FCC ruled that current exposure limits are not based on a full review of the current science-that in fact, no federal agency has conducted such a full review, although they all give semi-reassurances of safety on their public information websites. Last year a federal judge in Environmental Health Trust v. No major insurers or reinsurers will cover liability for the wireless industry should the emissions from their wireless devices and infrastructure cause health harm to users-why? because they have looked at the evidence and they don't want to lose their shirts on another tobacco debacle. Despite the fact that there were already concerns expressed by the EPA iby 1980 regarding the carcinogenicity of RF and the adequacy of the FCC exposure limits (before EPA studies were defunded), and already by the 1970s the Navy had compiled over a thousand studies showing biological effects at low intensity levels, and already a great majority of the modern studies are showing biological effects of EMF at levels that are not supposed to be biologically active according to the now out-dated thermal paradigm (which itself was based on animal behavior studies and "hunches" back in the last century), and despite the fact that the NIEHS/National Toxicology Program found "clear evidence of carcinogenicity" at non-thermal levels of RF, backed up by the Ramazzini Institute's similar studies at even lower intensity levels-PBS and NPR seem to be uninterested in investigating and sharing findings - not industry PR - with the public. Submitted 10/16/22: I've been watching the science on electromagnetic fields, specifically power frequencies and wireless transmission frequencies, for 22 years.
0 kommentar(er)
