Kachi188:


Bro, the EM waves generated from a phone cannot boil an egg, fullstop.....leave physics please

wats ur proof? if u give me proof, den I'll av no reason to doubt. if u've cum across d 'quantum black hole' den u wld knw dat an em waves of such amount can cause such havoc

liquidsnake:


Well done.

So how long did the fully charged Nokia phone last before the battery ran out?...SMH

Second, the SAR, specific absorption rate, of phones is set at maximum 1.6 watts per kilogram. This is insufficient to increase measurably a body's temperature. Talkless of cooking an egg!!

Let's even assume that the SAR stated above is enough, it would require continuous exposure for long periods of time.

So well done. The phone cooked your story well. Abi?

SMH indeed! You're talking about thermal effects while the topic is more of the non-thermal and extremely low frequency RFR.

Must you comment and expose your ignorance?

linearity:

Nice write up I must say and you definitely have some research, but you are stretching the truth. It appear, you picked a side of a coin and devote all your attention to it, clearly ignoring the other data.

I will like to use the international standard bodies you mention viz WHO and FDA to defunct your conclusions:
.

Are you aware of the National Toxicology Program study released this year?

If not, then just waka pass!!!

I beg of you.

jnrremedy:
Oga sorry to say oo but u are the real ignoramus here. what you typed here is totally different from what the poor guy u called ignoramus said.
Electromagnetic waves from phones( usually referred to as radiofrequency wave) does not have any biological heating effects whatesoever (even on a cell).
hope u are better informed now
NB am an authority on this issue. As a Public Health Environmetal Health Scientist and i have given a scientific presentation on this topic.
Gracias

You know nothing going by your semi-illiterate assertions you posted above (highlighted). Obviously, you've wasted your years (I hope) by not paying close attention to your teachers.

No biological effect from RFR

Goodness! If this were the Middle Ages, you have just argued yourself into a pot of boiling oil!!

What hole have you been hibernating in for the past 2 decades? Giving errors in presentation, half-knowledge indeed is a dangerous thing.

Please find below just a few of quite credible studies from around the world that were reported since 1999, showing health effects from non-thermal radiation and, apparently, have been overlooked by your pseudo-lecturer-scientists who refused to teach you the truth being fond of cash over their conscience:

REFLEX Report, (December 2004) Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using sensitive in vitro Methods, A project funded by the European Union under the programme "Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources".
"Twelve institutes in seven countries have found genotoxic effects and modified expressions on numerous genes and proteins after Radio frequency and extremely low frequency EMF exposure at low levels, below current international safety guidance, to living cells in-vitro. These results confirm the likelihood of long-term genetic damage in the blood and brains of users of mobile phones and other sources of electromagnetic fields. The idea behind the REFLEX study was to attempt replicate damage already reported to see if the effects were real and whether, or not, more money should be spent of research into the possible adverse health effects of EMF exposure. They concluded that in-vitro damage is real and that it is important to carry out much more research, especially monitoring the long-term health of people."

Eger H et al, (November 2004) The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer, Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft 17, 4 2004.
"Newly diagnosed cancers were significantly higher among those who had lived for 10 years within 400 metres of the mast, in operation since 1993, compared with those living further away, and the patients had fallen ill on average 8 years earlier. People living within 400 metres of the mast in Naila had three times the risk of developing cancer than those living further away. This seems to be an undeniable clustering of cancer cases."

Oberfeld G et al, (October 2004) The Microwave Syndrome - Further Aspects of a Spanish Study, Conference Proceedings.
"The adjusted (sex, age, distance) logistic regression model showed statistically significant positive exposure-response associations between the E-field and the following variables: fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss of appetite, sleeping disorder, depressive tendency, feeling of discomfort, difficulty in concentration, loss of memory, visual disorder, dizziness and cardiovascular problems. The inclusion of the distance, which might be a proxy for the sometimes raised "concerns explanation", did not alter the model substantially."

Hallberg O, Johansson O, (July 2004) Malignant melanoma of the skin - not a sunshine story!, Med Sci Monit. 2004 Jul;10(7):CR336-40.
"A good correlation in time was found for the rollout of FM/TV broadcasting networks while the increased amount of "sun travel" by air (charter) did not start until 7 years after the melanoma trend break in 1955. Counties that did not roll out their FM-broadcasting network until several years after 1955 continued to have a stable melanoma mortality during the intervening years. The increased incidence and mortality of melanoma of skin cannot solely be explained by increased exposure to UV-radiation from the sun. We conclude that continuous disturbance of cell repair mechanisms by body-resonant electromagnetic fields seems to amplify the carcinogenic effects resulting from cell damage caused e.g. by UV-radiation.

Boscol et al. reported that RFR from radio transmission stations affected immunological system in women [Effects of electromagnetic fields produced by radiotelevision broadcasting stations on the immune system of women. Sci. Total Environ 273:1-10, 2001].
Salford et al. (2003) have shown that extremely low doses of GSM radiation can cause brain damage in rats. The authors reported nerve damage following a single two-hour exposure at a SAR of 2 mW/kg. They showed that RF energy can impair the BBB, but they added that the chemicals that leak through the BBB probably damage neurons in the cortex, the hippocampus and the basal ganglia of the brain. The cortex is close to the surface of the skull, while the basal ganglia are much deeper...

