Error, pone lo que pone: Whatever its causal origin and mechanism of action
Eso, teniendo en cuenta que nunca habéis podido replicar nada de la sarama que publicáis, indica que es un trastorno mental.
Vamos, lo de siempre.
Ahora, loco, vete a dormir.
P.S: mide las emisiones de tu ordenador, que además de loco eres un ESTAFADOR.
El orate dice que nunca le he podido replicar y tiene 25.000 estudios con los que le replicamos, es que es patetico
Toma, otra, para que no duermas esta noche,
publicado hoy
https://e9a5d5c6.stackpathcdn.com/w...-and-WiFi-Radio-Frequency-Radiation_Final.pdf
st at risk. Given the clear risks that RFR-based technologies present, it is also vital for parents and educators to take immediate action on the use of microwave emitting devices where children are concerned. As there is overwhelming evidence that safety standards are woefully outdated, the action to be taken is clear. The precautionary principle should be applied and the use of all microwave RFRenabled devices, from WiFi-enabled tablets (and smartphones) to WiFi routers, should be heavily curtailed or eliminated. The figure above summarizes this paper’s findings and provides compelling reasons for why such action is necessary. As indicated, Figure 2 summarises the evidence of risk and indicates the role of specific mechanisms in producing the various threats to human health and well-being. Each of the outcomes identified are independent of each other; hence, the risk of some form of ill-health to children due to RFR exposure is highly probable. At the risk of repetition, there is only one realistic course of action. Children and adolescents should not be using smartphones, or WiFi-enabled tablet devices, and their expose to RFR sources should be minimized. This might seem impractical in the digital world, but in our real analogue world, children and teenagers are no longer permitted legal access to cigarettes, nor is it socially acceptable for adults to smoke in their presence. Given the current scientific evidence, the pathophysiological properties of RFR appear to be no different than cigarette smoke or similar carcinogens. Thus, in light of the evidence, the precautionary principle should be applied and governments should implement policies that result in the removal of WiFi routers and all WiFi devices from the classrooms of elementary/primary and secondary/high schools. Just to remind the reader what the precautionary principle means: "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” 2 We are well beyond that point, as this paper illustrates. The application of the precautionary principle is a statutory requirement in some areas of law in the European Union, as expressed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus EU governments at least have a political and an ethical responsibility to act. In the absence of appropriate government policy, educators need to reconsider the untrammeled use of WiFi in schools and not employ iPads or tablets for use by children in class. Devices that use e-Ink, or similar types of electronic paper display, as opposed to LED screens, should be used in the classroom and at home to access ebooks/texts, but these should be operated in airplane mode when reading. Parents and guardians also need to act and should consider the amowing 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_princi ple 16 recommendations in order to exercise their personal duty of care: Educate children and adolescents about the health risks of all smart devices. Restrict device time to 30 minutes for all RFR-enabled devices, not just screen time. In respect of screen time, all LED screen devices should have a Blue Light Filter. Apps like F-Lux are ideal here. This minimises melatonin reduction in users. Smart phones have 2/3/4G, WiFi and Bluetooth radio units all of which are normally switched on. These should be used only when required. In addition, the small print on Health and Safety information that comes with a smartphone typically indicates that they should NOT be carried nor operated less than 2.5 cm from the body. Remember that the WiFi Safety standards for ALL devices is that they must be operated 20 cm or 8” from the body and for no more than 30 minutes. o Given the risk handing a young child an active RFR device, such as a smartphone or an iPad, to hold in their car seat/pram, is for all intents and purposes the same as giving them a cigarette to smoke. If children or adolescents have access to smartphones and WiFi devices, the devices should not be carried or operated on or near their person. o Ear & microphones should be used for all calls. If children are using screen device for games, they should be operated in airplane mode. Ensure WiFi routers are not in or near or directly beneath children’s bedrooms and they should be switched off at night. No RFR device, including some types of baby monitors, should in in a child’s bedroom. Minimise the use in the home of all Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as Smart Meters, Virtual Assistants, Hive, Chromecast, WiFi dongles, and so on. There is also a clear onus on scientists and practitioners in the computing and IT industry to act and ensure that the safety standards for all RFR and WiFi devices are reviewed in light of the recent scientific findings. