microwaves or other MF is a charlatan or wholly ignorant.
|
| Message Thread: | This response ↓
- Even Scientific American admits that 5G could devastate public health - rippon May 20, 2020, 9:09 am
- Good article. Thanks. And, even better, nothing about Sars-2! - Der May 20, 2020, 10:12 am
- I am just watching the 5G debate on utube - Adamski May 20, 2020, 10:20 am
- For clarity, the SA article was an opinion piece by Moskowitz himself - Matt May 21, 2020, 7:30 am
- Re: For clarity, the SA article was an opinion piece by Moskowitz himself - walter May 21, 2020, 11:21 pm
- The rest of the introduction - walter May 22, 2020, 12:04 am
- To the detail we go - walter May 22, 2020, 2:42 am
- Thanks for the comments / analysis all nt - Matt May 22, 2020, 11:52 am
- More on that Interphone study - walter May 22, 2020, 12:38 pm
- And that Danish study - walter May 22, 2020, 1:44 pm
- The next thing he links to, radar safety, is nonexistent - walter May 22, 2020, 2:09 pm
- "no known plausible biophysical mechanism"? Er, melatonin reduction, DNA damage, oxidative stress? - walter May 22, 2020, 5:42 pm
- In summary: this response to Moskowits is nothing but bluster and misllading spin; no substance (nm) - walter May 22, 2020, 5:44 pm
- Thanks Matt. Rippon - no comment to - Adamski May 21, 2020, 9:38 pm
- Rippon - what do you say to my mate who reckons - Adamski May 22, 2020, 9:21 am
« Index |
|