Google is complicit in intentionally misrepresenting the risks of EMF Radiation
They know most people only read the headline
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Google is complicit in intentionally misrepresenting the risks of EMF Radiation
ok, now tell me whether this increases cancer risk more than going outside on a sunny day
I dont see how this is relevant. Everyone knows sun exposure causes cancer.
but do you know that residential areas have less plant growth so they protect you from sunlight less?
What does EMF have to do with cities being shit to live in?
It is actually more worrying that pavement doesn't absorb light and reflects solar radiation right back at you than a radio tower 2km away.
Buddy. Stop deflecting. People who care about cancer prevention wont be spending time in the sun
you don't have trees inside of residential areas? sounds like you live in a backwards shithole
here the government forces every building to have at least 4 trees in front of it, over the last few decades my city has become much and much greener despite being in the desert
WRONG
Humans have been living with the sun for hundreds of thousands of years
It's SUNSCREEN that causes cancer
UV radiation causes Cytosine-Thymine bridging. It literally breaks DNA. Genes to protect and repair (NER) against this were amongst the first to evolve and have literally stuck with us since we were single celled.
sunscreens are (arguably) correlated with an increase in the rate of cancer diagnosis*
That's all your image says, you don't know how to read or even think. Very very sad sad! sad!!
In moron terms: sun radiates harmful radiation by itself. The distance and the atmosphere protect your puny human ass from getting rekt right away. One of the major problems in human space travel to other planets, like Mars, is the prolonged exposure to the space n sun radiation in a vacuum. Human body likely won't welcome it.
Yes, sunscreen might cause disease, but so does the natural radiation from the sun. Best defense is to be in the shadows. Everybody will tell you that. Every adequate doctor too.
TL;DR: Sun Radiation bad. Stay in the shadows.
Beach going culture is a rather recent phenomenon.
farming is not
Clothes arent either
>It's SUNSCREEN that causes cancer
obviously, only morons would believe otherwise, the cancer industry is a multibillion industry. Nevertheless, I avoid sun exposure
true redpill is that nothing really causes cancer
all diseases and especially cancer are psychologically induced and therefore mental illnesses
totally wrong, there are many known contributing factors to cancer, but they are always swept under the rug like you are doing now
biggest contributing factors are:
>age
>genetics
>pollution
in that order, if you are affected by first two, you shouldn't receive any help beyond offer for euthanasia
no
dont act like you avoid the sun on purpose.
>It's SUNSCREEN that causes cancer
You can't possibly be this gullible.
also coorelates with increased consumption of processed foods
>>>/x/
Government asset identified
stop asking questions
Those are two are different things moron. Do people not know how to read anymore?
ELF-EMF (Extremely low frequency - Electromagnetic fields)
is different from EMF it only includes the 0-100 kHz range (from radio to infrared light).
EMF is all the spectrum including xray, gamma ray, ultraviolet.
You are missing the point (intentionally)
It is about deceptive search results to suit government and corporate interests
Take your meds schizo
Goverment asset identified
>goggle lied
good morning. you're about 20 years too late to notice the subtle censorship and lies from goggles.
>goggles not good anymore
oh noes! Anyway,..
Well a study showing an indication can be contradicted by another. experimental conditions, experiment design, sample size, and the statistical tools used to measure the outcomes can lead to differing results. Human knowledge, scientifically, builds on top of previous research innit. Once a study is published it's not set in stone, it just adds to the pool of scientific knowledge. Maybe you should read more than just the abstracts, this is the sort of shit you learn in the first year of a STEM degree.
Through what mechanism? You can't explain that because it doesn't exist, publishing bias is a hell of a drug.
Are you moronic? The blurb right at top indicates high energy emf can cause DNA damage.
Here, I got the rest of that sentence for you
>A survey of the literature indicates that residential exposure to EMFs is associated to an increased risk of cancers, particularly breast cancer, brain tumors, and leukemias. However, most of these studies are based on small numbers of high field-exposed cases [16,35,36] and an increasing number of studies does not support an epidemiologic association of adult cancers with residential MFs [35,36,37].
ok so it is proven that emf radiation is in fact safe. thanks government asset!
>They know most people only read the headline
OP, hilariously falling for the same fricking thing he claims others are falling for.
wait until you find out that nothing is more carcinogenic than the air you breathe - our mitochondria + oxygen = free radicals.
#stopbreathing
Having an association (which could be caused anything in this case, like living in modern society in general) and having identified a mechanism whereby EMFs could cause damage are not the same thing
Not seeing the deception here
>No mechanism
>Meta analysis of other studies
These aren't the same thing you moronic Black person. The first one asserts that no mechanism has been identified for ELF to cause cancer, the other is the results of a meta analysis of epidemiological data. Both can be true, since a known mechanism isn't required to observe an effect. Holy shit, I hope you get cancer.
Oh so now we trust the soience?
it's well know that basement dwelling neets are doomed