Wow, cancer is actually pretty based

they don't live long enough.
Cancer is in the first place an illness of the old.

That's because non American medicine is so shit it can't even diagnose cancer

notice how kazakhstan is less cancerous that russia and that's where soviet nukes were tested
your theory is dump

it's supposed to be dumb, it's sarcasm.

yeah right

Only partially true.

Attached: life-expectancy.png (850x600, 102K)

Attached: viva-el-cancer-pintada.jpg (600x338, 185K)

i dont know what to say

Attached: wypipo.jpg (714x802, 89K)

Polution also plays a role.
That's why I am wondering.

Could be better diagnosis = Other countries just don't find the cancer

These maps make me want to emigrate tbqh

Cancer didn't exist until recently. Unhealthy diet (most people eat processed food in first world countries), electromagnetic radiation, pollution, sedentary and overall extremely unhealthy lifestyle (both physically and psychologically), all contribute to cancer.

>Other countries just don't find the cancer
Yeah, because a growing massive tumour in your neck is such a difficult thing to find. We already know what's causing cancer, but people will always trade truth for comfort just for the sake of it.

It's probably because they have lots of melanin, while wh*toids do not

Y'all are morons.

The chart is composed of three factors.

1) How long people with cancer survive - if cancer is found early, and treated, they survive a long time with cancer. So the US/Japan/Western Europe has a lot of people with cancer, because they have better medical care (and cancer survival rates).

2) The underlying causes of cancer. Infection, radiation, pollution, obesity, and a thousand other environmental factors. Japan is probably the best, in this case, because they are skinny, unpolluted bastards. A place like Russia is probably the worst, because they're a fat, polluted shithole.

3) How young the population is - cancer is a lot more likely, the older you are, so very young populations (e.g. Africa) have substantially less of it. Older countries (Japan, Western Europe, the US), have more old people, and so they end up darker colors.

Of course, the image implies that they've adjusted for factor 3. I don't know exactly how they did that, and whether I'd accept their modification of the statistics.

idk why you'd want less sun desu

I hate the sun

>Cancer didn't exist until recently.
See image.

>Yeah, because a growing massive tumour in your neck is such a difficult thing to find.
There are lots of types of cancer that's not externally visible, or slow-growing, or benign. I'm sure that lots of people in Africa never find out they have cancer, until they die. (and they didn't necessarily die of the cancer).

Attached: 1354664383480.png (500x525, 49K)

>idk why you'd want less sun desu

Attached: 1516367044158.jpg (720x736, 32K)

you never go outside anyways so what's the problem?

Continue chewing on those hormone injection burgers and chugging in that Nuka Cola Quantum then.

>macaco education

>Cancer didn't exist until recently
rather not. This one is wrong.
Also animals and plants in nature have and had cancer since forever.

Is this retarded Brazilian really implying cancer is recent?

There is a recording of Cancer from Egyptian texts from 1600 BC

And Cancer from WW2 veterans, at least in US, is incredibly common because of lack of sunscreen, and us of tobacco.

Africa doesn't have so much elderly people

I mostly drink tea.

But you enjoy paying 3x as much for meat.

Did you just say that Japan is unpolluted lol

>most cancers show up after 10-20 years and almost all cancer patients are above 40
>countries with far lower average life expectancy have far lower cases of cancer
wow truly a phenomenon

If you have cancer in an impoverished country you just die whereas if you have cancer in a rich country its much more likely to be found and reported for stats

The reason Norway is so high is probably skin cancer. We have some of the highest rates in the world, and have a bad culture of being lazy with sunscreen.

As I said, only partially true. People will deny the negative effects of processed food, EM radiation, pollution, sedentary and unhealthy lifestyle both physically and psychologically, all because they refuse to leave their comfort zones. Suicide rates, divorce rates, anti-depressant consumption rates, none of that matters because you live in a first world country and so long you got the money everything else becomes disposable, including your physical and mental health.

Attached: 1592817968472.png (750x739, 129K)

I am possibly wrong about that. I'll look it up. All I got was this:

aqicn.org/map/japan/

It makes them look comparable to Europe. So, not the best, but certainly better than average.

Suicide rates, cancer rates, all of that is down in the past 40 years

I have a source if you want me to post it.
I had to work out the numbers a month ago for a project

Deaths I mean

If you survive it doesn't matter desu

I guess the air quality is similar, I was thinking about their nuclear power plant melt down and 2 nukes being dropped on them

You mean compared to a time where Americans were at their second worse during the Cold War with total nihilism and a constant fear of mutual annihilation? Sounds about right.

