5 ms·

Well this is vague... "Keep cellphones away form body, but we won't tell you how far away or what the consequences might be"

greglindahl 9y ago
That's because there are none, other than a little heating. It's not ionizing radiation, so it can't give you cancer. See Einstein's Nobel-prize winning paper from 1905.
- dekhn 9y ago
  Hi, I'm a scientist. I have a PhD in Biophysics, and I've studied a lot of biology and radiation. The statement that non-ionizing radiation can't give you cancer is effectively false. It is based on applying the mechanisms by which ionizing radiation causes cancer. While non-ionizing radiation does not cause double strand breaks and other mutations that can lead to cancer, you cannot use that assertion to claim that non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer. It could certainly cause cancer by other means- for example, through induction of heat shock proteins as a response to cellular heating. To my knowledge, nobody has demonstrated this convincingly, although, given the fact that heat shock protein activation can lead to cancer (or cause existing pre-tumors to start growing faster), you can see that we immediately have plausible mechanisms to study, if there is indication that cancer is occurring. Another way of putting this: if people found strong epidemiological evidence that cell phones caused brain cancer in humans (they haven't, yet), the nature of that mechanism would be subjected to intense scrutiny. Everything I've stated above is completely mainstream science; nothing I said is controversial. Your mention of the Einstein paper is really a canard- it bears no direct relationship to the biology of the situation.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    Hi, I'm a physicist. Our community doesn't agree with your community on this issue. Oh, and you did notice that I mentioned heating, I hope. As you know, the standard for cellphone radiation is already calibrated to prevent significant heating.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - mythrwy 9y ago
      `Not ionizing radiation.. so _Can't_ give you cancer` may be a bit strong though. (Are there other causes of cancer other than ionizing radiation?). -some random guy in his underwear.
      - colordrops 9y ago
        Yes, a lot: * Genetics * Natural mutations * Viruses * A huge list of substances (called carcinogens), including alcohol * Being overweight, sedentary, or otherwise unhealthy
        dekhn 9y ago
        note that being overweight or sedentary is a risk factor for cancer. I don't think it's correct to say it "causes cancer" in the same way that, say, drinking a liter of ethidium bromide would. Edit: I just had to look up how carcinogenic EB is, and all I have to say is that I'm very disappointed. I should have said radium paint.
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        There are plenty of things that damage DNA in the test tube, some of which cause cancer. Ionizing radiation is one such thing, and the mechanism behind it is that 1905 paper. Many other examples are chemicals.
        dekhn 9y ago
        (for the curious, he's referring to Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect, for which he won his Nobel Prize. Some consider that paper "more interesting" than general relativity, and the paper is considered an essential step in the progress from classicial to quantum physics. While very important, it bears little importance to the question of whether cell phone usage causes cancer).
  - cloverich 9y ago
    > The statement that non-ionizing radiation can't give you cancer is effectively false. Do you know of any examples where cancer is caused by non-ionizing radiation, outside of obvious extremes?
  - adrianratnapala 9y ago
    The trouble with this is that it boils down to "we don't have conclusive evidence that it isn't dangerous". And that can be applied to anything. You talk vaguely about plausible mechanisms in the plural, but the only one you can name is heating -- which is tiny. We should certainly ban hair dryer and centrally heated shops before we worry about phones.
    - dekhn 9y ago
      That is why I am waiting for strong epidemiological evidence, before suggesting we actually pursue the physical mechanism. I think most of the reporting around cell phones is needlessly alarmist. It's not helped by a number of scientists who persist in running low-quality studies and producing vague, unactionable results, coupled with lots of PR.
  - wonnage 9y ago
    Another way of putting this: if people found strong epidemiological evidence that drinking water caused obesity (they haven't, yet), the nature of that mechanism would be subjected to intense scrutiny.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    So you are worried about warmer temperatures causing cancer?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
meitham 9y ago
This Just In ... Being Alive Linked to Cancer http://www.thinkingautismguide.com/2015/02/this-just-in-being-alive-causes-autism.html http://www.thinkingautismguide.com/2015/02/this-just-in-bein...

greglindahl 9y ago

That's because there are none, other than a little heating. It's not ionizing radiation, so it can't give you cancer. See Einstein's Nobel-prize winning paper from 1905.

dekhn 9y ago
Hi, I'm a scientist. I have a PhD in Biophysics, and I've studied a lot of biology and radiation. The statement that non-ionizing radiation can't give you cancer is effectively false. It is based on applying the mechanisms by which ionizing radiation causes cancer. While non-ionizing radiation does not cause double strand breaks and other mutations that can lead to cancer, you cannot use that assertion to claim that non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer. It could certainly cause cancer by other means- for example, through induction of heat shock proteins as a response to cellular heating. To my knowledge, nobody has demonstrated this convincingly, although, given the fact that heat shock protein activation can lead to cancer (or cause existing pre-tumors to start growing faster), you can see that we immediately have plausible mechanisms to study, if there is indication that cancer is occurring. Another way of putting this: if people found strong epidemiological evidence that cell phones caused brain cancer in humans (they haven't, yet), the nature of that mechanism would be subjected to intense scrutiny. Everything I've stated above is completely mainstream science; nothing I said is controversial. Your mention of the Einstein paper is really a canard- it bears no direct relationship to the biology of the situation.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Hi, I'm a physicist. Our community doesn't agree with your community on this issue. Oh, and you did notice that I mentioned heating, I hope. As you know, the standard for cellphone radiation is already calibrated to prevent significant heating.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    `Not ionizing radiation.. so _Can't_ give you cancer` may be a bit strong though. (Are there other causes of cancer other than ionizing radiation?). -some random guy in his underwear.
    - colordrops 9y ago
      Yes, a lot: * Genetics * Natural mutations * Viruses * A huge list of substances (called carcinogens), including alcohol * Being overweight, sedentary, or otherwise unhealthy
      - dekhn 9y ago
        note that being overweight or sedentary is a risk factor for cancer. I don't think it's correct to say it "causes cancer" in the same way that, say, drinking a liter of ethidium bromide would. Edit: I just had to look up how carcinogenic EB is, and all I have to say is that I'm very disappointed. I should have said radium paint.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      There are plenty of things that damage DNA in the test tube, some of which cause cancer. Ionizing radiation is one such thing, and the mechanism behind it is that 1905 paper. Many other examples are chemicals.
      - dekhn 9y ago
        (for the curious, he's referring to Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect, for which he won his Nobel Prize. Some consider that paper "more interesting" than general relativity, and the paper is considered an essential step in the progress from classicial to quantum physics. While very important, it bears little importance to the question of whether cell phone usage causes cancer).
- cloverich 9y ago
  > The statement that non-ionizing radiation can't give you cancer is effectively false. Do you know of any examples where cancer is caused by non-ionizing radiation, outside of obvious extremes?
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  The trouble with this is that it boils down to "we don't have conclusive evidence that it isn't dangerous". And that can be applied to anything. You talk vaguely about plausible mechanisms in the plural, but the only one you can name is heating -- which is tiny. We should certainly ban hair dryer and centrally heated shops before we worry about phones.
  - dekhn 9y ago
    That is why I am waiting for strong epidemiological evidence, before suggesting we actually pursue the physical mechanism. I think most of the reporting around cell phones is needlessly alarmist. It's not helped by a number of scientists who persist in running low-quality studies and producing vague, unactionable results, coupled with lots of PR.
- wonnage 9y ago
  Another way of putting this: if people found strong epidemiological evidence that drinking water caused obesity (they haven't, yet), the nature of that mechanism would be subjected to intense scrutiny.
- valuearb 9y ago
  So you are worried about warmer temperatures causing cancer?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

meitham 9y ago

This Just In ... Being Alive Linked to Cancer http://www.thinkingautismguide.com/2015/02/this-just-in-being-alive-causes-autism.html http://www.thinkingautismguide.com/2015/02/this-just-in-bein...