4 ms·
Important fact 2: No study has ever shown a correlation between the rise in cell phone usage and any rise in cancer rates. If there were some unknown indirect
by roc 16y ago
Important fact 2:
No study has ever shown a correlation between the rise in cell phone usage and any rise in cancer rates.
If there were some unknown indirect method by which cell phone radiation causes cancer, where is all the cancer? Because no study has ever found it.
- carbocation 16y agoI actually considered making that fact #1, since I personally consider it to be more convincing. At any rate, we agree.
- cynest 16y agoPlaying the devil's advocate here, but wouldn't exposure rates be more important than usage? Most people would likely be exposed more to other phone's radiation than just their own phone's.
- aphyr 16y agoInverse square law. Radiation from a phone 10 cm from your brain is 100 times more intense than radiation from your friend's phone a meter away.
- cynest 16y agoHowever, a person often in crowded areas will likely experience far more radiation over time simply from others around them on their cell phones.
- btilly 16y agoThat fact is far, far weaker than the other. It turns out that many types of cancer don't start to show up in the epidemiology for periods of 20 years or so. Well known examples include lung cancer from smoking and various cancer rates among those exposed to nuclear bombs. Based on that if cellphones cause cancer, the odds are very low that we would have noticed yet.
- CamperBob 16y agoCell phones have easily been in use for 20 years, and handheld radios have been in use for far longer than that, at far higher power levels.
- Groxx 16y agoI don't recall hearing how everyone had a handheld radio stuck to their head for substantial amounts of time every day, as cell phones have today. Radiation damage, if it occurs, is cumulative. I'd be willing to bet that the heavier-use side of cell phone users have encountered far more radiation from their phones than a similar fraction of handheld radio users, even before accounting for the difference in proximity (phones = inches at best, radios = inches at minimum) which would give radiation from radios exponentially less radiation than they emit compared to phones. (not that I'm claiming they do cause cancer. Merely that the handheld radio side of the argument doesn't really work)
- CamperBob 16y agoRadiation damage, if it occurs, is cumulative. "I don't know what effect I'm talking about, exactly, but I'm sure it's cumulative."
- Groxx 16y agoI can tell you've typed, but all I'm seeing is idiocy and an attempted insult thinly disguised as snark. Radiation damage, ie anything not from excess energy in the area causing injury like burns, but referring to genetic damage, is rather obviously cumulative if you consider it for more time than it took you to type that out. Genetic damage cannot be repaired. At best, the offending cell is killed. At worst, it divides and spreads its damaged code, sometimes becoming cancerous. Cancers frequently come from mutations. Radiation damage causes random mutations. Put 1 and 1 together, and you get an increased risk of cancers based exclusively off the sum total of radiation received, ignoring any time dimension. Look at any studies looking for "safe radiation doses", or consider why people don't snuggle up to radium-glowing blankets every night, or take a peek at why revigators are banned, or why you don't want radon in your basement; you'll see the same information pop up every time. Radiation is cumulative. Small amounts for a long time are just as dangerous as large amounts for a short time, except they don't cause burns.