The electromagnetic field of our planet protects us from most of those rays.
No, it doesn't. The electromagnetic field doesn't do anything to rays. However, it protects against solar winds and pushes some of those particles to the earths poles. Where you can see it as Northern lights / Southern lights. Solar winds are not rays, but high speed particles.
Our atmosphere and ozone layer however, protects us again some of the rays, but not all. Radio waves, visible light, UV goes straight down to the surface. Gamma rays gets absorbed in the atmosphere. Why do you think we have to send our gamma rays telescopes out in orbit, while the radio-telescopes / visible light telescopes can stay here on the surface? How can we have functionally radio telescopes on the surface if the atmosphere absorbs radio waves?
That's a total fallacy. Radio waves are capable of damaging cells there are various studies and research about it. Please do yourself the favor and read the manual of your wireless devices about the international guidelines (ICNIRP) on exposure to radio frequencies (Non-Ionising Radiation) and its SAR (Specific Absorption Rate).
Of course it says in the mobile phones manual that it can be harmful. They just protects them-self against big lawsuits. It says at my smoothie machine that I should never put my fingers down in the cutters when its on. No shit.
I will quote the Norwegian health department on this one:
Cancer
In a large number population studies, scientists have studied the incidence of brain tumors and looked after association with the use of mobile phones. Overall, it is not found convincing evidence that those who have used cell phones for 15 years or shorter period increased risk of brain cancer.
A few results show an increased risk, but these studies emerges as less probable because risks increase would have emerged as an increased incidence of gliomas in the population. Such increased incidence is not observed through cancer registries in among other Nordic countries.
A degree of uncertainty is associated with very extensive cell phone use. For mobile phone use in longer than 15-20 years there is not data. For children and adolescents, there is one population study that we can support us. This is done in the Nordic and does not exclude a small increase in risk, but follow-up time is short and the results uncertain. Continued monitoring of these cancers through the Nordic cancer registries is therefore important.
.
There are many animal studies. These provide no further evidence that exposure to weak RF field causes cancer.
From base stations and radio and TV transmitters are very small exposure, and data suggest that such low exposure does not involve cancer risk.
Source
Indeed, radio waves permeate straight through our bodies.. just like X-rays?
X-rays can penetrate flesh, but gets reflected back when it hits the bone. That why we can see the bone with x-rays. X-rays have shorter wavelength than radio waves, therefor more energy in those rays than radio waves. The X- rays machines by the way, is a bit more powerful then Iphone's and Samsung's too.
We actually do have more cancer patients now than back in the '90s -- but we also have a larger population, and more T obviously.
Well. You said it yourself. We have more people now, therefor more cancer. Nothing to do with mobile phones.
Red-ish line is brain cancer among women, gray-ish line is brain cancer among men here in Norway.
This graph is relative to population. As you can see, no increase in brain cancer what so ever after 1990 when the cell phones started to come to the marked. No increase in brain cancer after WiFi started to be popular after 2000 either.
When there is no connection between A and B. In this case, mobile phones and brain cancer. The symptom of this is studies that goes in all direction, because there is no true connection. You can get whatever result you want. When you see at studies between lung cancer and tobacco, there is no doubt, all studies show the same. There is a connection between A and B.
Member
