No, but one can gets skin cancer from the too much sunshine,which is basically the same radiation as the candle light.
Nevertheless I am not worried. Radiation from wireless networks is very limited in power: 2 Watt for a mobile phone, 0.1 Watt for wireless router, 80 Watt for a 2G/3G/4G base station. A microwave emits the same radiation as a mobile phone and is about 1000W. Luckily it is shielded, but a leaking microwave might be a much bigger threat to our health.
Mobile networks were first launched in 1990 in the Scandinavia countries. If there was a real danger, we should see this already in the cancer statistics in these countries, even if there is a long incubation period.
Bear in mind this kind of radiation is cumulative. And many academics have expressed concern of it (the acumulation) being well above health safety limits that we are exposed to.
As for the countries, wouldn´t you know, you actually have a lot of countries in which manufacturers are obliged to bundle earphones and a safety warning to preferably use them instead of the phone against the head.
The earphones itself have their issues as they can be conductive or not. Not sure what kind they bundle, and that is not the point. The point is, there is plausible evidence of concern on their part.
It’s not a matter of being desperate to “believe in science.” Science doesn’t care whether you believe in it or not. Science is just a methodology for looking at and understanding the world around us. New discoveries do indeed topple old paradigms, but less often than you imply. Most people who are sure they’re going to disprove a current theory fail to do so. (If they’re serious tests, those failures actually are what validate the theories they fail to disprove.) With or without science, we are left making judgements on the best information we have. The thing about science is that its use of structured, logical thinking that is continually subject to further analysis and questioning has a real tendency to provide a more useful set of “best information” than do non-scientific observations and speculations. So scientific testing and analysis of the effects of radio waves on human biology is going to be better information than a subjective assertion that man-made radio waves are “not natural” and therefore ‘bad.’
Dismissing scientific findings as useless because they are “not concrete” is simply a fundamental misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what science does. Your chance of being hit by lightening in the US in a given year is one in 700,000. That means a few hundred people are hit by lightening every year, about ten percent fatally. So should you ever go outside? The science says, generally speaking, all other things being equal, go on outside. You’re not very likely to be hit by lightening, but that science is “not concrete.” Not only is there still a chance you could be hit by lightening, but it’s possible there could be errors in those statistics, and they don’t account for your specific location or for current weather conditions. On the other hand, while lightening seems like it would be dangerous, it’s also “natural,” so maybe you’ll be o.k. anyway.
You kinda took an 180 degree turn there bud. Your last paragraph goes against what you stated in the first one.
"Are you in utterly and absolutely zero danger from RF or EMF? Scientifically, there is no way to exclude the possibility absolutely —but you're in some form of danger every minute of every day from one thing or another.
To put things in perspective, you are in far, far more danger from a lifetime exposure to the ionizing radiation produced by the radon gas in your basement or from getting cancer from sun exposure, than you are from living in the same neighborhood as a cell tower, with twenty Wi-Fi routers surrounding your chair, and actively talking to somebody on 5G on your iPhone with it velcroed to your head for that whole life. And, the risk from the radon-laden basement is relatively low.
If you're still worried about it, don't sit on your router, and use your speaker function on your iPhone.
Studies continue, and will until the sun blacks out, because people are very bad at risk assessment even when given the data. But, science is true if you believe it or not. So, use that router, and get that mesh network going without fear. Break out the cell phones, and don't worry about using them."
That is whataboutism. The case in point is RF.
Nobody is discrediting science. People are actually just pointing that science only has, thus far , ruled out some vectors in which it appears not to be harmful and there is genuine concern in the field for allowing widespread deploy of towers with new tech that hasn´t been nowhere fully tested. That is science speaking to you and to all of us.
What every person does to mitigate their exposure is their responsability, as is raising reasonable concern echoed by the scientific comunity. Part of it that is. And maybe that´s a part we should listen to. After all, they are part of it.
