Reviews:
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
| reply to Naterator
Re: Despite no evidence it is healthy? said by Naterator :Just saying, all those things you mentioned only became widely used in the past 100 years. The past 20 for most of them mentioned.
The average life expectancy of someone 100 years ago would have been about 51 (based on US gov't stats - »aging.senate.gov/crs/aging1.pdf) Today it is pushing 80, almost 30 years more or a 60% increase in life expectancy.
Humanity throughout the ages is evolved to die around 40 - 50 years old. Any extra is a bonus. Now we get diagnosed with cancer and other diseases, in the past you would have just died. Of course cancer rates are going to increase under these conditions. Human cells are not designed to reproduce over and over again for 80 years. We can keep people alive longer than nature otherwise would and this makes them more susceptible to breaking down to the variety of natural and man made dangers out there.
We know for a fact (and there are studies that clearly show) diesel exhaust contains many dangerous pollutants which damage the lungs of people. I don't see anyone advocating a change in the kind of school buses we put kids on. Don't see anyone saying we should ban vehicles because they cause cancer and disease. No one is suggesting we have car police ensuring that vehicles are used for only essential purposes as defined by narrow special interest groups. From ages 1 - 24, the most common cause of death is accidents, with auto accidents being the leading cause. Ban cars to save lives no? To some cars are an unnecessary risk, so everyone should be governed by what they think.
Picking on wifi is like putting a bandaid on a paper cut on your finger when your leg has been chopped off and is bleeding. The evidence we have today suggests that it is safe enough and unless we have clear studies showing that wifi radiation itself is causing increased illness there is no reason to ban it. |
