4 ms·

Radio waves (every frequency) are classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the same organisation. (edit: its possibly not probably thanks to commente

Radio waves (every frequency) are classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the same organisation. (edit: its possibly not probably thanks to commenter below) This has lead to anti vaxxer types believing smart electricity meters are out to kill them (no idea why low powered smart meters are the devil over other emmiting devices). If you listen to International Agency for Research on Cancer every electronic device in your home, could kill you with cancer.

will_brown 7y ago
Well that’s why the defense cross examines the plaintiffs experts and calls their own expert witnesses. It probably sounded a lot worse when the roundup expert is getting crossed and has to admit to the amount they are getting paid to testify for roundup.
leereeves 7y ago
No, the IARC classified radio waves as possibly carcinogenic, not probably. Furthermore, they said the evidence was "limited" for glioma caused by cell phone use (and thus the associated frequencies) and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers and other exposures. It was a very measured statement that's been misrepresented. https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
- steve19 7y ago
  And even that is outrageous. "The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)" Its based on one small discredited study that asked people WITH cancer to estimate their lifetime usage of mobile phones. According to that study we should have many times more brain cancers than we do have (rates have remained static since phones were introduced). And yet because of that study they make a blanket statement about all RF. So a 1 milliwatt 20 hz transmitter gets the same classification as a 10 terrahert 500w transmitter and the magnetic field around a cable carrying AC. Its insane fear mongering from people paid to fear monger, not do rational science. Edit: all of a sudden my posts suddenly start getting loads of down votes. Really strange. Here is the famous 1 Million women study that was completed after the IARC published their infamous press release: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200 "In this large prospective study, mobile phone use was not associated with increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers."
  - leereeves 7y ago
    No, it was based on two studies for glioma, including "the largest investigation so far of mobile phone use and brain tumours" with 2500 cases and 2500 controls, and those two studies plus a third for acoustic neuroma. Still, as you say, the evidence was limited, which is exactly what the IARC said. And they did not make a blanket statement for RF. They specifically and very clearly said the possible risk was cell phone use. http://noxtak.com/documents/Carcinogenicity_of_radiofrequency.pdf http://noxtak.com/documents/Carcinogenicity_of_radiofrequenc...
    - steve19 7y ago
      It explicitly, in the first line, states it covers all RF electromagnetic radiation. Regardless of why they decided RF was bad (mobile phone) they decided it was all bad. "The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)" The largest study since then has been 1 million woman. "In this large prospective study, mobile phone use was not associated with increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - leereeves 7y ago
        That million woman study did find an increased risk of :s/cancer/tumors/ associated with cell phone use. > For acoustic neuroma, there was an increase in risk with long term use vs never use (10+ years: RR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.07-5.64, P = 0.03), the risk increasing with duration of use (trend among users, P = 0.03). And you quoted the IARC press release out of context. Immediately after the words you quote it says: "...based on an increased risk for glioma...associated with wireless phone use."
        steve19 7y ago
        > That million woman study did find an increased risk of cancer associated with cell phone use. ... For acoustic neuroma, there was an increase in risk You are incorrect. Acoustic neuroma is a benign tumor ie. non-cancerous.
megy 7y ago
And this would make a difference if motorola were trying to hide any reports, and influence investigators.
- thereisnospork 7y ago
  Can you really fault Motorola for trying to quash bogus science and do PR which says that their product, which doesn't cause cancer, doesn't cause cancer? Opps I mean Monsanto.

will_brown 7y ago

Well that’s why the defense cross examines the plaintiffs experts and calls their own expert witnesses. It probably sounded a lot worse when the roundup expert is getting crossed and has to admit to the amount they are getting paid to testify for roundup.

leereeves 7y ago

No, the IARC classified radio waves as possibly carcinogenic, not probably. Furthermore, they said the evidence was "limited" for glioma caused by cell phone use (and thus the associated frequencies) and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers and other exposures. It was a very measured statement that's been misrepresented. https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf

steve19 7y ago
And even that is outrageous. "The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)" Its based on one small discredited study that asked people WITH cancer to estimate their lifetime usage of mobile phones. According to that study we should have many times more brain cancers than we do have (rates have remained static since phones were introduced). And yet because of that study they make a blanket statement about all RF. So a 1 milliwatt 20 hz transmitter gets the same classification as a 10 terrahert 500w transmitter and the magnetic field around a cable carrying AC. Its insane fear mongering from people paid to fear monger, not do rational science. Edit: all of a sudden my posts suddenly start getting loads of down votes. Really strange. Here is the famous 1 Million women study that was completed after the IARC published their infamous press release: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200 "In this large prospective study, mobile phone use was not associated with increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers."
- leereeves 7y ago
  No, it was based on two studies for glioma, including "the largest investigation so far of mobile phone use and brain tumours" with 2500 cases and 2500 controls, and those two studies plus a third for acoustic neuroma. Still, as you say, the evidence was limited, which is exactly what the IARC said. And they did not make a blanket statement for RF. They specifically and very clearly said the possible risk was cell phone use. http://noxtak.com/documents/Carcinogenicity_of_radiofrequency.pdf http://noxtak.com/documents/Carcinogenicity_of_radiofrequenc...
  - steve19 7y ago
    It explicitly, in the first line, states it covers all RF electromagnetic radiation. Regardless of why they decided RF was bad (mobile phone) they decided it was all bad. "The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)" The largest study since then has been 1 million woman. "In this large prospective study, mobile phone use was not associated with increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - leereeves 7y ago
      That million woman study did find an increased risk of :s/cancer/tumors/ associated with cell phone use. > For acoustic neuroma, there was an increase in risk with long term use vs never use (10+ years: RR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.07-5.64, P = 0.03), the risk increasing with duration of use (trend among users, P = 0.03). And you quoted the IARC press release out of context. Immediately after the words you quote it says: "...based on an increased risk for glioma...associated with wireless phone use."
      - steve19 7y ago
        > That million woman study did find an increased risk of cancer associated with cell phone use. ... For acoustic neuroma, there was an increase in risk You are incorrect. Acoustic neuroma is a benign tumor ie. non-cancerous.

megy 7y ago

And this would make a difference if motorola were trying to hide any reports, and influence investigators.

thereisnospork 7y ago
Can you really fault Motorola for trying to quash bogus science and do PR which says that their product, which doesn't cause cancer, doesn't cause cancer? Opps I mean Monsanto.