"Are you in utterly and absolutely zero danger from RF or EMF? Scientifically, there is no way to exclude the possibility absolutely —but you're in some form of danger every minute of every day from one thing or another.
To put things in perspective, you are in far, far more danger from a lifetime exposure to the ionizing radiation produced by the radon gas in your basement or from getting cancer from sun exposure, than you are from living in the same neighborhood as a cell tower, with twenty Wi-Fi routers surrounding your chair, and actively talking to somebody on 5G on your iPhone with it velcroed to your head for that whole life. And, the risk from the radon-laden basement is relatively low.
If you're still worried about it, don't sit on your router, and use your speaker function on your iPhone.
Studies continue, and will until the sun blacks out, because people are very bad at risk assessment even when given the data. But, science is true if you believe it or not. So, use that router, and get that mesh network going without fear. Break out the cell phones, and don't worry about using them."
That is whataboutism. The case in point is RF.
Nobody is discrediting science. People are actually just pointing that science only has, thus far , ruled out some vectors in which it appears not to be harmful and there is genuine concern in the field for allowing widespread deploy of towers with new tech that hasn´t been nowhere fully tested. That is science speaking to you and to all of us.
What every person does to mitigate their exposure is their responsability, as is raising reasonable concern echoed by the scientific comunity. Part of it that is. And maybe that´s a part we should listen to. After all, they are part of it.
It isn't. In this paragraph, it's all risk management from exposure to radiation, just different kinds.
This is closer, but still not whataboutism because it is still, literally about risk management: How about the 1 in 80 chance you have from dying in a car accident over your entire life, versus the 1 in 1,000,000 chance you have from developing any biologically noticeable event from RF exposure over that same life? Panicking about the latter because of the odds is ridiculous if you're not concerned about the former.
It isn't. In this paragraph, it's all risk management from exposure to radiation, just different kinds.
This is closer, but still not whataboutism because it is still, literally about risk management: How about the 1 in 80 chance you have from dying in a car accident over your entire life, versus the 1 in 1,000,000 chance you have from developing any biologically noticeable event from RF exposure over that same life? Panicking about the latter because of the odds is ridiculous if you're not concerned about the former.
Nobody is panicking. This whole thread, people arguing for more data till proper risk can se assessed have been more than reasonable, and kind, while addressing some burstings from other users.
It isn't. In this paragraph, it's all risk management from exposure to radiation, just different kinds.
This is closer, but still not whataboutism because it is still, literally about risk management: How about the 1 in 80 chance you have from dying in a car accident over your entire life, versus the 1 in 1,000,000 chance you have from developing any biologically noticeable event from RF exposure over that same life? Panicking about the latter because of the odds is ridiculous if you're not concerned about the former.
Nobody is panicking. This whole thread, people arguing for more data till proper risk can se assessed have been more than reasonable, and kind, while addressing some burstings from other users.
No panic, just enquiring minds.
I agree, the forum has been relatively sane about this matter. However, have you been on the greater internet as a whole lately? I guarantee you that there's panic.
I agree, the forum has been relatively sane about this matter. However, have you been on the greater internet as a whole lately? I guarantee you that there's panic.
AppleInsider is not just for forum-goers.
Completly agree on that. Extreme behaviour, on both sides, is becoming the norm and eroding the ability for proper discussion. And its spreading like wildfire across all the internet and real life.
Going a bit offroad, I easily correlate that with the disappearing of proper places (or failure to create them) where people can engage in good old talk and that promote as much.
The Workplace, mainly work centric talk, with a few stress relievers here and there
The Bars and Coffee places, good for catching up with some friends, easy talk and current events
The Clubs where talking, if possible, has a very specific driven purpose
The School, where the objective is to finish the assignments on time and so there is little time to stray away.
The Library, where talking is not allowed
The Malls, shopping, going the movies etc, entertainment
Your Home, where talks tend get more private and personal because its where they can
Mike Wuerthele said: One more time: read the last four paragraphs, and refute them. This has yet to happen through all these links, and Google searches that have been linked here.
