Every major study in this field, including the Interphone study (initially intended to demonstrate the safety of cell phone radiation), Hardell group studies, CERENAT study, U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), Ramazzini Institute Study, REFLEX Project, BioInitiative Report, and the work of life-long researchers in the field like Dr. Henry Lai just to name a few, have all pointed towards an increased health risk from cell phone level electromagnetic radiation.
These studies collectively suggest a need for caution in dismissing potential risks. As Prof. Caffrey discusses the use of energy waves in cell phone communication, it’s important to acknowledge the advancements in RF radiation research that show biological interactions beyond thermal effects, as demonstrated in treatments like TheraBionic. This treatment approved by the FDA employs RF radiation at power levels up to 1000 times lower than those emitted by cell phones, effectively treating inoperable liver cancer.
This clearly proves the expert opinions wrong!
The therapeutic action of TheraBionic and similar treatments lies not in the thermal effects of RF radiation but in more subtle, non-thermal interactions at the cellular or molecular level. These include resonance effects, disruption of cellular signaling, and potential modulation of the immune system. This contradicts the traditional view that non-ionizing radiation is biologically inert, except for its heating properties.
Rapscallion @RF Safe It’s so fascinating that you have access to this massive body of studies that the experts are hiding from everyone else. Can you share your sources?
@Rapscallion To some degree I’ve spent every day of my life researching this issue over the last 25 years. It’s not hidden, the experts falling in line just fail to mention it.
Mooretep @RF Safe No Beaches, Bananas or Airplanes for you.
@Mooretep Funny! I live within walking distance of one of the most beautiful beaches in the world for vitamin D. Also eat a banana a day, but smart enough to know when to use Airplane mode on my cell phone. 🙂
SP – If you’re actually interested in challenging your own perspective on this matter, you could easily Google the many studies that the commenter listed…
@SP the quality of the studies matters. I simply posted the world’s largest and most cited studies on cell phone radiation. Take the NTP study, for example: a $25 million study in the USA, over a decade in planning and execution, culminating in a two-year study. The results? ‘Clear evidence.’ The RI study later reinforced the exact same finding.
I do hope everyone reading this will indeed Google search these studies to compare them with the real hard facts about the potential risks of excessive exposure to non-ionizing levels of RF radiation.
I doubt it’s a coincidence that the richest man in the world, who is launching a new version of satellites into space—each equipped with an eNodeB modem, i.e., a space-borne cell tower—Elon Musk, appeared on the Lex Fridman Podcast, claiming people were too dumb to understand cell phone radiation.
Is it also a coincidence that The New York Times would make such an effort to dumb down the public at the same time? No Escape but Mars! LOL
Rapscallion – I could not do their work for them. Just listing a bunch of names with no actual citations to the work isn’t helpful, nor does it help the reader know that the studies are being accurately portrayed. As discussed in the article, all the studies in this area that suggest a potential link between cell phones and health consequences have either been debunked or do not actually show evidence of a link.