4 ms·
Ah, whatdya know, I said the same thing a while ago - we don't actually know the effects of long term exposure to so much radiation. But I think it's mostly th
by jotm 9y ago
Ah, whatdya know, I said the same thing a while ago - we don't actually know the effects of long term exposure to so much radiation.
But I think it's mostly the Internet - too much information, endless info streams, endless mindless entertainment, endless feeds of successful people (so it seems that everyone is successful, or making 50K/year, or pretty, except you and your family/friends/hometown).
- ars 9y ago> we don't actually know the effects of long term exposure to so much radiation. Don't you mean so little radiation? The sun puts out far more radiation than a phone, and now people are getting less sun, and thus less radiation.
- jotm 9y agoYes, that's the most overused argument. But the artificial radiation is on top of the natural one. I'm counting not only cell towers and Wifi, but power lines and transformers, and the infra and ultrasound all around us. It's probably just a blip, though, and it's probably the always-connected aspect that has way more profound effects. I can only say that a few days in the countryside without electricity was one of the most relaxing experiences ever.
- cornholio 9y agoCel phone tower repair guys should be jumping in droves.
- ebikelaw 9y agoCurrently we're running a huge experiment in which virtually everybody is exposed to the electromagnetic fields of communication networks. This has been going on for more than a decade. If there is an effect, we should easily see it.
- jstanley 9y agoBut where's your control? Everyone is exposed to EM radiation
- TeMPOraL 9y agoAreas that were late in getting accesd to power grid, radio stations, landlines, analog TV... This "experiment" has been running for a good century now, and we would have seen effects if they were strong...
- trendia 9y ago> we should easily see it. Note, I'm not saying there is an effect, but it's not quite so easy to say we should have found it if it exists. First, there is a delay between radiation exposure and cancer risk (up to ten years). Second, if all population centers experience the same increase in radiation exposure, then it is very difficult to use radiation as an independent variable to measure its impact on cancer. For instance, it took decades before anyone was able to show that nuclear testing caused an increase in deaths, and that was only possible because the distribution of radioactive isotopes was not uniformly spread across the US -- some states (especially in the midwest) received far more radiation than others (e.g. Western California or Louisiana). In contrast, if electromagnetic radiation from cell towers is relatively uniformly spread for the same population density (e.g. New York is comparable to Los Angeles, and rural Washington is comparable to rural Missouri), then it will be rather difficult to separate cancer risk from electromagnetic radiation from other risks.
- Findeton 9y agoNon-ionizing radiation, like the one from cell towers or your smartphone (or radio signals, or TV, or even from power lines) does not cause cancer. It just can't cause cancer, as it can't even rip off a single electron from an atom (definition of non-ionizing).
- pretendscholar 9y agoIs that the only vector for cell damage or might there be another one? Seriously asking, I don't know a lot about cell biology.
- mkagenius 9y agoWe may be able to draw a correlation with pre television era and an introduction to television — for cardiac rhythm and mindlessness entertainment effects among others.