5 ms·

RF software person here. I strongly encourage anyone reading this headline to take it with a MASSIVE grain of salt. There hasn't been any conclusive science o

RF software person here. I strongly encourage anyone reading this headline to take it with a MASSIVE grain of salt. There hasn't been any conclusive science on the issue and people aren't dropping dead from cell phone death rays left and right. The RF emitted by cell phones and even 5G systems is many orders of magnitude lower energy than the light you're exposed to all day. The only connection we know of at the moment would be through RF heating but that requires way more radiated power than anything you will likely interact with unless you stick your head in a microwave oven. Edit: also, things RF can interact with are dependent on feature size. 5GHz has a wavelength of ~6cm so in the same way that you can't see a virus with a microscope because it's too small for light to interact with, it's just not going to be able to cause localized heating on anything smaller than about 3cm. The singular scientist in the article is mostly just taking issue with the testing methodology and wants software to minimize RF emissions to the lowest level possible for communication which is already the case as otherwise your battery would be depleted very rapidly.

carapace 7y ago
> There hasn't been any conclusive science on the issue Isn't that the reason for the suit? > ”The FCC has for years failed to protect public health by relying on 24-year-old safety tests designed when phones were the size of a shoe and used by few,” Davis told Law&Crime via email. ”We filed this appeal in order to insist that the agency take full measure of the U.S. government and other scientific evidence that cellphone radiation can be harmful.” > Davis continued, noting the FCC’s hands-off approach to cell phone-related regulation over the last three presidential administrations. > ”The agency has dismissed hundreds of scientific studies submitted to its inquiry on wireless radiation and the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and others, without providing any rationale for doing so,”
- bluGill 7y ago
  The suit should be dismissed based on that. What he wants is the constitutional job of congress to decide.
- AWildC182 7y ago
  That's not really how science works. You can't prove anything doesn't cause cancer in any way, but nobody has been able to demonstrate RF causing cancer. If you just assume everything causes cancer then you get California prop 65 style warnings on EVERYTHING and nobody takes anything seriously anymore.
  - carapace 7y ago
    > nobody has been able to demonstrate RF causing cancer Like how nobody was able to demonstrate that smoking causes cancer? Or how nobody was able to demonstrate how leaded gasoline was bad?
    - AWildC182 7y ago
      In both of those cases an causal link was established. Unless you have actual evidence cell phones cause cancer you can't say something is bad because you feel like it might be bad in the same way you can't say vaccines are evil because they feel like they might be bad.
      - carapace 7y ago
        > In both of those cases an causal link was established. Eventually, after science, and decades of politics and deliberate disinformation. Look we know light pollution is a thing, right? And these transmitters are lights, right? To me it seems unscientific to think that these lights don't cause some sort of pollution just because they don't tickle the cells in our retinas. > Unless you have actual evidence cell phones cause cancer you can't say something is bad because you feel like it might be bad in the same way you can't say vaccines are evil because they feel like they might be bad. I hope it's clear that I am pro-science, and want more science, not less. You can't find evidence of a causal link between EM transmitters and cancer (or other problems) if you're not looking, or ignoring the people who are looking, which is the point of the lawsuit.
        godelski 7y ago
m-watson 7y ago
Yea it seems like this person has a history of potentially controversial claims and not always the best science [0][1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devra_Davis#controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devra_Davis#controversies [1] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-disconnect-between-cell-phone-fears-and-science/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-disconnect-between-cell-p...

carapace 7y ago

> There hasn't been any conclusive science on the issue Isn't that the reason for the suit? > ”The FCC has for years failed to protect public health by relying on 24-year-old safety tests designed when phones were the size of a shoe and used by few,” Davis told Law&Crime via email. ”We filed this appeal in order to insist that the agency take full measure of the U.S. government and other scientific evidence that cellphone radiation can be harmful.” > Davis continued, noting the FCC’s hands-off approach to cell phone-related regulation over the last three presidential administrations. > ”The agency has dismissed hundreds of scientific studies submitted to its inquiry on wireless radiation and the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and others, without providing any rationale for doing so,”

bluGill 7y ago
The suit should be dismissed based on that. What he wants is the constitutional job of congress to decide.
AWildC182 7y ago
That's not really how science works. You can't prove anything doesn't cause cancer in any way, but nobody has been able to demonstrate RF causing cancer. If you just assume everything causes cancer then you get California prop 65 style warnings on EVERYTHING and nobody takes anything seriously anymore.
- carapace 7y ago
  > nobody has been able to demonstrate RF causing cancer Like how nobody was able to demonstrate that smoking causes cancer? Or how nobody was able to demonstrate how leaded gasoline was bad?
  - AWildC182 7y ago
    In both of those cases an causal link was established. Unless you have actual evidence cell phones cause cancer you can't say something is bad because you feel like it might be bad in the same way you can't say vaccines are evil because they feel like they might be bad.
    - carapace 7y ago
      > In both of those cases an causal link was established. Eventually, after science, and decades of politics and deliberate disinformation. Look we know light pollution is a thing, right? And these transmitters are lights, right? To me it seems unscientific to think that these lights don't cause some sort of pollution just because they don't tickle the cells in our retinas. > Unless you have actual evidence cell phones cause cancer you can't say something is bad because you feel like it might be bad in the same way you can't say vaccines are evil because they feel like they might be bad. I hope it's clear that I am pro-science, and want more science, not less. You can't find evidence of a causal link between EM transmitters and cancer (or other problems) if you're not looking, or ignoring the people who are looking, which is the point of the lawsuit.
      - godelski 7y ago

m-watson 7y ago

Yea it seems like this person has a history of potentially controversial claims and not always the best science [0][1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devra_Davis#controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devra_Davis#controversies [1] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-disconnect-between-cell-phone-fears-and-science/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-disconnect-between-cell-p...