Is your smartphone giving you brain cancer?

Topic

New Reply

PUBLIC DEFENDER By Brian Livingston A group of scientists and researchers is actively promoting findings that the use of smartphones is associated wit
[See the full post at: Is your smartphone giving you brain cancer?]

1 user thanked author for this post.

lmacri

Reply | Quote

Replies

My home cellphone base unit (connects a standard phone-jack type desk phone to cell towers and your cell phone service provider) came with a warning that the user should maintain a minimum distance of eight inches between the base unit’s two antennae and the user’s head; and Samsung advises that you should not place your cell phone within 15 inches of your head while sleeping. In neither case did the warnings specify why one should maintain these distances, but I feel certain that it has nothing to do with Wi-Fi transmissions. Seems like these manufacturers are trying to protect themselves from liability in case it is proven that prolonged exposure to the radio transmissions from cell-type devices to and from cell towers can potentially be harmful to human brain tissue. Makes sense to me.

 

Reply | Quote

No, it’s because the power density level of a point source of radiation varies inversely with the square of the distance between the radiation source and the target which is your brain in this case. So for example at 15 inches the level would be 1/15^2 = 1/225 compared to the level at 1 inch from your brain tissue. Which is why it has been recommended that we use blue tooth, or ear pods and a mic, as much safer practice compared to holding a cell phone antenna next to the ear.

Reply | Quote

“Out of life’s school of war — What does not kill me makes me stronger”
— Friedrich Nietzsche (1888)

[lol]

Reply | Quote

“… or leaves me in a really bad shape.”  (“From the wit and wisdom of OscarCP.”)

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

1 user thanked author for this post.

AlexEiffel

Reply | Quote

The question of whether using cellphones, particularly keeping the receiver close to an ear as is often the case, can cause brain cancer, has been around for a long time, about as long as there have been cellphones.

Other issues concerning electromagnetic (em) radiation at low frequencies (from high-voltage power  transmission lines), and at high frequencies (cellphone towers) have also been raised, for a long time, voiced enthusiastically by people that seemed more or less obsessive about such issues, but sometimes capable of scaring substantial numbers of people.

https://powerfulsignal.com/cellular-frequency-bands/

There is a documentary by noted filmmaker Werner Herzog, in Netflix, on the development of the Internet, that has a segment dedicated to modern communications’ anxieties, about cellphones in particular, where he interviews several people that had moved from cities and gone to live in the radio-silence area in West Virginia surrounding the large Greenbank radio telescope, because they claimed that, while living in the cities they came from, they had suffered painfully from the effects of cellphone and, or power transmission lines’ em emissions.

All this is anecdotal evidence similar to that for UFOs. But now there is one new claim that raises what it could be an important HOWEVER:

The document linked by Brian Livingston in the blog that started this thread, has been written by some scientists demanding action from the WHO and related organizations with competence on these issues, and has been signed by a rather long list of other scientists that, even if I have never heard of any of them before, since they work on areas far from my own, I can see that they have positions of some importance at well-know scientific organizations and universities, so the claims made in the document deserve, at a minimum, to be taken into consideration. These document includes, as is standard practice, links to some relevant publications, some theirs and some of other organization, all of which makes for interesting reading.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

Supposedly UFO sightings have gone up over the last few years, the US gov started declassifying a lot of reports recently.  So anything’s possible, I guess.

Call me cynical but with the recent backlash over 5G between competing American and Chinese interests, I wonder if these calls are being promoted in order to try and push the need for “Clean 5G” networks from a health perspective as well as security.  As you said there’ve been concerns for years over EMF, very possibly for good reason.  Its comeback might be more of a political tool than anything.

Reply | Quote

Anonymous, I doubt that the scientists listed as signing the petition for the WHO to do something to assess the effects of cellphone emissions on people’s health is the result of some conspiracy to scare people into not buying 5G cellphones that depend on technology from China. Scientists can be many things, some of these bad, but by engaging in such a conspiracy they would be asking for trouble from their own organizations. One thing those in government and academic research are extremely keen about, is not to loose their chances of getting funding for the work that helps them gain promotions, perhaps even fame, and also keep their jobs.

