/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10733304]

NON-IONIZING RADIATION IS ONLY HARMFUL AT THERMAL LEVELS

[Anonymous No.10733310]

>>10733304
>NON-IONIZING RADIATION IS ONLY HARMFUL
Stopped reading there, it's only harmless.

[Anonymous No.10733335]

>>10733304
>Look mom I posted it again

[Anonymous No.10733341]

>>10733310
>>10733335

[Anonymous No.10733347]

>>10733341
>NOOOO you can't get annoyed with me spamming the exact same thread over and over. You must be an en pee see

[Anonymous No.10733349]

>>10733347
>NPC admitting it gets annoyed by on-topic threads discussing things it doesn't like

[Anonymous No.10733354]

>>10733349
Nice reading comprehension, schizo

[Anonymous No.10733355]

>>10733354
still can't address the NTP study? didn't think so

[Anonymous No.10733358]

>>10733355
>talking about a study when he could be calling everyone else an npc

[Anonymous No.10733360]

>>10733355
That study says that they showed no real evidence to say that there was correlation between cell phone radiation and cancer in rats, maybe you should actually read it.

[Anonymous No.10733363]

>>10733355
Far out man, can't you take this to an active thread instead of archiving something? Especially if you're just going to post the same meme over and over again. In fact, why not make a non-ionizing radiation health effects general or something? That'd he more bearable

[Anonymous No.10733371]

>>10733360
>tells me to read the study
>did not read the study

[Anonymous No.10733376]

>>10733360
It at least demonstrated that there were significant effects from it, and it probably is worth studying more instead of just putting more antennas up.

[Anonymous No.10733377]

>>10733371
>>10733349
>>10733347
>>10733341
>>10733304
fags

[Anonymous No.10733378]

>>10733377
Epic, simply epic xD

[Anonymous No.10733382]

>>10733371
He's not wrong though.

[Anonymous No.10733388]

>>10733382
>implying he is not you
dump scat now

[Anonymous No.10733432]

>>10733388
>implying you're not him
There's only one person here. One person with six phones.

[Anonymous No.10733434]

>>10733388
>Everyone who disagrees with my controversial claim is all one person
Also he's still not wrong. Why are you trying so hard to avoid the truth?

[Anonymous No.10733442]

>>10733371
Idiot, I have read the study. Which is why I was able to summarize it so quickly for you. You have either not read it or you're a complete brainlet that can't reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.10733446]

>>10733442
>I have read it I have dad I have
>has not read the study
this is why you dropped out

[Anonymous No.10733450]

>>10733442
No, it's obvious you're both just reading the part you want to read at most. One of you is reading the "some evidence of carcinogenic activity" parts and stopping, and the other skips past it to the "no evidence of carcinogenic activity" part. It's obvious that there's room for further study here and saying it definitely can't be harmful at all or is definitely harmful in common exposures now is silly.

[Anonymous No.10733467]

>>10733450
"clear evidence" is not "some evidence"

[Anonymous No.10733481]

>>10733304
https://mega.nz/#F!lPQDlCBZ!DaDP5Poq_Ti6nhga4frJig

[Anonymous No.10733496]

>>10733467
That's a quote from the study. Do you have a citation that calls it "clear evidence" instead?

[Anonymous No.10733506]

>>10733496
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html

[Anonymous No.10733509]

>>10733506
>only 2G or 3G signals
some anon was saying that the new 4G signals are much more dangerous than those old ones, yikes if true

[Anonymous No.10733520]

>>10733509
4G LTE after ~40 minutes exposure makes me incredibly aggressive, skin feels cold and clammy, my perception of the geometry of my face changes. Feels like my face is really long, like it's going to hit on the ground.

Strange, but true. This stuff also managed to cripple thyroid function earlier.

[Anonymous No.10733526]

>>10733520
what the fuck, do you have a 4G phone or live near a mast?

[Anonymous No.10733534]

>>10733526
I had a rental car for a bit with an induction charger, wifi, bluetooth, radar, Lidar, and an external antenna tied in with an onstar module. I pulled the fuses for everything. Didn't stop until I also pulled the onstar unit.

[Anonymous No.10733541]

>>10733534
>I had a rental car for a bit with an induction charger, wifi, bluetooth, radar, Lidar, and an external antenna tied in with an onstar module.
this has to be some sort of population reduction ploy, there is no other explanation for this exquisite recklessness

[Anonymous No.10733542]

>>10733534
The onstar is also GPS, by the way.

The latency for inset of effects with other frequencies is also ~40min though, with consistent irradiation. Some studies found the same with dirty electricity and RF from fluorescent lights induced, behavioral changes in children, interestingly.

[Anonymous No.10733543]

[Anonymous No.10733546]

>>10733541
At least it didn't have LED headlights that destroy the photoreceptors in your eye, brain damage, and increased risk of cancer. Though now it's every other car on the road, beaming your eyes.

[Anonymous No.10733565]

>>10733546
Why would LED's do that? Got a source?

[Anonymous No.10733567]

>>10733506
Huh, it looks like they changed it after some review. That's good to know then.

>>10733543
This needs to go a layer of recursion deeper.

[Anonymous No.10733571]

>>10733565
See the blue light txt here.
>>10733481

Overall it's due to phototoxicity of blue light component (blue light hazard), and downstream changes when the brain detects blue light. Like suppression of melatonin synthesis.

[Anonymous No.10733578]

>>10733526
he's just schizophrenic

[Anonymous No.10733598]

>>10733542
GPS is passive, so if it's an issue for anyone, being outside is an issue.

[Anonymous No.10733641]

>>10733578
Imagine how stupid you're going to feel.