6 ms·

"'Clear evidence' of mobile phone radiation link to cancers in rats, US health agency concludes" I think the truth is more complicated than "nah, it's fine..."

"'Clear evidence' of mobile phone radiation link to cancers in rats, US health agency concludes" I think the truth is more complicated than "nah, it's fine..." - also, bear in mind a class 1 mobile phone (3g) could be putting out 2 watts of power [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20181101184440/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/mobile-phone-cancer-radiation-rats-tumours-research-science-toxicology-study-a8612641.html https://web.archive.org/web/20181101184440/https://www.indep... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-ph... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181101133924.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181101133924.h... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm

raynr 8y ago
I'm not a scientist and it's difficult to parse these things sometimes but from the links you posted it looks like, despite the headlines, the takeaway is still "nah, it's fine..."? They put rats and mice through 9 hours of 10m on, 10m off high power radio exposure over their entire body. For the rats, the exposure started from when they were in the womb. After all of that, only the male rats were found to have a higher incidence of heart tumours. The male rats also lived longer due apparently to fewer kidney problems. In female rats and the mice of both sexes, evidence of any cancers were "described as "equivocal", meaning there were measurable increases in molecules sometimes linked to cancer but no actual evidence." I'm not trying to start anything and I think more research is always good, but based on those linked articles the substantive conclusion still seems to be that it's fine? I don't understand how the conclusion from those articles is that there is "clear evidence" that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer. Can someone explain this to me?
- remote_phone 8y ago
  The point is, if there is no effect from ionizing radiation, then there would not have been an effect no matter what the dose of RF was. But there was a statistically relevant relationship between heart tumors and RF exposure. So now that we know there is a relationship, the task is to dial down the RF radiation and see at what levels it’s not safe.
  - Junk_Collector 8y ago
    You seem very invested in this but the results from the study don't make much of a case I'm afraid. They found that rodents living their entire lives (from gestation) in what is effectively a low wattage (100 Watts from the article) microwave oven showed some higher instances of tumors in the heart, but only in some specific portions of the population (males) and not enough to impact their mortality rate which was for whatever reason higher in the control group. Also from the FDA quoted in the article, "We reviewed the recently finalized research conducted by our colleagues at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences within the National Institutes of Health, on radiofrequency energy exposure. After reviewing the study, we disagree, however, with the conclusions of their final report regarding 'clear evidence' of carcinogenic activity in rodents exposed to radiofrequency energy."
Nasrudith 8y ago
At what point does said conviction becomes "clear evidence" that vaccines cause autism? Since they have been insisting it for years out of some mix of greed and paranoia in spite of lack of evidence. Doubled rates of very rare brain tumors? Do they not know statistics or are they being deliberately misleading? Because double a very small number is not significant. It is like worrying about getting shot by a dog with a handgun in his mouth at the beach. https://xkcd.com/1252/ https://xkcd.com/1252/
- remote_phone 8y ago
  “Clear evidence” is a scientific term, it’s not used willy nilly. NIH is a government body not at the behest of funding from sponsors.
marcosdumay 8y ago
The key phrase on the article is this one: > Radiation exposure in the trial was well above the levels most humans would experience I don't think anybody ever denies that large intensity microwave signals are harmful. This fact looks evident and undeniable after examining some meat exposed to a microwave oven.
- remote_phone 8y ago
  If you read above in the comments, everyone dismisses a link. The first step is to accept there is a link at high exposure and then dial it down to levels to figure out what constitutes a safe or unsafe level. Right now everyone on HN is saying “RF is non-ionizing, it’s impossible to cause tumors!” when in fact it looks like RF does interact with biological systems in a non-ionizing method to produce tumors.
  - Retra 8y ago
    This is literally the only comment in this entire thread to use the word "impossible."

raynr 8y ago

I'm not a scientist and it's difficult to parse these things sometimes but from the links you posted it looks like, despite the headlines, the takeaway is still "nah, it's fine..."? They put rats and mice through 9 hours of 10m on, 10m off high power radio exposure over their entire body. For the rats, the exposure started from when they were in the womb. After all of that, only the male rats were found to have a higher incidence of heart tumours. The male rats also lived longer due apparently to fewer kidney problems. In female rats and the mice of both sexes, evidence of any cancers were "described as "equivocal", meaning there were measurable increases in molecules sometimes linked to cancer but no actual evidence." I'm not trying to start anything and I think more research is always good, but based on those linked articles the substantive conclusion still seems to be that it's fine? I don't understand how the conclusion from those articles is that there is "clear evidence" that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer. Can someone explain this to me?

remote_phone 8y ago
The point is, if there is no effect from ionizing radiation, then there would not have been an effect no matter what the dose of RF was. But there was a statistically relevant relationship between heart tumors and RF exposure. So now that we know there is a relationship, the task is to dial down the RF radiation and see at what levels it’s not safe.
- Junk_Collector 8y ago
  You seem very invested in this but the results from the study don't make much of a case I'm afraid. They found that rodents living their entire lives (from gestation) in what is effectively a low wattage (100 Watts from the article) microwave oven showed some higher instances of tumors in the heart, but only in some specific portions of the population (males) and not enough to impact their mortality rate which was for whatever reason higher in the control group. Also from the FDA quoted in the article, "We reviewed the recently finalized research conducted by our colleagues at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences within the National Institutes of Health, on radiofrequency energy exposure. After reviewing the study, we disagree, however, with the conclusions of their final report regarding 'clear evidence' of carcinogenic activity in rodents exposed to radiofrequency energy."

Nasrudith 8y ago

At what point does said conviction becomes "clear evidence" that vaccines cause autism? Since they have been insisting it for years out of some mix of greed and paranoia in spite of lack of evidence. Doubled rates of very rare brain tumors? Do they not know statistics or are they being deliberately misleading? Because double a very small number is not significant. It is like worrying about getting shot by a dog with a handgun in his mouth at the beach. https://xkcd.com/1252/ https://xkcd.com/1252/

remote_phone 8y ago
“Clear evidence” is a scientific term, it’s not used willy nilly. NIH is a government body not at the behest of funding from sponsors.

marcosdumay 8y ago

The key phrase on the article is this one: > Radiation exposure in the trial was well above the levels most humans would experience I don't think anybody ever denies that large intensity microwave signals are harmful. This fact looks evident and undeniable after examining some meat exposed to a microwave oven.

remote_phone 8y ago
If you read above in the comments, everyone dismisses a link. The first step is to accept there is a link at high exposure and then dial it down to levels to figure out what constitutes a safe or unsafe level. Right now everyone on HN is saying “RF is non-ionizing, it’s impossible to cause tumors!” when in fact it looks like RF does interact with biological systems in a non-ionizing method to produce tumors.
- Retra 8y ago
  This is literally the only comment in this entire thread to use the word "impossible."