So, no, I don’t think that the petition this thread is about is meant to give a respectable cover to a campaign against Chinese 5G. And I agree with its writers that is a good idea to test and experiment and study this rigorously, to see if there is more than just an urban legend behind what many people have been complaining about for such a long time.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

I’m not thinking of it as a conspiracy to concoct health concerns that don’t exist.  The WHO EMF site has a date of 2005, the International EMF Scientist Appeal has dates going to at least 2012 (news section).  As you said, health concerns go back years, almost as far back as cellphones themselves.

Where my cynicism comes in: Why is this being promoted now?  Could be I’m just seeing trends that don’t exist, but I’ve noticed more news coverage about possible 5G health impacts over the last 1-2 years.  Might just be fear over new technology, similar coverage happened in the mid-90s from memory, but I don’t remember the same coverage during the 3G or 4G rollouts.

Reply | Quote

Curiosity caught me and I did some quick Googling.  Found this worth reading:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Covers the call to the WHO EMF and why it’s occurring.  Also answers my question of “Why now?”  There was a report by the The National Toxicology Program (NTP) under the NIH released in 2016 that covers RF radiation and cancer in animal models.  Likely this spurred on a lot of conversation.

The short is that the WHO group handling EMF safety guidelines is composed of members of the industrial community and there’s a possible large conflict of interest in their recommendation guidelines.  Their guidelines are also focused only on thermal radiation effects on the body and not other forms of possible impact from EMF.  There’s been recent reports from both WHO and ICNIRP (An industrial-focused NGO, and whose membership makes up most of the EMF group) that basically either completely ignore biological impacts of EMF, or try and discredit any current findings.

Essentially standard business practices that may finally getting called into question.

2 users thanked author for this post.

AlexEiffel, OscarCP

Reply | Quote

Quoting from the article linked by Anonymous:

“In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association. In spite of this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation. On the contrary ambient levels have increased. In 2014 the WHO launched a draft of a Monograph on RF fields and health for public comments. It turned out that five of the six members of the Core Group in charge of the draft are affiliated with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an industry loyal NGO, and thus have a serious conflict of interest.”

Well, no surprise “ambient levels (of radio-frequency (RF)) have increased”, with so many people with their hands glued to their cellphones glued to their heads.

And how the WHO seems to be more and more less and less of an incorruptible organization rises some questions about how the WHO (not the 60’s and 70’s rock group) discharges its very important foundational duty to help protect the health of, well, the whole human race.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

Oh come on now!! Are we going to take medical advice now from Brian Livingston?

Brian Livingston is not a medical doctor. He is not a scientist with any credentials to be evaluating scientific research.

This whole idea of electromagnetic radiation causing cancer is based on bad analysis of bad science. Especially for cell phones, the alleged correlations and clusters have been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community.

I won’t waste space here in the lounge citing chapter and verse of the real science in this area, as my postings would only lead to the kind of political nonsense and endless debating society tactics which have polluted other forums whenever scientific subjects such as climate change or COVID-19 are discussed.

There is no reason whatsoever to be engaging in the kind of irresponsible fear-mongering which this article consists of.

I am seriously considering ending my contributions to AskWoody if Brian Livingston and other contributors continue to post stories they should know are completely false and misleading.

The alleged “Legal Brief” columns are getting to be in the same vein, engaging in fear-mongering based on speculation rather than responsible journalism based on actual legal and legislative proceedings and their outcomes.

This site and its newsletter are straying farther and farther from the original purpose of Windows Secrets Newsletter with every passing month.

I would strongly suggest that the columnists, editors and owners of this site and its newsletter take a long, hard look at the direction in which they are taking this enterprise.

-- rc primak

1 user thanked author for this post.

Microfix

Reply | Quote

plot was lost a good few months back. /shakes head

No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created IT- AE

1 user thanked author for this post.

rc primak

Reply | Quote

excessive use of cell phones?