Ironically the places that got nuked have less radiation now than other areas.

Even though they killed a lot of people, the bombs we dropped were very weak compared to modern nukes.

You are unreasonable

>People will deny the negative effects of processed food, EM radiation, pollution, sedentary and unhealthy lifestyle both physically and psychologically
Now you're just lying.

Any ordinary doctor will condemn

1) Sedentary lifestyles
2) Processed food
3) An excessively stressful lifestyle

And most will condemn pollution, although they probably don't believe it's a huge underlying cause of cancer (in the US/developed world, at least).

All you've got is EM radiation.

>Suicide rates,
In the US, they've been decreasing gradually over the past few decades.

>divorce rates
In the US, they've been decreasing since the late 1980s.

>anti-depressant consumption rates
I mean, is that a symptom? They invented better antidepressants.

If they figured out how to cure schizophrenia, would you blame them for increased treatment of schizophrenia?

>total nihilism and a constant fear of mutual annihilation
You think that 1950s America was basically just about total nihilism?

Do you believe everything you read, retard?

Cancer affect us too OP. Nice delusion.

Attached: kisspng-united-states-seat-belt-legislation-car-health-cancer-cell-germ-map-5add789f7baa09.955053511 (3774x1962, 887K)

>divorce rates, anti-depressant consumption

We have high divorce rates and high anti-depressant consumption. What's your point?

Basically western countries with advanced medicine will keep you going for longer, so if you do get cancer then its not necessarily terminal.
I mean there's other variables in there too like some cancers being more common in other regions, but if you get cancer somewhere they're not able to treat it, then you don't appear on that map as being someone with cancer, you're just part of the mortality rate of dead niggas.

>If they figured out how to cure schizophrenia, would you blame them for increased treatment of schizophrenia?
You are dealing with the type of person that would complain about having to take a pill every day, if it'd make him immune to every disease.

Your argument is like saying the number of people getting killed in Europe have dropped considerably compared to 75 years ago. No shit.

1950 was 70 years ago, not 40.

Back to your cage monkey. All data you are posting is high in Brazil too.

Attached: 1490860134418.jpg (900x900, 196K)

>can’t get cancer if you die of aids first

Attached: 72893402-DB6D-4E45-AFE4-C6EFF87C57F3.jpg (1200x784, 43K)

>1950 was 70 years ago, not 40.
The 1950s and 1960s were when American fear of nuclear weapons peaked.

It had subsided by 1979. And it basically disappeared in the 1980s.

Actually, AIDS don't kill anyone. Most die of cancer like Kaposi's sarcoma. This is why OP's map is bullshit.

>Any ordinary doctor will condemn
And yet people will continue to claim it has absolutely nothing to do with cancer but it's just that developed nations are keeping cancer patients alive for longer, and that's it.

>I mean, is that a symptom?
If your population needs antidepressants to function that seems like a clear sign that there's something really wrong with society.

Attached: ndmv_1.png (773x500, 155K)

1/3 of Brazilian marriages ends in divorce and growing and we are one of top countries in anti-depressant consumption. Go bait with another discussion and back to your cage.

>And yet people will continue to claim it has absolutely nothing to do with cancer but it's just that developed nations are keeping cancer patients alive for longer, and that's it.

No you retard. Everybody in the medical profession thinks that those things (except for EM radiation) increase cancer risk. Obviously, not as much as, say, smoking tobacco, or getting an infection. But yeah, they increase cancer risk in a small way.

Essentially everyone in the American medical profession advocates a well-balance diet, that isn't composed of processed foods, and advocate regular exercise, and a low stress lifestyle.

>If your population needs antidepressants to function
Obviously not the entirely population is taking antidepressants, moron. Only a small portion.

Would you consider widespread treatment for Schizophrenia, to be a sign that something is really wrong with society?

True. Obesity, excessive alcohol and smoking are associated strongly with certain forms of cancer.

Obesity.
cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/obesity-weight-and-cancer
As much as American politicians love whining about how X or Y should be illegal, none of the substances they worry about cause as many deaths as obesity in America. If they want to ban harmful things, the first thing on the list should be French fries ... my apologies, FREEDOM fries.

you have been suckered in by propaganda from anti nuclear groups, not even memeing

If you didn't notice because autism, I've been ignoring you because your posts have been the lowest IQ so far.

