Re: Technology risk without safeguards

[Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte () gmail com>]

Oops, meant include this reference

*1 Mashevich M, Folkman D, Kesar A, et. al. Exposure of human peripheral
blood lymphocytes
to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones leads to
chromosomal instability.
Bioelectromagnetics. 2003;24:82–90.

On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte () gmail com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> > ...I agree with Suresh that at this time, there
> > is no scientific evidence that links RF with
> > any kind of bodily harm.
> Please note that there is scientific evidence to link chronic exposure to
> RF result in chromosome instability*1, however there is no diagnostic test
> to attribute a disease as the end state.
>
> > My point is that we should not dismiss the
> > physician who thought that he may have
> > found something, as some kind of
> > conspiracist.
> Thank you. I am your everyday engineer who has had to cope with
> after-effects of powerful EMF and hence self-taught biology. If not for
> medical experts (cancer biology in academia) express confidence in my
> analysis connecting post-exposure to RF biology to likely disease outcome,
> I know better than to make a fool of myself. As I have said before, this
> group has the clue to dig for truth and not be satisfied with pseudo
> concepts.
>
> Regards,
> Suresh
>
>
> On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Sabri Berisha <sabri () cluecentral net>
> wrote:
>
> > ----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 7:19 PM, Randy Bush randy () psg com wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > > The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship,
> > > > does not mean that there isn't any.
> > >
> > > just wow
> > >
> > > and, for all we know, the back side of the moon is green cheese
> >
> > I don't think you got the message buried within my message. True science
> > is open to change, based on learning new facts. Like I said initially, I
> > agree with Suresh that at this time, there is no scientific evidence that
> > links RF with any kind of bodily harm.
> >
> > The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and only reinforce the
> > notion that at this time, we simply do not know enough. We do know, that
> > at the low doses we generally receive, there is no evidence for harmful
> > consequences.
> >
> > My point is that we should not dismiss the physician who thought that he
> > may have found something, as some kind of conspiracist. That's not how
> > scientific progress is achieved.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sabri