BioInitiative Report, August 2007. An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has released its peer-reviewed report on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health. By reviewing more than 2000 peer-reviewed studies, they document serious scientific concerns about current limits regulating how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life. The report concludes that the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health.

Clark, M.L. et al, “Biomonitoring of Estrogen and melatonin metabolites among women residing near radio and television radio broadcasting transmitters” concluded that RF and temporally stable 60 Hz exposures were associated with increased E1G excretion among post-menopausal women. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2007;49: 1149-1156.

You inbox me for more evidence! If you dare, that is, to swallow your ignorance.

mojeer678:


You know nothing going by your semi-illiterate assertions you posted above (highlighted). Obviously, you've wasted your years (I hope) by not paying close attention to your teachers.

No biological effect from RFR

Goodness! If this were the Middle Ages, you have just argued yourself into a pot of boiling oil!!

What hole have you been hibernating in for the past 2 decades? Giving errors in presentation, half-knowledge indeed is a dangerous thing.

Please find below just a few of quite credible studies from around the world that were reported since 1999, showing health effects from non-thermal radiation and, apparently, have been overlooked by your pseudo-lecturer-scientists who refused to teach you the truth being fond of cash over their conscience:

REFLEX Report, (December 2004) Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using sensitive in vitro Methods, A project funded by the European Union under the programme "Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources".
"Twelve institutes in seven countries have found genotoxic effects and modified expressions on numerous genes and proteins after Radio frequency and extremely low frequency EMF exposure at low levels, below current international safety guidance, to living cells in-vitro. These results confirm the likelihood of long-term genetic damage in the blood and brains of users of mobile phones and other sources of electromagnetic fields. The idea behind the REFLEX study was to attempt replicate damage already reported to see if the effects were real and whether, or not, more money should be spent of research into the possible adverse health effects of EMF exposure. They concluded that in-vitro damage is real and that it is important to carry out much more research, especially monitoring the long-term health of people."

Eger H et al, (November 2004) The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer, Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft 17, 4 2004.
"Newly diagnosed cancers were significantly higher among those who had lived for 10 years within 400 metres of the mast, in operation since 1993, compared with those living further away, and the patients had fallen ill on average 8 years earlier. People living within 400 metres of the mast in Naila had three times the risk of developing cancer than those living further away. This seems to be an undeniable clustering of cancer cases."

Oberfeld G et al, (October 2004) The Microwave Syndrome - Further Aspects of a Spanish Study, Conference Proceedings.
"The adjusted (sex, age, distance) logistic regression model showed statistically significant positive exposure-response associations between the E-field and the following variables: fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss of appetite, sleeping disorder, depressive tendency, feeling of discomfort, difficulty in concentration, loss of memory, visual disorder, dizziness and cardiovascular problems. The inclusion of the distance, which might be a proxy for the sometimes raised "concerns explanation", did not alter the model substantially."

Hallberg O, Johansson O, (July 2004) Malignant melanoma of the skin - not a sunshine story!, Med Sci Monit. 2004 Jul;10(7):CR336-40.
"A good correlation in time was found for the rollout of FM/TV broadcasting networks while the increased amount of "sun travel" by air (charter) did not start until 7 years after the melanoma trend break in 1955. Counties that did not roll out their FM-broadcasting network until several years after 1955 continued to have a stable melanoma mortality during the intervening years. The increased incidence and mortality of melanoma of skin cannot solely be explained by increased exposure to UV-radiation from the sun. We conclude that continuous disturbance of cell repair mechanisms by body-resonant electromagnetic fields seems to amplify the carcinogenic effects resulting from cell damage caused e.g. by UV-radiation.

Boscol et al. reported that RFR from radio transmission stations affected immunological system in women [Effects of electromagnetic fields produced by radiotelevision broadcasting stations on the immune system of women. Sci. Total Environ 273:1-10, 2001].
Salford et al. (2003) have shown that extremely low doses of GSM radiation can cause brain damage in rats. The authors reported nerve damage following a single two-hour exposure at a SAR of 2 mW/kg. They showed that RF energy can impair the BBB, but they added that the chemicals that leak through the BBB probably damage neurons in the cortex, the hippocampus and the basal ganglia of the brain. The cortex is close to the surface of the skull, while the basal ganglia are much deeper...

BioInitiative Report, August 2007. An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has released its peer-reviewed report on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health. By reviewing more than 2000 peer-reviewed studies, they document serious scientific concerns about current limits regulating how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life. The report concludes that the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health.

Clark, M.L. et al, “Biomonitoring of Estrogen and melatonin metabolites among women residing near radio and television radio broadcasting transmitters” concluded that RF and temporally stable 60 Hz exposures were associated with increased E1G excretion among post-menopausal women. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2007;49: 1149-1156.

You inbox me for more evidence! If you dare, that is, to swallow your ignorance.

mr researcher its quite unfortunate that am just seeing your unintelligent and ignorant reply. i never said EMF did not have biological effect (refer back to my post and intelligently reread like a normal human (or pretend to be even if u are not). and for your information i said EMF from cell phones has no BIOLOGICAL HEATING EFFECT. if u are really as intelligent as u seems u will understand the difference
all the papers your listed above i reviewed more than half and up till now non of those papers has been unanimously accepted by the body of science. personally i believe some of them are scientifically accurate work but that will still not erase the scientific fact that there is still no convincing evidence to support their findings