>we are one of top countries in anti-depressant consumption
You're never posting any real data. And that's very unlikely all things considered, including suicide rates.

>Everybody in the medical profession
Not the average person. I'm not talking about doctors, I'm talking about 99% of the population.

>Only a small portion.
25 in 100 000 Brazilians are murdered. 25 in 100 000 Lithuanians commit suicide. 110 in 1000 Americans are taking antidepressants. Which one do you think is the most likely to indicate a severe problem?

>Would you consider widespread treatment for Schizophrenia
A better question would be why are you getting so much schizophrenia in the first place? 110 in 1000 people?

Attached: 1582718694827.png (912x2911, 302K)

Show real data, monkey. More than 30% of marriages ends in divorce and growing.

revistacrescer.globo.com/Familia/Sexo-e-Relacionamento/noticia/2019/04/brasil-um-cada-tres-casamentos-termina-em-divorcio.html

The underlying problem, is that restricting diet is deeply unpopular with the voters.

You'd end up creating a "I'm keeping my burger" political movement. It really is one of the deep flaws of a democratic government.

>French fries ... my apologies, FREEDOM fries.
That was literally one time, in the capitol.

>revistacrescer.globo
>passou de 7,5% em 2014, para 20,9% em 2017
Looks like a spike. And even if that's true it's still among the lowest, far lower than most of the developed world.

And be more civilized. No need to behave like an actual literal monkey with all the shit-flinging and name-calling, we're having a good discussion here.

Attached: 1575629187428.png (1280x650, 171K)

>Not the average person. I'm not talking about doctors, I'm talking about 99% of the population.
Most people don't disagree with doctors. Most people regard stress, processed foods, and a lack of exercise as unhealthy.

>25 in 100 000 Brazilians are murdered. 25 in 100 000 Lithuanians commit suicide. 110 in 1000 Americans are taking antidepressants. Which one do you think is the most likely to indicate a severe problem?
Firstly, without even looking it up, I know those statistics are wrong. Antidepressent usage isn't 11% of the population.

Secondly, what? You're mixing categories, which mean entirely different things. Why would we compare murder/suicide/antidepressent rates?

I mean, if we were going to compare something, we should compare rates of taking antidepressents, or rates of diagnosed depression, or something.

Thirdly, treatment for a mental illness, (or whatever you call it), is not a bad thing. It could easily indicate that loads of Brazilians are going with untreated depression, or something.

I'm not using it as an argument to literally ban fries, I'm using it as an argument to prove that the whole "we must ban X because THINK OF THE CHILDREN" argument is completely retarded when none of the substances involved kill more than obesity. All it does is lead to a black market, like how the prohibition is the only reason the Italian mafia is even active in America.

Illiterate monkey. It's 31,4% that ends in divorce. It's already very high. Also, lot of Latin American countries have high divorce ratios too.

veja.abril.com.br/brasil/um-a-cada-tres-casamentos-termina-em-divorcio-no-brasil/

ding ding

>"we must ban X because THINK OF THE CHILDREN" argument
I mean, aside from the gun debate, where is that used? I live in burgerland, and I can't really think of any issue that is dominated by "appeals to the value of life" rhetoric.

Oh, abortion. But, if you count abortion as actual deaths, it substantially exceeds obesity. Of course, most people don't think that way, which is why we have legal abortion.

>Antidepressent usage isn't 11% of the population.
If you're outright denying data from OECD then I don't know where you expect to get your numbers from.

>It could easily indicate that loads of Brazilians are going with untreated depression, or something.
Or maybe we're not nearly as depressed as you are. >Illiterate monkey.
Asking a Brazilian to be civilized is quite the difficult task.

>veja.abril
>It's 31,4%
See you didn't even look at the statistics. Even if your recent statistics are true we're still behind nearly every developed nation, including the United States, South Korea and Japan.

You're just being extremely hostile for no reason while also making a fool of yourself trying to counter my arguments with flawed data without even reading my arguments and data.

youtube.com/watch?v=0wgVW8E0wU8

Attached: 1496076587882.jpg (354x286, 25K)

>I mean, aside from the gun debate, where is that used?
The rhetoric as weed of a gateway drug was what I mostly had in mind, as well as the banning of most other kinds of soft drugs in many countries around the world.

