5 ms·

> 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 d

> 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 ago
Non-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 ago
  Is that the only vector for cell damage or might there be another one? Seriously asking, I don't know a lot about cell biology.
- blattimwind 9y ago
  That's technically not correct, since RF-induced tissue heating can absolutely cause all sorts of cell damage. As far as I know there have been some indicators that cancer can be caused by RF tissue heating. However, the field strength generated by everyday devices are regulated to levels that are thought not to generate a relevant heating effect in typical use. Additionally, looking at your phone means it is an appreciable distance away from the brain, unlike using a phone as a phone.
- ramblenode 9y ago
  This seems like a very wrong-headed assumption. We don't understand the etiology of cancer generally, and radio frequency radiation may have physiological effects which produce conditions favorable to cancer. Microwaves aren't ionizing, but it's easy to demonstrate that an oven will damage tissue. Tissue damage results in a cascade of physiological processes, including inflammation and scarring which may precipitate cancer. RF energy is similarly absorbed by tissue producing heat, but the specific absorption rate (SAR) for common RF emitters, including phones, is low. Maybe enough exposure over time becomes an issue, though.
  - cornholio 9y ago
    An oven will damage tissue by thermal heating. Since the energies involved in cell phones, WiFi, etc. induce negligible heating, we need another plausible pathway of interaction with the tissue. If we don't have one, then it's like saying that african butterflies could cause cancer at the North Pole by an yet unidentified phenomenon of spooky action at a distance. Impossible to disprove but irrelevant. Edit: To make matters worse, there is even a profesional disease among people with RF exposure: eye cataract, due to thermal heating of a poorly irrigated and termoregulated corneal tissue. These are guys working in close proximity to megawatt transmitters. It is not correlated to cancers.
    - ramblenode 9y ago
      Heating was an example to demonstrate that non-ionizing radiation still impacts tissue. It doesn't make sense to dismiss a possible link between cancer and RF emitting devices just because we don't understand all the mediating mechanisms in that relationship. A lack of understanding is not negative evidence. And the fact that I can't disprove your butterfly theory is not a reason that simpler theories (phone usage ~ cancer) are invalid.
      - cornholio 9y ago
        > A lack of understanding is not negative evidence Clearly, but anybody claiming the spooky action effect needs to accept the burden of proof and produce positive evidence. When that necessitates new ways of physical interaction unknown to science, it's a colossal burden, likely to have far reaching implications and revolutionize multiple fields; it's highly unlikely that such positive evidence was ignored for the decades the effect was claimed.
- Gnarl 9y ago
  I think you urgently need to see this then: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230 (hint: its a indirect effect)

Findeton 9y ago

Non-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 ago
Is that the only vector for cell damage or might there be another one? Seriously asking, I don't know a lot about cell biology.
blattimwind 9y ago
That's technically not correct, since RF-induced tissue heating can absolutely cause all sorts of cell damage. As far as I know there have been some indicators that cancer can be caused by RF tissue heating. However, the field strength generated by everyday devices are regulated to levels that are thought not to generate a relevant heating effect in typical use. Additionally, looking at your phone means it is an appreciable distance away from the brain, unlike using a phone as a phone.
ramblenode 9y ago
This seems like a very wrong-headed assumption. We don't understand the etiology of cancer generally, and radio frequency radiation may have physiological effects which produce conditions favorable to cancer. Microwaves aren't ionizing, but it's easy to demonstrate that an oven will damage tissue. Tissue damage results in a cascade of physiological processes, including inflammation and scarring which may precipitate cancer. RF energy is similarly absorbed by tissue producing heat, but the specific absorption rate (SAR) for common RF emitters, including phones, is low. Maybe enough exposure over time becomes an issue, though.
- cornholio 9y ago
  An oven will damage tissue by thermal heating. Since the energies involved in cell phones, WiFi, etc. induce negligible heating, we need another plausible pathway of interaction with the tissue. If we don't have one, then it's like saying that african butterflies could cause cancer at the North Pole by an yet unidentified phenomenon of spooky action at a distance. Impossible to disprove but irrelevant. Edit: To make matters worse, there is even a profesional disease among people with RF exposure: eye cataract, due to thermal heating of a poorly irrigated and termoregulated corneal tissue. These are guys working in close proximity to megawatt transmitters. It is not correlated to cancers.
  - ramblenode 9y ago
    Heating was an example to demonstrate that non-ionizing radiation still impacts tissue. It doesn't make sense to dismiss a possible link between cancer and RF emitting devices just because we don't understand all the mediating mechanisms in that relationship. A lack of understanding is not negative evidence. And the fact that I can't disprove your butterfly theory is not a reason that simpler theories (phone usage ~ cancer) are invalid.
    - cornholio 9y ago
      > A lack of understanding is not negative evidence Clearly, but anybody claiming the spooky action effect needs to accept the burden of proof and produce positive evidence. When that necessitates new ways of physical interaction unknown to science, it's a colossal burden, likely to have far reaching implications and revolutionize multiple fields; it's highly unlikely that such positive evidence was ignored for the decades the effect was claimed.
Gnarl 9y ago
I think you urgently need to see this then: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230 (hint: its a indirect effect)