5 ms·

* In US worrying about cellphone radiation is considered "conspiratorial" for some reason.* Indeed, as demonstrated by the majority of responses to this articl

* In US worrying about cellphone radiation is considered "conspiratorial" for some reason.* Indeed, as demonstrated by the majority of responses to this article. Surprising, at least to me.

CamperBob 17y ago
It shouldn't be surprising if you understand a bit of basic logic. No one can prove a negative, yet this is exactly what the so-called "precautionary principle" demands of us. I can't prove that cell phone radiation is always harmless to all respects of human health under all conditions, and you can't prove that there's not an invisible teapot in orbit around Neptune. Instead, the burden of proof must lie with the party making the positive assertion. It would be very obvious by now if handheld radio transceivers caused cancer. The physics say it won't happen, and so does the epidemiology. Case closed for now, worry about something else.
- rdtsc 17y ago
  What is lacking is long term studies. That is essentially what the doctor in the article notices. The same is true for food additives. How many companies do you think conduct 20 year long studies on chemicals that mimic hormones? Pumping rabbits and mice with massive dosages might not be the same as a long term exposure to very small doses.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - CamperBob 17y ago
    We're all "long term studies." Where's the brain-cancer epidemic? People who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer, an otherwise rare disease. So if everybody started smoking, we'd see a large spike in lung-cancer cases. However, we have not seen a large spike in brain-cancer cases across all populations who started using cell phones en masse in the 1990s. So exactly what problem is being addressed here, besides poor high-school physics education?
- sailormoon 17y ago
  The physics say it won't happen Does it? That's a very strong statement. We are still very ignorant of the subtle workings of the body. There have been numerous studies and as I see it the jury is still out. Mobile phones have only really been in common use for a decade; that's less time than it takes for eg. lung cancer to develop. I'm not "worried" as such, but I'm certainly open to new data, and think it's rather too soon to declare absolute victory to one side or the other. Anyway I wasn't trying to say this study is right or wrong or anything really. I was just commenting on the instantly dismissive attitude of many of the responders to this article. I think such dismissiveness is unwarranted.
  - CamperBob 17y ago
    We are still very ignorant of the subtle workings of the body. Not at the atomic level, we're not. Photon interactions work the same way in your brain as they do anywhere else.
    - sailormoon 17y ago
      I don't know what definition of "photon" you are using but I don't think it is appropriate to describe the effects of microwave radiation, which occurs at very different wavelengths as visible light, which "photon" traditionally refers to. EM radiation at ~microwave levels has well-known effects, it's true, such as protein denaturing and other localised internal heating. The effect of randomly, and perhaps partially, denaturing proteins over long periods of time in important parts of your body is rather ill-studied, I would have thought.

* In US worrying about cellphone radiation is considered "conspiratorial" for some reason.* Indeed, as demonstrated by the majority of responses to this article. Surprising, at least to me.

CamperBob 17y ago

It shouldn't be surprising if you understand a bit of basic logic. No one can prove a negative, yet this is exactly what the so-called "precautionary principle" demands of us. I can't prove that cell phone radiation is always harmless to all respects of human health under all conditions, and you can't prove that there's not an invisible teapot in orbit around Neptune. Instead, the burden of proof must lie with the party making the positive assertion. It would be very obvious by now if handheld radio transceivers caused cancer. The physics say it won't happen, and so does the epidemiology. Case closed for now, worry about something else.

rdtsc 17y ago
What is lacking is long term studies. That is essentially what the doctor in the article notices. The same is true for food additives. How many companies do you think conduct 20 year long studies on chemicals that mimic hormones? Pumping rabbits and mice with massive dosages might not be the same as a long term exposure to very small doses.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- CamperBob 17y ago
  We're all "long term studies." Where's the brain-cancer epidemic? People who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer, an otherwise rare disease. So if everybody started smoking, we'd see a large spike in lung-cancer cases. However, we have not seen a large spike in brain-cancer cases across all populations who started using cell phones en masse in the 1990s. So exactly what problem is being addressed here, besides poor high-school physics education?
sailormoon 17y ago
The physics say it won't happen Does it? That's a very strong statement. We are still very ignorant of the subtle workings of the body. There have been numerous studies and as I see it the jury is still out. Mobile phones have only really been in common use for a decade; that's less time than it takes for eg. lung cancer to develop. I'm not "worried" as such, but I'm certainly open to new data, and think it's rather too soon to declare absolute victory to one side or the other. Anyway I wasn't trying to say this study is right or wrong or anything really. I was just commenting on the instantly dismissive attitude of many of the responders to this article. I think such dismissiveness is unwarranted.
- CamperBob 17y ago
  We are still very ignorant of the subtle workings of the body. Not at the atomic level, we're not. Photon interactions work the same way in your brain as they do anywhere else.
  - sailormoon 17y ago
    I don't know what definition of "photon" you are using but I don't think it is appropriate to describe the effects of microwave radiation, which occurs at very different wavelengths as visible light, which "photon" traditionally refers to. EM radiation at ~microwave levels has well-known effects, it's true, such as protein denaturing and other localised internal heating. The effect of randomly, and perhaps partially, denaturing proteins over long periods of time in important parts of your body is rather ill-studied, I would have thought.