There is a pile of citations that I personally reviewed in the documentary Take Back Your Power. I had them at my fingertips for several years but don’t have them collected on my current computer. But they are in that film.
I will review that video and scrub for citations. There seems to be no citation list for it anywhere - not on his website nor as a collection at the end of the video. Upon searching for the citation list so I could prepare in advance of watching the video, I notice several red flags on his website: Almost no activity in four years, seeming paytriot scheme on his website, and number stretching in a two year old article that is his second most recent post (which is also telling you to buy his stuff) - "20,000,000 uw". That's 20 milliwatts. Milliwatts are an everyday measurement used in energy measurement for both wired and wireless transmissions - there's no reason to multiple it by a million to give you nanowatts unless you are trying to create a scary sounding number.
These were long term studies on 2G and 3G signals. (Remember that when they studies started, 3G was The Devil! like 4G and now 5G became) What they showed is that if you expose rats and mice to a cell phones maximum transmission power for 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off 9 hours a day for your entire life (including in-utero), you have an uptick in cancers. This is at a power level of 1.5 watts per kilogram in rats and 2.5 watts per kilogram in mice. And, in order for the uptick to be statistically relevant to the control population, you need to do the same cycle of use at 4x the power a cell phone can legally transmit at.
Basically, these studies say that if you are 200 pounds, you will need a cell phone strapped to your head that's transmitting at least 135 watts. 4.5 hours per day. For your entire life. All for a small increase in cancer risk. On the plus side, you won't miss leg days now that you'd have to carry a car battery at about 20 pounds to run this contraption for 4.5 hours every day.
Studies like these are what goes into the fear mongering about the wireless spectrum and they attempt to invoke the precautionary principle - which is dangerous bullshit designed to put all the power into the hands of our elite overlords. The problem is that instead of any nuance about relative risks, transmission strength versus distance, or that sort of thing, the message is always "cell phones cause cancer! It's proved!"
I own an EMF meter and have personally measured exposures in my daily life from normal usage situations that exceed the exposure level that is documented in studies. Again I don’t have the citations but I did 10 years ago and personally read the papers that documented these figures. These are in μW/m2.
Minimum needed for cell phone: 0.000002
Pine needles age prematurely: 0.27
Children experience headache, irritation, concentration difficulties, behavioral problems: 500
A German regulatory agency marks extreme concern at this level: 1000
Without context, those numbers mean nothing and they are such small emissions that they are meaningless.
Minimum needed from cell phones is 0.000002 nanowatts? Minimum needed for what? Im pretty sure that's single electron levels of energy, there.
Then, id have to ask: what kind of heart exposure was measured? Direct tissue (petridish) or insitu? If insitu, what was the methodology? Were these models? Surveys? Data dredges?
The surveys I gave you showed directed emissions millions of times more powerful than your numbers and showed little effect at extreme and near constant exposure.
Look, I recognize that you are not keen to agree with anything I or Shanahan are saying and that I must produce fully cited evidence to progress in this conversation, and I don’t have the time to do so, and it’s possible that the cell phone thing was a transcription error I made 11 years ago. So I will close the conversation. Maybe as MAHA proceeds you’ll come across the scientific support for this perspective elsewhere. Good day.
There is a pile of citations that I personally reviewed in the documentary Take Back Your Power. I had them at my fingertips for several years but don’t have them collected on my current computer. But they are in that film.
I will review that video and scrub for citations. There seems to be no citation list for it anywhere - not on his website nor as a collection at the end of the video. Upon searching for the citation list so I could prepare in advance of watching the video, I notice several red flags on his website: Almost no activity in four years, seeming paytriot scheme on his website, and number stretching in a two year old article that is his second most recent post (which is also telling you to buy his stuff) - "20,000,000 uw". That's 20 milliwatts. Milliwatts are an everyday measurement used in energy measurement for both wired and wireless transmissions - there's no reason to multiple it by a million to give you nanowatts unless you are trying to create a scary sounding number.
I'll leave you with two citations in return for my homework assignment (i picked up two from this thread! This actually makes me happy!). https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr595_508.pdf and https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr596_508.pdf
These were long term studies on 2G and 3G signals. (Remember that when they studies started, 3G was The Devil! like 4G and now 5G became) What they showed is that if you expose rats and mice to a cell phones maximum transmission power for 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off 9 hours a day for your entire life (including in-utero), you have an uptick in cancers. This is at a power level of 1.5 watts per kilogram in rats and 2.5 watts per kilogram in mice. And, in order for the uptick to be statistically relevant to the control population, you need to do the same cycle of use at 4x the power a cell phone can legally transmit at.
Basically, these studies say that if you are 200 pounds, you will need a cell phone strapped to your head that's transmitting at least 135 watts. 4.5 hours per day. For your entire life. All for a small increase in cancer risk. On the plus side, you won't miss leg days now that you'd have to carry a car battery at about 20 pounds to run this contraption for 4.5 hours every day.
Studies like these are what goes into the fear mongering about the wireless spectrum and they attempt to invoke the precautionary principle - which is dangerous bullshit designed to put all the power into the hands of our elite overlords. The problem is that instead of any nuance about relative risks, transmission strength versus distance, or that sort of thing, the message is always "cell phones cause cancer! It's proved!"
I own an EMF meter and have personally measured exposures in my daily life from normal usage situations that exceed the exposure level that is documented in studies. Again I don’t have the citations but I did 10 years ago and personally read the papers that documented these figures. These are in μW/m2.
Minimum needed for cell phone: 0.000002
Pine needles age prematurely: 0.27
Children experience headache, irritation, concentration difficulties, behavioral problems: 500
A German regulatory agency marks extreme concern at this level: 1000
Decreased sperm viability. Headache, dizziness, irritability, fatigue, weakness, insomnia, chest pain, difficulty breathing, indigestion: 10,000
Altered calcium metabolism in the heart: 25,000
Changes in hippocampus affecting memory and learning: 40,000
DNA damage in cells: 60,000
Single “smart meter”: 79,300
Avoidance reflex following 30-minute exposure: 100,000
Lowest safety standard in US/Canada: 6,000,000
Without context, those numbers mean nothing and they are such small emissions that they are meaningless.
Minimum needed from cell phones is 0.000002 nanowatts? Minimum needed for what? Im pretty sure that's single electron levels of energy, there.
Then, id have to ask: what kind of heart exposure was measured? Direct tissue (petridish) or insitu? If insitu, what was the methodology? Were these models? Surveys? Data dredges?
The surveys I gave you showed directed emissions millions of times more powerful than your numbers and showed little effect at extreme and near constant exposure.
Look, I recognize that you are not keen to agree with anything I or Shanahan are saying and that I must produce fully cited evidence to progress in this conversation, and I don’t have the time to do so, and it’s possible that the cell phone thing was a transcription error I made 11 years ago. So I will close the conversation. Maybe as MAHA proceeds you’ll come across the scientific support for this perspective elsewhere. Good day.