blueflame,
I just don't understand what the hazards are supposed to be. We aren't talking about ionizing radiation (like x-rays, gamma rays, beta particles), so we aren't breaking chemical bonds. At the frequencies we are talking about, it won't even cause tissue heating (like microwaves). Shucks, they penetrate skin much less than visible light. The only component that has any ability to penetrate skin is the magnetic field. Again, the earth's magnetic field is
several times stronger than what you said was measured in the Insight. And given the earth's magnetic field strength, I have a hard time believing that "epidemiological studies worldwide have found that exposure above 2-3 mG in children greatly increases their chances of contracting leukemia." That just doesn't make sense. It is like stretching the butterfly analogy from chaos theory into saying that butterflies cause thunderstorms in general.
Here a few links to non-junk science references
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fa...hone_facts.pdf
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/niehs-report.pdf
from the conclusion section of the article, which also names ELF EMFs as a "possible carcinogen," rather than a probable or known carcinogen:
Quote:
|
The NIEHS agrees that the associations reported for childhood leukemia and adult chronic lymphocytic leukemia cannot be dismissed easily as random or negative findings. The lack of positive findings in animals or in mechanistic studies weakens the belief that this association is actually due to ELF-EMF, but cannot completely discount the finding. The NIEHS also agrees with the conclusion that no other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to warrant concern.
|
Rephrasing: yes there was a statistically significant difference, but it fell barely above the noise level (moments later, they label the connection as "weak;" hence, the label of possible carcinogen). Additionally, we can't find a causal mechanism or even a parallel in other animals.