While abortion is disgusting, it's not what I had in mind.

Native Americans are pussies. Their suicide rate is more than 20

Attached: 20190706_072309.jpg (1080x1021, 121K)

It's almost as if their native territories and cultures are being destroyed and entire tribes annihilated by illegal loggers, but I can't tell.

Attached: 1562159144082.png (370x244, 7K)

you creatures get killed by the cartel or the border control camps before you can get cancer

Oh, a leftist monkey. Pavão Misterioso is waiting for you.

>>Antidepressent usage isn't 11% of the population.
>If you're outright denying data from OECD then I don't know where you expect to get your numbers from.
1) The US prescribes more medication for pretty much every diagnosis. It's part of why are health care costs are so high. See image.

2) After some brief searching on Google, I can't find the source of the "110" figure, but I assume that it's been tweaked, in the normal fashion.

3) Probably only includes adults.

4) Probably includes people who took antidepressant medication "at all" in the past year. Meaning if you recently started/stopped medication, you count.

5) Probably has a wide definition of "antidepressant".

>>It could easily indicate that loads of Brazilians are going with untreated depression, or something.
>Or maybe we're not nearly as depressed as you are.
1) Suicide is defined differently in every culture and legal jurisdiction. Difficult to compare numbers.

2) Murder is defined differently in every culture and legal jurisdiction. Difficult to compare numbers.

3) "Depression" isn't an easy-to-diagnose condition. And, because we live in different cultures, and different medical systems, it may get dealt with differently. That doesn't necessarily imply either of our culture's/government's approaches is preferable. But it's ridiculous to claim that because Americans receive more treatment for a disease (or whatever you want to call it), that must indicate something is wrong with Americans.

>a fool of yourself trying to counter my arguments with flawed data
Dude, you literally claimed that cancer didn't exist until recently. You deserve a certain amount of hostility.

Attached: HAG full chart.png (718x459, 40K)

>The rhetoric as weed of a gateway drug
Firstly, that rhetoric is less common today. It was more of a 1980s thing.

Secondly, that isn't directly associated with "the value of life". I mean, a more honest way to say "weed is a gateway drug", would be something like

>let's criminalize weed, because we want to persecute hippies and the underclass for being lazy bums

Which appeals to a lot of people, most of whom actually care less about the value of human life, than the typical American.

>While abortion is disgusting, it's not what I had in mind.
That's pretty much the epicenter of the "all life is valuable" rhetoric.

Funny how Spain, Italy and Greece have less cancer than Canada.

That chart alone should be enough reason to alarm most people, not you apparently.

>After some brief searching on Google, I can't find the source of the "110" figure, but I assume that it's been tweaked, in the normal fashion.
>

>Probably includes people who took antidepressant medication "at all" in the past year. Meaning if you recently started/stopped medication, you count.
>Probably has a wide definition of "antidepressant".
Moving goal posts.

> Suicide is defined differently in every culture and legal jurisdiction. Difficult to compare numbers.
>Murder is defined differently in every culture and legal jurisdiction. Difficult to compare numbers.
Again moving goal posts.

>it may get dealt with differently
Such as pushing female hormones on boys as young as 8 and feeding people schizophrenia medication when they report having a bad day at school.

>because Americans receive more treatment for a disease (or whatever you want to call it), that must indicate something is wrong with Americans.
Africans also receive plenty of treatment there, it's called witchcraft. Just because you're getting "treatment" that doesn't mean said "treatment" is being beneficial to you, and considering the statistics on the health of Americans clearly there's something wrong with you, and the very chart you posted should be enough evidence. I don't think Americans are healthier than Danes because they get so much more prescription, do you?

>you literally claimed that cancer didn't exist until recently. You deserve a certain amount of hostility.
Feel free to deny it all you like.

manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/scientists-suggest-that-cancer-is-man-made/
worldhealth.net/forum/topic/3527/
manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/health/manchester-university-study-cancer-is-a-man-made-901102

Attached: 57f413ef57540c22128b4960-750-678.png (750x678, 97K)

>because they
*because you

countering absolutely 0% of the argument
typical

imagine how europe would look like if Chernobyl didnt happen.