Reply | Quote

Well, that’s probably not good for you for a lot of other reasons…

But not from a radiation exposure or cancer risk point of view. The science is clear about that, in spite of what certain conspiracy theorists have dredged up from years ago.

All debunked later.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I am surprised that you feel so strongly about this. I enjoy your contributions a lot in general and would be very sad to see you go. I respectfully disagree with you and hope you can just ignore what you don’t like for content without feeling the need to leave. I feel the need to present a different view in support of Brian.

As a curious person, I always welcome smart people bringing new information. In this case, I felt Brian brought something new that seems to be coming from reputable scientists? I tried to research the subject a bit myself a long time ago and came out only with about the same conclusion. I am glad that Brian clearly stated the importance of seeing risks in terms of absolutes and not only in percentages, which can be meaningless. Percentages are often used incorrectly when health issues are reported and this causes unnecessary fears.

I found this article very reasonable and useful, presenting what seemed to be a good account of where we stand now and even a few good tips to reduce exposure for those who are scared. His message seemed to be, don’t panic it’s much less bad than many other things if it is bad, but if you worry, here’s what you can do. His message seems to be that the risk is not really that big vs other risks, but why sleep with your phone close to your head if you don’t have to if we are still not sure that it doesn’t harm?EMF might not be the culprit, but in the case of putting the phone on your ears, maybe warmth could have an effect?

You seem to have a strong view against this, are you more of a specialist and could you give us more useful information that shows that there is no reason at all to even talk about this? I feel that Brian did the job I would have liked to do researching for myself, but better, and for lack of a better alternative, I’m willing to follow him. I never read a renowned specialist explains a summary of the actual science with an opinion so that us neophytes would understand it well enough to make appropriate choices. A long time ago, I read the following puzzling statement following a meta-analysis: they found nothing except for heavy users, which were defined as using their cell phones for more than 30 minutes per day. That wasn’t terribly convincing to see heavy users defined that way (maybe for the period reviewed 30 minutes was not as common) and then showing the conclusion was don’t worry, we can’t conclude anything except for those, so you shouldn’t worry.

When Brian wrote about batteries, I also found it interesting. It raised many questions, many of which are still unanswered in my book, about how manufacturers show or not the real battery capacity and the real world difference it makes to never charge above the 80% mark vs charging slowly above. I learned about why you really should try to avoid letting your phone discharge too much. The fact that we are not experts doesn’t mean we can find flaws in some logic, like it seems physicists found flaws in the definition of aerosol used by health scientist for years and which seems to have been finally explained and then corrected, at least partially. Paradigms shifts are notoriously difficult for some scientists and the arrogant attitude of “you don’t know what you are talking about” of some prevents them from revising some strongly held beliefs that in some cases are just that, beliefs that are just old enough to have become truths. Yes, as an expert in IT, I know it can be annoying to have someone questions everything you do when you try to help them, knowing it would be too long to explain, but I try to remain patient and explain what I can, being respectful, because I know how it feels to be on the other side.

I get that science might be difficult to understand from the outside, but also, I found many problems in scientific papers when I did study them carefully before and I wasn’t an expert. A long time ago, I wrote to two well-known (in their field) scientists to tell them about their mistakes, one dating from an important paper written more than 20 years ago and guess what? Both reacted very favorably. One old folk reached out to another old friend in their field and were happy that someone was still reading their papers carefully instead of just quoting the mistake over and over like I had noticed and they thanked me for finding it. Scientists makes mistakes, they are human. The idea is that science is supposed to be reproducible and it tries to evolve and correct course from mistakes, adjusting theories when new facts don’t conform to them. It is not a set in stone description of reality, neither a faith based immutable discourse. In reality, probably many don’t have time to verify everything in details and that is why you can see things like I did where everybody was quoting a mistake without having read it properly, no wonder I didn’t understand the quotation until I went back to the original article.