I think that's a bit unfair though, as those paragraphs are kind of a disclaimer to the rest of the point of the article. Kind of like... it's safe, it's safe, it's safe, it's safe, (well, I could be wrong).
finickity said: This 2007 systematic review examined whether the source of funding of studies of the effects of low-level radiofrequency radiation is associated with the results of studies and found industry funded studies were substantially less likely to report effects.
Yes, that's the problem with this whole... it's Science™ as some kind of ace-card for the win. This has been shown to happen in several industries already. This is a similar problem I have with global warming stuff... only one side of the debate is really well funded and allowed to publish in the journals, etc. Whenever you get that kind of system rolling, it might end up being right, but it isn't good science.
And, then there is science journalism, which is a whole other thing... where often the article says things that aren't in the original journal article, or even contradict it. Science is a good method, if done right. But, since humans are involved, it all must be taken with a grain of salt.
Mike Wuerthele said: And, to reference a previous question of yours that I missed -- I'm not ignoring scientific consensus. It's just not what you think it is.
Just be careful...
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.” ― Michael Crichton
cgWerks said: What about interference with cellular communication or impact on gene expression?
If you're not looking at the right stuff, it's pretty hard to say it isn't having an impact. Hopefully it isn't having a substantial negative impact. But the kind of impact this article addresses (and the studies I've ever seen) aren't taking into account the advances in our scientific understanding from the last decade or two.
Dont stop there. You can go back a few decades more and you´ll find there´s actually a lot more that is known regarding this subject.
Yeah, though the point I was making is that our actual understanding of how genes and DNA work was different back when much of the research was done. We've only slightly opened the door on the reality of it in the last 10-15 years.
Mike Wuerthele said: ... literally about risk management: How about the 1 in 80 chance you have from dying in a car accident over your entire life, versus the 1 in 1,000,000 chance you have from developing any biologically noticeable event from RF exposure over that same life? ...
The problem here, is that the 1 in 1,000,000 odds are based on the whole heating/DNA damage model of assessing risk, which is no longer adequate given our current understanding of gene expression, etc. It might turn out (hopefully!) that once this is re-evaluated in light of this new understanding, we'll have similar levels of risk. But, the point I've been trying to make is that we can no longer make that risk assessment, as it only takes part of the system into account.
Jonmat said: Completly agree on that. Extreme behaviour, on both sides, is becoming the norm and eroding the ability for proper discussion. And its spreading like wildfire across all the internet and real life.
Going a bit offroad, I easily correlate that with the disappearing of proper places (or failure to create them) where people can engage in good old talk and that promote as much.
OT, but yeah... To have proper discussion, you have to have some common word definition, understanding of the concept of reality/truth, and ability to attempt to understand the view of the other (with enough tolerance to enter civil discussion). There also needs to be some ability to think critically and a bit of a level playing field for discourse. Society, is moving away from this, and then wondering why things are getting worse.
Mike Wuerthele said: ... literally about risk management: How about the 1 in 80 chance you have from dying in a car accident over your entire life, versus the 1 in 1,000,000 chance you have from developing any biologically noticeable event from RF exposure over that same life? ...
The problem here, is that the 1 in 1,000,000 odds are based on the whole heating/DNA damage model of assessing risk, which is no longer adequate given our current understanding of gene expression, etc. It might turn out (hopefully!) that once this is re-evaluated in light of this new understanding, we'll have similar levels of risk. But, the point I've been trying to make is that we can no longer make that risk assessment, as it only takes part of the system into account.
it isn't. It's observable biological effects from RF in total.
Like I said way, way before in this thread, biological effects from RF are determinable. The mechanism of damage may need to be refined, but the end result has been observable for decades.
I never read more stupid article than this one. Worked with radars and other RF radiating machines. This article was probably written by a person that read books and never experience RF radiation in his life.
Super wrong assumption, which had you actually read the article or comments you’d know.
