4 ms·
That link directly refutes your example... "Numerous epidemiologic studies and comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature have evaluated possible assoc
by scottLobster 9y ago
That link directly refutes your example...
"Numerous epidemiologic studies and comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature have evaluated possible associations between exposure to non-ionizing EMFs and risk of cancer in children (12–14). (Magnetic fields are the component of non-ionizing EMFs that are usually studied in relation to their possible health effects.) Most of the research has focused on leukemia and brain tumors, the two most common cancers in children. Studies have examined associations of these cancers with living near power lines, with magnetic fields in the home, and with exposure of parents to high levels of magnetic fields in the workplace. No consistent evidence for an association between any source of non-ionizing EMF and cancer has been found.
Exposure from power lines. Although a study in 1979 pointed to a possible association between living near electric power lines and childhood leukemia (15), more recent studies have had mixed findings (16–24). Most of these studies did not find an association or found one only for those children who lived in homes with very high levels of magnetic fields, which are present in few residences."
- AstralStorm 9y agoThat is for cancer which is much less sensitive to EM field exposure. You said no effect. I picked the most well researched way to counter that. High field might be cancer risk (by the way comparing to general population could produce a wash if the background level increased), much less for sperm counts.
- dom0 9y agoSo you talk about EM fields, but then don't mean them. Ok. Nice shifting the goalposts there. What's up next? Which "high field" shall it be?