If you (probably) have a cell phone. Or if you also have a child with one.
Cell phones used improperly are dangerous for those who carry or locate them close to the body, for those who are using them for many hours per day, and even more for children as they are far less resistant to the powerful radiation for a variety of reasons. For your start here is some very good short-answer reading on this subject provided by The Environmental Health Trust of acclaimed scientist Devra Davis provided in 2014-5. Much more has been discovered and written since this was printed (also available within our pages) but, to get a good start, browse among those questions for an answer to the one that has often bothered you! Cell Phone Questions? Pregabalin 150 mg purchase Click review here.
Two more angles on the subject of cancer risk (though there are at least a dozen other health effects as well):
Clear Evidence of Cell-Phone RF Radiation Cancer Risk
1. Denmark, Sweden, and The Netherlands have an early record of cell phone usage compared to many countries. There is strong evidence of the glioblastoma brain cancer (a fingerprint of close-up cell radiation) doubling to tripling in each country (and growing in many other countries) in the last 10 years. (Link)
2. Article by James C. Lin on groundbreaking peer-reviewed cell-frequency cancer study
During 26–28 March 2018, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP), a part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, convened a three-day technical reports peer-review panel meeting in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, to review the NTP’s draft reports on its carcinogenesis studies of cell-phone RF radiation in mice and rats. The invited 14-member peer review panel included three electrical engineering professors, ten pathologists and toxicologists (three from academia and seven from industry), and one biostatistician. None of the participants were from the cell-phone industry.
…In addition to the malignant schwannomas in the heart tissue and, to some degree, the gliomas in the brain of male rats, the review panel concluded that there was “some evidence” for carcinogenicity in the adrenal gland….There were also findings of “equivocal evidence” for carcinogenicity in other tissue or organs, such as adenoma of pars digitalis in the pituitary gland and adenomas and carcinomas in the liver of both RF-exposed male and female rats…
…Now that the NTP review panel has concluded there is clear evidence of carcinogenicity from long-term RF exposure in rats, is it conceivable that the IARC would upgrade its epidemiology-based classification of RF exposure to the next level of carcinogenicity to humans?