We Have No Reason to Believe G Is Safe Scientific American Blog Network

      Comments Off on We Have No Reason to Believe G Is Safe Scientific American Blog Network

Nonetheless, without carrying out a proper risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA these days reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 publicity limits in a letter to the FCC, pointing out that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the present criteria are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings are usually not be utilized to human cell phone usage. ” The letter stated that “the accessible clinical evidence to date does not aid antagonistic health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the latest limits. ”Since 5G is a new era, there is not any analysis on health outcomes, so we are “flying blind” to cite a U. S. senator.

However, we’ve plentiful evidence concerning the harmful outcomes of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10 year old era, as a result of governments were remiss in funding this analysis. Meanwhile, we are seeing raises in sure sorts of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which could be as a minimum partially caused by the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with outcome from case control stories of tumor risk in heavy cellphone users.

See also  The basics: types of fraud that start it all Blog