Mike, after your suggestion I re-read your article again in case I missed something. I also heard you talking about the subject on your weekly podcast. I appreciate that you have an experience in the area you described but I also have an experience working 4 years in this area. I shouldn’t use the harsh language as I used to describe your article but you should know that what you are saying is not based on any scientific base. Sure radars output is millions times more powerful than routers but as you know the radiation in our body has accumulating effect. Person that puts the router adjacent to his monitor on the desk and sits about 50-70cm from it for 7-10 hours a day at work or home receives small but continued amount of radiation that after few years is quite decent to cause changes in the cells same as the very fast effect to a person exposed to a radar radiation from close range for short time.
Also the router is not the only emitter of this radiation. Some people have more than one router, range extenders, air conditioners controllers, solar panels controllers, cordless desk phones and other devices emitting constant 24 hour RF and EMF radiation not mention mobile phones in their pockets or on their desks.
Note that in Amsterdam and few other European cities the City WiFi was turned off because of the unknown effect on the city population it may cause after long term exposure.
Sure it will take 20 to 30 years to prove that this relatively small amount of accumulated radiation caused cancers but we cannot ignore it today. Same kind of continuous denials were going on for years with smoking cigarets and how they will not cause any damage for health. Sadly we know today 40-50 years later how untrue it was.
Yes, you mentioned science in the Risk Assessment area of your article but you mostly dismissed the possibility of risk, same as you did on your podcast mentioning the equivalent risk of being hit by a meteor. I am not saying don’t use anything and live in a cave. I am saying - don’t disregard the risks because they may not sound real today.
Therefore, in my opinion to write an article like you wrote, and later on what you said in your podcast about “no scientific evidence” is not a responsible thing to do. Many people that has no knowledge at all in this area and are reading and/or listening to what you said may conclude that the risk is as you said like “getting his by meteor”.
Mike Wuerthele said: it isn't. It's observable biological effects from RF in total.
Like I said way, way before in this thread, biological effects from RF are determinable. The mechanism of damage may need to be refined, but the end result has been observable for decades.
I'm not following how you could say that. The average person hasn't had such long-term, close-proximity RF exposure for more than a couple of decades. There are a number of health conditions on the rise, and it isn't impossible that RF exposure could be a contributing factor of which we're just currently unaware.
A great example, is that we're just discovering that the lack of quality fats in the common-wisdom and science-recommended low-fat-diets is a contributing factor to the rise in brain-related diseases. How could you say with any certainty that RF might not also be a contributing factor to that or other conditions? You'd have to understand the impact of RF on gene expression and/or how the cells and various systems of the body interact. I don't think we know that yet.
I never read more stupid article than this one. Worked with radars and other RF radiating machines. This article was probably written by a person that read books and never experience RF radiation in his life.
Super wrong assumption, which had you actually read the article or comments you’d know.
Mike, after your suggestion I re-read your article again in case I missed something. I also heard you talking about the subject on your weekly podcast. I appreciate that you have an experience in the area you described but I also have an experience working 4 years in this area. I shouldn’t use the harsh language as I used to describe your article but you should know that what you are saying is not based on any scientific base. Sure radars output is millions times more powerful than routers but as you know the radiation in our body has accumulating effect. Person that puts the router adjacent to his monitor on the desk and sits about 50-70cm from it for 7-10 hours a day at work or home receives small but continued amount of radiation that after few years is quite decent to cause changes in the cells same as the very fast effect to a person exposed to a radar radiation from close range for short time.
Also the router is not the only emitter of this radiation. Some people have more than one router, range extenders, air conditioners controllers, solar panels controllers, cordless desk phones and other devices emitting constant 24 hour RF and EMF radiation not mention mobile phones in their pockets or on their desks.
Note that in Amsterdam and few other European cities the City WiFi was turned off because of the unknown effect on the city population it may cause after long term exposure.
Sure it will take 20 to 30 years to prove that this relatively small amount of accumulated radiation caused cancers but we cannot ignore it today. Same kind of continuous denials were going on for years with smoking cigarets and how they will not cause any damage for health. Sadly we know today 40-50 years later how untrue it was.
