State Of California Says Cellphone Radiation (EMF) Is Unsafe And Causes Brain Cancer

Discussion in 'Scientific Studies' started by haidut, Mar 15, 2017.

  1. haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    10,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    Little by little, the truth is coming out. If you are interested in the state report I recommend you download it now as the initial decision is being appealed and it will probably get pulled from the website if the appeal is successful. The real question is why was it kept "hidden for years" as the news report says...

    CDPH cell phone document April 2014.pdf
    Cellphone Radiation Exposure Fact Sheet Draft Released By California Health Officials
    "...After keeping it hidden for years, California’s Department of Public Health has released a draft document outlining health officials’ concerns about cellphone radiation exposure. The previously unpublished document was released this week after a judge indicated she would order the documents be disclosed in the case Moskowitz v. CDPH."

    "...Among the information in the document, which is titled simply, Cell Phones and Health, are summaries of scientific studies that suggest long-term cellphone use may increase the risk of brain cancer, among other health problems. The draft fact sheet states that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs), a type of radiation, are emitted from cellphones and that because they are “used frequently and kept close to the head and body, cellphone EMFs can affect nearby cells and tissues.”

    "...Health officials’ overall recommendation is to “increase the distance between you and your phone” by using a headset, the speaker phone function and text messaging. Health officials recommend not sleeping near your phone and not carry it in your pocket or directly on your body, unless it is off. The fact sheet also states that “EMFs can pass deeper into a child’s brain than and adult’s” so suggests parents limit their child’s cellphone use to texting, important call and emergencies."
     

    Attached Files:

  2. CoolTweetPete

    CoolTweetPete Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2015
    Messages:
    631
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Baffling that whoever hid this probably won't be charged as a criminal.
     
  3. milk_lover

    milk_lover Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,379
    Can they reengineer the cell phones so those emissions are reduced?

    Also I don't know if those are the same, but I heard Macbook pro laptops emit the most electromagnetic waves. Too bad because they are my favorite laptops aside from their prices.
     
  4. Such_Saturation

    Such_Saturation Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    6,562
    We've got a long way to go
    and a short time to get there
     
  5. Evgenius

    Evgenius Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Most people are so addicted to their handheld devices that they would probably ignore the facts and live with the consequences.
     
  6. pimpnamedraypeat

    pimpnamedraypeat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2014
    Messages:
    441
    Gender:
    Male
    saturated fats are protective of emf radiation
     
  7. Constatine

    Constatine Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2016
    Messages:
    1,046
    Gender:
    Male
    Just from reading your recent posts about the effects of electromagnetic fields on the body it terrifies me how much unnatural EMFs (even weaker ones) we are exposed to every day. And its just getting worse. Does anyone think grounding or earthing will nullify some of these negative effects? I'm sure correcting the body's charge will help but I don't think it will reverse any mitochondria damage.
     
  8. Ewlevy1

    Ewlevy1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2014
    Messages:
    697
    In light to this information, in your opinion, what would be a proper protocol to oppose this threat?
     
  9. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    10,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    Keep the phone away from your body, at least 2 feet if possible. Also, if possible leave the phone in another room before going to bed. There are threads on this forum about protecting from EMF. Selenium, magnesium and drugs like cyproheptadine may help.
     
  10. Marcus1000

    Marcus1000 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41
    Gender:
    Male
    I know this is a big topic in India aswell, I remember reading somewhere that they were using massive concrete blocks to fence off signals of new 4G cell-phone towers.

    Also found this interesting document from India, a huge compilation of possible health hazards due to cell-phone usage:
    https://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/GK-cell-tower-rad-report-DOT-Dec2010.pdf

    I know of two people who supposedly got cancer from phone usage.
    A male (20~ish y/o) got testicle cancer, he always had phone in his pocket and was very much with laptop on his lap throughout the day.
    A female (20~ish y/o) who got breast cancer, she was known to carry a cellphone all day in a chest pocket on her shirt, on the exact spot where they found the breast cancer...
    Of course these can be just coincidences, but I find it suspicious to say the least, since they were otherwise healthy young people with no family history of such problems at such young age.
     
  11. Ewlevy1

    Ewlevy1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2014
    Messages:
    697
    I put my phone on airplane mode when sleeping, thoughts? I also take cyproheptadine at night and do lots of epsom salt baths and coffee.

    Selenium intake could be higher.

    When talking on the phone, do you use any special headsets? Or keep on speaker?
     
  12. Ideonaut

    Ideonaut Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2015
    Messages:
    313
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Seattle
    do you have a source on that?
     
  13. sladerunner69

    sladerunner69 Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    Messages:
    2,227
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    A small increase in cancer risk but still substantial Ray Peat is correct in stating that the biggest problem is not the size or structure of the government but just the restriction of information.
     
  14. Agent207

    Agent207 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2015
    Messages:
    618
    Jack Kruse right again.
     
  15. Such_Saturation

    Such_Saturation Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    6,562
    LOL
     
  16. DaveFoster

    DaveFoster Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,576
    Gender:
    Male

    Attached Files:

  17. Agent207

    Agent207 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2015
    Messages:
    618
    I knew that thread @Dave, very funny indeed. But even if you don't like his forms or attitude, I think the guy have been right on some strong health issues regarding EMF and light. Time is giving him credit in those aspects that are rising in relation with health and that he always strongly warned about. He was taken by paranoid some years ago when everyone thought emfs were not that mach to care about.

    He can be wrong on other things, like Ray does... there's no God with all the right answers for everything. Problem is that people here just discredit him de-facto because some confronting points; but above all, he's discredited mainly because his "personality". Peat sounds and looks more like the old wise man away from the lights, and Kruse is more of an eccentric extravagant figure.

    And this is what I think is the big fail of some people towards him. Forms doesn't mean someone is or not on the right or wrong for everything.

    I see Peat research a bit outdated, I mean it was ground-breaking more 20 years ago and before, on the rising of vegetable oils. Today things have changed enormously, in the last 10 years, and we face bigger menaces than the pufas which is the only rock-solid thing Peat has found. But looks that at some point he got stuck on that.. the anti-serotonin, anti-pufa.. etc talk, like if everything gravitates around that. NOT TODAY. And that is where new researchers like Kruse continue the ride on today's living.

    Peat time has passed, we got his message, time to move forward. I don't see the man minding about the terrible impact the nonstop rising emf exposure will have on us in the near future.

    We need another "Rays" that unmask the next pufa-like menaces.

    (PD. I also believe in the benefits of cold exposure, but I knew this long before know about Kruse).
     
  18. Such_Saturation

    Such_Saturation Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    6,562
  19. Amazoniac

    Amazoniac Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,550
    Gender:
    Male
    His main point is not PUFA restriction, but the restriction of everything that affects the metabolism negatively, or the opposite: supporting nothing that has no effect on genes positively. No, wait, something wrong. Positively supporting nothing that has no genes on effect. Never mind..
     
  20. sele

    sele Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2014
    Messages:
    236
    Gender:
    Female
    Why do we have so many trolls on this forum nowadays ?
    They are polluting the purity of RP's research.
    They should go to their respective forums and share their BS ideas.
    If you don't like RP's ideas, what the h*** are you doing here?
    There is a debate section on this forum for Jack Kruse and Mercola BS.
    @charlie and the mods should do something.
    :banplz
     
Loading...