(no title)
adsfqwop | 6 years ago
If I say A is dangerous because of X, it is a logical fallacy to say B is safe because lack of X.
Lack of X is not an argument for safety, therefore you cannot use lack of ionization as any form of proof for safety. The only thing you can say, is that it does not ionize. It does not say anything else related to any other biological effects.
With regards to the mechanism and the observed effects in laboratory and animal experiments, here is the proposed pathophysiology:
https://i.imgur.com/xNzDsPo.png
If you want the TL;DR, the summary is: there are other ways to cause cellular and genetic disruption, than just ionizing radiation or by heating effects.
And yes, we have a good grip on the science: here is a graph of peer-reviewed scientific publications, showing biological effects much below current exposure limits:
https://i.imgur.com/14uxRru.png
The problem is, this science has not been incorporated into the current safety standards. This science shows, there exists non-thermal non-ionizing mechanisms of harm, that have not been taken into consideration.
But if you trust the over 20 year old FCC guidelines, then of course you will think everything is fine.
It is not a question of being scared, it is a question of looking at the science, and updating our understanding, and then look at the technology with this new understanding, so that we can make it safer.
SigmundA|6 years ago
Maybe we haven't found it yet, and we should always keep looking, but it is no more likely to be caused by microwave or visible light at this point.
The images you posted are to a paper done by Martin L. Pall who is a known scaremonger for EMF and has been met with skepticism [1]. It certainly is not proof of microwave being dangerous to the human body at power levels emitted by cellphones, its a theory that has yet do be proven of a possible pathway that is non thermal.
1. https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2020/01/15/int...
s9w|6 years ago