The sun emits more than just UVA and high energy UV light is ionizing. Further my point was that you chained together a mechanism and tried to prove it with something completely unrelated vice trying to address the broader observational evidence in the OP. If your proposed mechanism was real it should've resulted in a significant spike in brain tumors which had not happened. Citing solar urticaria is a complete non sequitur to the point the OP is making with their direct observation that show a lack of increased cancer rates.
I'm also aware of the number of papers out there proposing harm but in the broader picture they don't pan out as reproducible or actually demonstrating sufficient evidence to show harm. That's what the OP is talking about. Despite all the hypothetical mechanisms brain cancers did not increase between the time we had no cell phones to when they became ubiquitous in society.
Here's the contribution I've been responding with all over this thread:
"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck region."
https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/d...
The EU routinely surveys the literature to review the research on RFR and EMF exposure and time and time again does not turn up any statistically significant proof of harm. It covers way more than 90 studies; the citation section alone is 55 pages of the 288 in this systematic review.
This is why I get so frustrated about people asserting a cause without providing real data the effects are real or insisting effects exist as a response to data like the OP that suggest there's no interaction.
Provide this thread some explanation regard why the OP is is wrong and cancer cells are going up and then connect that to your assertion of a mechanism similar to solar uticara. If you can't do the first part of that and discredit the observational data your mechanism is just a data-less hypothesis and is just sewing fear uncertainty and doubt for no reason.
I'm also aware of the number of papers out there proposing harm but in the broader picture they don't pan out as reproducible or actually demonstrating sufficient evidence to show harm. That's what the OP is talking about. Despite all the hypothetical mechanisms brain cancers did not increase between the time we had no cell phones to when they became ubiquitous in society.
Here's the contribution I've been responding with all over this thread:
"Overall, the epidemiological studies on RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck region."
https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/d...
The EU routinely surveys the literature to review the research on RFR and EMF exposure and time and time again does not turn up any statistically significant proof of harm. It covers way more than 90 studies; the citation section alone is 55 pages of the 288 in this systematic review.
This is why I get so frustrated about people asserting a cause without providing real data the effects are real or insisting effects exist as a response to data like the OP that suggest there's no interaction.
Provide this thread some explanation regard why the OP is is wrong and cancer cells are going up and then connect that to your assertion of a mechanism similar to solar uticara. If you can't do the first part of that and discredit the observational data your mechanism is just a data-less hypothesis and is just sewing fear uncertainty and doubt for no reason.