The Daily Blog Open Mic – Sunday – 29th May 2016

ByThe Daily Blog

openmike

 

Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.

– Advertisement –

Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.

 

Similar Posts

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 Comments

  1. Smart meters are effectively cellphones.

    Major US study links cell phone radiation to cancer

    http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html

    Big news! This week, a new peer-reviewed study was published by the National Toxicology Program. This U.S. study cost 25 million dollars and took a decade to complete. The researchers exposed rats to whole body cellphone radiation (RFR), and found an increased risk for brain and heart tumors. The study summary includes, “Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to RFR could have broad implications for public health.”

    The news of this study was released yesterday. Mother Jones called it a “game-changing study”, and stated “It’s the moment we’ve all been dreading.”

    The Wall Street Journal reported, “A major U.S. government study on rats has found a link between cellphones and cancer, an explosive finding in the long-running debate about whether mobile phones cause health effects.”

    And surprisingly, the IEEE reported that Dr. Kenneth Foster, an outspoken critic of the link between RFR and health effects, expressed concern. The IEEE reported: “With the NTP study results, Foster expects more governments to put out cautionary guidelines and radiation labeling for cellphones. He says he wouldn’t be surprised if California adds RF radiation to its Proposition 65 list of carcinogenic chemicals, and if the IARC ups its classification rating from 2B: possibly carcinogenic to humans to 2A: probably carcinogenic to humans. “And they wouldn’t be out of line in doing that,” he says. “This is going to change the rhetoric in the field. People can point to much more hard evidence that [cellphone RF exposure] really is a problem.”

    More information about this study can be found here:

    http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html

    Reply