3 ms·

Sorry, what? "The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of ca

by trevyn 10y ago

Sorry, what? "The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. The IARC has classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer." I would not call that "thoroughly settled".

robbiep 10y ago
Good chat, despite it's mildly aggressive nature. Here's what: So, an organisation that basically labels everything in the world as either a potential carcinogen or carcinogen [0] when the second lowest score they award still reads as 'potential carcinogen' is more powerful than actual evidence, accrued across enormous longitudinal studies, first from scandinavia [1] but backed significantly by australia [2] and integrated into a plausable mechanism for increases in >70 year olds [3] combined with a finding that would actually revolutionise physics and biology for suggesting a new mechanism for the interaction of electromagnetism and biology? Alarmists are everywhere [4]. But that doesn't mean they are right. It's easy to listen to fear, but just because someone is screaming and crying doesn't make them right. Serious claims deserve to be looked at seriously, and this one has been throughly examined, in research that is continuing. And it continues to be debunked by huge datasets - not just the referenced studies but also the million woman study [5][6] and others. So yes, I repeat, for anyone versed in science, physics and with their head screwed on straight, the science is settled, and I challenge you to demonstrate either a mechanism or a throughly vetted dataset that proves otherwise. And i'll remind you that hitting the first answer on google does not constitute research. [0] http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/299632-chaffetz-investigating-taxpayers-funding-for-flawed-cancer http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/299632-cha... [1] https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6387 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6387 [2] http://www.cancerepidemiology.net/article/S1877-7821(16)30050-9/abstract http://www.cancerepidemiology.net/article/S1877-7821(16)3005... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15378499 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15378499 [4] http://theconversation.com/new-study-no-increase-in-brain-cancer-across-29-years-of-mobile-use-in-australia-58927 http://theconversation.com/new-study-no-increase-in-brain-ca... [5] http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/05/14/back-in-the-news-mobile-phones-and-cancer/ http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/05/14/back-in-t... [6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24078152 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24078152
- trevyn 10y ago
  Thank you for the information, very interesting. Increased inflammatory response seems a reasonable potential mechanism: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994795/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994795/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25251956 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25251956 Perhaps it doesn't cause cancer per se, but promotes tumor growth or otherwise creates a more favorable environment.
  - HeavenBanned 10y ago
    You never know what might end up becoming the "radium dial" of this generation. People like to say shit is settled "just ask all the physicists! it's safe!" - uh no - shit isn't settled until 20/20 history can be the judge. "Hey, I wonder why all these workers are getting phossy jaw?" ...hmm? Their jaws were literally falling off their skulls. Nobody was wiser. All this cancer going around is definitely not a coincidence.
  - robbiep 10y ago
    It's a pretty thin bow to draw, but could be - so could general increase in average population blood glucose as more of the population suffers from metabolic disorder/T2DM but again that's promoting tumour growth not necessarially causing cancer.. and there certainly isn't enough evidence to say that. Studies are continuing but again when early weak studies show a positive result, and later good studies show no result, the chance of drawing a positive p value become lower and lower

by trevyn 10y ago

robbiep 10y ago

Good chat, despite it's mildly aggressive nature. Here's what: So, an organisation that basically labels everything in the world as either a potential carcinogen or carcinogen [0] when the second lowest score they award still reads as 'potential carcinogen' is more powerful than actual evidence, accrued across enormous longitudinal studies, first from scandinavia [1] but backed significantly by australia [2] and integrated into a plausable mechanism for increases in >70 year olds [3] combined with a finding that would actually revolutionise physics and biology for suggesting a new mechanism for the interaction of electromagnetism and biology? Alarmists are everywhere [4]. But that doesn't mean they are right. It's easy to listen to fear, but just because someone is screaming and crying doesn't make them right. Serious claims deserve to be looked at seriously, and this one has been throughly examined, in research that is continuing. And it continues to be debunked by huge datasets - not just the referenced studies but also the million woman study [5][6] and others. So yes, I repeat, for anyone versed in science, physics and with their head screwed on straight, the science is settled, and I challenge you to demonstrate either a mechanism or a throughly vetted dataset that proves otherwise. And i'll remind you that hitting the first answer on google does not constitute research. [0] http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/299632-chaffetz-investigating-taxpayers-funding-for-flawed-cancer http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/299632-cha... [1] https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6387 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6387 [2] http://www.cancerepidemiology.net/article/S1877-7821(16)30050-9/abstract http://www.cancerepidemiology.net/article/S1877-7821(16)3005... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15378499 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15378499 [4] http://theconversation.com/new-study-no-increase-in-brain-cancer-across-29-years-of-mobile-use-in-australia-58927 http://theconversation.com/new-study-no-increase-in-brain-ca... [5] http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/05/14/back-in-the-news-mobile-phones-and-cancer/ http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/05/14/back-in-t... [6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24078152 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24078152

trevyn 10y ago
Thank you for the information, very interesting. Increased inflammatory response seems a reasonable potential mechanism: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994795/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994795/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25251956 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25251956 Perhaps it doesn't cause cancer per se, but promotes tumor growth or otherwise creates a more favorable environment.
- HeavenBanned 10y ago
  You never know what might end up becoming the "radium dial" of this generation. People like to say shit is settled "just ask all the physicists! it's safe!" - uh no - shit isn't settled until 20/20 history can be the judge. "Hey, I wonder why all these workers are getting phossy jaw?" ...hmm? Their jaws were literally falling off their skulls. Nobody was wiser. All this cancer going around is definitely not a coincidence.
- robbiep 10y ago
  It's a pretty thin bow to draw, but could be - so could general increase in average population blood glucose as more of the population suffers from metabolic disorder/T2DM but again that's promoting tumour growth not necessarially causing cancer.. and there certainly isn't enough evidence to say that. Studies are continuing but again when early weak studies show a positive result, and later good studies show no result, the chance of drawing a positive p value become lower and lower