3 ms·

Well, they had to jack it up because the experiment (and the rats) would not go on for seventy years. And if the mechanism of action is anything like other type

by st26 8y ago

Well, they had to jack it up because the experiment (and the rats) would not go on for seventy years. And if the mechanism of action is anything like other types of radiation, risk is proportional to total lifetime exposure, not peak exposure.

dbcurtis 8y ago
> And if the mechanism of action is anything like other types of radiation, And if the mechanism is mocrowave heating, then power density driven heating rate is the first order effect. Which 'if' is it? Perhaps neither of the above.
jjoonathan 8y ago
That's the "linear-no-threshold" model (LNT) and I see no attempt to show that it holds here. They jumped straight to exposures thousands of times higher than typical heavy use, which smells like they were fishing for a positive result.
- Semirhage 8y ago
  LNT is a theory of ionizing radiation, and while your overall point is salient, the reference to LNT is not. While many things enjoy a similar exposure model, LNT is a specific term.
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    Is there a generic term that captures the same idea? If there is, I'd like to use it.
joecool1029 8y ago
Nah, jacking it up has its own new set of problems. Cellphone radiation isn't ionizing radiation, at most you're ever so slightly heating cells around it. By increasing the intensity you might be literally baking and killing cells in the process (think the difference between drinking a scalding beverage and burning the shit out of your mouth vs. letting it cool and not being injured or having the cells get killed off). Now take my hot beverage example and repeat it a bunch of times. I would bet that cancer incidence would increase in the scalding group. (as you're destroying epithelial cells and forcing them to regenerate... and cancer is really biological lotto). To top all the above off. With the exception of the migration from GSM to WCDMA technology (GSM pulsed the radio), cell phone radio output power has actually been on the decline due to smaller cells sizes being used in cities. It's nothing like using an analog cellphone in the 80's was in terms of output.
- theptip 8y ago
  This is an even better analogy than it appears at face value, because hot beverages "probably" cause cancer according to the WHO: https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-very-hot-drinks-may-cause-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization...
- incongruity 8y ago
  To your last point - individual radio power has declined but I’d suspect that the total exposure has gone up because 1)Device density is far greater and 2)Time spent transmitting is longer per device because we use more data now than in years past. As to whether that causes cancer, I’m not an expert... I guess the ultimate measure will be actual cancer incidence rates but by that point, isn’t it arguably too late for many of us?
  - zamfi 8y ago
    Power drops off with distance squared. Device density increases background levels, but this study wasn’t looking at background levels; time spent transmitting per device is up but the location of that transmission is no longer right up against your head, just your hands. I’d love to see a study about background EM exposure in the various EM spectrum bands that are now in continuous use in urban environments. But it would be very hard to run such a study!
    - joecool1029 8y ago
      >I’d love to see a study about background EM exposure in the various EM spectrum bands that are now in continuous use in urban environments. But it would be very hard to run such a study! While that study would be tricky, I can think of devising a study in which rural cellphone users are compared to urban ones. You'd have to control for things like wifi calling and outliers with a tower next to their house but in theory background EM from base towers will be lower in the rural area, while at the same time output power from the mobile will be higher (because further from base station). Honestly though, nothing is going to compare to the EM radiation of the Sun. It's like asking if hearing whispering will cause hearing damage while someone is screaming next to you. So, yeah I guess... hard to control. (this is why I only bring up user equipment exposure since it's placed inches from the skin, I think it's silly to worry about cancer from base stations)
jamroom 8y ago
This is true if you believe in the LNT (Linear No Threshold) model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model Then check out the idea of Radiation Hormesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis It's an interesting idea.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  Both LNT and hormesis are talking about ionizing radiation and so don’t apply here. Hormesis is unlikely to be true anyway though.

by st26 8y ago

dbcurtis 8y ago

> And if the mechanism of action is anything like other types of radiation, And if the mechanism is mocrowave heating, then power density driven heating rate is the first order effect. Which 'if' is it? Perhaps neither of the above.

jjoonathan 8y ago

That's the "linear-no-threshold" model (LNT) and I see no attempt to show that it holds here. They jumped straight to exposures thousands of times higher than typical heavy use, which smells like they were fishing for a positive result.

Semirhage 8y ago
LNT is a theory of ionizing radiation, and while your overall point is salient, the reference to LNT is not. While many things enjoy a similar exposure model, LNT is a specific term.
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  Is there a generic term that captures the same idea? If there is, I'd like to use it.

joecool1029 8y ago

Nah, jacking it up has its own new set of problems. Cellphone radiation isn't ionizing radiation, at most you're ever so slightly heating cells around it. By increasing the intensity you might be literally baking and killing cells in the process (think the difference between drinking a scalding beverage and burning the shit out of your mouth vs. letting it cool and not being injured or having the cells get killed off). Now take my hot beverage example and repeat it a bunch of times. I would bet that cancer incidence would increase in the scalding group. (as you're destroying epithelial cells and forcing them to regenerate... and cancer is really biological lotto). To top all the above off. With the exception of the migration from GSM to WCDMA technology (GSM pulsed the radio), cell phone radio output power has actually been on the decline due to smaller cells sizes being used in cities. It's nothing like using an analog cellphone in the 80's was in terms of output.

theptip 8y ago
This is an even better analogy than it appears at face value, because hot beverages "probably" cause cancer according to the WHO: https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-very-hot-drinks-may-cause-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization...
incongruity 8y ago
To your last point - individual radio power has declined but I’d suspect that the total exposure has gone up because 1)Device density is far greater and 2)Time spent transmitting is longer per device because we use more data now than in years past. As to whether that causes cancer, I’m not an expert... I guess the ultimate measure will be actual cancer incidence rates but by that point, isn’t it arguably too late for many of us?
- zamfi 8y ago
  Power drops off with distance squared. Device density increases background levels, but this study wasn’t looking at background levels; time spent transmitting per device is up but the location of that transmission is no longer right up against your head, just your hands. I’d love to see a study about background EM exposure in the various EM spectrum bands that are now in continuous use in urban environments. But it would be very hard to run such a study!
  - joecool1029 8y ago
    >I’d love to see a study about background EM exposure in the various EM spectrum bands that are now in continuous use in urban environments. But it would be very hard to run such a study! While that study would be tricky, I can think of devising a study in which rural cellphone users are compared to urban ones. You'd have to control for things like wifi calling and outliers with a tower next to their house but in theory background EM from base towers will be lower in the rural area, while at the same time output power from the mobile will be higher (because further from base station). Honestly though, nothing is going to compare to the EM radiation of the Sun. It's like asking if hearing whispering will cause hearing damage while someone is screaming next to you. So, yeah I guess... hard to control. (this is why I only bring up user equipment exposure since it's placed inches from the skin, I think it's silly to worry about cancer from base stations)

jamroom 8y ago

This is true if you believe in the LNT (Linear No Threshold) model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model Then check out the idea of Radiation Hormesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis It's an interesting idea.

Analemma_ 8y ago
Both LNT and hormesis are talking about ionizing radiation and so don’t apply here. Hormesis is unlikely to be true anyway though.