>>10719646Things people don't understand about RF research:
-Dose response is nonlinear, often in all dimensions. Duration of exposure, power density, frequency.
-Modulation and field polarization is important. You don't want a homogeneous field, you want animals moving around in a realistic exposure scenario. The former will tend to mask effects that would occur in real world exposures.
-There's a difference between near field and far field exposure.
-It's no longer funded in general. You have to go back to the 70's and 80's, or Soviet work, for these kinds of meticulously executed studies.
People think newer = better. For some reason however, brand new papers are too new, and newer papers and reviews that should make quite an impact, do nothing. Why is this? Many people don't actually have any intention of thinking or assessing risk for themselves. So you're stuck with the regulatory blockade, and clear indication of its corruption. In the case of WHO we have hard data suggesting they don't expose themselves to this. There was no wifi nor cell phone emissions in the WHO.
All of this makes it hard to communicate it to people. I don't know what the solution is. There's also clear censorship. I first came to 4chan ~2010, and I guess the false wild west way the internet seemed in the 00's really suckered me in, and I briefly held delusions of the internet affording rapid iteration. Now we're here and the moderators are deleting threads about one of the greatest threats our species has ever faced.
Yes, wireless initiates and promotes cancer. But it also sterilizes you, damages your DNA, and causes brain damage. As brain function continues to deteriorate, and we move towards population level irreversible infertility, it is unlikely we'll have the capacity even as individuals to solve the problems ahead.
