Btw, you didn't bother to comment on this US Naval Institute expose did you?
It wasn't an expose - it was an ancient scanned 90-page list of literature references. It referenced over 2000 articles, but it did not specifically describe any of their findings or offer any conclusions.
Yes it did offered unequivocal finding about biological phenomena. Not sure what you were reading if you missed the 1st 11 pages. Besides there were other publications on the same website from surgeon general of the United States Army, a medical expert . Again not sure whether you are being diligent or conveniently flippant. And there are many more on the website, all military medical/scientific grade! Be honest, you don't have a low IQ!! I don't need to tell you what to do or think. If I can easily come to the conclusion that anthropogenic RF/EMF is bad beyond any reasonable doubt, I can't see how you are so oblivious!
You don't call the shots on what the proof of harm level should be, people like IARC do and ICBE-EMF do!!!
Why do they get to call the shots, but the FCC doesn't?
Again, be honest, you don't have a low IQ!! I don't need to tell you what to do or think unless you are telling me you have partial affection for moral/ethical corruption, dishonesty, deceit, fake science, or just pure mental delusion God knows! I"m not falling into your trap of explaining to you a simple answer of why FCC do not get to call the shots when it comes to such matters.
And no, yet again, it's possible to establish clear as daylight effects of non-thermal RF/EMF exposure without knowing the actual physical mechanism of cause because as I mentioned above there is weightage given to clinical and epidemiological evidences, including surveys which can be established by employing the right inclusion (into the survey) criteria. You don't just do a survey on any Tom, Dick or Harry on the street with no careful consideration of what you intend to control.
Actually, a random sample would be a great way to go about finding the type of data that would support your claim. You could start by identifying signs of long-term ROS damage - for instance, upregulation of specific genes that occur following ROS damage, or expression of proteins related to antioxidant pathways. Then you look for those signs in 1000 random people from aroud the world. Then you estimate their RF exposure. Since a major source of RF is comm towers, maybe you could use their address as a proxy for RF exposure. You could also ask them questions about MRIs, what type of appliances they have in their house, etc. Then you look for correlations between RF exposure and ROS damage. There, I designed a great study for you.
They already did that for other types of damage different from ROS. A few were for heart palpitations, a few for migraines/headaches, a few for blood-brain permeability and/or CNS issues, a few for metal poisoning, but these were always part of other multi-symptoms and issues caused by EMFs/RFs, never just standalone. Therefore, ROS would never be standalone as it would always accompany a few other pathologies at once and together define EHS or EMF harms. And, it would also be different for different individuals. Finally, the critics still managed to find a way to poke holes at the end of the day by bringing up the case of there being no untainted human control subject. They basically want a model of human being from 1600 A.D or otherwise. There was no anthropogenic electricity and RF back then and so the intrigue. But these high IQ folks like you and I know that these politicians and insurers just want an excuse out of any liability !
For who can be predicted to be more susceptible to EHS or ROS I already showed you THIS PAPER but you conveniently ignored it. Is this paper too mentally distressing for you? Shall I quote what the multi-decade (compared to you) scientific expert Michael Bevington of UK EHS Trustee said in the publication?
That paper does not offer any predictions about which individuals might be prone to EHS or what characteristics those people might have. Such a prediction would look like "Individuals with a certain gene or a certain anatomical feature are 50% more likely to experience symptoms of EHS when exposed to RF of a certain wavelength at a certain intensity for a certain time"
Like I said earlier above, EHS and EMF harms are multi-system. So while a certain gene may indeed introduce 50% more chance of EHS, certain other weaknesses in the body may also overlap or co-vary with these EHS symptoms making it one heck of a genius illness! Only the high IQ folks understand this!
Again your question about what the limit of harm might be depends from individual to individual.
Individual variation can be measured. Another thing that an actual predictive model of EHS would offer is an effect threshold - what is the average exposure required to induce EHS symptoms? Is there a population of hypersensitive people who have a much lower threshold?
