Would you stand in front of an operational radar array? Would you give a good hug to a high power transmitter? In both cases you would quickly find yourself dead, despite it being just "wireless signals".
They are high power variants of their low power cousins. The latter isn't dangerous simply as a factor of magnitude. But the same arguments apply. Further it's an interesting note that the classification of something as a carcinogen usually is arrived at via very large levels of exposure, and there are endless tables of "acceptable" exposure to such carcinogenic materials.
This fireplace issue would seem to be something that would be studied to death, and strong correlative findings demonstrating a sound case (given how utterly dire and extreme the submission is). Instead you get things like this-
I'll skip to the fun part -- wood burning homes did have more incidents of cancer, because they had a higher correlation with smokers (similar to how, for instance, blue jeans probably have a higher incidence of cancer than khakis). Among non-smokers the incident rates of cancer are absolutely identical with non wood burning homes. Isn't that incredible, and doesn't that simply destroy the submission? And this is for frequent users who use it as a primary source of fuel, so a level of exposure dramatically higher than such a recreational user.
Predominant solid-fuel users had an increased risk of lung cancer compared with nonsolid-fuel users (Figure 1). We saw this increased risk among both men and women, in ever- and never-smokers, among whites and Asians, and among studies carried out in Asian and in North American and European countries.
Skip the narrative and look at the data -- never-smokers who predominately used solid-fuel (which in North America means wood) had a cancer rate of 1.01 (where 1 is the non-solid-fuel incidence of cancer). For their sample size that is a statistically irrelevant difference. And remember these are people who are exposed to burning wood for dozens if not hundreds of days a year, and compare that with the narrative of the article that does the oldest trick of proclaiming that something has an association with carcinogens, therefore it is an unhealthy dangerous.
They are high power variants of their low power cousins. The latter isn't dangerous simply as a factor of magnitude. But the same arguments apply. Further it's an interesting note that the classification of something as a carcinogen usually is arrived at via very large levels of exposure, and there are endless tables of "acceptable" exposure to such carcinogenic materials.
This fireplace issue would seem to be something that would be studied to death, and strong correlative findings demonstrating a sound case (given how utterly dire and extreme the submission is). Instead you get things like this-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002194/
I'll skip to the fun part -- wood burning homes did have more incidents of cancer, because they had a higher correlation with smokers (similar to how, for instance, blue jeans probably have a higher incidence of cancer than khakis). Among non-smokers the incident rates of cancer are absolutely identical with non wood burning homes. Isn't that incredible, and doesn't that simply destroy the submission? And this is for frequent users who use it as a primary source of fuel, so a level of exposure dramatically higher than such a recreational user.