5 ms·

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 s

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).
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      It bears a lot of importance, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. But now we're just repeating ourselves repeatedly, which doesn't do anyone any good. In 20 years, when this turns out exactly like the high voltage lines cause cancer scare, we can have a beer and laugh about the whole thing. Especially about all the money wasted.
dekhn 9y ago
Actually, physics community agrees just fine that the possibility of non-ionizing radiation causing cancer is real (I am not aware of any papers you can point to that say otherwise, but am happy to read and evaluate if you point me to them). After all, things other than radiation cause cancer, so it does seem unlikely that non-ionizing radiation would somehow be magically excluded from that list! Yes, I saw you mentioned heating. That's certainly the first place biologists would start, if there were a solid epidemiological case. however, given that your body has tons of receptors, some of which respond to low frequency radiation, so in theory there could be any number of causal mechanisms. (you should be aware: I personally think cell phones don't cause cancer, through any mechanism, I'm just making the point that there is zero evidence non-ionizing radiation can't cause cancer, there aren't any [reliable] examples of it doing so, either. There is simply no reliable data to make a reasoned determination, either way, because the biology of cellular response to non-ionizing radiation is complex, so making causal claims is very hard without good experimental evidence).
- greglindahl 9y ago
  You might want to check out the extensive writings by Robert Parks of the APS on this issue. Before his death he was a crusader about this argument over non-ionizing radiation being the same as the disproved theory that high voltage power lines cause cancer. BTW, how is the 1905 paper a canard when it is accepted as the mechanism behind DNA being damaged by ionizing radiation?
  - dekhn 9y ago
    Are his opinions representative of the field? Are there other people backing him up? You can't point at a disproved theory of high voltage power lines cause cancer and use that as evidence about cell phones at all. Completely different scenario. Anyway, epidemiologists showed a long time ago that it was much more likely that poor health associated with living near power lines was due to poverty/real estate associations. So, here's an example of Parks writing: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/93/3/166/2906431 https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/93/3/166/2906431 """All known cancer-inducing agents—including radiation, certain chemicals, and a few viruses—act by breaking chemical bonds, producing mutant strands of DNA.... Microwave photons heat tissue, but they do not come close to the energy needed to break chemical bonds, no matter how intense the radiation.""" His claim that "all known cancer causing agents ... act by breaking chemical bonds" is both biologically naive, and misleading. For example, the cancer-causing and cancer-preventing molecules I studied for my PhD work only through hydrogen bonding and van der waals forces (they do not make or break chemical bonds as Parks means it). So basically, if that's representative of Parks position, then I claim he is basically wrong, due to known mainstream biology directly contradicting him.
makmanalp 9y ago
Here's some evidence re: non-ionizing radiation and tumors: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-... > The fact that scientists were able to expose animals to nonionizing radiation (like that emitted by cell phones) and those animals went on to develop tumors but that exposure did not significantly raise the animals' body temperatures was “important” to release, Bucher says. Actual site: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/ https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/
- dekhn 9y ago
  My one comment as a biologist is that the biology community calls the rats they used in that study (Sprague Dawley) should be called "cancer rats", because they seem predisposed to getting cancer no matter what you give them. It's not clear to me whether this is humor, or not.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Not statistically significant.
colordrops 9y ago
Why should we trust a physicist's opinion over a biologist's when it comes to biology?
- dekhn 9y ago
  Even a physicist should accept that the argument made by greglindahl above doesn't hold water, logically speaking. I don't want to make an appeal to authority here as the sole reason you should believe me.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    Good point. The topic at hand involves both physics and biology, and even if it were more constrained, it isn't "owned" by any particular discipline, and thus the argument itself should be judged.
manmal 9y ago
What about calcium channels, then? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014341601300153X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014341601... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/
dekhn 9y ago
BTW, I really am serious that I'd love to read any good papers from the physics community making the case that nonionizing radiation cannot cause cancer. I am unable to find any, after doing some literature search (challenging because of all the non-scientific noise associated with this issue).
yesenadam 9y ago
"Don't be snarky."

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).
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    It bears a lot of importance, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. But now we're just repeating ourselves repeatedly, which doesn't do anyone any good. In 20 years, when this turns out exactly like the high voltage lines cause cancer scare, we can have a beer and laugh about the whole thing. Especially about all the money wasted.

dekhn 9y ago

Actually, physics community agrees just fine that the possibility of non-ionizing radiation causing cancer is real (I am not aware of any papers you can point to that say otherwise, but am happy to read and evaluate if you point me to them). After all, things other than radiation cause cancer, so it does seem unlikely that non-ionizing radiation would somehow be magically excluded from that list! Yes, I saw you mentioned heating. That's certainly the first place biologists would start, if there were a solid epidemiological case. however, given that your body has tons of receptors, some of which respond to low frequency radiation, so in theory there could be any number of causal mechanisms. (you should be aware: I personally think cell phones don't cause cancer, through any mechanism, I'm just making the point that there is zero evidence non-ionizing radiation can't cause cancer, there aren't any [reliable] examples of it doing so, either. There is simply no reliable data to make a reasoned determination, either way, because the biology of cellular response to non-ionizing radiation is complex, so making causal claims is very hard without good experimental evidence).

greglindahl 9y ago
You might want to check out the extensive writings by Robert Parks of the APS on this issue. Before his death he was a crusader about this argument over non-ionizing radiation being the same as the disproved theory that high voltage power lines cause cancer. BTW, how is the 1905 paper a canard when it is accepted as the mechanism behind DNA being damaged by ionizing radiation?
- dekhn 9y ago
  Are his opinions representative of the field? Are there other people backing him up? You can't point at a disproved theory of high voltage power lines cause cancer and use that as evidence about cell phones at all. Completely different scenario. Anyway, epidemiologists showed a long time ago that it was much more likely that poor health associated with living near power lines was due to poverty/real estate associations. So, here's an example of Parks writing: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/93/3/166/2906431 https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/93/3/166/2906431 """All known cancer-inducing agents—including radiation, certain chemicals, and a few viruses—act by breaking chemical bonds, producing mutant strands of DNA.... Microwave photons heat tissue, but they do not come close to the energy needed to break chemical bonds, no matter how intense the radiation.""" His claim that "all known cancer causing agents ... act by breaking chemical bonds" is both biologically naive, and misleading. For example, the cancer-causing and cancer-preventing molecules I studied for my PhD work only through hydrogen bonding and van der waals forces (they do not make or break chemical bonds as Parks means it). So basically, if that's representative of Parks position, then I claim he is basically wrong, due to known mainstream biology directly contradicting him.

makmanalp 9y ago

Here's some evidence re: non-ionizing radiation and tumors: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-... > The fact that scientists were able to expose animals to nonionizing radiation (like that emitted by cell phones) and those animals went on to develop tumors but that exposure did not significantly raise the animals' body temperatures was “important” to release, Bucher says. Actual site: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/ https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/

dekhn 9y ago
My one comment as a biologist is that the biology community calls the rats they used in that study (Sprague Dawley) should be called "cancer rats", because they seem predisposed to getting cancer no matter what you give them. It's not clear to me whether this is humor, or not.
valuearb 9y ago
Not statistically significant.

colordrops 9y ago

Why should we trust a physicist's opinion over a biologist's when it comes to biology?

dekhn 9y ago
Even a physicist should accept that the argument made by greglindahl above doesn't hold water, logically speaking. I don't want to make an appeal to authority here as the sole reason you should believe me.
- colordrops 9y ago
  Good point. The topic at hand involves both physics and biology, and even if it were more constrained, it isn't "owned" by any particular discipline, and thus the argument itself should be judged.

manmal 9y ago

What about calcium channels, then? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014341601300153X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014341601... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/

dekhn 9y ago

BTW, I really am serious that I'd love to read any good papers from the physics community making the case that nonionizing radiation cannot cause cancer. I am unable to find any, after doing some literature search (challenging because of all the non-scientific noise associated with this issue).

yesenadam 9y ago

"Don't be snarky."