However, your objections tend to favor the effects being DOWNPLAYED not OVERSTATED
To talk about some effects, you have to properly describe effects of what exactly you are talking about.
This description is completely absent, because "800-1900MHz with SAR from FCC certificate" is not a description at all. It is a "magic spell" copied from FCC certification paper without any understanding of its meaning.
This is the thing that makes this whole article a complete bullshit and with high probability just yet another fake, as many articles in biology and medicine are.
Interesting, how many articles from same Nature about coronahoax you accept as facts? I hope zero. Then why do you think this article is somehow different? Just because it support a narrative you like? But it is still a narrative, and it is still a fraudlent article for the sake of publishing article.
Science is not about things you like.
"Only heat, only heat" That is a pure denialist industry line, and not surprising from someone who gets visibly upset when presented with facts about low intensity microwave studies.
There is no single study about any other effects that is written scientifically and replicated.
"Facts" you see in all that stidies is no any different from "facts" from coronahoax studies, published in same journals.
Unfortunately, today 95% of biochemistry/medical studies are unreplicateable garbage or just fraudlent. There is absolutely no sense to blindly believe any without heavy critical analisys. And if any inconsistency is found, study should be discarded.
So I sure as hell wouldn't want to be subjected to a medical therapy 24/7 for something meant to be 10-15 minutes for a limited number of sessions
UHF therapy device have around 30-300W of power with directed antennas. 10-15 minutes of UHF therapy a day is much more energy than whole day with actively transmitting phone.
contraindications (including pregnancy, which relates to that rat study).
It is not wise to heat a fetuse in a womb. Regardless of a method.
Remember, chemotherapy is a therapy, but it's also a poison. It has it's place, and that place is few and far between, not forced onto the public.
This is not a reason to run around and yell bullshit about f.e. "There is awful poisonous aluminium oxide found in <whatever food>!!!".
There is real and obvious harm of cellular phones and smartphones for people. They are used by corporations and authorities for surveillance and control of population. Isn't that enough to make a good, honest and undeniable anti-modern-mobile propaganda? But instead of fighting or mitigating this real harm, I see tons of bullshit "studies", memes, posts and other fearmongering in all areas except the main and only real one.
This is insanity.
Instead of trying to scare audience with yet another bullshit, why don't you try to write a post that explain how any phone with OS and software from Apple, Google and other shitty corporations constantly steal and sell user private data, even private data of user contacts, user time (through ugly and idiotic interface), and whole user life spent in stupid applications? It is much more harmful for human brain and life than any possible tiny heating of human body surface layers with a very moderate RF power.
To talk about some effects, you have to properly describe effects of what exactly you are talking about.
"oxidative stress, disruption of membranes, disruption of blood brain barrier, and reproductive harm at low intensity levels of wifi and cell phone RF. " as I already stated. If you don't know that, you've never seriously studied the literature.
You've fallen into the trap that Dr Cindy Russell pointed out in that presentation. The engineer or physicist writes off all biological effects with some factoid they learned in school. "It is non-ionizing", or "all it can do is heat" then you set the safety limit to the thermal threshold and call it a day.
Sorry but that is pure and simple denial.
I'm seeing your secondary tactic is to overanalyze a health study you are shown to paint all other studies (99% which you will never read) with a broad brush.
Sorry but you don't get to dismiss every study based on one or two you've nitpicked. You don't get to dismiss the 100 studies reviewed by Igor Yakymenko on oxidative effects https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26151230/. You don't get to dismiss the series of studies by Salford on the blood brain barrier and cell phone radiation https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19345073/, nor do you get to dismiss the many studies cited in their literature of others who make similar findings.
You don't get to invoke some grand conspiracy among researchers (paid for by no one) to deny all the findings. The only conspiracy is on the corporate side with a trillion dollar industry who funds studies to muddy the waters.
Regardless of all that, the findings are what they are and will continue to be real and the effects continue to be reproduced using the same or similar frequency bands (even if not the exact phone model every time). Some use an actual phone or router. Others use a phone radiation simulator. But the same effects are shown over and over again.
Again, effects of what you are talking about? Authors didn't provide any sensible information that could be used to figure out what exactly they studied.
Sorry but that is pure and simple denial.
Yes, I deny garbage. This paper is a garbage and I carefully pointed out why exactly.
The engineer or physicist writes off all biological effects
There is no such separate and special thing as "biological effects". Biology works on the same physical principles as all other things in the world. It is in no way special.
If you want to introduce some additional effect or principle, in addition to physical one, in biology or medicine, then you have to describe its exact mechanism on the lowest possible level and prove it on this level, prove it with a simple, replicateable and clean experiment, that EM wave of RF could interact with a matter in some new, unknown way. And only then, you will be able to bring some ground for your baseless statement about "biological effects".
Without that, any "study" you could bring will be nothing more than bullshit. Not any different from a study about "we give a drink to one group from a random puddle, and other group from a tap and get different results" without providing full chemical analysis of water from puddle and from tap and describing exact mechanisms that gave results observed. That's not a science, it is a mockery of science and sanity. "Study" you brought here is nothing more than senseless torture of mice for the sake of getting publication score.
