No research
I ain’t no tin foil hat bloke, but, it’s not as cut & dried as “The health concerns are poppycock”. Is it.
Being a fit, healthy eating, non-smoker, light drinker, whose heart has inexplicably gone into AF and seeing “Alteration of heart rhythm” as one of the prominent possible health effects… well, you know. Pass the **** Bacofoil.
All collated by someone who doesn’t understand dosage. It’s like sayinng – oooooh if I pour the LD50 of water for rats into their mouths and kill half of them – well **** me – gotta call the UN, call the President, call the FDA and ban this H20! It’s clearly dangerous! It’s not science, it’s idiotology.
The autism one was just brilliantly bad hack science as well – how the **** did they even measure prenatal and postnatal RF exposure and phone usage and get statistically valid data? When **** everyone is exposed to RF and the vast majority of people use phones. How anyone accurately self reported those “predictors” is beyond me, the statistics were laughable. Did they even consider that mothers on the autistic spectrum might use their phones more?
Meanwhile…..supporting the fact that you can prove almost anything with poorly designed epidemiology (touched on in the part thats bolded)…..
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170905145548.htm
Professor Jan Alexander, senior author from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, said: “Our investigation revealed for the first time that maternal mobile phone use may actually have a positive impact. More specifically, mobile phone use in pregnancy was associated with lower risk of the child having low language and motor skills at 3 years of age. Although we adjusted for important socio-demographic characteristics as well as maternal personality and psychological factors, we think this protective effect is more likely to be explained by factors not measured in this study having an impact on the mobile phone use and child’s neurodevelopment, rather than the maternal mobile phone use in itself.“
LOL!