Yes, you mentioned science in the Risk Assessment area of your article but you mostly dismissed the possibility of risk, same as you did on your podcast mentioning the equivalent risk of being hit by a meteor. I am not saying don’t use anything and live in a cave. I am saying - don’t disregard the risks because they may not sound real today.
Therefore, in my opinion to write an article like you wrote, and later on what you said in your podcast about “no scientific evidence” is not a responsible thing to do. Many people that has no knowledge at all in this area and are reading and/or listening to what you said may conclude that the risk is as you said like “getting his by meteor”.
Well, as you're aware, there is a difference between an acute dose, a long-term dose, and a lifetime dose -- and there are three different exposure limits for them both for ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. In the case of low-level exposure, the body's immune system and natural regenerative processes repairs damage along the way-- so while there is a lifetime dose threshold, it is high compared to the acute, and long-term exposures accommodating for that.
In the 20-router case with an iPhone strapped to your head 24/7 I mentioned in the article, including ambient sources like the cordless phones, baby monitors, AC to DC adapters, in-wall wiring, et cetera, and multiplying the dose by another factor of 10 for conservative math's sake above and beyond the legal limit for non-occupational exposure, it will take about 800 years to hit any kind of dose threshold for non-occupational exposure.
Since the advent of radio, and electricity, mankind has been bathed in "unnatural" RF. Since the dawn of time, it has been exposed to cosmic and other "natural" sources. So, to say that this exposure is new isn't accurate. RF over time has been a horizontal asymptote, with the period of rapid growth in the '50s and '60s with the explosion of radio and television. The advent of wireless connectivity and the scaling back of TV broadcasts has cut back the exposure, and other sources continue to die off in favor of internet connectivity. We'll see what it looks like over time, but barring any incredible breakthrough, it probably won't change much if at all.
Regarding responsibility: Telling people that RF is going to kill you absolutely, and is putting your kids in danger is irresponsible. The hyperbole abounds. Which do you think gets more traction on social media and the internet at large, that, or this? And, like I continue to say -- I don't want a Navy search radar in my bedroom, pointed at my bed.
Like I said on the podcast, another podcast, and this article: If you want to put the risk line in another place than I did, that's okay! But, the one in a million from RF in total is real. And like I said, when science changes its mind, so will I.
Like I said on the podcast, another podcast, and this article: If you want to put the risk line in another place than I did, that's okay! But, the one in a million from RF in total is real. And like I said, when science changes its mind, so will I.
We are all for science. But this kind of investigative science comes after, not before. It tends to be behind the curve as we´ve seen so many times. It´s only after something unexpected occurs that it gets a hint of what or where to look for an understanding. This is quite different from other sciences that bring about some form of breakthtough that materialize some invention, they know what they are looking for, and that is what CgWerks and others are pointing out.
Either way, we´ll find out. There is a lot we all agree already.
There also needs to be some ability to think critically and a bit of a level playing field for discourse. Society, is moving away from this, and then wondering why things are getting worse.
A great mind said that "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." That´s the playing field.
Curious, it is, that such words come from ancient times and yet we are moving the opposite way.
I´d encourage anyone on this topic to check Dr. Devra Davis speech on "The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation".
She is working with providers that care for prevention, she has great credentials, makes great points, goes deep, and she is always cautious enough to point out what we do and we dont know for a fact. You may find that we do know more already than it is tipically brought up.
Jonmat said: A great mind said that "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." That´s the playing field.
Curious, it is, that such words come from ancient times and yet we are moving the opposite way.
Yes, much worse than moving in the opposite direction... we're to the point of socially banning thoughts that some group with social power might disagree with, or even legally banning them. And, the most ironic thing is that much of this power is based on 'critical theory', which weaponizes social power while pretending to be fighting against the abuse of power.
