3 ms·

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

by 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."

by raynr 8y ago

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."