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. There will be enormous resistance to change from vested interests and the political establishment. This has already happened, with orchestrated campaigns against natural scientists conducting independent research on the health implications of RFR, particularly in the US. An excerpt from a recent article in The Guardian newspaper summarises the type of response to be expected from industry with respect to microwave RFR and in particular the release of the findings of the NTP study. “Central to keeping the scientific argument going is making it appear that not all scientists agree. Towards that end, and again like the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, the wireless industry has “war-gamed” science, as a Motorola internal memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science involves playing offence as well as defence – funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies such as the World Health Organisation and seeking 17 to discredit scientists whose views differ from the industry’s.” 53 Returning to the quote at the beginning of this paper by Professor FrentzelBeyme MD, we have, as the evidence adduced herein indicates, far exceeded the “level of proof required to justify action for health protection.” The theory that non-ionizing RFR exposure could not cause cancer has been refuted using the scientific method. It is ironic, in the era of neoconservatism, neoliberalism, and the anti-environmental policies of necon cheerleader-in-chief Donald Trump, that the smoking gun should be provided by the National Toxicology Program of the US Department of Health and Human Services. This study, as indicated above, is just the latest of many to provide the “clear evidence” required for policy and social change. The need for social change is this area is as important, and no less controversial, than that required to respond to the challenge of global warming. However, the forces resisting change to the status quo are considerable. Take for example that “Not one major news organisation in the US or Europe reported [the] scientific news [published by the NTP]. But then, news coverage of mobile phone safety has long reflected the outlook of the wireless industry.”53 In order to combat vested interests and protect children, parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles, need to act to change extant social perspectives on seemingly harmless digital technologies that entertain and beguile, and which offer affordances without apparent consequences. That will be the challenge for readers of this paper. To understand that technology is not neutral—that it has negative as well as positive consequences for users and society, and that there is a dark side to the bright screen on which you may be reading this article. About the Author Professor Tom Butler is a social scientist at University College Cork. A former satellite and microwave communications engineer and IT professional, he is more than familiar with the traditional safety issues relating to microwave RFR. His Pauline conversion from the engineering perspective on RFR thermal safety occurred through research engagements with the Chief Risk Officer of a global corporation who pointed out the significant risks to children from the nonthermal effects of RFR. These discussions and related events in his personal life stimulated Professor Butler’s interest in this important topic. In a research context, Professor Butler is a former Government of Ireland Research Fellow, Principal Investigator (PI) of the Governance Risk and Compliance Technology Centre (2013- 2018), PI of the SmaRT and SamRT4Reg Commercialisation Fund Projects (2017- 2019), and Co-PI of two Marie Skłodowska-Curie Career-FIT Fellowships in Artificial Intelligence (2019-2022). With over €8.5 million in research funding on the application of digital technologies to date, he has 220 publications and 11 inventions. Tom is a member of the European Commission’s Expert Group on Regulatory Obstacles to Financial Innovation (ROFIEG) in the area of FinTech, a member of the Global RegTech Council, and a member of the Financial Industry Enterprise Data Management Council (EDMC). References 1 National Toxicology Programme (2018). Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation Studies.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/cell _phone_radiofrequency_radiation_studies_508. pdf. 2 National Toxicology Programme (2018). High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male Rats, Telephone Press Conference, 10/31/18, 2:00 18 pm ET.