When I was in school, we learned what was presented as the 'correct' view, but also competing views. The good professors did this purposely, as they knew you can't argue against a view you aren't even familiar with (and they knew we'd run into them). Often at least part of our papers had to be accurately presenting the competing views and then arguing against them, or even arguing the opposing view from our own.
When you see a situation where opposing views are being shut-down/out by social or legal force, your spidey-senses should throw up the BS detector.
Apparently, this must be a lost art, when the possibility of being exposed to a view outside their little bubble makes modern students cry, throw tantrums, and try to bring about social/legal action to protect themselves from such views.
"Still, evidence advanced by the studies shows prolonged exposure to
even very low levels of RF radiation, perhaps by mechanisms other than
heating that remain unknown, makes rats uniquely prone to a rare tumor
called a schwannoma, which affects a type of neuron (or nerve cell)
called a Schwann cell.
...
Ketchum said a 2008 study sponsored by the International Agency
for Research on Cancer in France reported that after a decade of
cellphone use, the chances of getting a brain tumor –
specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone – go
up as much as 40 percent for adults.
This misses the entire point about relative risk. Also, next time, post a summary and a link.
May go up as much as 40 percent in a poorly controlled study that admits that diagnostic tools have gotten far better in the three years prior to this study, let alone a decade with increasing successes in identifying the cancer that may have gotten missed before ... from one in 1.6 million.
Hey there, new poster. If you can't see your post, review our commenting guidelines. You have some points worthy of discussion -- and some key facts you left out -- so please adhere to the guidelines, and repost.
This article (link below) provides some interesting information about how EMFs are damaging to humans. In short, as I understand the article, EMFs can open calcium channels in our cells, resulting in increased oxidative stress which causes cell damage and is "involved in nearly all chronic disease". Seems pretty clear that the science is emerging in this area and there are some clear attempts to block unbiased research. Don't see how anyone could claim that we're totally in the clear without considering the emerging science and the rather obvious conflicts of interest of the people who are and have been involved in setting the current safety standards.
This article (link below) provides some interesting information about how EMFs are damaging to humans. In short, as I understand the article, EMFs can open calcium channels in our cells, resulting in increased oxidative stress which causes cell damage and is "involved in nearly all chronic disease". Seems pretty clear that the science is emerging in this area and there are some clear attempts to block unbiased research. Don't see how anyone could claim that we're totally in the clear without considering the emerging science and the rather obvious conflicts of interest of the people who are and have been involved in setting the current safety standards.
Mercola is a quack, though, and a fraud. We've spoken about his lack of qualifications earlier in the thread. He also has zero training regarding radiation in any form, EM or ionizing.
Mike Wuerthele said: Mercola is a quack, though, and a fraud. We've spoken about his lack of qualifications earlier in the thread. He also has zero training regarding radiation in any form, EM or ionizing.
Maybe, maybe not. But, he's been right about several things the government and medical establishment have been wrong about for decades (ex: the health factors around fat and cholesterol). Nearly every doctor or nutritionist I've talked to - most super-smart, and very well trained - has been really, really wrong on this stuff.
IMO, what is in question here, is whether such training and qualifications will actually lead to the right conclusions, or make one overconfident within the wrong paradigm. Might this be one more such area?
"if you take the smartest people in the world and you teach them the wrong thing, they become amazing at doing the wrong thing" - Shawn Stevenson
Comments
Yes, that's the problem with this whole... it's Science™ as some kind of ace-card for the win. This has been shown to happen in several industries already. This is a similar problem I have with global warming stuff... only one side of the debate is really well funded and allowed to publish in the journals, etc. Whenever you get that kind of system rolling, it might end up being right, but it isn't good science.
And, then there is science journalism, which is a whole other thing... where often the article says things that aren't in the original journal article, or even contradict it. Science is a good method, if done right. But, since humans are involved, it all must be taken with a grain of salt.
Just be careful...
Yeah, though the point I was making is that our actual understanding of how genes and DNA work was different back when much of the research was done. We've only slightly opened the door on the reality of it in the last 10-15 years.
