3 ms·
> It appears some health authorities are in agreement? In 2011 (maybe 2013?[1]), the IARC put radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in group 2B,[0] which is ba
by wizzwizz4 5y ago
> It appears some health authorities are in agreement?
In 2011 (maybe 2013?[1]), the IARC put radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in group 2B,[0] which is basically “we're a little worried there might be a problem, but we haven't actually replicated it”.
I thought I remembered them taking it off that list sometime around 2017, but apparently they didn't. Nonetheless, this isn't them agreeing with the claim.
[0]: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E....
[1]:
- poorjohnmacafee 5y agoPer the 2021 citation, here is the former CDC director claiming he believes RF tech in cellphones causes types of brain tumors. This was part of a lawsuit by plaintiffs with alleged brain tumors from heavy cell phone use: https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2021-03-24/health/prominent-scientist-links-cellphone-radiation-to-brain-tumors/a73655-1 https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2021-03-24/health/prominen... https://www.saferemr.com/2021/03/expert-report-by-former-us-government.html https://www.saferemr.com/2021/03/expert-report-by-former-us-... The CDC guy at least seems to think there's plenty of evidence at this point. There are also citations claiming government tests are outdated fwiw, .e.g. maybe we're not appropriately testing the health effects. All mostly new to me.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago[1] should be https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications by the way.