2 ms·
It explicitly, in the first line, states it covers all RF electromagnetic radiation. Regardless of why they decided RF was bad (mobile phone) they decided it wa
by steve19 7y ago
It explicitly, in the first line, states it covers all RF electromagnetic radiation. Regardless of why they decided RF was bad (mobile phone) they decided it was all bad.
"The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)"
The largest study since then has been 1 million woman.
"In this large prospective study, mobile phone use was not associated with increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- leereeves 7y agoThat million woman study did find an increased risk of :s/cancer/tumors/ associated with cell phone use. > For acoustic neuroma, there was an increase in risk with long term use vs never use (10+ years: RR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.07-5.64, P = 0.03), the risk increasing with duration of use (trend among users, P = 0.03). And you quoted the IARC press release out of context. Immediately after the words you quote it says: "...based on an increased risk for glioma...associated with wireless phone use."
- steve19 7y ago> That million woman study did find an increased risk of cancer associated with cell phone use. ... For acoustic neuroma, there was an increase in risk You are incorrect. Acoustic neuroma is a benign tumor ie. non-cancerous.
- leereeves 7y agoMea culpa. I still don't see what your point is, though. That the IARC should have included a future study in their analysis? They drew what conclusions they could based on the evidence available at the time.