>Cancer didn't exist until recently.
The absolute STATE of Brazilian education

Attached: 1411798792109.png (210x245, 28K)

Your country was the one pioneering that research, genius. The absolutely state of British delivery of information.

manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/scientists-suggest-that-cancer-is-man-made/
worldhealth.net/forum/topic/3527/
manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/health/manchester-university-study-cancer-is-a-man-made-901102

>Moving goal posts.
What? Disputing the validity of a source is not moving the goal posts.

>Again moving goal posts.
No. You introduced the goal posts. I'm rejecting your goal posts, because they're bullshit.

>Such as pushing female hormones on boys as young as 8 and feeding people schizophrenia medication when they report having a bad day at school.
The first one is still quite rare. And you're from Brazil, the international center of the shemale.

The second one doesn't happen much, either. Schizophrenia requires concrete symptoms. It's possible that some medications are over-proscribed (e.g. antidepressants), but not schizophrenia.

>Africans also receive plenty of treatment there, it's called witchcraft.
I mean, people recording data, are probably not going to consider that medical treatment, but sure.

>Just because you're getting "treatment" that doesn't mean said "treatment" is being beneficial to you
Sure.

>and considering the statistics on the health of Americans clearly there's something wrong with you
What? You've literally only mentioned two things - cancer rates, and antidepressant use.

>the very chart you posted should be enough evidence.
You .. you are a moron. The chart describes prescription of medication. If you wanted to claim that Americans have more disease ... then claim that! Receiving more treatment does not indicate more prevalence of a disease.

>I don't think Americans are healthier than Danes because they get so much more prescription, do you?
No. And Americans are probably not healthier than Danes. But we are probably healthier than Brazilians.

>manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/scientists-suggest-that-cancer-is-man-made/
>and other links
Clickbait. The articles titles don't actually represent the substance of the article. Those articles claim that cancer is more prevalent in the modern world than the ancient world. None of them claim that cancer didn't exist until recently.

>Cancer didn't exist until recently.
the nigger in you is really starting to shine

Attached: 1562094241925.gif (227x221, 980K)

>The first one is still quite rare. And you're from Brazil, the international center of the shemale.
If we're going by porn I'm sure Americans will top that on Reddit alone with all your shemale and trap subs, it's just your preference for the few Brazilian ones.

You just keep denying every data I'm posting despite your statistics showing otherwise, and then you tell me the average American is fully aware of what's causing them cancer.

>Schizophrenia requires concrete symptoms
Look at that chart again, Americans are clearly being fed medication for the most trivial conditions.

>But we are probably healthier than Brazilians.
>more cancerous, more suicidal, more obese, processed food gallore, porn gallore, more mentally unstable, more addicted, being fed hormones and medication like no other country on the planet
Sounds about right.

>Clickbait.
>The Manchester University's official website

I'm done.

Not as much as the sandnigger in you apparently.

manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/scientists-suggest-that-cancer-is-man-made/
worldhealth.net/forum/topic/3527/
manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/health/manchester-university-study-cancer-is-a-man-made-901102

Attached: 2cd20bfcdccbf61ca1f384953ec25fa5.jpg (2048x1186, 248K)

not him but the first link mentions that ancient societies didn't have surgical intervention which is false and the second link goes into a lot of caveats (tumours might not be well preserved)
still, modern in this context is during or post industrialisation

>Look at that chart again, Americans are clearly being fed medication for the most trivial conditions.
1) Schizophrenia isn't a trivial condition

2) I don't disagree with your claim. I totally agree with it. (Although it could be interpreted as a good, or a bad thing - "Americans get ALL their conditions treated" vs. "Americans are over-treated for every minuscule condition").

>more cancerous, more suicidal, more obese, processed food gallore, porn gallore, more mentally unstable, more addicted, being fed hormones and medication like no other country on the planet
>Sounds about right.
Except literally none of that is true.

>>Clickbait.
>>The Manchester University's official website
>I'm done.
Did you read the article? The title is, at best, a substantial exaggeration.

Title
>Scientists suggest that cancer is man-made

Content of article
>The data includes the first ever histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy by Professor Michael Zimmerman

Are you fucking retarded?
>manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/scientists-suggest-that-cancer-is-man-made/
>"Finding only one case of the disease in the investigation of hundreds of Egyptian mummies, with few references to cancer in literary evidence, proves that cancer was extremely rare in antiquity. The disease rate has risen massively since the Industrial Revolution, in particular childhood cancer – proving that the rise is not simply due to people living longer"

Attached: skinner_yikes.jpg (570x479, 21K)

Because it's mostly old people who get cancer. If you look at Africa's population pyramid it's basically the opposite of the west.

