3 ms·
The point is, if there is no effect from ionizing radiation, then there would not have been an effect no matter what the dose of RF was. But there was a statist
by remote_phone 8y ago
The point is, if there is no effect from ionizing radiation, then there would not have been an effect no matter what the dose of RF was. But there was a statistically relevant relationship between heart tumors and RF exposure.
So now that we know there is a relationship, the task is to dial down the RF radiation and see at what levels it’s not safe.
- Junk_Collector 8y agoYou seem very invested in this but the results from the study don't make much of a case I'm afraid. They found that rodents living their entire lives (from gestation) in what is effectively a low wattage (100 Watts from the article) microwave oven showed some higher instances of tumors in the heart, but only in some specific portions of the population (males) and not enough to impact their mortality rate which was for whatever reason higher in the control group. Also from the FDA quoted in the article, "We reviewed the recently finalized research conducted by our colleagues at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences within the National Institutes of Health, on radiofrequency energy exposure. After reviewing the study, we disagree, however, with the conclusions of their final report regarding 'clear evidence' of carcinogenic activity in rodents exposed to radiofrequency energy."