https://www.nih.gov/newsevents/news...requency-radiation-associated-cancer-malerats. 3 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1999). Nomination Letter to Coordinator of NTP Chemical Nomination and Selection Committee. nomihttps://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/wirele ss051999_508.pdf . 4 Vijayalaxmi & Obe, G., (2004). Controversial cytogenetic observations in mammalian somatic cellsexposed to radiofrequency radiation, Radiat. Res. 162 (5), 481–96. 5 Morgan, L. L., Miller, A. B., Sasco, A., & Davis, D. L. (2015). Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A). International journal of oncology, 46(5), 1865-1871. 6
http://ehtrust.org/the-california-medicalassociation-wireless-resolution/ 7
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520941318.pdf 8
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/health/ cellphone-radiation-cancer.html 9 Melnick, R. L. (2019). Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program Study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environmental research, 168, 1-6. 10
https://www.ramazzini.org/comunicato/ondeelettromagnetiche-listituto-ramazzini-rispondeallicnirp/ 11 Falcioni, L., Bua, L., Tibaldi, E., Lauriola, M., De Angelis, L., Gnudi, F., Mandrioli, D., Manservigi, M., Manservisi, F., Manzoli, I. & Menghetti, I. (2018). Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in SpragueDawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environmental research, 165, 496-503. 12 Wyde, M. (2016). NTP toxicology and carcinogenicity studies of cell phone radiofrequency radiation. BioEM2016 Meeting, Ghent, Belgium.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/research/areas/cell phone/slides_bioem_wyde.pdf . 13 Philips, A.. Henshaw, D., L Lamburn, G. & M. O'Carroll, (2018). Brain tumours: rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme incidence in England 1995–2015 suggests an adverse environmental or lifestyle factor, Journal of Environmental and Public Health, vol. 2018, Article ID 7910754. 14 Röösli, M., Lagorio, S., Schoemaker, M. J., Schüz, J., & Feychting, M. (2019). Brain and Salivary Gland Tumors and Mobile Phone Use: Evaluating the Evidence from Various Epidemiological Study Designs. Annual review of public health, 40. 15 Coureau, G., Bouvier, G., Lebailly, P., FabbroPeray, P., Gruber, A., Leffondre, K., ... & Baldi, I. (2014). Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occup Environ Med, oemed-2013. 16 Mialon, H. M., & Nesson, E. T. (2018). Mobile Phones and the Risk of Brain Cancer Mortality: A Twenty-Five Year Cross-Country Analysis. 17Kabbat, G.(2017). Are brain cancer rates increasing?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ geoffreykabat/ 2017/12/23/are-brain-cancerrates-increasing-and-do-changes-relate-to-cellphone-use/#12df118e25b4 18 West, J. G., Kapoor, N. S., Liao, S. Y., Chen, J. W., Bailey, L., & Nagourney, R. A. (2013). Multifocal breast cancer in young women with prolonged contact between their breasts and their cellular phones. Case reports in medicine, 2013. 19 Chauhan, P., Verma, H. N., Sisodia, R., & Kesari, K. K. (2017). Microwave radiation (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress: Wholebody exposure effect on histopathology of Wistar rats. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 36(1), 20-30. 20 Carpenter, D. O., & Bushkin-Bedient, S. (2013). Exposure to chemicals and radiation during childhood and risk for cancer later in life. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52(5), S21-S29. 21 Christ, Andreas, Marie-Christine Gosselin, Maria Christopoulou, Sven Kühn, & Niels Kuster. (2010). Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users. Physics in medicine and biology, 55(7): 1767. 22 Keshvari, J., Keshvari, R., & Lang, S. (2006). The effect of increase in dielectric values on specific absorption rate (SAR) in eye and head tissues amowing 900, 1800 and 2450 MHz radio frequency (RF) exposure. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 51(6), 1463. 23 Gandhi, O. P., Morgan, L. L., de Salles, A. A., Han, Y. Y., Herberman, R. B., & Davis, D. L. (2012). Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in 19 children. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 31(1), 34-51 24 Portier, C.J., & Leonard W.L. (2016). Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer? Probably, but It's Complicated, Scientific American, June 13, 2016. 25 Frentzel-Beyme, R. (1994). John R. Goldsmith on the usefulness of epidemiological data to identify links between point sources of radiation and disease. Public health reviews, 22(3-4), 305-320. 26 Waris G, Ahsan H. (2016). Reactive oxygen species: role in the development of cancer and various chronic conditions. Journal of Carcinogenesis. 2006;5(14). doi:10.1186/1477- 3163-5-14. 27 De Iuliis, G. N., Newey, R. J., King, B. V., & Aitken, R. J. (2009). Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro. PloS one, 4(7), e6446. 28 Yakymenko, I., Tsybulin, O., Sidorik, E., Henshel, D., Kyrylenko, O., & Kyrylenko, S. (2016). Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic biology and medicine, 35(2), 186-202. 29 Nazıroğlu, M., Yüksel, M., Köse, S. A., & Özkaya, M. O. (2013). Recent reports of Wi-Fi and mobile phone-induced radiation on oxidative stress and reproductive signaling pathways in females and males. The Journal of membrane biology, 246(12), 869-875. 30 Pall, M. L. (2018). Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environmental research, 164, 405-416. 31 Pall, M.L., (2013). Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J. Cell. Mol. Med. (17), 958–965.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.12088. 32 Kesari, K. K., Siddiqui, M. H., Meena, R., Verma, H. N., & Kumar, S. (2013). Cell phone radiation exposure on brain and associated biological systems. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology, March 2013; 51: 187– 200. 33 Han, Y. Y., Gandhi, O. P., De Salles, A., Herberman, R. B., & Davis, D. L. (2010). Comparative assessment of models of electromagnetic absorption of the head for children and adults indicates the need for policy changes. Eur J Oncol. Volume, 5, 301- 318. 34 Kheifets, L., Repacholi, M., Saunders, R., & Van Deventer, E. (2005). The sensitivity of children to electromagnetic fields. Pediatrics, 116(2), e303-e313. 35 Akhavan-Sigari, R., Baf, M. M. F., Ariabod, V., Rohde, V., & Rahighi, S. (2014). Connection between cell phone use, p53 gene expression in different zones of glioblastoma multiforme and survival prognoses. Rare Tumors, 6(3). 36 Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2015a). Increasing rates of brain tumours in the Swedish national inpatient register and the causes of death register. International journal of environmental research and public health, 12(4), 3793-3813. 37 Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2015b). Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma–Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997–2003 and 2007–2009. Pathophysiology, 22(1), 1-13. 38 Carlberg, M., Hedendahl, L., Ahonen, M., Koppel, T., & Hardell, L. (2016). Increasing incidence of thyroid cancer in the Nordic countries with main focus on Swedish data. BMC cancer, 16(1), 426. 39 Tillmann, T., Ernst, H., Streckert, J., Zhou, Y., Taugner, F., Hansen, V., Dasenbrock, C., (2010). Indication of cocarcinogenic potential of chronic UMTS-modulated radiofrequency exposure in an ethylnitrosourea mouse model. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 86, 529–541. 40 Lerchl, A., Klose, M., Grote, K., Wilhelm, A. F., Spathmann, O., Fiedler, T., ... & Clemens, M. (2015). Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans. Biochemical and biophysical research communications, 459(4), 585-590. 41https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B14R6QNkmaXu d2dQZmtJZWpKOW8/view. Accessed February 2019. 42 Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environmental pollution, 242, 643-658. 43 Grigoriev Y. (2017). Methodology of Standards Development for EMF RF in Russia and by International Commissions: Distinctions in Approaches. In Markov, M (Ed.), Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics. Chapter 15. pp. 315-337. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis. 44 Hankin, N. (2002). Letter from Norbert Hankin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to 20 Janet Newton President, The EMR Network (July 16, 2002), available at
http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law /docs/noi_epa_response.pdf .Accessed 21-03- 2017.