An incredible and informative video that should go viral. It looks like we are in for an epidemic of cancers and many other conditions, due to embracing a technology that has never been proven safe. We have removed portable phones, cell phones, wifi and all this from our home.
The meter you used was set at taking measurements from one direction only. Suggest you change it to include all three xyz directions as this will give you a better measurement of exposure.
Also, i recommend reading the article i link to below, and following up with that articles sources.
I can't post a link, so just google: "ars technica Europe issues alert over "more or less potentially harmful" cell phone radiation". It is the first result.
(continued) video seemed to focus on the lower GSM frequencies (850-900 MHz). The lowest wifi frequencies are 3x higher, and the highest are 5x or more.
- The relationship, as presented in your summary results, are not linear. Oberfeld claimed 5-8x increased risk with >1000 uW/m^2, whereas Wolf claimed 4x for 5300 uW/m^2. Please do as you set out to do and let the facts speak.
- Please leave out exasperated sighs from your next video. Scientists should be objective.
First of all, thank you for spending time to research and provide this comparison.
I have a few observations:
- Please examine the size of the control groups in the Oberfeld study. The closest (>1000uW/m^2) group had very few. Furthermore, the error bars, and p-value raise questions about the validity, and especially about using the high end values as a representative number for the increased incidence of cancer.
- Please do compare cell to wifi frequencies, as the studies in this (continued)
An incredible and informative video that should go viral. It looks like we are in for an epidemic of cancers and many other conditions, due to embracing a technology that has never been proven safe. We have removed portable phones, cell phones, wifi and all this from our home.
susanpitcairn 1 month ago
Thankyou for your extensive research and committment to this issue. Keep up the excellent work - there are many parents who share your concerns!
TGMAP700 2 months ago
The meter you used was set at taking measurements from one direction only. Suggest you change it to include all three xyz directions as this will give you a better measurement of exposure.
-magda
magdahavas 3 months ago
Thanks!
gutz33 3 months ago
es-uk info
magdahavas com
MrSpinneyhorse 3 months ago
Also, i recommend reading the article i link to below, and following up with that articles sources.
I can't post a link, so just google: "ars technica Europe issues alert over "more or less potentially harmful" cell phone radiation". It is the first result.
nicholasmseifert 3 months ago
(continued) video seemed to focus on the lower GSM frequencies (850-900 MHz). The lowest wifi frequencies are 3x higher, and the highest are 5x or more.
- The relationship, as presented in your summary results, are not linear. Oberfeld claimed 5-8x increased risk with >1000 uW/m^2, whereas Wolf claimed 4x for 5300 uW/m^2. Please do as you set out to do and let the facts speak.
- Please leave out exasperated sighs from your next video. Scientists should be objective.
Thanks again.
nicholasmseifert 3 months ago
First of all, thank you for spending time to research and provide this comparison.
I have a few observations:
- Please examine the size of the control groups in the Oberfeld study. The closest (>1000uW/m^2) group had very few. Furthermore, the error bars, and p-value raise questions about the validity, and especially about using the high end values as a representative number for the increased incidence of cancer.
- Please do compare cell to wifi frequencies, as the studies in this (continued)
nicholasmseifert 3 months ago 2
great videos.well put speech.thank you
jacmunbong 3 months ago