So for me, although this is very imperfect, articles like the one from Brian on batteries made me change the way I was seeing things and adjust my behavior slightly without going crazy, until more information is clearly understood. I also have a general idea of what to tell people who ask me questions. Maybe you say that is the problem because you spread false information on batteries as an IT expert. You might be right if Brian was that much wrong. But for lack of something better, maybe in many cases there is a potential for doing something useful without much downside if you don’t go too intense vs doing nothing.

I feel the same about cell phones. Exposing possible conflict of interests or apparent illogical means of testing to conform to regulations is also interesting from the outside because sometimes that is all we have if we don’t understand the inside.

If it didn’t make any difference, why would manufacturers test at one inch instead of how people really use their phone? This, to me, doesn’t make any sense. They could brag about respecting the limits (that’s all they claim they do, respect a limit set by others) without the one inch distance. When I read that, I understand implicitly that they don’t respect the limit below one inch. Is it that big of a deal? I don’t know, but it will make me curious to know, especially knowing how distance is important for exposure amount. I also understand businesses who might be overcareful to not claim anything and go for the lowest allowed claim, just in case. This doesn’t mean they are willfully trying to fool the public although that happens sometimes. Not every company is like some tobacco companies have been. One could wonder why in the first place they can test at one inch? This might be the real problem and that is not the companies fault, although one could argue that an ethical company should try to do better if they think legislation is not safe enough.

Now, Brian, how about those studies funded by the oil companies saying that the batteries in electric cars emit very strong magnetic fields next to your precious babies on the back seat? Will you research this subject for us? 😉

 

3 users thanked author for this post.

SueW, OscarCP, rc primak

Reply | Quote

If the content I object to weren’t so very off-topic for what used to be Windows Secrets Newsletter, I could ignore the click-baiting and fear-mongering in the newsletter. And if the bulk of the newsletter didn’t promote such distractions, I might feel less strongly that my contributions are no longer getting me the value I once saw in the newsletter. But I stand by what I said earlier.

This kind of fear-mongering is not where the science of radiation exposure effects is at today (including the debunked myth about car batteries). But more importantly, these side-issues have little to nothing to do with keeping computers and other devices up to date, protecting them from security issues, and making sure they run smoothly and efficiently. And let’s not go down the rabbit-hole of confusing personal privacy with device and software security.

In other words, these are not tech end-user issues.  The public health and legal aspects of tech have never before been the focus of AskWoody, and this new focus does represent a new direction for the newsletter. A change which I and I suspect many other Lounge members never asked for and do not appreciate at all.

The deliberate (and desperate) attempts to prop up readership by eliciting fear and hitting political hot buttons is not in keeping with the aim of showing users how to get the most of our tech devices, including computers. It is a needless distraction, and I do feel very strongly that I should not support such distractions.

I am simply not getting the value for my contributions which would justify continuing to contribute.

I am not saying health and legal and personal privacy issues as they impact the use of tech devices should not be discussed in online forums. Just not in this forum, and not in this newsletter. Except in a separate (and not Newsletter covered) “Off Topic” forum area.

Would you take seriously a tech publication whose lead article might be about how 5G cell towers are causing COVID-19? This is the sort of focus drift I am objecting to here and in the newsletter.

-- rc primak

2 users thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth, AlexEiffel

Reply | Quote

I didn’t feel the article was instilling fear, to the contrary, but I agree with you that the title is click-bait, although it doesn’t bother me as it is not misleading click-bait asked in the form of a question. Click-bait that is not deceptive doesn’t bother me, it’s fair marketing in my book and often the author doesn’t even pick the title so you can’t blame him. I also don’t feel that Askwoody is desperate and trying by all means to capture an audience with such articles. Maybe it appears like that to you because you really dislike those subjects.

Let’s not confuse 5G’s metaphysical links to COVID-19 backed by no serious research with discussing the possibility that non-ionizing radiation that clearly raises the temperature of bodies in close proximity might possibly have a certain correlation to cancer by mechanisms not yet fully understood, if the methodology is sound. Even seeing science having a hard time backing any significant risk says something that I find useful, as whatever small correlation found might not have a practical impact in real life.