Yes, it's been all done beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no threshold LOL. Didn't you read?!! "100% of folks experience subliminal EHS that of which is physiological EHS". That's you btw!!! Stop pretending!!
The same article from the same expert advocates a move towards customization/individualization in science where each and every individual in measured relative to himself/herself and not against the general majority or population.
Can you describe what such a measurement system would look like?
Yes, it's called PROTOCOL. And there are 3 outstanding protocols in past half century. The first one by the extreme genius surgeon William J Rea the American cardiologist from Environmental Health Center in Dallas Texas! The second one by EUROPAEM 2016 EHS Diagnostic Protocol. And the 3rd one by the Belpomme EHS Protocol. So 3 protocols all from America and Europe. I would forgive you if you didn't know this as it's a little outside your scope I would think. This is the link to EUROPAEM PROTOCOL
Hey, solar RF is good for you LOL!!! Because it's unpolarized!!!
Some of it is, but certainly not all of it, and sunlight can easily become polarized when it enters the atmosphere. That's why we have polarized sunglasses.
We are not talking about visible light. We are talking about invisible radiofrequency and microwaves. None of it should be polarized if it comes from the cosmos. RF would be in all directions and not in any one single direction.
Earth's electromagnetic field (unpolarized and natural) comes from the sun which is also unpolarized and natural.
Hmm I thought it came from the enormous ball of iron in the core of the planet. I guess you don't believe there's a planetary core though.
Well there is molten iron in the earth of course but it still needs to be charged like a battery duh. You need to give iron electric/magnetic polarity from where the electromagnetic field is produced! The sun charges the earth using invisible magnetic tubules/tubes of force connected from the sun straight directly to the earth. There is no such thing as wireless charging. All wireless 'action at a distance' effects are actually mediated by direct physical tubes of force where transfer of energy is instantaneous and faster than speed of light. There is no speed limit in any case in Physics. Einstein's relativity is hogwash, Nikola Tesla's theory of dynamic force-fields reigns supreme!
In 2008 the first genetic variant associated with EMF sensitivity was discovered, the XRCC1 Ex9+16A allele, a DNA repair polymorphism, linked with childhood leukaemia near substations and powerlines . In 2014 it was reported that people with EHS were 9.7 times more likely to have GSTM1 + GSTT1 null genotypes , indicating a susceptibility to oxidative stress. This genetic variation can also increase the risk of multiple sclerosis, some cancers, Alzheimer’s and asthma, each sometimes associated with EHS. Such genetic variants seem more common at higher than lower latitudes and in women than men, with others associated with higher levels of mercury. EHS symptoms are also associated with some demyelinating neurodegenerative conditions.
Oh look, a buried lede. So what you're saying is that EHS is actually just a neurogenerative condition associated with disrupted antioxidant function? It sounds like the neurodegeneration and the disrupted antioxidant funtion are sufficient to cause symptoms on their own. Are there any papers that compare the response of individuals with those risky genotypes to RF versus the response of individuals with different genotypes?
I've done enough work for you. It's time you took the initiative to go into greater depth yourself. The fact that a comparison has been made shows that the papers do exist otherwise from where did these comparisons come from?! it sure didn't drop from heaven. these authors are multidecade experts who have been in the game for too long. I suggest you refer to the Bioinitiative Report for a more comprehensive view of everything. I'm sure you could find what you need.
Do you think it's fair to set the bar impossibly high and even shift the bar every time good evidence emerges for RF/EMF science when no bar is set or even needed for mobile phone manufacturers and telecommunication companies to bring their wireless equipment into the market? Please ask yourself this question. Please be fair....
If the bar is impossibly high, why would I ever need to move it? And there is a bar that comm companies have to meet in order to continue to operate. The FCC regulates that kind of thing
please do keep responding! you are quite entertaining
LOL, FCC requires the kind of what??? No it doesn't require anything. Instead it has been required to pay damages for promoting false information by a supreme court judge! Read