You don't get to dismiss the 100 studies reviewed
I do. Review is not a replication. Review is not a discovery of a new way of RF interaction with a matter.
And it is a pattern already, when scientists fall to writing reviews of multiple studies, then it is a clear sign that they know shit about things they review.
It is not a coincidence that biology and medicine are infamous for a very high rate of "review studies", much higher than in all other areas together. You will not find "review studies" in optics or reology. You will not find "review studies" in thermodynamics or chemistry. Because there are no any need for them.
Also, "review studies" is known for dismissing all studies that does not fit reviewer point. So, I wouldn't be amased at all, if there is another 100 studies (probably of same garbage quality as 100 reviewed) that show complete opposite results.
You don't get to invoke some grand conspiracy among researchers (paid for by no one) to deny all the findings.
There is no any findings. And the worst thing is that they don't need them. Current, completely broken state of biology and medicine is perfectly fine for making careers and acquiring funding, so nothing will change in observable future.
And then, people like you, pointing to that garbage, proclaim "its science!", just like that Fauci bastard, without even understanding how real science looks like. And no, publication in scientific journal does not make science from garbage.
But the same effects are shown over and over again.
But somehow new, undiscovered way of RF interaction with a matter didn't pop up yet . If you think it is normal, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Complete denial it is then. Not much point discussing further or sharing any studies with you. You already know any study that contradicts you is "garbage".
But somehow new, undiscovered way of RF interaction with a matter didn't pop up yet .
Exactly my point, you're stuck in the physicist's trap. You demand something that isn't required to show harm, an underlying mechanism. There are some proposed underlying mechanisms, but it's not yet clear. However the harm is still clear regardless. That's all there is to it.
Exactly my point, you're stuck in the physicist's trap.
And to "untrap" I, obviously have to believe in some unproven and poorly written garbage.
No, thank you. I don't need that unscientific shit to know that modern cellphone infrastructure, including social media is harmful for people. I don't need to refer to some authority to understand the harm and how exactly, and by whom it is done to the people.
You demand something that isn't required to show harm
Harm of what exactly? How do you know it is RF, if no any RF parameters measured and even RF presence is not proven?
There are some proposed underlying mechanisms, but it's not yet clear.
So no proof that such mechanisms exist. Case closed.
If a scientist don't care about what is really happens in his experiment, then he is not a scientist.
However the harm is still clear regardless.
Even if we don't take into account that none of studies you believe in was independently replicated, you still don't want to know harm of what exactly was studied. Just like that "scientists" who published their papers.
Interesting, that you are obviously trying not to convince me that phones are harmful, because I already know that, and seems that I know much more about that than you, but to convince me to believe in some papers written by some ignorant people who actually don't know shit about things they write about.
Do you understand that you are trying to do exactly same harm, corporations and authorities do using phones? Force people to blindly believe in some narrative, referring to some "experts". Looks like you are on the same side. It does not matter what narrative is pushed, the main thing is to break critical thinking and force subject to blindly believe some "authority".
To talk about some effects, you have to properly describe effects of what exactly you are talking about.
This description is completely absent, because "800-1900MHz with SAR from FCC certificate" is not a description at all. It is a "magic spell" copied from FCC certification paper without any understanding of its meaning.
This is the thing that makes this whole article a complete bullshit and with high probability just yet another fake, as many articles in biology and medicine are.
Interesting, how many articles from same Nature about coronahoax you accept as facts? I hope zero. Then why do you think this article is somehow different? Just because it support a narrative you like? But it is still a narrative, and it is still a fraudlent article for the sake of publishing article.
Science is not about things you like.
There is no single study about any other effects that is written scientifically and replicated.
"Facts" you see in all that stidies is no any different from "facts" from coronahoax studies, published in same journals.
Unfortunately, today 95% of biochemistry/medical studies are unreplicateable garbage or just fraudlent. There is absolutely no sense to blindly believe any without heavy critical analisys. And if any inconsistency is found, study should be discarded.
UHF therapy device have around 30-300W of power with directed antennas. 10-15 minutes of UHF therapy a day is much more energy than whole day with actively transmitting phone.
It is not wise to heat a fetuse in a womb. Regardless of a method.
This is not a reason to run around and yell bullshit about f.e. "There is awful poisonous aluminium oxide found in <whatever food>!!!".
There is real and obvious harm of cellular phones and smartphones for people. They are used by corporations and authorities for surveillance and control of population. Isn't that enough to make a good, honest and undeniable anti-modern-mobile propaganda? But instead of fighting or mitigating this real harm, I see tons of bullshit "studies", memes, posts and other fearmongering in all areas except the main and only real one.
This is insanity.
Instead of trying to scare audience with yet another bullshit, why don't you try to write a post that explain how any phone with OS and software from Apple, Google and other shitty corporations constantly steal and sell user private data, even private data of user contacts, user time (through ugly and idiotic interface), and whole user life spent in stupid applications? It is much more harmful for human brain and life than any possible tiny heating of human body surface layers with a very moderate RF power.
