3 ms·
Your link is one person identifying as sceptic and who just circles around to the "non-ionizing can't harm" claim, again. The other attacks the publishing journ
by Gnarl 5y ago
Your link is one person identifying as sceptic and who just circles around to the "non-ionizing can't harm" claim, again. The other attacks the publishing journal. Where were you going with this?
None of the commenters seem to bother to discover that the science review in question looks at DNA-damage and oxidative-stress mediated through other pathways than direct ionization. As I said: its more about complex biology, than simple physics/chemistry. Its about the sum of parts, not the reductionism that plagues the field of RF and health.
- SigmundA 5y agoObviously if you have read their criticism its gets much further than "non-ionizing can't harm", its a criticism of the methods use to analyze data from other studies in cherry picking fashion, they did no actual testing themselves and could easily have statistical issues with the positive outcomes. Again there is no conclusive proof that RF exposure causes adverse non-thermal effects at cell phone power levels or even much higher power levels let alone being able to explain a mechanism that would cause those non-reproducible effects. If you have better information please post it, one paper from a questionable journal using questionable methods is not enough.