Largest Animal Study on Cell Tower Radiation Confirms Cancer Link
For people who emphasize the &quot;non-ionizing&quot; nature of such EMF.  I remember, back in organic chemistry back... oh, some decades ago, learning how non-ionizing EMF could be used to influence reactions and reaction rates.<p>It may not break bonds, but it still causes them to flex, vibrate, etc.  And the resulting variations in configuration, and percent of time spent in such variations, influences chemical reactions.<p>So, let&#x27;s say you have a chemical reaction that has a certain chance of producing a malign result or a factor in an eventual malign result.<p>Let&#x27;s say your cell phone radiation heightens the level of that reaction.<p>You just increased your risk.  Without directly ionizing anything.<p>Now, it&#x27;s been a LONG time since I took chemistry.  But while I&#x27;ve seldom seen this aspect of EMF discussed WRT risk from cell phone radiation, I&#x27;ve never seen it refuted.<p>And no one has a catalog of all the chemical reactions going on in the human body.  Including those induced by transient and variable exposure to external agents.  Chemicals absorbed through exposure.  Drugs taken.  Variable biomes.  Etc.  Much less how EMF might influence them.<p>Just food for thought.<p>So, studies like this continue to be warranted.  Despite the radiation tacitly being &quot;non-ionizing&quot;.