You're clearly in denial.
"oxidative stress, disruption of membranes, disruption of blood brain barrier, and reproductive harm at low intensity levels of wifi and cell phone RF. " as I already stated. If you don't know that, you've never seriously studied the literature.
You've fallen into the trap that Dr Cindy Russell pointed out in that presentation. The engineer or physicist writes off all biological effects with some factoid they learned in school. "It is non-ionizing", or "all it can do is heat" then you set the safety limit to the thermal threshold and call it a day.
Sorry but that is pure and simple denial.
I'm seeing your secondary tactic is to overanalyze a health study you are shown to paint all other studies (99% which you will never read) with a broad brush.
Sorry but you don't get to dismiss every study based on one or two you've nitpicked. You don't get to dismiss the 100 studies reviewed by Igor Yakymenko on oxidative effects https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26151230/. You don't get to dismiss the series of studies by Salford on the blood brain barrier and cell phone radiation https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19345073/, nor do you get to dismiss the many studies cited in their literature of others who make similar findings.
You don't get to invoke some grand conspiracy among researchers (paid for by no one) to deny all the findings. The only conspiracy is on the corporate side with a trillion dollar industry who funds studies to muddy the waters.
Regardless of all that, the findings are what they are and will continue to be real and the effects continue to be reproduced using the same or similar frequency bands (even if not the exact phone model every time). Some use an actual phone or router. Others use a phone radiation simulator. But the same effects are shown over and over again.
Again, effects of what you are talking about? Authors didn't provide any sensible information that could be used to figure out what exactly they studied.
Yes, I deny garbage. This paper is a garbage and I carefully pointed out why exactly.
There is no such separate and special thing as "biological effects". Biology works on the same physical principles as all other things in the world. It is in no way special.
If you want to introduce some additional effect or principle, in addition to physical one, in biology or medicine, then you have to describe its exact mechanism on the lowest possible level and prove it on this level, prove it with a simple, replicateable and clean experiment, that EM wave of RF could interact with a matter in some new, unknown way. And only then, you will be able to bring some ground for your baseless statement about "biological effects".
Without that, any "study" you could bring will be nothing more than bullshit. Not any different from a study about "we give a drink to one group from a random puddle, and other group from a tap and get different results" without providing full chemical analysis of water from puddle and from tap and describing exact mechanisms that gave results observed. That's not a science, it is a mockery of science and sanity. "Study" you brought here is nothing more than senseless torture of mice for the sake of getting publication score.
I do. Review is not a replication. Review is not a discovery of a new way of RF interaction with a matter.
And it is a pattern already, when scientists fall to writing reviews of multiple studies, then it is a clear sign that they know shit about things they review.
It is not a coincidence that biology and medicine are infamous for a very high rate of "review studies", much higher than in all other areas together. You will not find "review studies" in optics or reology. You will not find "review studies" in thermodynamics or chemistry. Because there are no any need for them.
Also, "review studies" is known for dismissing all studies that does not fit reviewer point. So, I wouldn't be amased at all, if there is another 100 studies (probably of same garbage quality as 100 reviewed) that show complete opposite results.
There is no any findings. And the worst thing is that they don't need them. Current, completely broken state of biology and medicine is perfectly fine for making careers and acquiring funding, so nothing will change in observable future.
And then, people like you, pointing to that garbage, proclaim "its science!", just like that Fauci bastard, without even understanding how real science looks like. And no, publication in scientific journal does not make science from garbage.
But somehow new, undiscovered way of RF interaction with a matter didn't pop up yet . If you think it is normal, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Complete denial it is then. Not much point discussing further or sharing any studies with you. You already know any study that contradicts you is "garbage".
Exactly my point, you're stuck in the physicist's trap. You demand something that isn't required to show harm, an underlying mechanism. There are some proposed underlying mechanisms, but it's not yet clear. However the harm is still clear regardless. That's all there is to it.
And to "untrap" I, obviously have to believe in some unproven and poorly written garbage.
No, thank you. I don't need that unscientific shit to know that modern cellphone infrastructure, including social media is harmful for people. I don't need to refer to some authority to understand the harm and how exactly, and by whom it is done to the people.
Harm of what exactly? How do you know it is RF, if no any RF parameters measured and even RF presence is not proven?
So no proof that such mechanisms exist. Case closed.
If a scientist don't care about what is really happens in his experiment, then he is not a scientist.
Even if we don't take into account that none of studies you believe in was independently replicated, you still don't want to know harm of what exactly was studied. Just like that "scientists" who published their papers.
Interesting, that you are obviously trying not to convince me that phones are harmful, because I already know that, and seems that I know much more about that than you, but to convince me to believe in some papers written by some ignorant people who actually don't know shit about things they write about.
Do you understand that you are trying to do exactly same harm, corporations and authorities do using phones? Force people to blindly believe in some narrative, referring to some "experts". Looks like you are on the same side. It does not matter what narrative is pushed, the main thing is to break critical thinking and force subject to blindly believe some "authority".