>Except literally none of that is true.
I've been posting graphs containing data proving my claims all this time, and you'll just keep on ignoring it with moving goalposts and outright rejecting actual research articles.

>Title
>Content of article
Man-made, because pollution and poor diet are one of the reasons why cancer has increased exponentially in modernity.

Read your post here , you agree that sedentarism, processed food and a stressful lifestyle are unhealthy. By actual statistics, your country scores at the top in all those. Your cancer rates are some of the highest even compared to other developed nations, yet you keep denying the fact that there's a problem with the health of Americans that's directly related to your lifestyle and excessive medication.

Jesus, dude. I guess Americans should just keep on doing whatever you're doing until you all die out, because if facts can't change your mind maybe natural selection getting rid of you lot might educate the future generations.

Attached: 87vmrinoccsz.jpg (1593x2048, 362K)

>I've been posting graphs containing data proving my claims all this time
No you haven't! You made a bunch of claims, and never posted any evidence for half of them.

>sedentarism, processed food and a stressful lifestyle are unhealthy.
Sure.

>By actual statistics, your country scores at the top in all those.
Above average, sure. Not at the top. I mean, you keep posting OECD graphs, which only include 20 or so countries. (And do you ignore all the OECD charts that don't put us at the top?)

>yet you keep denying the fact that there's a problem with the health of Americans that's directly related to your lifestyle and excessive medication.
You have vague notions about the underlying causes of cancer. You aren't terribly inclined to examine the evidence. And you've incorporated a lot of false beliefs, that seem to be immune to actual evidence. Obviously, cancer is not man-made, your articles don't say that. It's definitely possible that environmental causes contribute significantly to cancer rates. Of course, it's also probably age-related, too.

>Man-made, because pollution and poor diet are one of the reasons why cancer has increased exponentially in modernity.
Except you claimed that cancer didn't exist before modernity. And the title of the article seems to say that ... but the content of the article specifically rejects that idea. So it's looking like clickbait, and it's looking like you're fundamentally wrong, even if the article is 100% right.

You're also bizarrely inclined to believe that Americans have higher rates of various stuff. I mean, we have lower rates of pollution that most of the world. Dude, it's the third world that suffers from high rates of pollution.

>I guess Americans should just keep on doing whatever you're doing until you all die out
Oooh, ooh, who has the higher birth rate? Whose population is growing faster? US or Brazil? Don't look, just guess.

If we project national growth rates forward, we won't go extinct. Brazil?

You are losing your precious time with a 0,1 IQ socialist monkey. Stop bumping this thread please.

People that kill themselves a tragedy here.
People that kill themselves in Brazil are often discovered maybe 2-3 years after they did and nobody knows how the person died or already from the start nobody cares how a person died.

Such statistic can only say something about developed countries. Everyone else basically just has a random number.

>You made a bunch of claims, and never posted any evidence for half of them.
All you have to do is scroll up.

>you keep posting OECD graphs
Most of my graphs are global. Are you even seeing what I'm posting? And when I don't post OECD graphs we get this people from developed countries coming up with thousands of different explanations to deny the data being shown, so I started showing developed countries only because they're all comparable, and the United States still falls behind.

>And you've incorporated a lot of false beliefs
Electromagnetic radiation?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27601711
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6240172/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341445/

>"Through in vitro and in vivo studies, EMF exposure was found to alter the reproductive endocrine hormones, gonadal function, embryonic development, pregnancy, and fetal development (Table 1, Figure 2). These effects were different according to the frequency, duration of exposure, and strength of EMFs. Humans in modern society cannot avoid various kinds of EMFs during household and occupational activities, but should be aware of the biological hazard of EMFs. The effort to avoid EMF exposure and techniques to protect or relieve EMF radiation are required to preserve our reproductive potential."

If can affect your gametes it can most certainly affect your health and the health of your potential offspring. Again, you can keep on denying it, as you've been doing all this time.

>Except you claimed that cancer didn't exist before modernity
One case in Egypt, almost no data anywhere else. No correlation at all?

>Brazil?
Whites, in both countries.
pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_unidades_federativas_do_Brasil_por_taxa_de_fecundidade

>Homicide rates: perfectly valid and accurate.
>Any other statistic that demeans my country compared to some third world shitholes: absolutely false. Here, I have an explanation for that.