The problem here, is that the 1 in 1,000,000 odds are based on the whole heating/DNA damage model of assessing risk, which is no longer adequate given our current understanding of gene expression, etc. It might turn out (hopefully!) that once this is re-evaluated in light of this new understanding, we'll have similar levels of risk. But, the point I've been trying to make is that we can no longer make that risk assessment, as it only takes part of the system into account.
To have proper discussion, you have to have some common word definition, understanding of the concept of reality/truth, and ability to attempt to understand the view of the other (with enough tolerance to enter civil discussion). There also needs to be some ability to think critically and a bit of a level playing field for discourse. Society, is moving away from this, and then wondering why things are getting worse.
I appreciate that you have an experience in the area you described but I also have an experience working 4 years in this area.
I shouldn’t use the harsh language as I used to describe your article but you should know that what you are saying is not based on any scientific base. Sure radars output is millions times more powerful than routers but as you know the radiation in our body has accumulating effect. Person that puts the router adjacent to his monitor on the desk and sits about 50-70cm from it for 7-10 hours a day at work or home receives small but continued amount of radiation that after few years is quite decent to cause changes in the cells same as the very fast effect to a person exposed to a radar radiation from close range for short time.
Also the router is not the only emitter of this radiation. Some people have more than one router, range extenders, air conditioners controllers, solar panels controllers, cordless desk phones and other devices emitting constant 24 hour RF and EMF radiation not mention mobile phones in their pockets or on their desks.
Note that in Amsterdam and few other European cities the City WiFi was turned off because of the unknown effect on the city population it may cause after long term exposure.
Sure it will take 20 to 30 years to prove that this relatively small amount of accumulated radiation caused cancers but we cannot ignore it today. Same kind of continuous denials were going on for years with smoking cigarets and how they will not cause any damage for health. Sadly we know today 40-50 years later how untrue it was.
Yes, you mentioned science in the Risk Assessment area of your article but you mostly dismissed the possibility of risk, same as you did on your podcast mentioning the equivalent risk of being hit by a meteor.
I am not saying don’t use anything and live in a cave. I am saying - don’t disregard the risks because they may not sound real today.
Therefore, in my opinion to write an article like you wrote, and later on what you said in your podcast about “no scientific evidence” is not a responsible thing to do. Many people that has no knowledge at all in this area and are reading and/or listening to what you said may conclude that the risk is as you said like “getting his by meteor”.
A great example, is that we're just discovering that the lack of quality fats in the common-wisdom and science-recommended low-fat-diets is a contributing factor to the rise in brain-related diseases. How could you say with any certainty that RF might not also be a contributing factor to that or other conditions? You'd have to understand the impact of RF on gene expression and/or how the cells and various systems of the body interact. I don't think we know that yet.
When I was in school, we learned what was presented as the 'correct' view, but also competing views. The good professors did this purposely, as they knew you can't argue against a view you aren't even familiar with (and they knew we'd run into them). Often at least part of our papers had to be accurately presenting the competing views and then arguing against them, or even arguing the opposing view from our own.
When you see a situation where opposing views are being shut-down/out by social or legal force, your spidey-senses should throw up the BS detector.
Apparently, this must be a lost art, when the possibility of being exposed to a view outside their little bubble makes modern students cry, throw tantrums, and try to bring about social/legal action to protect themselves from such views.
May go up as much as 40 percent in a poorly controlled study that admits that diagnostic tools have gotten far better in the three years prior to this study, let alone a decade with increasing successes in identifying the cancer that may have gotten missed before ... from one in 1.6 million.
Check it out for yourself:
https://wakeup-world.com/2017/12/22/the-harmful-effects-of-electromagnetic-fields-explained/
IMO, what is in question here, is whether such training and qualifications will actually lead to the right conclusions, or make one overconfident within the wrong paradigm. Might this be one more such area?
"if you take the smartest people in the world and you teach them the wrong thing, they become amazing at doing the wrong thing"
- Shawn Stevenson