I respect your point of view about the content, though, which you are obviously allowed to dislike. For me, I was more annoyed by the articles in PC Mag when it became car and gadgets magazine for a while a long time ago. Long gone are the days where you would tear so many pages of your computer magazines thinking you should use that one day. I miss that.

I still see in tech publications discussions about legitimate health concerns over the use of tech such as blue light. To me, that is not off topic. If I wonder if I should buy an OLED tablet to use many hours a day, I find it interesting to know if it would emit less blue light than an LCD and if blue light emissions should even be a concern in the first place, unless there is a scientific consensus that it is not. Of course, writing constantly about EMF when nothing new came out from science isn’t good journalism.

Trying to research those possibly important subjects are hard by yourself and scientific evidence is often scarce. As long as it is done with rigor and there is a good reason to write about it, I like to read about those subjects.

We are both believers in science, knowing that science is made by humans. There is a difference between reporting serious science about a legitimate health concern, concluding that there are some dangers when there is none, creating click-bait and instilling unwarranted fear and covering completely ridiculous ideas based on esoteric physic except to debunk them. As long as we get facts and/or interview with experts, I’m in.

I still hope that you will find some value to your contributions greatly appreciated by many members here, which I am sure I am not alone doing so.

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote

Without getting into the merits of the pros and cons of the subject, may I offer an observation?

The penultimate paragraph at 2383319 four times mentions a measurements distance of one inch. Is this a ‘proper’ distance?

As has been noted, in radiation there is an inverse-square relationship between distance and intensity. But for measurements, it is necessary to specify some ‘standard’ distance for comparisons. Pick one: English units, or metric.
One: meter, foot, inch, centimeter, millimeter, … . Etc.
Any is valid, what is ‘best’?
(Also not considered is the matter of the subtended angle of the ‘recipient’.)
For this subject, perhaps one cm would have been more ‘scientific’?
And construction: where is the emitting antenna of the unit?
So, what is the statistical ‘average’ of separations? Or geometrical mean?
Indefinite data leads to mushy points of disagreements. Gotta start someplace.

Reply | Quote

rcPrimak:

“Oh come on now!! Are we going to take medical advice now from Brian Livingston?”

It seems like you have missed something in my previous comment, right above yours, so I copy it here for your benefit:

“In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association. In spite of this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation. On the contrary ambient levels have increased. In 2014 the WHO launched a draft of a Monograph on RF fields and health for public comments. It turned out that five of the six members of the Core Group in charge of the draft are affiliated with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an industry loyal NGO, and thus have a serious conflict of interest.”

 

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

I didn’t miss it. I ignored it, as it is entirely garbage from a scientific point of view.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

That is a sweeping comment that dismisses both possible urban legends and scientific documents as if they were exactly the same thing. Now, this being a free country, it is quite right to express one’s incredulity on any topic, if it is done in  a reasonably argued and considerate way.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

This is exactly the kind of “debating society” which I earlier stated I want to avoid being drawn into. Not in this forum. Not now, not ever. Not on off-topic side-issues like this.  No disrespect intended.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

No.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

The article I initially linked was from the NIH, and it references studies from multiple universities with the big studies published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and National Toxicology Program within the NIH.  I don’t see how this is a basis of bad science.  If you have information that discounts these studies I’d be interested in seeing it.

The article covers some conflicts of interest which may be the reason some findings are discredited by groups like the WHO.  Claiming that universities and national/international research bodies can put out bad science actually strengthens the case they made; it shows that established scientific studies could be biased and should be challenged.  I initially found the article while trying to discredit the International EMF Scientist Appeal.  I expected it to be bunk and likely be made up of people with dubious degrees or based on discredited studies.  This doesn’t seem to be the case.

Regardless, I’ll agree to not debate this.  This is meant to voice my disagreement with your POV only.

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote