3 ms·

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-io

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.

3 ms·

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-io

by greglindahl 9y ago

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.