I've smoked cigs for almost 50 years without getting cancer so I guess that means smoking is good.

Specifically, if anyone here cares, this is the difference between non-ionizing radiation and ionizing radiation. The cutoff between the two happens in the UV-C band which is just above visible light and the UV-A and UV-B bands. That's why exposure to sunlight can give you skin cancer, but exposure to infrared (heat) cannot. This type of RF radio wave does not have enough energy to ionize atoms, so it is called non-ionizing radiation. This means the energy is simply absorbed into the body as heat.

This. About 10 feet from a cell tower and you’re fine.

This study is clearly not testing reasonable exposure to microwaves.

They used up to 50 V/m , which is quite high, but is within the range of mobile phone usage with the phone being kept beside the head. You can measure up to 150 V/m even close to the phone.

However not to worry, there are many studies that show biological effect well below currently specified exposure levels. You can download the BioInitiative meta-study RF intensity chart from here, and see the intensities and observed effects:

http://www.bioinitiative.org/rf-color-charts/

It's naturalnews, they pretty much just post garbage and hope people only read the headlines.

There will be none near jewish gated communities. Wait & see.

the more people know about 5g dangers, the harder the time they will have putting it in

also, when not in use, keep your phone turned off with the battery removed and in a separate room.

Rather it's a sensationalist misrepresentation of a study.

I'm a gonna expand on this succint and technically correct answer. In short, this "study" is a classic case of p-hacking with small groups.

Borrowing a couple of copy pasta comments about this "study".

This is a better study than previous ones, in that it used "environmental" levels of radiation, rather than blasting subjects with an amount of radiation equivalent to laying your head on top of a cell tower for 22 hours a day.

However: out of 817 individuals in the control group, 2 had benign tumors, 2 had malignant tumors, 1 had glial cell hyperplasia, and 2 had malignant glial tumors. Out of 409 individuals in the highest-dosed group, 4 had benign tumors, 0 had malignant tumors, 0 had glial cell hyperplasia, and 3 had malignant glial tumors.

https://imgur.com/a/VeEUb

Rates are elevated, but given the differences in population sizes and the relatively very small differences in rates involved, this study looks like a very good candidate for the decline effect that's been plaguing similar studies for a while now. (e.g. a regression to the mean; that the effect numbers, being small, would disappear in subsequent studies.)

Any potential link between cell phones, or wifi, and cancer, still has the fundamental problem that we should have seen cancer rates rise dramatically over the last 15 years in populations all over the world, and ... we haven't. While there have been more and more findings on other causes for cancer (and preventable mortality, like heart disease), glial cancers aren't increasing in any manner suggestive of a link to ubiquitous environmental microwave radiation.

On the question of whether there has been any significant increase in cancer rates in broader society given our high uptake and usage of cell phones.

A Danish cohort study with almost 360,000 people found no statistical correlation between cell phone usage and tumors: http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6387

A UK prospective study of 1 million women had similar results: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/3/792/2901734

Another study spanning 13 countries found some correlation with the highest use cases, but was cautiously worded that the effects may not be causative: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835

An Australian study similarly found no increase in brain cancer rates over its 30-year study period: https://theconversation.com/new-study-no-increase-in-brain-c ... (sorry, can't get the original source for this one -- had to dig it out of Google from memory).

A US population study from 1992 to 2008 found that incidence rates of glioma remained steady throughout that period: http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1147

The CDC has a cool dataviz tool that compiles a bunch of data from 1999 to 2014 (the most recent year for which it's available): https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/USCS/DataViz.html (click on the "Trends" button near the top). The trend line for annual rates for all new cancers for that period is flat; brain cancers are flat too, although thyroid cancers increase over that period at an unsettling rate. The articles I can find on that suggest that some (though maybe not all) of that increase is due to changes in diagnostic techniques, e.g. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/878030

There have been studies with rodents that did find statistically significant increases, but -- as far as I know -- those have all had some pretty serious methodological issues, like unrealistically massive amounts of exposure or not controlling for the tissue temperature increases that can be caused by exposure to powerful microwave radiation.

All of the big human population studies that I know of have found either no correlation at all, or some correlation but at such small numbers that it could also be statistical noise.

If any large studies have found conclusive statistical correlation in humans between cell phones and cancer, I'm not aware of it. (And would like to be.)

Which is not to say btw that cell phones aren't dangerous. They kill people every year -- just not with cancer, but by being a distraction while driving. http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/priorities-ce ... . "A Deadly Wandering" is also a pretty okay book about this. Multiple studies described in that book found that, with very very rare exception, people could not safely drive and operate a cell phone at the same time, no matter how good they thought they were at multi-tasking.

LOL. Got any proof to back up your comment?

bullshit.

Cognitive dissonance.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300367