Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:45:25 UTC No. 16468348

>>16468345
I hope so. For all the faggots that enforce phone call, when SMS is far better communication system.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:15:09 UTC No. 16468371

>>16468345
There are three ways: follow the science NPC's, follow the demiurge schizos and the path of enlightenment which is simply realizing that te body wants homeostasis so any kind of stress added to the stress in which the body evolved and adapted to is probably not good. How bad it is: who knows? One thing is for sure: clinically insignificant does not mean without consequences.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:16:54 UTC No. 16468372

>no temperature scale given
>15 minute (!) phonecall
>cellphone tech not mentioned
I can't take this seriously

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:32:56 UTC No. 16468388

>>16468345
>Put warm object next to your head
>Head gets hotter
No shit huh

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:38:08 UTC No. 16468392

Same thing happens if you hold just your hand to your face. Thermal radiation is basically nothing

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:32:18 UTC No. 16468586

>>16468345
Yes, phone radiation is bad but it has nothing to with thermal effects.
Hostile actors try to convince you it's about temperature so it can be deboonked.
The fact is we've known for a long time that the same GHZ range used by cell communication is well-aligned with the range of resonant frequencies of DNA and DNA repair enzymes.
Inverse square law means you are blasting the hell out of the side of your head so limit your exposure.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:43:14 UTC No. 16468606

Wouldn't your head heat up way more just by being in the sun for a few seconds? What about taking pizza out of the oven? What's the significance of that scientific image?

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:14:32 UTC No. 16468729

>>16468345
> red color le bad
indicate the scale they used dumb fuck

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:56:55 UTC No. 16468780

>>16468586
Name one experiment where GHz or even thz em induced carcinogenesis due to effect on DNA, transcription factors, polymerases etc in cells or model organism.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:23:03 UTC No. 16468808

check with the EH Trust
>it looks really bad but we're not sure how bad

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:32:38 UTC No. 16470536

>>16468345
>Put on a heater
>wear a jacket
>pick up some hot food
>die of negative health effects

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:46:26 UTC No. 16470546

>>16468780
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29530389/

>Conclusions: The RI findings on far field exposure to RFR are consistent with and reinforce the results of the NTP study on near field exposure, as both reported an increase in the incidence of tumors of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague-Dawley rats. These tumors are of the same histotype of those observed in some epidemiological studies on cell phone users. These experimental studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the re-evaluation of IARC conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:54:37 UTC No. 16470556

>>16470546
>Male and female Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed from prenatal life until natural death to a 1.8 GHz GSM far field of 0, 5, 25, 50 V/m with a whole-body exposure for 19 h/day
bit aggressive tho innit, prenatal is sensitive to the environment and changes would be exponential, doesn't really compare to cell phone usage in humans
t. retard

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:40:41 UTC No. 16470585

>>16470556
That and also it's quite likely that the actual cause is the stress from noise of the machines or some other such effect.