It took several decades for the US government to accept a link between tobacco and cancer. It will take many more decades to prove the link between wireless radiation and cancer. Unfortunately, by then, human civilization would have gone past Idiocracy (the movie) state and reached the Planet of the Apes state.
US government will go to war on a mere suspicion that the leader of some oil-rich country is harboring thoughts of acquiring nuclear weapons. Citing non-existent terrorists, they will ask citizens in their country and outside to give up their rights for the “greater common good.” But, when scientific studies suggest a possible health risk to the population, they prefer to look away.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the US government had formed the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to conduct a large-scale study on the link between cancer and mobile phone radiation. The preliminary results indicate that there may be a risk of cancer for phone radiation. Scientific American says:
The researchers found that as the thousands of rats in the new study were exposed to greater intensities of RF radiation, more of them developed rare forms of brain and heart cancer that could not be easily explained away, exhibiting a direct dose–response relationship. Overall, the incidence of these rare tumors was still relatively low, which would be expected with rare tumors in general, but the incidence grew with greater levels of exposure to the radiation. Some of the rats had glioma—a tumor of the glial cells in the brain—or schwannoma of the heart. Furthering concern about the findings: In prior epidemiological studies of humans and cell phone exposure, both types of tumors have also cropped up as associations.
In contrast, none of the control rats—those not exposed to the radiation—developed such tumors. But complicating matters was the fact that the findings were mixed across sexes: More such lesions were found in male rats than in female rats. The tumors in the male rats “are considered likely the result of whole-body exposure” to this radiation, the study authors wrote. And the data suggests the relationship was strongest between the RF exposure and the lesions in the heart, rather than the brain: Cardiac schwannomas were observed in male rats at all exposed groups, the authors note. But no “biologically significant effects were observed in the brain or heart of female rats regardless of modulation.” Based on these findings, Portier said that this is not just an associated finding—but that the relationship between radiation exposure and cancer is clear. “I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure.”
– Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions; 27 May 2016; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/
Even before the news trickled out, the media has been flooded with articles asking people not to freak out. They are also muddying the debate by taking cheap shots at sellers of radiation shields and other such products.
The industry propagandists hide their affiliation by adding a non-disclaimer disclaimer to the article – “Views expressed in this article are personal.” Apart from them, there are sellouts from the medical/scientific profession who have been encouraged write articles and even maintain entire websites and blogs to propagate the idea that cell phone radiation is safe. All of them cite prestigious organizations such as WHO and Mayo Clinic as having cleared cell phone radiation. Unfortunately, most “studies” are just surveys made on other studies. The original studies have serious limitations and/or are not conclusive enough.
The World Health Organization (WHO) formed International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to study the issue. IARC designated that cell phone radiation was possibly carcinogenic. Possibly under pressure from telecoms, WHO later announced that there is no link. It currently has a study to be released this year that will conclusively prove/disprove the link.
The propagandists are not above making false statements or making wrong conclusions. This hack from Business Insider says that rats were exposed to radiation levels that do not correspond to those exposed to humans. With all the Wi-Fi and mobile data (2G/3G/4G/5G) networks connecting all the apps (that report back to home base all the time), Bluetooth devices, smart watches and bands including the hyped-up Internet of Things (IoT) coupled with the equally hyped-up Big Data, the rats would have got comparatively less radiation. One of the most abominable views espoused by them is that the mobile phone waves, which can pass through buildings and underground, cannot get below the skin!
If it is 100% sure that there is no risk of cancer for wireless radiation sources, then why do government websites still carry precautionary measures against cancer. These pages should be removed.
Scientists and doctors are having a tough time with demands to provide unassailable “SCIENCE-BASED” conclusions. For now, they are citing studies that show no link while advising people to take precautions. Propagandists meanwhile will laugh all the way to bank.
Sanghi scientists causing embarrassment at the Indian Science Congress were probably planted after submissions questioning man-made climate change were received.
A cop caught a man riding a cycle without a light at night. The man defended himself by saying there was no need of a light when there was so many streetlights. Then, the cop deflated his tyres and said, “Hey, when there is air all round you why do you need air in your tyres.”
Read this hilarious news item and see how archaeologists tie themselves into knots trying to justify their pet theories after the discovery of “Stone Age” camp site in the high Andes, which pushed historial timelines by (GASP) 2000 YEARS!
Thanks to @ILuvCO2.
Locally available coal is bad because it is paid in local currency and there is no need for US dollars or expensive unviable “green technologies”
By “green technologies”, they mean “American” green technology made by doomed-to-fail outfits such as Solyndra with kickbacks going to their politicians, charities, libraries and other “welfare” funds.
They want developing world to subsidize unviable Western technology while ignoring cheaper local options.
To boot, the West will give loans to sweeten the deal for “everyone”.
It’s the unwitting the consumer and taxpayer who is ultimately stuck with the bill.
How about some cold water? Or some coconut oil? Most detergent today contain enzymes that will dissolve human tissue.
If you really believe in the Man-made Change Change swindle, then demand a carbon tax on the filthy rich people who own most of the wealth in the world. If anyone can spare money, it is them. Poor and middle-class people are fighting a pitiless daily battle against poverty, inflation, loans and other ills of the dishonest debt-based money system imposed on them. People at the top of the income pyramid should pay carbon tax. They have money to spare. Tax them and save the earth!If you don’t agree, you are anti-mathematics and anti-common sense.
1. Bill Gates‘ private jet and $120-million house is keeping polar bears awake during hibernation
2. Al Gore’s Carbon Footprint is making climate scientologists sweat
Learn about Al Gore investments in the oil industry and how he is helping drive native Indian communities off their ancestral land.
3. Every time Obama climbs on to Air Force One or Michelle Obama boards Air Force Two a forest dies in the Amazon
4. Every time you give a dollar to PETA, a puppy dies – literally
You can fool all the people all the time. Earlier, it was with religion. Now, it is with science.
According to one myth that mythbusters have propounded recently is that shaving body hair does not make it grow more or thickers. This is totally contrary to the common wisdom passed on by human generations across millennia. To bust myths, “scientists” asked some volunteers to shave one of their legs regularly and leave the other without shaving. No difference in hair growth was noted after the period of study.
Hair may be dead but the follicles are not. The brain, the follicles, the weight of the hair, genetics and hormones play a part in it hair growth, not all of which are properly understood by SCIENCE. SCIENCE is at best a fishing expedition. You catch something sometimes but that is all. When baby hair is cut, then the hair becomes thicker. New hair grow around it. This is why women are advised not to play with razor blades.
If you want to sell more shaving blades and razors to younger kids, then yes you would want to bust these age-old “myths.”
Now, we have Sonam Kapoor posting photos of shaving her facial hair. This gives me an idea. They should not have asked the volunteers to shave one leg. They should have asked some science-minded women to shave their faces. That would have shown whether it is indeed a myth or not.