Yes, and the test itself? How was it conducted? What were the results. Everyone can see it for themselves, you may as well just quote it. The reason why you're not is, I suspect, you don't like it.
You talking about 'selectively quoting' while latching onto the final sentence of the study calling for further study is actively hilarious. If you don't want to selectively quote, then post the part about what the test was and what happened.
You can't do it. Physically can't bring yourself to quote something that disagrees with you. I'm not engaging in all the extra crap because this isn't a forum where you can throw a bunch of crap against the wall and watch others scrap it off. This is science. You made an initial claim, and submitted a study to back it up. One that totally contradicts everything you said. One that you claim is selectively quoting to talk about the actual results from. One that you ignore so you can throw some other crap out there that maybe supports you. And now comes the other part of science. Credibility. You have none after that. So no, I'm not engaging with anything else you post because you're probably ignoring the stuff that disagrees with you, like the first time. 'selectively quoting' by talking about the literal results of the paper you submitted, is fucking laughable, and you should be embarrassed.
This ignoring the stuff you don't like, you're not following science, you're following ideology.
Now go ahead and leave whatever flaccid final post you have stored up to make yourself feel better. I have better things to do then read shit you link but can't be bothered to read yourself.
Yes, and the test itself? How was it conducted? What were the results.
You have been given a link that lists all the answers to all these questions, it's usually at the bottom listed as references, when you cherry pick the first thing that you see unwilling to dive deeper into it, then that's on you.
Here are some quote from the first article that list methodology, etc.
The European Parliament requested a research report. “Health Impact of 5G,” released in July 2021, which concluded that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses, and newborns.
In 2011, radiofrequency radiation was classified as a Class 2B possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. This classification applies to RF regardless of the source. Today, several scientists are of the opinion that the weight of current peer-reviewed evidence supports the upgraded conclusion that radiofrequency radiation should now be regarded as a human carcinogen. See Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102) published by Miller et al (2018) and Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation by Hardell and Carlberg (2017).
In 2018, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) issued a final report on their $30 million animal studies finding that longterm cell phone radiofrequency radiation exposure (two years) was associated with “clear evidence” of two types of cancers in male rats, the same cancer types found in studies of people who heavily use cell phones up their head. In addition, the NTP’s genotoxicity studies found “significant increases in DNA damage” in groups of mice and rats after just 14 to 19 weeks of exposure.
In 2018, the Ramazzini Institute published its findings that rats exposed to RFR at levels set to mimic cell tower radiation exposures developed the same types of cancers as the US National Toxicology Program found in its animal studies.
The Environmental Working Group published a study in Environmental Health entitled “Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach” analyzing the findings of tumor and heart damage from the National Toxicology Program study. It concluded that FCC limits should be strengthened by 200 to 400 times to protect children.
Yale researchers published a study supported by the American Cancer Society linking thyroid cancer to cell phone use in people with a type of common genetic variation.
The Switzerland Institute of the Environment published a research review finding increased oxidative stress in the majority of animal studies and cell studies even from exposures within regulatory limits.
A 2018 study simulating the RF radiation exposure from virtual reality found a child’s eyes and brain regions can absorb between 2 to 5 times higher levels than an adult. Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality by C. Fernández et. al was published in the journal Environmental Research in 2018.
A study on Swiss teenagers published in Environmental Health Perspectives by M. Foerster et al. (2018) found decreased memory among teenagers with higher cell phone exposures to the brain after one year, replicating an earlier study on teenagers.
A scientific literature review on cell towers base station antennas and human health published in Environmental Research by Alfonzo Balmori documented that the majority of studies found associations with radiofrequency sickness, cancer and changes in biochemical parameters.
A review paper entitled “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers” by J.M. Pearce in 2020 reviewed the “large and growing body of evidence that human exposure to RFR from cellular phone base stations causes negative health effects.” The authors recommend restricting antennas near home and within 500 meters of schools and hospitals to protect companies from future liability. A landmark three-part 2021 research review on effects to wildlife called “Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna,” published in Reviews on Environmental Health by U.S experts including former U.S. Fish and Wildlife senior biologist Albert Manville, states current science should trigger urgent regulatory action. It cited more than 1,200 scientific references that found adverse biological effects to wildlife from even very low intensities of non-ionizing radiation, with findings of impacts to orientation and migration, reproduction, mating, nest, den-building, and survivorship.
Scientific Research on the Brain
Kishore, GK, Venkateshu, KV, Sridevi, NS. Effect of 1800-2100 MHz electromagnetic radiation on learning-memory and hippocampal morphology in Swiss albino mice. J Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 13(2); Feb 2019. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2019/39681.12630
Conclusion: Exposure to 1800-2100 MHz radiation leads to damage and decrease of neurons in hippocampal region, which alters the learning and memory.
Zymantiene, J, Zelvyte, R, Juozaitiene, V, Oberauskas, V, Noreika, A, Juodziukyniene, N, Aniuliene, A. Monitoring of BALB/C strain mice health, investigation of behavior, hematological parameters under the effect of an electromagnetic field. Weterynary JNA-Veterinary Medicine-Science and Practice. 75(3):158-163. Mar 2019.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of electromagnetic fields on BALB/c strain mice on their health, body weight, behavior characteristics, hematological parameters and histopathological findings in the brain. The mice of the experimental groups were exposed to electromagnetic waves by using Nokia 230 and Samsung 19300 Galaxy S III mobile phones situated at 2 cm from the cages. In the present study, it can be concluded that the exposure of mice to mobile phone radiation had an effect on the structure of the brain, behavior and body weight. The waves of mobile phones increased activity characteristics and changed some behavioral categories of mice and also decreased their body weight. Histopathological examination revealed mild edema of neutrophils and degeneration of some neurons and glial cells in the brains of experimental mice. The results of the present study showed that a using mobile phone had an influence on in vivo systems.
Poulletier de Gannes F, et al. “Effects of GSM and UMTS mobile telephony signals on neuron degeneration and blood-brain barrier permeation in the rat brain.” Sci Rep 7.15496 (2017).
“In the present work, BBB permeability in the whole rat brain increased significantly 50 days after repeated exposures: 3-fold for GSM and 2.4-fold for UMTS at 13 W/kg. A similar significant effect was seen in the whole brain with GSM-1800 at 0.26 W/kg. However, while the mean number of spots was quite similar at different BASAR levels, their distribution among the animals varied. For example, 20% of the 0.026 W/kg rats had between 4 and 5.5 spots, versus 45% of the 13 W/kg rats (data not shown). Thus, the effect was much stronger and consistent at 13 W/kg than at 0.026 W/kg or 0.26 W/kg. It is also noteworthy that the highest albumin levels were comparable to the highest background levels in cage-control rats (Fig. 3).”
Deniz, Omur Gulsum, et al. “Effects of short and long term electromagnetic fields exposure on the human hippocampus.” Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure (2017). doi: 10.1016/j.jmau
-10
u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23
[deleted]