The article features the following paragraph:
"Radiation released by nuclear bombs is obviously harmful. Known as ionizing radiation, it is powerful enough to remove electrons from atoms. By contrast, radio-frequency energy is a form of non-ionizing radiation given off by cellular and portable phones, Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors and countless other devices."
So now I am suppose to believe that all non-ionizing radiation is harmless. Poor thinking. How about ultraviolet, infrared or microwaves? The latter, by the way, is emitted and received by your mobile phone and widely used to heat up food. Go sit in the Australian summer sun without protection and report back to me how THAT works for you. Or a well known classic: put your pet in a microwave oven and observe how the non-ionizing radiation 'transforms' him.
Just do some research how the level microwaves from your mobile gets approved, you'll be stunned and realize something fishy is going on and don't forget to look into the work of Barry Trower, you can find him on Youtube.
I mean: Why do you think that 4G network is forbidden in Bruxelles, the EU capital? Why do you think the Scientific Council in The Netherlands sued the Health Council regarding mobile device radiation levels? Why do you think a UMTS antenna mechanic is only allowed to work less than 5 hours in proximity of such an antenna? Why do you think dutch Prof. Michiel Haas wrote a book called 'Electrostress & Health'? Why did Italy's Supreme Court rule that there is a causal link between mobile phone use and cancer? Why are there multiple publications which conclude that living closer than 450 meters from a UMTS antenna increases the chance of cancer with a factor 3.5? etc etc.
Remember that BEFORE 1920 it was known that asbestos is a carcinogen but it took well over 70 years before it was forbidden by law to use that material for construction in The Netherlands, not sure about other countries on earth, but the denial and/or deliberate cover-up about the hazards of that material has certainly caused a lot of unnecessary suffering.
One more excerpt from the above NY Times article: “Scientific opinion is split on the issue — many different studies have reached different conclusions based on the same evidence,”
Ask yourself how an opinion is even scientific. Define opinion:
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
1.a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Get it? Scientific opinion is a contradictio in terminis for true science is factual and based on knowledge.
Anyway, I am not afraid of a phone call or WiFi here and there but I do promote awareness about the instruments we use on a daily basis and the possible risks thereof. The latter are of course obfuscated by the parties who want to make a buck out of greed and that bothers me more than sitting in a WiFi area for a while. What bothers me even more is the guileless, docile and even indulgent attitude of the masses/consumers towards the sellers and 'authorities'; their lack of awareness and care, not to mention knowledge.
Yeah, yeah, yeah..and the moon attracts oceans (but not lakes) but at same 'time' the earth can't attract the moon, how does that even make any sense?
If you agree to the terms and conditions of so called scientists you are bound by the laws that science presupposes. Mind you that in the definition of presupposition there is 'uncertainty' for it is a belief of some sort. Study basic contract law to grasp how your thoughts/speech relates to matter; how agreement is analogues to signing a contract.